Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
    The thing that irks me is that the whole 3 year plan is supposed to result in more wins and attendance. Why make the threat to move in year 2 of the plan. Wouldn't you follow the plan and if in year 4 you still couldn't get decent attendance numbers (even with a better team), make the threat to move the team. Unless Simon's plan is to reduce the team's liabilities so much that he can flat out sell the team.
    What the team does and how the fans respond are two different things. I mean you can sell the world's best lemonade, but someone still has to buy it for that to mean anything. And even that, you have to sell it at a price that is attractive towards the potential customer(s).

    And for one, they haven't directly "threatened" to move. They have implied that it could be possible *if* the deal doesn't work out by the time they are requesting.

    Heck, I know it's a longshot, but if you are looking at implications, you'll have to look as if they won't move even if a deal falls through.

    "Exploring other options" includes but isn't limited to moving the team.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

      I really don't know what to expect at this point.

      I guess for the time being I expect Indy to not settle this in time, and it'll be in Simon's hands.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

        I don't find it fair that the city won't pay for half of the 15M or whatever the payments may be in that year.

        They should be paying half for both the Fieldhouse and Stadium.

        The Colts aren't struggling to pay for their home, we are and we need help.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

          Originally posted by Trophy View Post
          I don't find it fair that the city won't pay for half of the 15M or whatever the payments may be in that year.

          They should be paying half for both the Fieldhouse and Stadium.

          The Colts aren't struggling to pay for their home, we are and we need help.
          It doesn't always have to be "fair".

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

            Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
            It doesn't always have to be "fair".
            If it's not going to be an all around, fair deal then the city pays fully for the stadium and half for Fieldhouse. The Pacers pay the other half.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
              It's because they envisioned a lot of Justin Bieber concerts and monster truck rallies that would increase their revenues. By operating the facility, the Pacers thought they'd be raking in money from those other events.
              Yeah, I think that's it in a nutshell. They asked for this place, are getting it rent free, get all the revenues from it, and they still can't make any money

              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
              The main problem is that the media contorted the real issue to make it sound like the tax payers have to bail out the Pacers and their millionaires. The city made sure of that as the Indystar plays by their game. They went with the jerk reaction to make news.

              The reality of it is the Pacers have it in their deal that after 10 years they could renegotiate, and it sounds like the 15 million is something the city should have been paying for all along if it weren't for the Pacers wanting to give it a go to rake in the money, well it back fired and the Pacers want a more standard agreement it seems.
              But to me at least, what you describe in your second paragraph is precisely the kind of bailout you're saying is not taking place in the first paragraph.

              1. Businessmen think they can make money by operating big building and renting it out for events.
              2. Businessmen find out they were entirely wrong about how much money they could make. They couldn't sell enough and the costs were higher than anticipated.
              3. Businessmen ask government to cover operating costs but continue to give revenues to businessmen.

              This, my man, is a bailout plain and simple.

              ----------------------------

              I know I don't post here a lot, but I still follow this stuff pretty closely, and I follow finances especially closely. I guess the way I look at the Pacers financially can be summarized as saying the Pacers' problems are largely of their own creation.

              1. Yes, Indy is a small market team, but small market teams can be relatively successful in the NBA.

              2. The Pacers have been fairly successful in the past, and have had a fairly strong fanbase.

              3. A big chunk of PS&E's failure to thrive is basically accounting trickery. They've taken significant chunks of revenue (like stadium naming rights) in lump payments, and they spread out costs annually. The result of stuff like this is that the Pacers look like they rarely make money. Consider it buying a house with cash. You pay $500k for your house today, and you have little to no cost for the next 20 years. Well, the Pacers do the opposite. They get $500k today, and then spread the costs over 20 year periods. If you look at any of those one year periods, the costs will be higher than the annual revenues associated with it.

              4. An even bigger chunk of the Pacers failure to thrive has been lots of terrible decisions on and off the court. This has resulted in:
              a. Higher costs than a small market team should typically have. Small market teams have to get their players on good long-term deals (ahem... most of the team), not incur dead money (ahem... Jamaal Tinsley, Foster), and emphasize the draft, since that's where you get good and cheap players (I won't even go there).
              b. Lower revenues. Fans have stopped spending on the Pacers as the Pacers have become less compelling a purchase.
              c. Lack of urgency. All teams have to rebuild, but a 3 year teardown process is an extraordinary burden on a team's fanbase and it's own pocketbook. Folks can say they wouldn't tolerate a quick teardown, but this has been a death by a thousand cuts, and I fear its led to a long-term loss of interest and excessive financial losses as well.
              SportsTwo.com

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

                Originally posted by Trophy View Post
                If it's not going to be an all around, fair deal then the city pays fully for the stadium and half for Fieldhouse. The Pacers pay the other half.
                I wish you lived in Indianapolis to fully understand what has been going on.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

                  Originally posted by MikeDC View Post
                  Yeah, I think that's it in a nutshell. They asked for this place, are getting it rent free, get all the revenues from it, and they still can't make any money



                  But to me at least, what you describe in your second paragraph is precisely the kind of bailout you're saying is not taking place in the first paragraph.

                  1. Businessmen think they can make money by operating big building and renting it out for events.
                  2. Businessmen find out they were entirely wrong about how much money they could make. They couldn't sell enough and the costs were higher than anticipated.
                  3. Businessmen ask government to cover operating costs but continue to give revenues to businessmen.

                  This, my man, is a bailout plain and simple.

                  ----------------------------

                  I know I don't post here a lot, but I still follow this stuff pretty closely, and I follow finances especially closely. I guess the way I look at the Pacers financially can be summarized as saying the Pacers' problems are largely of their own creation.

                  1. Yes, Indy is a small market team, but small market teams can be relatively successful in the NBA.

                  2. The Pacers have been fairly successful in the past, and have had a fairly strong fanbase.

                  3. A big chunk of PS&E's failure to thrive is basically accounting trickery. They've taken significant chunks of revenue (like stadium naming rights) in lump payments, and they spread out costs annually. The result of stuff like this is that the Pacers look like they rarely make money. Consider it buying a house with cash. You pay $500k for your house today, and you have little to no cost for the next 20 years. Well, the Pacers do the opposite. They get $500k today, and then spread the costs over 20 year periods. If you look at any of those one year periods, the costs will be higher than the annual revenues associated with it.

                  4. An even bigger chunk of the Pacers failure to thrive has been lots of terrible decisions on and off the court. This has resulted in:
                  a. Higher costs than a small market team should typically have. Small market teams have to get their players on good long-term deals (ahem... most of the team), not incur dead money (ahem... Jamaal Tinsley, Foster), and emphasize the draft, since that's where you get good and cheap players (I won't even go there).
                  b. Lower revenues. Fans have stopped spending on the Pacers as the Pacers have become less compelling a purchase.
                  c. Lack of urgency. All teams have to rebuild, but a 3 year teardown process is an extraordinary burden on a team's fanbase and it's own pocketbook. Folks can say they wouldn't tolerate a quick teardown, but this has been a death by a thousand cuts, and I fear its led to a long-term loss of interest and excessive financial losses as well.

                  You do make some excellent points about the accounting practices, I too find it hard to believe that they are just bleeding so much money every year.

                  But again its a CIB building and the Pacers are tenants. Part of the lease was that they got full control over the building and the revenue. Pacers did the CIB a favor in that regard. It can't be a bail out if its just returning rightful responsibility back to the city and the CIB. Now if the Pacer insist on keeping all the revenues still then you can call it a bail out to the highest degree.

                  The CIB is made up of a bunch of idiots though, they could look at this as a real opportunity to generate additional tax revenue. They are essentially gaining an asset back in a down economy. When times are good again, they'll be smiling at the good fortunes of being able to benefit from fieldhouse events.
                  You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    We are only talking about $15M per year, do you know what the pacers bring to the local economy per year, do you know how much bad publicity the city would receive if the pacers leave. In real dollars the loss of the pacers would hurt the local economy a lot more than $15M per year and the negative publicity alone would cost the city a lot more than $15M.

                    Even if you hate the pacers, the NBA, basketball and Conseco fieldhouse, for the city the Pacers need to be kept.
                    How do you know those figures?

                    Did Seattle go under or is it just considered an emotional letdown? What's Seattle's winter economy like now compared to 4 years ago?

                    And just where is all this basketball income coming from? People flying in to see the Pacers? No. All you are doing is taking money from locals and moving it to a centralized location (downtown biz). When you drive in from Anderson or Beech Grove or Avon and have dinner before/during/after the game all that's doing is moving local money around, it's not creating money from outside the market.

                    And I'm a downtowner, I want there to be thriving restaurants. I just hung out at Scotty's yesterday for the heck of it. But you know what, it wasn't a game or convention night and the place was very busy, on a Tuesday.

                    So "oh no if the Pacers leave" is BS. I would emotionally hate it but I wouldn't see a ton of economic impact. I mean apparently it's a FAILING BUSINESS, so how can it be helping the local economy??

                    I mean there was a Pacers game on the OFF DAY of the FINAL FOUR, the Sunday afternoon between games, and the place was half empty. I thought for sure all those people that came in for SAT/MON games would have said "hey, I'll watch some NBA ball on my day off since it's just 2 blocks away and I'm just sitting here in town". They didn't.

                    That's the reality of the teams draw and impact.

                    They might pull in their TV revenue sharing but they aren't helping the local (ie, 9 counties) economy with some wave of people surging to downtown.


                    But if the city were unable to pick up the tab for Conseco? Morris said, "I think that would mean we'd have to explore all our options. The fact of the matter is there are a lot of cities in North America and around the world who would love to have a big league team."
                    ...but would settle for the Pacers", he added.





                    Conspiracy theory cranking up, wreck the team and set them up for a move that you want to make anyway. Maybe Larry wants to buy them and set them up in the Tampa or Ft Myers area?

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      How do you know those figures?

                      Did Seattle go under or is it just considered an emotional letdown? What's Seattle's winter economy like now compared to 4 years ago?

                      And just where is all this basketball income coming from? People flying in to see the Pacers? No. All you are doing is taking money from locals and moving it to a centralized location (downtown biz). When you drive in from Anderson or Beech Grove or Avon and have dinner before/during/after the game all that's doing is moving local money around, it's not creating money from outside the market.

                      And I'm a downtowner, I want there to be thriving restaurants. I just hung out at Scotty's yesterday for the heck of it. But you know what, it wasn't a game or convention night and the place was very busy, on a Tuesday.

                      So "oh no if the Pacers leave" is BS. I would emotionally hate it but I wouldn't see a ton of economic impact. I mean apparently it's a FAILING BUSINESS, so how can it be helping the local economy??

                      I mean there was a Pacers game on the OFF DAY of the FINAL FOUR, the Sunday afternoon between games, and the place was half empty. I thought for sure all those people that came in for SAT/MON games would have said "hey, I'll watch some NBA ball on my day off since it's just 2 blocks away and I'm just sitting here in town". They didn't.

                      That's the reality of the teams draw and impact.

                      They might pull in their TV revenue sharing but they aren't helping the local (ie, 9 counties) economy with some wave of people surging to downtown.



                      ...but would settle for the Pacers", he added.





                      Conspiracy theory cranking up, wreck the team and set them up for a move that you want to make anyway. Maybe Larry wants to buy them and set them up in the Tampa or Ft Myers area?
                      You say its all just moving local money around but its not. All 9 counties are competing for tax revenues. Its much better to have a bunch of people coming in from all the surrounding counties, spending money in Marion county by attending Pacer games. If the Pacers leave what will draw families into downtown Indianapolis on a weeknight in the middle of winter. Not much.

                      An interesting example would be the Detroit Pistons who don't play in Detroit or even the same county. Oakland county gets a huge benefit from having people come in and spend money. Wayne county lost that benefit.
                      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        How do you know those figures?
                        Common sense tell me the Pacers bring in more than $15M per year in real dollars to the local economy.

                        and if they don't bring in $15M per year, then they should move. $15M is IMO a low number and a pathetic one at that
                        Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-14-2010, 03:32 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

                          Maybe the Pacers should move into Lucas Oil Stadium.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

                            seems to me that it would be in the best interest to get another tenant in the building. Most arenas seem to have multiple tenants in the building whether its two major league sports or a major league and minor league sport. Maybe its time to use this logic instead of just letting the building be a one trick pony.

                            I use to be a Firebirds (Arena Football) season ticket holder and they use to average between 11,000 and 13,000 for their home dates, yet PS&E still overcharged them for the use of the Fieldhouse. The expense of the lease ultimately caused that franchise to fold up. Something is terribly wrong if you can get 13,000 people to show up for an event 8 times a year and you still can't make money due to the expense of the lease.

                            Personally, I'd like to see a top level minor league hockey team (affiliated AHL team) play at the Fieldhouse. It would be a way to get bodies in the building during the nights that the Pacers don't play. It's also a good way to fill the weekend dates that the Pacers are on the road.
                            ...Still "flying casual"
                            @roaminggnome74

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

                              Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post

                              Personally, I'd like to see a top level minor league hockey team (affiliated AHL team) play at the Fieldhouse. It would be a way to get bodies in the building during the nights that the Pacers don't play. It's also a good way to fill the weekend dates that the Pacers are on the road.
                              I 100% wholeheartedly agree. Someone make it happen!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

                                The Ice should play in the Fieldhouse.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X