More BRoy/Aldridge contract banter

[Ed O]

So, it's being treated as a business, and yes, many employees of this "luxury" have lost their jobs, most notably when Steve Patterson fired 80-odd people. But it's still a "luxury". I don't buy it, at least not in a direct comparison to a yacht.

You don't think that he negotiates with his yacht crew for salaries? Or has his people get bids on repairs for the boat?

Merely because his yacht is a luxury it does not follow that he does not want to control costs. He wants to maximize the pleasure he gets from the luxury while not overpaying for that pleasure.

It's the exact same with the Blazers. If he can break even, awesome. If he can recover some of the tens of millions of dollars he's lost on the team over the last decade or two, that's preferable. Clearly. It doesn't mean that it's not a luxury.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

You don't think that he negotiates with his yacht crew for salaries? Or has his people get bids on repairs for the boat?

Merely because his yacht is a luxury it does not follow that he does not want to control costs. He wants to maximize the pleasure he gets from the luxury while not overpaying for that pleasure.

It's the exact same with the Blazers. If he can break even, awesome. If he can recover some of the tens of millions of dollars he's lost on the team over the last decade or two, that's preferable. Clearly. It doesn't mean that it's not a luxury.

Ed O.

Here comes the tag team. Hilarious.

He is not running his yacht as he is running the Blazers. I am 100% confident in saying this. The Blazers are being run as a business, and the team is mandated to break even so Allen doesn't have to continue to "subsidize" the team being in Portland.

I also doubt that Allen personally negotiates with his yacht crew for their salaries, with the captain perhaps being the exception, although I hear deck swabbers make the same amount as NBA All-Stars.

 

[Minstrel]

Allen can't possibly put out a mandate to "break even" on a yacht. It was a silly comparison. Perhaps they are both "luxuries", but one is clearly being run as a business.

Both are luxuries and in both cases he has to decide how much to invest in them. Sure, the Blazers have the difference of generating revenue, which helps defray the costs, but they're both the same in that they're luxuries that have operating expenses that he has to decide what to set them at.

What is Allen doing wrong? How would me saying that I would act a certain way in a position make the person actually in that position wrong?

yuyuza's posts in this thread have been criticizing Allen. In that context, I was asking what his personal preferences about how to spend money have to do with those criticisms. He has already cleared it up and said it had nothing to do with his criticisms, simply an unrelated comment about himself.

 

[Ed O]

Here comes the tag team. Hilarious.

Yes, poor you. Always the victim. Life must be really fucking difficult.

Please remind me: who posted in this thread first, me or you? Who commented about yuyuza's yacht comment first, me or you?

Who's tag-teaming whom?

Stop being ridiculous.

He is not running his yacht as he is running the Blazers. I am 100% confident in saying this. The Blazers are being run as a business, and the team is mandated to break even so Allen doesn't have to continue to "subsidize" the team being in Portland.

Whether he runs the yacht the same as the Blazers is irrelevant.

No businessperson is going to pump millions of dollars into a venture to break even and then call it a good business model. EVEN IF the Blazers break even, he's tied up hundreds of millions of dollars that he could spend or invest elsewhere.

The Blazers are a luxury for Paul Allen, irrespective of whether he tries to control costs or not.

I also doubt that Allen personally negotiates with his yacht crew for their salaries, with the captain perhaps being the exception, although I hear deck swabbers make the same amount as NBA All-Stars.

Who cares if he personally negotiates with them? I do not advocate him personally negotiating with Roy or Aldridge, either. He pays people quite well to manage salaries and contracts of the Blazers.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

Both are luxuries and in both cases he has to decide how much to invest in them. Sure, the Blazers have the difference of generating revenue, which helps defray the costs, but they're both the same in that they're luxuries that have operating expenses that he has to decide what to set them at.

Good point. The Blazers generate revenue as well. It makes your "luxury" comparison all the more invalid, IMO. Unless all businesses are rich men's luxuries, I suppose.

yuyuza's posts in this thread have been criticizing Allen. In that context, I was asking what his personal preferences about how to spend money have to do with those criticisms. He has already cleared it up and said it had nothing to do with his criticisms, simply an unrelated comment about himself.

Correct, and it was pretty obvious what he meant. I answered it prior to him replying, so at least one person understood without asking him to justify his opinion.

 

[PapaG]

Whether he runs the yacht the same as the Blazers is irrelevant.

Right on cue! Exactly what I've been saying! It actually is relevant to the discussion you jumped in the middle of, though.

The Blazers are a luxury for Paul Allen, irrespective of whether he tries to control costs or not.

Really? Seems odd to declare bankruptcy on a luxury, and then buy back that a big part of that luxury. Seems more like a business move. By the way, do you have a quote from Paul Allen saying the Blazers are a luxury to him, or are you just assuming that they are a luxury to him?

Who cares if he personally negotiates with them? I do not advocate him personally negotiating with Roy or Aldridge, either. He pays people quite well to manage salaries and contracts of the Blazers.

Ed O.

You seem to care, since you stated he negotiates with them. You should have been more detailed in your post, I guess.

 

[Minstrel]

Good point. The Blazers generate revenue as well. It makes your "luxury" comparison all the more invalid, IMO. Unless all businesses are rich men's luxuries, I suppose.

Businesses that aren't meant to be one's way of making money are luxuries, yes. Even "breaking even" is an opportunity cost, because that means all the money tied up in the Blazers can't be invested in something else that could earn him more money. So, yes, this is a luxury for him, even if he runs it like a business.

Correct, and it was pretty obvious what he meant. I answered it prior to him replying, so at least one person understood without asking him to justify his opinion.

I don't agree that it was clear. And you didn't answer it, you simply attacked me for asking why it was relevant to his point.

 

[Ed O]

Right on cue! Exactly what I've been saying! It actually is relevant to the discussion you jumped in the middle of, though.

It's not relevant.

Two luxuries can be treated quite differently. A yacht is handled differently than a diamond necklace.

A diamond necklace is handled differently from an NBA team.

That they are handled differently is irrelevant to one being a luxury, both being luxuries, or neither being luxuries.

Really? Seems odd to declare bankruptcy on a luxury, and then buy back that a big part of that luxury. Seems more like a business move. By the way, do you have a quote from Paul Allen saying the Blazers are a luxury to him, or are you just assuming that they are a luxury to him?

They are a luxury.

Why would a smart businessman tie up hundreds of millions of dollars into a venture that he hopes to break even on?

You seem to care, since you stated he negotiates with them. You should have been more detailed in your post, I guess.

You added the "personally" adverb unnecessarily in your efforts to make a point.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

Businesses that aren't meant to be one's way of making money are luxuries, yes. Even "breaking even" is an opportunity cost, because that means all the money tied up in the Blazers can't be invested in something else that could earn him more money. So, yes, this is a luxury for him, even if he runs it like a business.

Well, that's certainly debatable. He could also invest close to a billion dollars in something that would make him less money, couldn't he? He could have invested it all in commercial real estate, I suppose. Would that make commercial real estate a luxury for him? He'd be losing money on that venture too, but oh well, it's a luxury.

I don't agree that it was clear. And you didn't answer it, you simply attacked me for asking why it was relevant to his point.

Ah, you're joining me in victimhood. What will Ed say?

 

[PapaG]

It's not relevant.

Two luxuries can be treated quite differently. A yacht is handled differently than a diamond necklace.

A diamond necklace is handled differently from an NBA team.

That they are handled differently is irrelevant to one being a luxury, both being luxuries, or neither being luxuries.

Correct. One is being treated as a business, which it is. The other is being treated as a luxury.

They are a luxury.

Why would a smart businessman tie up hundreds of millions of dollars into a venture that he hopes to break even on?

Because it beats losing money in this economy, as his market holdings are doing. Again, where did Paul Allen call the Blazers a "luxury"? Besides, he could sell them and make hundreds of millions at that moment. I've yet to see a sports franchise depreciate in value over the long-term.

You added the "personally" adverb unnecessarily in your efforts to make a point.

Ed O.

That's how I read it. I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that the payroll for the yacht is a fraction of the payroll for the Blazers.

 

[Minstrel]

Well, that's certainly debatable. He could also invest close to a billion dollars in something that would make him less money, couldn't he?

That wouldn't be his expectation, though, to make less money if he were investing for profit. Being willing to break even points to not needing a profit, which makes it a luxury.

Ah, you're joining me in victimhood. What will Ed say?

But I really AM a victim. No one's victimized you, you victimizer. Poor me.

 

[RR7]

Why would a smart businessman tie up hundreds of millions of dollars into a venture that he hopes to break even on?

Because it's an excellent long term investment for him.

 

[oldmangrouch]

It's a business...it's a luxury.....it's a hobby....it's an obsession....it's a sexual fethish....


Sorry, but this is getting rather silly. You can label the process whatever you like - won't change the facts. Roy is in a no lose position, as *somebody* is going to make him very rich. Allen is in an almost no lose situation, as he winds up with either a winning team (more revenue), or a lower pay-roll (easier to make a profit).

The only people who could wind up losers here are the fans. When you accept that, it is tough to be too hard on the fans who are getting worked up.

Personally, I think it is too early to be getting upset, but I also refuse to pretend that this can't turn out REAL bad for Blazer fans.

 

[PapaG]

That wouldn't be his expectation, though, to make less money if he were investing for profit. Being willing to break even points to not needing a profit, which makes it a luxury.

How do you know what his expectations are for the Blazers?

But I really AM a victim. No one's victimized you, you victimizer. Poor me.

Yes, lowly posters victimize the producers here. You made a statement I don't agree with, and I still don't agree with it, so I am doing as I have learned from this board.

 

[Tince]

It's a business...it's a luxury.....it's a hobby....it's an obsession....it's a sexual fethish....


Sorry, but this is getting rather silly. You can label the process whatever you like - won't change the facts. Roy is in a no lose position, as *somebody* is going to make him very rich. Allen is in an almost no lose situation, as he winds up with either a winning team (more revenue), or a lower pay-roll (easier to make a profit).

The only people who could wind up losers here are the fans. When you accept that, it is tough to be too hard on the fans who are getting worked up.

Personally, I think it is too early to be getting upset, but I also refuse to pretend that this can't turn out REAL bad for Blazer fans.

+1000

 

[Minstrel]

How do you know what his expectations are for the Blazers?

Because he has apparently mandated that the team "break even." Requesting that the franchise strive to break even seems to speak to his expectations concerning team finances.

Yes, lowly posters victimize the producers here.

Please stop attacking posters here by calling them "lowly."

 

[Minstrel]

The only people who could wind up losers here are the fans. When you accept that, it is tough to be too hard on the fans who are getting worked up.

They can also end up "winners," if saving money on Roy and Aldridge means being able to spend more on other elements of team, leading to a better team.

 

[Tince]

They can also end up "winners," if saving money on Roy and Aldridge means being able to spend more on other elements of team, leading to a better team.

That's what I've been saying. However, a positive outcome seems to be something that certain people don't want to believe is possible.

 

[e_blazer]

That's what I've been saying. However, a positive outcome seems to be something that certain people don't want to believe is possible.

The weird thing to me is that it isn't just "possible" that there will be a positive outcome; it's almost certain. Even if the Blazers don't reach an agreement with Roy & LA before the start of the season, they will be in a position to either reach an agreement next summer or match any offers made for them as RFAs. There's no credibility at all to the idea that these guys would take the qualifying offer, play it out for one year...with total exposure to losing millions of guaranteed dollars should they be injured during that season...just to take a dive into the unrestricted market the season after everybody's spent their money on next summer's crop of free agents.

 

[Tince]

The weird thing to me is that it isn't just "possible" that there will be a positive outcome; it's almost certain. Even if the Blazers don't reach an agreement with Roy & LA before the start of the season, they will be in a position to either reach an agreement next summer or match any offers made for them as RFAs. There's no credibility at all to the idea that these guys would take the qualifying offer, play it out for one year...with total exposure to losing millions of guaranteed dollars should they be injured during that season...just to take a dive into the unrestricted market the season after everybody's spent their money on next summer's crop of free agents.

Repped! I'm comforted to see that there are others who can see this.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Because he has apparently mandated that the team "break even." Requesting that the franchise strive to break even seems to speak to his expectations concerning team finances.



Please stop attacking posters here by calling them "lowly."

Wait a minute . . . you tell me I have no idea what is going on in negotaitaions becuase I'm not in the room negotiating and you can't rely on public statements from Blazers or Roy's agent or even Roy.

Then you act to know whether PA treats the Blazers like a business or a luxury.

Let me ask you . . . have you been in the room with Allen when he is discussing this. When he is discussing concerns about team finances and breaking even? Because according to you, you can't trust public statements. So I know you didn't just try to rationalize your position based on a public statement by Blazer managment.

So really we don't know anything about what PA thinks of the Blazers and what his intent is with them financially and making an opinion about that is really doing it with no knowledge.

 

[Minstrel]

Wait a minute . . . you tell me I have no idea what is going on in negotaitaions becuase I'm not in the room negotiating and you can't rely on public statements from Blazers or Roy's agent or even Roy.

Then you act to know whether PA treats the Blazers like a business or a luxury.

Let me ask you . . . have you been in the room with Allen when he is discussing this. When he is discussing concerns about team finances and brewaking even? Because according to you, you can't trust public statements.

I said your can't use comments meant for PR as genuine information. Do you really feel that Allen instructing the franchise to break even is meant for PR? Because I don't see how that's something that helps his image.

What each side says about a negotiation is clearly gamesmanship, to me.

If you think Allen instructing the franchise to break even is a "PR move," then it's the same thing...but I don't think that, personally.

 

[Nate4Prez]

The weird thing to me is that it isn't just "possible" that there will be a positive outcome; it's almost certain. Even if the Blazers don't reach an agreement with Roy & LA before the start of the season, they will be in a position to either reach an agreement next summer or match any offers made for them as RFAs. There's no credibility at all to the idea that these guys would take the qualifying offer, play it out for one year...with total exposure to losing millions of guaranteed dollars should they be injured during that season...just to take a dive into the unrestricted market the season after everybody's spent their money on next summer's crop of free agents.

Repped.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I said your can't use comments meant for PR as genuine information. Do you really feel that Allen instructing the franchise to break even is meant for PR? Because I don't see how that's something that helps his image.

What each side says about a negotiation is clearly gamesmanship, to me.

If you think Allen instructing the franchise to break even is a "PR move," then it's the same thing...but I don't think that, personally.

OK so there are time you can't trust what Blazer managment says . . . when they make a public statement that is for public relation purposes. But if the Blazer make a public statement that is not made for public relation puposes, you can trust them. Do I have that right?

Because my point is how do you know Allen said he wants to break even . . . from a public statement generated by Blazer organization. I thought you didn't trust those . . . but I guess you see a distinction.

 

[Minstrel]

OK so there are time you can't trust what Blazer managment says . . . when they make a public statement that is for public relation purposes. But if the Blazer make a public statement that is not made for public relation puposes, you can trust them. Do I have that right?

There are no hard and fast rules, I wasn't attempting to codify anything. I simply felt that the sources of information you were using weren't sufficient to demonstrate who was at fault, since neither side had any reason to reveal anything that might reflect negatively on them AND neither side had a lot to gain by criticizing the other side. In a battle for winning over the public, in a team/player negotiation, both sides want to come across as gracious unless things have truly turned ugly. So, in my view, you're not going to see what is actually causing the problems (if any actually exist) from the remarks by the agent/player or team.

To me, there's nothing Allen or his direct subordinates have to gain from revealing that they want to rein in costs. Fans don't generally like to hear that money will be an issue. So, since I don't view there being a clear reason to spin, I believe it. If you see a reason why it might be spin, and therefore not trustworthy, I'd be open to hearing it.

To me, they were two different situations (different for the reasons provided above), so I treated them differently.

 

[LOTBfan]

You made a statement I don't agree with, and I still don't agree with it, so I am doing as I have learned from this board.

Trolling? Acting like a frustrated 5 year old who painted himself into a corner?

lux·u·ry (lgzh-r, lksh-)
n. pl. lux·u·ries
1. Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort.
2. Something expensive or hard to obtain.
3. Sumptuous living or surroundings: lives in luxury.
adj. Providing luxury: a luxury car

Allen is a sports fan, he spends millions of dollars to get court side seats and have a hand in the direction of his favorite team. This is inessential but gives him pleasure, it is expensive and hard to obtain, and I bet his private party room at the RG is pretty damn sumptuous.

Get some facts, not just a hand full of opinions before you decide to go on a jihad over semantics.

 

[Ed O]

Because it's an excellent long term investment for him.

Is it? He bought the team in 1988 for $70m. According to Forbes, the team was worth $307m in 2008. That's just under 7.7% annual return... but it also ignores the tens of millions of dollars that the team has lost in the last decade.

Also, does him traveling to see the team play and having courtside tickets help his long term investment?

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

The weird thing to me is that it isn't just "possible" that there will be a positive outcome; it's almost certain. Even if the Blazers don't reach an agreement with Roy & LA before the start of the season, they will be in a position to either reach an agreement next summer or match any offers made for them as RFAs. There's no credibility at all to the idea that these guys would take the qualifying offer, play it out for one year...with total exposure to losing millions of guaranteed dollars should they be injured during that season...just to take a dive into the unrestricted market the season after everybody's spent their money on next summer's crop of free agents.

Well, if they play the next season without an extension, why wouldn't they play one more season without one? Or why not force a trade to a team that will extend them? I find assessing "credibility" based on speculation a bit of a stretch. I'm not saying accepting a QO is likely, but talking about the possiblility doesn't make a person any less credible, does it?

How many people prior to this summer thought Roy would not be extended for 5 years, and at/near the max, by now? I didn't see a single person say that it was even a possibility prior to the offseason. Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but I do not recall a single poster thinking that Roy and even LMA would not be extended by now. In fact, I posted that the first calls would be made to Roy/LMA, which the Oregonian reported, and nobody said that after a month negotiations would be at an impasse. In fact, it was a basic assumption that they'd both be getting 5 year deal, and both at max/or near max.

So, if anyone can provide a link where they stated that LMA was worth only $8-9 million, or Roy wasn't worth 5 years, link it and I'll give you major props. If you didn't post this, I have to say that the finger-pointing is a bit ridiculous, and almost apologetic for the Blazer organization. Projecting frustration at posters who are frustrated isn't the best way to handle this situation, and thinking that this carrying over into the season won't impact the team seems a bit unrealistic.

 

[PapaG]

Is it? He bought the team in 1988 for $70m. According to Forbes, the team was worth $307m in 2008. That's just under 7.7% annual return... but it also ignores the tens of millions of dollars that the team has lost in the last decade.

Seems like he's still ahead given those numbers.

Also, does him traveling to see the team play and having courtside tickets help his long term investment?

Ed O.

LOL

 

[Ed O]

So, if anyone can provide a link where they stated that LMA was worth only $8-9 million, or Roy wasn't worth 5 years, link it and I'll give you major props. If you didn't post this, I have to say that the finger-pointing is a bit ridiculous, and almost apologetic for the Blazer organization.

Times change. The economy has gone in the tank and free agents--especially restricted free agents--aren't getting much money on the market.

Why should our opinions not change as the reality of the market does?

Ed O.