Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

[Unclebuck]

Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

$15 million or $150 million, I'll be pretty disappointed regardless if the Pacers were to leave if you ask me.

Sure, but for right now the Pacers are only asking for the city to pick up the $15M per year. If the city leaders were smart they would agree to pick that up in exchange the Pacers agree to stay for the next so many years

[duke dynamite]

Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

Sure, but for right now the Pacers are only asking for the city to pick up the $15M per year. If the city leaders were smart they would agree to pick that up in exchange the Pacers agree to stay for the next so many years

In a perfect world...

[Jay@Section12]

Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

If the current NBA isn't profitable without tax payers chipping in to fund operating cost then they should have seen that a long time ago. Like 9 years ago when the first signs of going into the red was apparent.

Well, the solution is to fill the arena. But that's not going to happen for a mid-30's win team. And when they first started losing money -- let's assume late in the Isiah Thomas era, the drive to keep the team competitive kept them close to positive net profits. For a season, they had to pay two coaches. I think the amount of money they lost during that season was less than the amount paid for two coaches. We know in the following seasons that the just-out-of-reach ECFs were the threshhold to profitabilty, so they just needed to fill the arena one or two more times. In recent seasons, the player payroll far exceeds its productoin. That's why the right move is to let those contracts expire -- they need to reduce aggregate expenses, period -- instead of trading the expiring contracts for similar-sized contracts.

In Indianapolis, the sports/ entertainment business is cyclical. The Colts will eventually struggle to sell half the seats of their stadium when the team puts out a bunch of 5-11 and 6-10 seasons again. And then the "Colts to LA" rumors will start again. That will probably coincide with a revitalized Pacers team that is capturing all the love and attention and the casual Indiana fan will say, "who cares about the Colts, this is a basketball town anyway."

[Bball]

Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

I'd imagine if Simon offers to let the CIB take over concerts and other events in the arena and the CIB gets to keep the profits from those events (while Simon gets the Pacers and Fever funds) then the 15mil Simon is asking for would be no problem.

[Lord Helmet]

Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

Well, the solution is to fill the arena. But that's not going to happen for a mid-30's win team. And when they first started losing money -- let's assume late in the Isiah Thomas era, the drive to keep the team competitive kept them close to positive net profits. For a season, they had to pay two coaches. I think the amount of money they lost during that season was less than the amount paid for two coaches. We know in the following seasons that the just-out-of-reach ECFs were the threshhold to profitabilty, so they just needed to fill the arena one or two more times. In recent seasons, the player payroll far exceeds its productoin. That's why the right move is to let those contracts expire -- they need to reduce aggregate expenses, period -- instead of trading the expiring contracts for similar-sized contracts.

In Indianapolis, the sports/ entertainment business is cyclical. The Colts will eventually struggle to sell half the seats of their stadium when the team puts out a bunch of 5-11 and 6-10 seasons again. And then the "Colts to LA" rumors will start again. That will probably coincide with a revitalized Pacers team that is capturing all the love and attention and the casual Indiana fan will say, "who cares about the Colts, this is a basketball town anyway."

Well, if you're talking 20+ years from now, when the lease is up with the Colts. Once the team starts putting out mediocre records, the stadium will struggle to fill, just as the Pacers are experiencing now, but I don't know if it would be smart to say that rumors of the Colts moving would spring up again, because to my knowledge they are locked here for some years.

But you are always going to have your uniformed cynical people, just like the people that bash the Pacers still for having "thugs" on the team, when they haven't had an incident in almost 2 years I thought.

[Drewtone]

Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

Ha, well it's not New York, thank God!!

Also, I don't think business owners think ya it's a nice place, but where can I get my party on every night.

In fairness, The Onion is hillarious, but it's also run out of Chicago, IIRC, so they'd naturally rip on Indy.

To Speed's point about the intangible aspects and benefits to the city, a couple of thoughts...

When I was down at IU during my MBA, out of town recruiters would always push their respective 'quality of life' and respective sports teams were always a big part of that pitch, when applicable (so why did I end up in Ottawa again??? )

Also, I recall when the Ottawa Senators made the Stanley Cup a few years ago... for those of my family and friends who watched, it was about the only time they ever saw anything from this city on TV. Conversely, you'd be surprised what random bits about Indy people seem to know up here due to the multiple Pacers/Colts runs in the past... the latest is me providing context to people up here by telling them that I grew up about a 5 minute drive from Butler's campus.

Putnam is correct in that many people have tried and failed to make concrete, measured impact studies that tell the whole tale. Much of the benefit is indirect and intangible.

[Bball]

Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

In Indianapolis, the sports/ entertainment business is cyclical.

As it is just about anywhere else in the country.

The Colts will eventually struggle to sell half the seats of their stadium when the team puts out a bunch of 5-11 and 6-10 seasons again. And then the "Colts to LA" rumors will start again. That will probably coincide with a revitalized Pacers team that is capturing all the love and attention and the casual Indiana fan will say, "who cares about the Colts, this is a basketball town anyway."

At the rate the Pacers are going they'll still be losing so I'm not sure they'll uphold their end of the bargain in your scenario.

I just hope the new CBA addresses a way to minimize the mistakes of management from lingering like it has with the Pacers. It's one thing for current management to screw the pooch but how long should any team have to pay for the sins of past management too?

[graphic-er]

Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

To me its just another form of corporate welfare. The taxpayer pours in money so a company can operate. Collectively we can front the money but when you have so many incentives for other companies doing the exact same thing the problem because much much bigger.

But its not corporate well fair what so ever. As stated in Dukes post. The Pacers pay $1 a year in rent. But assume all responsibility for the fieldhouse and its operations. That was a great deal for the city back then because thats costs off the books, and great for them today. However economic climate changes and the tenants (the pacers)have said they no longer what that deal, and their lease states that the deal could be renegotiated after 10 years. The Pacers aren't trying to scam the tax payer. They are merely asking for the CIB to run a CIB property just as they do at LOS. Just like any tenant and landlord.

I would imagine that if the city had to take over the costs completely then they would charge the Pacers much more than $1 rent. I'm sure the CIB would be wondering how much they can realistically charge the Pacers for such rent and also how much other events at the Fieldhouse would bring. Obviously the Pacers couldnt' do it enough to cover their own costs. So yeah the city is going to lose money on this, but they could also lose the Pacers as well.

[Gamble1]

Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

But its not corporate well fair what so ever. As stated in Dukes post. The Pacers pay $1 a year in rent. But assume all responsibility for the fieldhouse and its operations. That was a great deal for the city back then because thats costs off the books, and great for them today. However economic climate changes and the tenants (the pacers)have said they no longer what that deal, and their lease states that the deal could be renegotiated after 10 years. The Pacers aren't trying to scam the tax payer. They are merely asking for the CIB to run a CIB property just as they do at LOS. Just like any tenant and landlord.

I would imagine that if the city had to take over the costs completely then they would charge the Pacers much more than $1 rent. I'm sure the CIB would be wondering how much they can realistically charge the Pacers for such rent and also how much other events at the Fieldhouse would bring. Obviously the Pacers couldnt' do it enough to cover their own costs. So yeah the city is going to lose money on this, but they could also lose the Pacers as well.

Let me just be honest here. I am not a economist nor do I have a MBA so I may have a simplistic view here but let me explain my view.

To me the government can collect from only 2 sources, coporations and individual tax payers. How much does each one contribute I honestly don't know but I do know that no corporation is going to pay my rent or my utilites because I couldn't make enough money. Futhermore if I "knew" it was going to be a problem and did hardly anything about it how much more should I be held accountable.

Right now the Colts are making money off of taxpayers dollars and IMO the Pacers just want to do the same. Am I wrong? Maybe but I am not worth a Billion dollars and I am not asking someone to pay my rent and utilities.

[chrisjacobs7]

Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

I have no problem with my tax dollars funding the operation costs of Conseco, there are far worse ways the government can, and probably does, waste our money. However, if the CIB does take over the operating costs of Conseco, the Pacers need to pay more than just $1/yr in rent.

[duke dynamite]

Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

I have no problem with my tax dollars funding the operation costs of Conseco, there are far worse ways the government can, and probably does, waste our money. However, if the CIB does take over the operating costs of Conseco, the Pacers need to pay more than just $1/yr in rent.

Why?

[graphic-er]

Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

Why?

I'd imagine to address the misconceptions of folks like Gamble, even though the Pacers are worth more to the city in tax revenue than 15 million.

[duke dynamite]

Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

I'd imagine to address the misconceptions of folks like Gamble, even though the Pacers are worth more to the city in tax revenue than 15 million.

I would suppose letting the Pacers off the hook and not making them pay a lease would be a good idea.

[Jay@Section12]

Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

... but I don't know if it would be smart to say that rumors of the Colts moving would spring up again, because to my knowledge they are locked here for some years.

As are the Pacers currently. Didn't the terms of Indiana Fieldhouse "guarantee" the team would stay in Indiana through at least the 2018-19 season (twenty years)? If that's the case, this is all nonsense anyway.

But its non-nonsense. There are "exit" payments to break a lease, and I'm sure that LA County/ City of Industry would be willing to advance those funds to the owner of the NFL team about to break a lease to relocate there. I don't know if King County/ Seattle feels the same way about a basketball team.

[Bball]

Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

I would suppose letting the Pacers off the hook and not making them pay a lease would be a good idea.

I believe technically the lease can't be "nothing" so 1 dollar is the typical "valid contract" number used in these situations.