# Paul Allen says: NO SALE!!



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

1080 saying that right now


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Canzano's blog echoes what 1080 is saying:



> BREAKING NEWS: Paul Allen takes Blazers off block
> There will be an announcement and news release sometime late today which will indicated that Trail Blazers owner Paul Allen has decided to take the Blazers off the block, source at One Center Court says.
> 
> The team is no longer for sale.
> ...


I'll admit. I was one of the guys who said that Paul should sell the team. I thought he was done and completely disinterested. But the moves we've made this summer have given me the opposite impression, and I'm pretty stoked about this development. Now if he could only buy back the arena.

:banana: 

-Pop


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

He will grab the arena, give it some time.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

Great News to me! Paul will turn this franchise around, I just hope some way he can get his hands on the RG.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

I knew he woulden't sell. He was trying to swindle all of us into helping him into pay for the Blazers.
Thats how cheap he is. But I am happy he is the owner for his deep pockets. :banana:


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

BlazerFan22 said:


> I knew he woulden't sell. He was trying to swindle all of us into helping him into pay for the Blazers.
> Thats how cheap he is. But I am happy he is the owner for his deep pockets. :banana:


It has nothing to do with being cheap, Its called trying to get public support like most all other teams do. I dont blame him for trying, and am very happy he is staying Blazer's owner!


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Kudos to this board. Many of us were speculating this based on summer movement before this "official" announcement . . . great insght on this board.

Paul just bit the bullet, even if it means paying 10-20 million over what Vulcan think the RG is worth, it makes life more simple and you can start reeping the rewards when the Blazers start to win and fans start spending cash on the Blazers again . . . most millionaires per capita in the US (unverified).


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

I am rather surprised this announcement has been made without him purchasing the arena back. That being said, I actually expected it was more likely he would keep then sell, so I'm not suprised at that part. I wonder if they struck some sort of agreement, possibly either lowering the rates or agreeing to sell at a set price at a later date (though not sure I see the benefit of waiting).


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Foulzilla said:


> I am rather surprised this announcement has been made without him purchasing the arena back.


 Me too. Maybe it is for public perception. It would have looked bad if he threatened sale and then bought the RG back during the sale process (it would look like he is using the organization and fans emtions to get the best price). This way it looks like he decided to keep a team he couldn't part with and then will work something out with PAM. 

But I wouldn't be surprised if he locked PAM into a selling price before making this announcement. :biggrin:


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

My theory is that he looked at the bids that came in on the team today and said they all sucked and he'd rather keep the team than sell them low.


----------



## ThePrideOfClyde (Mar 28, 2006)

I know a bad poker face when I see one, and Paul Allen was wearing one all season long. I didn't believe he was selling the team for a minute and my post history can prove it.


----------



## TallBottom (May 24, 2006)

I hope what this means (and what this summer's movements have meant) is that Allen is interested in his team again. This board shows the community is interested again.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Absolute wonderful news. Assuming PA holds an over the top press conference that has become the norm over at one center court saying he is keeping the team in the Rose City, ticket sales should increase slightly.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm happy Allen's not selling. He's the one competitive advantage the Blazers have.

I'd feel better about the Blazers staying in Portland, though, if he had repurchased the Rose Garden. The Sonics' probable move still makes me a bit nervous on that front.

Ed O.


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> most millionaires per capita in the US (unverified).


That was true in the 1910s. Not true today.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> I'm happy Allen's not selling. He's the one competitive advantage the Blazers have.
> 
> I'd feel better about the Blazers staying in Portland, though, if he had repurchased the Rose Garden. The Sonics' probable move still makes me a bit nervous on that front.
> 
> Ed O.


Exactly. Frankly, I think the biggest concern about this turn of events is that Paul Allen may simply have decided to keep things under his control while the fate of the Sonics is sorted out. Unless there's some effort made to re-buy the Rose Garden, I view this as a negative towards the long term prospects of the Blazers staying in Portland. 

Let's hope that Seattle voters decide they want to keep the Sonics in town.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

For a great examply of why it's so nice to have Paul Allen as owner, just look at the Suns. They are poised to be a really great team, and yet they seem more worried about staying out of the luxury tax than they are interested in getting to the next level. If Allen had the players Phoenix does, you just know he'd pay what it takes to fill out the roster. 

I'm glad he's staying on as owner. The people who slam him for being the owner during the Whitsitt years need to remember he was the owner during the Drexler years as well.


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

My opinion has always been that Paul Allen never wanted to sell the team... Vulcan wanted to explore all available business options though.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

mook said:


> For a great examply of why it's so nice to have Paul Allen as owner, just look at the Suns. They are poised to be a really great team, and yet they seem more worried about staying out of the luxury tax than they are interested in getting to the next level. If Allen had the players Phoenix does, you just know he'd pay what it takes to fill out the roster.


Yeah, watching PHX is pretty sad... they got so close to greatness season before last. I think dealing away Richardson and JJohnson was a mistake, and if they're truly looking to deal Marion, that's an even bigger mistake.

Diaw and Bell are nice players, but I think they took a lot out of their attack when they lost them. This nonsense of selling draft picks for cash isn't helping them either.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Ed O said:


> I'm happy Allen's not selling. He's the one competitive advantage the Blazers have.
> 
> I'd feel better about the Blazers staying in Portland, though, if he had repurchased the Rose Garden. The Sonics' probable move still makes me a bit nervous on that front.
> 
> Ed O.



If PA's ultimate goal is to have an NBA team in Seattle, wouldn't it have been easier for him to sell the Blazers and buy the Sonics?

I too am fearful of Allen moving the team, but given all the legal complications, it seems to me there were easier routes than the ugly legal battles he is likely to get involved in by trying to move the team.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I wonder if he's decided this based off of all the exciting moves we were able to pull off so far this offseason... or if he always intended to keep the team.

Either way, I'm glad he's doing so and I hope he goes after the Rose Garden, too. All he needs to do now is grow the beard again.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Like you guys have mentioned, moving the Blazers will be costly and difficult. 

There are other franchises that will be in relo danger soon enough- Orlando, possibly New Orleans, and even possibly Charlotte at some point. Interesting events...


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Alright! I said from the get go he wasn't selling and am so happy I was right! To many things just didn't make sense. He never said he was selling, just that it was a option. WOOHOO!!


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2538649


----------



## Gunner (Sep 16, 2005)

mgb said:


> Alright! I said from the get go he wasn't selling and am so happy I was right! To many things just didn't make sense. He never said he was selling, just that it was a option. WOOHOO!!


Heading out for work and mgb just said all I have to say on the subject. Only enough time for 2 woots.
w00t w00t! Ok one more...w00t!!! :biggrin:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> If PA's ultimate goal is to have an NBA team in Seattle, wouldn't it have been easier for him to sell the Blazers and buy the Sonics?


Maybe. I doubt it, though. The Sonics sold for $350m, and I believe that the sale price for the Rose Garden AND Blazers was expected to be something over $300m.

So he'd be taking a potentially huge hit there.

The Sonics also have a terrible lease situation and the city has little interest (seemingly) in clearing it up. If Allen purchased the Sonics after selling the Blazers, it would be obvious he wouldn't have any interest in moving the team out of Seattle, so whatever leverage the new owners have would NOT have been present with Allen as owner.



> I too am fearful of Allen moving the team, but given all the legal complications, it seems to me there were easier routes than the ugly legal battles he is likely to get involved in by trying to move the team.


You might be right. I just think that it's possible he'll be able to get out from the personal guarantee somehow, and the recent efforts have just been due diligence working towards that end.

Ed O.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Keep in mind, that when Canzano says a "source at One Center Court", he is probably referring to someone who works for PAM/Global, not the Trail Blazers. PAM/Global offices are also located at "One Center Court" and they love the Trail Blazer bashing Canzano.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

It's not good news until there is a deal for the arena though... until that gets settled I won't celebrate. He could have just figured out a way to move the team and still own them right?


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

I dunno. I'd LIKE to be excited by the news. But I just don't trust the whole situation.

The thing that baffles me is that PA seemed to give up control of his kingdom to the Vulcanites and his sister. Apparently he was more interested in clearing the therons out than playing with his toys. Now suddenly he's pulled the team off the market? I can't imagine this move was made without the complete okay by his Vulcanite handlers and if that's the case I have to imagine they have something else in mind.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i thought the NFL didnt allow an owner to own an nba and nfl in the same city, since the nfl is the bigger money organization they have more pull. Glad Allen wont sell but get the RG deal done!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Utherhimo said:


> i thought the NFL didnt allow an owner to own an nba and nfl in the same city, since the nfl is the bigger money organization they have more pull. Glad Allen wont sell but get the RG deal done!


The NFL considers Portland and Seattle the same market, so he currently DOES own an NBA team and an NFL team in the same market.

Helen Jung wrote that in her blog the day of, or the day after, the Sonics were sold.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Vulcan's statement (from Jung's blog):



> Vulcan and Portland Arena Management LLC (PAM) agreed to work together
> on a process to examine ways to maximize value for their respective
> operations. Unfortunately, we were not able to identify a mutually
> agreeable solution through this process.
> ...


What is the single most (potentially) interesting word left out of that statement?

I've got an opinion on that, and the word starts with the letter "P".

Edit: it DOES make an appearance, but only as part of PAM's name...

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Just for fun, let's compare PAM's statement with the Vulcan one I quoted above:



> In June, Portland Arena Management LLC (“PAM”) and Paul Allen began a process to jointly market the Trail Blazers and the Rose Garden arena. An investment banking firm acting on behalf of Mr. Allen and PAM and in cooperation with the NBA identified potential buyers and solicited offers. As a result of the process, multiple bids were received, a number of which were in a range which PAM found acceptable, and PAM confirmed that it wanted the sale process to continue to pursue negotiations with certain of the bidders. However, Mr. Allen has advised PAM that he does not wish to pursue a sale of the team at this time, and the sale process has been terminated. PAM intends to continue to operate the Rose Garden for the benefit of the City of Portland and the fans of the Trail Blazers, the WinterHawks and the LumberJax and to bring more family shows, concerts and other entertainment opportunities for the Portland community.


The two statements don't seem to indicate Allen won't sell... just that he doesn't want to sell for the offers received, and more specifically not for the offers received with PAM as a package partner.

Hmm...

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I'm happy Allen's not selling. He's the one competitive advantage the Blazers have.
> 
> I'd feel better about the Blazers staying in Portland, though, if he had repurchased the Rose Garden. The Sonics' probable move still makes me a bit nervous on that front.
> 
> Ed O.


I agree with this. I think Allen will move the team to Seattle within the next 2 years.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Just for fun, let's compare PAM's statement with the Vulcan one I quoted above:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He could have just said those are not acceptable lets continue to check for buyers if the only reason was the price. Unless he does have someone that just wants to buy the team and could make more money that way. So yes that could be the case. But I think he plans on buying the RQ back now that they've agreed on what the market value is. Of course PAM may not agree but I think there will be another announcement soon to that affect.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Boy, we're a paranoid bunch, aren't we?

First of all, I've not heard a viable opinion that says the Blazers could easily get out of the 25-year lease they signed with the City of Portland.

Secondly, Paul would have the same, if not worse problems in Seattle that he has in Portland. Bad deal with the arena owners where the team doesn't collect much money from the suites or other luxury seats. Not to mention, he'd be playing in a much more antiquated arena than the Rose Garden. One that requires a significant investment to upgrade. Either that, or he'd have to build another arena. Not exactly a short-term development.

Third, the NBA has to agree to allow an owner to relocate a team. I don't think David Stern wants his league to appear to be a place where teams can shift markets on a moment's notice. That doesn't give much confidence to sponsors, fans, potential team-buyers, players, etc.

My guess is Paul might use this "scare tactic" to his advantage to entice the current Rose Garden owners to sell at a lower price. If he's able to convince them they could have their largest tenant out at a moment's notice, they'd be much more willing to cut their losses and sell the building.

But the hurdles he'd have to jump over to move this team are not going to be easy - or cheap. He'd have been much better off selling the Blazers and buying the Sonics (or another team that would be easier to move).

-Pop


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

For Paul to move the franchise it would take:

1.) Relocation fee of $50 million
2.) New arena which would cost either him, the taxpayers, or a combination of the 2 in access of $350 million
3.) damages paid via settlement to the City of Portland that could cost as much as $700/800 million dollars.


Or, he could buy the RG for about $150 milion and continue on...


Looks like easy math to me.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Oil Can said:


> For Paul to move the franchise it would take:
> 
> 1.) Relocation fee of $50 million
> 2.) New arena which would cost either him, the taxpayers, or a combination of the 2 in access of $350 million
> ...


Apparently the mass paranoia hasn't affected all of us. Well put, Oil Can.

-Pop


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> Boy, we're a paranoid bunch, aren't we?
> 
> First of all, I've not heard a viable opinion that says the Blazers could easily get out of the 25-year lease they signed with the City of Portland.
> 
> ...


My understanding (it was put in posts a few months ago - I think by sa) is that the RG makes more money off of events other than Blazer games and that they do turn a profit anyways. So I don't think they are sweating a ton of bricks over PA's moves. That's why they haven't sold so far.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

You'd have to think that the folks who spent time and money putting together offers to but the team and the Rose Garden have to be more than a little ticked to have Paul Allen essentially say, "Thanks, but I was just kidding. The team's not really for sale, but I appreciate you helping me set a price to negotiate with PAM."


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Paying out close to a billion dollars to move the team 180 miles would not be the best start to fixing the infamous "Broken Economic Model".


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> The NFL considers Portland and Seattle the same market, so he currently DOES own an NBA team and an NFL team in the same market.
> 
> Helen Jung wrote that in her blog the day of, or the day after, the Sonics were sold.
> 
> Ed O.


I'm not so sure they consider Portland the 'same market.' Portland is in Seattle's territory, but that doesn't mean they're the same market.

Similarly, since they have no NFL team, Los Angeles would be in Oakland or San Francisco's territory...but certainly not the same market.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

I've doubted PA's resolve to sell the team for a while now. Glad it finally came out.

I also don't think he'll move the team. His gain through this is that PTB and PAM have understanding of a basic price for the arena. Now the ball is in PA/PTB court. He'll probably buy it back very soon.

The only advantage he has is in waiting for gaining a release from the lease to play at the RG. Then he could move freely. I don't expect it to happen.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

great ****ing news....now i dont have to worry about my hometown team leaving me...lol

on a serious note though this is really good news to all blazer fans including myself


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Oil Can said:


> Paying out close to a billion dollars to move the team 180 miles would not be the best start to fixing the infamous "Broken Economic Model".


You made the billion dollar figure up out of thin air. That's called a straw man. Nice work.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> I'm not so sure they consider Portland the 'same market.' Portland is in Seattle's territory, but that doesn't mean they're the same market.
> 
> Similarly, since they have no NFL team, Los Angeles would be in Oakland or San Francisco's territory...but certainly not the same market.


From Helen Jung's blog from July 20:



> I called the NFL to ask if they have any rule or regulation that would prevent Paul Allen from owning an NBA franchise in the same market (Seattle). And the answer? No. *In fact, in the NFL's eyes, Allen already DOES own an NFL franchise and an NBA franchise in the same market and is an example of what the league allows, said NFL communications director Brian McCarthy.* (The NBA does not prohibit ownership of another major-league franchise).
> 
> Yep. Seattle, Portland -- it's the same to them! Which of course are fighting words around here. But oh well, guess this answers any question about whether the NFL would ever consider sticking a team here.


(Emphasis added by me.)

Ed O.


----------



## Trailblazed&Confused (Jun 29, 2006)

I'm cautiously happy about this one. I'm really happy that the teams ownership is not up in the air anymore (at least for the moment), but I want to see PA's level of interest in the team and the RG before I get too excited. I love having an owner with deep pockets, but only as long as he is showing an interest in the team itself, not just the value of the team. I would rather have a Mark Cuban-like owner, who cares deeply about the team, but may not have as much money as PA, rather than a reserved business like owner who is complaining about the bottom line. I just want to see PA buy the RG back, bite the financial bullet getting the fans back, and keep a smart management team in charge who can keep us winning _some_ games without alienating the fans. It has been done before, it can be done again.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

I agree that this is basically, good news. I seriously doubt that the Blazers will move to Seattle for the reasons outlined above. It would cost Allen more to move the Blazers and deal with the Seattle political climate than it would to just adjust to what's happening in Portland. 

If Paul Allen knew a way out of that long-term lease, he would never have put the team up for sale. He was hoping one of two things would happen - a.) an ownership group would come along that would overpay for the team so he could feel good about losing money on the Blazers for years, or b.) that no team would show up but he'd generate some interest, and perhaps some political will, to get some kind of assistance on the arena. I think he's working on B as we speak. 

Incidentally, I think the fact that the team made some sound moves recently might have given him reason to keep the team. Let's not forget that Paul Allen owns the Blazers because he's a fan, it's not because it's a smart business move. The team got boring - even humiliating at times, to be associated with. Now, with a promising crop of young talent and a few veterans, the team's far from perfect, but it's looking a whole lot better than it did six months ago.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

I'm cautiously optimistic about this deal today. But this has been a rollercoaster ride so far, and it's not over yet. So I'm still holding onto the bar for dear life.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Oil Can said:


> For Paul to move the franchise it would take:
> 
> 1.) Relocation fee of $50 million


ok, that's $50 mil, assuming it doesn't get waived for some reason



> 2.) New arena which would cost either him, the taxpayers, or a combination of the 2 in access of $350 million


Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the taxpayers pick it up. So we are still at $50 mil.



> 3.) damages paid via settlement to the City of Portland that could cost as much as $700/800 million dollars.


Or, it could cost one trillion zillion dollars. Or zero dollars. Lets assume for the moment zero. We are
still at $50 million. Completely affordable for Paul, if that's the direction he's going.

barfo


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

barfo said:


> ok, that's $50 mil, assuming it doesn't get waived for some reason
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lots of assumptions in there. Lots of assumptions going the other way, too. For now, though, it's unclear until Paul makes his intentions public.


----------



## talman (Dec 31, 2002)

I think that one thing is absolutely clear. If Paul Allen's intention is to move the team then there will be a massive payout to the city of Portland. 

As far as the dollars involved, I'd imagine it would be extremely close to the present value of the cashflows lost for the city from twenty-something years left on the contract. The exact amount of what those lost revenues for the city would be is up to the lawyers to fight over. I could see it easily being in the hundreds of millions of dollars.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

talman said:


> I think that one thing is absolutely clear. If Paul Allen's intention is to move the team then there will be a massive payout to the city of Portland.
> 
> As far as the dollars involved, I'd imagine it would be extremely close to the present value of the cashflows lost for the city from twenty-something years left on the contract. The exact amount of what those lost revenues for the city would be is up to the lawyers to fight over. I could see it easily being in the hundreds of millions of dollars.


I don't think that's absolutely clear at all, unless you are saying you are a contract lawyer and you've read the contract. In which case, please let us know the details. Otherwise, I'd say it's absolutely speculation.

barfo


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

actually Paul T had liked the idea of an NFL team in Portland a couple years back but hey there is no stadium to house it (lame!)! we are the 23rd market in the US which is add at least 6 or more current nfl teams, its beyond lame that we dont have a stadium!


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Utherhimo said:


> actually Paul T had liked the idea of an NFL team in Portland a couple years back but hey there is no stadium to house it (lame!)! we are the 23rd market in the US which is add at least 6 or more current nfl teams, its beyond lame that we dont have a stadium!



I wouldn't mind seeing a team here, there would only be one game a week and it wouldn't break you for season tickets in the wallet or kill you with time spent at the stadium. I'd go to games if there was a team in town.

To bad Paul Allen already has a NFL team huh?


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Personally, I'm happy to have Allen remain as the owner and don't care too much how he resolves the situation with PAM- I trust it will work out in some way.

I wonder if he will hire Kiki now or if Pritchard has the leg up.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> Personally, I'm happy to have Allen remain as the owner and don't care too much how he resolves the situation with PAM- I trust it will work out in some way.
> 
> I wonder if he will hire Kiki now or if Pritchard has the leg up.


I think that Pritchard has won the job with this Summer, what more does this guy have to prove that he is the right guy for the job before the make him GM?


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

HOWIE said:


> I wouldn't mind seeing a team here, there would only be one game a week and it wouldn't break you for season tickets in the wallet or kill you with time spent at the stadium. I'd go to games if there was a team in town.
> 
> To bad Paul Allen already has a NFL team huh?


yes too bad why cant there be an owner investing in a team here? sucks! mlb mls nfl come on its time!


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Public Defender said:


> Incidentally, I think the fact that the team made some sound moves recently might have given him reason to keep the team. Let's not forget that Paul Allen owns the Blazers because he's a fan, it's not because it's a smart business move. The team got boring - even humiliating at times, to be associated with. Now, with a promising crop of young talent and a few veterans, the team's far from perfect, but it's looking a whole lot better than it did six months ago.


Great point. Put yourself in Paul's shoes for a minute. For a while he was the owner of one of the most maligned sports teams in America. What's it like for him to go to parties and have people say, "Man, your team is an embarassment."? 

I used to own an old Porsche 914 kinda like this one: 









I loved that car more than any vehicle I'll probably ever own. Funky looking and fun to drive. But when it kept breaking down and all my friends kept telling me, "What a piece of junk. Go buy a Honda.", I tended to start thinking about selling that car. No matter how much I loved it. But when, through some cosmic harmonic convergence, it started running well again I just couldn't imagine parting with it. 

Maybe Allen's just gone through something similar. The Porsche wasn't my sole source of transportation, just like the Blazers aren't his only income. Both are basically hobbies. When a hobby stops being fun, you tend to think about dumping it. When it starts looking fun again (and when all your friends stop laughing at you), maybe you change your mind.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Ed O said:


> You made the billion dollar figure up out of thin air. That's called a straw man. Nice work.
> 
> Ed O.



I forgot that with your 10,000 plus posts that you consider yourself the site sage here. My speculation carries no less weight than yours. You know what? You don't know either. As for making it up...no, this is educated guessing, much like you like to do, I would think you could recognize it.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

barfo said:


> ok, that's $50 mil, assuming it doesn't get waived for some reason
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes , quite logical. The NBA will not want money, so they will waive the fee. The taxpayers will gladly accept a $350 million dollar arena project, and Paul Allen will certainyl get out of a very tightly constructed agreement signed in his own hand to pay damages both economic and otherwise. 

How could I not have seen your logic before? Thanks! I clearly stand corrected now.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Oil Can said:


> I forgot that with your 10,000 plus posts that you consider yourself the site sage here. My speculation carries no less weight than yours. You know what? You don't know either. As for making it up...no, this is educated guessing, much like you like to do, I would think you could recognize it.


I'm not claiming to know whether the team will move or not. You seem to be claiming that the team will NOT move.

I'm not claiming to know the outcome of a complicated legal case, in spite of my legal education. You're not only claiming to know the outcome of the complicated legal case, but are putting rather specific dollar amounts to it.

You simply made up the amount and rounded it up to a billion dollars.

I would love to see where I do that kind of speculation.

Ed O.


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

mook said:


> I used to own an old Porsche 914 kinda like this one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Too bad it was worth less than a used Honda.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

barfo said:


> Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the taxpayers pick it up. So we are still at $50 mil.
> 
> barfo


 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

Oh, that's rich. Yeah, the Washington voters are just clamoring over financing another stadium project. Get real.

-Pop


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> Oh, that's rich. Yeah, the Washington voters are just clamoring over financing another stadium project. Get real.


We might be after we lose the Sonics.

In any event, it's just as likely as any new owner having the spend $350m of their own money on an arena, as the person barfo was responding to did.

Ed O.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Ed O said:


> We might be after we lose the Sonics.
> 
> In any event, it's just as likely as any new owner having the spend $350m of their own money on an arena, as the person barfo was responding to did.
> 
> Ed O.


Oil Can's point is still valid, despite the fact he used exaggeration to hammer it home. Paul Allen could have an NBA arena (Rose Garden) for significantly cheaper than he could in Seattle. It would likely cost around $100 million to buy back the RG. Assuming Washington voters decided that yes, they'd like to be generous, you could probably safely assume they'd tolerate financing half of the new arena, or $175 million. So that's $75 million down the hole, plus the $50 million to relocate the team, plus damages he'd have to pay to the city of Portland.

But I guess they never did convince Chicken Little the sky wasn't actually falling.

-Pop


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> Oil Can's point is still valid, despite the fact he used exaggeration to hammer it home. Paul Allen could have an NBA arena (Rose Garden) for significantly cheaper than he could in Seattle. It would likely cost around $100 million to buy back the RG. Assuming Washington voters decided that yes, they'd like to be generous, you could probably safely assume they'd tolerate financing half of the new arena, or $175 million. So that's $75 million down the hole, plus the $50 million to relocate the team, plus damages he'd have to pay to the city of Portland.


Again: you're just making up numbers. You're ASSUMING that damages would have to be paid to the city of Portland. You're ASSUMING that Washington wouldn't build a new arena.

Which is fine. It's your opinion. But it doesn't mean that you're right.

There are substantial benefits that Allen would clearly received if he were to relocate, irrespective of how much he spent to do so (and remember he's one of the richest men on the planet, so if he wants to move he'll be able to do so). Specifically, he gets to watch his team in his home town. He gets to place his team in a larger market that would be centrally located between two NBA-level cities that lack NBA teams (Portland and Vancouver, BC). And he wouldn't have to put up with the crap the Oregonian and so many fans have piled on him the last several years.



> But I guess they never did convince Chicken Little the sky wasn't actually falling.


Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you.

Ed O.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Again: you're just making up numbers. You're ASSUMING that damages would have to be paid to the city of Portland. You're ASSUMING that Washington wouldn't build a new arena.


Actually, my reading of his post was that he was assuming that the locals would pony up a reasonable sum. 



> There are substantial benefits that Allen would clearly received if he were to relocate, irrespective of how much he spent to do so (and remember he's one of the richest men on the planet, so if he wants to move he'll be able to do so). Specifically, he gets to watch his team in his home town. He gets to place his team in a larger market that would be centrally located between two NBA-level cities that lack NBA teams (Portland and Vancouver, BC). And he wouldn't have to put up with the crap the Oregonian and so many fans have piled on him the last several years.


True, Ed, but there problems. It's hard to imagine that Paul Allen could break the lease with no financial damage and it's hard to believe he could get Sonics' fans to immediately embrace the Blazers. The costs are completely up in the air - but it's hard to imagine a scenario where it's a better short-term financial option to move the team. Maybe I'm just not being imaginative enough...

Honestly, I think Paul Allen now recognizes that he has a stronger bargaining position, with the possible vacancy in Seattle. He can tell the city, PAM, and the gubernatorial candidates in Oregon, for that matter, that he's going to move his team in 2010 if the Sonics move, unless he gets a better deal. It's what head coaches and players do all the time - sniff around another city, see if the grass is greener, and then come back again, all the richer.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Again: you're just making up numbers. You're ASSUMING that damages would have to be paid to the city of Portland. You're ASSUMING that Washington wouldn't build a new arena.
> 
> Which is fine. It's your opinion. But it doesn't mean that you're right.


Fair enough, although the naysayers are also ASSUMING that damages wouldn't have to be paid to the city of Portland (despite the legal opinions of attorneys for the city of Portland as well as attorneys who don't work for the city of Portland). They're ASSUMING that Washington voters would be OK with spending tax dollars on a new arena (despite polls done by the Puget Sound Business Journal, the Seattle Times, the P-I, KOMO-TV and KING5 that suggest there isn't an appetite to provide public money to rescue the Sonics or to get another team should the Sonics leave). While you are correct, I am assuming a couple things, I believe my assumptions have more substance behind them than paranoia or a "gut feeling."



> There are substantial benefits that Allen would clearly received if he were to relocate, irrespective of how much he spent to do so (and remember he's one of the richest men on the planet, so if he wants to move he'll be able to do so). Specifically, he gets to watch his team in his home town. He gets to place his team in a larger market that would be centrally located between two NBA-level cities that lack NBA teams (Portland and Vancouver, BC). And he wouldn't have to put up with the crap the Oregonian and so many fans have piled on him the last several years.


You're assuming that Seattle is a better NBA market than Portland is, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. Seattle has the Mariners, the Sonics, the Seahawks, and the Huskies on their sports radar. And quite frequently, the Sonics are #4 on that list. Portland pretty much has the Blazers, and that's it. Sure, college football is big here, but both of those teams are 60 or 90 miles away. Portland has routinely supported the NBA at a feverish pitch until recent developments, and that'll return with the moves this franchise is making and the direction it's going. Seattle will never have that same connection with their NBA team, because they have so many other options.

-Pop


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Ed O said:


> I'm not claiming to know whether the team will move or not. You seem to be claiming that the team will NOT move.
> 
> I'm not claiming to know the outcome of a complicated legal case, in spite of my legal education. You're not only claiming to know the outcome of the complicated legal case, but are putting rather specific dollar amounts to it.
> 
> ...


I claim nothing. I speculate. I made up nothing. I have read what I have posted in industry publications and newspapers.No offense, but I will take the sports knowledge of Eggers, Jaynes and Canzano over yours. 

So, you do no speculation on this site? You haven't stated how many points player X will average this year? You have not speculated how many wins the Blazers might end up with this year? If you really want me to look, I imagine, somewhere in your vast library of postings, you have speculated. 

Very happy for your education. Thanks for the information. I too hold advanced degrees, and you know what? It holds no bearing to this conversation.

At the end of the day, I don't know if they will relocate or not. Just like you. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but this is a sports forum where opinions are shared. I thought that opinion and speculation was inherent logic in these threads if they did not contain links. I will be more careful in the future to clearly indicate an opinion as to not confuse.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Oil Can said:


> I claim nothing. I speculate. I made up nothing. I have read what I have posted in industry publications and newspapers.No offense, but I will take the sports knowledge of Eggers, Jaynes and Canzano over yours.


If you're taking the sports knowledge of Jaynes and Canzano, brother you have hit rock bottom.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

yakbladder said:


> If you're taking the sports knowledge of Jaynes and Canzano, brother you have hit rock bottom.



An ounce of truth, but they are connected. I know that their opinions can be biased. Stil, they know people that know people. 

...besides, I didn't state I took it outright, just over Ed O :cheers:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Oil Can said:


> ...besides, I didn't state I took it outright, just over Ed O :cheers:


I'm fascinated to know what "sports knowledge" has to do with contract law and how iron-clad the lease is.

Ed O.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Ed O said:


> I'm fascinated to know what "sports knowledge" has to do with contract law and how iron-clad the lease is.
> 
> Ed O.


Well, in my [DISCLAIMER for Ed O]speculation/opinion[/DISCLAIMER for Ed O] the "sports knowledge and familiarity of the individuals I have named far outweighs yours. I have seen no posts from you to convince me of the contrary as of this time. 

Since the people that I have named are more connected to the inner workings of the organizations involved, have seen the lease, and taken it to lawyers for review, and presumably have more inside sources within the Blazers, and NBA offices than you, I [DISCLAIMER for Ed O]think/speculate/opine [/DISCLAIMER for Ed O] that their opinion carries more validity than the jedi master of an internet posting board.

At the end of the day, as I have mentioned before, your opinion is no more or less valid than mine or any of the other posters on this forum.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Deleted. Not worth arguing.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Deleted. Not worth arguing.



Finally, agreeance.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Oil Can said:


> At the end of the day, as I have mentioned before, your opinion is no more or less valid than mine or any of the other posters on this forum.


This statement defies all reason.

Maybe you mean to say everyone is just as free to post their opinions as any other. That is a true statement.

Maybe you mean something on the order of "on the internet no one has any true credibility". 

However, just because you are unable to discern any differences betweens various posts by different posters, doesn't mean there is none.

In fact there is. The differences in validity border on the Grand Canyonesque.

And in case you missed it, as it is really quite old news, there have been many threads in the past regarding the Paul Allen lease with the City. Far more information, valuable source references, more complete quotes from the real players than all the Sports Columns that mention it combined.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

...


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Oil Can said:


> Very happy for your education. Thanks for the information. I too hold advanced degrees, and you know what? It holds no bearing to this conversation.


Actually, while your advanced degrees are (I gather) irrelevant to this topic (as are mine), Ed's law degree is actually relevant, in that this is a legal issue. 



> At the end of the day, I don't know if they will relocate or not. Just like you. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but this is a sports forum where opinions are shared. I thought that opinion and speculation was inherent logic in these threads if they did not contain links. I will be more careful in the future to clearly indicate an opinion as to not confuse.


Well, there is a grey area here. If I say Brian Skinner averaged 2.7 ppg last season, you will assume I'm attempting to state a fact (and you will correct me if I'm wrong, which I am, since I don't know what Skinner averaged). If I say Brian Skinner will average 23.9 ppg next season, then that's obviously an opinion, and an unrealistic one at that. But if I say the average cost of refueling the Blazer airplane is $9,500, it isn't clear whether I am stating that as opinion or fact. In this case, uninformed opinion. Jet fuel costs a lot, but I don't know how much. Your comment about the cost of breaking the agreement w/ Portland falls in to this category - it wasn't clear whether you were stating your opinion or claiming to have some knowledge.

barfo


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

mook said:


> Great point. Put yourself in Paul's shoes for a minute. For a while he was the owner of one of the most maligned sports teams in America. What's it like for him to go to parties and have people say, "Man, your team is an embarassment."?
> 
> I used to own an old Porsche 914 kinda like this one:
> 
> ...


That's an awesome analogy. Love it.

And maybe, just maybe, Patterson and Pritchard have been fighting tooth and nail to keep their jobs. Allen loses interest in his hobby and sells the team - they're gone. They rolled the dice on what - 7 trades since draft day? They've kept their "owner" interested and entertained and possibly in the process have kept their jobs. And the way out there speculation is Pritchard and Patterson could have kept the Blazers in Portland with what they've done this summer. If the Blazers truly are just a hobby for Allen, and he's really just a fan, then there's no way he could move the Blazers to Seattle. 

You're all Blazer fans.....could you move the team to Seattle?

I would think not.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

The Professional Fan said:


> And maybe, just maybe, Patterson and Pritchard have been fighting tooth and nail to keep their jobs. Allen loses interest in his hobby and sells the team - they're gone. They rolled the dice on what - 7 trades since draft day? They've kept their "owner" interested and entertained and possibly in the process have kept their jobs.


That makes perfect sense. If I were P or P, I'd want to keep my job, and I'd be trying to figure out - what does the bossman want? What will please him? And they may have found the answer.



> And the way out there speculation is Pritchard and Patterson could have kept the Blazers in Portland with what they've done this summer. If the Blazers truly are just a hobby for Allen, and he's really just a fan, then there's no way he could move the Blazers to Seattle.


But this doesn't make any sense at all. Why wouldn't he prefer his hobby to be located closer to his home?

barfo


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I'm a big Dallas Cowboy fan and would love to own them but I would never think of moving them out of Dallas, well surrounding area, because they would no longer be the Dallas Cowboys my fav team. So I think that is a legit point.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

mgb said:


> I'm a big Dallas Cowboy fan and would love to own them but I would never think of moving them out of Dallas, well surrounding area, because they would no longer be the Dallas Cowboys my fav team. So I think that is a legit point.



Little known fact about the Cowboys is that their first training camp was held in Forrest Grove in 1960. Remember, the Cowboys weren't the first team in Dallas, the texans were. Then they moved to KC, so really you should be a Chiefs fan.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Little known fact about the Cowboys is that their first training camp was held in Forrest Grove in 1960. Remember, the Cowboys weren't the first team in Dallas, the texans were. Then they moved to KC, so really you should be a Chiefs fan.


Not sure I follow you. I became a Cowboy fan in 71 so why should I be a Chiefs fan? Because some other team was there before? Doesn't make much sense to me. Dallas never relocated from another city.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

According to the editorial page of the Oregonian, blazer fans are up in arms about Paul not selling:


Oregonian said:


> S o Paul Allen has changed his mind about selling the Portland Trail Blazers franchise. Reaction among Blazer fans has ranged mostly from angry to very angry.


Oregonian editorial 

Really? I'm sure there are blazer fans who are pissed about it, but I doubt this is an accurate description of the fanbase.

barfo


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I wonder who the Oregonian polled and how many responses they recieved. Did they ask anyone on this board for their opinion or did they decide to ask Mark Wattles instead?


----------



## Gunner (Sep 16, 2005)

It sounds like they'v polled all Blazer fans. I DID miss a phone call yesterday. But how did they get my number? Is that an editorial "we" thats used," WE'V taken a tolerant view.etc blah blah.."? Since when has the Oregonian taken a "tolerant" view of anything having to do with the Blazers? Just another example of the muckrakers telling the less informed fans what they should think. 
*" Worse, Vulcan (Allen's investment firm) and the Blazers refuse to be transparent about what the owner intends to do, plunging the long-suffering fans into yet another round of uncertainty."* 
:sad: :boohoo: :verysad: 
The ********! More likely the concern is that the "long suffering" SnOregonian hacks are plunged into uncertainty regarding which direction they should take the next round of yellow journalism as the majority of the current roster are for the most part,thought unlikely to be involved in fights while leaving strip joints in the AM,violating the league drug policies,etc,etc.
Yeah,I'm sure theres been much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the tents of Oregonian,with each positive move made recently.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Masbee said:


> And in case you missed it, as it is really quite old news, there have been many threads in the past regarding the Paul Allen lease with the City. Far more information, valuable source references, more complete quotes from the real players than all the Sports Columns that mention it combined.


Yes. I am aware of the plethora of resources that you mentioned, and that I take over any Joe Lounge-chairs in the Blazer forum. 

Some postings and opinions might/might not have more validity, but at the end of the day, you guys are often posting opinions and speculations in these threads. I can discern when they are or are not. 

I didn't pull numbers out of the air. They stem from a conversation I had with a local writer. Again, he is WAY more connected than 98% of us. So his word holds more merit to me than Ed O's or Barfo's (love this name by the way). No offense meant by that. 

No worries and I am ready to move on to other topics.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Oil Can said:


> Yes. I am aware of the plethora of resources that you mentioned, and that I take over any Joe Lounge-chairs in the Blazer forum.
> 
> Some postings and opinions might/might not have more validity, but at the end of the day, you guys are often posting opinions and speculations in these threads. I can discern when they are or are not.
> 
> ...


Ah yes. The "he has the position so therefore he MUST be well qualified in all aspects of said position" theory.

You are doing a heck of a job Brownie.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Masbee said:


> Ah yes. The "he has the position so therefore he MUST be well qualified in all aspects of said position" theory.


Unsure what this means, but really, I am bored fighting for a position that has no importance to me. If it is in reference to a person that has done extensive research on the subject, has had lawyers review the contract, and spoken to people in Blazer, PAM and NBA camps, then yes, it holds more water to me than to you obviously. 



> You are doing a heck of a job Brownie.


Unsure what this means, but strongly speculate it has something to do with being new or a rube. I have been called worse. 

Lets move on to other discussion points shall we?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Oil Can said:


> Unsure what this means, but really, I am bored fighting for a position that has no importance to me. If it is in reference to a person that has done extensive research on the subject, has had lawyers review the contract, and spoken to people in Blazer, PAM and NBA camps, then yes, it holds more water to me than to you obviously.


So a "local writer" had a conversation with you (post #88). He or she has done "extensive research" on the subject. And had lawyers review the contract. 

Where's the story?

Why would someone do all that legwork and then not write something? 

Helen Jung seems to be the Oregonian writer that has been covering this the most and SHE hasn't come out with specific numbers, and she hasn't entirely discounted the possibility of the Blazers moving.



> Lets move on to other discussion points shall we?


Does this mean, "Let me have the last word and I'll stop responding"?

Ed O.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Ed O said:


> So a "local writer" had a conversation with you (post #88). He or she has done "extensive research" on the subject. And had lawyers review the contract.
> 
> Where's the story?
> 
> Why would someone do all that legwork and then not write something?


I cannot speak for that person. Maybe they are still doing research and are waiting to write a major piece. I can only SPECULATE. 




> Does this mean, "Let me have the last word and I'll stop responding"?
> 
> Ed O.


Judging from your ten thousand posts, I doubt a last word is possible with you. My perception of your post is that it is a snide little snip to actually bait me into continued posting. So, it worked. Going tit for tat with you would just get boring. 

I will tell you what, you go ahead and post, and I just won't review this thread anymore. You can have as many postings and last words and clever snips as you want. Go for it! you clearly have the time!


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Oil Can said:


> Unsure what this means, but strongly speculate it has something to do with being new or a rube. I have been called worse.
> 
> Lets move on to other discussion points shall we?


I haven't called you anything. It is not a comment directed at you. It is directed generically at those who have positions of power or authority or are considered experts in their field. It is a reminder, straight from the headlines, that to assume (in this specific instance as an example) that a reporter is a good investigator and analyst, just because they have a job as a reporter, is a mistake.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Oil Can said:


> I cannot speak for that person. Maybe they are still doing research and are waiting to write a major piece. I can only SPECULATE.


Fantastic. I am speculating that either you or the local writer you talked to are full of crap.



> Judging from your ten thousand posts, I doubt a last word is possible with you. My perception of your post is that it is a snide little snip to actually bait me into continued posting. So, it worked. Going tit for tat with you would just get boring.
> 
> I will tell you what, you go ahead and post, and I just won't review this thread anymore. You can have as many postings and last words and clever snips as you want. Go for it! you clearly have the time!


Ah, yes, the double whammy of "attack Ed O when you lack something substantive to write":

1. He has to have the last word, and
2. He has so many posts so he must have nothing but time

#1 is clearly erroneous, and it's insulting that you (or anyone) thinks it's the case. But, as Helmet sang: "I'd rather be insulted by you than someone I respect." I am NOT one who needs to get the last word in (check out the number of threads I participate in and look at the last poster in the thread; it's not me very often). I certainly am not one who says, "Let's move on!" and then continues to post in a thread. I really don't mind someone trying to get the last word, even when it's in a discussion with me, but when they have the chutzpah to encourage people to be quiet after they get THEIR say, that kinda bugs me.

#2 is irrelevant. I'm in front of a computer almost every waking hour of every day. I type fast and I have opinions on a lot of things on this board. It doesn't make me more correct than most posters (although I _am_ correct more often than most posters) and it certainly doesn't make me less correct than most other posters (when I'm incorrect, it's based on merits, and that happens often enough that I don't need my post number to augment that).

So there it is. But you're not reviewing this thread, I suppose.

Ed O.


----------

