Why relocation is not a unilateral threat
Four reasons, in plain English. Nobody can promise the team will never move. The evidence does show that relocation requires league approval, carries major costs, and is constrained by signed agreements — so Council should price the risk, not rush because of it.
The owner cannot move unilaterally
- Relocation requires a vote of the other 29 owners under the league’s own rules (NBA Constitution, Article 7) — it is not the owner’s call alone.
- The last team that tried — the Kings, to Seattle, in 2013 — was voted down 22–8. One vote, thirteen years ago, under a different commissioner and a different board. It shows the vote is a real gate, not that the next one goes the same way.
- A relocation applicant would still need to persuade the league that moving is preferable to remaining in an established NBA market.
Leaving would cost him a fortune
- A league-set relocation fee, plus years of litigation with the City (which can force him to stay — see #3).
- He’d walk away from up to $365M in state bonds, conditioned on five requirements, plus the City and County shares of a $573M public renovation budget, and would need a replacement arena and public package elsewhere.
- His group paid ~$4.25 billion for the Blazers in March 2026, as a Portland-based business. Relocation would put that investment through an uncertain league, venue, and market process.
The signed covenant binds him, within its limits
- The contract bars relocating home games, and if he tried, a court can order the team to stay: specific performance, not just a fine (Site Agreement §1.3, §4.2).
- The covenant runs for the Site Agreement’s term, less any Completion Term: through 2030, with his option to 2035. It is not absolute. §3.7 carves out a sale, and Lease §12.3.2 governs any assignment, so the promise follows a buyer only on those terms.
- Meanwhile the public owns the land and the building, and collects a 6% user fee on ticket sales, with five carve-outs in the current lease that narrow what it actually reaches (Register entry 17). Ownership of the building alone does not eliminate relocation risk.
- The Site Agreement’s §4.5 TBI backstop is a narrow secondary corporate obligation for the specified City contribution after six months of nonpayment. It is useful, but is not a general owner/parent guarantee.
No superior destination has been demonstrated
- The league has not approved a relocation destination for the Blazers.
- Any alternative market would need an NBA-ready venue, a durable public package, corporate support, media value, and approval from other owners.
- No public evidence currently identifies a destination with a better complete package than remaining in Portland.
The current agreements run through at least 2030, relocation requires league approval, and a move would carry substantial costs and uncertainty. Portland can negotiate real relocation security without pretending the risk is either zero or immediate.
Updated September 28, 2026. Contract points are from the executed 2024 Moda Center bridge-lease documents (City of Portland Ordinance 191857): the Arena Operating Lease and Exclusive Site Agreement approval exhibits, read with the September 8 corrections. League and market facts are from the NBA’s own rules and reporting. The full relocation analysis: ripcitynotripoff.com/relocation.
ripcitynotripoff.com
/why-they-cant-leave