reading through the sportsguy's sonics-only mailbag (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/080228&sportCat=nba), i feel for seattle fans. do you think that the sonics will actually be moved out of seattle?
what do you think will happen to the sonics?
- Thread starter Jerryaki
- Start date
Stern has explained that there is a huge difference between what's happening in Seattle and the situation in Sacramento. No government entity in the Seattle area has indicated they want to get an arena deal done. Heck, Seattle even passed a law prohibiting any public financial support for anymore sports stadia or arenas.
The baseball and football stadia were built with public money deals. And public funding built earlier stadia and arenas. Sacramento has never done a stadium or arena deal.
Stern says all the various parties he's talked to in Sacramento want to see an arena deal of some kind get done. That's one of the reasons he was willing to get involved in trying to get a deal done here and didn't in Seattle. NBA overtures were completely rejected in Seattle. That and the fact that the Maloofs asked for Stern's help and the owners of the Sonics never did.
Even though the circumstances are very different, if the NBA doesn't come up with an arena plan that will work, the Kings will be gone.
There is really no comparison between the situations.
The baseball and football stadia were built with public money deals. And public funding built earlier stadia and arenas. Sacramento has never done a stadium or arena deal.
Stern says all the various parties he's talked to in Sacramento want to see an arena deal of some kind get done. That's one of the reasons he was willing to get involved in trying to get a deal done here and didn't in Seattle. NBA overtures were completely rejected in Seattle. That and the fact that the Maloofs asked for Stern's help and the owners of the Sonics never did.
Even though the circumstances are very different, if the NBA doesn't come up with an arena plan that will work, the Kings will be gone.
There is really no comparison between the situations.
Last edited:
Oh please... Don't try to look for any solace in the fact that Seattle is all tapped out of public cash (new baseball and football stadiums) and Sacramento never financed stadium with public money to this point. What is plainly simple in case of Seattle is that NBA's business model depends on city's building the actual arenas with public money. So, if they will move Sonics out of Seattle after 41 years, 1 NBA title, and from 14th largest media market to OKC (about 4 times smaller market) just because the arena deal is better in OKC, what chance the Kings have of staying in Sacramento without good people of Sacramento ponying up the the dough for the Maloofs to build an arena?
There is this whole really nasty background to the Sonics-2-OKC saga, and anything even remotely similar happening to Kings and I'd quit NBA cold turkey at that very moment.
There is this whole really nasty background to the Sonics-2-OKC saga, and anything even remotely similar happening to Kings and I'd quit NBA cold turkey at that very moment.
I have to agree at least in part, bozz. The Sonics were headed to OKC the minute the ink was dry on the sales contract. They just didn't start packing right away.
BUT I don't think there's that much correlation between what happened there and what might happen in Sacramento because there is a key difference. Seattle has other sports teams and thus the support for the Sonics slowly eroded, especially when the Mariners and Seahawks started moving up in their respective leagues.
BUT I don't think there's that much correlation between what happened there and what might happen in Sacramento because there is a key difference. Seattle has other sports teams and thus the support for the Sonics slowly eroded, especially when the Mariners and Seahawks started moving up in their respective leagues.
The Kings may certainly be moved, but the NBA proposal is supposed to not be reliant on public funding. Stern and company knew that when they took this on. Will a form of bond financing be used? Probably, but it won't have anything to do with the city or county of Sacramento.
Bottom line is, the NBA knows that they have to come up with a different model in Sacramento. They at least see a possibility here, where things had detriorated so severely in Seattle, possibilites were gone. And I feel bad for Sonics fans. Even if the scenarios are very different, we may end up being just as sad as them.
Bottom line is, the NBA knows that they have to come up with a different model in Sacramento. They at least see a possibility here, where things had detriorated so severely in Seattle, possibilites were gone. And I feel bad for Sonics fans. Even if the scenarios are very different, we may end up being just as sad as them.
Last edited:
I may be reverting to ostrich-vision, but I'm more worried about the apparent need for life support by our team right now than anything else. I'll worry about the arena deal when/if the NBA says they can't come up with a proposal.
My fear is that the citizens of Sactown have not been especially supportive of building a new arena either. That is a large part of why Q&R was absolutely crushed. There is way too much "there is nothing wrong with Arco," and "its all about the maloofs profiting" sentiment for me to be at all comfortable with the situation right now.
Unfortunately, there were way too many problems with Q&R and it just wasn't feasible. Even though I want a new arena in Sac (with or without the Kings, preferably with), in the end, I could not have voted for those measures.
At this point all we can do is see how Cal Expo pans out. No other site is financially viable at this point. It's this or........
At this point all we can do is see how Cal Expo pans out. No other site is financially viable at this point. It's this or........