Blazers moving to Vegas?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Natebishop3 said:
Oh, you mean like how I can say that this post is a huge steaming pile of shit and it's not against the rules?
Click to expand...

Whatever.

I publicly swore off doing that, hadn't done it for MONTHS, then got asked to stop doing it.

Either or can be done or it can't.
 
oldmangrouch said:
Amazing....people actually believe that the identity and desires of the buyer will have no impact on whether the team stays or goes. I'm done.
Click to expand...
The new owner needs league approval and it gets voted on by the other league owners. From what Adam Silver said Paul was very involved in league meetings and well respected. I'd find it hard to believe they'd shit on his grave by allowing someone to just come in and yank a successful franchise.
 
oldmangrouch said:
Amazing....people actually believe that the identity and desires of the buyer will have no impact on whether the team stays or goes. I'm done.
Click to expand...

But
Grouch, There can be stips put into the sale of the contract, like dont move the team. And yes, I would expect a buyer to be pretty business savy and know he is buying a team with a great fan base. I would assume( I hate assumptions) that a new owner would know he is taking a real gamble in trying to move this city in hopes of a better situation.

If there was a team in Seattle, I could see this more of a possibility, but with no NBA in the NW there is too much of a need here and tickets will sell. Why would a new owner want to give up a sure thing for a gamble on something else that has a peak of being pretty much what it already is? a sellout arena?
 
Orion Bailey said:
But
Grouch, There can be stips put into the sale of the contract, like dont move the team. And yes, I would expect a buyer to be pretty business savy and know he is buying a team with a great fan base. I would assume( I hate assumptions) that a new owner would know he is taking a real gamble in trying to move this city in hopes of a better situation.

If there was a team in Seattle, I could see this more of a possibility, but with no NBA in the NW there is too much of a need here and tickets will sell. Why would a new owner want to give up a sure thing for a gamble on something else that has a peak of being pretty much what it already is? a sellout arena?
Click to expand...

Did you know there was a clause like that in the Sonic's sale? The courts refused to enforce it. As a retired lawyer I can tell you point blank - when it comes to breach of contract, courts will stand on their heads to reject any penalty other than money damages. The OKC group admitted they always intended to move the team and that they didn't really try to keep the team in Seattle. Didn't matter.
The court would neither cancel the sale nor order them to not move.
 
Hey meatheads who think the Blazers will move to Vegas. Vegas is seriously running out of water. They're pretty capped on the population their water system can support, just barely. And that population will struggle to support more than what they have now. The Raiders will survive because tons of vacationing NFL fans will fill that stadium on a regular basis. Look for at least a third of the stadium to be filled with opposing fans.
 
oldmangrouch said:
Did you know there was a clause like that in the Sonic's sale? The courts refused to enforce it. As a retired lawyer I can tell you point blank - when it comes to breach of contract, courts will stand on their heads to reject any penalty other than money damages. The OKC group admitted they always intended to move the team and that they didn't really try to keep the team in Seattle. Didn't matter.
The court would neither cancel the sale nor order them to not move.
Click to expand...
I see it as apples to oranges though. First, Seattle had two other major sports franchises to keep the population entertained. Second NBA was just 150 miles south in Portland so the northwest fans still had an option.
Lastly, I firmly believe the league learned their lesson by that complete fiasco and will not allow something like that to happen again. Like @hoopshock has noted, the league and other owners must approve the move and most of the owners know how bad the move from Seattle to Oklahoma City went for the lead. It was mud in the face to the average fan
 
oldmangrouch said:
Did you know there was a clause like that in the Sonic's sale? The courts refused to enforce it. As a retired lawyer I can tell you point blank - when it comes to breach of contract, courts will stand on their heads to reject any penalty other than money damages. The OKC group admitted they always intended to move the team and that they didn't really try to keep the team in Seattle. Didn't matter.
The court would neither cancel the sale nor order them to not move.
Click to expand...
But the fact of the matter is the NBA wanted the team to stay in Seattle. Key Arena was an absolute shit hole. I went to the final Blazer game there and couldn't believe they allowed an NBA team to play in that arena. The NBA told Seattle (and Sacramento) that they wouldn't allow a move if they came up with a new arena. The Sonics didn't own Key Arena either. Even if the new owner intended to move all along they wouldn't have been able to if Seattle paid for it. Now, you can definitely say it's not worth it for a city to make it's citizens pay for an arena but that is a different argument.

For Portland the new owner would own the arena and that arena is more than adequate for NBA standards, unlike in Seattle. It wouldn't be a great business decision to buy a team with an arena only to move them out of that arena. Having an NBA tenant in that building is far more valuable than using it for something else. It would be hard to sell that place without an NBA team.

So the comparison between what happened in Seattle and Portland isn't really the same. Portland has an arena, Seattle didn't and weren't willing to come up with one. Plus there are no attendance issues in Portland like other places. I haven't seen you address why if an owner wanted to buy a franchise to move it they wouldn't go after New Orleans instead?
 
Orion Bailey said:
I see it as apples to oranges though. First, Seattle had two other major sports franchises to keep the population entertained. Second NBA was just 150 miles south in Portland so the northwest fans still had an option.
Lastly, I firmly believe the league learned their lesson by that complete fiasco and will not allow something like that to happen again. Like @hoopshock has noted, the league and other owners must approve the move and most of the owners know how bad the move from Seattle to Oklahoma City went for the lead. It was mud in the face to the average fan
Click to expand...

It's just your self-comforting dream to imagine that the NBA has an idealistic loyalty about keeping a team in the Northwest, just to maintain a presence in the Northwest.

You should base your argument purely on profits or legal restrictions. This is capitalism, not morality.
 
jlprk said:
It's just your self-comforting dream to imagine that the NBA has an idealistic loyalty about keeping a team in the Northwest, just to maintain a presence in the Northwest.

You should base your argument purely on profits or legal restrictions. This is capitalism, not morality.
Click to expand...
Do you think a league would want to have most of their teams in the same areas or be spread out to capitalize on different regions?
 
hoopsjock said:
The new owner needs league approval and it gets voted on by the other league owners. From what Adam Silver said Paul was very involved in league meetings and well respected. I'd find it hard to believe they'd shit on his grave by allowing someone to just come in and yank a successful franchise.
Click to expand...
They're gone bro!
 
Orion Bailey said:
But
Grouch, There can be stips put into the sale of the contract, like dont move the team. And yes, I would expect a buyer to be pretty business savy and know he is buying a team with a great fan base. I would assume( I hate assumptions) that a new owner would know he is taking a real gamble in trying to move this city in hopes of a better situation.

If there was a team in Seattle, I could see this more of a possibility, but with no NBA in the NW there is too much of a need here and tickets will sell. Why would a new owner want to give up a sure thing for a gamble on something else that has a peak of being pretty much what it already is? a sellout arena?
Click to expand...
Seattle has a new team now. Seattle TrailSonics!
 
kjironman1 said:
They're gone bro!
Click to expand...
I'm not even slightly worried about it happening.

Edit: Mayyyybe someday when the Rose Garden is old and beaten down I'll start to worry about if the new owner will want to pay for a new arena out of his pocket but we'll cross that bridge if and when that ever happens.
 
tykendo said:
Hey meatheads who think the Blazers will move to Vegas. Vegas is seriously running out of water. They're pretty capped on the population their water system can support, just barely. And that population will struggle to support more than what they have now. The Raiders will survive because tons of vacationing NFL fans will fill that stadium on a regular basis. Look for at least a third of the stadium to be filled with opposing fans.
Click to expand...
Pipeline on the way!
 
Orion Bailey said:
I see it as apples to oranges though. First, Seattle had two other major sports franchises to keep the population entertained. Second NBA was just 150 miles south in Portland so the northwest fans still had an option.
Lastly, I firmly believe the league learned their lesson by that complete fiasco and will not allow something like that to happen again. Like @hoopshock has noted, the league and other owners must approve the move and most of the owners know how bad the move from Seattle to Oklahoma City went for the lead. It was mud in the face to the average fan
Click to expand...
Do Seattle Sports Fans actually know Portland exists?
 
hoopsjock said:
I'm not even slightly worried about it happening.

Edit: Mayyyybe someday when the Rose Garden is old and beaten down I'll start to worry about if the new owner will want to pay for a new arena out of his pocket but we'll cross that bridge if and when that ever happens.
Click to expand...
The Rose Garden was finished in 1995. It figures to have about a 40 year lifespan before major upgrades need to be done. But i'm betting those will have to start at around 30 years if they want to stay out of shutting the arena down for a very long period. Doesn't really matter in this case i'm thinking. I personally figure we will have this answer soon enough.
 
hoopsjock said:
Do you think a league would want to have most of their teams in the same areas or be spread out to capitalize on different regions?
Click to expand...

Like I said, either way is not a priority to the league. Just profit. Geographical spread is just a subfunction of profits, not a controlling guide.
 
kjironman1 said:
The Rose Garden was finished in 1995. It figures to have about a 40 year lifespan before major upgrades need to be done. But i'm betting those will have to start at around 30 years if they want to stay out of shutting the arena down for a very long period. Doesn't really matter in this case i'm thinking. I personally figure we will have this answer soon enough.
Click to expand...

That's what Seattle thought. Less than 10 years into their new arena (also finished around 1995), the Sonics started publicly agitating for something new. In the last year or two, they let the arena go to pot, to pressure fans to back them.

(I don't think the Blazers are leaving, but I'm straightening out the thinking of idealists who have hopeful non-financial reasons.)
 
jlprk said:
It's just your self-comforting dream to imagine that the NBA has an idealistic loyalty about keeping a team in the Northwest, just to maintain a presence in the Northwest.

You should base your argument purely on profits or legal restrictions. This is capitalism, not morality.
Click to expand...

Why assume its about morality or sentimentality?
Im talking business and profit.
The Nw has alot of money and hundreds of thousands nba fans. The nw market, as a whole, is just as big as any other market without a team, by a landslide.
Where do you think an owner can move this team and have it be more profitable? Vegas? Only if they inflate the costs of all the expenses you aquire by attending a game.

Come on. You really think there is such a profit gap to be made, that it would justify such a move?


I dont buy it. You are a conspiracy theorist. :)
 
Last edited:
I said the reason for a move must be for profit or legal reasons, but now I've thought of other reasons.

1. The owner moves the team to where he lives. (Grizzlies to smaller Memphis, Sonics to smaller OKC, Blazers to Seattle if Jody moves them, Seahawks to L.A. till Paul Allen rescued them)

2. The banks financing a poorer owner require the city of least risk. (No examples that I know of, but I wonder if lenders [not minority owners] have forced moves in the past.)

3. Or the new owner breaks with NBA conventional wisdom and cashes in on a big-population city:

3a. The NBA quietly avoids cities not rich (cough, white) enough for the league's high ticket prices (St. Louis, Kansas City, Cincinnati)

3b. Other: big cities close to another NBA city, non-English language, or gambling (San Diego, Buffalo, Tampa, Columbus, Baltimore, Montreal, Mexican cities, Las Vegas)

3c. Edit: How could I forget Seattle and Vancouver.

Edit #2: Come to think of it, the purpose of reasons 2 and 3 is to increase profit. Only reason 1 will cost the owner decreased profit. But reason 1 will increase his sense of control, so he feels it will increase his profit even in a smaller city. So like reasons 2 and 3, his motive is to increase profit, whether a move really will or not.

So I have disproven that I was wrong, and proven that I should not have doubted my infallibility. What an error I made to think that I make errors.
 
Last edited:
jlprk said:
I said the reason for a move must be for profit or legal reasons, but now I've thought of other reasons.

1. The owner moves the team to where he lives. (Grizzlies to smaller Memphis, Sonics to smaller OKC, Blazers to Seattle if Jody moves them, Seahawks to L.A. till Paul Allen rescued them)

2. The banks financing a poorer owner require the city of least risk. (No examples that I know of, but I wonder if lenders [not minority owners] have forced moves in the past.)

3. Or the new owner breaks with NBA conventional wisdom and cashes in on a big-population city:

3a. The NBA quietly avoids cities not rich (cough, white) enough for the league's high ticket prices (St. Louis, Kansas City, Cincinnati)

3b. Other: big cities close to another NBA city, non-English language, or gambling (San Diego, Buffalo, Tampa, Columbus, Baltimore, Montreal, Mexican cities, Las Vegas)

3c. Edit: How could I forget Seattle and Vancouver.

Edit #2: Come to think of it, the purpose of reasons 2 and 3 is to increase profit. Only reason 1 will cost the owner decreased profit. But reason 1 will increase his sense of control, so he feels it will increase his profit even in a smaller city. So like reasons 2 and 3, his motive is to increase profit, whether a move really will or not.

So I have disproven that I was wrong, and proven that I should not have doubted my infallibility. What an error I made to think that I make errors.
Click to expand...
1. The two NBA examples involved teams having cities with little fan support and/or stadium issues. Doesnt apply here, and the NBA has learned from past mistakes.

2. Now you're just making up random hypotheticals that would never play out. If banks financing a prospective owner require a team to be moved, the NBA wouldnt allow the sale. Also, that would be riskier than keeping the team in a city with a proven track record and base of supporters. Also also, post-sale, remaining on Portland means no fixed-costs of leasing a stadium. More fixed costs = more financial risk.

3. Many of these destinations have similar or smaller metro populations than Portland, and many of them have other major sports teams. When you combine that with the costs of relocating and leasing/building a stadium, itd be opposite of "cashing in".

Seriously, some of those city suggestions were terrible. Vegas, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and Buffalo are all smaller cities and have other pro sports teams. St. Louis, San Diego, and Baltimore are off similar size and have other sports too. None of them have a track record of support.

Columbus? Mexican cities? ...

These are all terrible reasons, and while you think you "disproved your errors", you did the opposite.
 
Every objection you made was Hopeful Idealism, not in the form it should have been--"If an owner ever thought he'd increase his profit by doing X, he'd be wrong, for the following reason: Y."

As I said, you guys need to wipe out your nonfinancial hope reasons and think like an owner, not like a hopeful fan.

Also, you forgot to say "smh."
 
As I said, I don't expect the Blazers to move. It's just a pain reading your amateurish reasons.
 
jlprk said:
I said the reason for a move must be for profit or legal reasons, but now I've thought of other reasons.

1. The owner moves the team to where he lives. (Grizzlies to smaller Memphis, Sonics to smaller OKC, Blazers to Seattle if Jody moves them, Seahawks to L.A. till Paul Allen rescued them)

2. The banks financing a poorer owner require the city of least risk. (No examples that I know of, but I wonder if lenders [not minority owners] have forced moves in the past.)

3. Or the new owner breaks with NBA conventional wisdom and cashes in on a big-population city:

3a. The NBA quietly avoids cities not rich (cough, white) enough for the league's high ticket prices (St. Louis, Kansas City, Cincinnati)

3b. Other: big cities close to another NBA city, non-English language, or gambling (San Diego, Buffalo, Tampa, Columbus, Baltimore, Montreal, Mexican cities, Las Vegas)

3c. Edit: How could I forget Seattle and Vancouver.

Edit #2: Come to think of it, the purpose of reasons 2 and 3 is to increase profit. Only reason 1 will cost the owner decreased profit. But reason 1 will increase his sense of control, so he feels it will increase his profit even in a smaller city. So like reasons 2 and 3, his motive is to increase profit, whether a move really will or not.

So I have disproven that I was wrong, and proven that I should not have doubted my infallibility. What an error I made to think that I make errors.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading after number two. Dude. The lowest risk would be to keep the team right where its at.

Are you trolling again dammit!???!!!
 
jlprk said:
That's what Seattle thought. Less than 10 years into their new arena (also finished around 1995), the Sonics started publicly agitating for something new. In the last year or two, they let the arena go to pot, to pressure fans to back them.

(I don't think the Blazers are leaving, but I'm straightening out the thinking of idealists who have hopeful non-financial reasons.)
Click to expand...

Seattle arena was built in 1962 and they kept putting lipstick on it to try and bring it up to modern standards but it was inadequate for the NBA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top