Am I the only one disgusted by khtk1140?

[schaffeb]

Let me preface this by saying I will be voting for the arena. Although I'm not really much of a Kings fan anymore, I feel that the railyards are a blight on the Sacramento landscape and would loved to see them developed.

However, I have been completed disgusted by the way Grant Napier and Mike Lamb have been pushing the arena issue on 1140. They only speak of the positives while dismissing any drawback that any caller brings to the table. I almost feel like I'm listening to a paid advertisment.

I think it's incredibly irresponsible for them to use their media presence in this manner. Am I the only one who feels this way?

 

[D-Mass]

Let me preface this by saying I will be voting for the arena. Although I'm not really much of a Kings fan anymore, I feel that the railyards are a blight on the Sacramento landscape and would loved to see them developed.

However, I have been completed disgusted by the way Grant Napier and Mike Lamb have been pushing the arena issue on 1140. They only speak of the positives while dismissing any drawback that any caller brings to the table. I almost feel like I'm listening to a paid advertisment.

I think it's incredibly irresponsible for them to use their media presence in this manner. Am I the only one who feels this way?

Some of us feel the same way about the Bee using their media presence to bash the arena deal.

Their show is a sports show based entirely on their own feelings and opinions. It is certainly not the news. I find it refreshing to hear some positives about the arena instead of doom and gloom all the time.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

To be fair, Grant Napear is a tool; it's easy not to like him, so I can totally see him actually turning people off of the new arena.

 

[VF21]

Let me preface this by saying I will be voting for the arena. Although I'm not really much of a Kings fan anymore, I feel that the railyards are a blight on the Sacramento landscape and would loved to see them developed.

However, I have been completed disgusted by the way Grant Napier and Mike Lamb have been pushing the arena issue on 1140. They only speak of the positives while dismissing any drawback that any caller brings to the table. I almost feel like I'm listening to a paid advertisment.

I think it's incredibly irresponsible for them to use their media presence in this manner. Am I the only one who feels this way?

To be fair, are you also disgusted with Dan Weintraub and R.E. Graswich of the Sacramento Bee?

I've been disgusted with KHTK - and especially Grant Napear - for a very long time. Thankfully, I don't have to listen to him.

In his "defense," however, I have heard that a lot of the callers he's bashed had no real grasp of the issues involved in the ballot proposal. If people are going to call and rant, they'd better have their ducks in a row. If they don't, that's on them.

 

[BRad1055]

Of course Grant and Mike are going to push for the Arena they both work for khtk which is the home of the kings and Napear is the play by play man for the kings who in turn gets paid by the Maloofs so of course there only going to look at the positives which I like because I am a huge kings fan and season ticket holder for the last seven year and I want them to stay.

 

[PT Cruiser 9ROC]

Of course Grant and Mike are going to push for the Arena they both work for khtk which is the home of the kings and Napear is the play by play man for the kings who in turn gets paid by the Maloofs so of course there only going to look at the positives which I like because I am a huge kings fan and season ticket holder for the last seven year and I want them to stay.

Absolutely, I was going to say that. Grant Napear's entire career is essentially founded in the Kings being in town. In fact, I would go so far as to say the radio's lifesource is in the Sacramento Kings. Without them, Grant would have nothing to talk about other than national news, the "local" Bay Area teams, and the Rivercats. So there is a vested interest that lies underneath all of this. I'll still vote yes though, even if it means Grant gets to stand on his soapbox for another 30 years.

 

[schaffeb]

To be fair, are you also disgusted with Dan Weintraub and R.E. Graswich of the Sacramento Bee?

Haven't really followed the Bee articles too closely. I have no problem taking your word for it though, the Bee is a joke.

I've been disgusted with KHTK - and especially Grant Napear - for a very long time. Thankfully, I don't have to listen to him.

In his "defense," however, I have heard that a lot of the callers he's bashed had no real grasp of the issues involved in the ballot proposal. If people are going to call and rant, they'd better have their ducks in a row. If they don't, that's on them.

I guess that my problem is that Grant's "tell it like it is" persona is such a joke. It's so completely obvious that he has a huge vested interest in the new arena, but he never gives any type of disclaimer. He tries so hard to pretend he's objective and independent when it's clear he's not.

There was one call I remember where the caller was trying to break down the financials of the situation a little, and Grant responded by saying he's not an accountant.

Well, if you're going to go on the air and push the arena like there's no tomorrow you should be able to explain some of the basic financials behind the plan.

I'm so tired of Napear trying to claim that he's objective when dealing with issues related to the Kings. It's crap, he's on the Maloofs payroll and he's not objective. Not to mention Mike Lamb is a joke himself. He doesn't seem to know anything about anything except for football, just terrible.

I'll still vote for the arena because I think the development of the railyards will take this city to the next level. I just find these two to be repugnant.

 

[Warhawk]

The Rise Guys have frequently put on RE Graswich and have also had the guy from Public United on the show and given them free reign to put their opinions out. They have allowed both sides to have their say.

In defense of Grant (although he is annoying) - like VF said the callers are just spouting BS most of the time and you really can't take anyone like that seriously....

 

[VF21]

schaffeb -

We're pretty much on the same page about Howdy Doody and Lambchop. I guess my general philosophy about them is anyone who tunes in and expects to have a good discussion is calling the wrong place. If they don't agree with Grant, they're toast.

And I also agree that he's incapable of biting the hand that feeds him. (You have no idea how much control it took in that last sentence NOT to reference the puppet analogy further...) If he wasn't one of the broadcasters for the Kings, he wouldn't have his own talk show on a radio station in Sacramento. He knows that. The two entities - the Kings and KHTK - although owned separately are inextricably linked. Without the Kings, KHTK wouldn't have much going for it.

I'd suggest, for your sanity, you quit listening. You won't miss much. Just check in at Kingsfans.com once or twice a day. Our members seem to be able to get the latest info. here a lot of times before Grant has a clue.

 

[schaffeb]

The Rise Guys have frequently put on RE Graswich and have also had the guy from Public United on the show and given them free reign to put their opinions out. They have allowed both sides to have their say.

In defense of Grant (although he is annoying) - like VF said the callers are just spouting BS most of the time and you really can't take anyone like that seriously....

Sorry, I think my thread title was a little off. I should have narrowed it down to being specifically disgusted with Grant and Mike.

I'm a rise guys fan and I've always been impressed by their objectivity.

 

[Warhawk]

I guess that my problem is that Grant's "tell it like it is" persona is such a joke. It's so completely obvious that he has a huge vested interest in the new arena, but he never gives any type of disclaimer. He tries so hard to pretend he's objective and independent when it's clear he's not.

Uh, wrong.

Grant repeatedly says that of course he's biased as he works for the Kings, but he also says that Sacramento needs a facility like ARCO and he isn't kidding about that. And we do.

He hasn't pretended to be "impartial". But that doesn't mean that his points aren't valid on this issue.

And he's not an accountant. Neither am I. And if someone starts talking about the future value of the dollar and the inticacies of project financials for this deal, I couldn't answer their questions either.

But I know what the basics are and I, like Grant, can tell when someone is just plain wrong about some of the details. That's a big red flag that they are trying to pull a fast one.

If you really dislike the show that much, why listen?

 

[schaffeb]

If you really dislike the show that much, why listen?

It's a fair point, but there's not really any other option if you want to listen to sports talk.

 

[BRad1055]

I love the show and love listening to Grant and Mike Lamb is ok at best. Grant thinks this city needs a new arena and I applaud him for getting that out there because we do need a new arena and we do need to keep the Kings. I mean if they move to Anaheim or wherever than Grant and Gary Gerould etc.. will still be employed by the Kings and will still have jobs, but I would think both by raising there families in Sac. etc.. would much rather stay in this area than have to live in So Cal. EWWWW =)

 

[Ryle]

I agree with most of the points that have been made in this thread. The one glaring issue is how misguided/misinformed (or however you want to phrase it) alot of the "opponents" of this deal are. One guy called in last week and said it's a bad deal for the county and he is voting against it and thinks that if he does and this measure goes down to defeat then they will just draw up another one......suffice to say that if this deal goes down the Kings will be gone(probably next season) and ARCO will then be imploded and the surrounding area will be developed. We will then have to go to Fresno/Bay Area to see any good concerts or shows that we would normally see.

People then spew the word "being held hostage by the Maloofs" but in reality it's just makes better business sense for them to go elsewhere since ARCO seemingly will never be replaced.

 

[pnutsmomndad]

if they do move, and i hope they don't, i want them to go to anaheim because it would make me laugh if grant napear followed the team down there. remember when he would bag on l.a. when he had to do his radio show from a studio down there when the kings were down there? he would call it a dirty city and make fun of the smog problem. maybe it was for radio or he really feels that way - who knows, but it would be nice to hear grant try to explain how he loves living in l.a.

anyways, maybe he could take mike lamb with him. lamb is on the rise guys this morning - brutal to listen to him. today is a day i'm actually glad i can't get khtk at work.

 

[hoopsfan]

if they do move, and i hope they don't, i want them to go to anaheim because it would make me laugh if grant napear followed the team down there. remember when he would bag on l.a. when he had to do his radio show from a studio down there when the kings were down there? he would call it a dirty city and make fun of the smog problem. maybe it was for radio or he really feels that way - who knows, but it would be nice to hear grant try to explain how he loves living in l.a.

Anaheim is not LA and is nothing like it.

 

[JB_kings]

Anaheim is not LA and is nothing like it.

100% agree. I lived in Anaheim for nearly a year. They are not the same.

 

[pnutsmomndad]

Anaheim is not LA and is nothing like it.

i better not let my wife see this....she's a disney freak and would live in their parking lot if they let her.

 

[Warhawk]

I leved in Orange County for 2.5 years a while back. It's nothing like LA. It's still SoCal, though. Unless you live along the coast, don't bother.

I hated getting stuck in traffic every day of the week (including late evenings) and not being able to see the mountains less than 10 miles away through the smog. You could look down the road and see the telephone poles disappear in it.

Hence my decision to move back north.

 

[kennadog]

I would say that Lmab probably understands a bit more than Grant. His degree from USC is in urban planning and it is obvious that he brings that background into his perspective.

I don't think Napear or Grant hide (or could) their sports job relationship to the arena. But the anti-arena crowd spewing misleading and biased info all over the place too, including certain columnists at the Bee. For example, I doubt Weintraub or the Bee are going to retract his column about the possessory tax even though he had it totally wrong.

 

[DocHolliday]

Like Grant or not there is something he said that is exactly to the root of how people should decide their vote on this.

Forget whether you think the arena deal is good or not *which it is a good deal. Witchita, Kansas doesn't have a team and just approved a 1% tax increase for a new sports an entertainment venue, and it passed*

Forget whether you are going to use the facility

Forget whether you're a sports fan or not.

Forget about the railyard being toxic and having to be cleaned.

The question is. Do you want a top notch Sports and Entertainment facility in your City. Do you want your city to grow? Do you want the railyards to be revitalized?

Based on those questions and what you answer is how you should vote. If you do not want a top notch entertainment facility in your City then vote no. If you do vote yes, period.

 

[kupman]

The question is. Do you want a top notch Sports and Entertainment facility in your City. Do you want your city to grow? Do you want the railyards to be revitalized?

Based on those questions and what you answer is how you should vote. If you do not want a top notch entertainment facility in your City then vote no. If you do vote yes, period.

I agree completely. It is really that simple. All I would add is "are these things worth $2-3/month?"

 

[LilMissDiva]

Absolutely, I was going to say that. Grant Napear's entire career is essentially founded in the Kings being in town. In fact, I would go so far as to say the radio's lifesource is in the Sacramento Kings. Without them, Grant would have nothing to talk about other than national news, the "local" Bay Area teams, and the Rivercats. So there is a vested interest that lies underneath all of this. I'll still vote yes though, even if it means Grant gets to stand on his soapbox for another 30 years.

I was listening to the show about a week or so ago, and he made it plain and clear that if the Kings leave he is going with them. Therefore he said Sacramento can take or leave the deal - it will not affect his career track.

 

[uolj]

I was listening to the show about a week or so ago, and he made it plain and clear that if the Kings leave he is going with them.

Great... Grant's supposed to be helping the arena cause, not giving people reasons to vote no.

 

[VF21]

Great... Grant's supposed to be helping the arena cause, not giving people reasons to vote no.

LSHISCOMN!!

 

[1kingzfan]

Like Grant or not there is something he said that is exactly to the root of how people should decide their vote on this.

Forget whether you think the arena deal is good or not *which it is a good deal. Witchita, Kansas doesn't have a team and just approved a 1% tax increase for a new sports an entertainment venue, and it passed*

Forget whether you are going to use the facility

Forget whether you're a sports fan or not.

Forget about the railyard being toxic and having to be cleaned.

The question is. Do you want a top notch Sports and Entertainment facility in your City. Do you want your city to grow? Do you want the railyards to be revitalized?

Based on those questions and what you answer is how you should vote. If you do not want a top notch entertainment facility in your City then vote no. If you do vote yes, period.

You can try to boil it all down like Grant is trying to do, all you want. But the reality of the situation is that such an approach will do little to influence or change the opinions of fence dwellers and established naysayers which, I'm sure we'll find out when the most recent poll results are released, is necessary for this thing to fly.

There are too many folks that want to know:

1) what's on the table now was the best financial deal possible with the Maloofs and our political leaders negotiated in good faith, and it compares well with most recent arena cost sharing deals by local governments with pro sports franchises,

2) why it's OK for the Maloofs to make money on this deal and why the City/County will make a lot more,

3) there will be no other deals if this one is killed and why that is,

4) the sales tax increase was the best avenue for securing the public funds part of the deal, including why no multi-County regional tax was possible or even sought,

5) the financial, community, and personal benefits from building the arena as well as injecting the many millions into County communities and unincorporated areas,

6) greater clarity (to the extent possible) of what those community projects will be, so it doesn't look like political "pork", and

7) the railyard cleanup status now and when construction begins.

I know there are more issues to prompt opposition to this deal, but IMHO these are probably the biggest ones from reading here and elsewhere and listening to the media outlets.

Each one of these is its own sticking point for certain voters in the County. Therefore, education on these points is called for in order to not only try to convince these fence sitters/opponents to establish/reconsider their positions, but also to help defuse the arguments that naysayers will use to persuade undecided voters.

While there certainly IS plenty immediacy to accepting this deal, Grant's simple approach is somewhat threatening and arrogant to those trying to decide or those that have already crossed the fence but could still jump back. People, in general, want to be reasoned with, rather than pressured.

My fear is that the "political approach" on the support side will be to solely look forward and focus on the deal we have, not what could have been or wasn't. In general, I'd say that this is a decent approach, but it will leave a lot of folks "behind" in being able to convince them that a vote of "yes" on November 7th was well thought out, fair, and good for everyone.

 

[VF21]

But, on the other hand, a lot of people really want the Reader's Digest condensed version, 1kf. And, for them, Grant did provide a reasonable summary.

I think you're over-estimating the interest most voters have in delving deep into issues. All a lot of them want, and I know this from quite a bit of personal experience, is a very brief summary of the issue at hand... And for those people, the simple response is generally more than adequate.

 

[GreenKing]

Grant Napier is on the take

I bet the guy is getting a nice bonus once the arena is built. There is no other explanation for his behavior. He is selling the arena issue like a used car salesman selling a lemon to a naive buyer with a AWFUL payment plan.

 

[1kingzfan]

I think you're over-estimating the interest most voters have in delving deep into issues. All a lot of them want, and I know this from quite a bit of personal experience, is a very brief summary of the issue at hand... And for those people, the simple response is generally more than adequate.

Completely disagree.

Those opposing are getting stuck on a selected issue or issues (more often than not based on incorrect information or assumptions) and, without explanation to defuse those issues or even show why they are ill-founded, their positions will not change.

 

[1kingzfan]

I bet the guy is getting a nice bonus once the arena is built. There is no other explanation for his behavior. He is selling the arena issue like a used car salesman selling a lemon to a naive buyer with a AWFUL payment plan.

He already stated publicly he has a bias here.

Next topic.