I'm not even slightly worried about it happening. Edit: Mayyyybe someday when the Rose Garden is old and beaten down I'll start to worry about if the new owner will want to pay for a new arena out of his pocket but we'll cross that bridge if and when that ever happens.
The Rose Garden was finished in 1995. It figures to have about a 40 year lifespan before major upgrades need to be done. But i'm betting those will have to start at around 30 years if they want to stay out of shutting the arena down for a very long period. Doesn't really matter in this case i'm thinking. I personally figure we will have this answer soon enough.
Like I said, either way is not a priority to the league. Just profit. Geographical spread is just a subfunction of profits, not a controlling guide.
That's what Seattle thought. Less than 10 years into their new arena (also finished around 1995), the Sonics started publicly agitating for something new. In the last year or two, they let the arena go to pot, to pressure fans to back them. (I don't think the Blazers are leaving, but I'm straightening out the thinking of idealists who have hopeful non-financial reasons.)
Why assume its about morality or sentimentality? Im talking business and profit. The Nw has alot of money and hundreds of thousands nba fans. The nw market, as a whole, is just as big as any other market without a team, by a landslide. Where do you think an owner can move this team and have it be more profitable? Vegas? Only if they inflate the costs of all the expenses you aquire by attending a game. Come on. You really think there is such a profit gap to be made, that it would justify such a move? I dont buy it. You are a conspiracy theorist.
I said the reason for a move must be for profit or legal reasons, but now I've thought of other reasons. 1. The owner moves the team to where he lives. (Grizzlies to smaller Memphis, Sonics to smaller OKC, Blazers to Seattle if Jody moves them, Seahawks to L.A. till Paul Allen rescued them) 2. The banks financing a poorer owner require the city of least risk. (No examples that I know of, but I wonder if lenders [not minority owners] have forced moves in the past.) 3. Or the new owner breaks with NBA conventional wisdom and cashes in on a big-population city: 3a. The NBA quietly avoids cities not rich (cough, white) enough for the league's high ticket prices (St. Louis, Kansas City, Cincinnati) 3b. Other: big cities close to another NBA city, non-English language, or gambling (San Diego, Buffalo, Tampa, Columbus, Baltimore, Montreal, Mexican cities, Las Vegas) 3c. Edit: How could I forget Seattle and Vancouver. Edit #2: Come to think of it, the purpose of reasons 2 and 3 is to increase profit. Only reason 1 will cost the owner decreased profit. But reason 1 will increase his sense of control, so he feels it will increase his profit even in a smaller city. So like reasons 2 and 3, his motive is to increase profit, whether a move really will or not. So I have disproven that I was wrong, and proven that I should not have doubted my infallibility. What an error I made to think that I make errors.
1. The two NBA examples involved teams having cities with little fan support and/or stadium issues. Doesnt apply here, and the NBA has learned from past mistakes. 2. Now you're just making up random hypotheticals that would never play out. If banks financing a prospective owner require a team to be moved, the NBA wouldnt allow the sale. Also, that would be riskier than keeping the team in a city with a proven track record and base of supporters. Also also, post-sale, remaining on Portland means no fixed-costs of leasing a stadium. More fixed costs = more financial risk. 3. Many of these destinations have similar or smaller metro populations than Portland, and many of them have other major sports teams. When you combine that with the costs of relocating and leasing/building a stadium, itd be opposite of "cashing in". Seriously, some of those city suggestions were terrible. Vegas, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and Buffalo are all smaller cities and have other pro sports teams. St. Louis, San Diego, and Baltimore are off similar size and have other sports too. None of them have a track record of support. Columbus? Mexican cities? ... These are all terrible reasons, and while you think you "disproved your errors", you did the opposite.
Every objection you made was Hopeful Idealism, not in the form it should have been--"If an owner ever thought he'd increase his profit by doing X, he'd be wrong, for the following reason: Y." As I said, you guys need to wipe out your nonfinancial hope reasons and think like an owner, not like a hopeful fan. Also, you forgot to say "smh."
Answer the questions i asked you or shut the hell up. Lol. I asked you what place would... nevermind. Not repeating myself.... Smmfh.
I stopped reading after number two. Dude. The lowest risk would be to keep the team right where its at. Are you trolling again dammit!???!!!
Seattle arena was built in 1962 and they kept putting lipstick on it to try and bring it up to modern standards but it was inadequate for the NBA.
