# were the nay-sayers correct? (PA To Sell Blazers?) MERGED



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Uncle Paul might sell the team? 



> Allen spokesman warns Blazers have uncertain future
> 
> 02/24/2006
> 
> ...


seems to me, maybe Paul should either A: admit he's doing this or B: own up to the fact it's his own fault and realize YOU'RE A ****ING BILLIONAIRE.

jeesh.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

Here's more



AP said:


> PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- Billionaire Paul Allen's spokesman said today the future of the Portland Trail Blazers is in doubt after his investment managers estimated the team stands to lose more than 100 (m) million dollars over the next three years. Lance Conn, who heads Vulcan Capital, Allen's investment firm, told The Associated Press in an interview that "all options are on the table" because "the economic model is broken." Allen has lost more than 12 (b) billion dollars on various investments in the past decade, and his team has been hemorrhaging money for much of that time. The Microsoft co-founder had to sell off his interest in the Rose Garden Arena, the home of the Blazers, after the company that ran it, Oregon Arena Corporation, declared bankruptcy. Conn told AP that Allen has decided it is time to cut his losses with the Trail Blazers -- or find a new way to finance the team.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

I for one have never made a profit on any of my hobbies, expensive or not. If he's bored with this hobby, that's one thing; but I don't think that's it. If he wants to cut back on how much he's spending on it, that's understandable. I wish he'd come to that conclusion before extending Theo and Zach, because we'd have more flexibility now. I just hope the 'economic model' they turn to isn't the Clippers model.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

oh man.

And to think mixum was run off this board because he couldn't shut-up about this possibility - ie. Allen might consider selling the team.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

Wow. Suddenly the Ruben Patterson story becomes a footnote.

You should change the thread title: this is huge.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

That's what happens when your fans are cynical, whiny, granola eatin' hippies! 

:curse:


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

A new financing model? Crandc, can you help organize a bake sale? It sounds like one cake would do it, we just need to sell it for $100 million.

barfo


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



Billionaire Paul Allen's spokesman said:


> "the economic model is broken."


They just had that economic model replaced, and it's broken already?


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

I think this is posturing so that he can re-acquire the Rose Garden some way. If he does not control the arena then I think he will probably sell the team.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



Xericx said:


> That's what happens when your fans are cynical, whiny, granola eatin' hippies!
> 
> :curse:


I haven't eaten any granola since the seventies. Or maybe early eighties.

barfo


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



Masbee said:


> oh man.
> 
> And to think mixum was run off this board because he couldn't shut-up about this possibility - ie. Allen might consider selling the team.


Any owner(s) _might_ sell their team. Do we need a thread a day about it?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



Backboard Cam said:


> Any owner(s) _might_ sell their team. Do we need a thread a day about it?


This is the first time he's publicly commented on it (directly).


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

Granola, man, that's some heavy ****. It'll mess you up.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

what does this mean for the blazers no more team in portland?


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

Despite Hap's best efforts, I have always believed this to be a possibility (especially when things started to turn south in 2001).

But, really, would it be so bad if Allen sold the team? True, the new owner/owners, whoever they would be, could decide to move the team somewhere else. And that would be bad. But if they didn't, might they and the decisions they would make actually help improve the team?

Think of it this way: Allen, with all his $, saw the Blazers as a hobby. Even when profitable, the money they made him was chump-change compared to the rest of his portfolio. So his only incentive to put together a winner was to win. That's all he cared about. Some other owner/owners - who no doubt would not be so well-to-do as Allen, might treat the team as a (gasp) business. And the requirement to be profitable would provide a lot of incentive to build a winner.

Dontcha think?

PBF


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



Masbee said:


> oh man.
> 
> And to think mixum was run off this board because he couldn't shut-up about this possibility - ie. Allen might consider selling the team.


No mixum was run out for consistent baiting and trolling as I remember. He made 1001 doomsdays predictions for the Blazers and you're surprised 1 might, just* might * be right.


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

They can't make it without being able to sell suites and courtside seats. They have to reacquire the arena.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



Masbee said:


> oh man.
> 
> And to think mixum was run off this board because he couldn't shut-up about this possibility - ie. Allen might consider selling the team.


that was the least of the reasons why mixum was run off the board...altho the fact he spouted it on a daily basis for any reason (related or not) kind of makes it even more annoying now.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



Backboard Cam said:


> Any owner(s) _might_ sell their team. Do we need a thread a day about it?


Clearly not. A thread a month?

That, too, was too much for some of you to handle because you were so ****-sure that mixum was wrong about everything.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



ProudBFan said:


> Despite Hap's best efforts, I have always believed this to be a possibility (especially when things started to turn south in 2001).
> 
> But, really, would it be so bad if Allen sold the team? True, the new owner/owners, whoever they would be, could decide to move the team somewhere else. And that would be bad. But if they didn't, might they and the decisions they would make actually help improve the team?
> 
> ...


The contract with the CIty and the COntract with the stadium could be a major stumbling block in relocating the team. I believe teh contract runs for another 20 years or so.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



Ed O said:


> Clearly not. A thread a month?
> 
> That, too, was too much for some of you to handle because you were so ****-sure that mixum was wrong about everything.
> 
> Ed O.


Has Mixum been right about a damn thing yet? Seems to me you speak a bit hastily.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

that means the new owners would have a hard time relocating?Uncle paul needs to have patience but when fans arent even patient hes not either when hes losing.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

Can we not make this about mixum?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

there's always a chance we've been duped by the link, or that as tlong says, this is a posturing move by Paul Allen.

some of the points are valid, it's not like the city abandoned him because we're not fans. The fans have left because they're partly tired of what happened, and not exactly being shown that things are improving.

I'd hope that he's not selling and that I/we're just overreacting (because we're such nutso fans that we almost have to). 

To me, if he announces he's selling now, there'll be 18 people at the games now, and it'll basically be the employees. 

but seriously, if this comes out tomorrow, Paul's gonna desperately need to do some damage control. One way or the other, this is a pock mark on the team (if true).


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

He should sell the team to Phil Knight if he does.....now that Phil isn't TECHNICALLY involved with Nike....that'd be cool. Does Jordan still own part of the Wiz? 

I just don't want to see the "Vancouver Blazers" or San Diego Blazers....


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



Hap said:


> some of the points are valid, it's not like the city abandoned him because we're not fans. The fans have left because they're partly tired of what happened, and not exactly being shown that things are improving.


Those fans (aka the Ron Tonkin generation) are losers. 

Live by the team, die by the team.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

The problem we have is that we haven't gone through a ton of ownership changes with the Blazers so we don't really know what to expect. I think we're one of the few cities without ownership or major rights to the concessions money (I may be wrong), which would be a major stumbling block - that would need to be reacquired.

The biggest worry is that someone like Sterling (of Clippers fame) buys out the Blazers. He'll see how low he can go and still keep making money.

After Paul's divestment of the Sporting News this week I think that selling the team is a real possibility. Vulcan is trying to get him to throw out everything and anything that doesn't make money...


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



Blazer Bert said:


> Granola, man, that's some heavy ****.



To be honest, it's rather light....in its final form.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

I'm not too worried about it. Even if he does sell the Blazers are locked into a long term contract here. Besides that I'm not sure the NBA would let the Blazers move. There's a long history here. 

Also, if he does sell, are we sure that's a bad thing? It's not like the team is doing great right now. Maybe a change in ownership would lead to the change of direction we need.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



Backboard Cam said:


> Can we not make this about mixum?


:clap:

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



Foulzilla said:


> I'm not too worried about it. Even if he does sell the Blazers are locked into a long term contract here. Besides that I'm not sure the NBA would let the Blazers move. There's a long history here.
> 
> Also, if he does sell, are we sure that's a bad thing? It's not like the team is doing great right now. Maybe a change in ownership would lead to the change of direction we need.


I look at it the same way, Foulzilla.

And think about this. Hasn't it been Vulcan that's been pressing Allen to cut the payroll? Maybe with things improve simply with them out of the picture. I know, kinda hard for that to happen when Allen owns the damn company. But hopefully you get the picture.

PBF


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

This, IMHO, is just a lot of smoke aimed, as I think tlong noted, gaining bargaining leverage for reacquiring the Rose Garden. 

Allen notes that no businessman will sustain continuing losses like these...and he's probably right. So who's he going to sell the team to? The news story I just watched said that the team is expected to lose upwards of $100 mil over the next three years (which is a lot slower bleeding than we've seen in the preceding luxury tax years. Anybody expecting Phil Knight or some other sucker to step in and toss away that kind of dough?

I don't know what to make of the Rose Garden issue, but I'm betting that this announcement got the attention of the current owners. How'd you like the prospect of owning that barn without its biggest income stream? 

What the numbers being tossed around don't show is what happens to the team's income a few years farther down the road when they get competetive again and the Rose Garden starts selling out, yet the team is under the luxury tax threshold. My bet is Paul Allen intends to be around to recoup his losses when that happens...he'd just like to be owning the Rose Garden again at the same time.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

I'm not a huge fan, but that doesn't change the fact that Ian Furness made some good points.

-Portland isn't really a "sellable" franchise, since they don't get revenue from preimum seating, concessions, club seats, parking, etc ... it's not an attractive option for most potential buyers.

-Even if he could sell the team and found a buyer (who wants a franchise that gets no revenue from the aforementioned streams?), they couldn't actually move the team, due to a lease that doesn't expire for nearly 20 years.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



e_blazer1 said:


> This, IMHO, is just a lot of smoke aimed, as I think tlong noted, gaining bargaining leverage for reacquiring the Rose Garden.
> 
> Allen notes that no businessman will sustain continuing losses like these...and he's probably right. So who's he going to sell the team to? The news story I just watched said that the team is expected to lose upwards of $100 mil over the next three years (which is a lot slower bleeding than we've seen in the preceding luxury tax years. Anybody expecting Phil Knight or some other sucker to step in and toss away that kind of dough?
> 
> ...


Agreed, it is probably just a ploy to get the rent reduced. 

gatorpops


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

If one person, who won't be named but was recently banned from here - if he's correct and PA sells this team - I say he can come back to this board (IMO). But until then...... :banana:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

ah..nothing like jumping the gun on something to get ones blood pressure up, eh?

btw, do we have any updates on mgb?


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

*blazers to lose 100 million*

thats what valcun inc says and the business model is off, sounds like allen wants out.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: blazers to lose 100 million*

sad thing is it's not the first time...


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

*Re: blazers to lose 100 million*

merge monster anyone?


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

*Re: blazers to lose 100 million*

edit wasnt merged when i posted.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*

If the team ends up moving, I'll stop following basketball. Forever.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Well if Vulcan is really calling the shots (probably) then rather than pooling our collective money and buying the Blazers, we need to pool our money and find some way to take over Vulcan... :biggrin: 

Also, Phil Knight is still CEO of Nike, he's the biggest shareholder, and they've speculated in the past (as when the issue of an MLB team came up) that he wouldn't buy a local team because he doesn't want to hurt sales or show bias against other teams. So Phil's a no-go. I don't happen to have a list of Oregon's billionaires off the top of my head, but I'm guessing it starts and ends with Phil.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



SheedSoNasty said:


> If the team ends up moving, I'll stop following basketball. Forever.


Same here. I think the community (not including the diehards) would be absolutely bitter, but I would be crushed.  

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, though.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



SheedSoNasty said:


> If the team ends up moving, I'll stop following basketball. Forever.


me too. if the team moves, baseball would have to have Ruben's IQ not to come in and put a team here.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



wastro said:


> Same here. I think the community (not including the diehards) would be absolutely bitter, but I would be crushed.
> 
> Let's not get ahead of ourselves, though.



I'd become a Laker fan...


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Paul Allen has lost billions, while almost everyone else with any investments in stocks have lost 10s of thousands. It's just the way the economy has been going. But WHY ON EARTH is he worried about his financial situation? Does Paul even have kids he can pass his wealth to???

I remember, a few years ago, the Blazers wree the most profitiable team in professional sports, but add a bunch of bad contracts to a sub-500 team and you get losses. He should be able to stick with the Blazers during this down-time.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

As long as the Blazers are here in Portland, they'll be my team. If they move, I'll lose all interest in basketball... maybe.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

There is a good argument that if Paul is becoming so concerned about cost, then why not allow him to sell to an owner who may care more about winning. Makes sense (I'm not concerned about the Blazers moving because I don't see the NBA approving a move).

But what I like about having Alllen as an owner is that should he ever get a change of heart, he financailly can afford to go NY style again. I'm hoping the Blazers start to show some signs of being a real team again, Paul gets excited about the team and opens up the purse strings. 

It's nice to know that the ability to not care about cost is there.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> There is a good argument that if Paul is becoming so concerned about cost, then why not allow him to sell to an owner who may care more about winning. Makes sense (I'm not concerned about the Blazers moving because I don't see the NBA approving a move).
> 
> But what I like about having Alllen as an owner is that should he ever get a change of heart, he financailly can afford to go NY style again. I'm hoping the Blazers start to show some signs of being a real team again, Paul gets excited about the team and opens up the purse strings.
> 
> It's nice to know that the ability to not care about cost is there.


Good point KMD I believe you are right...we get a few good draft picks to build around and start being competitive again Paul will start to shell out the dough to push the team to the Championship caliber level.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



Hap said:


> me too. if the team moves, baseball would have to have Ruben's IQ not to come in and put a team here.


Somebody say baseball? :banana:


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Let's get together and make a fair offer to buy the team from Paul.

At current value I figure it should come to about $1.14 each.

Less if the guys over at the ESPN board chip in. :biggrin:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Let's get together and make a fair offer to buy the team from Paul.
> 
> At current value I figure it should come to about $1.14 each.
> 
> Less if the guys over at the ESPN board chip in. :biggrin:


I have 2.28 for 2 shares, PLUS, I have a boat. We can promote the team on the river!


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



Xericx said:


> That's what happens when your fans are cynical, whiny, granola eatin' hippies!
> 
> :curse:


Most of your fans that is. There is a few good old 'die with your boots on' ******* Blazer freaks out here.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



Target said:


> Most of your fans that is. There is a few good old 'die with your boots on' ******* Blazer freaks out here.


hey now, there are some red-neck liberals out there too. I'm most comfortable in northern idaho, not exactly a liberal bastion you know.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Does anyone have a link to something that discusses the details of the contract between the Blazers and the Rose Garden? I assume it is somewhat public due to the public involvement in the construction, but I could be wrong about that. It would be nice to know what it really commits the Blazers to do.

barfo


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

We don't have to worry about the Blazers leaving town. The contract they signed with the City and the league would not allow them to pack up and move. Where? Oklahoma? S.D.? Vancouver?
They been there and moved out. Portland is a NBA city with history and fast growing population. As the blazers move out the NHL would be in town in 2 seconds with Baseball driving up I-5.
This is non sense. Paul might sell but there are plenty of people who would line up to buy. This is a stock at the bottom. I am sure Paul already talk to people. I believe some owners live in other than the city the teams they own. (Grizzlies, Bulls, White Sox,Kings).Portland is a proven sport town with a history of 500+ consecutive sellouts (2 nd to Montreal). We don't have to lose any sleep over this.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



Target said:


> Most of your fans that is. There is a few good old 'die with your boots on' ******* Blazer freaks out here.


yeeeeahhhhhh.l...doggie!

:clap:


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

RW#30 said:


> Portland is a proven sport town with a history of 500+ consecutive sellouts (2 nd to *Montreal*). We don't have to lose any sleep over this.


Not very encouraging.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Draco said:


> Not very encouraging.



Why? You do know they were talking about the Canadiens, and not the Expos


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

> Portland is a proven sport town with a history of 500+ consecutive sellouts


I'm sick of hearing about that....it was only because they played in a building that seated under 13,000 fans. The streak ended less than a month after moving into the Rose Garden.


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

> But Conn said the Blazers have a lease in Portland that is far worse.
> 
> 
> He said the Blazers receive no revenue for suites, clubs, courtside seats, game concessions or parking at the Rose Garden.
> ...


These kind of public comments by Allen's representatives are high comedy. Allen DID have all the revenue from suites, clubs, courtside seats, game concessions and some of parking.....until he decided he didn't want to live up to the financing deal he willingly entered into when the Rose Garden was built. The lenders would have refinanced the deal if Allen had personally guaranteed the debt.....he refused, declared bankruptcy and dared the lenders to foreclose....they called his bluff and took the arena, and now he is *****ing about it?????

This pathetic owner and management team made their bed, and now they don't want to sleep in it....absolute comedy.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

NBAGOD said:


> These kind of public comments by Allen's representatives are high comedy. Allen DID have all the revenue from suites, clubs, courtside seats, game concessions and some of parking.....until he decided he didn't want to live up to the financing deal he willingly entered into when the Rose Garden was built. The lenders would have refinanced the deal if Allen had personally guaranteed the debt.....he refused, declared bankruptcy and dared the lenders to foreclose....they called his bluff and took the arena, and now he is *****ing about it?????
> 
> This pathetic owner and management team made their bed, and now they don't want to sleep in it....absolute comedy.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

What would half of you have to complain about if the Trail Blazers werent in Portland? The Portland Beavers, Lumberjacks?


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

NBAGOD said:


> I'm sick of hearing about that....it was only because they played in a building that seated under 13,000 fans. The streak ended less than a month after moving into the Rose Garden.


The only reason that the streak ended was that the Rose Garden originally had too high of a capacity. When it opened there were 21,500 seats - it's rare for an NBA crowd anywhere to reach those numbers these days. Had capacity been at its current level the streak would have continued (and I do believe it went longer than the first month in the RG).


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: were the nay-sayers correct?*



ProZach said:


> I'd become a Laker fan...


Just as long as you're talking about the LO Lakers and not the LA variety...


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

How would you like your crow Hap?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Todd said:


> How would you like your crow Hap?


with bbq sauce.

but seriously, unless he ACTUALLY sells the team and isn't trying to strong arm the RG owners into getting a better deal, this is just talk right now.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Paul made a series of bad business decisions and now is playing a high stakes game of poker with the city of Portland.

He signed the bad lease when times were good for the franchise. He made his choice, now he needs to be a big boy and take responsibility for his bad decisions. If that means selling the team, it's his choice, but the team will be here for 19 more years (per the lease).

The Blazers could not have picked a worse time to ask the City for money. Any extra money will go to the schools, but that's an OT discussion.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Blazer Maven said:


> Paul made a series of bad business decisions and now is playing a high stakes game of poker with the city of Portland.
> 
> He signed the bad lease when times were good for the franchise. He made his choice, now he needs to be a big boy and take responsibility for his bad decisions. If that means selling the team, it's his choice, but the team will be here for 19 more years (per the lease).
> 
> The Blazers could not have picked a worse time to ask the City for money. Any extra money will go to the schools, but that's an OT discussion.


That's what bothers me about this...the timing. Not only do we have schools that are claiming to be underfunded, but the Blazers are at their low point as far as competitiveness in the history of the organization. It's just not a good time to be asking for money. Even with that said, I believe the public should somehow help fund the Blazers. They are our only pro sports team and the city will be worse off without them.


----------

