http://slamonline.com/online/2007/07/live-from-the-chris-webber-bada-bling-charity-event/
It's from Gavin at C-Webb's charity event thing.
It's from Gavin at C-Webb's charity event thing.
Arena update from SlamOnline(sorta)
- Thread starter BMiller52
- Start date
With the Gambling investigation going on, I'm sure Stern's entire staff is involved in non-arena issues.
This comment from the Maloofs gets right to another point: Unless the Maloofs take a leadership role here, the taxpayers will not fund an arena. Period.
They absolutely must take a leadership role, given that in Q&R they were to be the ONLY tennant of the building. This isn't like San Antonio, where the arena there has three major tennants; the proposal in Sac called for a single tennant, the Maloofs.
That is absolutely why they must lead. If they don't, the outcome is inevitable.
This comment from the Maloofs gets right to another point: Unless the Maloofs take a leadership role here, the taxpayers will not fund an arena. Period.
They absolutely must take a leadership role, given that in Q&R they were to be the ONLY tennant of the building. This isn't like San Antonio, where the arena there has three major tennants; the proposal in Sac called for a single tennant, the Maloofs.
That is absolutely why they must lead. If they don't, the outcome is inevitable.
As much of a target as the Maloofs have been in the Sacramento media, I think NOT being involved at this point is exactly the right thing for the Maloofs to do.
So much of the feeling has been anti-Maloof rich guys. That was one of the primary weapons of the anti-arena crowd. That is at least part of the reason the Maloofs agreed to let Stern work on it.
I'm sure that when Stern comes out with a plan, the Maloofs will back it.
Apparently the city doesn't plan on an arena, Kings or no Kings.
So much of the feeling has been anti-Maloof rich guys. That was one of the primary weapons of the anti-arena crowd. That is at least part of the reason the Maloofs agreed to let Stern work on it.
I'm sure that when Stern comes out with a plan, the Maloofs will back it.
Apparently the city doesn't plan on an arena, Kings or no Kings.
Honestly, not getting involved is just begging for defeat. If they are to be the major (or only) tennant, they must lead this effort. We cannot keep guessing as to what they want. I mean, who knew they wanted a "Marquis" last time? (Sorry, that was just put in to get a laugh.)
The proposal for the teams to tax themselves and put the money into a sort of revolving fund teams could use has one flaw: In the last 20 years, the cost of building an arena has vastly outrun the rate of return on conservative investments (a fund like that should never be invested on, say, hedge funds). Besides, all that really amounts to is each team saving for itself. If the Maloofs started saving $20 million/year for 20 years, they'd probably have $600 million or so at the end, which would leave them short (arena costs probably triple over 20 years).
I just don't know the final answer, but I think the central problem is lack of corporate presence in this town. I'm not creative enough to see how we get around that. Entice Chevron-Texaco to move from the East Bay...?
The proposal for the teams to tax themselves and put the money into a sort of revolving fund teams could use has one flaw: In the last 20 years, the cost of building an arena has vastly outrun the rate of return on conservative investments (a fund like that should never be invested on, say, hedge funds). Besides, all that really amounts to is each team saving for itself. If the Maloofs started saving $20 million/year for 20 years, they'd probably have $600 million or so at the end, which would leave them short (arena costs probably triple over 20 years).
I just don't know the final answer, but I think the central problem is lack of corporate presence in this town. I'm not creative enough to see how we get around that. Entice Chevron-Texaco to move from the East Bay...?
Sorry, but - not unexpectedly, I'm sure - I totally disagree. Now is NOT the time for the Maloofs to put themselves into the picture. Every time they do so, they simply become grist for the anti-Maloof mill. The NBA needs to finish what they're doing and make their proposals. Then it MIGHT be time for the Maloofs to re-enter the picture.
New Magic Arena Part Of $1.1B Approved For Orlando Venues
The Orange County (FL) Commission by a vote of 5-2 Thursday night approved a $1.1B plan for a new arena and performing-arts center in downtown Orlando, as well as upgrades to the Citrus Bowl, according to Damron & Schlueb of the ORLANDO SENTINEL. The plan will “pay for the new venues from a mix of tourist taxes, downtown property taxes, private contributions and other sources.” The new 750,000-square-foot arena will house the Magic and AFL Predators and hold “more than three times the number of luxury suites” at Amway Arena, which will be sold and “could be torn down.” The Magic are pledging to pay $50M "plus interest upfront, lease payments with a present value of $12[M], plus other revenue-, bond- and insurance-guarantee provisions,” and will cover cost overruns. Magic Owner Rich DeVos also promised to contribute $10M to the performing-arts center. The $175M Citrus Bowl renovation will add ten suites, additional banquet space and will increase the number of bathrooms and concessions. It is the “cheapest of the three venues, but it has no private backers.” County commissioners “offered a handful of amendments” to the deal, including one that “requires each facility to use eco-friendly ‘green’ designs” and another that “requires the Magic to build five community gymnasiums.” County Commissioner Teresa Jacobs added a measure “requiring the Citrus Bowl to wait for the pot of tourist taxes to grow before launching construction” (ORLANDO SENTINEL, 7/27).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
...must be nice.
Here we sit in limbo like a 3-legged dog waiting for the saw....and David Stern is the one holding it. I bet Seattle gets a new arena now, too. *sigh*
The Orange County (FL) Commission by a vote of 5-2 Thursday night approved a $1.1B plan for a new arena and performing-arts center in downtown Orlando, as well as upgrades to the Citrus Bowl, according to Damron & Schlueb of the ORLANDO SENTINEL. The plan will “pay for the new venues from a mix of tourist taxes, downtown property taxes, private contributions and other sources.” The new 750,000-square-foot arena will house the Magic and AFL Predators and hold “more than three times the number of luxury suites” at Amway Arena, which will be sold and “could be torn down.” The Magic are pledging to pay $50M "plus interest upfront, lease payments with a present value of $12[M], plus other revenue-, bond- and insurance-guarantee provisions,” and will cover cost overruns. Magic Owner Rich DeVos also promised to contribute $10M to the performing-arts center. The $175M Citrus Bowl renovation will add ten suites, additional banquet space and will increase the number of bathrooms and concessions. It is the “cheapest of the three venues, but it has no private backers.” County commissioners “offered a handful of amendments” to the deal, including one that “requires each facility to use eco-friendly ‘green’ designs” and another that “requires the Magic to build five community gymnasiums.” County Commissioner Teresa Jacobs added a measure “requiring the Citrus Bowl to wait for the pot of tourist taxes to grow before launching construction” (ORLANDO SENTINEL, 7/27).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
...must be nice.
Here we sit in limbo like a 3-legged dog waiting for the saw....and David Stern is the one holding it. I bet Seattle gets a new arena now, too. *sigh*Here's why I disagree: If the main/sole tennant of a building that you hope will stay put for 20 years won't tell you what they want, what are you supposed to do? Guess?
Here's my guess: Put up the ugliest darned tilt-up you can find, and locate it in one of Teichert's abandoned gravel pits out on Highway 16.
Hmmm, bad guess.
Now, I could keep guessing, OR I could ask the folks who I am certain will be the only tennant of that building for 20 years, what it is they want, where do they want it, and when do they want it.
Does this in any way, shape or form make sense? Or would you rather have a tiltup at Hiway 16 and Bradshaw with parking for 100 cars and a seating capacity of 11,500?
I think that's a bad guess, by the way. I think what the Maloofs want is to pay $200 million in rent over 20 years, and they want an arena comparable to Staples, somewhere near Arco, with 8,000 parking spots they'll control, for a cost of about $600 million... And they won't be explicit about it.
And the City won't offer that...
And there's no local corporation able to bridge the gap.
In a nutshell, that's why the Maloofs won't lead, and it's also why the entire enterprise is in trouble if we don't entice a Chevron-Texaco size company to move to Sacramento.
Here's my guess: Put up the ugliest darned tilt-up you can find, and locate it in one of Teichert's abandoned gravel pits out on Highway 16.
Hmmm, bad guess.
Now, I could keep guessing, OR I could ask the folks who I am certain will be the only tennant of that building for 20 years, what it is they want, where do they want it, and when do they want it.
Does this in any way, shape or form make sense? Or would you rather have a tiltup at Hiway 16 and Bradshaw with parking for 100 cars and a seating capacity of 11,500?
I think that's a bad guess, by the way. I think what the Maloofs want is to pay $200 million in rent over 20 years, and they want an arena comparable to Staples, somewhere near Arco, with 8,000 parking spots they'll control, for a cost of about $600 million... And they won't be explicit about it.
And the City won't offer that...
And there's no local corporation able to bridge the gap.
In a nutshell, that's why the Maloofs won't lead, and it's also why the entire enterprise is in trouble if we don't entice a Chevron-Texaco size company to move to Sacramento.
I think you're making assumptions without enough information to do so.
Simply because the Maloofs aren't fronting this project AT THE MOMENT doesn't mean they're never going to be involved again. I'm pretty sure whomever is being considered for some kind of financial program to develop the new arena will be consulting with the single largest probable tenant.
It's all about timing. Right now the NBA is working on something and the Maloofs aren't publicly involved.
EDIT: And further? Just because YOU don't know the details of what the Maloofs are looking for doesn't mean the NBA representatives don't have that information on hand. The NBA is under no obligation whatsoever to make every detail public at this point and, quite frankly, I hope they never do. The idea of the public having input at every single step of this process is simply ludicrous.
Simply because the Maloofs aren't fronting this project AT THE MOMENT doesn't mean they're never going to be involved again. I'm pretty sure whomever is being considered for some kind of financial program to develop the new arena will be consulting with the single largest probable tenant.
It's all about timing. Right now the NBA is working on something and the Maloofs aren't publicly involved.
EDIT: And further? Just because YOU don't know the details of what the Maloofs are looking for doesn't mean the NBA representatives don't have that information on hand. The NBA is under no obligation whatsoever to make every detail public at this point and, quite frankly, I hope they never do. The idea of the public having input at every single step of this process is simply ludicrous.
Last edited:
I would assume that whatever Stern and company comes up with won't be made public without the buy-in of the Maloofs ahead of time. After the announcement is the right time for the Maloofs to get involved, state what they would like to see and start to campaign for it to get done.
After all, if the Maloofs buy into Stern's proposal, they'll finally have an estimate of funding. Then you decide what you can afford to build. Cost is also driven by what site is proposed. Cheaper site = more money for the structure. More expensive site = less money for the structure.
When do they have to have it? That's been pretty clear all along. I'm sure they'd like it by 2010, but my guess is 2012 is the absolute outside, considering the serious economic infeasibility of operating Arco much longer.
After all, if the Maloofs buy into Stern's proposal, they'll finally have an estimate of funding. Then you decide what you can afford to build. Cost is also driven by what site is proposed. Cheaper site = more money for the structure. More expensive site = less money for the structure.
When do they have to have it? That's been pretty clear all along. I'm sure they'd like it by 2010, but my guess is 2012 is the absolute outside, considering the serious economic infeasibility of operating Arco much longer.
I live in Greenhaven. My council representitive is Robbie Waters. Several years ago, he told me that the Maloofs would persue a plan that featured two things:
1) A sphere of influence; and
2) A plan that is not set in stone when presented to voters.
He was two for two in these predictions. I see no reason the Maloofs will change this tactic; it seems to be central to their plans.
Any plan that the powers-that-be come up with will go before the voters. I see no alternative to that (the State will not get involved). We are already certain it will only be local government funding this, so as a practical matter, the voters will be voting on this. That's a given.
I think that's a good thing.
Using history as evidence, I think the Maloofs will accept nothing less than a Staples-style arena, located near the current arena, and will be willing to pay $200 million in rent over 20 years, plus a sphere-of-influence and 100% control of the events and the parking. If that's the plan the Maloofs and the City agree to, then when the voters vote on it, it will not pass.
Have any of you ever negotiated for a car? The goal is to go in and pay as little as you can, for the best car you can find. The salesman's goal is to sell you the cheapest car on the lot for a premium price. Most of the time, the salesman comes closer to his goal than the customer does.
That's all we have going here; a dance between a salesman and a customer. I don't blame the Maloofs for asking for an Audi R8 for $20,000, and I don't blame us, the salesman, for saying, "No, we're not going to lose that much money."
And, of course, as always, the missing part is major corporate participation. With such participation, this deal would already be done. That is what allowed LA to build Staples; that project would have required major taxpayer input without Staples, but they got it done with very minimal taxpayer input.
That should be our goal. We should be facilitating getting the Maloofs their own Staples, at minimal costs to the taxpayer. That's the hardest part.
The Maloofs will locate their team in the town where such a scenario is most likely. If that's Sacramento, then so be it. If not, they'll either...
1) Make the offer on that Audi R8 more realistic, or
2) Try another dealer.
I point out again that it's interesting that Vegas may have two arenas ready for 2011, while we can't even figure out where to build. Donaghy or not, Las Vegas WILL have either an NBA or an NHL team by then. Our very last chance to save the Kings hinges on a vote in June 2008. Yes, I think we'll be voting on something then. If we're not, that means it's a certainty they're gone.
I think this answer here, since I have been challenged, is as specific as anyone can possibly get.
The Maloofs haven't quite reached the level of sainthood for me as they seem to have for a number of local fans. I don't fully trust or support them; they seem nouveau riche to me. This belief influences my statements.
1) A sphere of influence; and
2) A plan that is not set in stone when presented to voters.
He was two for two in these predictions. I see no reason the Maloofs will change this tactic; it seems to be central to their plans.
Any plan that the powers-that-be come up with will go before the voters. I see no alternative to that (the State will not get involved). We are already certain it will only be local government funding this, so as a practical matter, the voters will be voting on this. That's a given.
I think that's a good thing.
Using history as evidence, I think the Maloofs will accept nothing less than a Staples-style arena, located near the current arena, and will be willing to pay $200 million in rent over 20 years, plus a sphere-of-influence and 100% control of the events and the parking. If that's the plan the Maloofs and the City agree to, then when the voters vote on it, it will not pass.
Have any of you ever negotiated for a car? The goal is to go in and pay as little as you can, for the best car you can find. The salesman's goal is to sell you the cheapest car on the lot for a premium price. Most of the time, the salesman comes closer to his goal than the customer does.
That's all we have going here; a dance between a salesman and a customer. I don't blame the Maloofs for asking for an Audi R8 for $20,000, and I don't blame us, the salesman, for saying, "No, we're not going to lose that much money."
And, of course, as always, the missing part is major corporate participation. With such participation, this deal would already be done. That is what allowed LA to build Staples; that project would have required major taxpayer input without Staples, but they got it done with very minimal taxpayer input.
That should be our goal. We should be facilitating getting the Maloofs their own Staples, at minimal costs to the taxpayer. That's the hardest part.
The Maloofs will locate their team in the town where such a scenario is most likely. If that's Sacramento, then so be it. If not, they'll either...
1) Make the offer on that Audi R8 more realistic, or
2) Try another dealer.
I point out again that it's interesting that Vegas may have two arenas ready for 2011, while we can't even figure out where to build. Donaghy or not, Las Vegas WILL have either an NBA or an NHL team by then. Our very last chance to save the Kings hinges on a vote in June 2008. Yes, I think we'll be voting on something then. If we're not, that means it's a certainty they're gone.
I think this answer here, since I have been challenged, is as specific as anyone can possibly get.
The Maloofs haven't quite reached the level of sainthood for me as they seem to have for a number of local fans. I don't fully trust or support them; they seem nouveau riche to me. This belief influences my statements.
Oh boy...do we have to go THERE again?? The Kings are NOT moving to Las Vegas...AND...LV is at LEAST 5-10 years away from even coming remotely close to landing any sort of pro sports franchise. Do you know how long it would take to wipe 1 sport off the books?? Answer: a LONG time! You have to get the approval of EVERY casino within the city limits, and the city limits...and there's about 500 casinos in that area, just an FYI. So...once and for all, the 'greedy Maloofs and the NBA' will NOT be moving the Kings to Las Vegas! 1+1=0 in this case...edit: Anaheim/San Diego/Kansas City=possible suitors for the Kings if we dont get an arena.
Sorry, Arena Skeptic, but I'm getting really bored with your repetitive comments so I'm not going to address them point by point.
Instead, in summary:
1. Robbie Waters being "right" on two generalized statements about the Maloofs doesn't prove a thing to me.
2. Calling the Maloofs "nouveau riche" simply reeks of an R.E. Graswich/Marcos Breton attitude. Quite frankly, it gives one the impression you're more than a bit of a snob.
3. Once again, you're pontificating as though you and you alone know exactly what the Maloofs have told the NBA, what the NBA has been working on here and with whom, etc.
4. I'm sorry but I'm not going to buy into your rhetoric at this point in time because there are simply too many variables that we just do not know. So, if it's okay with you, I think the rest of us will just continue to watch and wait and see what happens and discuss things as they come up.
Have a nice day.
Instead, in summary:
1. Robbie Waters being "right" on two generalized statements about the Maloofs doesn't prove a thing to me.
2. Calling the Maloofs "nouveau riche" simply reeks of an R.E. Graswich/Marcos Breton attitude. Quite frankly, it gives one the impression you're more than a bit of a snob.
3. Once again, you're pontificating as though you and you alone know exactly what the Maloofs have told the NBA, what the NBA has been working on here and with whom, etc.
4. I'm sorry but I'm not going to buy into your rhetoric at this point in time because there are simply too many variables that we just do not know. So, if it's okay with you, I think the rest of us will just continue to watch and wait and see what happens and discuss things as they come up.
Have a nice day.
edit: Anaheim/San Diego/Kansas City=possible suitors for the Kings if we dont get an arena.
1) Whatever Waters said "several years" ago means nothing at this point, especially not from such an anti-arena person.
2) Stern has talked to plenty of politicians here and I doubt we're going to see a deal anything like what has gone before. That is the whole point of Stern taking over to try and come up with something new and creative that has a realistic chance of success.
3) Who says public money will be involved? We haven't even seen a proposal yet. Also, it may not involve a public vote, if it does. Millions of public dollars every year go to private developers in Sacramento, with no public vote required. It depends on whether it's a new, specific purpose tax or not.
4) Although "nouveau riche" means simply "newly rich," it is generally an insulting term used by "old money" folks (snobs). It does not apply to the Maloofs as it means acquiring wealth within your own generation. The Maloofs grandfather, Joe Maloof I acquired the wealth, the current generation just inherited wealth and expanded it. Each individual Maloof is a millionaire, but not a billionaire (e.g like Mark Cuban or Paul Allen). You can check Forbes. So they aren't even particularly rich individuals by today's standards.
2) Stern has talked to plenty of politicians here and I doubt we're going to see a deal anything like what has gone before. That is the whole point of Stern taking over to try and come up with something new and creative that has a realistic chance of success.
3) Who says public money will be involved? We haven't even seen a proposal yet. Also, it may not involve a public vote, if it does. Millions of public dollars every year go to private developers in Sacramento, with no public vote required. It depends on whether it's a new, specific purpose tax or not.
4) Although "nouveau riche" means simply "newly rich," it is generally an insulting term used by "old money" folks (snobs). It does not apply to the Maloofs as it means acquiring wealth within your own generation. The Maloofs grandfather, Joe Maloof I acquired the wealth, the current generation just inherited wealth and expanded it. Each individual Maloof is a millionaire, but not a billionaire (e.g like Mark Cuban or Paul Allen). You can check Forbes. So they aren't even particularly rich individuals by today's standards.
Please explain how public money goes to developers each year? I audit governmental agencies and and have never seen a cent go to them w/o it being a quid pro quo transaction (something for someting), and it's usually the developers who end up bankrolling parks in most developmental areas regardless.
I'd be interested in looking at other situations where public money has gone to private parties. I realize that Tsakapolous has generated a bit of negative press lately due to the school transaction in the Natomas area, but I don't think the government hands money out to developers without them doing something to earn it.
I'd be interested in looking at other situations where public money has gone to private parties. I realize that Tsakapolous has generated a bit of negative press lately due to the school transaction in the Natomas area, but I don't think the government hands money out to developers without them doing something to earn it.
The Hyatt Regency downtown for one. No quid pro quo there. The Hyatt said no weay they'd build in Sacramento without huge incentives and received a subsidy for losses. The Sheraton and Embassy Suites got quite a bit, as well. When cities want certain businesses to come to town it's pretty much a one-way street government to business. And its not always giving moey, it'c often giving up revenue that could have been used for other things. Fee waivers, building permit cost waivers, tax incentives (tax breaks), etc. are just some of the ways that developers get helped by government.
City, county and RDA meetings are public. I don't have the time to provide that kind of research for you. The Bee had a great article a while back about the convention center and the subsidizing of the Hyatt by the city, but I can't find it with a cursory search.
I have worked in government financing for housing development for over 20 years, however. I'm not ignorant of what governments can do, when the motivation is there.
John Saca was set to get money from the city for the furnishings in the hotel portion of his condo towers. The Sheraton was constructed with the help of tax-exempt bond-financing provided by the city. Thomas is waiting for the city to come up with $500 million for infrastructure financing so he can develop the railyards. (Homeowners, on the other hand, are stuck with paying for the infrastructure improvements supporting the development of their homes almost all the time. (e.g., Mello-Roos, higher property taxes)
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it is always a bad thing for cities to offer financial incentives for construction/development or to lure businesses. Not at all. A government entity is just like a person. Some things you are going to have to pay for, if you really want it. You can drive a 20-year-old, inefficient, unsafe beater of a car and save money or you can break down and spend the bucks for a new, or newer, one (likely more fuel efficient, with all the latest safety features.) It costs money, tho.
Most affordable rental housing right now receives major funding from 10-year chunks of tax credits purchased by major corporate investors. A worthy cause, but the federal government is giving up major future revenue in return. It never shows up on the books, because it's money never received. The government has given out multi-billions in those tax credits. (You wouldn't believe the money lawyers, developers and tax syndicators are making out of these deals.)
Prop 13, the limit on property taxes has been a far greater boon to business and commercial landowners, than to homeowners in California.
The question isn't whether governments provide various forms of financial incentives to business and developers. The arguments arise over for what those incentives and funding should be provided. Certainly a valid point of public discourse. My only objection has been for so many people to act like any public financial contribution to a private business (arena) is an unheard of government action. Something that isn't done.
It is valid to discuss whether it should be provided and, if so, how much should be provided. To think other private interests, just like MSE do not benefit from government subsidized financing or government financial incentives is ridiculous. MSE is hardly the first private business to want help from local government for their business.
(I would also add that I think the NBA needs to look at this problem with their current business model, but that's a whole other subject.)
I have worked in government financing for housing development for over 20 years, however. I'm not ignorant of what governments can do, when the motivation is there.
John Saca was set to get money from the city for the furnishings in the hotel portion of his condo towers. The Sheraton was constructed with the help of tax-exempt bond-financing provided by the city. Thomas is waiting for the city to come up with $500 million for infrastructure financing so he can develop the railyards. (Homeowners, on the other hand, are stuck with paying for the infrastructure improvements supporting the development of their homes almost all the time. (e.g., Mello-Roos, higher property taxes)
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it is always a bad thing for cities to offer financial incentives for construction/development or to lure businesses. Not at all. A government entity is just like a person. Some things you are going to have to pay for, if you really want it. You can drive a 20-year-old, inefficient, unsafe beater of a car and save money or you can break down and spend the bucks for a new, or newer, one (likely more fuel efficient, with all the latest safety features.) It costs money, tho.
Most affordable rental housing right now receives major funding from 10-year chunks of tax credits purchased by major corporate investors. A worthy cause, but the federal government is giving up major future revenue in return. It never shows up on the books, because it's money never received. The government has given out multi-billions in those tax credits. (You wouldn't believe the money lawyers, developers and tax syndicators are making out of these deals.)
Prop 13, the limit on property taxes has been a far greater boon to business and commercial landowners, than to homeowners in California.
The question isn't whether governments provide various forms of financial incentives to business and developers. The arguments arise over for what those incentives and funding should be provided. Certainly a valid point of public discourse. My only objection has been for so many people to act like any public financial contribution to a private business (arena) is an unheard of government action. Something that isn't done.
It is valid to discuss whether it should be provided and, if so, how much should be provided. To think other private interests, just like MSE do not benefit from government subsidized financing or government financial incentives is ridiculous. MSE is hardly the first private business to want help from local government for their business.
(I would also add that I think the NBA needs to look at this problem with their current business model, but that's a whole other subject.)