Wweek.com - Portland Must Confront the Real Danger of Losing the Blazers

Silver purposely spoke about the franchises future in Portland being tied to a new arena as new arenas (funded by the taxpayers of course) make owners even more money, but thats just leveraging 101 in the modern era of sports franchises. Owners know they've a great thing going here and turning their backs on this money making market would be bad business. It makes a whole lot more sense to just add a new franchise in Seattle. This article is obviously just to push fans buttons and generate clicks as you stated

STOMP

 

I didn't say waive fees. Just fast track the process

I'm not sure the state takes any share of permit fees. That's the county/city. Maybe state for some electrical permitting

the state probably has DEQ impact responsibilities, especially if it's near the river

 

I was adding on to what you suggested.

I believe the Oregon Building Codes Division takes a percentage of local building permit fees, which the local jurisdictions forward to the state. I believe it's typically around 12 percent?

Although, perhaps if no fees are collected the state doesn't get anything?

 

EXACTLY! The Blazers will not move. It will not happen. Those that believe it will happen are the sky is falling wacko's.

 

I am not a wacko

 

It's only a matter of time. Wacko coming soon.

 

I just wonder how the Kings can stop a imminent move but the Blazers who have had 10 times the success and way better attendance over the years are all the sudden in this debate?
I also thought I heard Silver say the league is not interested in moving the Blazers. Are we just figuring he is lying at this point?
I also thought the Moda was in pretty decent shape and with a few renovations it would be in the top half of the current arenas.

 

I think the odds are greater than 50% that the Blazers stay in Portland. However, the city can't bury its head in the sand and not be proactive about it.

 

The Pelicans make sense..... I don't understand why Minnesota is doing so badly. They have a good team.

 

That's what WWeak does.

 

I'm just guessing, but maybe some of the teams at the bottom of the list dont own their arena so they don't get revenue from food and beverage sales etc.

 

you're right....the state assesses a surcharge on permits. But again, I wasn't thinking of waived permit fees. I was thinking of fast-tracking the permit process. But maybe even that's not feasible since there would be a massive amount of fire and health safety concerns for a new arena

 

Both the thunder and Pacers. Wow.

 

you're protesting too much...and I'm thinking a new owner might not view the situation like you do

for that listing to have any weight we'd need to see the same ranking for the 3 or 4 years before the Sonics moved. Was Seattle last in revenue or more middle of the pack?

 

https://www.portland.gov/mayor/keit...-governor-kotek-issue-joint-letter-supporting

I don't know if this is good or bad but it sure puts their asses on the line if we lose our team.

 

I remember that about 25 NBA teams were "losing money" back then, including Portland. Accounting 101 and all the associated tricks. Kind of funny how the revenue and profit projections always took big dives heading into new CBA negotiations with the Player's Union.

besides all that, you showed a graph where Portland ranked around 20th in revenue. You seemed to be assuming that a new owner would look at that and say to himself that 10 teams were worse. But I'm inclined to think he'd say "damn, 20 teams were better"