SAVE OUR BLAZERS, er.......SONICS

It's simply a fact of the market place in professional sports that more cities want a major league franchise than there are franchises.  Couple that with teams needing the revenue streams that coporate luxury boxes generate and you get the trend towards publically financed stadiums and arenas.  Do I agree with it?  Depends.  Philosophically, no.  But if came down to losing a team that means a lot to me, then maybe I go along with it.

I work up here in Seattle.  Personally, I tend to think the City of Seattle has a lot more pressing matters that need attention (read dollars) than building a new arena for the Sonics.  If that means losing the Sonics, then that's tough on Sonic's fans, but they are just one constituancy.  You don't make Clay Bennett into the devil.  

What if the City of Portland decided that they had a low income housing and a homeless problem and the solution was to require every new homeowner to take in a family or at the minimum, provide space in their yard for a tent and portapotty?  That's basically the same thing.  Afterall, people buy homes in Portland because it's a wonderful place to live.  Therefore it is important to keep it wonderful by getting the homeless off the streets.  That certainly outweighs any inconvienence an individual private property owner might experience.  That's basically what people want to do to Bennett.  They don't care if he loses money, so long as they aren't inconvienenced by losing their team.

And the people who own these buildings - they lease them out and make money.  It's a business decision.  Does the expected revenue stream from leasing justify the capital investment needed to acquire the land and construct the tower.

Big businesses move their corporate headquarters all the time.  Look how many have left Portland.  And cities compete for these companies, offering tax breaks and civic improvements (like picking up the tab for new infrustructure such as sewers, roads, etc).  How is that different from moving a sports business?  The only difference is that a sports team has people emotionally involved with it that don't work for it.

As for people's part affiliation having anything to do with where one stand's on this issue - that was more to get a rise than meant as an undeniable truth.  Apparently it worked, as you feel the need to name call.  But thanks for helping prove my point.  

Were this true, Stern wouldn't last out the season.  The other owners would insist on his resignation.  I'm not anywhere close to being an expert on the business end of an NBA franchise.  However I believe I'm not going too far out on a limb when I argue that the most important revenue source outside of the national tv contract is a team's local cable network, followed by corporate (or deep pocket) support through luxury suites.  Just about every franchise in the big three has built or pushed for venues with such suites.  It is less important to fill individual seats than it is to have your boxes sold out.  The way they usuallyt work is they are sold based on all events that occur in the venue, not just the team's games.  

While market size will impact the size of the cable deal a team might get, it doesn't necessarily mean that much in terms of box sales.  As long as there is sufficient demand for those, the owner doesn't care.

By the way, not sure where the $500 million came from.  The numbers that have been bandied about up here have been in the $300 - $380 million range.  There is also the fact that OKC is supposed to be upgrading the Ford Center.  Finally, while I don't know how many boxes the Fox Center has, unless it has zero, it has more than Key Arena.  I was just there to see the Blazer game and I didn't see a single luxury suite.  The place looks at least 20 years behind the Rose Garden.