Will Indiana remain home of the Pacers?
by Man of Pace on Mar 10, 2009 7:33 PM EDT
11 comments
There is alot of political posturing going on between the city and the organization I love the Indiana Pacers. The Simons from everything I've read are serious players in all things financial. I don't know if I can swallow the fact that they have lost money 26 out of 28 years. On top of this "figure" we are being told they can't afford to operate Conseco Fieldhouse. Another stange thing about all of this lies int he fact the Pacers turned down the money David Stern and the NBA made available for teams struggling.
I am not a smart man but I can smell propaganda about a mile away.
Can someone in laymans terms explain what in the hell is going on? Is this a ploy to get a new tax passed , or to maybe drive people into the seats of Conseco Fieldhouse? Somebody anybody please shed light on this situation.
0 recs |
11 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
yeah
the optimistic part of me thinks that this is still the basketball state and there’s no way it would be allowed to happen. The Simons obviously don’t look to the Pacers as a way of making money and as far as I know they make plenty off their real estate. Hopefully this is all just part of the broader talk of the economy being so shitty.
The other side of me says that after the way the Sonics were so blatantly stolen from Seattle, anything can happen. There is definitely a lot of posturing going on right now and the rejection of Stern money was odd. Also, no matter what they say publicly, if the team was going to move, we wouldn’t know until very late in the process. They’re not going to say it could happen until it’s actually likely to happen.
Hopefully this will all pass soon enough…
They have to stay here...
If the city can’t afford Conseco and the Pacers can’t afford Conseco…what the heck is going to happen to it? The building is barely 10 years old.
God I hope so
If this team left, well, words are failing me. It may just be a ploy to get more tax dollars from the city, which is sort of irresponsible because now is the economic time where more people would allow them to leave in order to reduce their own taxes. I too hope this is just political posturing and it will go away soon.
Here's what I don't understand.
Why was this deal acceptable when Conseco was built? Basically, the city gave the Pacers a free arena. The taxpayers built it, and handed the keys to the Pacers, requiring them to pay to operate it but also allowing them to collect the revenue from their own events and non-Pacer events. I realize that this may be something of an oversimplification, but I think that’s the essence of the deal. I presume that the Pacers thought this was a good deal, yet even in the early years, when the Pacers were selling out seasons and going to the NBA Finals, they supposedly were losing money. What the Pacers now propose is 1) free building; 2) revenue from all events; 3) the taxpayers bear the operating expenses.
I love having the Pacers and Colts in town, but the absurdity of this taxpayer funded model is becoming ever more clear. Pro sports teams pay salaries that they can’t afford without taxpayer subsidy. Just think about it: if we are to believe the Simons, they can’t make money even though, unlike nearly every other business, they don’t have to pay a dime in rent/mortgage for their facility. Presumably if the Pacers simply gave back Conseco (i.e., they continue to pay no rent, but the CIB is responsible for all upkeep yet keeps the revenue) that wouldn’t work either. It’s nuts. I don’t know the solution, either.
by John M (The Crimson Quarry) on Mar 11, 2009 9:39 AM EDT reply actions
I agree with you John. Why does the NBA set a salary cap such that when the teams are within that cap they still are losing money? Their biggest expense is the very salaries which they set and yet paying them puts the team in the red? I don’t believe for a second that the type of savvy businessmen that can afford to buy a pro sports team can’t figure out how to keep their salary figures budgeted in such a way that they don’t lose money. They just figure that the city should pick up the check so they can pocket a better return on their investment.
just like with a bunch of other industries, sports continued to increase and increase without worrying about when it would stop being financially feasible. Even without the economic crisis, the airlines have been fucked for several years now and the music industry had to cut back tons of jobs.
Ultimately, I’m not sure that pro sports can get back to a feasible model until the players are paid less. I don’t see that happening without some serious lockouts occurring. The players won’t have a ton of leverage due to a complete lack of sympathy from the fans. Perhaps part of what keeps this from happening is the few teams that do make money and have no need to change things.
I have no idea on the numbers, but what if every player making over $2 million agreed to a pay cut of 30%. Would that make the franchises more feasible?
I would love to see
a black and white breakdown of NBA franchise’s simpe debits and credits. ie:player salaries, rents, team employee salaries, percentage of ticket sales, pay to food vendors, percentage of jersey sales, team merchandise, just everything. It boggles my mind that these teams could be losing money so much. I have plenty of Pacers items that I clearly overpaid for (Jerseys, shirts, shorts, DVD’s…) and I know there are many many people like me, just seems odd that there seems like so much money coming in. ANyone know where to get these things or anything?
by captain flitzy on Mar 11, 2009 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions
doubt we can find it
If it were that easy to find in simple terms, I feel like things wouldn’t be so dire because either we would all know that they’re not really losing money or we would know that the players are making way too much.
The one argument I did find somewhat convincing (not sure which way this leans) is that although the Simons have lost upwards of $200 million, the franchise itself is now worth way more than what they bought it for. They bought it for $11million (I think) and Forbes estimated it’s price now at $300 million or so. The Simons obviously argue with that figure, but still, it should be somewhere up there.
Either way, I’m not sure how that changes things. It still means that they are out $200 million and that the only way they can recoup that is by selling the team (and even then, all profits would be taxed very heavily). However, we can’t act like the family has just lost $200 million that it can never get back.
it's on the people... which means we're screwed.
Whoever coined the term “if you build it, they will come” doesn’t understand Indianapolis professional sports. Here’s the big disconnect. Indianapolis is a fairweather city. And the fact that, for a better part of a decade, this organization has fielded some players that don’t exactly have the best PR really hinders the efforts. It saddens me to think that the only people who can afford these tickets are fairweather rich people. And the only real way to get them into the seats is if you start making noise around the leage. The Pacers have cleaned up their image, but need to start playing better to get those fairweather M-F’rs into the stands. Everyone has to get involved… starting tonight. My brother and I are going to the games decked out in Pacer gear to show this city that there is a burning desire keep this team going. And if you want this pacer team to stay, I suggest you get things moving. FIND SOMEONE WITH A MILITARY ID (VALID) SO YOU CAN GO TO THE GAME EXTREMELY CHEAP, AND START BANGING ON THE SOS DRUM. STOP JUST TALKING ABOUT IT AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. GET UP OFF THAT THANG AND BE THE CHANGE. BE THE DIFFERENCE MAKERS. I HOPE TO SEE YOU THERE.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
