PDA

View Full Version : Cities with publicly funded arenas threatening legal action



daleja424
10-18-2011, 08:16 PM
Memphis city council passed resolution authorizing city attorney to explore legal options to recoup revenues needed to pay debt on arena.

Memphis' FedEx Forum was financed nearly entirely through the sale of $250 million in public bonds.

City estimates it could be on the hook for $18 million in debt service payments if entire season is lost.

Frankly, with about two-thirds of NBA arenas publicly financed, surprised it took this long for a local government to threaten legal action.

Orlando should be next. New Amway Arena financed with $311 million in public bonds since downgraded to junk status.
Ken Berger

Wade>You
10-18-2011, 08:18 PM
I hope this blows up in the owners face. Glad to see the pressure being put on them to end their lockout.

nickdymez
10-18-2011, 08:18 PM
This is what i like to hear. Put pressure back on the owners

nickdymez
10-18-2011, 08:19 PM
I hope this blows up in the owners face. Glad to see the pressure being put on them to end their lockout.

hahaha.. jinx

Wade>You
10-18-2011, 08:21 PM
hahaha.. jinxlmao I was thinking the same thing and also a breath of fresh air from all the pro-owner support on PSD. :hi5:

Bramaca
10-18-2011, 08:41 PM
I have no problem with this and personally don't think that arenas used for major sports like the NBA, NHL, MLB, or NFL should be getting any public financing. But this can affect the players equally as much as the owners. If cities make teams more accountable for the expenses of building arenas it is an extra expense that would need to be accounted for in the calculation of a BRI split.

Its something that is overdue because both the owners and the players have benefitted too much for years due to handouts from governments.

Dade County
10-18-2011, 08:47 PM
WTF took them so long, I did not even think about this. This should have been out their as a possibility from day one. We might have a season this year :)

Wade>You
10-18-2011, 08:47 PM
I have no problem with this and personally don't think that arenas used for major sports like the NBA, NHL, MLB, or NFL should be getting any public financing. But this can affect the players equally as much as the owners. If cities make teams more accountable for the expenses of building arenas it is an extra expense that would need to be accounted for in the calculation of a BRI split.

Its something that is overdue because both the owners and the players have benefitted too much for years due to handouts from governments.Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure BRI is about income, not expenses. Link to Larry Coon's faq:

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q13

Basketball Related Income (BRI) essentially includes any income received by the NBA, NBA Properties or NBA Media Ventures. This includes:

Regular season gate receipts
Broadcast rights
Exhibition game proceeds
Playoff gate receipts
Novelty, program and concession sales (at the arena and in team-identified stores within proximity of an NBA arena)
Parking
Proceeds from team sponsorships
Proceeds from team promotions
Arena club revenues
Proceeds from summer camps
Proceeds from non-NBA basketball tournaments
Proceeds from mascot and dance team appearances
Proceeds from beverage sale rights
40% of proceeds from arena signage
40% of proceeds from luxury suites
45% - 50% of proceeds from arena naming rights
Proceeds from other premium seat licenses
Proceeds received by NBA Properties, including international television, sponsorships, revenues from NBA Entertainment, the All-Star Game, the McDonald's Championship and other NBA special events.


Either way, I'm sure the players are going to argue that this is another example of how the owners are negotiating in bad faith by purposely sabotaging the season in order to gain leverage in their demands.

Bramaca
10-18-2011, 08:52 PM
Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure BRI is about income, not expenses. Link to Larry Coon's faq:

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q13

I'm not saying it affects how the BRI is calculated, what I am saying is that if communities make teams finance more of arena costs (which they should) then that may be a new expense for the owners to pay which would have to be taken into account in the negotiations.

likemystylez
10-18-2011, 08:54 PM
could this be one of the big topics in the board of governers meetings this week??

Cal827
10-18-2011, 09:11 PM
Alright, lighting the fire under the extremely greedy :clap:

Wade>You
10-18-2011, 09:17 PM
I'm not saying it affects how the BRI is calculated, what I am saying is that if communities make teams finance more of arena costs (which they should) then that may be a new expense for the owners to pay which would have to be taken into account in the negotiations.Oh ok. I edited my post but I'll post it again.


Either way, I'm sure the players are going to argue that this is another example of how the owners are negotiating in bad faith by purposely sabotaging the season in order to gain leverage in their demands.

There's no reason why the players should foot the bill for the owners' lockout. If this goes to court, I don't think any judge would blame the players for this.