Phil knight offers to buy blazers

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Why? Is Phil Knight's estate going to manage the team better than Paul Allen's estate?

barfo
Considering he has chosen a partner who is an experienced owner, I would assume so.

His family also has incentive to keep the team in Portland.

And if Phil Knight is the owner Vulcan will no longer be involved.

All good things.
 
What is selling going to accomplish?

We are finally making good decisions in regards to building a team the correct way. Maybe we would see improvement in the TV contract or the broadcast team.
To an owner like Phil Knight? I think you'd see incredibly positive change.
 
What would change though? I like the direction Cronin has the team going.
Unknown. I just know that Phil does well with sports and I don't want Vulcan or Kolde anywhere near the team moving forward.

I've just heard too many things.

Without Paul around it feels like we're one bad expense report from Cronin being fired and having somebody from Bain Capital take over to liquidate the team.
 
What would change though? I like the direction Cronin has the team going.
More games on national TV
Jersey patch, more sponsors
Nike is sportsy people, not Vulcans, the team will improve
Hotter Blazer dancers
Greasy food instead of this healthy crap
Most importantly... get rid of ROOT Sports
 
Last edited:
Canzano's speculation is the only source for this claim--why perpetuate it?
Because it makes sense. You think she's doing it for free? $100 million per year is around the going rate for managing a $2-4B asset in a trust.

*Edited for math*
 
Because it makes sense. You think she's doing it for free? $100 million per year is around the going rate for managing a $2-4B asset in a trust.

*Edited for math*

2.5% to 5% seems very high, not that I'm an expert in such things.

barfo
 
2.5% to 5% seems very high, not that I'm an expert in such things.

barfo
I'm also not an expert in such things, however, from looking online it appears that between .5% and 2% is typical. My initial math was off, so I had a crazy low percentage. I would expect Paul to pay his sister on the high end to manage his trust. And they obviously value the team at far above $2 billion since they didn't give Phil Knight the time of day over a year ago...

Washington State Legislature
RCW 68.44.140

Compensation of trustees.
Compensation to the board of trustees or trustee for services as trustee and other compensation for administration of trust funds shall not exceed the customary fees charged by banks and trust companies for like services. Such fees may not be paid from the fund principal.

*Edit* Does it change things if she's only making $80 million per year to keep the Blazers off the market?
Plus, she'd be making an additional $96 million for keeping the Seahawks.

Roughly $175 million is a pretty decent annual salary...
 
Last edited:
Because it makes sense. You think she's doing it for free? $100 million per year is around the going rate for managing a $2-4B asset in a trust.

*Edited for math*
I don't think that she's managing the trust for free, but the amount and basis of the compensation is that which is speculated. I don't think it necessarily "makes sense" that her compensation is based upon the value of the team. I also don't think the trust's overall asset value would be reduced by the sale of the team; the proceeds from the sale would remain a part of the trust.
 
I don't think that she's managing the trust for free, but the amount and basis of the compensation is that which is speculated. I don't think it necessarily "makes sense" that her compensation is based upon the value of the team. I also don't think the trust's overall asset value would be reduced by the sale of the team; the proceeds from the sale would remain a part of the trust.
But wouldn't being paid based on the overall value be paying her via the trusts principal? If so, that would be against the law in Washington.

If she is running the Blazers (and Seahawks) she can be paid out of the team's profits, which would not be the principal. That's why she wouldn't make any more money on the teams if they sold.

At least that's how I understand it. Is that incorrect?
 
But wouldn't being paid based on the overall value be paying her via the trusts principal? If so, that would be against the law in Washington.

If she is running the Blazers (and Seahawks) she can be paid out of the team's profits, which would not be the principal. That's why she wouldn't make any more money on the teams if they sold.

At least that's how I understand it. Is that incorrect?
Being paid "out of" and "based on" the principal are two different things. You were suggesting that her compensation was "based on" the value of the trust (ie, 2% of the trust value). That wouldn't change after the sale. That line about not being paid "out of" principal was interesting to me, which made me wonder (as you did) from what source her compensation comes.

If she is, in fact, being paid with profits from the trust's business operations, that wouldn't necessarily cease upon sale of the team. For instance, the trust still owns the Seahawks as well; those profits would still exist to generate a source of income to the trustee. I'm sure the trust still owns other businesses as well. The sale funds could also be invested and she could be compensated from the rate of return on said investment. There are many possibilities.

Again, all I'm saying is that the claim that she benefits financially by not selling the team is all speculation, and I thinks it's irresponsible to state it as fact.
 
The trust pays her over $100 million per year for being the governor of the blazers.

Why would she sell?
Jody is financially independent. She is not getting any younger. Her decisions should be based on happiness and fulfillment, not more financial gain. Maybe she truly enjoys owning? That could explain why she isn't selling.
 
Being paid "out of" and "based on" the principal are two different things. You were suggesting that her compensation was "based on" the value of the trust (ie, 2% of the trust value). That wouldn't change after the sale. That line about not being paid "out of" principal was interesting to me, which made me wonder (as you did) from what source her compensation comes.

If she is, in fact, being paid with profits from the trust's business operations, that wouldn't necessarily cease upon sale of the team. For instance, the trust still owns the Seahawks as well; those profits would still exist to generate a source of income to the trustee. I'm sure the trust still owns other businesses as well. The sale funds could also be invested and she could be compensated from the rate of return on said investment. There are many possibilities.

Again, all I'm saying is that the claim that she benefits financially by not selling the team is all speculation, and I thinks it's irresponsible to state it as fact.
Makes sense. I appreciate the call out.

I've updated the original post with a disclaimer
 
Jody is financially independent. She is not getting any younger. Her decisions should be based on happiness and fulfillment, not more financial gain. Maybe she truly enjoys owning? That could explain why she isn't selling.
Could well be. If so, I don't like it.
I want Kolde and Vulcan out of the picture and the team to remain in Portland.
 
My understanding is that the reason Vulcan isn't selling to Knight is basically an old political squabble between Paul and Phil. Phil donates massive amounts of money to the GOP and Paul supported the Dems ...Phil basically funds GOP candidates who run for office in Oregon wanting to turn it into a red state. When I heard that I lost all interest in Phil Knight owning the team. My own bias as I want Oregon to remain a blue state. I don't think it has anything to do with money when it comes to Vulcan vs Knight. At this point it will be a while before the Blazers are a contender so I don't feel like there's any pressure to sell the team
 
At this point it will be a while before the Blazers are a contender so I don't feel like there's any pressure to sell the team
Getting to centender status is what you need good ownership for in a market like Portland. Getting there with an absentee owner or an owner with other motives is going to take much longer, IMO.
 
My understanding is that the reason Vulcan isn't selling to Knight is basically an old political squabble between Paul and Phil. Phil donates massive amounts of money to the GOP and Paul supported the Dems ...Phil basically funds GOP candidates who run for office in Oregon wanting to turn it into a red state. When I heard that I lost all interest in Phil Knight owning the team. My own bias as I want Oregon to remain a blue state. I don't think it has anything to do with money when it comes to Vulcan vs Knight. At this point it will be a while before the Blazers are a contender so I don't feel like there's any pressure to sell the team

I think your understanding is wrong in this case. I remember when Paul donated some money to a republican candidate and some wanted to boycott the Blazers over it.
 
I think your understanding is wrong in this case. I remember when Paul donated some money to a republican candidate and some wanted to boycott the Blazers over it.
Also Phil Knight puts most of his money into non profits that would be considered liberal by most. Backing that up is all of the money he donates to a public education institution that very much has liberal leanings in the University of Oregon... and then there's this:

https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/phil-knight-donates-400-million-to-rebuild-albina/450360
 
I don't much care if Allen sells the Blazers to Phil Knight or not but I do know that she's not going to sell for the 2 billion that was supposedly offered. The franchise is worth far more than that.
 
I think your understanding is wrong in this case. I remember when Paul donated some money to a republican candidate and some wanted to boycott the Blazers over it.
It could be as my understanding is based on an editorial I read after Jody turned his offer down. Last election I read about his campaign donations and statewide he was supporting candidates that I didn't want near political office which triggered me again about who Phil is. I don't know the man but he made his career in Eugene but Eugene was liberal long before Phil was coaching there. I hope I'm wrong about him. I've sure bought his shoes over the decades. He makes kick ass sports arenas as well. In the world of sports Phil is a force, no doubt. I'm happy with Jody owning the team. Owners usually empower their GMs and enjoy the perks of being owners more than actually crunching numbers and sweating the trade market. Usually owners who are too hands on aren't actually basketball minds. They are usually just wealthy fans. Bill Maher bought a part of the Mets just for the parking spot and box seat....after a few board meetings he sold his stock as it started becoming work. I don't blame him.
 
Also Phil Knight puts most of his money into non profits that would be considered liberal by most. Backing that up is all of the money he donates to a public education institution that very much has liberal leanings in the University of Oregon... and then there's this:

https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/phil-knight-donates-400-million-to-rebuild-albina/450360
He didn't approve of the bill that legalized hard drugs in certain amounts. Cant say I blame him.
 
Getting to centender status is what you need good ownership for in a market like Portland. Getting there with an absentee owner or an owner with other motives is going to take much longer, IMO.
Jody just built a G league team and renovated the Moda Center and the Practice Facility..I don't see that as "absentee" in my view she's shown a lot of initiative since Paul passed
 
Jody just built a G league team and renovated the Moda Center and the Practice Facility..I don't see that as "absentee" in my view she's shown a lot of initiative since Paul passed
Get back to me when she pays ONE year of luxury tax.
 
What would change though? I like the direction Cronin has the team going.
If Cronin turns this roster into a playoff team do you want an owner that has never paid luxury tax, avoided it like the plague, and thrown away assets to duck it?

Or do you want an owner that will spend some money to win, and possibly give the team a chance to contend.
 
It could be as my understanding is based on an editorial I read after Jody turned his offer down. Last election I read about his campaign donations and statewide he was supporting candidates that I didn't want near political office which triggered me again about who Phil is.

It could be that Jody is more liberal than her brother. But both Paul and Phil have contributed to both sides of the aisle. A lot of people are liberal on social issues while being conservative on other issues.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top