For negotiators & skeptics: every number derived, both walk-aways priced ▾
The fourteen terms above are the components. This is the assembled package: one signable deal, every figure showing its arithmetic, its precedent, and what it actually costs the ownership side — so a negotiator, a councilor, or a skeptic can check the work without taking anything on faith. Carry version: the entire package fits on one printed page — download the PDF or open the printable page.
How to read the numbers. “20-yr value” means an undiscounted twenty-year sum — the same unit used everywhere on this page. “PV” means present value at a 9% discount rate, the conventional blended cost of capital for an NBA owner's arena-linked cash flows — the rate the other side's analysts use. Est marks modeled estimates built from public data; every other figure cites an enacted statute, an executed contract, or a verified peer deal. Numbers are stated as floors and targets that scale with the final approved budget — they are public benchmarks for judging the deal, not anyone's settlement authority. Council holds the pen.
Step 1 · Price both walk-aways first
A term sheet is priced off the alternative to signing it. Here is each side's no-deal position, line by line.
| What walking away costs the ownership (PV, Est) | Value | How it's calculated |
| The renovation's operating value, foregone | $175–300M | Built up stream by stream, the new premium space — suites, clubs, bars, retail — throws off $27–41M/yr of new revenue (premium seating $18–28M, food & beverage margin $3–6M, 8–15 added events/yr, naming re-rate from ~$4M to $7–9M/yr) — a level the $341M revenue-generating scope comfortably supports at an 8–12% yield-on-cost. Discounted at 9% with a 2030–31 opening ramp. Under the current proposal the public buys him this for $0; walking forfeits it. |
| The obligations he keeps if there's no deal | $90–120M | No deal means the 2024 bridge lease still governs: the operator funds all capital and “first-class” upkeep at its sole cost (§5.4) and the tolled §10.2 claim (~$164M face) keeps accruing. A deal discharges this; walking keeps it on his books. |
| Future maintenance a deal shifts off him | $60–120M | The City's pledged maintenance plus the state-funded long-term plan would replace spending his own lease otherwise assigns to him. |
| The development option | $30–80M | His 3-year Rose Quarter exclusive (DA §29.2.1) lapses with no deal — entitled urban land, valued by the land-residual method. |
| Sponsorship normalization | $10–30M | A public war with the landlord depresses local sponsorship; a deal ends it. |
| Franchise-value certainty | $75–200M | A renovated arena on a 30-year lease vs. a 2030 cliff with no home: modeled deal-vs-cliff delta of $350–700M on a $4.25B asset (his own Hurricanes went 6.3× in 7 years after the Raleigh deal), risk-weighted. |
| Total: his walk-away cost | $440–850M · central ~$640M | This is what signing a reasonable deal is worth to him — the budget he can rationally spend on concessions before walking becomes the better choice. |
| What walking away is worth to Portland (PV) | Value | How it's calculated |
| Local cash not spent | ~$370–390M | City $120M capital + ~$280M maintenance pledge + County ~$88M = $488M nominal that no-deal simply doesn't spend, discounted. |
| Revenue that keeps flowing | ~$9M/yr | Existing user fees and parking under the current lease. |
| A building that doesn't rot | — | Through Oct 2030 (his option to 2035), the bridge lease makes the operator fund capital and upkeep. The no-deal world is not a decaying arena; it's a maintained arena at his expense. |
| The accrued repair claim | $50–100M | The tolled §10.2 claim: ~$164M face, and the 2005–07 precedent (~$40M paid under the same clause — see History) proves it has cash value. |
| The state money isn't dead | option value | SB 5701's $165M second tranche is already enacted law for 2027–29 (§6); the $200M first tranche is revivable by one line in the 2027 session's routine bond bill (the SB 110 precedent). |
| Relocation risk, discounted | low | Seattle and Las Vegas became expansion markets in March 2026; the last relocation attempt failed 22–8; Article 7 requires a league-set fee; and the $4.25B purchase price was set by Portland economics. |
| Total: Portland's no-deal value | ~$450–550M | For scale: the $450–600M benchmark band on this page is the peer mean — what an average city negotiated in verified comparable deals. |
The zone, and the 35-cent dollar. Put the two walk-aways together and the zone of agreement runs from roughly $450M to roughly $850–900M (above which league optics and owner-precedent pressure make fighting cheaper for him than signing) Est. The zone is that wide because of an asymmetry worth understanding precisely: every headline dollar Portland extracts costs the ownership only about 35 cents of real money. Capital costs him 60–75¢ on the dollar after federal tax shields (sports owners amortize acquisitions over 15 years, and current law allows 100% bonus depreciation on qualifying improvements); fee fixes are ~85% paid by ticket buyers, not by him; rent dollars in years 15–20 discount heavily; and a relocation penalty costs an owner who plans to stay exactly nothing. Anywhere in the zone, the modeling says he signs — and the ranges are deliberately wide so that conclusion survives the error bars. If the model is wrong anyway, the conditions-precedent structure below means Portland finds out before money moves, not after. What the zone leaves open is only how much of it the public captures — which is why the package targets the top, not the floor.
Step 2 · The package
| Term | The number | 20-yr value |
| Public capital, capped & fenced | State $365M + City $120M re-sourced (no PCEF, no General Fund) = $485M, barred from the premium scope | caps the public's exposure |
| Operator new cash | ≥$245M into the revenue-generating scope Est | $245M |
| §10.2 settlement (counted separately — a discharge, not a contribution) | $120M of certified necessary repair | $120M (flagged) |
| Rent | $4.5M/yr escalating 3% from occupancy ($2M/yr during construction) + $2.5M/yr operator capital reserve | ~$121M + ~$67M reserve ($2.5M/yr esc. 3%) |
| Revenue participation | 18% of gross premium/club/naming revenue above a CPI-indexed audited baseline | ~$100M Est |
| Overruns | Owner-level GMP at the approved budget; 100% operator absorption above it; savings shared 65/35 public | $25–60M expected + the insurance |
| Term | 30 years + two 5-yr options — contingent on the §4 tax-diversion sunset (below) | the length both sides publicly say they want — peer cities granted it only with reinvestment and rent-reset conditions attached |
| Development | 7-yr exclusive with his own Raleigh milestones: $200M by yr 5 / $400M by yr 10 / $800M by yr 20; 6% ground rent; tax rolls; 10% affordable | ~$160M+ (part contingent) |
| Naming | He keeps arena naming during the Term — captured above the ~$4M baseline via participation; 50/50 on district naming; reversion to the City at lease end | inside participation |
| Parking | 25% admin fee deleted; City takes 30% of gross event parking from 2031 | ~$70M Est |
| User fees | All five carve-outs closed (premium at actual price, suites at 6% of license revenue, single-event to 100%, affiliate netting ended, promoter risk shifted) | ~$50M (~85% fan-paid) |
| PILOT | $8.25M/yr pre-renovation, CPI-indexed; reset to at least $16.5M/yr after substantial completion; appraisal true-up, no offsets | ~$165M floor / ~$330M after reset (20 yrs, before CPI) |
| Relocation security | Formula-pegged damages + specific performance + TBI joint-and-several + $50M letter of credit + springing holdco recourse | protects the full $1.02–1.11B |
| Transparency | NDA dead; public-records supremacy; audit and copy rights; public Oregon arbitration; reporting past 2032; §3.3 deleted; §15 narrowed | the enforcement multiplier |
Step 3 · The fine print that decides whether the numbers are real
Each entry: where the number comes from, and the drafting detail that keeps it from quietly becoming zero.
- Public capital: $485M, fencedThe state's $365M (SB 5701 §§4–7) plus the City's $120M — re-sourced to parking and user-fee revenue, not PCEF or the General Fund — with two fences: tax-exempt bond proceeds never touch the premium scope (a bond-counsel allocation memo is a condition precedent — private-use rules can force taxable issuance, an estimated $40–80M of extra interest Est), and the re-sourcing must be proven before the vote: a published parking-revenue coverage analysis showing the stream actually supports $120M of bonds. A funding source that doesn't pencil quietly becomes the General Fund's problem later.
- Operator new cash: ≥$245M, and why that's the fair numberThe City's own study labels ~$341M of the 20-year plan revenue-generating upgrades — suites, clubs, bars, retail — whose income the operator keeps. The principle the City itself published (“no public dollars for tenant-specific upgrades”) makes that scope his bill. $245M new cash, net of the §10.2 settlement below, funds it. What it really costs him: roughly $155–185M after tax Est (15-year franchise amortization plus 100% bonus depreciation on qualifying improvements) — against $27–41M/yr of new revenue it generates for him. Ownership paid 18–62% of capital in every verified peer renovation (Cleveland 62%, D.C. 35.6%, Atlanta 26%, Indianapolis 18%). $245M on this program is ~32% — the peer middle, for the strongest revenue scope in the set.
- The §10.2 settlement: $120M — and the count-once ruleThe operator already owes the building its accrued “first-class” repairs (§5.4, §10.2 — Term 10). Settling that claim for $120M of certified necessary repair (independent owner's-rep sign-off; any shortfall converts to a liquidated cash obligation) is real value — but it is the discharge of an existing debt, not a new contribution. Expect the other side to book it as their headline “private investment.” The rule that protects the whole ledger: count it once, label it a settlement, and never let the new lease be drafted as a “novation” — the drafting move that would silently extinguish the claim instead of paying it.
- Rent: $4.5M/yr escalating 3% — his own signatureThis is not an aspiration; it is the rent schedule this same ownership signed in Raleigh in 2024, replacing rent-free status, on a public project half Portland's size. $4.5M escalating 3% over 20 years sums to ~$121M. The separate $2.5M/yr capital reserve (Charlotte's structure) keeps maintenance funded without touching the rent. True PV cost to him: ~$30M Est — which is why rent is the most winnable major term on the page.
- Revenue participation: 18% of gross, designed to surviveThe public is funding a building whose upside the operator keeps; participation is substitute rent on public premium capital, not profit-sharing. The design choices that make it auditable rather than theoretical: (a) gross, never net — the current lease makes his books uncopyable (§10.14, Parking §16.9), and gross premium categories (suite licenses, club memberships, premium season products, naming) are contract-verifiable; (b) above a CPI-indexed baseline audited from the last pre-construction season — the City participates only in renovation-driven real growth, never inflation, which pre-concedes his fairest objection; (c) anti-gaming — related-party deals at fair market value, league-standard allocation for bundled sponsorships, category definitions locked at term-sheet stage (this is exactly where the final-documents drafting war will be fought); (d) baseline resets only in proportion to capex he funds, so his later investments aren't taxed but can't zero the public's share; (e) City audit rights expressly overriding §10.14/§16.9. Deterrence math: at 18% he keeps 82¢ of every premium dollar generated mostly by public capital — a market 8% yield on the public's share of that scope would be ~$27M/yr; participation yields $5–8M/yr. The public is already conceding 70%+ of a market return.
- Overruns: an owner-level GMP, with the trap doors welded shutSB 1501 §6(1)(c) says the authority can't be forced to pay overruns — it never names who does. The package finishes the sentence: a guaranteed maximum price at the approved budget — owner-level, not contractor-level, so scope gaps can't fall to the public — with 100% operator absorption above it. Two drafting details carry all the weight: “authority-requested modification” (the statute's only exception) must mean a written change directive initiated by the authority — never code compliance, field conditions, design errors, or operator-proposed changes regardless of who signs them; and savings below the GMP split 65/35 to the public, matching the capital shares — a 50/50 split invites a padded GMP that turns “savings” into a kickback. The budget itself must reconcile line-by-line to the City's own study: a padded budget is an overrun the public pays in advance.
- Term: 30 years + options — cheap for Portland, with one critical stringTerm length is what the ownership values most (financing, franchise value) and costs the public least — except for one statutory trap: SB 1501 §4 diverts Rose Quarter income-tax withholding into the Arena Fund until the later of lease expiry or debt retirement. A 40-year horizon would extend the diversion a decade past bond payoff. So the long term is contingent: both parties jointly pursue a 2027-session amendment sunsetting the diversion at bond retirement — and if it fails, the diversion ceases by contract at bond payoff regardless. Each 5-year option is conditioned on a $25M operator reinvestment and a fair-market rent reset.
- Development: the trade — priced at his own Raleigh numbersDistrict development is what he actually wants (his Raleigh playbook, his Dallas real-estate arm) — and it's the one ask where his profit builds the public's tax base. The package gives a 7-year exclusive and asks for exactly what he signed in Raleigh: milestones of $200M by year 5, $400M by year 10, $800M by year 20 (drafted as City termination rights over unexercised parcels — cleaner law than covenants), ground rent at 6% of appraised land value with 5-year resets, development on the property-tax rolls (Oregon law — ORS 307.110 — already points there for ground-leased private development; confirm with an assessor's opinion), 10% affordable housing on first-phase residential, and developer-funded in-tract infrastructure. Three bridge-lease clauses must die for this to be real: DA §29.4 (the City's 25% applies only if he flips the rights — self-developing pays the public nothing), DA §29.5 (he holds the master-plan pen), and Lease §12.5 (the City needs his consent to dispose of its own land). Never offer milestones softer than the ones he gave himself.
- Naming: keep, capture, revertNo verified peer city keeps arena naming, so the package doesn't pretend: he keeps it during the Term — but the re-rate a renovated building commands (from ~$4M/yr reported toward $7–9M/yr Est) lands in the participation base, the 50/50 district-naming split already in the signed deal (DA §31.2.4) carries forward, and arena naming reverts to the City at lease end (DA §31.4) — meaning every new lease is a fresh license the City grants, and should price.
- Parking: the City's garage, the City's revenueToday the City pays the garages' costs while the operator keeps event revenue from the City-owned Arena Garage plus a 25% “administration” fee on non-event public-garage revenue (Parking §8.4) on top of full cost reimbursement. The package deletes the admin fee and takes 30% of gross event parking to the City from 2031 — sized so the stream can both pay the City a return and securitize its $120M capital share. The operator's own monthly parking summaries (§5.1.5) are public records; the verification data exists.
- User fees: close the five leaks — and book them honestlyThe 6% ticket fee already exists; the leaks are in the carve-outs (Term 02): premium season seats fee'd at the highest regular price, suites assessed as 12 ordinary tickets, a 90% single-event discount, affiliate service-fee netting, and zero operator liability when a promoter fails to remit. Closing all five yields roughly $2.2–2.7M/yr (~$50M over the lease) — and roughly 85% of it is paid by ticket buyers, not ownership. That flag matters: expect the other side to concede fan-paid items loudly while starving the ownership-paid column. Money from ownership before money from fans.
- PILOT: tax-equivalent, because the statute won't do itOregon law (ORS 307.171) exempts a big-city sports facility from property tax even when a taxable operator runs it. The City's ~$1.2M/yr estimate is the tax-loss floor from the 2024 transfer, not the fair-market cap. The term sheet should require the tax-equivalent amount the covered property would owe if privately taxable: RMV × changed-property ratio × levy rate ÷ 1,000. With the 2025-26 Multnomah commercial/local industrial ratio (0.512) and levy code 001 as proxy (26.9199), the working rate is 1.3783% of RMV: a $600M current base supports ~$8.27M/yr, and a $1.2B post-renovation base supports ~$16.54M/yr. Draft it as $8.25M/yr pre-renovation, resetting to at least $16.5M/yr after substantial completion, CPI-indexed, no offsets, with appraisal and assessor/DOR true-up.
- Relocation security: a formula, not a slogan — this is deliberateBig round penalty numbers make headlines and lose in court: Oregon enforces liquidated damages only as a reasonable forecast of actual harm (Illingworth v. Bushong; DiTommaso v. Moak) — a flat billion-dollar figure invites a judge to strike it as a penalty, leaving only the statute's weak floor (outstanding debt only, operator-only). So the package pegs damages by construction to the harm: the greater of (outstanding public debt + unamortized City and County capital + the present value of remaining rent), or 1.1× that sum — reasonable on its face, covering the full public stack, declining as bonds amortize. The teeth that actually keep a team in place: an express specific-performance clause (the provision that forced the Sonics' settlement in Seattle), obligations running joint-and-several to Trail Blazers Inc. — not just the operator shell — a $50M evergreen letter of credit, springing recourse to the ownership's holding company on trigger events, the existing sale-void-without-assumption covenant (ESA §3.3), and Coliseum games counted — and fee'd — as home games. For an owner who says relocation was never the plan, all of it costs nothing. Refusing it is the confession.
- Transparency: the multiplier on everything aboveParticipation, fee compliance, parking shares, and the GMP are only as real as the City's ability to verify them. The current lease runs the other way: an NDA for the full term with the City obligated to tip the operator on records requests (§11.6), no copying of the operator's books (§10.14), confidential New-York-seated arbitration (§14). The package replaces all of it: NDA terminated, Oregon public-records law supreme, City audit and copy rights, publicly-seated Oregon arbitration, an annual public compliance report, and quarterly reporting written into the lease past the statute's own 2032 sunset. Plus the two deletions that restore the City's sovereignty: §3.3 (the City reimburses any City ticket tax and lobbies the State against new ones — Term 09) deleted, and §15 (neither party may build a 10,000–20,000-seat venue in the metro — Term 11) narrowed with a Coliseum carve-out and death-on-default.
Step 4 · The honest ledger
| Count-once accounting | 20-yr value | Honesty flag |
| Operator new capital | $245M | new money only |
| §10.2 settlement | $120M | a discharge of existing debt — listed separately, never as “capital” |
| Rent ($4.5M esc. 3%) | $121M | arithmetic shown above |
| Revenue participation (18%) | ~$100M | Est; scales with the renovation's own success |
| Parking (30% event share) | ~$70M | Est, records requested |
| User-fee closures | ~$50M | ~85% fan-paid — never trade ownership money for it |
| PILOT | $165–330M | contracted, appraisal true-up; ~$1.2M/yr is the floor, not the cap |
| Development (ground rent + property tax) | ~$160M | $60M ground rent + ~$100M property tax contingent on milestones being met |
| Overrun absorption | $40M | expected value — the insurance is worth more than the average |
| Maintenance restructured to a capped match | (~$140M avoided) | avoided cost, not a transfer — flagged, not summed |
| Count-once total | ~$1.1–1.2B | vs. the published floor of $450–600M — this is the package the evidence supports, with the protection stack (the full $1.02–1.11B relocation backstop, the GMP cap) on top, uncounted |
Why the ownership signs this — the check that matters. Run the package against his walk-away: his true after-tax cost is roughly $400–430M PV Est (the new cash, revenue participation, and tax-equivalent PILOT are the main items that move his real ledger — the fees are fan-paid, the settlement discharges money he already owes, the penalty costs a staying owner nothing). Against a walk-away that costs him ~$640M (central), he signs this deal and keeps $200M+ of surplus — plus his three structural needs: public capital above $450M into the building, multi-year development exclusivity, and recourse that springs on bad behavior rather than a standing personal guarantee. Every cash ask is anchored to local tax math, his own Raleigh signature, or a verified peer deal, so “unprecedented” is not an available answer. On the modeling, he prefers this deal to walking away — clearly. He just prefers the City's current proposal more, which is the entire reason to negotiate. And one calibration, honestly held: these are model conclusions, not prophecies. A refusal at the table can come from lender covenants, league rules, or bond counsel rather than bad faith — which changes the move, not the math: a priced, precedented ask means every refusal arrives owing a stated reason. Make them state it, on the record.
Step 5 · Conditions precedent — what must be true at closing
- The County signs first. SB 1501 §5(5) gates all state money on both the City's and County's binding commitments — the County is a second statutory veto. Its commitment (capped at $88M + ~$1.5M/yr maintenance) should be locked before the City's ratification vote, under a joint negotiating protocol with same-day disclosure of any side offers.
- The parking re-sourcing is proven, not assumed: a published coverage analysis showing the pledged stream supports the City's $120M at a healthy margin, plus bond counsel's opinion that the structure doesn't violate any voter-approval measure.
- Bond counsel delivers two memos: the XI-Q bonds' validity under the joint-authority structure, and a private-use allocation memo confirming tax-exempt proceeds never fund the premium scope.
- An assessor / Department of Revenue opinion on ORS 307.171 and 307.110 — so the PILOT and the tax-rolls covenant rest on confirmed law, not assumption.
- The §10.2 settlement is adopted by its own resolution — expressly not a novation, with estoppel certificates exchanged and no release of any other accrued claim.
- The $100M JPMorgan deed of trust still recorded against the property (title schedule item 40) is released or subordinated at closing.
- The NBA sale is final, the project labor agreement is executed, and both parties covenant to pursue the 2027 amendment sunsetting the §4 tax diversion at bond retirement.
Step 6 · The three ways this actually fails — and the early-warning signs
The risk to this deal is not the ownership walking — the math above shows why. The risk is on the public side:
1 · The County gate
§5(5) freezes all state money if the County balks — and its commitment is currently an assumption, not a signature.
Warning sign: the joint City–County protocol goes unsigned, or the County floats its own separate term annex.
2 · The funding source breaks
If the parking stream can't actually carry the City's $120M, the money quietly reverts to the General Fund — detonating the political settlement that made the votes possible.
Warning sign: no coverage analysis published before the ratification vote.
3 · The drafting war
Everything “agreed” gets re-litigated in the definitive documents: a padded GMP, a novation that wipes the §10.2 claim, returns routed into the Arena Fund (where the public pays itself), a broadened §6(1)(e).
Warning sign: a suspiciously round GMP with excluded cost categories, or any draft styled as “superseding and replacing” the bridge lease.
What's verified and what's modeled. The statutes (SB 1501, SB 5701), the 2024 lease clauses, and the peer-deal terms cited here are verified primary documents — read them via the source panel above. The dollar models (his surplus, the revenue uplift, the after-tax costs) are estimates marked Est, built from public data and standard industry methods, designed to be directionally robust rather than decimal-precise. The strategic conclusions — a wide zone of agreement, a walk-away that costs the ownership more than it costs Portland, the fan-paid/owner-paid split, the County as the real failure point — survive large errors in any single estimate. And once more, on roles: these are public benchmarks for judging the deal Council signs. Council holds the pen.