Worst words ever. That said, I don't think teams move if the city has a decent stadium and a local owner willing to buy. The NBA made a pretty big statement today. Does this mean owners are looking for a new wave of LA-style centers of sports entertainment? The Sac arena somewhat falls in line with that. Makes you wonder if they're trying to put on the heat for new arenas. Build an arena, you keep the team. Don't build it, you lose the team.
TBH, I don't think this would bug me. I've been out of state for seven years now and have been to like 5 Blazers games in PDX in that period, and I'd still follow the team if they moved to SEA.
Ah thank you. You've answered some of my questions on the matter but I'm afraid "personal guarantee" is more elaborate for me. At least for me it should address the inconvenience of traffic, parking matters, and the like. Increased police patrol and the substitution effect are other issues off the top of my head, I bet local businesses are terrified. There's so much more unaccounted for. So for me personally I feel the term is misleading. And these are the people being forced to partake in the loan, it is all kind of disgusting to me. I think this is a fair assessment. Ah I see what you mean now, but opportunity cost is much more broad than that. It can refer to basically anything else one could have done with a loan, funding, or the time you're using up. It is a very deep term.
Okay I'm looking aand it's not there. Therefore, all your efforts lose all credibility. This is why you shouldn't replace rational arguments with dares.
No arena is full when a team is really bad. No matter how big the market is. But Sac always did when they were decent. Aren't they discussing building their 3rd arena already? There are a couple cities that don't support the team when they are good. Those should be the ones moved. (The ATL should be one under consideration IMO)
It goes back over 20 years. The Stern Propaganda Machine has always said that the pre-Stern league was in a Dark Ages because Portland and Seattle were champions instead of Boston and Los Angeles. The knight in shining armor restored the traditional capitals to their rightful sovereignty.
Hmm sorry this isn't debatable, all books have this specific term in them. At least in the Keynesian books issued by major universities, we all use similar authors. The author is a left-wing nut so it's not like he's on my side.
Man, I'd love to know what Hansen is thinking right now...a couple years of hard work setting it up and purchase docs all signed. Apparently, his hedge fund has had a couple rough months. No other cities/expansion available on the near horizon. Put it all together and I wonder if he's thinking about giving it up.
"Opportunity cost" is usually defined in the first few chapters, but you said "cost" is in the first few PARAGRAPHS, and "cost" isn't even in the first few chapters. And now...You edited "paragraphs" to "chapters" in Post #275 !! You have officially been caught weaseling out of your dare!!
Wrong, look at your post in 287 http://sportstwo.com/threads/231654-Sacramento-Seattle-Kings-Update?p=3008088&viewfull=1#post3008088 It was "chapters" all along. You need some rest dude, lol.
The Magic are really bad. In fact they had the worst record in the NBA this year. Yet they are exactly 15th in attendance. They are being supported.
One interesting thing, the NBA press release only talked about the relocation and not the purchase by Hansen. Seems like they would have said both the relocation and purchase by Hansen had been denied, if both were denied. That makes me wonder if the vote was somehow split. On the one hand, I'd be surprised if Hansen and Balmer would be rejected purely from a quality standpoint, but I also have a hard time believing that they'd have the Seattle guys take charge of a team stuck in Sacramento. Best guess is that they are trying to strong arm Hansen and Balmer (and the Maloofs) to terminate the deal in a friendly sort of way.
They said they were going to vote on relocation before voting on the sale of the team. So they probably haven't voted on the sale of the team yet. Reason being? Probably some of what you have laid out.
Mobes said something in Post #238. You responded with a non sequitur in Post #275, using the word paragraphs. I posted that your statement is false in Post #287. You realized the error in your dare, edited Post #275 (275's edit time proves it was edited between Posts 287 and 290), then said I'm wrong in Post #290. Live by the dare, die by the lie. Don't edit your dares.
Uh-huh, so explain to me how "chapters" got into your post 287? Let's be honest you've got jack. The 275 edit means I added content, your 287 post just proves the word was always there. Real desperate to hang onto this "dare", it isn't a big deal I just think it is funny you got caught.
Possibly. But the reason they combined the finance committee with the relocation committee was so that they could address both issues at the same time. Otherwise, they should have just had the relocation committee vote on its own. Also, the purchase agreement with Hansen is dangling out there until the NBA rejects it and I'd think they'd need to resolve that soon.
Wait a couple of years until the seaosn ticktes expire. If the team still sucks then the attendance will drop. Right now they are young and exciting. (Like Portland) But that only lasts for so long. With all the shit that has happened to the Kings fans the last two years why would they support those two fucking brothers? They will come back to support new ownership. They were great fans before.
