interesting #'s (part 2)

Terraholm wrote:
> Blazer Fan Dan wrote:

>> · $3.8 million/year to the City of Portland from Rose Quarter parking
>> revenues and a 6% ticket tax on all Rose Garden events. Since 1995,
>> the majority of this revenue has been generated by Portland Trail
>> Blazers' games.

The way that is written I have another question. Is 3.8 the total the city has been getting from all
Rose Garden events parking and taxes?
Or 3.8 from parking...plus the ticket tax?

If it is the total it may be less than that the Blazers would have to pay... even with no mitigation
from other events replacing some of it.



--

Laurel T
It's what you learn after you know it all
that's important.
- Famous Horse Trainer Jimmy Williams
 >> Stay informed about: interesting #'s (part 2) 

the state also has a vested interest, and Im sure the city wouldn't
stop the state from suing.

basically, the team ain't moving.
 >> Stay informed about: interesting #'s (part 2) 

Blazer Fan Dan wrote:
> the state also has a vested interest,

Not in any legal sense.

> and Im sure the city wouldn't
> stop the state from suing.

The Blazers made no contractual commitment to the state. The state can not sue a business for
relocating because they want the income tax from their employees. This is a free country, businesses
move all the time.

> basically, the team ain't moving.

They may not, but the city contract is not going to stop them. The state has nothing to do with it.
The RG lease might make it not a viable option.


--
Laurel T
If stupidity got us into this mess,
then why can't it get us out."
- Will Rogers
 >> Stay informed about: interesting #'s (part 2) 

On 25 May 2006 15:37:38 -0700, "Blazer Fan Dan"
<BlazerFanDan.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

>I just got my hands on some interesting info (I won't say who from
>tho)..
>
>"· $9 million/year in state income taxes on Trail Blazers' players,
>visiting NBA players and front office salaries.

so what? how is allen liable for that legally if he moves the blazers?

>· $3.8 million/year to the City of Portland from Rose Quarter parking
>revenues and a 6% ticket tax on all Rose Garden events. Since 1995,
>the majority of this revenue has been generated by Portland Trail
>Blazers' games.
>"
>
>not including the 2+ million property taxes for the RG (as that happens
>regardless)..thats just under 13 million a year.
>
>So, that over 17 years (the remaining contract) is *over* 200 million.
>
>so even if he doesn't have to pay it ALL, thats still almost as much
>(if not more) than it's worth to him to move.

did you just fall off of a turnip truck??

I damn well guarantee you that allen's attorneys will have differnt
accounting to offer

are you naive enough to believe that this so-called "contract" the
city has would really be an impediment to allen moving the blazers if
he wants too?

first of all, the "enforcement" time frame would be in the range of 7
to 12 years if allen's attorneys waned to drag it out

and second, I'm sure there are several different avenues that allen
could explore that may allow hime to break that contract, not the
least of which is bankruptcy. Is this contract that you're so
enamoured with between the city and allen or with the city and some
corporate structure his attorneys have erected?

Do you think that portland would be the first city to fight losing a
sports franchise after the owner decided to move, or that it is the
first city to have some sort of legal protection that has turned out
to be meaningless?

Everything I've read, has convinced me that allen isn't really
interested in selling, and he certainly would appear to not want to
remain in portland under the current circumstances. And if all his
jabber is a negotiating ploy, it's hard to fathom who it's directed
at, the city isn't going to help and the RG owners are playing with a
pat hand. That doesn't leave too many alternative options
 >> Stay informed about: interesting #'s (part 2) 

mmasw wrote:
> On 25 May 2006 15:37:38 -0700, "Blazer Fan Dan"
> <BlazerFanDan.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I just got my hands on some interesting info (I won't say who from
>> tho)..
>>
>> "· $9 million/year in state income taxes on Trail Blazers' players,
>> visiting NBA players and front office salaries.
>
> so what? how is allen liable for that legally if he moves the blazers?

damn commies....

>
>> · $3.8 million/year to the City of Portland from Rose Quarter parking
>> revenues and a 6% ticket tax on all Rose Garden events. Since 1995,
>> the majority of this revenue has been generated by Portland Trail
>> Blazers' games.
>> "
>>
>> not including the 2+ million property taxes for the RG (as that
>> happens regardless)..thats just under 13 million a year.
>>
>> So, that over 17 years (the remaining contract) is *over* 200
>> million.
>>
>> so even if he doesn't have to pay it ALL, thats still almost as much
>> (if not more) than it's worth to him to move.
>
> did you just fall off of a turnip truck??

He is grasping at straws trying to make that city contract into more than a roadbump.

>
> I damn well guarantee you that allen's attorneys will have differnt
> accounting to offer
>
> are you naive enough to believe that this so-called "contract" the
> city has would really be an impediment to allen moving the blazers if
> he wants too?
>
> first of all, the "enforcement" time frame would be in the range of 7
> to 12 years if allen's attorneys waned to drag it out

I think they do not even fight over it with the city, but just settle for something like 3 mil per
year.

>
> and second, I'm sure there are several different avenues that allen
> could explore that may allow hime to break that contract, not the
> least of which is bankruptcy. Is this contract that you're so
> enamoured with between the city and allen or with the city and some
> corporate structure his attorneys have erected?

It has a clause to protect the city's money during a bankruptcy or if the blazers just fold. A
bankruptcy would be to get out of the RG lease.
What Dan refuses to see it that the penalties combined with any decent deal with another city still
increases revenue from a better lease, likely incentives form the state or city, while drastically
decreases the overhead.
The city's penalty could be covered by 4 to 6 luxury box revenues.

With a deal like the Hornets (2 mil rent to the city, they run the arena and get all revenue from
it), the Blazers would have nearly double the income on the same attendance and a lease that even
still paying Portland would still be 10 to 12 million less than what they pay for the RG.


>
> Do you think that portland would be the first city to fight losing a
> sports franchise after the owner decided to move, or that it is the
> first city to have some sort of legal protection that has turned out
> to be meaningless?
>
> Everything I've read, has convinced me that allen isn't really
> interested in selling, and he certainly would appear to not want to
> remain in portland under the current circumstances. And if all his
> jabber is a negotiating ploy, it's hard to fathom who it's directed
> at, the city isn't going to help and the RG owners are playing with a
> pat hand. That doesn't leave too many alternative options.

Like the quote from the guy from volcan...

"Our preference has been to reach an agreement with (the arena owners) to keep the team in
Portland."
However, as negotiations have drawn out, we have been forced to look more seriously at our other
options."

As a negotiating ploy it would be against the RG owners. They have the most to lose if the Blazers
declare bankruptcy and it gets them out of their lease and leave. They would be left with no team
paying them close to 17 mil. while they collect the revenue from the boxes and club seats and they
could not get another team to move in on any such deal.
They might be able to still sell the arena to the Sonics owners or to the Maloof's to move the Kings
here or something... now there is a funny thought, the Portland media touting that organization
while we are supposed to root for artest ...


--
Laurel T
"Quite honestly we have had players on our teams before
that make Bonzi Wells look like Mary Poppins."
Hubie Brown
 >> Stay informed about: interesting #'s (part 2) 

Terraholm wrote:
> Blazer Fan Dan wrote:
> > the state also has a vested interest,
>
> Not in any legal sense.
>
> > and Im sure the city wouldn't
> > stop the state from suing.
>
> The Blazers made no contractual commitment to the state. The state can not sue a business for
> relocating because they want the income tax from their employees. This is a free country, businesses
> move all the time.
>
> > basically, the team ain't moving.
>
> They may not, but the city contract is not going to stop them. The state has nothing to do with it.
> The RG lease might make it not a viable option.
>

I believe that the city also gets some of the taxes too.
 >> Stay informed about: interesting #'s (part 2) 

since people who do this kind of stuff for a living are basically
saying that the contract is in huge favor of the city, I'll take their
word over people who just speculate online.
 >> Stay informed about: interesting #'s (part 2) 

Blazer Fan Dan wrote:
> Terraholm wrote:
>> Blazer Fan Dan wrote:
>>> the state also has a vested interest,
>>
>> Not in any legal sense.
>>
>>> and Im sure the city wouldn't
>> > stop the state from suing.
>>
>> The Blazers made no contractual commitment to the state. The state
>> can not sue a business for relocating because they want the income
>> tax from their employees. This is a free country, businesses move
>> all the time.
>>
>>> basically, the team ain't moving.
>>
>> They may not, but the city contract is not going to stop them. The
>> state has nothing to do with it. The RG lease might make it not a
>> viable option.
>>
>
> I believe that the city also gets some of the taxes too.

City has no income tax. If they get some back from the state that is between them and the state and
likely indirect anyway.

The only compensation named in the contract the city can likely collect is the direct income. Now
they say something about intangibles in that contract and that might get them an injunction but I
doubt it. No court is likely to order them to stay and lose 30 million so the city can collect 3 to
4 million....unless there is a set penalty the non-monetary benefits for the city are likely just
that...


--
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: interesting #'s (part 2) 

Blazer Fan Dan wrote:
> since people who do this kind of stuff for a living are basically
> saying that the contract is in huge favor of the city,

The contract is in favor of the city not losing their income from the RG. They will not.

> I'll take their
> word over people who just speculate online.

Because you do not like our interesting numbers?....Go right ahead....


--
Laurel T
"Being a point guard is like being a mother.
You've got to make sure everyone's happy
and everyone gets fed."
Sebastian Telfair
 >> Stay informed about: interesting #'s (part 2) 

your "interesting" numbers aren't accurate to the information that
people who actually are dealing with the groups present.
 >> Stay informed about: interesting #'s (part 2) 

Blazer Fan Dan wrote:
> your "interesting" numbers aren't accurate to the information that
> people who actually are dealing with the groups present.

You mean the guy that used to work for one of their creditors that is part of PAM and is handing on
hearsay stuff to you from someone else in that company that was supposed to impress us? One sided at
best...

You know someone actually inside the negotiations between PAM and Falcan?
If so give us those numbers if you are privy to them. I doubt it when you try to add in state income
taxes.....Otherwise our information is just as good.

City....3.8 million...from your post and your 'source'. If you know more detail than the quote you
posted from your unnamed source you might answer my question about if the 3.8 is just the blazers
parking or all events parking or everything including ticket taxes. From the way it is written I can
not tell which part that the "blazers were the majority of the revenue"...

4 million from the quote in the article from a city official and several other articles.

Do not have to be a lawyer to know the state has no contract and no case and no original investment
in the RG.
Blazers would say 'bite me' as they left town if threatened with a suit there.


--
Laurel T
I don't hate anyone, at least not for
more than 48 minutes, barring overtime."
Charles Barkley
 >> Stay informed about: interesting #'s (part 2)