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

Lockout News and Discussions thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    That's not correct on a number of different levels, but let's use the recent sale of the 76ers to look at it in just one aspect.

    Forbes estimated that the 76ers were worth $330million, but yet they were sold for $280million.
    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/71...wnership-group

    Estimated worth isn't what they'd actually get if they sold the Pacers.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Yes, I read that also and that a team like the Pacers would get approximately $15M a year from revenue sharing.
      Wow, that would mean you would get over 30 million a year for owning the Pacers.

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      That's not correct on a number of different levels, but let's use the recent sale of the 76ers to look at it in just one aspect.

      Forbes estimated that the 76ers were worth $330million, but yet they were sold for $280million.
      http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/71...wnership-group

      Estimated worth isn't what they'd actually get if they sold the Pacers.
      The 76ers deal doesn't include the arena I thought. The Pacers not only have the arena, but also parking and a 15 million check for operational costs.

      Comment


      • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

        Dont forget the cut that the Silnas will get from us, the Spurs, Nuggets, and Nets.....
        "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

        "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

        Comment


        • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          That's not correct on a number of different levels, but let's use the recent sale of the 76ers to look at it in just one aspect.

          Forbes estimated that the 76ers were worth $330million, but yet they were sold for $280million.
          http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/71...wnership-group

          Estimated worth isn't what they'd actually get if they sold the Pacers.
          I've posted this info before but I guess you missed it.

          http://www.pacersdigest.com/showpost...0&postcount=29

          To summarize, Forbes thinks the Sixers sold for less because 1) the deal doesn't include the stadium; and 2) the Sixers were saddled with an undervalued cable deal by the previous owners, Comcast.

          The Warriors, Hawks, and Pistons were also sold recently. The Warriors and Hawks were both sold above valuation (massively so in the Warriors' case), the Pistons sold for lower because Karen Davidson retained a minority stake.

          Overall, there's no reason to think the value of NBA teams is hurting.

          Comment


          • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
            I've posted this info before but I guess you missed it.

            http://www.pacersdigest.com/showpost...0&postcount=29

            To summarize, Forbes thinks the Sixers sold for less because 1) the deal doesn't include the stadium; and 2) the Sixers were saddled with an undervalued cable deal by the previous owners, Comcast.

            The Warriors, Hawks, and Pistons were also sold recently. The Warriors and Hawks were both sold above valuation (massively so in the Warriors' case), the Pistons sold for lower because Karen Davidson retained a minority stake.

            Overall, there's no reason to think the value of NBA teams is hurting.

            No, I got it. I can dig up a 1000 different articles where something was sold for less than what it was valued at.

            Estimated values are worth the price of the paper they're printed on, and to try to use them to show that the owner has a profit, with no other details, isn't how the real world works.

            I could write a 1500 word post on the subject, or I could just point out the fact that things aren't sold at "estimated values."

            I chose the easy route.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

              Originally posted by billbradley View Post
              The 76ers deal doesn't include the arena I thought. The Pacers not only have the arena, but also parking and a 15 million check for operational costs.
              No, the Pacers do NOT own the Fieldhouse. They have revenue rights to the parking and arena, but it is all owned by the CIB.

              And I think the CIB kick-in length was structured to be revisited after the new CBA and revenue sharing agreement was settled, so I suspect that operating costs check will go down if the sharing check goes up.
              BillS

              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

              Comment


              • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                Optimism still abounds. Sheridan's website, but this is a Heisler column

                http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/10/24/...ime/#more-1364

                Heisler Column: At Long Last, Crunch Time

                By Mark Heisler
                Talk about the matchup we waited our whole lives for …

                Bryant Gumbel vs. Paul Allen!

                What’s the chance of them fighting a steel cage death match?

                Things look that bad — as things figured to at this point with the warring parties already out $330 million … soon to be $660 million when Jefferson Davis, er, David Stern cancels two more weeks.

                The NBA trotted out Allen, the nation’s No. 23-ranked billionaire, now cautioning prudence after years of $100 million payrolls and $40 million luxury tax bills, to represent (but not speak for) for its hard-pressed owners.

                Meanwhile, Gumbel, the itinerant anchor, took up the players’ cause and, mistaking the negotiations for a revolution, denounced the “infamously arrogant” Stern as a wannabe plantation owner.

                Gumbel is, of course, even more infamously arrogant, so at least he knew whereof he spoke on that one.

                So the NBA is in a bad place, indeed … or not.

                We haven’t seen yet, but we will soon.

                To date, it’s only what should have been expected with owners seeking a massive rollback, even bigger than the $180 million annual giveback — that would be $1.8 billion over the 10 years the NBA wants — the players have already given back.

                Last week’s contentious break-off was exactly what should have been expected after Stern’s threat to cancel everything until Christmas if there was no breakthrough, and union director Billy Hunter noting a deal wasn’t likely after having bargained for two years without one.

                So after the press built up the federal mediator into a Ghandi-like spiritual leader, the warring nations said they didn’t care who George Cohen was, declaring yet another impasse … despite having narrowed the difference on the key revenue split to 52.5 (players) vs. 50 percent (owners).

                So now they’re ‘hopelessly’ deadlocked … 2.5 percent (which equals $100 million) apart?
                If the press covers this as if it was the first 44 minutes of an NBA game, this is actually what labor talks look like – right up until they make the deal.

                So for the few left who said the NBA would play by Dec. 1 … we’re still alive!
                It’s not only possible to be optimistic, it’s the way to bet, at least, according to me.

                Despite the gnashing of teeth, with heretofore gracious union president Derek Fisher telling the press “You have been lied to,” it’s now about whether the players get $2.1 billion of the projected $4 billion in revenues, or just $2 billion.

                If both sides had to lose real money to show their dumbest, er, hardest cases that each needs the other and the other knows it, it just happened.

                By now anyone with a personal fortune of $13.2 billion, like Allen, should understand the folly in risking hundreds of millions … or billions (about $1.3 billion if it lasts until Christmas) rather than splitting the difference.

                One would hope they’re getting very near the end if the NBA unveiled Allen, the Microsoft co-founder, at last week’s meetings in New York.

                Aside from showing how supposedly united the owners are, there may have been a darker message … showing how rich they are and how little they need the players or the NBA.

                So the NBA just went from “We’re entitled to make a profit, unlike all other businessmen,” to “We’re the ones with day jobs as CEOs and can shut down any time we like, so sign here!”
                Sick or not, Stern who missed last week’s apocalypse, obliging him to phone in his lies, er, advice, is definitely slick enough to do it.

                When Clippers owner Donald Sterling said at a league meeting that he’d fire Stern if it was up to him, it actually came at Stern’s prompting, noticing Donald was stewing, realizing an outburst would scare owners back to David, as opposed to lining up behind Donald.

                As for Gumbel’s charges, let’s just say it’s not a good idea to misspeak yourself in your all-out indictment, as when he said Stern’s “efforts [were] typical of a commissioner who has always seemed eager to be viewed as some kind of modern plantation overseer, treating NBA men as if they were his boys.”

                It’s true that Stern dislikes resistance, but that’s across the board, be it from owners, players, TV networks, and, of course, the press.

                I’ve disagreed with enough of Stern’s initiatives myself — looking over referees’ shoulders, the dress code, etc., etc. — to have learned long ago to ask and duck at press conferences.
                I have portrayed Stern as a benevolent despot whose super-lawyer, control-freak touches were aimed at removing the stigma that attached itself to the NBA in the post-Michael Jordan era.

                I’ve always thought he got one big thing right, the 1984 labor deal that included a salary cap which has been refined into an interest-balancing, self-regulating mechanism that can be tweaked when imbalances arise.

                You’ll notice the old system is the one they’re still working on.

                The owners threw their hard cap overboard weeks ago. Now if the two sides can just split their differences on the revenue split, luxury tax and mid-level exception, they can end this BS.

                Of course, if they could screw it up to this point, they can screw it up some more.
                If they don’t make a deal in two or three weeks, they’ll be dark through at least Dec. 15.

                At that point, I think both sides would declare all-out war and go right to the drop-dead date.
                Everyone knows when that is, early January, when everyone gets back after the holidays with just enough time to play 50 games, as in 1999.

                But even these bozos should be able to find a way to end this in the next two or three weeks.

                If not, there goes another optimist.

                Welcome to crunch time, at last.

                Mark Heisler is a regular contributor to SheridanHoops. His columns appear each Monday
                Last edited by Unclebuck; 10-24-2011, 03:56 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                  Christmas Day is Sterns goal, imo. I don't think its 12/1, but I hope he's right.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    No, the Pacers do NOT own the Fieldhouse. They have revenue rights to the parking and arena, but it is all owned by the CIB.

                    And I think the CIB kick-in length was structured to be revisited after the new CBA and revenue sharing agreement was settled, so I suspect that operating costs check will go down if the sharing check goes up.
                    Sorry, poor choice of words. I mean the Pacers have the revenue from parking and the arena. But if there is a season, the CBA doesn't change the 15 million and then there is another negotiation where the Pacers could chose to leave or the city could continue to pony up.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                      Bill Simmons has a podcast up with Billy Hunter. Simmons said it made him only 75% pessimistic instead of 100% pessimistic. I'm interested to hear it.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                        Originally posted by wintermute View Post

                        To summarize, Forbes thinks the Sixers sold for less because 1) the deal doesn't include the stadium; and 2) the Sixers were saddled with an undervalued cable deal by the previous owners, Comcast.
                        .
                        Undervalued cable deal my keister! That undervalued cable deal made Comcast MILLIONS because they are the ONLY way you could watch 76ers game on tv in Philly! They intentionally used a loophole to not put their Sportnet Philly channel on the satellite providers!
                        "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                        "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                          Here are some more interesting numbers. According to an article from 1987, the Pacers ticket prices 25 years ago were: $18, $14, $12, $9 and $6.

                          I checked a couple of online inflation calculators and learned that U.S. prices overall have just about doubled in those 25 years - average prices are 1.98 times higher now than 1987. If Pacers ticket prices had doubled over those years, they'd now be $36, $28, $24, $18 and $12.

                          Last season, Pacers tickets were third cheapest in the league at an average of $29.13, which seems fairly reasonable to me, although there have been many nights the last few years when the Pacers' performance hasn't been close to worthy of a $30 ticket. The current league-wide average of $47.66 a ticket is not so reasonable, I think, given the up and down efforts you see over the long season. Harder to swallow, the report linked above estimates an average cost to take a family of four to a Pacers home game at $188, an average NBA game leaguewide at $288, and a Lakers home game at $505. Regular people can't go often at those prices, I think, whereas they could have 25 years ago when I was a kid.

                          This is totally pie in the sky I'm sure, but I'd like to see fans exert our voice to players and owners. What if in reaction to the lockout and missed games we just didn't buy any concessions or NBA gear this season? No ridiculously priced beers, cokes, popcorn, jerseys, shirts, hats or any of that? You could eat someplace else before or after the game and still save money. And maybe the players and owners wouldn't take the loyalty of fans so lightly and cancel the start of the season next time around.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                            Originally posted by Freddie fan View Post
                            Here are some more interesting numbers. According to an article from 1987, the Pacers ticket prices 25 years ago were: $18, $14, $12, $9 and $6.
                            I remember that. A few times we were able to get $18 tickets and we thought that was a ton of money. Those weren't courtside seats, but they were lower level, between the baselines. Those were great seats at MSA, much better than comparable seats at Conseco.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post


                              That value is only there when someone buys the franchise. Otherwise, it is nothing but paper.

                              Sure, you might be able to get a loan against the value in some form, but how'd it work out for all those folks who took loans against their houses and found out they couldn't sell them for enough to cover the loan?

                              And even at that - does that mean that if players (like Jeff Foster) invest their paychecks we should be able to use the fact they have earnings on those investments to offset their salaries? Of course not.

                              The criticism for owners getting deals from cities, or using franchises to leverage other money, or having the equivalent of investment income (that is likely to shrink if it continues to be considered a "hobby" or "guaranteed loss" business) from the franchise all misses one point - IF you can structure the system so that REASONABLY COMPETENT MANAGEMENT can make a profit AND deliver a competitive franchise (that is therefore enhancing the community and providing a valuable service to local fans), you no longer HAVE to give away those deals, or sell to an owner who only wants to use it to leverage under-the-table profits, or have it be those few rich people who want an expensive hobby for some reason.

                              Why, then, is fixing the system somehow so bad? Especially when it doesn't HURT players as such, it just means they aren't going to be HELPED as much as they had hoped based on the previous deal?
                              Sure, it's just an estimate on paper, but I still think the Pacers, if sold, would bring a whole heckuva lot more money that the $11 million (plus inflation) that they were purchased for. That has to be included in the equation. To just look at what they've lost in the recent years doesn't look at any money they made in previous years or the rising value of the franchise. There have been pro sports owners in recent years who have made hundreds of millions selling their franchises.

                              I'm all for fixing the system. But if you're talking about an equitable fix, I wouldn't look only at losses by certain franchises (particularly those who have managed their teams badly) over the past few seasons.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                                Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
                                Undervalued cable deal my keister! That undervalued cable deal made Comcast MILLIONS because they are the ONLY way you could watch 76ers game on tv in Philly! They intentionally used a loophole to not put their Sportnet Philly channel on the satellite providers!
                                Undervalued for the Sixers, not for Comcast. It's a gold mine for Comcast, which btw shows up in their cable revenue and not on the Sixers' side of the business.

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                No, I got it. I can dig up a 1000 different articles where something was sold for less than what it was valued at.

                                Estimated values are worth the price of the paper they're printed on, and to try to use them to show that the owner has a profit, with no other details, isn't how the real world works.

                                I could write a 1500 word post on the subject, or I could just point out the fact that things aren't sold at "estimated values."

                                I chose the easy route.
                                That's like saying we shouldn't discuss who will be making the 2012 playoffs, since there's no way of knowing ahead of time which teams will win enough games. Strictly true in that sense, yet an informed observer can make intelligent guesses. For franchise valuations, Forbes' estimates are as good a guess as any. Plus, when franchises do actually get sold, they show that Forbes' numbers aren't that badly off.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X