Pacers, CIB still talking post-deadline

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Negotiations over who will pay Conseco Fieldhouse operating costs are continuing the day after the deadline set by the Indiana Pacers to have a deal in place.

Team officials wanted to know by June 30 whether the city's Capital Improvement Board will take over the $15 million in annual operating expenses at the venue. The CIB owns the arena, where the Pacers and Indiana Fever play.

The Pacers' current lease runs through 2019, but the team has an out clause after 10 years if it is losing money. Pacers Sports & Entertainment contends it has been in the red every year but one since moving into Conseco Fieldhouse and can no longer afford to pay to operate the facility. 

They remain hopeful a deal is imminent, though Pacers spokesman Greg Schenkel declined to put a timeframe on a potential agreement.

“Discussions are continuing,” he said, “and both sides are working very hard and remain optimistic that we will have a positive resolution soon.”

The Pacers have said they will begin seeking other alternatives if a deal was not inked by June 30.

The CIB, which owns and operates the city’s professional sports venues and the Indiana Convention Center, is grappling with its own financial problems. It began 2009 by staring at a projected $47 million deficit for this year. The agency has improved its finances by making $26 million in cuts, collecting an additional $11 million in tax revenue, and avoiding payment on $25.5 million in debt service reserve payments.

For its part, the city has maintained the June 30 deadline was not a date it necessarily had to abide by, said Robert Vane, spokesman for Mayor Greg Ballard.

“But I’ve never gotten any indication that the talks have been acrimonious,” he said. “They’ve always been constructive.”

A CIB-commissioned study concluded that the two basketball teams contribute an estimated $55 million a year to the Indianapolis economy.

Talks lately have shifted from a long-term lease with the Pacers to a three-year deal with the operating costs retroactive to the Pacers’ 2009-10 fiscal year.

City officials have said they might wait until the National Basketball Association and NBA Players Association work out a new collective-bargaining agreement before signing the Pacers to a long-term lease.
The collective bargaining agreement expires in June 2011, and the league’s owners and players union are just beginning negotiations. A players’ lockout is possible, which could be a sticking point in the talks with the city.


  • Facts
    The Pacers out clause comes with financial penalties, something that our CIB negotiators and the media seem to conviently forget.
  • No Way
    Why tie a public subsidy to performance? Why not let the Pacers pay their own way, whether they are good or bad.
  • Tie the Rent to Wins
    How about tying the amount the Pacers pay to the number of wins they record. More wins should translate to higher revenues and allow the Pacers to pay a smaller percent. A continued poor product on the floor and they pay the premium rent.....

    Post a comment to this story

    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

    2. If you only knew....

    3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

    4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

    5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.