Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million

mmasw wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 19:56:18 -0700, "Terraholm"
> <terraholm_SpamNata_.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> mmasw wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> "stuuff"?
>
> I've been trading in the stock market for years and forbes is well
> known for their "target price" of share value being well off. That
> translates to the market cap as well. I don't pay attention to their
> numbers nor do most investors.
>
> I found an article that makes the case that forbes is way off in their
> sports franchise estimates when compared to sale prices. Of course it
> asserts that forbes massively undervalues franchises which is not what
> I would have expected. I did expect them to miss by a mile though and
> they did....so my vicious attack was justified.

lol...on the other hand it hardly helps your case that the Blazers are not worth even 150 million.
Forbes 237 mil + 38% for NBA teams is 327 million for an average.
So according to that at 300 million for both arena and Team, Allen would be selling low enough to
pay for the Arena.

Here is another article that like Forbes says the values are based on the revenue:
http://www.thesportjournal.org/2002Journal/Vol5-No3/econimic-values.htm

So the revenue (sorry from Forbes again) net of stadium revenues used for debt payments
of the blazers is 78 mil. (29th) That is down 30% with the loss of the arena from '04.
With the bankruptcy the debt went from over half the value when they were at 277 million to 25% of
the 227 million.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/32/324837.html

2.5 to 3 times the revenue as the normal price (from the paper you noted) range from 175 to 234 and
Forbes have them at 227 as of the end of the year.

>
> I would guess that in this time when so many nba teams are losing
> money that the values may be adjusted down

Less teams are losing money than in the mid 90s when franchise prices were rising at even faster
rates.
The article you posted noted ego might be a bigger factor than finances.
When asked about the Bobcat franchise fee of 300 million the owner said he hopes to break even on a
yearly basis and he expects to never make the 300 million back since he will not sell them, as he
plans to leave the team to his son.



>> 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.
>>
>> So you would think the disillusionment with all the teams that go
>> into the red would have burst that bubble long ago.
>
> or you'd think that the reasons teams go into the red are for factors
> that don't affect the profits ofthe hotels and restaurants.

They are still visitor attractions, but I assume that could be tied to attendence.
Then again people might spend more around town if the team is discounting tickets to fill seats.

>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>> That strawman is looking like used horse stall bedding, you can not
>> drag it out again.
>
> then why do you keep bringing it up in various forms?

I say it is part of it, you keep changing it to I am claiming it as 'the reason' a business
relocated or above as the #1 factor. I have said neither so you are arguing against something I
never said or meant.
If businesses did not find a benefit, at least a fringe one, in sports teams they would not lease
luxury boxes to wine and dine their clients.


>You believe that
> businesses choose their locations in part (although undefinable,
> unmeasurable, and apparently an unprovable part) because of civic
> attractions with sports franchises being a component of that.

Pretty much. No need for the strawman...=)

> I don't
> think so, at least not when you progress down the priortiy list to
> sports teams.

While adding your own arbitrary unprovable ranking that 98% do not consider it all...

>
> furthermore...you keep saying it's my strawman. Just what was the
> primary theme of that article you posted to buttress an argument you
> made? It was about the very topic you're pretending I brought up when
> it was you that introduced it to the discussion

That article said 'consider' a sports city and listed benefits. The Portland editorial called
keeping or losing the team as a factor in the city's image. The strawman is your having me
promoting it as the driving factor for business relocation, the #1 factor you threw out above and
then arguing against the exaggeration.

--
Laurel T
You can tell a gelding,
you can ask a mare,
but you must discuss it with a stallion.
-unknown horseman


..
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

mmasw wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 21:09:25 -0700, "Terraholm"
> <terraholm_SpamNata_ RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>
>>>> And you know that how? Because the 98% number you made up sounds good
>>>> to you?
>>>
>>> I know that the same way you know the study got data from
>>> ticketmaster
>>
>> You are one fine strawman builder...
>
> I know laurel. Either I'm attacking or using strawmen.

Where did I say "I know" they got the data from ticketmaster?

>I do that
> because I'm not capable of rational arguments.

Well I think you are quite rational...which makes that a sarcastic strawman?... ;-)

> I don't know why I do
> that especially considering that I'm never attacked in this group.
>>

>>>>>> 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...
>>>
>>> the moving rate may have somthing to do with very few owners being
>>> as bad at business as paul allen
>>
>> When they had the lockout in '99 22 of 29 teams had lost money the
>> season before. Blazers actually was not one of them.
>> The Mavs sell-put every game and lose money. The sonics are losing
>> money and were when sold, the bucks are losinfg money, the hornets
>> were before Katrina and they had just moved to NOLA. Orlando is
>> losing money. Several are blackmailing their cities for new arenas
>> because they are losing money...
>
> which explains the directive from the nba office cited in one of your
> articles about "identifying where to extract more revenue"
>
> maybe it's a buyer's market for an nba team and allen's "price" is
> high after all

Teams sell at high prices even when losing money.

Only team on the market as far as I know is the Sonics. I would not be surprised if they sell it for
more than they paid 4 years ago even though it is losing a lot of money.

Some others are threatening to move if they do not get new arenas on the taxpayers dime,... and
several cities want a team.
.. Vegas if the NBA would bend, KC, and Louisville are the main ones...also Anaheim, Albuquerque, OK
City when the Hornets go home.
An OK City group is trying to buy a minority interest in the Hornets so perhaps the NBA will let
them continue to play in 2 different cities? Vancouver made an offer to the sonics and Stern has
even talked about a Mexico City team.


--
Laurel T
The invention of basketball was not an
accident. It was developed to meet a
need. Those boys simply would not play
"Drop the Handkerchief"
James Naismith
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:45:51 -0700, "Terraholm"
>
>That article said 'consider' a sports city and listed benefits. The Portland editorial called
>keeping or losing the team as a factor in the city's image. The strawman is your having me
>promoting it as the driving factor for business relocation, the #1 factor you threw out above and
>then arguing against the exaggeration.


right , and those articles just showed up in this thread on their own

and of course I never remember you taking exception to an opinion
piece in the oregonian

what Ive said repeatedly...even more often then I've used exageration
to obviously irritating effect....is this:

I do not believe any business has moved to portland because the
presence of the blazers was a positive factor that sealed the deal. I
seriously doubt that any business...should the blazers move...will
then eliminate portland from consideration. And I think that applies
to other cities and other franchises.

I've said, following your lead that a sports team would be down on the
list of civic/local attractions. And I've said...and you've agreed,
that a business will place just about all of it's financial
considerations above that of civic attractions on it's list of
priorities. And to place it into a sports analogy, I don't believe for
one minute that a business has progressed all the way down it's
priority list past financial considerations and higher rated local
attractions that it finally settled on blazers as the tie-breaker.
That isn't a strawman argument, it's specific, to the point, and I've
made it more often.

We were talking about the reasons for the city to consider floating a
bond issue to keep the blazers in town. You were the one that made a
point of saying the blazer presence was a business magnet...whatever
the level of attraction. You say that I use a strawman when I engage
in some figurative exageration. Maybe so....but you're the one that
brought him to the dance to begin with, I just changed the tune
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

mmasw wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:45:51 -0700, "Terraholm"
>>
>> That article said 'consider' a sports city and listed benefits. The
>> Portland editorial called keeping or losing the team as a factor in
>> the city's image. The strawman is your having me promoting it as
>> the driving factor for business relocation, the #1 factor you threw
>> out above and then arguing against the exaggeration.
>
>
> right , and those articles just showed up in this thread on their own
>
> and of course I never remember you taking exception to an opinion
> piece in the oregonian
>
> what Ive said repeatedly...even more often then I've used exageration
> to obviously irritating effect....is this:
>
> I do not believe any business has moved to portland because the
> presence of the blazers was a positive factor that sealed the deal. I
> seriously doubt that any business...should the blazers move...will
> then eliminate portland from consideration. And I think that applies
> to other cities and other franchises.
>
> I've said, following your lead that a sports team would be down on the
> list of civic/local attractions. And I've said...and you've agreed,
> that a business will place just about all of it's financial
> considerations above that of civic attractions on it's list of
> priorities. And to place it into a sports analogy, I don't believe for
> one minute that a business has progressed all the way down it's
> priority list past financial considerations and higher rated local
> attractions that it finally settled on blazers as the tie-breaker.
> That isn't a strawman argument, it's specific, to the point, and I've
> made it more often.

Sure. And that can be the last word, we are arguing in circles on that part anyway..

>
> We were talking about the reasons for the city to consider floating a
> bond issue to keep the blazers in town. You were the one that made a
> point of saying the blazer presence was a business magnet...whatever
> the level of attraction. You say that I use a strawman when I engage
> in some figurative exageration. Maybe so....
>but you're the one that
> brought him to the dance to begin with, I just changed the tune

When you throw in the exagerations that create a change of my opinions into something I never
expressed.... and then argue against the extreme you added.... it leaves me with the choices of
calling it as something I never said or meant, or arguing from the new position in which you placed
me...(which you were sure to win ;-))...

.... I am sure you were just being sarcastic and I usually enjoy that in your posts... but then you
would later use the additions as something I had said.....So I found myself having to go back
repeatedly trying to seperate my opinion from your 'figurative exagerations'
I finally just gave up and started labeling it because it was getting rather frustrating.
I am sorry... but you have to admit that strawman label did get your attention...=).


--
Laurel T
You can tell a gelding,
you can ask a mare,
but you must discuss it with a stallion.
-unknown horseman





..
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:01:58 -0700, "Terraholm"
>When you throw in the exagerations that create a change of my opinions into something I never
>expressed.... and then argue against the extreme you added.... it leaves me with the choices of
>calling it as something I never said or meant, or arguing from the new position in which you placed
>me...(which you were sure to win ;-))...

quoting you:

" 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...."

I guess we have a different definition of "important", especially when
you make a point of saying it repetitively.



>
>... I am sure you were just being sarcastic and I usually enjoy that in your posts... but then you
>would later use the additions as something I had said.....So I found myself having to go back
>repeatedly trying to seperate my opinion from your 'figurative exagerations'
> I finally just gave up and started labeling it because it was getting rather frustrating.
>I am sorry... but you have to admit that strawman label did get your attention...=).

only because you say it as often as bush says 9-11....(now that's
rovian:)
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

mmasw wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:01:58 -0700, "Terraholm"
>> When you throw in the exagerations that create a change of my
>> opinions into something I never expressed.... and then argue against
>> the extreme you added.... it leaves me with the choices of calling
>> it as something I never said or meant, or arguing from the new
>> position in which you placed me...(which you were sure to win
>> ;-))...
>
> quoting you:
>
> " How many times do I have to say that a sports franchise is an
> important asset for a city looking to attract businesses? Those
> businesses moving in hire people...."
>
> I guess we have a different definition of "important", especially when
> you make a point of saying it repetitively.
>

Which general 'sports franchise' you managed to turn into:

" 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."

Since I never asserted that, we have to surmise which ass it came from... ;-)



>
>>
>> ... I am sure you were just being sarcastic and I usually enjoy that
>> in your posts... but then you would later use the additions as
>> something I had said.....So I found myself having to go back
>> repeatedly trying to seperate my opinion from your 'figurative
>> exagerations'
>> I finally just gave up and started labeling it because it was
>> getting rather frustrating.
>> I am sorry... but you have to admit that strawman label did get your
>> attention...=).
>
> only because you say it as often as bush says 9-11....(now that's
> rovian:)

But you said: "ok laurel....you are now the perfect american in george bush world".
I would rather be compared to rove....


--
Laurel T
If stupidity got us into this mess,
then why can't it get us out."
- Will Rogers
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:05:35 -0700, "Terraholm"
<terraholm_SpamNata_.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>mmasw wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:01:58 -0700, "Terraholm"
>>> When you throw in the exagerations that create a change of my
>>> opinions into something I never expressed.... and then argue against
>>> the extreme you added.... it leaves me with the choices of calling
>>> it as something I never said or meant, or arguing from the new
>>> position in which you placed me...(which you were sure to win
>>> ;-))...
>>
>> quoting you:
>>
>> " How many times do I have to say that a sports franchise is an
>> important asset for a city looking to attract businesses? Those
>> businesses moving in hire people...."
>>
>> I guess we have a different definition of "important", especially when
>> you make a point of saying it repetitively.
>>
>
>Which general 'sports franchise' you managed to turn into:

either the blazers are a sports franchise or they aren't...and you
were talking about sports franchises

and you never used the term "general"
>
>" 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."
>
>Since I never asserted that, we have to surmise which ass it came from... ;-)

Laurel....you said...repeatedly....in a discussion about the
blazers...they were an important asset for attracting businesses


underline important...your word

If you have no proof that any business based their re-location to
portland with the presence of the blazers being an important factor in
the decision, then where else could that assertion come from?


I was talking about portland and the blazers...two "tangible" entities

I didn't realize you had switched to a 'hypothetical ' sports
franchise about the time I asked for some evidence of your assertion




>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> ... I am sure you were just being sarcastic and I usually enjoy that
>>> in your posts... but then you would later use the additions as
>>> something I had said.....So I found myself having to go back
>>> repeatedly trying to seperate my opinion from your 'figurative
>>> exagerations'
>>> I finally just gave up and started labeling it because it was
>>> getting rather frustrating.
>>> I am sorry... but you have to admit that strawman label did get your
>>> attention...=).
>>
>> only because you say it as often as bush says 9-11....(now that's
>> rovian:)
>
>But you said: "ok laurel....you are now the perfect american in george bush world".
>I would rather be compared to rove....
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

mmasw wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:05:35 -0700, "Terraholm"
> <terraholm_SpamNata_.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> mmasw wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:01:58 -0700, "Terraholm"
>>>> When you throw in the exagerations that create a change of my
>>>> opinions into something I never expressed.... and then argue
>>>> against the extreme you added.... it leaves me with the choices of
>>>> calling it as something I never said or meant, or arguing from the
>>>> new position in which you placed me...(which you were sure to win
>>>> ;-))...
>>>
>>> quoting you:
>>>
>>> " How many times do I have to say that a sports franchise is an
>>> important asset for a city looking to attract businesses? Those
>>> businesses moving in hire people...."
>>>
>>> I guess we have a different definition of "important", especially
>>> when you make a point of saying it repetitively.

That we disagree on how important is pretty well hashed out. I would think fairly, you think zip for
98% and hardly for the other 2%

>>>
>>
>> Which general 'sports franchise' you managed to turn into:
>
> either the blazers are a sports franchise or they aren't...and you
> were talking about sports franchises
>
> and you never used the term "general"

Look at what you are citing above

"A sports franchise" is general..."an" asset is not 'the" asset, ... "a city" is general.

Find me a quote (of mine not yours) where I asserted the blazers brought businesses into portland on
their own.


>>
>> " 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."
>>
>> Since I never asserted that, we have to surmise which ass it came
>> from... ;-)
>
> Laurel....you said...repeatedly....in a discussion about the
> blazers...they were an important asset for attracting businesses

I said civic attractions are part of it, and sports teams are important civic attractions. You did
not argue my terms, you turned that into my asserting the blazers on their own had brought
businesses in.

I explained I never said that... and then you repeated it when answering swill.

>
>
> underline important...your word

so?

>
> If you have no proof that any business based their re-location to
> portland with the presence of the blazers being an important factor in
> the decision, then where else could that assertion come from?

Asked and answered before when you told me I pulled it out of my ass.
I read it, the editoral for a start. But I was talking in general terms. You demanded this "proof"
on an assertion I never made.

I had read it before, heard it discussed.... It comes up a lot when teams are asking for arenas or
spliting...

Hmmm. I am going to email someone to see if I can get some input....a economics professor that
specializes in the NBA, has worked for teams and NBPA...

>
>
> I was talking about portland and the blazers...two "tangible" entities

Fine. But you can not transfer what you were reading into my posts into something I 'asserted' when
I never did ...and then argue it...

>
> I didn't realize you had switched to a 'hypothetical ' sports
> franchise about the time I asked for some evidence of your assertion.

You switched for me about the time you laid on an assertion I never made....


--
Laurel T
"They're really aggressive. They're like
roaches on bread - you drop some
on the floor and, boom, they're on it."
Kevin Garnett, on Miami's defense
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:16:02 -0700, "Terraholm"
<terraholm_SpamNata_ RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>mmasw wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:05:35 -0700, "Terraholm"
>> <terraholm_SpamNata_ RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> mmasw wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:01:58 -0700, "Terraholm"
>>>>> When you throw in the exagerations that create a change of my
>>>>> opinions into something I never expressed.... and then argue
>>>>> against the extreme you added.... it leaves me with the choices of
>>>>> calling it as something I never said or meant, or arguing from the
>>>>> new position in which you placed me...(which you were sure to win
>>>>> ;-))...
>>>>
>>>> quoting you:
>>>>
>>>> " How many times do I have to say that a sports franchise is an
>>>> important asset for a city looking to attract businesses? Those
>>>> businesses moving in hire people...."
>>>>
>>>> I guess we have a different definition of "important", especially
>>>> when you make a point of saying it repetitively.
>
>That we disagree on how important is pretty well hashed out. I would think fairly, you think zip for
>98% and hardly for the other 2%

that's true...that's exactly what I think
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which general 'sports franchise' you managed to turn into:
>>
>> either the blazers are a sports franchise or they aren't...and you
>> were talking about sports franchises
>>
>> and you never used the term "general"
>
>Look at what you are citing above

I know now...you were saying franchises, generally....and cities,
generally,...and assets, generally....3 times generally apparently
means it doesn't apply to the blazers
>
>"A sports franchise" is general..."an" asset is not 'the" asset, ... "a city" is general.

are the blazers a sports franchise and does your 'general rule' that
sports franchises are important assets considered in business
decisions extend from the hypothetical to the blazers?


>
>Find me a quote (of mine not yours) where I asserted the blazers brought businesses into portland on
>their own.

find me a business which listed the blazers as an 'important' factor
in their move to portland.......and since you used both 'blazers' and
'portland' directly in the previous sentence I assume we're talking
specifically and not generally....



>
>>>
>>> " 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."
>>>
>>> Since I never asserted that, we have to surmise which ass it came
>>> from... ;-)
>>
>> Laurel....you said...repeatedly....in a discussion about the
>> blazers...they were an important asset for attracting businesses
>
>I said civic attractions are part of it, and sports teams are important civic attractions.

you also said they are important assets, and in a discussion about
business decisions, asset has a more tangible meaning then attraction

assets will show up on the balance sheet, attractions don't

> You did
>not argue my terms, you turned that into my asserting the blazers on their own had brought
>businesses in.

oh I argued your terms several times laurel, and that's a fact. And
I'm doing so again.
>
>I explained I never said that... and then you repeated it when answering swill.

>
>> underline important...your word
>
>so?

so that would put it high on the list then, wouldn't you agree?
>
>>
>> If you have no proof that any business based their re-location to
>> portland with the presence of the blazers being an important factor in
>> the decision, then where else could that assertion come from?
>
>Asked and answered before when you told me I pulled it out of my ass.

answer it again then please...was it a general or specific answer?

> I read it, the editoral for a start.

an editorial written by a business owner explaining what his
"important" factors were in deciding to locate his business?

> But I was talking in general terms.

which apparently means it doesn't apply to the willamette valley

> You demanded this "proof"
>on an assertion I never made.

I'm not "demanding" anything. I'm asking for proof on an assertion you
have made....the "important" asset factor as it applies specifically
to the blazers. You seem to be saying it can not be refined below
'general" and thus has no relevance to portland

let's try it this way. Do you know of any business not affiliated with
the blazers that has moved to portland where the presence of the
blazer franchise was an important factor in the decision?


>
> I had read it before, heard it discussed.... It comes up a lot when teams are asking for arenas or
>spliting...

I've heard it before too, and have always questioned it's validity

>Hmmm. I am going to email someone to see if I can get some input....a economics professor that
>specializes in the NBA, has worked for teams and NBPA...


>> I was talking about portland and the blazers...two "tangible" entities
>
>Fine. But you can not transfer what you were reading into my posts into something I 'asserted' when
>I never did ...and then argue it...

I know I know....you keep saying that, but several times I've asked
you to offer some evidence to back what you did say. And you haven't

I read the business section of the oregonian most days and have for
years. I've read about dozens upon dozens of businesses that moved to
portland or were considering it. The reasons or factors they offered
were rather consistent...cost of land, local taxes, proximity to
resources, proximity to markets, the I-5 corrider, participation in
the Pacific Rim, availability of skilled workforce... and sometimes
they would list some of those less tangible factors like crime rate
and school systems (I'm sure those don't make the list much anymore)
And sometimes they would talk about livibility: progressive factors
like the open beach law and land use laws...and sometimes about the
recreational opportunities like the pacific ocean and the coast, the
Columbia river and the gorge, Mt Hood and the cascades, skiing,
fishing hiking.

But I can't recall ever once a mention of the blazers. Now maybe it's
just selective memory on my part. But it sure seems like I would
remember if just once someone would have said "we got a great deal on
38 acres, taxes are deferred for 24 months, and Kevin Duckworth plays
here."


>
>>
>> I didn't realize you had switched to a 'hypothetical ' sports
>> franchise about the time I asked for some evidence of your assertion.
>
>You switched for me about the time you laid on an assertion I never made....

this entire post was about assertions you DID make and so were several
of the previous ones, but I understand the covenience for you of
pretending like the exageration was the only argument I advanced.

you're right though, the circular track in this thread is worn out
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

mmasw wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:16:02 -0700, "Terraholm"
> <terraholm_SpamNata_.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> mmasw wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:05:35 -0700, "Terraholm"
>>> <terraholm_SpamNata_.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> mmasw wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:01:58 -0700, "Terraholm"
>>>>>> When you throw in the exagerations that create a change of my
>>>>>> opinions into something I never expressed.... and then argue
>>>>>> against the extreme you added.... it leaves me with the choices
>>>>>> of calling it as something I never said or meant, or arguing
>>>>>> from the new position in which you placed me...(which you were
>>>>>> sure to win ;-))...
>>>>>
>>>>> quoting you:
>>>>>
>>>>> " How many times do I have to say that a sports franchise is an
>>>>> important asset for a city looking to attract businesses? Those
>>>>> businesses moving in hire people...."
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess we have a different definition of "important", especially
>>>>> when you make a point of saying it repetitively.
>>
>> That we disagree on how important is pretty well hashed out. I would
>> think fairly, you think zip for 98% and hardly for the other 2%
>
> that's true...that's exactly what I think
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which general 'sports franchise' you managed to turn into:
>>>
>>> either the blazers are a sports franchise or they aren't...and you
>>> were talking about sports franchises
>>>
>>> and you never used the term "general"
>>
>> Look at what you are citing above
>
> I know now...you were saying franchises, generally....and cities,
> generally,...and assets, generally....3 times generally apparently
> means it doesn't apply to the blazers
>>
>> "A sports franchise" is general..."an" asset is not 'the" asset, ...
>> "a city" is general.
>
> are the blazers a sports franchise and does your 'general rule' that
> sports franchises are important assets considered in business
> decisions extend from the hypothetical to the blazers?

The blazers are a sports franchise last I looked. I assume that the idea that they are a civic
attraction in portland, That goes for tourists as well as businesses.

>
>
>>
>> Find me a quote (of mine not yours) where I asserted the blazers
>> brought businesses into portland on their own.
>
> find me a business which listed the blazers as an 'important' factor
> in their move to portland.......

I never said that either. I said sports franchises are important civic attractions and the blazers
are that. That businesses consider civic attractions when evauating cities.


>and since you used both 'blazers' and
> 'portland' directly in the previous sentence I assume we're talking
> specifically and not generally....

It is your strawman modify it however you want, =)
But I am still not going to argue something I never said nor intended to say...


>>>> " 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."
>>>>
>>>> Since I never asserted that, we have to surmise which ass it came
>>>> from... ;-)
>>>
>>> Laurel....you said...repeatedly....in a discussion about the
>>> blazers...they were an important asset for attracting businesses
>>
>> I said civic attractions are part of it, and sports teams are
>> important civic attractions.
>
> you also said they are important assets, and in a discussion about
> business decisions, asset has a more tangible meaning then attraction
>
> assets will show up on the balance sheet, attractions don't

Asset has more than a monetary definition. Spy does not fit either.... It is also "A useful or
valuable quality, person, or thing; an advantage or resource"

Civic attractions are an asset when attacting tourists and businesses, and employees...

>
>> You did
>> not argue my terms, you turned that into my asserting the blazers on
>> their own had brought businesses in.
>
> oh I argued your terms several times laurel, and that's a fact. And
> I'm doing so again.
>>
>> I explained I never said that... and then you repeated it when
>> answering swill.
>
>>
>>> underline important...your word
>>
>> so?
>
> so that would put it high on the list then, wouldn't you agree?

High on the list of civic attractions yes.

>>
>>>
>>> If you have no proof that any business based their re-location to
>>> portland with the presence of the blazers being an important factor
>>> in the decision, then where else could that assertion come from?
>>
>> Asked and answered before when you told me I pulled it out of my ass.

>
> answer it again then please...

If you insist...It is your strawman as written above, that is where it came from... I made no such
assertion...


>was it a general or specific answer?

The general answer of where I formed _my_ opinion follows...

>
>> I read it, the editoral for a start.
>
> an editorial written by a business owner explaining what his
> "important" factors were in deciding to locate his business?

Sorry you do not like the source, does not mean he is wrong.

>
>> But I was talking in general terms.
>
> which apparently means it doesn't apply to the willamette valley
>
>> You demanded this "proof"
>> on an assertion I never made.
>
> I'm not "demanding" anything. I'm asking for proof on an assertion you
> have made....the "important" asset factor as it applies specifically
> to the blazers. You seem to be saying it can not be refined below
> 'general" and thus has no relevance to portland

You remember how you answered what you re-posted above?, to wit...
" How many times do I have to say that a sports franchise is an
important asset for a city looking to attract businesses"

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

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


>
> let's try it this way. Do you know of any business not affiliated with
> the blazers that has moved to portland where the presence of the
> blazer franchise was an important factor in the decision?

I never said that either...and you have already trashed the idea that businesses look at civic
attractions with any importance so why rehash this?

Does not quite fit the our argument but try this for the blazers helping business in the area. As I
understand it the district around the MC was quite blighted and the building of the RG and the
upgrades to the infrastructure is credited with a lot of small businesses moving into the area and
urban renewal? If that is so I do not know if any came from outside the city, but they are at least
partly supported by the blazers games and the team is of direct importance there.

>
>
>>
>> I had read it before, heard it discussed.... It comes up a lot when
>> teams are asking for arenas or spliting...
>
> I've heard it before too, and have always questioned it's validity.

Never would have guessed... ;-)

>
>> Hmmm. I am going to email someone to see if I can get some
>> input....a economics professor that specializes in the NBA, has
>> worked for teams and NBPA...
>
>
>>> I was talking about portland and the blazers...two "tangible"
>>> entities
>>
>> Fine. But you can not transfer what you were reading into my posts
>> into something I 'asserted' when I never did ...and then argue it...
>
> I know I know....you keep saying that, but several times I've asked
> you to offer some evidence to back what you did say. And you haven't.

lol...I offered evidence for what I did say...you blew off the sources and disagree....the evidence
I r'efuse' to offer is for the strawmen...I am not going to scramble to try to prove what I never
said or meant.


> I read the business section of the oregonian most days and have for
> years. I've read about dozens upon dozens of businesses that moved to
> portland or were considering it. The reasons or factors they offered
> were rather consistent...cost of land, local taxes, proximity to
> resources, proximity to markets, the I-5 corrider, participation in
> the Pacific Rim, availability of skilled workforce... and sometimes
> they would list some of those less tangible factors like crime rate
> and school systems (I'm sure those don't make the list much anymore)
> And sometimes they would talk about livibility: progressive factors
> like the open beach law and land use laws...and sometimes about the
> recreational opportunities like the pacific ocean and the coast, the
> Columbia river and the gorge, Mt Hood and the cascades, skiing,
> fishing hiking.
>
> But I can't recall ever once a mention of the blazers. Now maybe it's
> just selective memory on my part. But it sure seems like I would
> remember if just once someone would have said "we got a great deal on
> 38 acres, taxes are deferred for 24 months, and Kevin Duckworth plays
> here."

Hey a good argument for your case... I still think civic attractions in general help and that the
blazers are (or were) a big one.

>>
>>>
>>> I didn't realize you had switched to a 'hypothetical ' sports
>>> franchise about the time I asked for some evidence of your
>>> assertion.
>>
>> You switched for me about the time you laid on an assertion I never
>> made....
>
> this entire post was about assertions you DID make and so were several
> of the previous ones, but I understand the covenience for you of
> pretending like the exageration was the only argument I advanced.

Sorry you can not see that you have just read more into what I was saying than was there, but I can
not answer stuff I never meant.

>
> you're right though, the circular track in this thread is worn out

for sure...

I will write Dan the Prof. and see what he says about sports cities and business.


--
Laurel T
If stupidity got us into this mess,
then why can't it get us out."
- Will Rogers
 >> Stay informed about: Now we know why Paul Allen needs $100 Million 

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 01:07:42 -0700, "Terraholm"
<terraholm_SpamNata_.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:


>Civic attractions are an asset when attacting tourists and businesses, and employees...

yeah, I've noticed wih this post you've injected 'tourists' into the
equation, and put them ahead of businesses
>
>>

>
>High on the list of civic attractions yes.

asset = attraction ?
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you have no proof that any business based their re-location to
>>>> portland with the presence of the blazers being an important factor
>>>> in the decision, then where else could that assertion come from?
>>>
>>> Asked and answered before when you told me I pulled it out of my ass.
>
>>
>> answer it again then please...
>
>If you insist...It is your strawman as written above, that is where it came from... I made no such
>assertion...

I understand what you are saying now. You are saying if some people in
a city consider something an asset/attraction for drawing a business
to locate there, then that's what it is. Accordingly, it is completely
irrelevant if any business has considered it so.
>

>> let's try it this way. Do you know of any business not affiliated with
>> the blazers that has moved to portland where the presence of the
>> blazer franchise was an important factor in the decision?
>
>I never said that either...and you have already trashed the idea that businesses look at civic
>attractions with any importance so why rehash this?

that's bunk. I did not "trash" the civic attraction argument. I made
the argument that financial considerations would be paramount to any
business decision and that civic attractions would be minor in
comparison.

What I did "trash" was the notion that you have said repeatedly...in
this post as well... that the blazers are a "big part" and a
"important asset" of the "civic attraction" component that a business
considers.
I've made that point often, and the "strawman" response to it isn't
valid

>
>Does not quite fit the our argument but try this for the blazers helping business in the area. As I
>understand it the district around the MC was quite blighted and the building of the RG and the
>upgrades to the infrastructure is credited with a lot of small businesses moving into the area and