(Bee) Breton: Wary fans force Stern to go soft
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
But isn't it more fun to make fun of overrated blowhards like Dave Stern? Oh, no, them New Yoik loy-as are a'comin! They'll make everything right...they are so slick! Please.
You go, Stern boy. You come in to save us, by somehow finding a way for us to write your owners a check!
You like the Kings. I like the Kings. But the Kings are very likely leaving Sacramento soon....and the fault belongs squarely on the shoulders of those who have stood watch as the NBA's system has become hopelessly broken. It was on Stern's watch that middle and smaller market teams like Sacramento have been put in an untenable position. Not only is he not a savior, he's the one largely responsible for the problem in the first place.
And yet, some people want to blame the Bee, want to blame the voters, want to blame city and county politicians....want to blame everyone except who is actually responsible. It's all right to heap scorn on the Bee, but not on David Stern? I'm not clear on the logic of that.
You go, Stern boy. You come in to save us, by somehow finding a way for us to write your owners a check!
You like the Kings. I like the Kings. But the Kings are very likely leaving Sacramento soon....and the fault belongs squarely on the shoulders of those who have stood watch as the NBA's system has become hopelessly broken. It was on Stern's watch that middle and smaller market teams like Sacramento have been put in an untenable position. Not only is he not a savior, he's the one largely responsible for the problem in the first place.
And yet, some people want to blame the Bee, want to blame the voters, want to blame city and county politicians....want to blame everyone except who is actually responsible. It's all right to heap scorn on the Bee, but not on David Stern? I'm not clear on the logic of that.
"mind boggling"
I have been sitting on the sidelines reading comments and wondering why voteno even bothers writing at all. Most of his ideas and comments, you guys bash and call them ridiculous. However, some of them really do have merit. For example:the statement about the Maloofs may be making more money than it appears. Some members fed his comments to unicorns, others broke keyboards etc.. Yet, he showed exactly how this could be done. The Maloofs and the Maloofs alone control how much they spend each year. They can influence how much money they spend on repaying debt, spending on the team, bonus's etc. Sure it is part of running the business, but he is right. I would like to pose a question. Maybe someone can answer this ? for me. A few years back, when the Maloofs paid off the first loan, did they lose money that year? I am curious how much and if that payment was included in the loss.
I have been sitting on the sidelines reading comments and wondering why voteno even bothers writing at all. Most of his ideas and comments, you guys bash and call them ridiculous. However, some of them really do have merit. For example:the statement about the Maloofs may be making more money than it appears. Some members fed his comments to unicorns, others broke keyboards etc.. Yet, he showed exactly how this could be done. The Maloofs and the Maloofs alone control how much they spend each year. They can influence how much money they spend on repaying debt, spending on the team, bonus's etc. Sure it is part of running the business, but he is right. I would like to pose a question. Maybe someone can answer this ? for me. A few years back, when the Maloofs paid off the first loan, did they lose money that year? I am curious how much and if that payment was included in the loss.
Sorry, I do not know the answer to that question, I am sure that someone else will.
If you have been reading then you should have seen that all of voteno's points have been more than reasonablly counterpointed. The reason why I "bash" him (really nothing personal), is that he/she seems to never respond to the counterpoints and continouisly makes the same points again.
The Maloofs are not going to bother with a business that is not profitable. #'s can always be tweaked, fine. The point is that the Maloofs are in integrity with wanting to stay in SAC., they will jump on a financialy viable deal. They will not lose $$, that is not business savy.
If you have been reading then you should have seen that all of voteno's points have been more than reasonablly counterpointed. The reason why I "bash" him (really nothing personal), is that he/she seems to never respond to the counterpoints and continouisly makes the same points again.
The Maloofs are not going to bother with a business that is not profitable. #'s can always be tweaked, fine. The point is that the Maloofs are in integrity with wanting to stay in SAC., they will jump on a financialy viable deal. They will not lose $$, that is not business savy.
Here's the thing, is it not up to the person making such a claim to provide evidence supporting such?
voteno didn't show anything of substance. When you make a claim of cooking books and offer evidence of only how it could be done, it's BS. I find it interesting what people are willing to believe without a shred of proof. Yet others have correctly pointed out that both the Bee and city have looked at the Kings books several times. Why didn't the Bee expose this alleged playing with the numbers? Maybe because it wasn't there.
voteno didn't show anything of substance. When you make a claim of cooking books and offer evidence of only how it could be done, it's BS. I find it interesting what people are willing to believe without a shred of proof. Yet others have correctly pointed out that both the Bee and city have looked at the Kings books several times. Why didn't the Bee expose this alleged playing with the numbers? Maybe because it wasn't there.
You're kidding, right?
The majority of us have been on this forum for quite a while. Excuse me if we don't just defer to someone who comes here with the user name "voteno" ...
First, just so you get your facts straight, it WASN'T a few years back when the Maloofs paid off one of the loans. It was April, 2005. And that wasn't the FIRST loan. It was the second loan. The first was for $70 million. The second, for $8.5 million, was to help the team make the payments on the first loan for the first few years. The smaller loan was the one paid back by the Maloofs in April 2005 with a check for $12 milion, which included the accrued interest.
It's apparent there are a few of you who simply want to find the Malooofs guilty of something. Hey, whatever floats your boat. BUT you're not going to derail legitimate discussion about the future of the Kings in Sacramento.
Enough is enough. If you don't like it here, please feel free - with our blessings - to find somewhere else to discuss this.
The majority of us have been on this forum for quite a while. Excuse me if we don't just defer to someone who comes here with the user name "voteno" ...
First, just so you get your facts straight, it WASN'T a few years back when the Maloofs paid off one of the loans. It was April, 2005. And that wasn't the FIRST loan. It was the second loan. The first was for $70 million. The second, for $8.5 million, was to help the team make the payments on the first loan for the first few years. The smaller loan was the one paid back by the Maloofs in April 2005 with a check for $12 milion, which included the accrued interest.
It's apparent there are a few of you who simply want to find the Malooofs guilty of something. Hey, whatever floats your boat. BUT you're not going to derail legitimate discussion about the future of the Kings in Sacramento.
Enough is enough. If you don't like it here, please feel free - with our blessings - to find somewhere else to discuss this.
Sometimes, when I look at how screwed up the NBA's business model has gotten, I fantasize about Sac conspiring with Seattle, Anaheim, Tampa, San Diego, Vancouver, San Jose, Baltimore, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Albuquerque and Fort Worth about starting a league of municipally-owned basketball teams, like the way that the Packers are owned by Green Bay. It might work as a business, or it might not, but I bet the prospect would be like cold water in the face of the NBA. Things were so much saner back in the days when they had some competition.
If Green Bay tried to buy the Packers today, they couldn't do it.
I don't think the idea of municipally-owned basketball teams is going to give the NBA any sleepless nights, unless it's because Stern is laughing so hard he can't fall asleep.
In fact, I think it scares me more than it would David Stern. Why? Because I've been watching all these years and I know the kinds of lunacy that go on regularly at city council meetings.
I don't think the idea of municipally-owned basketball teams is going to give the NBA any sleepless nights, unless it's because Stern is laughing so hard he can't fall asleep.
In fact, I think it scares me more than it would David Stern. Why? Because I've been watching all these years and I know the kinds of lunacy that go on regularly at city council meetings.
No, Green Bay definitely couldn't afford to buy a team today, which is pretty much exactly my point. Cities used to own the venues, and cities often owned teams, back in the days when one couldn't retire after 8 years as an athlete. And everywhere else in the world, things are still fairly sane. There are 30 pro teams in the US, and 30 pro teams in Lithuania. Every city there has a team, and every city always will. Tickets are still affordable, too.
Seems like the US is becoming a great example of how to not do it.
Seems like the US is becoming a great example of how to not do it.
Last edited:
Sorry I'm not drinking the NBA doom koolaid. The NBA is not anywhere near it's worst shape. The league was in far worse shape before the Magic-Bird years brought the league to the forefront. Many don't recall that the finals games were shown tape delayed later at night. In the first few years the Kings were in Sacramento, the games were on KOVR and you got maybe a few games a month. The NBA is a long way from being a troubled business. Stern has mitigated much of the salary damage by putting in the salary cap and luxury tax. Those who go over it and pay gets redistributed out to those who don't. The way I see it, the Kings are right in the middle of the payroll and they probably break even this year. When they were way up in the top 5 a few years back, they lost money. Sounds about right to me.
I see people find it easier to tear down a perfectly good situation for no reason at all. It's as simple as this - we have a very nice asset here in the Kings. They've brought the name of Sacramento to the lips of many around the world. If Arco was a fine building going forward, we aren't having this conversation. But it was built like a Hyundai and it's falling apart as noted by anyone who has taken the time to study it's problems. Sacramento was lucky that Gregg Lukenbill did what he did. But it wasn't built to last. We Sacramentans aren't getting another free building and we need a new one to keep our asset. This doesn't mean the levees are going to be ignored nor are criminals being allowed to run free. This is utter nonsense and fear mongering. Now that David Stern is replacing the Maloofs as the front man, the attack is coming on the NBA.
I'm not buying the BS.
I see people find it easier to tear down a perfectly good situation for no reason at all. It's as simple as this - we have a very nice asset here in the Kings. They've brought the name of Sacramento to the lips of many around the world. If Arco was a fine building going forward, we aren't having this conversation. But it was built like a Hyundai and it's falling apart as noted by anyone who has taken the time to study it's problems. Sacramento was lucky that Gregg Lukenbill did what he did. But it wasn't built to last. We Sacramentans aren't getting another free building and we need a new one to keep our asset. This doesn't mean the levees are going to be ignored nor are criminals being allowed to run free. This is utter nonsense and fear mongering. Now that David Stern is replacing the Maloofs as the front man, the attack is coming on the NBA.
I'm not buying the BS.
youre right - but please change your tone
It is now essentially Dec 2006. which is almost two years ago that the loan was paid off. The first loan that was paid was indeed the "second" loan. You are nitpicking the details. I was asking what I feel was a very legitimate question. I would like to know if they lost money that year. Its a reasonable question.
It is now essentially Dec 2006. which is almost two years ago that the loan was paid off. The first loan that was paid was indeed the "second" loan. You are nitpicking the details. I was asking what I feel was a very legitimate question. I would like to know if they lost money that year. Its a reasonable question.
Last edited by a moderator:
What difference would it make if the Maloofs had made money that year or lost it?
This whole subject has become totally derailed to the point where you (and your alter ego) are simply going in circles.
Let's just say, for argument's sake, the Maloofs ended up in the black "that year" - although you'd really need to specify whether you're talking income year, payroll year (since they differ) or some other arbitrary definition of fiscal accounting period.
What does that prove?
This whole subject has become totally derailed to the point where you (and your alter ego) are simply going in circles.
Let's just say, for argument's sake, the Maloofs ended up in the black "that year" - although you'd really need to specify whether you're talking income year, payroll year (since they differ) or some other arbitrary definition of fiscal accounting period.
What does that prove?
sandrail - If I've come across too harshly, I apologize.
This topic is very near and dear to my heart. I have been a Kings fan since 1985, as have a lot of the people on this board. We don't want to give up the Kings without doing absolutely everything possible to keep them here. And it's not just about the Kings. It's about Sacramento and the future of this town that has been home to my family for generations.
As far as voteno and the contention that the Maloofs are somehow hiding profits or understating their income goes, I refer to my question above. Do you and voteno honestly think the Maloofs shouldn't be allowed to make a profit?
The Maloofs are good owners. More importantly, however, they are good members of the community. I think bashing them either outright or through subtle innuendo is unfair.
Again, I apologize if I come off too strongly. But you're talking about my Kings.
This topic is very near and dear to my heart. I have been a Kings fan since 1985, as have a lot of the people on this board. We don't want to give up the Kings without doing absolutely everything possible to keep them here. And it's not just about the Kings. It's about Sacramento and the future of this town that has been home to my family for generations.
As far as voteno and the contention that the Maloofs are somehow hiding profits or understating their income goes, I refer to my question above. Do you and voteno honestly think the Maloofs shouldn't be allowed to make a profit?
The Maloofs are good owners. More importantly, however, they are good members of the community. I think bashing them either outright or through subtle innuendo is unfair.
Again, I apologize if I come off too strongly. But you're talking about my Kings.
Last edited:
Getting lost here is the fact that Sacramento does stand to lose more than the Kings here. Sacramento may, in a few years, be the only city of its size without a sports/entertainment venue of the arena type. I remember what it was like to have to go to the bay area to see big events live.
I don't want to go there anymore. I don't want to spend my money there, instead of in Sacramento. I don't want my sales tax, ticket surcharges, hotel tax (if I stay overnight) going into the coffers of other cities.
So Kings leave, Arco's gone and if the city wants another venue, it will have to pay 100% of the costs. Yay.
(And when businesses or the city are entertaining representatives trying to lure businesses and conventions here, we can tempt them with tickets to Sutter's Fort. )
I don't want to go there anymore. I don't want to spend my money there, instead of in Sacramento. I don't want my sales tax, ticket surcharges, hotel tax (if I stay overnight) going into the coffers of other cities.
So Kings leave, Arco's gone and if the city wants another venue, it will have to pay 100% of the costs. Yay.
(And when businesses or the city are entertaining representatives trying to lure businesses and conventions here, we can tempt them with tickets to Sutter's Fort.
)JB Kings
Sorry I'm not drinking the NBA doom koolaid. The NBA is not anywhere near it's worst shape.
That doesn't mean it's in GOOD shape. If it was worse or better is relative, which does little to help us figure out what to do.
Stern has mitigated much of the salary damage by putting in the salary cap and luxury tax.
And it's failed, if the criteria for success is allowing ALL of the league's franchises to thrive on a reasonable basis. Stern's salary cap is better than NO salary cap, but it still isn't working.
Those who go over it and pay gets redistributed out to those who don't. The way I see it, the Kings are right in the middle of the payroll and they probably break even this year. When they were way up in the top 5 a few years back, they lost money. Sounds about right to me.
So, in other words, the Kings can do a good job of promoting and running their franchise, and there is still a good possibility they will even break even or lose money? That indicates to me that something is wrong, not that something is right.
It's as simple as this - we have a very nice asset here in the Kings.
Strictly speaking, they are an asset that appears on the Maloofs' balance sheet, not ours. But do we like having the Kings here? Of course.
They've brought the name of Sacramento to the lips of many around the world. If Arco was a fine building going forward, we aren't having this conversation.
I think we are, depending on how you mean "fine". Does "fine" mean taxpayer built luxury boxes, which allow the Maloofs to keep all of the cash from them? The arena only matters as a way to get subsidies from the taxpayers, as I am sure you know.
We Sacramentans aren't getting another free building
Nor are very many sensible people asking for one for nothing. I wish we could make decisions about building the arena based on the needs of our citizens, and not on the needs of the NBA.
This doesn't mean the levees are going to be ignored nor are criminals being allowed to run free. This is utter nonsense and fear mongering.
That's true. That's nonsense and hyperbole on the part of the anti-arena people.
But what's not nonsense is the reluctance to subsidize the NBA's structure. If it really isn't broken, as you say, I am puzzled as to why the Maloofs can't afford to operate the team without subsidies?
Sorry I'm not drinking the NBA doom koolaid. The NBA is not anywhere near it's worst shape.
That doesn't mean it's in GOOD shape. If it was worse or better is relative, which does little to help us figure out what to do.
Stern has mitigated much of the salary damage by putting in the salary cap and luxury tax.
And it's failed, if the criteria for success is allowing ALL of the league's franchises to thrive on a reasonable basis. Stern's salary cap is better than NO salary cap, but it still isn't working.
Those who go over it and pay gets redistributed out to those who don't. The way I see it, the Kings are right in the middle of the payroll and they probably break even this year. When they were way up in the top 5 a few years back, they lost money. Sounds about right to me.
So, in other words, the Kings can do a good job of promoting and running their franchise, and there is still a good possibility they will even break even or lose money? That indicates to me that something is wrong, not that something is right.
It's as simple as this - we have a very nice asset here in the Kings.
Strictly speaking, they are an asset that appears on the Maloofs' balance sheet, not ours. But do we like having the Kings here? Of course.
They've brought the name of Sacramento to the lips of many around the world. If Arco was a fine building going forward, we aren't having this conversation.
I think we are, depending on how you mean "fine". Does "fine" mean taxpayer built luxury boxes, which allow the Maloofs to keep all of the cash from them? The arena only matters as a way to get subsidies from the taxpayers, as I am sure you know.
We Sacramentans aren't getting another free building
Nor are very many sensible people asking for one for nothing. I wish we could make decisions about building the arena based on the needs of our citizens, and not on the needs of the NBA.
This doesn't mean the levees are going to be ignored nor are criminals being allowed to run free. This is utter nonsense and fear mongering.
That's true. That's nonsense and hyperbole on the part of the anti-arena people.
But what's not nonsense is the reluctance to subsidize the NBA's structure. If it really isn't broken, as you say, I am puzzled as to why the Maloofs can't afford to operate the team without subsidies?
Last edited:
There's no question that Arco will be replaced at some point in the near future. Everyone knows that. "The Maloofs/NBA can chip in for a building we are going to need anyway, so if we let them do it, we can keep the Kings as a bonus!" Yeah, but the Maloofs' contribution comes with its own price attached. I don't understand why the taxpayers of this city or county should in effect pay for these bloated NBA salaries/overhead, which in effect what we would be doing. Yes, we are fans of the team,but we also have a responsibility to ourselves and to the future of this community. We can't ask people to work and spend so Kings players can make top five league money. That's a rip off, plain and simple. Now, many things in life (and government) are a rip off, everyone has to decide if they think the benefits outweigh the costs.
I understand people saying just give the Maloofs what they want, we need the building anyway, the Kings help the community's image, etc. That's a practical view. But there is also a principle at work, somewhat less practical maybe but also important. We have to draw a line somewhere when these kinds of subsidies are concerned.
I understand people saying just give the Maloofs what they want, we need the building anyway, the Kings help the community's image, etc. That's a practical view. But there is also a principle at work, somewhat less practical maybe but also important. We have to draw a line somewhere when these kinds of subsidies are concerned.
I'm not ready to give away the ship. Just pointing out that there is, what I consider, a really big downside to this.
Why should taxpayers in most states subsidize the grossly high home prices in California for the homeowners here? That's not fair, either. Guess we're just lucky that people in other states don't complain about it. Most people don't complain about the benefits they get from the government, they just complain about the benefits others receive.
Why should taxpayers in most states subsidize the grossly high home prices in California for the homeowners here? That's not fair, either. Guess we're just lucky that people in other states don't complain about it. Most people don't complain about the benefits they get from the government, they just complain about the benefits others receive.
You have to realize that this was never the typical NBA city. Lukenbill built two private arenas that got Sacramento's foot in the NBA door. The problem is that the private building ownership has not and never will work in the NBA outside of NY & LA. There just isn't enough revenue to keep the balance sheets in the black. Gregg sold off to Jim Thomas because he was losing money. Thomas sold for the same reason. The Maloofs were able to pull off the seat pricing increases because they put a great product on the floor. While they might be close to breaking even, it doesn't work because now Arco is in need of major repair. The roof needs replacing. It was pretty much falling apart soon after the building opened. The plywood stands will need to be replaced within a few years. The place is a fire hazzard with narrow concourses and outdated infrastructure. So it's not all about fancy luxury suites and making more money that way.
So you are really faced with this choice - build a new arena with the NBA or without. Sacramento is too big of a city to be without an arena. Frankly I would rather it be done with the NBA than without. And so would a number of similar or smaller cities than Sacramento that have new buildings and want an NBA team.
So you are really faced with this choice - build a new arena with the NBA or without. Sacramento is too big of a city to be without an arena. Frankly I would rather it be done with the NBA than without. And so would a number of similar or smaller cities than Sacramento that have new buildings and want an NBA team.
But it is all about building a new arena that can generate more money for the Maloofs. If not, we could just build a new Arco replica without the big concourses, big kitchens and luxury suites. But that will never, ever fly with the Maloofs because they overspend (like every owner) on the payroll to stay competive and now need more things to sell to keep the business out of the red.
I am on your side JB. I am happy to pay more taxes to have a new state of the art arena and keep the Kings. I strongly believe that a new arena would be great for the arena and I am willing to helppay for it. Notice my avatar.
However, we are the minority and we will remain the minority. People all over the city (and the country for that matter) are not willing to pay extra taxes to help subsidize the wealthy (the players as well as the Maloofs). The league really does need to get their house in order.
I am on your side JB. I am happy to pay more taxes to have a new state of the art arena and keep the Kings. I strongly believe that a new arena would be great for the arena and I am willing to helppay for it. Notice my avatar.
However, we are the minority and we will remain the minority. People all over the city (and the country for that matter) are not willing to pay extra taxes to help subsidize the wealthy (the players as well as the Maloofs). The league really does need to get their house in order.
The bottom line is that the NBA business is a secondary issue. It need not be forefront in our issue with getting a new arena. Their business will have it's boom and bust periods. I think it's being thrown out there as some sort of issue for a number of reasons:
1. Stern has stepped to the front. He represents the NBA. Just as the Maloofs were torn down beyond common sense. The same rabble rousers are trying to do the same with the NBA.
2. It's easier to find the faults when you expect failure. It's a curious habit that when the going gets tough, some just pull the rip cord. He we are seeing clear signs that the NBA wants Sacramento and is taking an unprecedented step to help. And what happens? Manufactured FUD is thrown right back at the NBA.
Sorry, but this overstated drama about the NBA is starting to sound like a jilted lover who thinks they are about to get dumped.
1. Stern has stepped to the front. He represents the NBA. Just as the Maloofs were torn down beyond common sense. The same rabble rousers are trying to do the same with the NBA.
2. It's easier to find the faults when you expect failure. It's a curious habit that when the going gets tough, some just pull the rip cord. He we are seeing clear signs that the NBA wants Sacramento and is taking an unprecedented step to help. And what happens? Manufactured FUD is thrown right back at the NBA.
Sorry, but this overstated drama about the NBA is starting to sound like a jilted lover who thinks they are about to get dumped.
Look, all of us pro-arena people can point our fingers at the Bee and the 'anti-tax for an arena' crowd all we want. I will be the first to admit that I really do not get why they think/write what they do.
However, if we really want an arena it would be in our best interests to stop criticizing so much and start to listen and try to understand their point of view. A meaningful and thoughtful discourse with the anti- crowd may yield a common ground. It would be a much more productive endeavor than a 'you're stupid - no you're stupid,' conversation.
However, if we really want an arena it would be in our best interests to stop criticizing so much and start to listen and try to understand their point of view. A meaningful and thoughtful discourse with the anti- crowd may yield a common ground. It would be a much more productive endeavor than a 'you're stupid - no you're stupid,' conversation.
The bottom line is that the NBA business is a secondary issue.
It is THE issue, really. The Maloofs can't compete and stay here without a new arena. WHY do they need a new arena? Because they need taxpayer subsidies to effectively compete and make a profit. THAT is the bottom line.
1. Stern has stepped to the front. He represents the NBA. Just as the Maloofs were torn down beyond common sense. The same rabble rousers are trying to do the same with the NBA.
No one is rousing any rabble when they point out that Stern is supposedly trying to "fix" a problem which he himself had a part in creating. It's simply the truth.
He we are seeing clear signs that the NBA wants Sacramento and is taking an unprecedented step to help.
Why does the NBA want to help? Out of affection for the fans and people of Sacramento? You don't think that's the case, do you?
Just like Dave Stern likes the Sacramento Kings, he would quickly become a lover of the Las Vegas Kings, if that ever happens. We, who actually DO care about the team itself, wouldn't make that switch.
Sorry, but this overstated drama about the NBA is starting to sound like a jilted lover who thinks they are about to get dumped.
Okay. So there is no problem with the NBA. Therefore, the Maloofs don't NEED any help. They can stay without an arena subsidy.
Congratulations. You've solved the problem.
It is THE issue, really. The Maloofs can't compete and stay here without a new arena. WHY do they need a new arena? Because they need taxpayer subsidies to effectively compete and make a profit. THAT is the bottom line.
1. Stern has stepped to the front. He represents the NBA. Just as the Maloofs were torn down beyond common sense. The same rabble rousers are trying to do the same with the NBA.
No one is rousing any rabble when they point out that Stern is supposedly trying to "fix" a problem which he himself had a part in creating. It's simply the truth.
He we are seeing clear signs that the NBA wants Sacramento and is taking an unprecedented step to help.
Why does the NBA want to help? Out of affection for the fans and people of Sacramento? You don't think that's the case, do you?
Just like Dave Stern likes the Sacramento Kings, he would quickly become a lover of the Las Vegas Kings, if that ever happens. We, who actually DO care about the team itself, wouldn't make that switch.
Sorry, but this overstated drama about the NBA is starting to sound like a jilted lover who thinks they are about to get dumped.
Okay. So there is no problem with the NBA. Therefore, the Maloofs don't NEED any help. They can stay without an arena subsidy.
Congratulations. You've solved the problem.
Good point. Reasonable people who share the same goal can of course disagree on the details, large or small. There are many excellent posts on this board, but I haven't seen any that want no arena at all. Sacramento needs quality entertainment facilities, obviously.
My problem is that I don't understand why the tax dollars of working people should go to finance the bloated payrolls that NBA teams currently have. I don't bash the Maloofs, I think they've been good owners and are honest guys overall. I am all for capitalism and business profits and all of that. But we will regret it if we go too far down the road of treating taxpayer dollars as a huge slush fund that the well-connected can grab whenever they need a bail-out-- that is simply doing the wrong thing for our community, Kings or no.
My problem is that I don't understand why the tax dollars of working people should go to finance the bloated payrolls that NBA teams currently have. I don't bash the Maloofs, I think they've been good owners and are honest guys overall. I am all for capitalism and business profits and all of that. But we will regret it if we go too far down the road of treating taxpayer dollars as a huge slush fund that the well-connected can grab whenever they need a bail-out-- that is simply doing the wrong thing for our community, Kings or no.
Can you not see the inconsistency in your own argument? The issue is not the NBA business. It's the state of Arco Arena. You've stated that you know we need a new one yet your redirecting the issue that it's somehow the reponsibility of the NBA and the Kings to provide you with one.
Stern and the NBA didn't create our problem. The arena is our problem.
The rest of your arguments there are all straw men of your own with an added condescending tone.
Stern and the NBA didn't create our problem. The arena is our problem.
The rest of your arguments there are all straw men of your own with an added condescending tone.
The state of Arco is a red herring. The Maloofs want a new arena because they want the revenue streams that will be financed by taxpayer dollars. You seem like an intelligent person...you must know that.
Let Sacramento fix Arco, just the stuff that supposedly makes it unsafe. Would the Maloofs agree to stay on that account? Of course not. They want the added revenue a new arena would bring....what was that whole squabble with the parking spaces about? They want this revenue, they NEED this revenue to compete.
All over the US, teams are demanding (and often getting) new stadium deals chock full of all kinds of goodies. Even Yankee Stadium is being replaced, not because it's falling down, but because Steinbrenner sees a way to grab some taxpayer goodies to finance his $200 million per year salary expense. The Maloofs want a deal like that, too. If Arco had ZERO construction deficiencies, it wouldn't change a thing.
I don't want anyone to build me anything. By all means, let's build an arena (or fix up the one we currently have) without regard to the Maloof's overhead problems. I also don't want the taxpayers to have to pay the NBA's bloated salaries. That is in essence what the Maloofs want, though indirectly.
By the way, what you say is condescending, I say is direct. There is no reason for sweet talk. This is the way I see it- no adult should be frightened by direct debate or frank discussion.
Let Sacramento fix Arco, just the stuff that supposedly makes it unsafe. Would the Maloofs agree to stay on that account? Of course not. They want the added revenue a new arena would bring....what was that whole squabble with the parking spaces about? They want this revenue, they NEED this revenue to compete.
All over the US, teams are demanding (and often getting) new stadium deals chock full of all kinds of goodies. Even Yankee Stadium is being replaced, not because it's falling down, but because Steinbrenner sees a way to grab some taxpayer goodies to finance his $200 million per year salary expense. The Maloofs want a deal like that, too. If Arco had ZERO construction deficiencies, it wouldn't change a thing.
I don't want anyone to build me anything. By all means, let's build an arena (or fix up the one we currently have) without regard to the Maloof's overhead problems. I also don't want the taxpayers to have to pay the NBA's bloated salaries. That is in essence what the Maloofs want, though indirectly.
By the way, what you say is condescending, I say is direct. There is no reason for sweet talk. This is the way I see it- no adult should be frightened by direct debate or frank discussion.