Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million

On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 22:43:46 -0700, mmasw <jump DeleteThis @nolegs.com> wrote:


>>
>>They played pretty well tonight.
>>
>>Theo did great on Yao who has nbeen on a tear since the break.
>>With Theo the Blazers are 18-29 without 3-24
>
>yeah...I read that and saw the 2nd half of the game. Theo played tough
>and didn't get injured. Darius was still a drone. Telfair played well
>although he had a little bit of damon's dribble-itis. And Zach just
>doesn't get it....he's not good enough to beat double teams with any
>regularity.
>
>I didn't see webster?

but I did see that Chris Paul had a triple double and was 4 steals
away from a quadruple double
>
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

mmasw wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 21:58:10 -0700, "Terraholm"
>>
>> Sure and the canadians are well employed cutting old growth timber.
>> Which has little to do with this city being hurt if the Blazers move.
>
> if the issue is jobs then the city can do a hell of a lot better for
> itself then issuing bonds for a sports franchise. 180 million would
> build a nice hospital or two and employ quite a few little guys and
> gals. I'm sure there are a lot of pressing infrastructure need the
> city has as well.

They are not "issuing bonds" from city revenue taking it away from other areas. They are borrowing
it for Allen under our scenerio. And it has to do with a lot more than directly related jobs. How
many times do I have to say that a soports franchise is an important asset for a city looking to
attract businesses? Those businesses moving in hire people....


>> Sure. I was just pointing out they are well fleshed already so may
>> not drive a terrible bargain for an arena they never wanted......
>
> I doubt they would drive a terrible bargain either, but I also doubt
> the sale price would entail any altruism

>> They played pretty well tonight.
>>
>> Theo did great on Yao who has nbeen on a tear since the break.
>> With Theo the Blazers are 18-29 without 3-24
>
> yeah...I read that and saw the 2nd half of the game. Theo played tough
> and didn't get injured. Darius was still a drone. Telfair played well
> although he had a little bit of damon's dribble-itis. And Zach just
> doesn't get it....he's not good enough to beat double teams with any
> regularity.

Actually Zach did much better passing the ball and even passed up some open shots. His shot
selection was better last night for the most part, he just did not make them.

>
> I didn't see webster?

Hurt his back.


--
Laurel T
I don't hate anyone, at least not for
more than 48 minutes, barring overtime."
Charles Barkley
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 13:33:31 -0700, "Terraholm"
<terraholm_SpamNata_.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:

>mmasw wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 21:58:10 -0700, "Terraholm"
>>>
>>> Sure and the canadians are well employed cutting old growth timber.
>>> Which has little to do with this city being hurt if the Blazers move.
>>
>> if the issue is jobs then the city can do a hell of a lot better for
>> itself then issuing bonds for a sports franchise. 180 million would
>> build a nice hospital or two and employ quite a few little guys and
>> gals. I'm sure there are a lot of pressing infrastructure need the
>> city has as well.
>
>They are not "issuing bonds" from city revenue taking it away from other areas. They are borrowing
>it for Allen under our scenerio.

exactly...it's for paul allen and his business and he's not evan an
oregonian. Maybe Seattle should loan him the money

>And it has to do with a lot more than directly related jobs.

just about every major economic activity will have the ripple effect
you are referring to, and if you were to compile a list of businesses
in portland "deserving" city parnership, it would be difficult to make
a case that an nba team was the most deserving. Especially considering
out of sate ownership


> How
>many times do I have to say

several more times apparently

>that a soports franchise is an important asset for a city looking to
>attract businesses? Those businesses moving in hire people....

and I haven't disputed that....even though I'm not sure you could list
too many "new" businesse because of the blazers

180 million to Oregon Health Sciences University would attract a lot
of jobs. I know..supposedly this "blazer scenario" won't cost the city
anything. Wel, then like I said, a 180 million dollar program of small
business loans would have the same pass through for the city and
arguably could have a much bigger impact on new jobs

again....of all the business owners in portland (or in this case
seattle) it is hard to think of any LESS deserving of public help
then paul allen

I know what your argument is, and that you see my perspective as the
"cut off nose to spite face" position.

That isn't it. I think the city of portland issuing bonds to raise
money to loan for purchase of the RG is good idea UNLESS it's to give
it to paul allen. He's a dickhead and he's a rotten businessman and
whether his latest actions are an attempt to balckmail the city into
help or simply a charade, doesn't really matter.

Portland will be better off without paul allen, and if the price is
him taking the blazers with him....so be it.

He can't take the RG and I suspect the arena wouldn't "pine" for an
NBA team that long, relatively speaking.

besides that, it's all academic any way. The city isn't reallygoing to
do it, and paul allen doesn't really want them too
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

mmasw wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 13:33:31 -0700, "Terraholm"
> <terraholm_SpamNata_.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> mmasw wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 21:58:10 -0700, "Terraholm"
>>>>
>>>> Sure and the canadians are well employed cutting old growth timber.
>>>> Which has little to do with this city being hurt if the Blazers
>>>> move.
>>>
>>> if the issue is jobs then the city can do a hell of a lot better for
>>> itself then issuing bonds for a sports franchise. 180 million would
>>> build a nice hospital or two and employ quite a few little guys and
>>> gals. I'm sure there are a lot of pressing infrastructure need the
>>> city has as well.
>>
>> They are not "issuing bonds" from city revenue taking it away from
>> other areas. They are borrowing it for Allen under our scenerio.
>
> exactly...it's for paul allen and his business and he's not evan an
> oregonian. Maybe Seattle should loan him the money

Because Seattle gets 4 million a year from them and benefits...

>
>> And it has to do with a lot more than directly related jobs.
>
> just about every major economic activity will have the ripple effect
> you are referring to,

Yes. However they do not have the added intangible benefit a pro sports team does.

and if you were to compile a list of businesses
> in portland "deserving" city parnership, it would be difficult to make
> a case that an nba team was the most deserving. Especially considering
> out of sate ownership
>
>
>> How
>> many times do I have to say
>
> several more times apparently
>
>> that a soports franchise is an important asset for a city looking to
>> attract businesses? Those businesses moving in hire people....
>
> and I haven't disputed that....even though I'm not sure you could list
> too many "new" businesse because of the blazers

They come partly for civic attractions, the blazers are a big part of those.

>
> 180 million to Oregon Health Sciences University would attract a lot
> of jobs. I know..supposedly this "blazer scenario" won't cost the city
> anything.

Just the opposite.

>Wel, then like I said, a 180 million dollar program of small
> business loans would have the same pass through for the city and
> arguably could have a much bigger impact on new jobs

Or arguably not....and the same money borrowed to start small businesses with that normally large
failure rate would put taxpayer money at risk, what the city will not do for the blazers.

>
> again....of all the business owners in portland (or in this case
> seattle) it is hard to think of any LESS deserving of public help
> then paul allen
>

And my argument is not about helping Allen for Allen's sake.

> I know what your argument is, and that you see my perspective as the
> "cut off nose to spite face" position.
>
> That isn't it. I think the city of portland issuing bonds to raise
> money to loan for purchase of the RG is good idea UNLESS it's to give
> it to paul allen. He's a dickhead and he's a rotten businessman and
> whether his latest actions are an attempt to balckmail the city into
> help or simply a charade, doesn't really matter.
>
> Portland will be better off without paul allen, and if the price is
> him taking the blazers with him....so be it.

I suppose him taking his 10s of millions in charity and donated man hours of his employees elsewhere
would leave Portland better off too?
I am pissed at him too. I know this did not have to come down this way. But losing the team, the
revenue, the taxes generated for the state will not leave Portland 'better off''.

>
> He can't take the RG and I suspect the arena wouldn't "pine" for an
> NBA team that long, relatively speaking.

Perhaps. Worked for Charlotte... Kansas City thought the same when the Kings left though and NO whe
the jazz paked up.... It is not like this city is going go out and be competitive bidding for a
franchise...

>
> besides that, it's all academic any way. The city isn't reallygoing to
> do it, and paul allen doesn't really want them too

I would say Allen will not make the request, going to the city but offereing no plans shows that,
even though the city might well go for it.....Allen wants a bail out or to bail out...


--
Laurel T
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."
Lucius Seneca
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 15:06:22 -0700, "Terraholm"
>>
>> just about every major economic activity will have the ripple effect
>> you are referring to,
>
>Yes. However they do not have the added intangible benefit a pro sports team does.

LOL....it's certainly intangible, and I don't think it's nearly as
significant as you believe
>

>>
>>> that a soports franchise is an important asset for a city looking to
>>> attract businesses? Those businesses moving in hire people....
>>
>> and I haven't disputed that....even though I'm not sure you could list
>> too many "new" businesse because of the blazers
>
>They come partly for civic attractions, the blazers are a big part of those.

this is simply unfounded assertion on your part. Please list all the
businesses that have relocated to portland because of the blazers
>
>>
>> 180 million to Oregon Health Sciences University would attract a lot
>> of jobs. I know..supposedly this "blazer scenario" won't cost the city
>> anything.
>
>Just the opposite.

what?
>
>>Wel, then like I said, a 180 million dollar program of small
>> business loans would have the same pass through for the city and
>> arguably could have a much bigger impact on new jobs
>
>Or arguably not....and the same money borrowed to start small businesses with that normally large
>failure rate would put taxpayer money at risk,

and a great deal of that failure rate is easily predictable. The city
doesn't have to loan money to every potential business. They could
reduce their risk to one of much smaller exposure then the nominal
failure rate

> what the city will not do for the blazers.

yeah right....paul allen is such a magnificent steward of money and
business there is no risk at all in loaning him money
>
>>
>> again....of all the business owners in portland (or in this case
>> seattle) it is hard to think of any LESS deserving of public help
>> then paul allen
>>
>
>And my argument is not about helping Allen for Allen's sake.

but that's exactly what would happen
>
>> I know what your argument is, and that you see my perspective as the
>> "cut off nose to spite face" position.
>>
>> That isn't it. I think the city of portland issuing bonds to raise
>> money to loan for purchase of the RG is good idea UNLESS it's to give
>> it to paul allen. He's a dickhead and he's a rotten businessman and
>> whether his latest actions are an attempt to balckmail the city into
>> help or simply a charade, doesn't really matter.
>>
>> Portland will be better off without paul allen, and if the price is
>> him taking the blazers with him....so be it.
>
>I suppose him taking his 10s of millions in charity and donated man hours of his employees elsewhere
>would leave Portland better off too?
>I am pissed at him too. I know this did not have to come down this way. But losing the team, the
>revenue, the taxes generated for the state will not leave Portland 'better off''.

ok laurel....you are now the perfect american in george bush world.
Commerce is everything and there are no other relevant values and
principles that supercede the almighty dollar.

and in case you're wondering, I'm not in favor of big tax breaks to
Intel or Hewlet-Packard either

but it should be obvious that I'm in favor of telling allen to blow it
out his ass




>
>>
>> He can't take the RG and I suspect the arena wouldn't "pine" for an
>> NBA team that long, relatively speaking.
>
>Perhaps. Worked for Charlotte... Kansas City thought the same when the Kings left though and NO whe
>the jazz paked up.... It is not like this city is going go out and be competitive bidding for a
>franchise...

then that's the way the cookie crumbles

>>
>> besides that, it's all academic any way. The city isn't reallygoing to
>> do it, and paul allen doesn't really want them too
>
>I would say Allen will not make the request, going to the city but offereing no plans shows that,
>even though the city might well go for it.....Allen wants a bail out or to bail out...

I don't think he wants to sell the team at all. I think the "fix" is
in and a move is probable. I'm certain that stern and his office would
support it. I'm not sure all the owners would. Does it take 2/3 of the
owners?

I believe the city would be wasting their time trying to negotiate
with allen...at least if it was towards him still owning the blazers
and staying in portland. The city...if they are interested in helping
finance the sale of the RG, should be about facilitating that for a
new owner. And if the blazers are as valuable to the city as you
claim, then the city might even consider "sweetening" the pot a bit
for a new owner by raising a few million more then the RG asking price
in the bond sale and using it for leverage.
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

mmasw wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 15:06:22 -0700, "Terraholm"
>>>
>>> just about every major economic activity will have the ripple effect
>>> you are referring to,
>>
>> Yes. However they do not have the added intangible benefit a pro
>> sports team does.
>
> LOL....it's certainly intangible, and I don't think it's nearly as
> significant as you believe

Sure...that is why cities fiance arenas and stadiums with public money and compete to have a
team...because it has so little benefit.

>>
>
>>>
>>>> that a soports franchise is an important asset for a city looking
>>>> to attract businesses? Those businesses moving in hire people....
>>>
>>> and I haven't disputed that....even though I'm not sure you could
>>> list too many "new" businesse because of the blazers
>>
>> They come partly for civic attractions, the blazers are a big part
>> of those.
>
> this is simply unfounded assertion on your part.

http://www.businessfacilities.com/bf_05_02_cover.asp

If you are considering an expansion or relocation to an urban center, consider taking an extra look
at cities with a significant involvement in major sporting events. These communities have more than
likely spent a lot of money getting the infrastructure in place to attract sports franchises and
events-improvements that will benefit your business. It is beneficial to area businesses when
streets have been repaired, mass transportation is beefed up, and hotels have been added to the
immediate area. Conferences and clients are easier to attract once a city is organized and able to
handle an influx of short-term visitors. Also, since entertaining the client is important to a lot
of business executives, having the option of treating a guest to world-class sporting entertainment
can be rewarding. Successful sports development projects have generated substantial economic
development activity. Facilities and franchises are enhancing many regions' ability to attract new
business and create jobs because they generate substantial economic impact during construction and
operation. And for planners with large meetings, city stadiums provide a variety of options for
creative events.


Please list all the
> businesses that have relocated to portland because of the blazers
>>

Please list the ones that moved there and did not consider a pro-sports team as attactive when
deciding..


>>> Wel, then like I said, a 180 million dollar program of small
>>> business loans would have the same pass through for the city and
>>> arguably could have a much bigger impact on new jobs
>>
>> Or arguably not....and the same money borrowed to start small
>> businesses with that normally large failure rate would put taxpayer
>> money at risk,
>
> and a great deal of that failure rate is easily predictable. The city
> doesn't have to loan money to every potential business. They could
> reduce their risk to one of much smaller exposure then the nominal
> failure rate

With a blazers loan it would have to be guaranteed zero risk...plus the team brings in income to the
city.

>
>> what the city will not do for the blazers.
>
> yeah right....paul allen is such a magnificent steward of money and
> business there is no risk at all in loaning him money
>>
>>>
>>> again....of all the business owners in portland (or in this case
>>> seattle) it is hard to think of any LESS deserving of public help
>>> then paul allen
>>>
>>
>> And my argument is not about helping Allen for Allen's sake.
>
> but that's exactly what would happen

So?

>>
>>> I know what your argument is, and that you see my perspective as the
>>> "cut off nose to spite face" position.
>>>
>>> That isn't it. I think the city of portland issuing bonds to raise
>>> money to loan for purchase of the RG is good idea UNLESS it's to
>>> give it to paul allen. He's a dickhead and he's a rotten
>>> businessman and whether his latest actions are an attempt to
>>> balckmail the city into help or simply a charade, doesn't really
>>> matter.
>>>
>>> Portland will be better off without paul allen, and if the price is
>>> him taking the blazers with him....so be it.
>>
>> I suppose him taking his 10s of millions in charity and donated man
>> hours of his employees elsewhere would leave Portland better off too?
>> I am pissed at him too. I know this did not have to come down this
>> way. But losing the team, the revenue, the taxes generated for the
>> state will not leave Portland 'better off''.
>
> ok laurel....you are now the perfect american in george bush world.
> Commerce is everything and there are no other relevant values and
> principles that supercede the almighty dollar.

If that was so I would be for giving Allen corporate welfare handing him our tax money...I would not
be for a loan that would cost us nothing and benefit the city over the blazers packing up..... and I
would be operating on the principle of revenge hoping for Allen's ruin..."Saddam tried to kill my
daddy"
I certainly would not worry about the impact on small business or Allen's charities...

>
> and in case you're wondering, I'm not in favor of big tax breaks to
> Intel or Hewlet-Packard either
>
> but it should be obvious that I'm in favor of telling allen to blow it
> out his ass


>>> besides that, it's all academic any way. The city isn't reallygoing
>>> to do it, and paul allen doesn't really want them too
>>
>> I would say Allen will not make the request, going to the city but
>> offereing no plans shows that, even though the city might well go
>> for it.....Allen wants a bail out or to bail out...
>
> I don't think he wants to sell the team at all. I think the "fix" is
> in and a move is probable. I'm certain that stern and his office would
> support it. I'm not sure all the owners would. Does it take 2/3 of the
> owners?
>
> I believe the city would be wasting their time trying to negotiate
> with allen...at least if it was towards him still owning the blazers
> and staying in portland. The city...if they are interested in helping
> finance the sale of the RG, should be about facilitating that for a
> new owner. And if the blazers are as valuable to the city as you
> claim, then the city might even consider "sweetening" the pot a bit
> for a new owner by raising a few million more then the RG asking price
> in the bond sale and using it for leverage.

I think in order to sell the team the package would have to be reunited first.


--
Laurel T
"Basketball players win basketball games,
"Athletes win track meets." Shane Battier
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 18:05:04 -0700, "Terraholm"
<terraholm_SpamNata_.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>mmasw wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 15:06:22 -0700, "Terraholm"
>>>>
>>>> just about every major economic activity will have the ripple effect
>>>> you are referring to,
>>>
>>> Yes. However they do not have the added intangible benefit a pro
>>> sports team does.
>>
>> LOL....it's certainly intangible, and I don't think it's nearly as
>> significant as you believe
>
>Sure...that is why cities fiance arenas and stadiums with public money and compete to have a
>team...because it has so little benefit.

sometimes common "wisdom" is good, sometimes it's not. I don't dispute
the direct benefits. I don't know where the blazers organization ranks
among portland business as far as number of employees, but I'd bet
there are dozens upon dozens that have more.

I do dispute all those "intangible" benefits on the issue of scale.
The notion of the "prestige" of having a sports franchise being a
major boon to the economy will have to be buttressed by some objective
statistics before I accept it, and as of yet I haven't seen it.

And your assertion that businesses have moved to portland because of
the blazers I believe is false
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> that a soports franchise is an important asset for a city looking
>>>>> to attract businesses? Those businesses moving in hire people....
>>>>
>>>> and I haven't disputed that....even though I'm not sure you could
>>>> list too many "new" businesse because of the blazers
>>>
>>> They come partly for civic attractions, the blazers are a big part
>>> of those.
>>
>> this is simply unfounded assertion on your part.
>
>http://www.businessfacilities.com/bf_05_02_cover.asp
>
> If you are considering an expansion or relocation to an urban center, consider taking an extra look
>at cities with a significant involvement in major sporting events. These communities have more than
>likely spent a lot of money getting the infrastructure in place to attract sports franchises and
>events-improvements that will benefit your business. It is beneficial to area businesses when
>streets have been repaired, mass transportation is beefed up, and hotels have been added to the
>immediate area. Conferences and clients are easier to attract once a city is organized and able to
>handle an influx of short-term visitors. Also, since entertaining the client is important to a lot
>of business executives, having the option of treating a guest to world-class sporting entertainment
>can be rewarding. Successful sports development projects have generated substantial economic
>development activity. Facilities and franchises are enhancing many regions' ability to attract new
>business and create jobs because they generate substantial economic impact during construction and
>operation. And for planners with large meetings, city stadiums provide a variety of options for
>creative events.

that article is all conjecture. She asserts without facts, which seems
somehow familiar. Many of the so-called "benefits" she outlines have
already occured such as the initial construction and susequent
infrastructure improvements. The benefit of having a large "stadium"
is already there so that's not relevant to the discussion. By the way,
I glanced at it last night, but now it asks for a password. I noted
she spent a lot of time talking about the Super Bowl, and I don't
think they'll ever hold the super bowl at the RG.

For that matter, they don't seem likely to hold the all-star game in
portland either.

Also, since the author of that article is apparently empoyed by a
travel agency that caters to conventions and sporting events, I'll
treat it with a healthy amount of skepticism .

So that leaves the impact of game night and the impact of prestige.
I discount the "prestige" factor as having little significance. The
coventions that choose to meet in portland because the blazers are
playing the hawks are probably numbered in the zeros. I know that I
haven't made any plans to visit San Antonio because Tim Duncan is
there.

Game night has impact, I haven't disputed that. The "out-of-town"
visit from the team and covering media will inject dollars into the
high-end hotels and restaurants. But I suspect those establishments
would survive without the blazers. They might have to layoff a busboy
or 2, but I don't think that is reason for the city to act as broker
in a 180 million dollar transaction.

For the rest of game night, the vast majority of it is portlanders
spending money in portland.

If you want to make the case that the city should float a 180 million
dollar bond sale so Fred Meyer won't lose the blazer t-shirt market,
go ahead


>
>Please list all the
>> businesses that have relocated to portland because of the blazers
>>>
>
>Please list the ones that moved there and did not consider a pro-sports team as attactive when
>deciding..

You're the one that made the wild assertion that businesses have
located in portland because the blazers play there. Either you have a
list of the businesses or you pulled that one out of your ass. I'm
trying to determine which it is before I handle it further
>
>
>>>> Wel, then like I said, a 180 million dollar program of small
>>>> business loans would have the same pass through for the city and
>>>> arguably could have a much bigger impact on new jobs
>>>
>>> Or arguably not....and the same money borrowed to start small
>>> businesses with that normally large failure rate would put taxpayer
>>> money at risk,
>>
>> and a great deal of that failure rate is easily predictable. The city
>> doesn't have to loan money to every potential business. They could
>> reduce their risk to one of much smaller exposure then the nominal
>> failure rate
>
>With a blazers loan it would have to be guaranteed zero risk...plus the team brings in income to the
>city.

I haven't disputed that there is a financial impact. It's the
significance of the intangibles that I question.

As to zero risk in loaning money...there is no such thing
>
>>

>>> And my argument is not about helping Allen for Allen's sake.
>>
>> but that's exactly what would happen
>
>So?

so don't do it
>>>

>
>>>> besides that, it's all academic any way. The city isn't reallygoing
>>>> to do it, and paul allen doesn't really want them too
>>>
>>> I would say Allen will not make the request, going to the city but
>>> offereing no plans shows that, even though the city might well go
>>> for it.....Allen wants a bail out or to bail out...
>>
>> I don't think he wants to sell the team at all. I think the "fix" is
>> in and a move is probable. I'm certain that stern and his office would
>> support it. I'm not sure all the owners would. Does it take 2/3 of the
>> owners?
>>
>> I believe the city would be wasting their time trying to negotiate
>> with allen...at least if it was towards him still owning the blazers
>> and staying in portland. The city...if they are interested in helping
>> finance the sale of the RG, should be about facilitating that for a
>> new owner. And if the blazers are as valuable to the city as you
>> claim, then the city might even consider "sweetening" the pot a bit
>> for a new owner by raising a few million more then the RG asking price
>> in the bond sale and using it for leverage.
>
>I think in order to sell the team the package would have to be reunited first.

without a doubt. And I suspect my sentiment, which you find
counter-productive, is shared to some degree or the other by city
officials. So I would suspect, most of their eforts...if they truly
make any...would be directed at facilitating a sale of both the RG and
the blazers to a new owner/s
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

I'm mostly just watching this thread from the sidelines, but to ask for
specific facts & figures in regards to something you yourself refer to as
"intangibles" seems a little silly.

Merriam-Webster defines intangible as:

Function: adjective
: not tangible : IMPALPABLE

Function: noun
: something intangible; specifically : an asset (as goodwill) that is not
corporeal

They define tangible as:

Function: adjective
1 a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : PALPABLE
b : substantially real : MATERIAL
2 : capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind <her grief
was tangible>
3 : capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value <tangible
assets>

I think there's a very strong case to be made for the benefits to a city or
region derived from hosting a professional sports team. You could always
ask the mayor of LA if they'd like an NFL team & if he thinks it would
provide any benefits.

Just my 2 cents.

Go Blazers !
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

mmasw wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 18:05:04 -0700, "Terraholm"

>> http://www.businessfacilities.com/bf_05_02_cover.asp
>>

>
> that article is all conjecture. She asserts without facts, which seems
> somehow familiar.

> Also, since the author of that article is apparently employed by a
> travel agency that caters to conventions and sporting events, I'll
> treat it with a healthy amount of skepticism .

The article is from businessfacilities.com ....
"The Location Advisor"
Welcome to the online version of Business Facilities magazine...

Established in 1968 as a national site selection magazine, Business Facilities provides monthly news
and resource information for more than 40,000+ corporate executives responsible for the expansion or
relocation of their companies. We cover the important issues that executives face when selecting a
new location or acquiring new facilities for their expanding or relocating company.

>
> So that leaves the impact of game night and the impact of prestige.
> I discount the "prestige" factor as having little significance. The
> coventions that choose to meet in portland because the blazers are
> playing the hawks are probably numbered in the zeros. I know that I
> haven't made any plans to visit San Antonio because Tim Duncan is
> there.
>
> Game night has impact, I haven't disputed that. The "out-of-town"
> visit from the team and covering media will inject dollars into the
> high-end hotels and restaurants. But I suspect those establishments
> would survive without the blazers. They might have to layoff a busboy
> or 2, but I don't think that is reason for the city to act as broker
> in a 180 million dollar transaction.

It costs the city nothing, on the other hand they lose at a minimum 4 million per year in direct
revenue to the
general fund.


>>
>> Please list all the
>>> businesses that have relocated to portland because of the blazers
>>>>
>>
>> Please list the ones that moved there and did not consider a
>> pro-sports team as attractive when deciding..
>
> You're the one that made the wild assertion that businesses have
> located in portland because the blazers play there.
Either you have a
> list of the businesses or you pulled that one out of your ass.

It is not a wild assertion that sports teams are a civic attraction when you are selling your city.
Not like I made it up, I did not even think about it until I read that editorial in the
Oregonian....

This guy is as pissed at the team as anyone he says so:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/bas...ditoria
One of the reasons businesses relocate to cities is the civic attractions those cities offer. Like
it or not, a pro sports team is one of the bigger civic attractions.



>
>>>> And my argument is not about helping Allen for Allen's sake.
>>>
>>> but that's exactly what would happen
>>
>> So?
>
> so don't do it

Revenge is not the best basis for making a decision.

>>>>
>
>>
>>>>> besides that, it's all academic any way. The city isn't
>>>>> reallygoing to do it, and paul allen doesn't really want them too
>>>>
>>>> I would say Allen will not make the request, going to the city but
>>>> offering no plans shows that, even though the city might well go
>>>> for it.....Allen wants a bail out or to bail out...
>>>
>>> I don't think he wants to sell the team at all. I think the "fix" is
>>> in and a move is probable. I'm certain that stern and his office
>>> would support it. I'm not sure all the owners would. Does it take
>>> 2/3 of the owners?
>>>
>>> I believe the city would be wasting their time trying to negotiate
>>> with allen...at least if it was towards him still owning the blazers
>>> and staying in portland. The city...if they are interested in
>>> helping finance the sale of the RG, should be about facilitating
>>> that for a new owner. And if the blazers are as valuable to the
>>> city as you claim, then the city might even consider "sweetening"
>>> the pot a bit for a new owner by raising a few million more then
>>> the RG asking price in the bond sale and using it for leverage.
>>
>> I think in order to sell the team the package would have to be
>> reunited first.
>
> without a doubt. And I suspect my sentiment, which you find
> counter-productive, is shared to some degree or the other by city
> officials. So I would suspect, most of their eforts...if they truly
> make any...would be directed at facilitating a sale of both the RG and
> the blazers to a new owner/s

You agree that the team and RG need to be re-united first in order to be sold and then say they need
to be sold as the situation stands???


--
Laurel T
"It's another one of those things that sort of
gurgles up from the basketball Babylon,"
Petrie on a Trade Rumor
Laurel T
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 13:13:30 -0700, "Terraholm"
<terraholm_SpamNata_.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:


>> So that leaves the impact of game night and the impact of prestige.
>> I discount the "prestige" factor as having little significance. The
>> coventions that choose to meet in portland because the blazers are
>> playing the hawks are probably numbered in the zeros. I know that I
>> haven't made any plans to visit San Antonio because Tim Duncan is
>> there.
>>
>> Game night has impact, I haven't disputed that. The "out-of-town"
>> visit from the team and covering media will inject dollars into the
>> high-end hotels and restaurants. But I suspect those establishments
>> would survive without the blazers. They might have to layoff a busboy
>> or 2, but I don't think that is reason for the city to act as broker
>> in a 180 million dollar transaction.
>
>It costs the city nothing,

you keep saying that, I'm saying it's not true. If Tom Potter and any
of his staff spent time meeting with allen, stern, and the Arena group
then it has cost the city money already. If the city attorney and his
staff have spent any time considering contracts, bonds, and loans then
it has cost the city money. And if it proceeds further it will
continue to cost money. And if it actually comes down to the city
putting together a bond issue, by that time the city will have several
hundred hours "invested" in this.


> on the other hand they lose at a minimum 4 million per year in direct
>revenue to the
>general fund.

and I don't argue that. I just don't find it persuasive enough that
the city should go into business with the man with the reverse midas
touch
>
>
>>>
>>> Please list all the
>>>> businesses that have relocated to portland because of the blazers
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Please list the ones that moved there and did not consider a
>>> pro-sports team as attractive when deciding..
>>
>> You're the one that made the wild assertion that businesses have
>> located in portland because the blazers play there.
>Either you have a
>> list of the businesses or you pulled that one out of your ass.
>
>It is not a wild assertion that sports teams are a civic attraction when you are selling your city.
>Not like I made it up, I did not even think about it until I read that editorial in the
>Oregonian....

a civic attraction is not the same thing as a business magnet for
chrissakes

When businesses are looking at a location they are looking at land
prices, tax rates, availability of skilled workforce, proximity to
markets, school systems, livability and a host of other factors. I say
in that list the blazers aren't going to make the top 30

>
>This guy is as pissed at the team as anyone he says so:
>
>http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/114126450874300.xml&coll=7
>One of the reasons businesses relocate to cities is the civic attractions those cities offer. Like
>it or not, a pro sports team is one of the bigger civic attractions.

besides reinhard being an right wing ass...and besides the fact that
I've always found his logic to be vapid....he does the same thing:
asserts as fact that which is not proven. I do not agree that a sports
team, especially and NBA team, is enough of a civic attraction to
induce businesses to locate to a city. I think it's total bullshit


>>
>>>>> And my argument is not about helping Allen for Allen's sake.
>>>>
>>>> but that's exactly what would happen
>>>
>>> So?
>>
>> so don't do it
>
>Revenge is not the best basis for making a decision.
>
not loaning money to a man who is setting records for losing money is
a better basis
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>>> the RG asking price in the bond sale and using it for leverage.
>>>
>>> I think in order to sell the team the package would have to be
>>> reunited first.
>>
>> without a doubt. And I suspect my sentiment, which you find
>> counter-productive, is shared to some degree or the other by city
>> officials. So I would suspect, most of their eforts...if they truly
>> make any...would be directed at facilitating a sale of both the RG and
>> the blazers to a new owner/s
>
>You agree that the team and RG need to be re-united first in order to be sold

ignore the "without a doubt", it was late....I don't agree. I don't
think it will happen and it may not be necessary. They can be
re-united at sale, wouldn't need to before

> and then say they need
>to be sold as the situation stands???

I might have answered yes if you'd have only used one question mark
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 12:07:36 -0700, "Swillabrew" <swillabrew.TakeThisOut@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>>Impossible = prudent. Check.
>>
>> explain
>
>Without getting too "lawyerly", I think we're agreed that pinning down
>something intangible is not possible


with that in mind, in the future, whenever my wife says something to
me that starts with "when are you...." I will classify it as
intangible and tell her you said it's impossible to say....I'll give
her your number
>
>>>

>> I haven't disputed the financial detriments, I just think those
>> perceptual/prestige/intangible detriments are vastly overstated.
>
>That's why discussions & debates exist, different people often have
>differing opinions. This is a good example. Doesn't mean I'm right &
>you're wrong or vice versa, but it certainly appears we will not be changing
>one another's views, so perhaps we should move on to who the team should try
>to move in the off-season. : )

an easier list to compile may be who they shouldn't move
>

>
>As I said, we are in complete agreement on this topic. Let's go with that &
>move on from the other stuff, eh? : )

right...we can talk about their winning streak
>
>Go Blazers !

until this situation is sorted out you may want to change your "Go
Blazers" sig
>
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

mmasw wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 11:40:35 -0700, "Swillabrew" <swillabrew.RemoveThis@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm mostly just watching this thread from the sidelines, but to ask
>> for specific facts & figures in regards to something you yourself
>> refer to as "intangibles" seems a little silly.
>
> I didn't introduce intangible to the discussion, that's why I
> occasionally bracketed it with quotations
>
> and when I asked for "facts and figures" it wasn't about all the
> "intangibles" , it was about businesses that laurel has asserted moved
> to portland because the blazers were there.

That be a strawman, I never made that assertion so arguing against it does no good. =)

The general statement that pro sports teams are important civic attractions and that civic
attractions (all of them) are one of the things that help sell a city to relocating businesses.
does not translate to make a list of businesses that came here because of the blazers'.


--
Laurel T
"Basketball players win basketball games,
"Athletes win track meets." Shane Battier
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million