To be honest I thought you were trolling us. I didn't really think you believed it yourself. Sure potential TV rating are important which is why they wanted the team in Vancouver to succeed in the first place. They were pissed at Seattle for not building a new arena. But they still wanted them there. Why are they pissed at Portland? As for the SacTown situation - you expect me to believe there is a CA conspiracy? In Sacramento?
I haven't read through all of this yet but I will pose the question of what would be a viable relocation destination that financially makes sense for a new owner?
It's a multi-column strategy. First you say it can't happen. Then you say it shouldn't be happening except for <scapegoats> Then you say it happened and I predicted it all along barfo
Where to though? It's easy to say they will make more money but the reality is likely not true. Correct me if I am wrong but the team and stadium are a package deal. I doubt anyone would simply want to shell out another 600mill or so yo build a new stadium then the cost of relocating on top of that. How much more would they have to make per year to justified let's call it 3 quarters of a billion in additional expenses. What market justifies that?
Honestly, there are definitely viable locations - I couldn't rattle them off my head nor do I want to do the research... Here's what I'd ask: A) I'd be surprised if Paul Allen didn't stipulate the team had to stay in Portland, given he saved them from relocation once already. B) I'd be even more surprised if the league + owners BOTH agreed to sell to someone who wanted to move the team away from Portland, for different reasons, but getting a unanimous vote on this seems...unlikely, at best. C) Owners don't want more competition near them, so that eliminates a few cities, and it would be a TERRIBLE look for the NBA. What kind of precedent does that set? If your team owners dies, anyone can come in and buy the franchise and do whatever the f#ck they want? I doubt it. Complete disloyalty. D) It's not like the Blazers are in a poor location, have poor ratings/attendance, or anything else of that nature. As far as we know, they aren't operating at some massive lost. E) "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush" ^
Seattle, Tampa Bay and St Louis are the only 3 larger media markets without an NBA team. Now comes in the financial evaluation of can the team start over in one of those markets and make enough more money than what they currently do here. Keeping in mind that Portland is one of if not the fastest growing markets in the US and is of the perfect median age for sports.
Nathan Bishop has released a DNA test that provides “strong evidence’’ he had Paul Allen in his family tree dating back 6 to 10 generations, an unprecedented move by one of the top possible contenders for owner of the Portland Trail Blazers. Bishop, whose claims to Allen blood have been mocked by Slypokerdog and other Rip City Twoers, provided the test results to the Globe on Sunday in an effort to defuse questions about his ancestry that have persisted for years. He planned an elaborate rollout Monday of the results as he aimed for widespread attention. The analysis of Bishop’s DNA was done by Carlos D. Bustamante, a Stanford University professor and expert in the field who won a 2010 MacArthur fellowship, also known as a genius grant, for his work on tracking population migration via DNA analysis. He concluded that “the vast majority” of Bishop’s ancestry is Bishopian, but he added that “the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Paul Allen ancestor.”
Went through lists of high net worth individuals who might consider owning the Blazers, who are not super old: Not in any particular order: Jeff Bezos (Amazon) Howard Schultz (Starbux) Jensen Huang (Nvidia) ~Went to Oregon State
