I'm afraid that we're doing exactly what Les & co want by being so frightened about the Rockets moving. I posit that the Rockets will *probably* not move. Why?: economics. Houston is a *significantly* larger market than any of the cities available. Yes yes... Baltimore is large, but DC already has a team. Simply too close... and I think that MJ & co might throw a fit if a team intruded on their marketing, ticket sales, TV contracts, etc. Las Vegas? New Orleans? You're joking, right? The NBA has enough problems w/o a presence is Las Vegas, and New Orleans is as bad as Houston when it comes to supporting teams. Alexander is attempting to put a grim face on the matter to scare houston. I sincerely doubt he *honestly* believed the last resolution would win. It was hastily patched together, and he spent substantially less than is necessary for such matters. Logically, I think we can assume there will be another proposal. Will it be better than the first? I hope so. Will it pass? I'm not sure, but this... manipulation, from the organization is almost making me hope they fail. I understand that this is business, but still... it's not fair to the fans.
The bottom line is NBA ball is a business. If Alexander wants some parking and food concession money to aid profitability, give it to him. To the often asked question, "Why should public money be spent to aid a private enterprise?" ... I have no new argument. I've heard most of the commonly given responses ... and find nothing truly compelling there. But it's the way this business is run. We can cry "unfair" or feign disinterest ... it won't change the uncomfortable facts. My best reply, equally lame, but true, is ... "Do you want the Rockets in town?" The large market issue is moot. If some smaller city, desperate for the NBA, antes up with the right package ... recent Houston history tells that tale better than any suggested scare tactic! Respectfully, hoping for the failure of any new proposal is just pure sour grapes. I'm still trying to understand why local fans have not rallied more forcefully to the Rockets cause. If we realized that football (?) and baseball needed a new dynamic to keep them competitive, and in town ... why not basketball??? regards
Of course it's sour grapes. I agree that these sort of business practices are a reality that we have to deal with... but does that make it *right*? It's dangerous to concentrate on what should be to the exclusion of what is... but IMO, it's more dangerous to forget about how things should be... for then, we not only lose our ability to change things for the better... but we also lose our idealism. For me, right and wrong are inherent parts of existence, and pragmatism doesn't change that. I still evaluate the world around me in accordance with a moral framework. To be quite frank, the business aspect of pro sports stink. That said, I want to keep the Rockets anyway [This message has been edited by haven (edited February 04, 2000).]
haven, the system is working *exactly* like it should. If you had a job where you made $10/hr and a competing firm offered $20/hr, what would you do? If I said "I like it here, so I'll take $15/hr to stay", is there anything wrong with that? That's *exactly* what the Rockets are doing... The city said no, we want you to stay, but we're only going to pay $10/hr. NO and other cities are essentially willing to give the Rockets a free arena... Les offered to pay for half of his to stay here, and he was told that's not good enough. Fine, it's in his best interests to go elsewhere. Pro-Sports isn't cheap, but nor are they a necessity. They are purely an entertainment business, so there's no moral aspect here. Cities choose how much they are willing to pay, and teams will go to the highest bidder... It's simple free-market economics.
Then you and I disagree on the merits of free market economics... I'm actually a communitarianist (and no, that's not just a mispelling of the word "communist")... so our disagreement makes sense I can't say I know much about that philosophy, so I can't really comment. However, I agree that it just depends on how far you believe the free-market should go. I think sports should be configured like the Green Bay Packers. That's a case study in stakeholder ownership. Absolutely... Ideally, pro-sports teams would be publicly owned. It would a solve a huge number of problems that they face. Unfortunately, there's too much profit to be made in rising franchise values, so its profitable for the rich to buy them up where possible.
Then you and I disagree on the merits of free market economics... I'm actually a communitarianist (and no, that's not just a mispelling of the word "communist")... so our disagreement makes sense. I think sports should be configured like the Green Bay Packers. That's a case study in stakeholder ownership. [This message has been edited by haven (edited February 04, 2000).]
These above are very intelligent posts. This thread should not be lost too soon. Scare tactic or not, this is serious!
Arguing the merits of spending money is not really the issue. It is more a quality of life issue. No other city has complained when they kept their team by building new arenas and stadiums, but plenty have complained when they lost their teams.
The question is alot simpler than any of this: Do you want the Rockets to stay in Houston? yes or no That simple. There doesn't need to be a 'but' behind your answer. New arena means Rockets will stay, no arena means the Rockets will leave.
