A lot of owners own these teams for personal reasons, they don't even make money off the whole ordeal.
I think the general train of thought is that we don't like to see franchises get uprooted and moved. You disappoint a fan base....even in a small market like Sacramento....one day, it could be Portland if they are horrible...it came around the rumor mills for a little bit....so its a victory for the "small guys" here. IF portland was in this spot in 10 years, then we'll view it the same way. WE DON'T APPROVE OF TEAMS GETTING TAKEN OUT OF CITIES WITH A LOYAL FAN BASE JUST BECAUSE A BIGGER CITY WILL HAVE MORE MONEY OR MORE FAME OR WHAT NOT. what gives Seattle the right to take the Kings away from Sacramento? Because OKC took the Sonics from Seattle? That's a weak argument. What then.....they have more money, and are a bigger market, therefore smaller teams should just give up their franchises to bigger cities? and you want the Blazers fanbase to support this because....... When Seattle was getting yanked by OKC, I don't know anyone here who supported it. It was maddening and sad. Its just a messy process to relocate franchises like that. get an expansion team...fine. but go and straight up yank a team that has a fan base and fuck them out of an NBA franchise? not something I'd be down with personally.
If their fan base sucks, it makes sense. Watching from the comfort of some nice home or bar is just fine to me.
Well yes and no on that account. Teams may not be making a much money off there team but unless your in the Tax they probably aren't losing much either. With how quickly teams values are raising every year the owners stake increases in value as well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbad...-lakers-top-list-of-nbas-most-valuable-teams/ Forbes estimates that the value of the avg NBA team went up by 30% last year. The heats Owner says he has lost money and will lose money again this year http://www.cnbc.com/id/48047319 but the value of his teams value has gone up in 5 years from 398m to 635m value from last year. A lot of owners are probably losing some on hand cash but their networths are most likely growing because of the constant growth of the NBA's value.
It doesn't matter, given a long enough period of time all firms earn zero profit. The Heat should probably move if they want to maximize their earnings as well. Moving can be justified in many instances.
Couldn't you argue that every team has a fanbase? Some are obviously bigger than others, but there will always be a contingent of fans supporting a team. I don't think I've ever seen a city that didn't support a team AT ALL. It's too bad the Hornets didn't move to OKC. New Orleans is a shitty NBA city.
They do when they sell? Hansen was sure working hard to up the valuation of every team in the league. And they still wouldn't let him join the club.
I don't think I've ever bad mouthed Sacramento or its fans -- that's never been my point and I don't feel that way. You on the other hand have been acting like Seattle and its fans got what they deserved and you're misguided about that. At most, I've pointed to Sacramento shortcomings as you've blasted Seattle, purely to make the point that your views about Seattle are incorrect. The only thing I've said Blazer fans should be in agreement about is that David Stern is an ass. Should we set up a poll on that? Finally, I haven't gone to your focus on the impact of small market teams, but let's play it out. No doubt yesterday was a victory for small market Sacramento, but what does it mean in terms of the big picture of being a small market team? Stern has sent the message that (a) refusal by a city to fund the entire amount of an arena is grounds for relocation (Seattle) and (b) if you fund an arena for roughly $300 million of a $450 million arena, then you keep your team (Sacramento.) How does that look good to Milwaukee? The answer is that the Hansen group is a useful threat/tool to the owners in those cities, but I don't think the people of Milwaukee are relieved to know that if they pay Stern his blood money then they get to keep the team. It's pretty much blackmail and small market cities are the victims, not the beneficiaries. It'll be interesting to see how the arena plays out in Sacramento, given the city is having budget problems (http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/08/5403258/sacramento-city-budget-deficit.html) More power to them if they pull it off as easily as they are portraying it, but I'll be surprised if they build it in the proposed location without big drama involved.
Perhaps I should have said it better. We may not require a brand new building, but they would probably demolish everything but the shell. The answer is that technology has come to sports arenas. You need to stay current with scoreboards, seating designs (to maximize revenue), advertising space, arena flexibility, etc. Owners also like shiny toys and they control the movement of the franchise.
One more thing about Stern, if you think he did it because he's in love with small market teams and concerned about fans, then you're deluding yourself. It was all about the arena message. Fund the arena, keep the team. Don't fund the arena, lose the team. Does anyone believe that Stern has a big heart about that sort of thing? He sure doesn't come across that way to me.
HCP, can you give your list of nice arenas and shit arenas? Also, what makes them nice or shitty? What do the players care about? You're likely the only one of us who has seen every single one.
I thought that was true until yesterday...I still can't believe the owners caused one of their own to sell their franchise at a $100 million discount. Guessing the other owners must pretty much hate the Maloofs because I don't think they're THAT concerned about fans in cities outside their own.
It was really Schultz that stuck it to Seattle. He knew what Bennett was going to do with the team. He was just pissed that he was told if he bought the team and played savior, he'd get the funding to build a new arena just like the Hawks and the Ms. Instead, he got fucked. Greg Nickels took pains to minimize the Supes' impact in the life of Seattleites. Schultz sold the team to Bennett out of spite. I don't blame him.
It IS interesting how Presidente's 10 year theory matches up well with the Blazers Rose Garden commitments winding down. I hope you're wrong.
Allen/Patton/Kolde are all Seattleites. Allen could sell to Hansen and Ballmer and put us in the position of building a $400MM arena or losing the team. Do you think something like that would pass a vote in Oregon? I think the view of Portland is that having one team in the PNW is good enough and we'll accept it without complaint. We support both the Seahawks and the Mariners (although I personally hate both teams). If the Blazers left PDX, I'd probably just stop watching the NBA.
If Seattle does not have a team in 10 years, I'd say your theory is probably more likely than not. PA can engineer the result he wants by ramping up/down both the expense of the new arena and his own contribution. Guessing your $400MM estimate could be on the low side if he truly wants the team in Seattle. The only X factor is how good the team is at that point. If the Blazers are good, then I think local support could overcome it. On the other hand, the likelihood goes way up if the team sucks around that time.
Can't assume that Paul Allen is around in 10 years either. His sister may have sold the team by then.
