Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,117 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
According to This Tribune Article:

A legal document signed by Paul Allen prohibits him from relocating the Trail Blazers to another city while he owns the NBA franchise. If he sells the team, Allen agreed to make sure the new owner would be bound by the same conditions.
Under a 30-year “exclusive site agreement” with the city of Portland that went into effect June 23, 1993, Allen promised to keep the Blazers in Portland.
The 18-page document is signed by Allen and then-Mayor Vera Katz, among others. Parties to the agreement include Allen, the city of Portland and Trail Blazers Inc..........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,377 Posts
There are ways of breaking contracts if people are really determined. I don't think it will happen mind you, but it's always possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,812 Posts
Enough $$$ can always break a contract...on the other hand it's nice to see another high hurdle added to the possibility of moving the team.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,390 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,390 Posts
Re: Tribune: Allen Can't Move Blazers

Sorry, didn't see this posted earlier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,509 Posts
barfo said:
Major kudos to Eggers and the Tribune for actually digging up the agreement and reporting on it. Wonder why the O doesn't bother with that sort of thing?

barfo
They did, several weeks ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,731 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,010 Posts
Blazers legally required to stay in Portland?

I don't know if this has been posted, but I couldn't find a reference anywhere to it. If this is true, I wonder, is there any possible way for PA to break this deal? Has anyone else heard anything of this?

Full Article On Yahoo Sports (Towards the bottom)

Yahoo Sports said:
According to the Portland Tribune's Kerry Eggers, Allen signed a 30-year contract upon buying the Trail Blazers in 1993, one that ensured that the Trail Blazers stay in Portland for the duration of his time as owner. And, should he sell the team, Allen would have to ensure that the new ownership keep the Blazers in Oregon until the pact expires in '23. Hah, freakin', hah.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,785 Posts
Except Allen wouldn't sell the team... it would go bankrupt. If the NBA really wants to avoid legal questions... they'd just award another expansion team with the current Blazers in the pot for the expansion draft.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,785 Posts
"Even if Trail Blazers Inc. were to file for bankruptcy, the party assuming ownership of the club would be responsible under Section 3.2, which reads, “In the event of the liquidation or dissolution of TBI, the covenants and restrictions … set forth in this agreement shall be binding upon the shareholders of TBI or any other distributee of the franchise and related assets and properties of TBI.” - Tribune

I guess a lawyer would better know what this means... but I still think if the franchise goes away... the NBA could have an expansion team somewhere else as long as they threw our players back in the pool. As for Allen being liable... I am not sure if bankruptcy would be a breach of contract. If he tried to move the team... sure... but bankruptcy? Don't know.

It does seem like the Tribune did some research and it sounds like good news for Blazer fans.
 

·
Banned member
Joined
·
28,451 Posts
Paxil said:
It does seem like the Tribune did some research and it sounds like good news for Blazer fans.
It is a breath of fresh air, ain't it? A newspaper who actually researches the articles they're writing, and tried to present facts and not just opinons as facts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,548 Posts
Allen promises to keep the team in the City for 30 years,

and in EXCHANGE gets what? What did the City do for the TrailBlazers?

This contract may be a hurdle. It may even be a high hurdle. But, ultimately, in most courts, for extremely onerous terms of a contract to be enforced, a judge has to be convinced that an exchange occurred. Unless the City can show that they gave up or provided a LOT to get this promise, they should have problems enforcing said provision in a crisis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
731 Posts
Masbee,

As I remember, the city paid millions, not nearly as many millions as PA, but there was enough money to make a clear legal exchange.

It kinda looks to me like the issue isn't whether or not PA would end up owing the city something, it is exactly what (how much) PA would owe the city for breaking the contract. How much do the Blazers contribute to the city. Here, the studies by the different groups play in the opposite direction as normal. The pro sports groups whose studies claim that having a pro team is worth millions in economic terms would be used by the city against Paul, while the anti public money to teams groups' studies that show little value would be used by Paul against the city.

I hope some other solution emerges.
 

·
Banned member
Joined
·
28,451 Posts
Bwatcher said:
Masbee,

As I remember, the city paid millions, not nearly as many millions as PA, but there was enough money to make a clear legal exchange.

It kinda looks to me like the issue isn't whether or not PA would end up owing the city something, it is exactly what (how much) PA would owe the city for breaking the contract. How much do the Blazers contribute to the city. Here, the studies by the different groups play in the opposite direction as normal. The pro sports groups whose studies claim that having a pro team is worth millions in economic terms would be used by the city against Paul, while the anti public money to teams groups' studies that show little value would be used by Paul against the city.

I hope some other solution emerges.
the city paid 30+ million for improvements to the roads near the RG, and get the parking $$..they've actually paid back the loans/bonds they took out for those, and now make most (if not all) of the money from the parking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,548 Posts
Hap said:
the city paid 30+ million for improvements to the roads near the RG, and get the parking $$..they've actually paid back the loans/bonds they took out for those, and now make most (if not all) of the money from the parking.
Sounds like a very weak exchange.

Objectively, at the time, the City put up very little. In total dollars, something, but not a huge amount. When you consider that some of the money for those $30mil in improvements would have been spent in that neighborhood regardless (proximity to Memorial, the convention center, lloyd center, max train line), it wouldn't be hard to argue that the net actual amount was far less.

Then when you consider they got all that money back from parking fees - the net is not Zero, it is less than Zero. The City has made money, not spent or lost any. So where is their contribution?

The comparison to the situation in almost all other cities experience will make any arguments from the City look lame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
731 Posts
It is not an issue of logical balance. It is a legal issue. My limited understanding of contract law is that as long as there is a real exchange involved - the city giving something real, and PA in return agreeing to do something real - then the contract is valid. You are I may not think the balance of the contract is "fair" but that isn't the issue.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top