# NBA press release



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Nba Statement Regarding Blazers*

NEW YORK, March 30 -- NBA Commissioner David Stern released the following statement today: 


"Over the past six weeks the NBA has attempted to broker an agreement between the Trail Blazers and the owners of the Rose Garden to sell the team and the arena to one of several prospective purchasers that we had identified. Unfortunately, the arena owners have not offered any constructive response to these efforts and recently advised us that they are satisfied with the status quo. Accordingly, we have advised both parties that we have withdrawn from the process." 



I'm not sure what this means, but it can't be good can it?


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Yeah, I don't much like the sounds of that. Sounds to me like the Rose Garden owners are unwilling to even consider negotiating.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Foulzilla said:


> Yeah, I don't much like the sounds of that. Sounds to me like the Rose Garden owners are unwilling to even consider negotiating.



Exactly. My fear is that the owners don't give a rats behind if the Blazers are there or not. They have no vested interest.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

The Rose Garden is holding a full house and PA is bluffing with queen high--and not bluffing very well. Why should they leave money on the table for the 6th wealthiest man in the world? As a fan, I hope this gets resolved. As a business person, I don't see why the Rose Garden would budge because everyone knows they hold all the cards.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

yikes....keeps getting worse

doesnt it seem like just yesterday that we were in the WCF


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Maybe more like a week ago at this point


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Reep said:


> The Rose Garden is holding a full house and PA is bluffing with queen high--and not bluffing very well. Why should they leave money on the table for the 6th wealthiest man in the world? As a fan, I hope this gets resolved. As a business person, I don't see why the Rose Garden would budge because everyone knows they hold all the cards.


Why should they leave money on the table?

Because if the team DOES move, they stand to lose even more money than if they are willing to comprimise.

Not that I think the team will move or that they even really have any intention of moving, but they have to get closer to the brink before a deal gets struck.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Fork said:


> Why should they leave money on the table?
> 
> Because if the team DOES move, they stand to lose even more money than if they are willing to comprimise.
> 
> Not that I think the team will move or that they even really have any intention of moving, but they have to get closer to the brink before a deal gets struck.


Over 80% of RG revenue is made from concerts and other non-Blazer events. The RG owners could easily stand a few years without a major sports franchise in the RG and eventually bring a new NBA team in or perhaps a NHL fanchise. Granted I don't think they will do this since I believe their refusal to negotiate is simply a bargaining chip to gain more $$ in a future deal. Anything is possible at this point though.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Hmm if the NBA is withdrawing from the sitiation, then could it mean that they won't support a relocation of the team? 

Also it reads that the NBA was not trying to brokerage a deal for Paul Allen to keep the team, but to sell the team. And not only sell the Team, but the Arena as well.

IOW...There was a legitimate offer on the table for both team and Arena to be sold to a single Party....


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

http://www.oregonlive.com/newslogs/...e_oregonian_news/archives/2006_03.html#126537


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

It's confusing to me, too.

The primary thing that Stern and the NBA should be worried about is keeping the Blazers out of bankruptcy. 

Secondarily, it should be keeping teams where they are.

If it comes down to the team or the city, clearly Stern's priorities are with the team and the team's owner. I therefore think that this kind of announcement might have to do with establishing that the league tried to keep the NBA in Portland if/when Allen (or a buyer) try to move it.

Ed O.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I think it now looks very unlikely the Blazers will remain a team and in Portland. The Blazer brand is already tarnished... the NBA knows that. 'JailBlazers' would still follow them to a new city... and if as noted... the team in its current state can't move. BUT... if it goes bankrupt... all the players are thrown into a pool and they form a new team in a new city... (Las Vegas?)... the team could disappear and another team reappear in another city. New name... mostly new players. 

OR... consider the current owners of the RG WANT the Blazers to go bankrupt. Then they swoop in and say hey... we will buy the Blazers for cheap and keep them here. I just don't see them agreeing to a new lease... as 1080 the fan mentioned... they might already have an owner that wants to bring an NHL team here, but want the Blazers out first. 

Someone is not being entirely honest here... there is just too much contradicting information.


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

Ugh.

This can't be anything but bad, bad news.

I have a bad feeling Paul Allen and the geniuses at Vulcan might have managed to kill off the NBA in Portland.

Stepping Razor


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I don't know if I'd blame Allen... just an unfortunate circumstace. It sounds like he made a well more than fair offer for the RG but it was turned down. Opps. I guess the mistake goes back to filing bankruptcy. The current RG owners though are probably more responsible.... they have the upper hand... they might not need the Blazers or might have a reason to actually want them to leave.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

I think it's interesting that what he was proposing was that the Blazers and the Rose Garden be sold to a new owner. It's kind of been a forgone conclusion that Paul Allen would sell the team soon but this statement says to me that it's a done deal that Paul Allen will be out of Portland ASAP.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

THe worst part would be that we would have lost the team due to mismanagement of the franchise.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

not just allen but the bond holders as well

yeah here this makes all the stupid brickering and fighting over the team and draft picks seem a bit worthless doesnt it?

i hope this is just a power play by stern but if the team folds oh well i am done with the nba and i will not support any nhl team that comes to replace them, only if they come and with the blazers still in town.

this is why i hate bankers greedy poses killing our team just cus they want the money tards.


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

If the Blazers do fold or move, do we think the NBA would try to give Portland an expansion team out of pity -- a la Charlotte, which was always perceived as a solid NBA town until the Hornets' owner alienated the fanbase so badly they had to move?

If so, do you think we could keep the Blazers' name and logos, a la the Cleveland Browns.

This would be a real travesty for Portland to lose its team because Paul Allen is the world's most incompetent businessman.

Stepping Razor


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

I'm interested to know if declaring bankruptcy would even be worthwhile. After all, what do they gain? The opportunity to lose $100 million+ again and declare bankruptcy again? There aren't really any huge "creditors" per se. Just people they have to keep paying in order to keep playing.

I can understand the RG owners not wanting to sell to Paul. Perhaps short-sighted, but I can understand. What I can't understand is why they wouldn't sell to a third party.

And I can't believe the NBA is pulling out of all negotiations unless they themselves are throwing their cards into play (what little they have) or unless this means that we are nearing some dreaded defcon level.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Actually if the Blazers leave town I will probably quit watching the NBA in general in protest. I have been a league pass subscriber for years, been a Blazer fan for years, and if at some point they took the team out of town they might as well just flip me the bird and say F U hasoos. :clown: Wait some of you have already said that and I am still here! :biggrin:


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Utherhimo said:


> not just allen but the bond holders as well
> 
> yeah here this makes all the stupid brickering and fighting over the team and draft picks seem a bit worthless doesnt it?
> 
> ...


WILL YOU PLEASE USE PUNCTUATION AND COMPLETE SENTENCES. I have no idea what some of this says! What do the first and last sentences say?


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

the problem with getting another team or expansion is that unless they play in a different arena then they will have to live under the same crap deal.


we should start writing to the snore oregon and telling them that if an nhl comes to portland and the bond holders run the team out of town that no way in hell are we going to support an nhl team and i love hockey!


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> the problem with getting another team or expansion is that unless they play in a different arena then they will have to live under the same crap deal.
> 
> 
> we should start writing to the snore oregon and telling them that if an nhl comes to portland and the bond holders run the team out of town that no way in hell are we going to support an nhl team and i love hockey!


Why would a new team have to live under the same deal....a new team can and would negotiate a new deal.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> WILL YOU PLEASE USE PUNCTUATION AND COMPLETE SENTENCES. I have no idea what some of this says! What do the first and last sentences say?


Let me see if I can translate for you:

"this is why i hate bankers greedy poses killing our team just cus they want the money tards."

means:

This scenario is exactly why I hold bankers in such disdain. They are a select group of greedy malcontents who only seek to disparage and destroy our fair team in order to fatten their corpulent wallets. I am in a fair bit of outrage over this situation and I am hoping it is rectified quickly. Tards.

Whew....


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Stepping Razor said:


> If the Blazers do fold or move, do we think the NBA would try to give Portland an expansion team out of pity -- a la Charlotte, which was always perceived as a solid NBA town until the Hornets' owner alienated the fanbase so badly they had to move?
> 
> If so, do you think we could keep the Blazers' name and logos, a la the Cleveland Browns.
> 
> ...


I actually think there is a real possibility of us receiving an expansion team.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> Over 80% of RG revenue is made from concerts and other non-Blazer events. The RG owners could easily stand a few years without a major sports franchise in the RG and eventually bring a new NBA team in or perhaps a NHL fanchise. Granted I don't think they will do this since I believe their refusal to negotiate is simply a bargaining chip to gain more $$ in a future deal. Anything is possible at this point though.


Do you got a link for that stat?

The mistake PA made was going bankrupt. He should have freed up enough to buy it out right if the contract was so bad originally. He has the cash and would have made up for it eventually. After all most of his investments loses money so he should have sold one.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Actually, if the city wanted to help out now, they could be the bad boys on the block by condeming the RG (like they were going to do with PGE)... Then they could just give the RG owners what they then felt was market value and turn around and sell the RG to someone else.

But of course they'd never get investments in the city again....

I know this has been discussed and trashed before, and while some of you absolutely hate the venue, why can't the Blazers play in Memorial Col.? (to try and force the issue)???


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> Why would a new team have to live under the same deal....a new team can and would negotiate a new deal.


What if the bank doesn't want to negotiate? That's the problem now. What would change with a new owner? They will be stuck to keeping the team there just like PA from everything I've read.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

mgb said:


> Do you got a link for that stat?
> 
> The mistake PA made was going bankrupt. He should have freed up enough to buy it out right if the contract was so bad originally. He has the cash and would have made up for it eventually. After all most of his investments loses money so he should have sold one.


nope no link...i used to work for Oregon Arena Corp. so it's up to you to believe or not believe me. 

Average Blazer game intake back when attendance was 15k+ $150,000 - $250,000 after costs.
Average concert intake: $500,000+


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

yakbladder said:


> Actually, if the city wanted to help out now, they could be the bad boys on the block by condeming the RG (like they were going to do with PGE)... Then they could just give the RG owners what they then felt was market value and turn around and sell the RG to someone else.
> 
> But of course they'd never get investments in the city again....
> 
> I know this has been discussed and trashed before, and while some of you absolutely hate the venue, why can't the Blazers play in Memorial Col.? (to try and force the issue)???


I thought the Blazers had to play in the RQ until,,,don't remember the year, but quite a few years.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

mgb said:


> What if the bank doesn't want to negotiate? That's the problem now. What would change with a new owner? They will be stuck to keeping the team there just like PA from everything I've read.


they won't negotiate now because why the HELL would you negotiate with someone who just tryed to **** you by declaring bankruptcy....

Also remember the original lease for the Blazer was signed by the Blazer and Oregon Arena Corp. both Paul Allen companies...Allen was essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> nope no link...i used to work for Oregon Arena Corp. so it's up to you to believe or not believe me.
> 
> Average Blazer game intake back when attendance was 15k+ $150,000 - $250,000 after costs.
> Average concert intake: $500,000+


Half a million? that's hard for me to believe. Sure perhaps some groups, but majority I'd think would be a lot less than that.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

mgb said:


> Half a million? that's hard for me to believe. Sure perhaps some groups, but majority I'd think would be a lot less than that.


Merchandise alone (the dept I worked) would routinely make over 100k at medium sized concerts. Add food, parking, booze (huge $ maker) and ticket revenue.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mgb said:


> I thought the Blazers had to play in the RQ until,,,don't remember the year, but quite a few years.


You're right... kinda.

Why do the Blazers have to play there? Because of a contract. But a piece of paper only is worth something if it's enforceable... and it's possible that Paul Allen and/or purchasers of the Blazers could somehow avoid getting it enforced.

Even _if_ it's enforced, the question is to what extent? How much would it cost the team's owner(s) to move the team? It might make sense to pay whatever damages there are and still move them.

There are so many moving parts here.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Oregonlive.com


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Paxil said:


> I think it now looks very unlikely the Blazers will remain a team and in Portland. The Blazer brand is already tarnished... the NBA knows that. 'JailBlazers' would still follow them to a new city... and if as noted... the team in its current state can't move. BUT... if it goes bankrupt... all the players are thrown into a pool and they form a new team in a new city... (Las Vegas?)... the team could disappear and another team reappear in another city. New name... mostly new players.
> 
> OR... consider the current owners of the RG WANT the Blazers to go bankrupt. Then they swoop in and say hey... we will buy the Blazers for cheap and keep them here. I just don't see them agreeing to a new lease... as 1080 the fan mentioned... they might already have an owner that wants to bring an NHL team here, but want the Blazers out first.
> 
> Someone is not being entirely honest here... there is just too much contradicting information.


it's funny that they want to bring an NHL team here at the expense of a team that's been here for 36 years..yah, that'll go over well with the fans.

Get rid of the team we've cherished for years, so we can have a hockey team..ooh boy.

btw, is there a link saying that the RG makes most of it's money not from the Blazers? i find that hard to believe since the team is there at min 41 nights a year.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> Merchandise alone (the dept I worked) would routinely make over 100k at medium sized concerts. Add food, parking, booze (huge $ maker) and ticket revenue.


didn't the city make the money from parking, and not the RG?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

yakbladder said:


> I'm interested to know if declaring bankruptcy would even be worthwhile. After all, what do they gain? The opportunity to lose $100 million+ again and declare bankruptcy again? There aren't really any huge "creditors" per se. Just people they have to keep paying in order to keep playing.


Well, you can get unsustainable contracts cancelled in bankruptcy reorganizations. For example, see the airline union contracts. Also, don't forget there are two types of bankruptcy. Chap 11 is what you are referring to above - reorganization and protection from creditors. Chapter 7 is the other one - liquidation. 



> I can understand the RG owners not wanting to sell to Paul. Perhaps short-sighted, but I can understand. What I can't understand is why they wouldn't sell to a third party.


A couple of possibilities:
1) They want to buy the Blazers themselves (and then probably sell the Garden and the team to a third party, for considerably more than either is worth separately).
2) They really don't care whether the Blazers exist or not, because they think they can make just as much money on the building w/o them (they'll be sorry when the next economic downturn comes along and Portlanders don't want to pay to watch Lacrosse anymore).
3) They are morons.

Personally, I'd bet on #1.



> And I can't believe the NBA is pulling out of all negotiations unless they themselves are throwing their cards into play (what little they have) or unless this means that we are nearing some dreaded defcon level.


I think that's a good way to put it. The NBA would have preferred to have a third party buy both from the current owners (cheaper, so easier to get a prospective owner lined up). 

barfo


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> The primary thing that Stern and the NBA should be worried about is keeping the Blazers out of bankruptcy.


Why? I suppose it tarnishes the NBA brand, but on the other hand, that means the league could
sell an expansion franchise to a new set of owners, and keep the money (whereas if Paul sells the team, he keeps the purchase price). Maybe this is all an evil plot by Stern to force the Blazers into (Chap 7) bankruptcy. At least that's what the voices the voices the voices from those lights in the sky are telling me.

barfo


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

After reading various viewpoints from the different sides, I get more of the feeling the NBA made a token political effort to contact the current owners of the Rose Garden and made no serious offers, basically just to save face with the fans. Well guess what NBA. That makes me even more :curse: :curse: :curse: :curse: :curse: 

In case they haven't been paying attention, a few of us watched the Jerk about 30 years ago, and we know the difference between crap and shinola. (Note in the Jerk, they did not call it crap.) :biggrin:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

barfo said:


> Why? I suppose it tarnishes the NBA brand, but on the other hand, that means the league could
> sell an expansion franchise to a new set of owners, and keep the money (whereas if Paul sells the team, he keeps the purchase price). Maybe this is all an evil plot by Stern to force the Blazers into (Chap 7) bankruptcy. At least that's what the voices the voices the voices from those lights in the sky are telling me.
> 
> barfo


it opens up pandoras box. What would then be the rationale behind the league saying no to the Sonics moving, or the Kings moving? 

or teams closing shop?

Does the league honestly want to be the first major league sports team to have a team fold in many decades?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

barfo said:


> Why? I suppose it tarnishes the NBA brand, but on the other hand, that means the league could
> sell an expansion franchise to a new set of owners, and keep the money (whereas if Paul sells the team, he keeps the purchase price). Maybe this is all an evil plot by Stern to force the Blazers into (Chap 7) bankruptcy. At least that's what the voices the voices the voices from those lights in the sky are telling me.


I can't imagine how badly the league's image would be tarnished and how much the values of the teams around the NBA would be hurt if a team declared bankruptcy.

Right now, there has to be an aura of invincibility about the NBA, NFL, and MLB teams that gives purchasers of pro teams the sense that, in spite of the losses that so many teams endure on a yearly basis, their investment would be a reasonable one. Once that bubble gets burst, I think that owners in the NBA (or whichever league it is) will see their teams suddenly take a hit in value.

Ed O.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Trying to look deeper into this......

What motivation or benefit is there in the NBA making its statement yesterday??

Could the bond holders (BH) possibly want to purchase the team themselves? In essense, their cooperation level is trying to force PA to sell to them?

What's in this for the BH? They want their money with all interest promised in the original contract. They might even want more for their troubles related to the OAC bankruptcy. And, they might want to own the team. No one is on record saying so or not so.

What's in this for the NBA? They want to keep the 30th team (and a successful team until late) in the league. They also want to help guide the process to a reasonable conclusion (i.e. New owner, new location, or both). They want to avoid a team going bankrupt or folding.

What's in this for PA? He/they want to undo their giving up the OAC in bankruptcy. They are losing money they used to earn from ticket sales, concessions, suites. They want a deal that can make them more money - even in bad attendence times like this. They want a lower interest rate on the money they owe. They are trying to limit their losses financially.

Anyone know how much money each team gets for the NBA TV contract? This Trail Blazers budget would be an interesting one to view. I wonder how much they make besides tickets, suites, etc. Anyone know the average ticket price? We know that about 10K-15K still come to the games. 

Sorry for rambling on...................................................................................................


----------



## chevelle (Feb 8, 2004)

If the Blazers have the worst lease in basketball, then the Oregon Arena Corporation has the best right now. Really, why would they negotiate? They earn all the money off the big money makers for the arena and right now they are making nothing but tons of profit off their investment. 

I don't like the fact that they are being greedy, but I honestly don't think they will ever sell their portion of the Rose Garden. Vulcan screwed things up big time!


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Merchandise alone (the dept I worked) would routinely make over 100k at medium sized concerts. Add food, parking, booze (huge $ maker) and ticket revenue.


While I don't question your numbers, I wonder about the accumulated effect. How many non-Blazer events are there at the RG every year compared to Blazer games? Wouldn't the amount of Blazer games combined bring in more money than other events?

And can a monster truck rally show really bring in 500K?


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

OK - I feel better about this whole thing.

Both parties have been discussing a sale. It's the amount that hasn't been agreed to. Portland Arena Management (PAM) wants around $180M for the Facility. The prospective buyer has been hinted at being willing to pay around $300M.

SO - it comes down to how badly does PA want out of ownership. He could have a deal today if he only takes $120M for the team. That's better than losing $100M per year.

This is negotiations at its finest. I predict we'll have a new owner for our PORTLAND Trail Blazers before the draft.

We'll just have to hope they don't want to move the team AND that they can right the ship quicker than this management team.

James Brown------"I feel good!" "Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah!"


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

i thought they couldnt move our team for another 19 years??? 
or , are all bets off?


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Be careful what some of you (apparently) wish for.....

New ownership doesn't necessarily mean greener pastures for the Blazers, nor does it mean the team will stay in POR....

Allen has not been the perfect owner, but he has not been as awful as the local media and some people here make him out to be.....

My only concern in regards to all this haggling going on b\t PA and PAM is that the team stays in POR....to think of this team moving to another city, as a long time Blazer fan & ticket holder is depressing.....

I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that..but if their IS a new owner, all bets are off...and to those of you who think the lease the team has with the RG will keep the team here, such agreements can be broken.....


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

My personal feeling is that if the local government does not step in and make concessions to the Blazers the team *will fold/move*.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

you would love that wouldnt you tlong


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Utherhimo said:


> you would love that wouldnt you tlong


Of course not.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Utherhimo said:


> you would love that wouldnt you tlong


Why would you post this? Not only is it taking a personal shot at tlong, but it's taking a shot that is laughingly off-base.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Why would you post this? Not only is it taking a personal shot at tlong, but it's taking a shot that is laughingly off-base.
> 
> Ed O.



Utherhimo,

While you are pondering this question please give me some more rep points. Thank you.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

never

considering some posters only have negetive things to post about the team what would give them more ammo than the team folding or moving away from portland?


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> never
> 
> considering some posters only have negetive things to post about the team what would give them more ammo than the team folding or moving away from portland?


People who don't care about the team wouldn't even care enough to post on this board for any length of time. I disagree with tlong a lot and often feel he intentionally gets under some peoples skin, but I do not doubt that he is a Blazer fan.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Utherhimo said:


> never
> 
> considering some posters only have negetive things to post about the team what would give them more ammo than the team folding or moving away from portland?



I only have negative things to say about them currently, because just about everything they have done over the past 2-3 years has been stupid imo. I definitely do not want them to fold or leave. I would be willing to wager that I have been to many more Blazer games than you have.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

he thinks i am speaking about you but many of the people that are negetive about the team


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

chevelle said:


> If the Blazers have the worst lease in basketball, then the Oregon Arena Corporation has the best right now. Really, why would they negotiate? They earn all the money off the big money makers for the arena and right now they are making nothing but tons of profit off their investment.
> 
> I don't like the fact that they are being greedy, but I honestly don't think they will ever sell their portion of the Rose Garden. Vulcan screwed things up big time!


Ya, I don't like them not being willing to compromise either, but if it was me and I was making money I'd probably not want to compromise either.

Btw, I seen on local news today that they are making money just off of other teams and other events. Don't know if it's true or not.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

The letter Stern sent to the #$&! who own the arena.

http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/p...ybooksandprofits/archives/2006_03.html#126592


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> The letter Stern sent to the #$&! who own the arena.
> 
> http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/p...ybooksandprofits/archives/2006_03.html#126592


hm..so basically uncle paul is uncle gone...

oh well. Hopefully whatever will come of this, will happen asap, and it will be positive.

please.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> didn't the city make the money from parking, and not the RG?


West and east garage yes...Garden garage and VIP garage under old Cucina Cucina no.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> West and east garage yes...Garden garage and VIP garage under old Cucina Cucina no.


The city has made big bucks off those garages. They have paid off the original loans they took out to build them, and have since refinanced to get more $$$. Some of the money made from those garages has gone to help with the financial mess over at PGE Park.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> The city has made big bucks off those garages. They have paid off the original loans they took out to build them, and have since refinanced to get more $$$. Some of the money made from those garages has gone to help with the financial mess over at PGE Park.


Yes they made a tidy little sum...a little under a half million a year I believe.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> The letter Stern sent to the #$&! who own the arena.
> 
> http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/p...ybooksandprofits/archives/2006_03.html#126592


Wow! That's vastly better information than anything we've had before. And, even if you take PAM's side and assume that Stern was vague and didn't present a definite proposal, we now know better where everyone stands. Biggest remaining questions are:

1) Who is the proposed new ownership group?

2) What is PAMs motivation for turning down the deal? Is it that...
a) They are just negotiating for a better price;
b) They want to buy the blazers themselves;
c) They are too bureaucratic, with too many stakeholders, to actually make a quick decision;
d) They actually think the Blazers are irrelevant to their bottom line.

barfo


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

barfo said:


> Wow! That's vastly better information than anything we've had before. And, even if you take PAM's side and assume that Stern was vague and didn't present a definite proposal, we now know better where everyone stands. Biggest remaining questions are:
> 
> 1) Who is the proposed new ownership group?
> 
> ...


A combo of "a" and "d" IMO. Meaning the Blazer are not important enough to their bottom line that they are in any hurry, so why not wait for a better price to come along.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

2(c) would be my first guess (too bureaucratic).

If so, 2(b) would really suck (they want to buy the Blazers).

Although 2(a) is highly probable. They are in the business of maximizing their profits, after all. And they probably believe they are much more savvy at high-stakes business dealings than Paul Allen.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

barfo said:


> Wow! That's vastly better information than anything we've had before. And, even if you take PAM's side and assume that Stern was vague and didn't present a definite proposal, we now know better where everyone stands. Biggest remaining questions are:
> 
> 1) Who is the proposed new ownership group?
> 
> ...


Ive heard some fans think that this is some kind of proof that the team is going to move. But that got me thinking.

IF the Paul/NBA was trying to move the team, why would he be trying to sell the team (and hopefully tag the arena with it) to a new buyer?

Why, if the new owner is just going to move the team, wouldn't they then just pay the penalty to the city (it could be settled somehow I bet)? Wouldn't you think it'd be less than 150 million that is "on the table" for the arena?

Why would Paul, if he's wanting to move the team, offer to sell it to someone (along with the arena) instead of just paying the penalty himself and trying in court to prove that the RG situation is unfixable no matter what? 

I know that some could say that is what he's doing now, but it seems to be a bit of a funny way to go about it. IF he agree'd to sell for 150 million, and the arena owners still want 180 million, isn't that taking a big risk that the people offering to buy the team wouldn't be able to come up with the extra 30 million? 

I realize there are more issues I'm not addressing, but it seems to be a little out of touch with how things "are going" for the next logical step to be him moving the team. Besides the lawsuits that would follow, who's to say that the owner group that did make the offer, wouldn't just up their offer to more than what the situation is calling for now, and some court wouldn't just make it worth is while to sell?

The NBA really can't have a black eye of this magnitude. The Grizz moving? not so bad. The Hornets moving? not as bad. But a team thats one of the more winnnig franchise, and at one time one of the model franchises moving for (basically) 30 million dollars of difference?

That'd look bad, and the league knows what kind of PR nightmare that'd be. Hello Seattle and Sacramento using this as a reason to move their teams. And who knows who else would then want to move out of their current cities.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ya, you'd think if someone bought both the Blazers and the RQ they'd be keeping the Blazers here. But who knows, if they made enough without the Blazers being here they might move them to another city hoping they'd make more money there and still keep the RQ if it's profitable.


----------



## Redbeard (Sep 11, 2005)

How about this:
I am not sure exactly where all the numbers came from that some of you provided, but say the price to break the lease is $150 mil. Allen expects to lose $100 mil in three years anyway. How about taking the bite, canceling the lease, then signing a contract with the city to play in Glass Palace.
The City could still profit from the garages. PAM could bring in an NHL team. Allen can restructure the ticket sales and get a larger profit.

Yes, it seems backwards, but would it work?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

mgb said:


> Ya, you'd think if someone bought both the Blazers and the RQ they'd be keeping the Blazers here.


Yes, and conversely, if someone buys the Blazers w/o buying the RG, then they'd likely be planning to move. 

barfo


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> Ive heard some fans think that this is some kind of proof that the team is going to move. But that got me thinking.
> 
> IF the Paul/NBA was trying to move the team, why would he be trying to sell the team (and hopefully tag the arena with it) to a new buyer?


It's possible that Paul Allen is taking reasonable steps to live up to his contract. I'm not a contract attorney and I don't know much about bankruptcy, but I would think that one way to escape an onerous contract would be to say, "I tried to make the other party as whole as I could."

I'm not sure that's the case, but I think it's a possibility.

Ed O.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Well it matters little to me now after hearing about the deals Paul has vetoed over the last year, I just hope he sells the team. I think the NBA only made an appearance to try to broker the deal in order to save political face, as from what I have read, they never ever made a real offer to the management group of the Rose Garden for a purchase. That being said, if they were serious, they would have made a real offer. So that tells me that the NBA is most likely going to try to pull an Oakland Raiders on us and bail town.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Reading Stern's letter to PAM, it certainly appears as if the NBA gave, if not a complete, then at least some solid parameters for an agreement...or at least a more serious discussion....and when Stern checked back w\ them, PAM had done very little....I fail to see how that is the NBA's fault.....

I think this is the typical b.s. that banks and financial groups pull....they don't care about the impact such things have on a community, all they care about is the money.... and I seriously doubt PAM would feel any remorse about causing the Blazers to fold\move.......


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

> I think this is the typical b.s. that banks and financial groups pull....they don't care about the impact such things have on a community, all they care about is the money


If those financial institutions were the caretaker of my pension you bet I want them caring about the money. Would you want your retirement funds used to bail out an irresponsible billionaire?

Conversely, Allen created the mess and he should bite the bullet and clean it up....He tried to play hardball and lost. Really, Allen should suck it up and write a check and just buy the arena back. Lets say it would cost $180 million....if he's worth $22 billion, that's less than 0.9% of his money. That would be like a couple thousand dollars to the average person. I just can't believe for that amount of money he wouldn't just want to save face.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I don't think they should bail out Allen either, but certainly they could come to some sort of compromise that satisfied their customers as well...and I don't have all of the information, but I thought I read that the bondholders have already made a good ROI for their customers....

I guess the point I was making was that Stern asked them for a figure and they gave him one ($180 mil, I think), and prefaced it by saying that that number could be "refined"....and when Stern contacted then again several weeks later, they apparently balked and said they needed to do some lengthy internal studies.....How is this being helpful to the situation?

I think Stern is correct when he mentioned the need to get this done before more big decisions need to be made...namely FA and the draft....and nobody is going to buy th team from Allen w\o the RG lease being changed as well....But like I said, the bottom line is the bank just doesn't care about what the loss of the Blazers would mean to the community, and that is what is most upsetting...the complete lack of civic responsibility of any kind...

Surely a compromise could be reached, and hopefully it will be, but so far it APPEARS that PAM is unwilling to even go that far....


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

NBAGOD said:


> Conversely, Allen created the mess and he should bite the bullet and clean it up....


Seems to me that's what he's trying to do. He's the one calling for change - PAM is the one saying they are happy with the current situation.



> Really, Allen should suck it up and write a check and just buy the arena back.


Why? It's his money, and he clearly doesn't want to spend it doing that. He wants out, not further in.

I think it is kind of amusing that on the one hand people slam Allen for throwing money away, and on the other hand people demand he throw more money away. 

barfo


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> I think it is kind of amusing that on the one hand people slam Allen for throwing money away, and on the other hand people demand he throw more money away.


I find it amusing that he wants us to help fund something that he (or his past management, whom he hired) messed up in the first place...


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah thats the sad thing its like he thinks we brought this about

notice how everything went into the can the moment vulcan got involved


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> I find it amusing that he wants us to help fund something that he (or his past management, whom he hired) messed up in the first place...


Us? Don't you live on the other side of the river? (Or am I remembering incorrectly?)
I don't think anyone has asked Vancouver to chip in.

Besides, who 'messed it up' isn't particularly relevant. The question is, who, if anyone, wants to pay for having a team here in the future. If no one does, including 'us', then there won't be a team. 

barfo


----------

