Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million

On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 19:54:49 -0700, "Terraholm"
<terraholm_SpamNata_ RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>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'.

well that certainly dilutes the argument down to next to nothing
doesn't it. A business is compiling a list of reasons for re-locating
to portland. Somewhere down on the list below all of the important
factors is a line item for civic attractions. And somewhere down on
the sub-list of civic attractions, may or not be the
blazers....generally speaking

Here's my assertion....98% of businesses considering portland would
give the blazer presence no weight, and the other 2% wouldn't have it
very high on any list of criteria
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 20:12:09 -0700, "Terraholm"
<terraholm_SpamNata_ RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>mmasw wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 13:13:30 -0700, "Terraholm"
>> <terraholm_SpamNata_ RemoveThis @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.
>
>More than say 40 million they would lose over the next 10 years?

well at least you appear to agree the "it costs the city nothing"
statement isn't accurate
>
>>
>>
>>> 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
>
>They are not going into business with him by brokering a loan.

if they loan money that is collateralized by a primary component of
the business, they sure as hell are in business with him. You need to
rethink that assertion....it ain't true

I remember an article about the guy who built Mt. Bachelor into a
destination resort. He said he had a business philosopy: "when you
borrow 10 thousand dollars from the bank, you worry about it. When you
borrow 10 million dollars from the bank, they worry about it."

>And no one is going to park or buy basketball tickets if there is no team.

LOL....ok, when the blazers leave town there will no longer be parking
in portland

>>>>
>>>> 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
>
>It was you that laid more of it than that on what I was saying.... I would say civic attractions
>rank right in there past the finacial reasons.

ok...civic attractions rank behind financial considerations, and 98%
of businesses stop looking after financial considerations
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
>So I guess he, and the article I posted, and all the cities willing to spend a lot to aquire teams
>all are illogical...

he...and you...and the author of the article you posted are all doing
the same thing...vastly overstating the indirect financial influence.
Yes, that's illogical
>
>>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
>
>I never stated it would induce businesses to come to portland as the most imortant factor. .
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>
>There is real property involved. Make him insure the payments...make him add the 3 1/2 acres and
>more help to rebuild the area...

I assume that acerage is adjacent to the RG site? How many acres is
the RG facility sitting on od you know?
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>
>For it to attract a buyer I think it would most likely have to be settled first. As long as that
>contract is in place a buyer has to deal with two parties that will not likely agree easily on
>anything.

then it won't happen because I do not believe the city will enter into
a long-term agreement with allen. And of course I don't think they
should.

I could be wrong about the public sentiment iin portland, but I think
about the only way the city would get "public agreement" on issuing
bonds if it was for a new owner. I know if the actual prospect of
losing the blazers became more apparent, that would change but I doubt
by enough for the city to get kissy-face with allen.

By the way, I think it's revealing that in that other article you
posted the city said they had recieved no proposals from the blazer
organization.

It would appear that the RG owners were telling the truth when they
reacted to Stern's grandstanding move

Maybe Phil Knight should buy the RG and move it to eugene
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

mmasw wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 19:54:49 -0700, "Terraholm"
> <terraholm_SpamNata_.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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'.
>
> well that certainly dilutes the argument down to next to nothing
> doesn't it.

Certainly was easier for you to argue against the strawman. =)

A business is compiling a list of reasons for re-locating
> to portland. Somewhere down on the list below all of the important
> factors is a line item for civic attractions. And somewhere down on
> the sub-list of civic attractions, may or not be the
> blazers....generally speaking
>
> Here's my assertion....98% of businesses considering portland would
> give the blazer presence no weight, and the other 2% wouldn't have it
> very high on any list of criteria.

That it fits your fancy does not make it so....nor does attacking the source in a rove like manner
for everyone that disagrees....=)

Most city managements certainly think sports teams
are important to their city's growth and image. Some have even built arenas first just in hope of
attracting a pro team.


--
Laurel T
"If God is so good, how come
he didn't give you a jump shot?"
Said Sir Charles to AC...
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

mmasw wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 20:30:36 -0700, "Terraholm"
> <terraholm_SpamNata_ DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> mmasw wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "major boon to the economy".....that's what I directly said in the
>>> statement you just pasted, and I'd classify "major boon" as tangible
>>> and of a different nature then "prestige", wouldn't you??
>>>
>>> It shouldn't be too difficult to gauge the impact of game night for
>>> instance, total it up and compare it to portland's GDP....since
>>> laurel and you assert the significance of the impact, please
>>> compile the data and have it on my desk Monday morning
>>
>>
>> http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2004/11/29/story1.html
>> Since the club's 1970 inception, the team has contributed some $2
>> billion to the region's economy, according to a sports business
>> consultant.

>> Horrow's firm, in tallying the $127 million-plus in public revenue
>> generated by the team since 1971, said nearly half of that has gone
>> to the city of Portland. In 2004, the team generated $10.2 million
>> in taxes, paying $6.4 million to the state and $3.1 million to the
>> city.
>>
>
> so....a "report" commissioned by the blazers(that means it was bought
> and paid for by same) as part of a PR campaign comes along and says
> the blazers are astoundingly good for the economy of portland.

Somehow I knew that would be your response. =)
You wanted an economic report and there is one.
I assume it contains numbers based on more than speculation. That the blazers commissioned it no
doubt slants it. It does not make everything in it invented...



>And
> isn't just coincidental that it appears when the blazers are asking
> the city to bail out allen.

It was presented a couple of years ago and commissioned right after Patterson was hired. .

>
> Of course the author didn't compile any data from portland, but from
> other cities with sports venues.

None? It said it was adjusted to Portland's market
And if the information is from general sports information compiled by other sources and averaged
nation wide it would be less likely to be skewed by bias.


>For all we know that data could be
> heavily slanted towards NFL teams and maybe spending patterns could be
> different on a weekend then on a tuesday night. It also means the
> "hotel" spending number may be skewed.

Again, it said it was adjusted to portland's market

>
> I also didn't see any formulation for the 1.9 multiplyer.....in other
> words his already quite possibly bloated numbers were then doubled
> from bloated to ridiculous
>
> He also makes an assumption that those portlanders spending 16 dollars
> a game wouldn't have spent a penny if not for the blazer games.
> Perhaps they would have found another tangible diversion to defray the
> intangible effect.

I think that is a fair argument...not sure if those season ticket holders will make a point of going
out and spending money 41 times a year though...

And for non-portlanders the same might not hold. I have never driven to Portland to go to a movie or
the zoo....
I went to two games this year, each time I spent a lot more than 38 bucks. I spent nearly that
filling up at the gas station near the RG, plus a couple of meals plus a motel room.

>
> I also didn't see any specific breakdown between non-local and local
> patrons. Since there is a 20 dollardifference, it might be helpful too
> know if he has overstated the % of non-local attendees.

The blazers/ ticketmaster likely provided that information to them from ticket sale info.

>
>
> The paragraph about the jobs numbers is the corker though. 57,400
> annual jobs???? Oh wait...the blazers "directly and indirectly
> fostered" activity....well that certainly opens up a galaxy of
> possibility.Joe and Bob are masons and they talk about the blazers
> over coffee before starting work and the author would claim those 2
> jobs it appears.

Likely so....I want the report on my desk with the real numbers in the morning.


>4170 jobs in 2004??...average eqivalent salary of
> 32,900? These numbers are horseshit

That line in the article included the OAC which is now defunct.
The Blazers still account for many of them even now though they directly work now for the new
managers. There would have been no RG in 2004 without the Blazers.

There was also the 2004 figure of 10.2 million just in taxes per year to the city and state to go
with the 4K plus jobs.

6.4 million in state taxes State income tax should be the vast majority of that I assume. About
half of that (Say 3.5 million ) was player salary taxes alone that year since the payroll was at
about 70 million at the highest tax rate. It does not account anywhere near all of it because they
only pay taxes on home games. So another 3 million in income taxes means another minimum 30 million
in payroll somewhere. Minimum if every person paid the highest tax rate and the guys that sell the
popcorn likely do not pay much if any.

So that would have all the jobs at the RG and MC included and is not unreasonable.The Blazers
besides the team and management have about 200 full time and another 100 seasonal employees in
office
workers and arena staff just for the team.

You would have to average in player and coaches and management salary to get it up to 32K average I
suspect... A lot of them are likely making a couple of K at near minimum wage working 5 hours per
game.

> So lets take his 2 billion number cut it in half because he's
> obviously on the blazer take....

Sure that is a much more scientific method than they used... =)

and maybe the nba's take as well.
> So, 1 billion divided by 35 years is 28 million a year in "spending".
> We'll eliminate any multipliers because it is a false assertion that
> local blazer patrons would not spend their discretionary entertainment
> dollars elsewhere if the blazers weren't around. So 30 million dollars
> a year...At this point it would be helpful to know what the total
> dollar value spent in the portland metro area is on hotels,motels,
> cafes, restaurants, parking, souvenirs, concessions, movies, plays,
> concerts, etc. I would suspect if you used the same mathematical
> models used in the article it would be billions and the blazer number
> might just drop into the insignificant category


>
> I jokingly said compile the data...this article adds no data to the
> "silly" argument....just more assertion

Get the report from the blazers, investigate the report us perhaps hire an independent agency to do
another one. Hell we will give you a week...anything longer may not find the thread still going...
;-)



--
Laurel T
When rats leave a sinking ship,
where exactly do they think they're going?"
- Douglas Gauck
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 12:06:56 -0700, "Terraholm"
<terraholm_SpamNata_.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>mmasw wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 20:30:36 -0700, "Terraholm"
>> <terraholm_SpamNata_.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> mmasw wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "major boon to the economy".....that's what I directly said in the
>>>> statement you just pasted, and I'd classify "major boon" as tangible
>>>> and of a different nature then "prestige", wouldn't you??
>>>>
>>>> It shouldn't be too difficult to gauge the impact of game night for
>>>> instance, total it up and compare it to portland's GDP....since
>>>> laurel and you assert the significance of the impact, please
>>>> compile the data and have it on my desk Monday morning
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2004/11/29/story1.html
>>> Since the club's 1970 inception, the team has contributed some $2
>>> billion to the region's economy, according to a sports business
>>> consultant.
>
>>> Horrow's firm, in tallying the $127 million-plus in public revenue
>>> generated by the team since 1971, said nearly half of that has gone
>>> to the city of Portland. In 2004, the team generated $10.2 million
>>> in taxes, paying $6.4 million to the state and $3.1 million to the
>>> city.
>>>
>>
>> so....a "report" commissioned by the blazers(that means it was bought
>> and paid for by same) as part of a PR campaign comes along and says
>> the blazers are astoundingly good for the economy of portland.
>
>Somehow I knew that would be your response. =)

you saw the weakness in it then as well


>You wanted an economic report and there is one.

there's a difference between an economic report and an economic
blowjob

>I assume it contains numbers based on more than speculation. That the blazers commissioned it no
>doubt slants it. It does not make everything in it invented...

perhaps not, but who's to know what is invented and what's not
>
>

>>
>> Of course the author didn't compile any data from portland, but from
>> other cities with sports venues.
>
>None? It said it was adjusted to Portland's market

"adjustment" is a fairly broad term when it come to numbers. Why not
simply study portland's market and eliminate the need for adjustment?

> And if the information is from general sports information compiled by other sources and averaged
>nation wide it would be less likely to be skewed by bias.

well, that would be so if one was naive enough to accept this other
data as being objective. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't but there sure
wasn't enough information in that article to draw objective
conclusions
>
>
>>For all we know that data could be
>> heavily slanted towards NFL teams and maybe spending patterns could be
>> different on a weekend then on a tuesday night. It also means the
>> "hotel" spending number may be skewed.
>
>Again, it said it was adjusted to portland's market

and that could mean it was a patently dishonest "adjustment". Can you
testify that it wasn't? I'm not saying it was, but frankly, some of
those numbers seemed ridiculous
>
>>
>> I also didn't see any formulation for the 1.9 multiplyer.....in other
>> words his already quite possibly bloated numbers were then doubled
>> from bloated to ridiculous
>>
>> He also makes an assumption that those portlanders spending 16 dollars
>> a game wouldn't have spent a penny if not for the blazer games.
>> Perhaps they would have found another tangible diversion to defray the
>> intangible effect.
>
>I think that is a fair argument...not sure if those season ticket holders will make a point of going
>out and spending money 41 times a year though...

they wouldn't....but even if it was 8 times that would have an impact
>
>And for non-portlanders the same might not hold. I have never driven to Portland to go to a movie or
>the zoo....

LOL...oh so now Laurel is the template for non-locals

>I went to two games this year, each time I spent a lot more than 38 bucks. I spent nearly that
>filling up at the gas station near the RG, plus a couple of meals plus a motel room.

>
>> I also didn't see any specific breakdown between non-local and local
>> patrons. Since there is a 20 dollardifference, it might be helpful too
>> know if he has overstated the % of non-local attendees.
>
>The blazers/ ticketmaster likely provided that information to them from ticket sale info.

how do you know that??? "likely"??
>
>>
>>
>> The paragraph about the jobs numbers is the corker though. 57,400
>> annual jobs???? Oh wait...the blazers "directly and indirectly
>> fostered" activity....well that certainly opens up a galaxy of
>> possibility.Joe and Bob are masons and they talk about the blazers
>> over coffee before starting work and the author would claim those 2
>> jobs it appears.
>
>Likely so....I want the report on my desk with the real numbers in the morning.

I left the report in the motel room you use for blazer games. It's
right next to the remote that for some reason was set to one of the
closed channel adult video selections
>
>
>>4170 jobs in 2004??...average eqivalent salary of
>> 32,900? These numbers are horseshit
>
>That line in the article included the OAC which is now defunct.
>The Blazers still account for many of them even now though they directly work now for the new
>managers. There would have been no RG in 2004 without the Blazers.
>
>There was also the 2004 figure of 10.2 million just in taxes per year to the city and state to go
>with the 4K plus jobs.
>
> 6.4 million in state taxes State income tax should be the vast majority of that I assume. About
>half of that (Say 3.5 million ) was player salary taxes alone that year since the payroll was at
>about 70 million at the highest tax rate. It does not account anywhere near all of it because they
>only pay taxes on home games. So another 3 million in income taxes means another minimum 30 million
>in payroll somewhere. Minimum if every person paid the highest tax rate and the guys that sell the
>popcorn likely do not pay much if any.
>
>So that would have all the jobs at the RG and MC included and is not unreasonable.The Blazers
>besides the team and management have about 200 full time and another 100 seasonal employees in
>office
>workers and arena staff just for the team.

that's a long way from 4000+ jobs
>
>You would have to average in player and coaches and management salary to get it up to 32K average I
>suspect... A lot of them are likely making a couple of K at near minimum wage working 5 hours per
>game.
>
>> So lets take his 2 billion number cut it in half because he's
>> obviously on the blazer take....
>
>Sure that is a much more scientific method than they used... =)

it's not more scientific but might be more honest

>and maybe the nba's take as well.
>> So, 1 billion divided by 35 years is 28 million a year in "spending".
>> We'll eliminate any multipliers because it is a false assertion that
>> local blazer patrons would not spend their discretionary entertainment
>> dollars elsewhere if the blazers weren't around. So 30 million dollars
>> a year...At this point it would be helpful to know what the total
>> dollar value spent in the portland metro area is on hotels,motels,
>> cafes, restaurants, parking, souvenirs, concessions, movies, plays,
>> concerts, etc. I would suspect if you used the same mathematical
>> models used in the article it would be billions and the blazer number
>> might just drop into the insignificant category
>
>
>>
>> I jokingly said compile the data...this article adds no data to the
>> "silly" argument....just more assertion
>
>Get the report from the blazers, investigate the report us perhaps hire an independent agency to do
>another one. Hell we will give you a week...anything longer may not find the thread still going...
>;-)

I've noted that this thread is the only thing going....nobody seems
inclined to talk about the team
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 12:05:06 -0700, "Terraholm"
>>
>>> 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'.
>>
>> well that certainly dilutes the argument down to next to nothing
>> doesn't it.
>
>Certainly was easier for you to argue against the strawman. =)

no need for a strawman if you are now stipulating that the blazer
presence has little significance for business location to portland
>
>A business is compiling a list of reasons for re-locating
>> to portland. Somewhere down on the list below all of the important
>> factors is a line item for civic attractions. And somewhere down on
>> the sub-list of civic attractions, may or not be the
>> blazers....generally speaking
>>
>> Here's my assertion....98% of businesses considering portland would
>> give the blazer presence no weight, and the other 2% wouldn't have it
>> very high on any list of criteria.
>
>That it fits your fancy does not make it so....nor does attacking the source in a rove like manner
>for everyone that disagrees....=)

I'm not sure which attack you're referring too...I make so many.
>
>Most city managements certainly think sports teams
>are important to their city's growth and image. Some have even built arenas first just in hope of
>attracting a pro team.

I haven't disputed that there is that belief on the part of city
"management". I think that belief isn't supported by the facts when
it comes to those "intangible" factors.
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

mmasw wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 12:05:06 -0700, "Terraholm"
>>>
>>>> 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'.
>>>
>>> well that certainly dilutes the argument down to next to nothing
>>> doesn't it.
>>
>> Certainly was easier for you to argue against the strawman. =)
>
> no need for a strawman if you are now stipulating that the blazer
> presence has little significance for business location to portland
>>
>> A business is compiling a list of reasons for re-locating
>>> to portland. Somewhere down on the list below all of the important
>>> factors is a line item for civic attractions. And somewhere down on
>>> the sub-list of civic attractions, may or not be the
>>> blazers....generally speaking
>>>
>>> Here's my assertion....98% of businesses considering portland would
>>> give the blazer presence no weight, and the other 2% wouldn't have
>>> it very high on any list of criteria.
>>
>> That it fits your fancy does not make it so....nor does attacking
>> the source in a rove like manner for everyone that disagrees....=)
>
> I'm not sure which attack you're referring too...I make so many.

Exactly. Forbes does not know what frachises are worth because they are forbes, a person writing for
a magazine that helps businesses find new facilities must be a just a travel agent when she names
the benefits of a city with a sports team...

>>
>> Most city managements certainly think sports teams
>> are important to their city's growth and image. Some have even built
>> arenas first just in hope of attracting a pro team.
>
> I haven't disputed that there is that belief on the part of city
> "management". I think that belief isn't supported by the facts when
> it comes to those "intangible" factors.

So all the city's people have bought into a myth with no reasearch?

For quality-of-life there is a culture-and-leisure index developed by
Bertrand Sperling (of Portland no less) who keeps track of museums,sports
teams, theaters, golf
courses etc. that is used to compare cities for people and businesses.
It is used by Forbes (Oh no) and others.

Wonder why they bother with teams?


--

Laurel T
It's what you learn after you know it all
that's important.
- Famous Horse Trainer Jimmy Williams
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

mmasw wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 20:12:09 -0700, "Terraholm"
> <terraholm_SpamNata_.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> mmasw wrote:
>>> On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 13:13:30 -0700, "Terraholm"
>>> <terraholm_SpamNata_.DeleteThis@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.
>>
>> More than say 40 million they would lose over the next 10 years?
>
> well at least you appear to agree the "it costs the city nothing"
> statement isn't accurate

I should have said with brokering a loan they lose nothing.
Cost that has a higher return than the cost is not a loss.

But perhaps they will get a lot more than 40 mil anyway when the Blazers leave...the cost will be a
lot higher in lawyer fees than brokering a loan I bet...=)

>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>> They are not going into business with him by brokering a loan.
>
> if they loan money that is collateralized by a primary component of
> the business, they sure as hell are in business with him. You need to
> rethink that assertion....it ain't true.

> I remember an article about the guy who built Mt. Bachelor into a
> destination resort. He said he had a business philosopy: "when you
> borrow 10 thousand dollars from the bank, you worry about it. When you
> borrow 10 million dollars from the bank, they worry about it."
>
>> And no one is going to park or buy basketball tickets if there is no
>> team.

The loan is on the RG. It is real property. As you have noted it could be filled with another team.
Besides which the personal guarantee from Allen they would demand, basically co-signing the loan.
Besides which the arena would attract another team according to your own argument elsewhere.

>
> LOL....ok, when the blazers leave town there will no longer be parking
> in portland
>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>
>> It was you that laid more of it than that on what I was saying.... I
>> would say civic attractions rank right in there past the finacial
>> reasons.
>
> ok...civic attractions rank behind financial considerations, and 98%
> of businesses stop looking after financial considerations.

And you know that how? Because the number you made up sounds good to you?

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> So I guess he, and the article I posted, and all the cities willing
>> to spend a lot to aquire teams all are illogical...
>
> he...and you...and the author of the article you posted are all doing
> the same thing...vastly overstating the indirect financial influence.
> Yes, that's illogical

All of them? Seems strange there is not a city that actually figures it out before financing a new
arena or giving major incentives to relocate a team? You would think instead of dozens of new arenas
and stadiums financed publically that teams would be moving at an amazing rate...


>>>> 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
>>
>> There is real property involved. Make him insure the payments...make
>> him add the 3 1/2 acres and more help to rebuild the area...
>
> I assume that acerage is adjacent to the RG site?

I read 'close to" I think it is where they tore down the red lion motel?

>How many acres is
> the RG facility sitting on od you know?

The whole rose quarter is 38 acres. The MC is 7 of that, the Commons is 3 acres.



>> For it to attract a buyer I think it would most likely have to be
>> settled first. As long as that contract is in place a buyer has to
>> deal with two parties that will not likely agree easily on anything.
>
> then it won't happen because I do not believe the city will enter into
> a long-term agreement with allen. And of course I don't think they
> should.

Nor do either of us think Allenm will even ask for this loan. we have spent more time discussing it
would be my guess...

>
> I could be wrong about the public sentiment iin portland, but I think
> about the only way the city would get "public agreement" on issuing
> bonds if it was for a new owner.
>I know if the actual prospect of
> losing the blazers became more apparent, that would change but I doubt
> by enough for the city to get kissy-face with allen.

The do not need public agreement, no one is putting it to a vote. The mayor just said no public
money would be used. This could be sold as keeping that promise while keeping the team in town.

>
> By the way, I think it's revealing that in that other article you
> posted the city said they had recieved no proposals from the blazer
> organization.

Yes. I have said I think they just are making a show of trying to get help for the owners meeting
for when they apply to move the team...

>
> It would appear that the RG owners were telling the truth when they
> reacted to Stern's grandstanding move
>
> Maybe Phil Knight should buy the RG and move it to eugene.

lol...


--
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 Sun, 9 Apr 2006 14:07:28 -0700, "Terraholm"
>>>
>>> That it fits your fancy does not make it so....nor does attacking
>>> the source in a rove like manner for everyone that disagrees....=)
>>
>> I'm not sure which attack you're referring too...I make so many.
>
>Exactly. Forbes does not know what frachises are worth because they are forbes,

no....because they are so often wrong about stuff. You might want to
check out their predictive track record before you classify my
pointing it out as an attack


> a person writing for
>a magazine that helps businesses find new facilities must be a just a travel agent when she names
>the benefits of a city with a sports team...

I typed in the name of the author....regen stewart.... on google and
got this hit as # 1

http://www.eistours.com/people/popup_BIO.asp/D0101=24

you can try it too if you like. I didn't verify it was the author and
it appears it isn't

I did a lot more then attack the author however ( and I notice you
spend plenty of time attacking my motives as well)...I specifically
disputed his/her contentions about the intangible benfits. I also
pointed out that some of the primary things she/he listed as benefits
Portland has already accrued. I also pointed out that the author spent
a lot of time talking about the super bowl which is not relevant to
the blazer situation. And I questioned the author's contention and
yours that the presence of a sports franchise has any significant
bearing on a business's decision to locate

you may think I simply attack, but at least it is on specific
contentions that are made, and I formulate my own arguments without
mastering the paste and copy function like you

>>>
>>> Most city managements certainly think sports teams
>>> are important to their city's growth and image. Some have even built
>>> arenas first just in hope of attracting a pro team.
>>
>> I haven't disputed that there is that belief on the part of city
>> "management". I think that belief isn't supported by the facts when
>> it comes to those "intangible" factors.
>
>So all the city's people have bought into a myth with no reasearch?

LOL...since when have a few people at the top of a governmental food
chain been "all" the city's people? I think some are convinced by the
tangible financial benefits that I agree exist, some swallow the
notion that the intangibles are great when in reality they are not,
and some have vested interests. For instance if a city counselman owns
a downtown hotel and another owns a commercial construction firm, and
another owns a restaurant supply store they might just vote yes. And
that kind of "support" is more critical then any notion of prestige.
>
>For quality-of-life there is a culture-and-leisure index developed by
>Bertrand Sperling (of Portland no less) who keeps track of museums,sports
>teams, theaters, golf
>courses etc. that is used to compare cities for people and businesses.
> It is used by Forbes (Oh no) and others.
>
>Wonder why they bother with teams?

yeah right laurel....the culture & leisure index....the #1 factor on
any businesses priority list when looking to relocate
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 14:35:58 -0700, "Terraholm"
<terraholm_SpamNata_ RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:


>
>But perhaps they will get a lot more than 40 mil anyway when the Blazers leave...the cost will be a
>lot higher in lawyer fees than brokering a loan I bet...=)

now that is true...I assume attorney's are already circling the RG
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> They are not going into business with him by brokering a loan.
>>
>> if they loan money that is collateralized by a primary component of
>> the business, they sure as hell are in business with him. You need to
>> rethink that assertion....it ain't true.
>
>> I remember an article about the guy who built Mt. Bachelor into a
>> destination resort. He said he had a business philosopy: "when you
>> borrow 10 thousand dollars from the bank, you worry about it. When you
>> borrow 10 million dollars from the bank, they worry about it."
>>
>>> And no one is going to park or buy basketball tickets if there is no
>>> team.
>
>The loan is on the RG. It is real property. As you have noted it could be filled with another team.
>Besides which the personal guarantee from Allen they would demand, basically co-signing the loan.

I would assume that a new corporation would be formed with the RG
being the primary asset. Allen would agree to linking any other assets
to the new organization I'd bet....maybe a small minortiy % of the
team

>Besides which the arena would attract another team according to your own argument elsewhere.

Areana Football!!
>
>>
>> LOL....ok, when the blazers leave town there will no longer be parking
>> in portland
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> It was you that laid more of it than that on what I was saying.... I
>>> would say civic attractions rank right in there past the finacial
>>> reasons.
>>
>> ok...civic attractions rank behind financial considerations, and 98%
>> of businesses stop looking after financial considerations.
>
>And you know that how? Because the number you made up sounds good to you?

I know that the same way you know the study got data from ticketmaster
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> So I guess he, and the article I posted, and all the cities willing
>>> to spend a lot to aquire teams all are illogical...
>>