Barclays Center/Fear Prokhorov Thread

NetsForce · Post #181 » by **NetsForce** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 4:55 pm

It's Brooklyn or Bust... =|

Post #182 » by **Rich Rane** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:44 am

Court of Appeals hearing set for October 14, with ruling expected by November

The Nets owners, who hope to move the basketball franchise to Atlantic Yards, have said they must break ground by year’s end on an 18,000-seat arena to be called the Barclays Center. That’s the expiration date on an Internal Revenue Service exemption allowing the Nets to issue tax-free bonds to pay for construction.

The franchise had hoped to break ground by this summer, then this fall, but the court battle was kept alive by the state Court of Appeals. At issue is whether $200 million in direct subsidies by New York city and state to project developer Forest City Ratner should have been considered when determining if eminent domain could be used.

http://www.northjersey.com/sports/nets/ ... oject.html

Preludepunk27 · Post #183 » by **Preludepunk27** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:56 am

I'm gonna choke a bitch if we don't move to Brooklyn.

NetsForce · Post #184 » by **NetsForce** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:00 am

Preludepunk27 wrote:I'm gonna choke a bitch if we don't move to Brooklyn.

And I'll join you in doing so.

enetric · Post #185 » by **enetric** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:56 am

Rich Rane wrote:Take it for what it's worth:
In a short item in ESPN the Magazine’s “3 Seconds” column, Ric Bucher reports that “financial issues” may force Bruce Ratner to sell the team. Quoting “multiple league sources”, Bucher also reports “prospective owners want the team to stay put”. SI’s Ian Thomsen reported last week that four groups are interested in buying the Nets but that any sale was predicated on the Nets moving to Brooklyn.

The 3 Seconds Column: Multiple league sources say Nets owner Bruce Ratner’s dream of relocating to Brooklyn has grown even further from reality due to financial issues. He could be forced to sell the team before it happens, and prospective owners want the team to stay put.

Sounds like a complete ESPN tale of fiction....this side says any deal is predicated on the team staying put...and then it says...any interest is based on the team moving to Brooklyn.

You know what? I think it comes down to two things....

1- How serious is the NBA about having the team move? David Stern every single time he speaks about it seems hell bent on saying they WILL BE IN BROOKLYN.

2- Just how long can the courts hold this thing up? If they can break ground before the year is over...its a significant cash difference to Ratner than if they do not. And if they cant break ground before the new year...then from I have read there is logic to why this thing could all fall apart.

I give the guy credit. He has worked so hard to make this happen.

You just know the Dolan's are spening millions behind the scenes for it NOT to happen...lol.

enetric · Post #186 » by **enetric** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:04 am

vincecarter4pres wrote:A) I don't think about Salmons opting out, you're right, he likely will.

B) I fully expect one of if not both of Deng and Hinrich to be gone. Hinrich is not going to be that hard to trade, his salary decreases and he is only slightly overpaid. Someone like Portland, Philly, etc. will wind up dealing for him if available.
Deng is a guy I could easily see a team trading for as well, even though I think he's trash.
Either way, figure one's gone.

C) Tyrus Thomas can be dealt with first, on the 1st day of free agency eliminating his caphold and giving a solid # and I don't see him getting more then what Charlie V just got and his deal starts at 7 million or less. There's also a very good chance Thomas is dealt by the deadline this season and if they curb their expectations for return value there will be numerous suitors.

D) They aren't a great situation talent wise, but they do have D Rose and another high level season will do nothing but good for the franchise's chances.

E) I absolutley never said they were a better draw then us, especially if we have Brooklyn in our back pocket, just said they could easily be our main comp.

Isnt it interesting that your entire Bulls thought process is now in discussion...but with them rumored to pursuing Boozer...the very guy you said would kill our felxibility next summer if we were to go after him?

Would seem your homework for what contracts you have to deal with when were faulty. See Marion NOT renounced prior to July 1st...just one example.

Thus raises the question again...why NOT go after Boozer now? What would be the worst that happens? Lose him for nothing? Or, use him for an S&T next summer if he were ours in a similar scenario to what we just saw with Hedo and Marion?

I dont know...maybe there are components missing here...but to me...it starts making more and more sense that we should be looking harder at Boozer if this deal with the Bulls does not go down.

You know...if Brooklyn doesnt happen....I would be all for making the Boozer deal...then letting him walk and just going the pick and slow gorwth route the next few years. I have no problem sucking for a few seasons. I know the kiddies on the site wont be able to accept that thinking...win now...be competitive to them sound better than lose a lot now to CONTEND later.

I would always prefer to contend if the price is several seasons of suckage over simply making the playoffs with the dilusion of contending.

enetric · Post #187 » by **enetric** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:05 am

Rich Rane wrote:Court of Appeals hearing set for October 14, with ruling expected by November
The Nets owners, who hope to move the basketball franchise to Atlantic Yards, have said they must break ground by year’s end on an 18,000-seat arena to be called the Barclays Center. That’s the expiration date on an Internal Revenue Service exemption allowing the Nets to issue tax-free bonds to pay for construction.

The franchise had hoped to break ground by this summer, then this fall, but the court battle was kept alive by the state Court of Appeals. At issue is whether $200 million in direct subsidies by New York city and state to project developer Forest City Ratner should have been considered when determining if eminent domain could be used.

http://www.northjersey.com/sports/nets/ ... oject.html

This really gives a face to what is really the issue. Clock is ticking....tic toc....

S.I.C. GM · Post #188 » by **S.I.C. GM** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:17 pm

http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com ... llion.html

Title: ESDC says it hopes to sell $650 million (not $531 million) in arena bonds even while Atlantic Yards appeal is pending

S.I.C. GM · Post #189 » by **S.I.C. GM** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:20 pm

I really doubt that Brooklyn doesnt happen. It might not happen when we want it to, but it will happen.

Stern isnt one to put himself out there by saying it will happen. He would have used his usual avoid the question answers.

S.I.C. GM · Post #190 » by **S.I.C. GM** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:30 pm

E, I totally agree with you.

Some nets fans dont see the bigger picture. Yeah you want to root for your team- WooHooo!!!, but come on. The direction Thorn and Kiki is going in is the best we can do right now. If you have seen recent Portland, OKC, and Chicago games, you should be thrilled by what management has done.

Harris, Lee, CDR, TWill, Lopez, and Yi to a certain extent are going to be very good to watch next year.

LEAVE IT AT THAT!!!!

Playoffs! Are you talking about Playoffs!!!!!

We shouldn't be. Like E said, I would rather be in lottery then to be swept by Boston, Cavs or Magic.

Lets be real.

More cap space so we can be more flexible.

We might not get the big three next year, but once our young guys have gotten better and we eventually move to Brooklyn. Other players are going to want to come play with this team THEN.

vincecarter4pres · Post #191 » by **vincecarter4pres** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:38 pm

I just think going after Boozer is an unnecessary and stupid move.
It kills Yi's last and only true chance as the starting power forward who is actually involved in the offense as one of the main options.
It kills any shot at a top 5 draft pick and it likely does exactly what you say you're against, it makes us the 7th or 8th seed sacrfilicial lamb with false illusions of contention.
It puts a lot of pressure on the Nets to get in a bidding war for Boozer, overpaying him and giving him an extra year when he isn't worth that much money when he is extremely injury prone and an average defender at best that gets overpowered and dominated by taller big men, which is most of the league.
It kills capsace to go after other FA in 2010 and 2011, along with blockbuster trades where we absorb salary if we do decide to keep him.
I only like getting Boozer if we say screw 2010 and have another blockbuster in our back pocket before the season to become a true, real deal, legitimate contender for now and the future.
Something like if Chris Paul was demanding a trade and we landed Boozer and Paul and even had to absorb maybe Peja or Chandler or Posey, all while keeping Brook, Dooling and one of CDR/Lee/T Will and that would be a big if.

snnorp · Post #192 » by **snnorp** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:08 pm

Does is matter to any of you that nearly the entire Prospect Heights neighborhood in Brooklyn DOES NOT WANT THE NETS or don't the people who actually live there have any say in this?

I lived in that beautiful neighborhood for 5 years and moved away last year once it started looking like Ratner was going to win. Brooklyn has already had one very bad experience with Ratner's bait and switch tactics about 20 years ago and the residents who remember his lies (I still know many of them) have no desire for a replay.

Giving taxpayer millions to a millionaire so he can use eminent domain to kick us out of our homes and destroy the character of the neighborhood with skyscrapers while calling us "blighted" is insulting and wrong.

LET ME PUT THIS AS CLEARLY AS I CAN. RATNER, YOU DAMN LIAR, WE DON'T WANT YOU! YOU'RE NOT INVITED!! STAY AWAY!!!

Pugsley_2491 · Post #193 » by **Pugsley_2491** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:12 pm

snnorp wrote:Does is matter to any of you that nearly the entire Prospect Heights neighborhood in Brooklyn DOES NOT WANT THE NETS or don't the people who actually live there have any say in this?

I lived in that beautiful neighborhood for 5 years and moved away last year once it started looking like Ratner was going to win. Brooklyn has already had one very bad experience with Ratner's bait and switch tactics about 20 years ago and the residents who remember his lies (I still know many of them) have no desire for a replay.

Giving taxpayer millions to a millionaire so he can use eminent domain to kick us out of our homes and destroy the character of the neighborhood with skyscrapers while calling us "blighted" is insulting and wrong.

LET ME PUT THIS AS CLEARLY AS I CAN. RATNER, YOU DAMN LIAR, WE DON'T WANT YOU! YOU'RE NOT INVITED!! STAY AWAY!!!

wahh wahh wahhhh
sour grapes? who cares? Brooklyn better go through...

snnorp · Post #194 » by **snnorp** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:14 pm

Typical. THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE CARE! Who the hell are you to tell someone else what they can or can't do in their home?

Preludepunk27 · Post #195 » by **Preludepunk27** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:38 pm

It's a big grey area, but you gotta blame the laws in this country over the person using them to their advantage. I'm not gonna go into massive detail because this is obviously a more emotional subject to you than to me, but the revenue, potential industry and jobs the entire complex can bring to that area is worth it to me in my opinion. But I'm speaking as an innocent bystander here. I spent a lot of my childhood in Brooklyn. I still have family there, just not in the part where the Barclays is proposed to be built.

snnorp · Post #196 » by **snnorp** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:41 pm

Again, whose opinion should matter, yours or the people who actually live there and whose lives would be turned upside down by this nightmare?

Preludepunk27 · Post #197 » by **Preludepunk27** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:52 pm

snnorp wrote:Again, whose opinion should matter, yours or the people who actually live there and whose lives would be turned upside down by this nightmare?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That is what this country was founded on. Just because I'm indirectly connected does not mean my opinion means squat. I was trying to be relatively sympathetic in my answer, but this the laws of the united states are to blame...NOT RATNER. He is doing NOTHING ILLEGAL. Hire better lawyers is my advice now. Don't attack us for something we don't have control over. You're just using this forum because you can't yell at anyone directly involved. Do I want the team in Brooklyn, yes. Do I understand what is going on? yes. Am I insensitive because I want them in Brooklyn. I wouldn't say that because we are not breaking any laws. If we were, we wouldn't have won EVERY COURT DECISION brought forth.

Take your problems up with the man himself. We simply talk about what is best for the team. It's not like we're sitting here and talking about erecting a church in Ratner's name or giggling as take our money and make it rain in celebration of the people we're putting on the streets. We're in a capitalist society and these things happen sometimes. It may be unethical to some, but not illegal. Go read Milton Friedman to learn how our country truly works. If you don't like it, move to France and complain how difficult it is for anyone to start their own business.

Sorry for being harsh and going on a tangent, but you're not going to solve ANYTHING by bitching to us. And trust me this board is split on the issue of Brooklyn or Newark almost 50/50

snnorp · Post #198 » by **snnorp** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:51 am

I have read Milton Friedman and many other libertarian writers. It's funny you should refer to him given that eminent domain is a decidedly communist rather than capitalist concept. Do you really think Milton Friedman of all people would approve of the government overruling a home owner's right to his private property? I thought that one of the main differences between communist and capitalist countries was that in a communist country the government can literally take you out of your home because you don't own it whereas in a capitalist country you are legally allowed to own property and the government has no right to steal it from you. In this case the government is going into people's homes and threatening to use eminent domain to throw them out of their homes so that Ratner can use the land in a way that the government likes better. If that doesn't bother you then you need to re-read you Milton Friedman books.

vincecarter4pres · Post #199 » by **vincecarter4pres** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:17 am

You ain't kidding Eddie Miles gives the foul, he averaged 8.4 of them per 36 minutes!
That's more then Greg Oden!

Preludepunk27 · Post #200 » by **Preludepunk27** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:48 am

snnorp wrote:I have read Milton Friedman and many other libertarian writers. It's funny you should refer to him given that eminent domain is a decidedly communist rather than capitalist concept. Do you really think Milton Friedman of all people would approve of the government overruling a home owner's right to his private property? I thought that one of the main differences between communist and capitalist countries was that in a communist country the government can literally take you out of your home because you don't own it whereas in a capitalist country you are legally allowed to own property and the government has no right to steal it from you. In this case the government is going into people's homes and threatening to use eminent domain to throw them out of their homes so that Ratner can use the land in a way that the government likes better. If that doesn't bother you then you need to re-read you Milton Friedman books.

You make eminent domain sound like someone kicks another person onto the street with nothing and no form of compensation, which just isn't true. You're obviously taking a hard line situation to this. Friedman believes in doing what you can while playing inside the law, which unfortunately, eminent domain does. Ratner is doing nothing illegal to get what he wants and to make a buck for his organziation. Though not a favorable law, it IS a law and Friedman would condone it if it can increase the bottom line for the company. Also, in Democracy and Freedom, Friedman even discusses in the basic idea of eminent domain and how it is a necessary plan for the improvement of an entire city. I personally think I comprehend Milton Friedman just fine.

You're seriously not going to say anything here to make be change my mind. Take it up with the big guy himself. Preaching to the 15 Nets fans on this board isn't gonna change anything.