- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Bill Simmons pod had some good scoop today
Posted on 5/7/17 at 3:22 pm
Posted on 5/7/17 at 3:22 pm
Most recent one, where he hosted Michael Rappaport. Before Rappaport goes all Hit Em Up on Dan LeBetard, BS drops a hint that Larry Bird likely left Indy bc of an impending (read 2 or fewer year range) ownership sale. BS noted how Indy has a really old owner and the direction of the franchise is likely to shift, so a major rebuild/house cleaning would be coming their way soon.
Amidst this point, BS (who has legit inside sources) mentioned that Indy was one of three teams with aging owners that these ownership super groups are circling the wagons on, probing every so often to gauge interest in selling. The other two teams? Minnesota and you guessed it NOLA!
Suffice it to say if the Pels don't turn it around by 2019, it's not hard to see AD forgoing the extra $$, not signing a renegotiation/extension under the new CBA, and walking in 2020. Thus, after this 3 year window AD leaves, Benson sells. That's got to be the max timeline for Benson's ownership if things don't work out, right? Not saying I'm rooting for it, but I'd rather we had a more Mark-Cuban-esque owner.
Amidst this point, BS (who has legit inside sources) mentioned that Indy was one of three teams with aging owners that these ownership super groups are circling the wagons on, probing every so often to gauge interest in selling. The other two teams? Minnesota and you guessed it NOLA!
Suffice it to say if the Pels don't turn it around by 2019, it's not hard to see AD forgoing the extra $$, not signing a renegotiation/extension under the new CBA, and walking in 2020. Thus, after this 3 year window AD leaves, Benson sells. That's got to be the max timeline for Benson's ownership if things don't work out, right? Not saying I'm rooting for it, but I'd rather we had a more Mark-Cuban-esque owner.
This post was edited on 5/7/17 at 3:23 pm
9
Posted on 5/7/17 at 3:48 pm to NOLAbaby
quote:
Suffice it to say if the Pels don't turn it around by 2019, it's not hard to see AD forgoing the extra $$, not signing a renegotiation/extension under the new CBA, and walking in 2020. Thus, after this 3 year window AD leaves, Benson sells. That's got to be the max timeline for Benson's ownership if things don't work out, right? Not saying I'm rooting for it, but I'd rather we had a more Mark-Cuban-esque owner.
That is definitely not the max timeline for Benson. Benson isn't selling. He will die before he sells. And from what I understand unless the team starts losing a good bit of money (unlikely with current tv deal) then Gayle will have zero interest in selling either. It's tough to get a team, why would they sell?
This post was edited on 5/7/17 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 5/7/17 at 3:49 pm to NOLAbaby
quote:
and walking in 2020. Thus, after this 3 year window AD leaves, Benson sells.
I'm pretty sure there's no out clause in the SKC lease and it runs through 2024-25. No outside owner is going to buy the team to move it but be stuck here for 4 years. The vultures will have to circle a bit longer if NOLA is one of their targets.
quote:
Not saying I'm rooting for it, but I'd rather we had a more Mark-Cuban-esque owner.
Do you seriously think an outside ownership group is going to buy the team to keep them in town? The current local government concessions go directly to Benson in the form of renting his properties, so new owners wouldn't even get a slice of the local payola.
Posted on 5/7/17 at 5:46 pm to NOLAbaby
An ownership pairing of an NFL and NBA franchise in the same city seems to be a sweet setup. I can't imagine them wanting to let that go.
Also I can't imagine Davis letting go of all that money. It is going to be a monster contract.
Also I can't imagine Davis letting go of all that money. It is going to be a monster contract.
This post was edited on 5/7/17 at 5:47 pm
Posted on 5/7/17 at 6:26 pm to Colonel Flagg
quote:
Also I can't imagine Davis letting go of all that money. It is going to be a monster contract.
The worst actual and rumored/proposed roster mistakes all revolve around AD not wanting to play center. It's hard to see a scenario in which Cousins resigns and AD doesn't want to stay. I suppose they could wait a year to offer AD the extension and have things go sideways, but supposedly they can offer it as soon as next summer when they can resign Cousins.
I see 2 ways this doesn't work out besides catastrophic injury. 1) They fire Gentry now and hire a new coach that flops but they owe him too much money to fire after 1 year. 2) They keep Gentry and miss the playoffs again and AD/DC demand change, like Cal, but the Saints don't want to pay Cal $10 million per year for the Pels coach.
Posted on 5/7/17 at 9:55 pm to Colonel Flagg
quote:
An ownership pairing of an NFL and NBA franchise in the same city seems to be a sweet setup. I can't imagine them wanting to let that go.
This is a good point. Will a group be pressured to buy both teams together? If so good luck moving the pels because the saints aren't going anywhere.
This post was edited on 5/7/17 at 9:55 pm
Posted on 5/8/17 at 3:11 am to NOLAbaby
Did BS give any more context for the what the motivation of these super groups are? Or their plans?
If it is some quality investors like the Warriors situation and they are cool keeping the team here, why not?
But if they are all eyeing Seattle or something, well, frick them.
If it is some quality investors like the Warriors situation and they are cool keeping the team here, why not?
But if they are all eyeing Seattle or something, well, frick them.
This post was edited on 5/8/17 at 3:13 am
Posted on 5/8/17 at 8:31 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
If it is some quality investors like the Warriors situation and they are cool keeping the team here, why not?
Why would outside investors want to keep the team in a small market if they had no ties to NOLA? The Clippers were the joke of the league for decades but they still made money being the 2nd team in a top market. Before the recent turnaround the Warriors constantly ranked high in attendance despite missing the playoffs regularly. Larger markets are just better able to support a team. The only reason they'd stay would be if the state/local government paid them to, or if the league blocked them from leaving because they don't want bad PR disrupting their other local government shakedown operations.
Posted on 5/8/17 at 8:55 am to TigerinATL
quote:
Why would outside investors want to keep the team in a small market if they had no ties to NOLA?
why did NYC hedge fund managers buy the Bucks? why did a Silicon Valley billionaire buy the the Grizzlies?
the league is making more money than ever and being an owner is a huge status symbol. some issues with NOLA market, but issues in MIlwaukee, Memphis, Sacramento too.
Simmons is Simmons. not someone to take too seriously. i don't doubt buyers are circling around the Pels. Benson bought the team for $340M 5 years ago. they have had one season above 34 wins since then. they make money despite a poor product. and, if im the Benson, i could probably get $650M in a sale. that's a hell of a return in just 5 years
but i don't see them selling the Pels unless they're selling the Saints too. and that seems very unlikely
Posted on 5/8/17 at 9:17 am to corndeaux
quote:
Benson bought the team for $340M 5 years ago. they have had one season above 34 wins since then. they make money despite a poor product. and, if im the Benson, i could probably get $650M in a sale. that's a hell of a return in just 5 years
but i don't see them selling the Pels unless they're selling the Saints too. and that seems very unlikely
Did the settlement with the trust remove the Pelicans from the petulant Benson kids' inheritance?
Posted on 5/8/17 at 9:22 am to corndeaux
quote:
why did NYC hedge fund managers buy the Bucks?
Because $$$$$
quote:
We’ll keep the Bucks in Milwaukee, the owners said, if the public foots half the cost of a $500 million arena.
LINK
quote:
why did a Silicon Valley billionaire buy the the Grizzlies?
He bought it with a bunch of local minority owners, I'm guessing because the league didn't want Memphis to move.
quote:
Pera, who reached a deal to buy the Grizzlies from Michael Heisley in June, put together an ownership group with local Memphis businesses and athletes with ties to Tennessee, including Peyton Manning and Anfernee "Penny" Hardaway.
The deal will ensure the Grizzlies, whom Heisley moved to Memphis from Vancouver after he bought the team 12 years ago, will remain in Memphis. The Grizzlies have a lease at the FedExForum through 2021.
LINK
The Sonics and Hornets moved because the local government wouldn't pay up. That's what it takes to lose your team, so I think the league would want the team to stay in NOLA as long as the government played ball. But I have no reason to believe a billionaire looking for a shiny new toy wants to keep the team in NOLA.
Posted on 5/8/17 at 9:45 am to NOLAbaby
quote:if that scenario unfolds and Benson sells the team, they aren't staying in New Orleans
Not saying I'm rooting for it, but I'd rather we had a more Mark-Cuban-esque owner.
Posted on 5/8/17 at 11:09 am to NOLAbaby
I think bigger than who the owner is: how much longer does the SKC have left? The lease runs another 7 years right? I could see Gayle or whoever saying we want a new arena when the time comes to renegotiate.
Posted on 5/8/17 at 11:38 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I think bigger than who the owner is: how much longer does the SKC have left? The lease runs another 7 years right? I could see Gayle or whoever saying we want a new arena when the time comes to renegotiate.
Dennis Lauscha negotiated the last lease with no outs. I believe he would be the one negotiating the next one. I don't think he will demand a new arena. I think they are more interested in creative subsidies like the Dominion Tower scheme which adds moeny to their pockets directly. I think they will demand continued renovations/upgrades to the arena which add value, but don't see them simply demanding a new facility unless the NBA wants it.
Posted on 5/8/17 at 11:42 am to Jester
quote:
Did the settlement with the trust remove the Pelicans from the petulant Benson kids' inheritance?
Settlement was confidential. No clue how much of the team was removed from the trust, but the 3 R's were more interested in Saints ownership than Pelicans and the Pels non-controlling shares were valued much lower than the Saints, so I would be somewhat surprised if Tom is not in 100% possession of the Pels.
Posted on 5/8/17 at 11:42 am to NOFOX
Hopefully you're right. It's not an "old" facility just yet but definitely middle aged, especially by 2024
Posted on 5/8/17 at 11:51 am to Draconian Sanctions
But part of the appeal of the Pels to Benson was it's synergy with his other properties in the area. I doubt they want to move the arena to another site and having a temporary home for a year or 2 while it gets rebuilt doesn't seem desirable either. Not to mention paying say $150 million for upgrades is better than going halfsies at $250 million on a new arena for like Milwaukee did. The SKC is middle aged as you say, so they can hold off that conversation for at least another 17 years.
Who knows what will happen in 17 years, they might be selling VR seats by then and replacing in arena revenue with premium VR TV subscriptions.
Who knows what will happen in 17 years, they might be selling VR seats by then and replacing in arena revenue with premium VR TV subscriptions.
This post was edited on 5/8/17 at 11:53 am
Posted on 5/8/17 at 1:28 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
Because $$$$$
you missed the point.
people will be interested in buying the Pels b/c there is $$$$ to be made. even in a smaller market like NO.
quote:
league would want the team to stay in NOLA as long as the government played ball. But I have no reason to believe a billionaire looking for a shiny new toy wants to keep the team in NOLA.
that is myopic. there is money to be made with a high status, luxury toy like an NBA team even in a smaller market. they are making $$.
yes, the teams will always try to leverage local $$$ for arenas/sweeteners. that happens in every pro sport. Benson has done it and continues to do so right now. an outsider doesn't change that tactic in the slightest.
if a new owner could get $400M in state subsidies over a a decade, they're staying in NO. if Benson didn't get the subsidies, how sure are we he wouldn't have tried to move? happened before
quote:
Sonics and Hornets moved
you need to brush up on the history there. totally different situations. Shinn poisoned the well. the Sonics were an inside job for one of Stern's buddies from the start.
This post was edited on 5/8/17 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 5/8/17 at 3:31 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Did BS give any more context for the what the motivation of these super groups are? Or their plans?
Simmons had no info on this. He has been saying Pels can be had because Benson is old plus small market team that isn't winning games. Sounded like only insider info he may have had was on Pacers.
Posted on 5/8/17 at 4:03 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
nd AD/DC demand change, like Cal, but the Saints don't want to pay Cal $10 million per year for the Pels coach.
They wouldn't demand Cal because Cal is never going to Coach in the NBA. He doesn't want it he is where he wants to be and where he needs to be.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News