When this team Sells the owner will be looking at the asset that is the arena as being a huge part if the equation. I think whoever buys it will be looking to add NHL to the mix for Portland. Let's also consider that Vegas is also a smaller market than Portland.
40 million will go along way to house the homeless people. The blazers just visit and they can raise state taxes to recoup what the blazers bring every year
Nice! So the fix is in. Blazers to Las Vegas, London or Mexico City. I also hear San Diego is looking for a team. It's only $40 million and the Blazers are tired of being a small market loser team. I'm sure Dame is pulling the strings on this. Just think about all the S2 posters that complain about never getting a free agent to play for the Blazers being happy. Who needs Portland anyway in this day and age. Social Media has it all covered. Jennifer will be soooo Happy!
Amazing....people actually believe that the identity and desires of the buyer will have no impact on whether the team stays or goes. I'm done.
Whatever. I publicly swore off doing that, hadn't done it for MONTHS, then got asked to stop doing it. Either or can be done or it can't.
The new owner needs league approval and it gets voted on by the other league owners. From what Adam Silver said Paul was very involved in league meetings and well respected. I'd find it hard to believe they'd shit on his grave by allowing someone to just come in and yank a successful franchise.
But Grouch, There can be stips put into the sale of the contract, like dont move the team. And yes, I would expect a buyer to be pretty business savy and know he is buying a team with a great fan base. I would assume( I hate assumptions) that a new owner would know he is taking a real gamble in trying to move this city in hopes of a better situation. If there was a team in Seattle, I could see this more of a possibility, but with no NBA in the NW there is too much of a need here and tickets will sell. Why would a new owner want to give up a sure thing for a gamble on something else that has a peak of being pretty much what it already is? a sellout arena?
Did you know there was a clause like that in the Sonic's sale? The courts refused to enforce it. As a retired lawyer I can tell you point blank - when it comes to breach of contract, courts will stand on their heads to reject any penalty other than money damages. The OKC group admitted they always intended to move the team and that they didn't really try to keep the team in Seattle. Didn't matter. The court would neither cancel the sale nor order them to not move.
Hey meatheads who think the Blazers will move to Vegas. Vegas is seriously running out of water. They're pretty capped on the population their water system can support, just barely. And that population will struggle to support more than what they have now. The Raiders will survive because tons of vacationing NFL fans will fill that stadium on a regular basis. Look for at least a third of the stadium to be filled with opposing fans.
I see it as apples to oranges though. First, Seattle had two other major sports franchises to keep the population entertained. Second NBA was just 150 miles south in Portland so the northwest fans still had an option. Lastly, I firmly believe the league learned their lesson by that complete fiasco and will not allow something like that to happen again. Like @hoopshock has noted, the league and other owners must approve the move and most of the owners know how bad the move from Seattle to Oklahoma City went for the lead. It was mud in the face to the average fan
But the fact of the matter is the NBA wanted the team to stay in Seattle. Key Arena was an absolute shit hole. I went to the final Blazer game there and couldn't believe they allowed an NBA team to play in that arena. The NBA told Seattle (and Sacramento) that they wouldn't allow a move if they came up with a new arena. The Sonics didn't own Key Arena either. Even if the new owner intended to move all along they wouldn't have been able to if Seattle paid for it. Now, you can definitely say it's not worth it for a city to make it's citizens pay for an arena but that is a different argument. For Portland the new owner would own the arena and that arena is more than adequate for NBA standards, unlike in Seattle. It wouldn't be a great business decision to buy a team with an arena only to move them out of that arena. Having an NBA tenant in that building is far more valuable than using it for something else. It would be hard to sell that place without an NBA team. So the comparison between what happened in Seattle and Portland isn't really the same. Portland has an arena, Seattle didn't and weren't willing to come up with one. Plus there are no attendance issues in Portland like other places. I haven't seen you address why if an owner wanted to buy a franchise to move it they wouldn't go after New Orleans instead?
It's just your self-comforting dream to imagine that the NBA has an idealistic loyalty about keeping a team in the Northwest, just to maintain a presence in the Northwest. You should base your argument purely on profits or legal restrictions. This is capitalism, not morality.
Do you think a league would want to have most of their teams in the same areas or be spread out to capitalize on different regions?
