Blazers Sale?

[BoomChakaLaka]

From Hoopshype

Maybe the best news to emerge from all this, from a source who knows Allen: She doesn’t want to do anything that would hurt the value of the team, because one of these days she’s going to sell it.

And more!?!?!? WTF?


Since Paul’s 2018 death, the team has been run by Paul’s sister Jody. Levi Pulkkinen in the Seattle Post Intelligencer reported the story of several lawsuits brought by bodyguards for Paul’s company, Vulcan, where Jody was long the CEO. In the fall of 2010, a new head of security arrived from the FBI and found the security team in disarray “because of Jody Allen’s sexual harassment of team members,” and—in some allegations—messing with the pay of those who rebuffed her advances. One former military man said under oath he didn’t feel comfortable being alone with Jody Allen. Pulkkinen writes: Another former Vulcan bodyguard, also a retired Navy SEAL, said Jody Allen bought tight, revealing swimsuits for the security detail and asked the men to “do a fashion show.” Vulcan contends that any conduct resembling that described was entirely innocent and occured in the spirit of fun. In 2012, one veteran testified, “I’d rather get shot at than do this.” One remembered telling a Vulcan attorney that Jody Allen’s behavior was “going to bring the company down.”

and then more!!!??? This is weird


Wrapped up in those lawsuits and arbitration—some of which were settled—were several allegations about the bones of rare animals being smuggled for Jody Allen. The FDA reportedly collected and destroyed 78 pounds of Allen’s giraffe bones. And then there were the penguin parts. In a memo, a security officer noted that they were able to make sure “the penguin bones that JA picked up in Antarctica were boxed and put on the plane without being scanned at customs.” Jody Allen emailed her nanny looking for a penguin skull that went missing during the return from Antarctica; a friend apparently wanted to make jewelry from it.Deposed during the lawsuit, Jody Allen refused to say whether she took the bones or trespassed into a protected penguin nesting area. Even security guards with special forces training needed protection from these billionaires. What chance did the penguins stand?
39 mins ago – via Henry Abbott @ TrueHoop

 

[Wizard Mentor]

just fyi, no one is responding because this is old news.

 

[AldoTrapani]

Old

 

[Phatguysrule]

Seriously, how could this work? How could the city or state buy the team?

 

[blazerkor]

Seriously, how could this work? How could the city or state buy the team?

If we look at the Packers, I don't think the government of the city or state could own the team. I think the people of the city or state could. The truth is, the way the Packers are set up pretty much guarantees they'll never be moved because they can't be sold for profit and no one is looking to make a profit... since it's a non-profit. The shares actually can't even be sold... they can just offer more shares to raise capital.

So if the Blazers tried something like this they could make a stipulation that buyers of shares could only live in Oregon and the Portland Metro Area but I guess shareholders could move out. That being said, if the limitation on share owning was similar to the Packers, again you'd ensure the team never moved. If you had a million people interested they would just have to pay $1500 each, I'm sure some people would buy more than one share to have more votes in major team decisions... like electing the board of directors or new share offerings.

I think this is a place that could actually pull it off. The demand, just to be able to say you're one of the owners has allowed the Packers to raise a lot of money over the years by just offering more options to knew share holders... this didn't make it so the people who were current owners made money by selling split shares, it just diluted their vote but due to the fact that these people don't make money off this shit anyway, they were cool with it so it could generate money to improve aspects of the franchise.

I actually think there are so many Blazers fans in the area with an interest in really being part of the team that there would be high demand for the shares if it were a million shares at $1,500-2,000. You have to think that there are some rich fans that would want more votes and would throw a couple hundred thousand in. I think a ton of people would want around ten shares. Some working class fans might forgo buying a fishing boat or something to have a couple shares. So really you'd probably only need 100,000 or so fans and you'd probably have to put a strict limit on the percent of the team a person could own so people that just want a share or two could do so. I think the demand for shares in this area would be more than sufficient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers,_Inc.

 

[Phatguysrule]

If we look at the Packers, I don't think the government of the city or state could own the team. I think the people of the city or state could. The truth is, the way the Packers are set up pretty much guarantees they'll never be moved because they can't be sold for profit and no one is looking to make a profit... since it's a non-profit. The shares actually can't even be sold... they can just offer more shares to raise capital.

So if the Blazers tried something like this they could make a stipulation that buyers of shares could only live in Oregon and the Portland Metro Area but I guess shareholders could move out. That being said, if the limitation on share owning was similar to the Packers, again you'd ensure the team never moved. If you had a million people interested they would just have to pay $1500 each, I'm sure some people would buy more than one share to have more votes in major team decisions... like electing the board of directors or new share offerings.

I think this is a place that could actually pull it off. The demand, just to be able to say you're one of the owners has allowed the Packers to raise a lot of money over the years by just offering more options to knew share holders... this didn't make it so the people who were current owners made money by selling split shares, it just diluted their vote but due to the fact that these people don't make money off this shit anyway, they were cool with it so it could generate money to improve aspects of the franchise.

I actually think there are so many Blazers fans in the area with an interest in really being part of the team that there would be high demand for the shares if it were a million shares at $1,500-2,000. You have to think that there are some rich fans that would want more votes and would throw a couple hundred thousand in. I think a ton of people would want around ten shares. Some working class fans might forgo buying a fishing boat or something to have a couple shares. So really you'd probably only need 100,000 or so fans and you'd probably have to put a strict limit on the percent of the team a person could own so people that just want a share or two could do so. I think the demand for shares in this area would be more than sufficient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers,_Inc.

I like it. Let's do it.

 

[crandc]

Small detail but why would she have a nanny? Her son's are long since adults.

 

[Duckhook]

Any chance this can be merged into one of the other threads that covers all of this? This need to feed the angst is getting repetitive. Thanks

 

[julius]

to those who are convinced a green bay situation could happen here, please join reality.

 

[TBpup]

just fyi, no one is responding because this is old news.

To be fair, not nearly as old as Chauncey's news.

 

[blazerkor]

to those who are convinced a green bay situation could happen here, please join reality.

Agreed, I was discussing its viability, not its probability. There is too much money to be made off of this franchise or any pro sports franchise for rich people to allow the people to decide to make it a public, nonprofit entity. The people that want to make that money off of the team would use there influence to make sure they kept that ability.

The Green Bay situation will only happen again if it's mandated in the will of a team's owner who passes. Otherwise we'll never see it again. I know it can't happen again in the NFL because they require one person to be at least the 30% owner of a team and only allow the Green Bay situation to continue because it's grandfathered in. The team was formed this way in the 1920s and rules and regulations have been written in by the board of directors and voted on by the share holders from time to time to keep it current and lawful but... yeah it's not happening again.

 

[julius]

Agreed, I was discussing its viability, not its probability. There is too much money to be made off of this franchise or any pro sports franchise for rich people to allow the people to decide to make it a public, nonprofit entity. The people that want to make that money off of the team would use there influence to make sure they kept that ability.

The Green Bay situation will only happen again if it's mandated in the will of a team's owner who passes. Otherwise we'll never see it again. I know it can't happen again in the NFL because they require one person to be at least the 30% owner of a team and only allow the Green Bay situation to continue because it's grandfathered in. The team was formed this way in the 1920s and rules and regulations have been written in by the board of directors and voted on by the share holders from time to time to keep it current and lawful but... yeah it's not happening again.

Also, the NFL is a totally different game than the NBA (not sports wise, business model wise).

 

[Phatguysrule]

to those who are convinced a green bay situation could happen here, please join reality.

Please explain why that couldn't work here?

 

[Phatguysrule]

Agreed, I was discussing its viability, not its probability. There is too much money to be made off of this franchise or any pro sports franchise for rich people to allow the people to decide to make it a public, nonprofit entity. The people that want to make that money off of the team would use there influence to make sure they kept that ability.

The Green Bay situation will only happen again if it's mandated in the will of a team's owner who passes. Otherwise we'll never see it again. I know it can't happen again in the NFL because they require one person to be at least the 30% owner of a team and only allow the Green Bay situation to continue because it's grandfathered in. The team was formed this way in the 1920s and rules and regulations have been written in by the board of directors and voted on by the share holders from time to time to keep it current and lawful but... yeah it's not happening again.

This I get. That's my hunch as well. The wealthy would buy it up before enough momentum could build.

But it would still be worth a shot, IMO.

 

[julius]

Please explain why that couldn't work here?

Because where would you get enough people to pool up 2+ billion that it would cost to buy the team, plus then the costs incurred to run the team, let alone balance the teams budget.

The last time the GBP's sold stock (about 10 years ago), it was 250 a pop. IF the team set that as the bar, it would take 8 million people at 250 (or 8 million shares). Even if you did 1K per share, it would take 2 million shares. But that's *just* to buy the team.

It would be difficult to find 2 million people to buy 1 share at 2K a pop, so clearly there would be people buying multiple shares.

Plus anything done to improve the arena (etc) would have to come from the sales of stock, because they surely wouldn't profit enough during the season to make any kind of improvements.

I.e., a bank is more likely to deal with a billionaire (or a group of billionaires owning the team) than several thousand to potentially million stock holders.

And mostly, the NBA would never in a million years, allow it.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

to those who are convinced a green bay situation could happen here, please join reality.

We're currently having a virtual conversation about a team that is not playing.
How's that for reality?

 

[julius]

We're currently having a virtual conversation about a team that is not playing.
How's that for reality?

well, if we were the only place that that happened....

 

[Phatguysrule]

Because where would you get enough people to pool up 2+ billion that it would cost to buy the team, plus then the costs incurred to run the team, let alone balance the teams budget.

The last time the GBP's sold stock (about 10 years ago), it was 250 a pop. IF the team set that as the bar, it would take 8 million people at 250 (or 8 million shares). Even if you did 1K per share, it would take 2 million shares. But that's *just* to buy the team.

It would be difficult to find 2 million people to buy 1 share at 2K a pop, so clearly there would be people buying multiple shares.

Plus anything done to improve the arena (etc) would have to come from the sales of stock, because they surely wouldn't profit enough during the season to make any kind of improvements.

I.e., a bank is more likely to deal with a billionaire (or a group of billionaires owning the team) than several thousand to potentially million stock holders.

And mostly, the NBA would never in a million years, allow it.

The league may not allow it. But I don't see why it would be much different than what we're have now.

We'd hire a CEO to run it and that's who the league and banks would deal with.

The Blazers have been profitable. The Arena can be owned by its own company, so the Blazers don't need to be on the hook for those costs.

I think you'd have many people buying dozens to hundreds of shares. I'd buy at least a share, and I'd be happy to pay a yearly fee per share if that's what it took to keep us competitive.

There are 90k millionaires in Oregon. If 10k of them invested 100,000 that's $1 billion right there.

 

[julius]

The league may not allow it. But I don't see why it would be much different than what we're have now.

We'd hire a CEO to run it and that's who the league and banks would deal with.

The Blazers have been profitable. The Arena can be owned by its own company, so the Blazers don't need to be on the hook for those costs.

I think you'd have many people buying dozens to hundreds of shares. I'd buy at least a share, and I'd be happy to pay a yearly fee per share if that's what it took to keep us competitive.

This would be a recipe for failure and expenses that would hamstrung the teams financial viability for decades. The NFL business model is not the same as the NBA's. They have 8 home games to worry about, and an insanely lucrative tv deal that helps them (the NFL tv deal is worth 110 billion, whereas the current NBA one is worth 24).

So what happens if the Arena, owned by a separate entity, decides they want to remodel it? They're going to foot the bill (ahahahahahahahah)?

Or what if the team decides they want a better arena, but the owners of the arena don't want to pay for it, what happens then?

What happens if the team loses money? Paul Allen probably spent almost 750 million keep the team afloat during the time he owned it (I remember years where the team lost 100 million per year). The team is just NOW profitable, after barely making any money for most of the last 20 years.

 

[Phatguysrule]

This would be a recipe for failure and expenses that would hamstrung the teams financial viability for decades. The NFL business model is not the same as the NBA's. They have 8 home games to worry about, and an insanely lucrative tv deal that helps them (the NFL tv deal is worth 110 billion, whereas the current NBA one is worth 24).

So what happens if the Arena, owned by a separate entity, decides they want to remodel it? They're going to foot the bill (ahahahahahahahah)?

Or what if the team decides they want a better arena, but the owners of the arena don't want to pay for it, what happens then?

What happens if the team loses money? Paul Allen probably spent almost 750 million keep the team afloat during the time he owned it (I remember years where the team lost 100 million per year). The team is just NOW profitable, after barely making any money for most of the last 20 years.

There is a lease agreement. The arena can't just decide to bill the team more until the lease is up. That's not how it works.

If the team wants a better arena it'll have to come up with the money to build it. Either the owners will have to fund it, get a loan, or ask the city to fund it. Just like has to happen now...

If the team loses money it'll have to have reserves or the owners will have to pay up.

If 100k shares kick in $250 per year that's $25 million. The $750 million Paul Allen spent over his 40 years owning the team works out to just over $18 million per year.

 

[julius]

There is a lease agreement. The arena can't just decide to bill the team more until the lease is up. That's not how it works.

Never said it didn't. But let's say the lease is up, and the owners of the arena want to change the deal. Or the team realizes they need to build a new arena.

If the team wants a better arena it'll have to come up with the money to build it. Either the owners will have to fund it, get a loan, or ask the city to fund it. Just like has to happen now...

So, after buying the team for (a min) of 2 billion, they're going to then have to come up with another (at least) billion?

Please tune into reality.

If the team loses money it'll have to have reserves or the owners will have to pay up.

Or, and hear me out, just having an owner who is a billionaire is smarter, more logical, and realistic?

If 100k shares kick in $250 per year that's $25 million. The $750 million Paul Allen spent over his 40 years owning the team works out to just over $18 million per year.

and if 100K shares don't want to kick in 250 extra per year, maybe they don't want to.

Also, Paul Allen didn't own the team for 40 years. He owned it from 1988 until his death, in 2018. That's 30 years (which means the team would've averaged being in the hole, $25 million PER year). His riches is why the team is still here, and has the arena.

Having an ownership set up like the GBP's is a pipe dreams pipe dream, not based in any kind of reality nor is it a way to even remotely be able to compete in the NBA today.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Never said it didn't. But let's say the lease is up, and the owners of the arena want to change the deal. Or the team realizes they need to build a new arena.



So, after buying the team for (a min) of 2 billion, they're going to then have to come up with another (at least) billion?

Please tune into reality.

Sure. The shareholders are going to make a $2 billion investment without considering the condition of the arena... Riiight. If the team doesn't have an arena that will last it will be worth less money and financing for a replacement will be planned for before it's needed. Welcome to the world of business!

Or, and hear me out, just having an owner who is a billionaire is smarter, more logical, and realistic?

Unless said owner wants to move the team to another city. Or is a shitty owner.

and if 100K shares don't want to kick in 250 extra per year, maybe they don't want to.

That's $21 per month. Nobody who buys a $2k share in a basketball team is going to bat an eye at $21 per month... that you're even arguing it could be an issue makes me suspect you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Also, Paul Allen didn't own the team for 40 years. He owned it from 1988 until his death, in 2018. That's 30 years (which means the team would've averaged being in the hole, $25 million PER year).

My bad. Look, the math still works! Woo hoo! Do you honestly think the CEO of a nonprofit would run the team like Paul Allen ran it? Don't you think they'd have surplus to fall back on? The fact that it's a nonprofit actually makes that MORE likely to have reserves rather than less likely.

Having an ownership set up like the GBP's is a pipe dreams pipe dream, not based in any kind of reality nor is it a way to even remotely be able to compete in the NBA today.

You keep saying that, yet you haven't shown a bit of evidence to support that theory. The best I've seen so far, is that the NBA just wouldn't allow it.

 

[julius]

Sure. The shareholders are going to make a $2 billion investment without considering the condition of the arena... Riiight. If the team doesn't have an arena that will last it will be worth less money and financing for a replacement will be planned for before it's needed. Welcome to the world of business!

your argument there seems to be in favor of what I'm saying.

Unless said owner wants to move the team to another city. Or is a shitty owner.

The NBA would more likely allow the team to move than be owned by the fans.

That's $21 per month. Nobody who buys a $2k share in a basketball team is going to bat an eye at $21 per month... that you're even arguing it could be an issue makes me suspect you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

the fact that you think this is plausible makes me suspect you have no grasp of reality here.

My bad. Look, the math still works! Woo hoo! Do you honestly think the CEO of a nonprofit would run the team like Paul Allen ran it? Don't you think they'd have surplus to fall back on? The fact that it's a nonprofit actually makes that MORE likely to have reserves rather than less likely.

sports teams are not nonprofits...

You keep saying that, yet you haven't shown a bit of evidence to support that theory. The best I've seen so far, is that the NBA just wouldn't allow it.

There's a reason the NFL doesn't allow fans (stock holders, etc) to own teams. It's not a stable business model to follow. What happens when there is an economic downturn (considering the NBA business model pales to the NFLs)? Or what happens if...actually you know what? This is such a stupid idea it's not even worth debating. The fact that this amount of time has been wasted discussing it is laughable.

 

[blazerkor]

your argument there seems to be in favor of what I'm saying.



The NBA would more likely allow the team to move than be owned by the fans.



the fact that you think this is plausible makes me suspect you have no grasp of reality here.



sports teams are not nonprofits...



There's a reason the NFL doesn't allow fans (stock holders, etc) to own teams. It's not a stable business model to follow. What happens when there is an economic downturn (considering the NBA business model pales to the NFLs)? Or what happens if...actually you know what? This is such a stupid idea it's not even worth debating. The fact that this amount of time has been wasted discussing it is laughable.

Just to answer your questions about expenses and when a team takes losses. The Packers have kept up with that because the NFL hasn't always been the cash making model it is right now. The Packers obviously haven't asked their nonprofit shareholders for more money. They've offered up more shares. That's how they've done it and it served them well when they needed to.

Again, there is no way that this happens but there is a viable way that it would work in the alternate universe where it did happen.

 

[julius]

Just to answer your questions about expenses and when a team takes losses. The Packers have kept up with that because the NFL hasn't always been the cash making model it is right now. The Packers obviously haven't asked their nonprofit shareholders for more money. They've offered up more shares. That's how they've done it and it served them well when they needed to.

Again, there is no way that this happens but there is a viable way that it would work in the alternate universe where it did happen.

This is basically the first thing I said (not being snarky, just agreeing). The (current) NFL business model isn't the same as the NBA's. They have far more $$ coming in, make a LOT of money on merch and game concessions, etc. Look at the costs per minute for ad time during the SB.

The NBA just doesn't have the ability to rely solely on tv deals (etc) for their teams to run themselves. The NFL is a totally different beast.

And when the NFL wasn't a cash cow (at least to the degree it is now), it still was a money making business.

 

[Phatguysrule]

your argument there seems to be in favor of what I'm saying.



The NBA would more likely allow the team to move than be owned by the fans.



the fact that you think this is plausible makes me suspect you have no grasp of reality here.



sports teams are not nonprofits...



There's a reason the NFL doesn't allow fans (stock holders, etc) to own teams. It's not a stable business model to follow. What happens when there is an economic downturn (considering the NBA business model pales to the NFLs)? Or what happens if...actually you know what? This is such a stupid idea it's not even worth debating. The fact that this amount of time has been wasted discussing it is laughable.

You've made one legitimate point. The NBA won't let it happen. I don't disagree. However, it's interesting to discuss the details.

The fact that you are wasting time and energy posting about something you claim you don't care about without actually addressing anything (other than insulting the people who are actually trying to have a discussion) is incredibly laughable. You're right about that.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I was actually involved in an effort to buy all or part of the Blazers when PA put the team up for sale years ago.

The idea was simple, to use a large foundation(s) like the Portland Public Schools Foundation to solicit donations from the public, have things structured so those donations are tax-deductible, then the foundations purchase all or part of the team. Then put a $3 surcharge on each ticket sold to go back to the foundation(s). It was a way to get large and small donors to donate and to keep the team here locally. The group that Terry Porter was putting together did contact me after Oregonlive did an article on it.

From what I understand the NBA is structured differently than the NFL and community ownership similar to Green Bay's is not permissible.

 

[blazerkor]

I was actually involved in an effort to buy all or part of the Blazers when PA put the team up for sale years ago.

The idea was simple, to use a large foundation(s) like the Portland Public Schools Foundation to solicit donations from the public, have things structured so those donations are tax-deductible, then the foundations purchase all or part of the team. Then put a $3 surcharge on each ticket sold to go back to the foundation(s). It was a way to get large and small donors to donate and to keep the team here locally. The group that Terry Porter was putting together did contact me after Oregonlive did an article on it.

From what I understand the NBA is structured differently than the NFL and community ownership similar to Green Bay's is not permissible.

Well community ownership isn't permissible in the NFL either. If you read up on Green Bay Packers Inc. they are only allowed to exist because they've been grandfathered in. The NFL for every team other than Green Bay has a strict rule that there has to be one owner that owns at least 30% of the team. There can be groups behind that owner but they have to have one identifiable majority owner.

The Packers are just an exception.