Donaghy May Have Saved Sacramento the Kings!!!

[ockingsfan]

in an odd way this nba ref, donaghy, that bet on the games he refed, may have save sacramento the kings....

i feel that the maloofs was using the threat of moving the kings, most notably to Las Vegas, as leverage to get a new arena... the maloofs seemed to be hedging their bets, with the constant references as Las Vegas as a great new potential nba site and with the nba having the nba all-star game in las vegas last year... they hired a new coach with not only appeal for sacramento, but also was a former UNLV player.... the maloofs have strong ties to las vegas and david stern seemed to be lightening his stance against las vegas, with having the nba all-star game there this year....

with this ref fixing games.... THERE IS NO WAY IN HECK THAT STERN WOULD EVER ALLOW A TEAM TO GO TO LAS VEGAS NOW!!! ... this takes away the maloofs threat of moving, because the city with the most appeal to move to, is now off the list.... where would they move them now??? KC, Ohklahoma??? those cities do not fit the maloofs glamore profile...

and with the growing sacramento, and sacto being the capital of california, sacramento is again their best option for success and being high profile owners for the maloofs..... the leverage is back in sacramento's corner....

 

[JoMama]

This important point was posted a few days ago in another thread by Superman. I agree, it's the most important Kings-related point of the whole bad ref scandal. I'd like to see the Bee take it and analyze what this means for the "Kings in Vegas" theory. Seems to me it could have significant impact in more than one way.

 

[Ryle]

in an odd way this nba ref, donaghy, that bet on the games he refed, may have save sacramento the kings....

i feel that the maloofs was using the threat of moving the kings, most notably to Las Vegas, as leverage to get a new arena... the maloofs seemed to be hedging their bets, with the constant references as Las Vegas as a great new potential nba site and with the nba having the nba all-star game in las vegas last year... they hired a new coach with not only appeal for sacramento, but also was a former UNLV player.... the maloofs have strong ties to las vegas and david stern seemed to be lightening his stance against las vegas, with having the nba all-star game there this year....

with this ref fixing games.... THERE IS NO WAY IN HECK THAT STERN WOULD EVER ALLOW A TEAM TO GO TO LAS VEGAS NOW!!! ... this takes away the maloofs threat of moving, because the city with the most appeal to move to, is now off the list.... where would they move them now??? KC, Ohklahoma??? those cities do not fit the maloofs glamore profile...

and with the growing sacramento, and sacto being the capital of california, sacramento is again their best option for success and being high profile owners for the maloofs..... the leverage is back in sacramento's corner....

It's not legal betting in Vegas that the NBA has to worry about. It's the illegal betting(which is what got Donaghy in trouble) that the NBA and most other sports leagues needs to worry about. Vegas is the most structured/regulated place there is....I do business there and I had to go before a panel and actually had a complete and total background check done on me(which was rather intrusive) just to be able to work there.

 

[JoMama]

It's not legal betting in Vegas that the NBA has to worry about. It's the illegal betting(which is what got Donaghy in trouble) that the NBA and most other sports leagues needs to worry about. Vegas is the most structured/regulated place there is....I do business there and I had to go before a panel and actually had a complete and total background check done on me(which was rather intrusive) just to be able to work there.

In a Kings move to Vegas scenario it's the image that Vegas would project that the NBA can't afford to endorse. Nothing like a little gambling symbolism for a league about to blow apart from a gambling scandal.

 

[Bricklayer]

People have been too focused on the Vegas scenario. The real threats remain Anaheim and Kansas City. Their new state of the art arenas are already built and waiting for tenants. If this NBA sponsored arena push does not work out, the Kings will still be going, just not to Vegas.

 

[JoMama]

Vegas is obviously ideal for the Maloofs. In Anaheim, they'd get too little of the action - they're basically tenants. The Maloofs want to control revenue at an arena. Good business.
KC is a bad market for the NBA, which is why it left that city 20 years ago. The Chiefs are the only team that sells tickets. Of course, if an arena doesn't get going soon in Sac, any port in a storm would be understandable.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

People have been too focused on the Vegas scenario. The real threats remain Anaheim and Kansas City. Their new state of the art arenas are already built and waiting for tenants. If this NBA sponsored arena push does not work out, the Kings will still be going, just not to Vegas.

Hallelujah Brick! I just wish everyone else would get the picture about this whole 'Vegas Conspiracy' thing and stop making connections between the Maloofs and Vegas with moving the Kings there. The Kings were NEVER in any way moving to Vegas. Brick is absolutely right about the Kings and Anaheim, Kansas City and also San Diego.(even though pushing harder for the NHL, but still are looking, nonetheless)

edit: now that Stern/NBA is in command of this, I have a good hunch that we wont need to worry about it. Just a hunch...

 

[ockingsfan]

Hallelujah Brick! I just wish everyone else would get the picture about this whole 'Vegas Conspiracy' thing and stop making connections between the Maloofs and Vegas with moving the Kings there. The Kings were NEVER in any way moving to Vegas. Brick is absolutely right about the Kings and Anaheim, Kansas City and also San Diego.(even though pushing harder for the NHL, but still are looking, nonetheless)

edit: now that Stern/NBA is in command of this, I have a good hunch that we wont need to worry about it. Just a hunch...

orange county is still laker territory and the clippers are in so. cal too... i don't know what type of support the kings would get and if the lakers would even allow a third team into their territory... i would believe that david stern would not want a 3rd team in the same region, when the clippers are already struggling in attendance....

as for KC, there is a reason why the nba did not succeed their before and with the likes of the KC Royals struggling mightly in the small town KC, i highly doubt that the maloofs would want leave such a prosperous market to struggle in KC...

San Diego does not have an arena and i live in so cal and not heard of any interest to get the nba in san diego... san diego, IMHO is not even attempting to draw an nba team at this time... look at what happened when the clippers were there, no interest, very few fans, so they left...

 

[Bricklayer]

orange county is still laker territory and the clippers are in so. cal too... i don't know what type of support the kings would get and if the lakers would even allow a third team into their territory... i would believe that david stern would not want a 3rd team in the same region, when the clippers are already struggling in attendance....

as for KC, there is a reason why the nba did not succeed their before and with the likes of the KC Royals struggling mightly in the small town KC, i highly doubt that the maloofs would want leave such a prosperous market to struggle in KC...

San Diego does not have an arena and i live in so cal and not heard of any interest to get the nba in san diego... san diego, IMHO is not even attempting to draw an nba team at this time... look at what happened when the clippers were there, no interest, very few fans, so they left...

A) clippers may be struggling in attendance...but its corpoarate money that powers the game. And its there in spades in L.A. along wiht a free arena.

B) Sacramento is NOT a prosperous market. Its got fans. But no corporate base, and a lousy arena.

Bottom line you get a choice of fans, but at the cost of $100million (to contribute to arean or whatnot) or the choice of a free arena, saving you that $100mil, but the potential for a shaky fanbase down the road (should be strong for the first few years), its nto at all a clear choice. Especially not when you factor in the corporate/adevertising money. Actually that;s not true -- if you don't have a new arena in Sacto it very much IS a clear choice. And Vegas never had much to do with it.

 

[JoMama]

A) clippers may be struggling in attendance...but its corpoarate money that powers the game. And its there in spades in L.A. along wiht a free arena.

B) Sacramento is NOT a prosperous market. Its got fans. But no corporate base, and a lousy arena.

Bottom line you get a choice of fans, but at the cost of $100million (to contribute to arean or whatnot) or the choice of a free arena, saving you that $100mil, but the potential for a shaky fanbase down the road (should be strong for the first few years), its nto at all a clear choice. Especially not when you factor in the corporate/adevertising money. Actually that;s not true -- if you don't have a new arena in Sacto it very much IS a clear choice. And Vegas never had much to do with it.

Anaheim/LA never has been a good sports market. I remember watching Rams games there in a half-filled stadium. That's why both NFL teams moved. Lakers and Dodgers do well, that's about it. Sure the Maloofs would share the arena with the NHL but no concessions, parking, etc. like they get in Sac. It would be tough pill to swallow after the sweet deal here.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

in an odd way this nba ref, donaghy, that bet on the games he refed, may have save sacramento the kings....

i feel that the maloofs was using the threat of moving the kings, most notably to Las Vegas, as leverage to get a new arena... the maloofs seemed to be hedging their bets, with the constant references as Las Vegas as a great new potential nba site and with the nba having the nba all-star game in las vegas last year... they hired a new coach with not only appeal for sacramento, but also was a former UNLV player.... the maloofs have strong ties to las vegas and david stern seemed to be lightening his stance against las vegas, with having the nba all-star game there this year....

with this ref fixing games.... THERE IS NO WAY IN HECK THAT STERN WOULD EVER ALLOW A TEAM TO GO TO LAS VEGAS NOW!!! ... this takes away the maloofs threat of moving, because the city with the most appeal to move to, is now off the list.... where would they move them now??? KC, Ohklahoma??? those cities do not fit the maloofs glamore profile...

and with the growing sacramento, and sacto being the capital of california, sacramento is again their best option for success and being high profile owners for the maloofs..... the leverage is back in sacramento's corner....

I strongly and respectfully disagree, and this is why: No matter where you live, you have access to both organized crime and gambling. If you live in St Louis, Milwaukee, Miami, Salt Lake City, Oakland or, yes, Sacramento (and any point in-between), both the mob and gamblers are just a phone call or a mouse-click away.

If you live in any part of Las Vegas, you are no closer to or farther from organized crime and/or the the mob than if you lived in Sacramento.

I bet you could even find a good dog fighting ring around here.

That's the problem with our society: We seem to be dooming ourselves.

Nice try at looking for a silver-lining, and maybe Vick is just making me feel pessimistic about the situation... Or maybe it's Rasmussen, or Landis... Or maybe it's Barry Bonds... Or Donaghy. But I just turned 49, and I don't like the direction we're headed as a country.

I am absolutely not a religious person, either, but maybe we gotta stop idolizing athletes. Stop sending them so much money. What would Ron Artest be doing today if pro athletics did not exist? Barry Bonds? Donaghy? Vick? Floyd Landis?

 

[VF21]

It isn't the proximity to gambling that will keep the NBA out of Vegas now. It's the appearance of wanting to distance themselves from the whole idea of gambling and putting the NBA in places where gambling is the pre-eminent draw.

As far as your comments about society, where the country is headed, religion, etc. those are topics for places other than Kingsfans.com

 

[kupman]

Your right on the money VF. It is all about perception. It remains to be seen how big of a deal this recent fiasco becomes, but it will be a serious issue for the NBA for years to come. It will be talked about in households each time there is a blown call next spring in the palyoffs....."hum, that looks a little fishy."

Therefore, it is hard for me to see how Stern would be willing to say "on the heels of the recent NBA gambling scandal we have decided that Las Vegas will now host a team." I will agree with A.S. that the proximity of the game has little to do with the chances of more gambling scandals, but then again, we are just hypothesizing. We could even be wrong about that and I doubt that the league would be willing to take a chance. It is just not worth the risk.

 

[Superman]

Anaheim/LA never has been a good sports market. I remember watching Rams games there in a half-filled stadium. That's why both NFL teams moved. Lakers and Dodgers do well, that's about it. Sure the Maloofs would share the arena with the NHL but no concessions, parking, etc. like they get in Sac. It would be tough pill to swallow after the sweet deal here.

My Angels have been 5th, 4th, 3rd and 5th in attendance the past four seasons. They're doing okay.

 

[JoMama]

My Angels have been 5th, 4th, 3rd and 5th in attendance the past four seasons. They're doing okay.

Sorry Superman. Guess, I don't consider baseball a sport.

 

[hoopsfan]

Anaheim/LA never has been a good sports market. I remember watching Rams games there in a half-filled stadium. That's why both NFL teams moved. Lakers and Dodgers do well, that's about it. Sure the Maloofs would share the arena with the NHL but no concessions, parking, etc. like they get in Sac. It would be tough pill to swallow after the sweet deal here.

I was a Rams season ticket holder when they were in Anaheim, even though I'm not a Rams fan. The reason they didn't fill the stadium was because Georgia was a cheapa** and wouldn't spend her dead husbands money to get good players there. She miraculously opened her wallet when they moved to St. Louis!
Didn't the Raiders leave because the Colosium wasn't good enough for Al Davis and he wanted a new, free place for the "Raidahs" to play? (Wasn't Oakland sueing him also??) Personally, I was happy when they left, as I'm not a Raider fan either.

 

[kupman]

I am kind of hoping that this whole mess just absolutely blows-up into a huge deal with Stern's image taking much of the heat (see yahoo article in "NBA" section). Perhaps, that will encourage him to press the league into doing something heroic to restore their image as a wholesome, even charitable league......you know, something like build a new arena for the wonderful fans of Sacramento that have done so much to support the league.

*you guys know that I am joking around right?.....well, kind of joking around

 

[Bricklayer]

I am kind of hoping that this whole mess just absolutely blows-up into a huge deal with Stern's image taking much of the heat (see yahoo article in "NBA" section). Perhaps, that will encourage him to press the league into doing something heroic to restore their image as a wholesome, even charitable league......you know, something like build a new arena for the wonderful fans of Sacramento that have done so much to support the league.

*you guys know that I am joking around right?.....well, kind of joking around

Unfortunately it could jsut as easily got the other way -- weaken or distract a commissioner who may have been considering a radical approach in Sacto sot hat he either gets cuaght up in other fights and doesn;t have the time/energy for the Sacto arena, or loses the clout he needs to sell a radical idea to the other owners.

 

[Oscar]

Unfortunately it could jsut as easily got the other way -- weaken or distract a commissioner who may have been considering a radical approach in Sacto sot hat he either gets cuaght up in other fights and doesn;t have the time/energy for the Sacto arena, or loses the clout he needs to sell a radical idea to the other owners.

I see that exactly happening. Stern will be so distracted with this gambling scandal, he won't commit the time or resources to solve the Kings' arena problem. The Maloofs will be on their own again to deal with the situation.

Maybe in a few years time he will get back to an arena plan, but how long will the people of Sacramento have to wait? 2012? 2015? By then Arco Arena will start crumbling on its own.

 

[VF21]

I see that exactly happening. Stern will be so distracted with this gambling scandal, he won't commit the time or resources to solve the Kings' arena problem. The Maloofs will be on their own again to deal with the situation.

Maybe in a few years time he will get back to an arena plan, but how long will the people of Sacramento have to wait? 2012? 2015? By then Arco Arena will start crumbling on its own.

I don't see that happening. Stern himself isn't going to personally handle every aspect of the arena deal. He has trusted minions for the majority of things that need to be done, and then - if it comes to fruition - he comes riding in on the white horse at the end and announces the deal that saves us all.

 

[kennadog]

Unfortunately it could jsut as easily got the other way -- weaken or distract a commissioner who may have been considering a radical approach in Sacto sot hat he either gets cuaght up in other fights and doesn;t have the time/energy for the Sacto arena, or loses the clout he needs to sell a radical idea to the other owners.

I could see that. I also see a situation where Sacramento losing the Kings could be another disaster for the league. What will it look like if a team who has enjoyed such fan support for so many years leaves town? I don't think that would be good for the league's image either. Of course, I am expecting fan support to continue sinking like a stone.

 

[Oscar]

I don't see that happening. Stern himself isn't going to personally handle every aspect of the arena deal. He has trusted minions for the majority of things that need to be done, and then - if it comes to fruition - he comes riding in on the white horse at the end and announces the deal that saves us all.

And you're the one on this board who tells everyone else not to attack another personally, but you feel free to use your little smilies as you see fit. I voiced an opinion, you didn't agree with it, you give your counter opinion - you couldn't just leave it at that? Now if someone says something personal to you, let's just see how magnamimious you can be when they stick their tongue back at you. No, not me, I won't use a smilie. Apparently I'm not as petty as a forum administrator.

 

[VF21]

And you're the one on this board who tells everyone else not to attack another personally, but you feel free to use your little smilies as you see fit. I voiced an opinion, you didn't agree with it, you give your counter opinion - you couldn't just leave it at that? Now if someone says something personal to you, let's just see how magnamimious you can be when they stick their tongue back at you. No, not me, I won't use a smilie. Apparently I'm not as petty as a forum administrator.

Excuse me?

That smilie has never been an indication of anything negative, afaic. Sorry if you found it offensive. It was meant as a joking smilie to go along with my comment of Stern riding in on a white horse and saving the day. I think you may have misunderstood my intention. You might want to look around and see how often it's used in the manner I've described above. Look at the posts in the Lounge where people like hoopsfan, 6th, Prophetess, kennadog and others use it to denote a kidding or joking nature. A number of us who have been on this board for a very long time have come to use it as a means of indicating we're joking and not being too serious.

 

[BMiller52]

And you're the one on this board who tells everyone else not to attack another personally, but you feel free to use your little smilies as you see fit. I voiced an opinion, you didn't agree with it, you give your counter opinion - you couldn't just leave it at that? Now if someone says something personal to you, let's just see how magnamimious you can be when they stick their tongue back at you. No, not me, I won't use a smilie. Apparently I'm not as petty as a forum administrator.

ZOMG THE SMILIE WILL KILL US ALL!!11ONE! Run for it everybody!

 

[Warhawk]

And you're the one on this board who tells everyone else not to attack another personally, but you feel free to use your little smilies as you see fit. I voiced an opinion, you didn't agree with it, you give your counter opinion - you couldn't just leave it at that? Now if someone says something personal to you, let's just see how magnamimious you can be when they stick their tongue back at you. No, not me, I won't use a smilie. Apparently I'm not as petty as a forum administrator.

Uh, yeah, you must have misinterpreted that smilie. It's a funny joking one, not an "in your face" tongue sticking out.....

Kinda goes along with this one:

Definitely not in this vein:

All good?