Showing posts with label pacers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pacers. Show all posts

Thursday, April 23

Pacers, Sonics: Owners Cut From Same Cloth

“I don’t think it’s right for an entrepreneur to ask another entrepreneur for a gift.”
Herb Simon, 1997

This past weekend, Cory Schouten put together an insightful story for the Indiana Business Journal about the Simon family’s close-knit relationship with Indianapolis and the massive piles of money they have received in the name of urban renewal.

In many ways, you get left with the question: Where does Indianapolis end and Herb Simon’s family begin?

Schouten impressively details how the Simons:

- Received an estimated $400 million from the city for various real estate projects over the course of the past decade.

- Use the maintenance of Conseco as an excuse for financial help, while the city is actually the one footing the bill, to the tune of $3.45 million per year. (Of note, the city paid $62,000 to outfit the Pacers’ employees and $15,000 on NBA Fastbreak pinball machines).

- Artfully dodged the truth about their lease when they went to the press this past month. In reality, the Pacers’ renegotiation of their current lease is not as trouble-free as they would lead us to believe. According to Schouten, the team is able to renegotiate only if the team fails to meet certain profit margins, and the team would only be able to leave if it paid a substantial penalty.

How substantial? Try anywhere from $50 million to, gulp, $144 million, depending on when the team decides to pack up. (As an aside, I urge you to read this article from the Ogden On Politics blog, detailing the fleecing of Indianapolis taxpayers by the Simon family, a prediction from five years ago about how this year’s events would transpire, and how Herb Simon’s continual lying about the economics of Conseco Fieldhouse are all too familiar to those of us in this region). ((I’m not sure where else to put this, but this second aside is as good as any. Herb Simon is currently working on wife number three, a former Miss Universe 1988 from Thailand. They were introduced by Simon’s niece, who was once her, yep, college roommate. Her first name is Porntip. Yes, Porntip. Back to the story)). (((One last note – guests at the wedding included George Hamilton and Rob Lowe – who gave a speech. I’m unaware if Simon requested funding from Indianapolis for the construction of the buffet table.)))

Schouten’s piece is thoroughly researched, and indicative of the situation in a large number of cities across this country. I find it promising that Seattle, Indiana, and now Milwaukee (hat tip, True Hoop) have taken a different approach to the inevitable city-vs-team thunderstorms. Rather than capitulate the instant team ownership threatens to move, these cities asked for an honest discussion of the economics. Sure, Herb Simon may be able to convince cities to erect new buildings for his minor-league baseball team, but the number of cities willing to fork over hundreds of millions for an NBA arena are dwindling faster than a pile of chicken wings at a Fortson family barbecue.

Interestingly, Simon had a conversation with the IBJ last year, at which time he announced his intention to take over the reins of the team. At the time, the Journal asked him what he considered the “tipping point” for when the team began to run into trouble:

IBJ: Can you identify a tipping point where things started to go south for the Pacers franchise and its relationship with the team’s fans?

Simon: Well the tipping point everyone points to—and we don’t like to talk about it anymore because we want to talk about positive things—was probably the Detroit incident and the incidents that followed. That seems to be the tipping point.

And yet, one year later, Simon told the Indianapolis Star that the Pacers had lost money “9 of the last 10 years,” meaning that the Malice at the Palace was, essentially, irrelevant, in that it occurred far after the financial problems began. Simon, or, rather, his spokesman, also claimed the family had lost $200 million during their ownership tenure, further indicating that these problems had taken root far in advance of Ron Artest donning a Pacers jersey.

Incredibly, Simon even commented that he would like to go back to 2000, as “the year 2000 is a good year for me.” And yet, in comments his spokesman made to the Star, the Pacers claim to have lost money in 2000, making me wonder: Were the losses offset by the glory of the Finals, or were there ever any losses to begin with?

Later on, Simon – and, remember, he said this in 2007, less than 12 months before his spokesman told the media the Pacers had lost money nearly every year they’ve been owned by the Simons – told the IBJ:

We face the challenge of a small market. We always will. But we’ve been profitable before and we hope to be profitable again.

Look, Simon is married to a former Miss Universe, has at least six houses on three continents, and had his honeymoon (for his third marriage) in Switzerland, Bora Bora, and Thailand. And he’s crying to the city that he needs help to keep the Pacers afloat? At what point do cities start to say, “You know what? Bite me. If you don’t like how things are going here, sell the team. If no one steps up to buy them, then we’ll talk. But if you put them up for sale and a half-dozen buyers show up, then you figure it out.”

In the past, teams treated cities like a star player treats his groupies. Free to extort cities at their whim, they knew all along that other cities were lined up, just drooling to take them in. These days, in tougher economic times, those extortion tactics no longer work so well, and NBA team owners are finding the situation is a bit stickier than the one to which they have grown accustomed. With decreasing tax revenues comes increasing budget scrutiny, and just as Clay Bennett found the Washington legislature less than thrilled with his $500 million arena boondoggle (whether because of budget constraints or inherent hebetude), fellow NBA owners may find other legislatures equally thrifty when it comes to throwing tax dollars at similar projects.

It’s about time.

Wednesday, March 11

Pacer Situation Looking Awfully Familiar to Sonic Fans


History, consider yourself repeated.

An NBA team playing in a publicly funded arena about one decade old and with a 40-year history, is threatening that the lease under which they are playing is just not cutting it anymore, and while they don’t want to leave …

Stop me if you’ve heard this all before.

Except this time, the words are uttered not from Seattle, but from the heartland of basketball, Indiana. As in the home of Hoosiers, Larry Bird, and Bob Knight.

It’s the standard woe-is-me routine deftly practiced by all professional sports owners, but some of the declarations from the Pacers would stagger even the staunchest NBA supporters. Among them:

- The team has lost money in 26 of the 28 seasons Herb Simon has owned them
- Included in those 26 money-losing seasons is the year Indiana advanced to the NBA Finals before losing to the Lakers
- The team has lost money in nine of the ten seasons it has spent in Conseco Fieldhouse
- The current tab is $200 million in losses since Simons bought the club in 1983

Why is this coming out now? Well, as part of their lease with the city for the Fieldhouse, the Pacers are able to renegotiate the contract during a small window which, naturally, is right now. In other words, there’s no time to waste, and Mr. Simon really hates to bring this up, and he’s a good corporate citizen, and he loves Indianapolis, but that $15 million the Pacers are obligated to spend every year to operate Conseco? Yeah, that’s too much to handle.

Of course, it should also be pointed out that the Pacers are estimated to be worth $300 million, or $289 million more than when Mr. Simon bought them more than two decades ago, but who’s counting? (Actually, the Pacers are, and they dispute that number. They claim the team’s losses exceed whatever “golden egg” of a sale would net them. They wouldn’t say what they’re worth, or provide evidence as to why Forbes magazine’s estimate is faulty, but they did cross their hearts and hoped to die.)

Not everyone is buying what Mr. Simon is selling, though. Acccording to information from Forbes Magazine, the team actually made money for six consecutive seasons, ending in 2006 when the Pacers were a disaster both on and off the court. (And by the way, what the heck happened in 1999? Was Indiana writing down the debt on Vern Fleming’s leisure suits?*). The Pacers, naturally, refute Forbes’ calculations, although they refused to provide any evidence beyond their own words to back up their argument.

While on the topic of charts, I’d also like to take issue with the graphic the Star presented as a sidebar to the story, listing the Pacers’ annual salary expenditures. This is the chart here:

Pacers' Player Expenses

The ostensible reason for putting this artwork with the story is to buttress the Pacers’ argument that escalating player salaries are to blame for the team’s dire financial situation. Taken by itself, the chart is fine, but when you look at the statement accompanying it, it becomes a joke.

“PLAYER EXPENSES This price tag, which includes benefits and bonuses, is the second-highest in the 10 years the Pacers have played at Conseco Fieldhouse.”

Think about it for a minute – do you see why that statement is so wrong? It’s called inflation, people! To compare 2008 numbers with 1999 numbers without any adjustment for inflation that’s … well, that’s just dumb. In fact, if you adjust for inflation, there are at least four instances in the past ten years when the Pacers have spent more money on player salaries than this year. See below:

Pacers' Player Expenses, With Inflation

Of course, that doesn’t jive with Mr. Simon's assertions about how woeful his current predicament is, but that’s to be expected from someone in his position, although it does help his other argument about how crappy his annual financial situation is. I’m just surprised that no one at the Star thought to run that chart by someone in the Business section.

But enough bemoaning the Star, and back to the Pacers.

If you’ve lived through the Sonics’ situation you know that extortion is the name of the game in these encounters, and the Pacers are certainly armed and ready to do battle in that sort of contest. In fact, they even have a former Seattle resident on hand to lead the parade.
“I've seen it, I lived it for 18 months in Seattle and it was painful,” Don Welsh, a 40-year resident of Seattle and now the President of the Indianapolis Convention and Visitors Association told WTHR-TV. “Losing a basketball team strips away some of the fabric of a city and Seattle is still mourning the loss. I'm hopeful it won't get that point here.”

And, of course, the requisite comments about what would become of Conseco should the Pacers leave town were flowing fast and furious, with one official asking, “What would you rather have, the Pacers or cat shows?”

That argument is one that we hear in Seattle as well, and I think it deserves further examination. Follow along with me, please, as we explore the methodology:

1. Team and city co-exist in harmony with older arena which perfectly suits the needs of both
2. Team grows tired of arena, demands new one
3. City balks, as existing arena is more than satisfactory for other, non-basketball activities
4. Team threatens to leave
5. City gives in, builds new arena, demolishes old arena
6. Team and city co-exist in harmony with new arena
7. Team grows tired of new arena/lease, demands new one
8. City realizes that because it is still on the hook for new arena, it can’t afford to lose its major tenant
9. City and team try to squeeze more money from taxpayers

Am I missing anything here? Essentially, by forcing the city to build a new arena, the team has painted the city into a corner and essentially given themselves the ultimate trump card in perpetuity, as the city desperately needs the team so that it may continue to pay down the debt on an arena it never needed but the team demanded.

Sickening, right? And yet, it’s the exact same situation in Indianapolis as it is in Seattle. Because Seattle rebuilt KeyArena, it is obligated to have a team fill it up with nightly activities, or else KeyArena becomes a giant white elephant with cat shows. Because Indianapolis built Conseco Fieldhouse, it is obligated to have a team fill it up with nightly activities, or else Conseco becomes a giant white elephant with cat shows.

More sickening still, digest what Simon has said, that the Pacers have lost money in 26 of 28 seasons. Is that really possible? 26 of 28 is 93%, meaning that for the past three decades the Pacers are more effective at losing money than the best free throw shooters in history have been at making free throws. Ask yourself, do you really believe that Herb Simon would own a business which was better at losing money than Rick Barry was at making free throws?

And is it possible in a year when the Pacers advanced to the NBA Finals, playing more than a dozen home playoff games to sell out crowds, and all the accompanying merchandise, concession, and parking sales, etc, etc, that this team lost money? Did that really happen?

There are two answers. Yes, it did, in which case the NBA is a horrible investment for both Mr. Simon and the city of Indianapolis, because if the Pacers can’t even make money with an NBA Finals appearance and a new stadium to boot, well, they must be an investment of which only Bernie Madoff would be proud.

Or, no, it did not, and Mr. Simon is flat-out distorting the truth to advance his case for concessions from the city.

Take your pick.

[*-Obviously, the deficit in '99 was due to the lockout. Like David Stern, I guess I had tried to block that year out of my mind.]