Just curious. What do you think it costs the Kings to broadcast 82 games a year? What do you think their advertising costs are? How much do you think it costs the Kings to fly their team around the country for 41 games? How much do you think it costs to put your team up in hotels for 41 games. I could go on, but you get the point. There's more expense to running a team than just what you've stated. I'm sure the Kings have their own group of attorneys to represent the team. How much do you think that costs?
Well, it's over. Get your goodbyes ready
- Thread starter folsomfella
- Start date
Minor point, but the poster didn't say in-house. Whether they're in-house or hired from a provate firm it costs money.
We shouldn't foget that a great deal of money has been spent by the Maloofs on the original NBA arena proposal and on the one just shot down. As part of the negotiating deal with the city, they took on that burden. Predevelopment costs are not cheap, not even early pre-development costs.
We shouldn't foget that a great deal of money has been spent by the Maloofs on the original NBA arena proposal and on the one just shot down. As part of the negotiating deal with the city, they took on that burden. Predevelopment costs are not cheap, not even early pre-development costs.
Basically being a spoiled brat like the politicians. If they don't want the Kings then there goes my support for anything Sacramento. This town can rot as far as I am concerned.
The Kings is much much more than just the cost per ticket. We have 10000-17000 people that might go out to eat and pump some money into the economy which I assume the politicians don't give a crap about either. These retard politicians are only concerned with getting themselves richer, then moving on to bigger and better teams. They don't give a crap about us and they never will.
The Kings is much much more than just the cost per ticket. We have 10000-17000 people that might go out to eat and pump some money into the economy which I assume the politicians don't give a crap about either. These retard politicians are only concerned with getting themselves richer, then moving on to bigger and better teams. They don't give a crap about us and they never will.
Last edited:
Just because I'm not going to say goodby until the team files the papers, doesn't mean I'm an "optimist." This is looking pretty dismal unless a miracle last minute shot goes in. However, I'm going to try and enjoy the Sacramento[ /U]Kings as long as I can.
If and when papers are filed for a move, I'm going to cry like a baby. I'm not kidding.
I'm close to retirement and the only other thing that will keep me in the Sacramento region will be my son, DIL and granddaughter. If my son and his family move, a not unlikely happenstance, I'll be gone in a heartbeat without the Kings here.
I've lived here over 40 years and long defended this area as my home. I'm tired of the "no progress on anything," ever city. There just is no exciting vision for this city, along with people and a citizenry determined to make it happen.
If and when papers are filed for a move, I'm going to cry like a baby. I'm not kidding.
I'm close to retirement and the only other thing that will keep me in the Sacramento region will be my son, DIL and granddaughter. If my son and his family move, a not unlikely happenstance, I'll be gone in a heartbeat without the Kings here.
I've lived here over 40 years and long defended this area as my home. I'm tired of the "no progress on anything," ever city. There just is no exciting vision for this city, along with people and a citizenry determined to make it happen.
Well I did put travel and lodging which takes care of the flying the team around the country and putting the team up in hotels for 41 games.
Plus when it comes to attorneys, I added that also when I mentioned the 100 or so people employed by the team. They are the team's legal counsel so while they technically aren't team employees, it's more or less what I mean.
Advertising isn't that much so that's one of the miscellaneous items that I talk about.
Plus when it comes to attorneys, I added that also when I mentioned the 100 or so people employed by the team. They are the team's legal counsel so while they technically aren't team employees, it's more or less what I mean.
Advertising isn't that much so that's one of the miscellaneous items that I talk about.
And there's probably even more than that which is why I wrote "miscellaneous items". When you're talking about $50 million player payroll and $32 million from a national tv deal, those SMUD, water, permits and what not expenses are so small to the point where you just chalk it up to miscellaneous.
Forbes had the Kings revenue # at $109 million with a -2.8 loss, meaning that their expenses/operational costs were at $111.8
According to hoopshype, their payroll was $70 million that year, meaning that they paid a small lux tax bill, which would fit in the operational costs as well. Therefore, the payroll was the equivalent of $72 million. Subtracted from $111.8 and you get roughly $40 million so if you add everything up, meaning coaches, employees, insurance, travel, lodging and all the misc. items that you guys are talking about, it comes out to around $40 million a year which more or less answers the first question about how much I think that's all worth.
This year, the payroll is down to $43.5 million. Even the Maloofs admitted on national tv that it's gonna be pretty tough to lose money this year. With a payroll that low, it's virtually impossible to lose money. The problem I have and what the league is trying to fix is to make it so that Kings can have a payroll on par with other teams in the league and still be profitable. While the Kings may be profitable this year, it's tough to compete when you have the lowest payroll in the league. Not saying they won't be good or can't win 40 games but they aren't on an even playing field yet. Hopefully, a lot of that gets taken care in this round of collective bargaining.
Forbes had the Kings revenue # at $109 million with a -2.8 loss, meaning that their expenses/operational costs were at $111.8
According to hoopshype, their payroll was $70 million that year, meaning that they paid a small lux tax bill, which would fit in the operational costs as well. Therefore, the payroll was the equivalent of $72 million. Subtracted from $111.8 and you get roughly $40 million so if you add everything up, meaning coaches, employees, insurance, travel, lodging and all the misc. items that you guys are talking about, it comes out to around $40 million a year which more or less answers the first question about how much I think that's all worth.
This year, the payroll is down to $43.5 million. Even the Maloofs admitted on national tv that it's gonna be pretty tough to lose money this year. With a payroll that low, it's virtually impossible to lose money. The problem I have and what the league is trying to fix is to make it so that Kings can have a payroll on par with other teams in the league and still be profitable. While the Kings may be profitable this year, it's tough to compete when you have the lowest payroll in the league. Not saying they won't be good or can't win 40 games but they aren't on an even playing field yet. Hopefully, a lot of that gets taken care in this round of collective bargaining.
Yes payroll is down, but the other costs remain the same except for the staff they let go. And dont forget ticket sales are lower and suites not filled than back then too are they arent making as much money. And a big issue is not making the playoffs. They bring in the ticket money, consessions etc, but the players are paid by the league. It's a huge bonus for teams that make the playoffs.
Btw, i was meaning to post on this qoute in the article:
But the Cal Expo board members said the North Natomas land is not suitable for the state fair, as it is too small and lacks the visibility of the current State Fair site on Business 80.
Aside from the fact that the Arco site will only be about 55 acres smaller than the proposed reduced cal Expo site (without the 150 million in investment from VM), I find the "visibility" statement kind of strange.
I can see Arco very well from I-5. I don't have to squint or anything. If I was just passing through town and did know any better I would say "hey, what's that big building over there" pointing to Arco. And last time I checked, I-5 is pretty well traveled. Plus, all this talk about traffic. Would it not be easier to get to the fair if it was at Arco.
Very curious statements IMHO.
Exactly. Cal Espo right now is on Business route 80, which is basically local traffic. The major highways for statewide traffic are all closer to Arco: 80, 99 and Interstate 80 (non-business). They all have exits near Arco. That visibility statement was really a crock of BS. Furthermore, the light rail is spposed to eventually be built out to the airport and will pass close to Arco.
The location near the airport is an excellent point. Anyone flying into sacramento from out of town would see the new state fair as one of their initial impressions of sactown. At the current location, people flying into Sac may never see Cal Expo. Even if they did drive by it now, it is pretty easy to miss as there is not much visible from Bus 80.
It makes that statement all the more curious - and I am being polite here.
I listened to an interview with one of the board members. It was a lot of posturing, but I took one key comment that might be tipping their hand. The guy wanted to know why Visionquest would not propose their same deal at the current Cal Expo site and forget the move and convergence plan. I took it as they would love to have that deal on their own land.
.
I'm not sure I get your point. I'm not sure which side your arguing on. You say the problem you have is the league trying to fix it so the Kings can have a payroll on a par with the rest of the team and still remain profitable. You left out the very reason for the fix. Which is to also be equally competitive. You then say they can't be competitive while having the smallest payroll in the league, which is what the league is trying to fix. So I'm confused as to what your actually trying to say. Are you criticizing the league, which seems to be the case in most of your posts, or are you supporting what it is that their trying to accomplish.
The point I was making and making throughout the thread is that the Kings will be profitable this year. Very profitable. My problem isn't with the league though. I'm glad they are trying to fix the problem of competitive balance. What I'm saying is that while the Maloofs will be profitable, they will be profitable at the expense of being able to put a comptetive team on the floor or at least one that is capable of being on par with the rest of the league. I'm hoping for a situation where we can see the team profitable AND be able to compete for a title. But again, I realize that the league is doing their best to get a better collective bargaining agreement in place that will help solve that problem. In fact, my sig is in hopes that the league doesn't go overboard in it's quest to balance things out as I believe that would cost us a season and that's not a good thing.
As far as being critical of the league in most of my posts, you must be thinking of a different poster. I'm about as pro NBA as you can possibly get for NBA message boards, especially this one when you take into account that a good chunk of them can't get over the 2002 debacle. I started a thread on this arena board a few months ago talking about how Stern is doing all he can for Sacramento and I applauded him when a bunch of posters started talking about how he better be after screwing us in 2002 or that he is full of it altogether and doesn't care at all about Sacramento. My counter argument is that if he was really that anti Sacramento, the team would probably be gone by now. I pm'd the mods to get rid of the anti NBA comments and they did.
I rarely post on the game threads because whenever something goes wrong, there are a zillion posters crying fix and how they're done with the league and what not. Bricklayer and I seem to be the only ones who come to the league's defense.
I've blasted Donaghy and his book and again, I get a bunch of hate replies talking about what a great guy he is and how we should feel sorry for him and what not. I suspect it has to do with him subtly hinting that the title should've been the Kings' in 2002.
I could go on and on but trust me, I'm not the anti league guy on this site. You can find a ton of them but it aint' me.
FWIW, I'm one of the few who don't think there will be a lockout. Here's one of the few articles that seem to have the same argument that I do. Unlike most, I think there is a lot more profitability in the league then what the owners want us to believe. I could very well be wrong but here's the article anyways.
http://www.boston.com/sports/basket...t_everyone_is_buying_what_owners_are_selling/
As far as being critical of the league in most of my posts, you must be thinking of a different poster. I'm about as pro NBA as you can possibly get for NBA message boards, especially this one when you take into account that a good chunk of them can't get over the 2002 debacle. I started a thread on this arena board a few months ago talking about how Stern is doing all he can for Sacramento and I applauded him when a bunch of posters started talking about how he better be after screwing us in 2002 or that he is full of it altogether and doesn't care at all about Sacramento. My counter argument is that if he was really that anti Sacramento, the team would probably be gone by now. I pm'd the mods to get rid of the anti NBA comments and they did.
I rarely post on the game threads because whenever something goes wrong, there are a zillion posters crying fix and how they're done with the league and what not. Bricklayer and I seem to be the only ones who come to the league's defense.
I've blasted Donaghy and his book and again, I get a bunch of hate replies talking about what a great guy he is and how we should feel sorry for him and what not. I suspect it has to do with him subtly hinting that the title should've been the Kings' in 2002.
I could go on and on but trust me, I'm not the anti league guy on this site. You can find a ton of them but it aint' me.
FWIW, I'm one of the few who don't think there will be a lockout. Here's one of the few articles that seem to have the same argument that I do. Unlike most, I think there is a lot more profitability in the league then what the owners want us to believe. I could very well be wrong but here's the article anyways.
http://www.boston.com/sports/basket...t_everyone_is_buying_what_owners_are_selling/
For those who think that NBA financial problems are all a smokescreen created for negotiating advantage, I have an article for you. One of the allegedly healthier franchises, GSW, is 4 years/$10M behind on its rent. http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16287739
Former owner Chris Cohan has been in court with the city of Oakland for the last 10 years regarding the rent issue. Paying the $10 million isn't the problem. They just think that they have a case not to. If they have to pay it, they will. They just want to exercise all of their legal options before doing so.
Yeah, but 6 years into it, he lost in court, and had to pay the city a pile of back fees. He hasn't paid anything since then (2006).
You can look at it as "exercising their legal options," but one could also say that they absolutely refuse to pay any rent until presented with a court order to do so. It's not as if they took the city to arbitration or court to try to change or fix anything, they just refused to pay. Personally, I can't put a pretty face on that. If I were a GSW fan, I'd be disgusted.
You can look at it as "exercising their legal options," but one could also say that they absolutely refuse to pay any rent until presented with a court order to do so. It's not as if they took the city to arbitration or court to try to change or fix anything, they just refused to pay. Personally, I can't put a pretty face on that. If I were a GSW fan, I'd be disgusted.
This is true but it says more about what a sleeze Cohan is/was as opposed to being symbollic of the league's financial woes or lack thereof.
Cohan owed/owes the IRS more than $100 million in back taxes and was trying to hold out as long as possible on paying the back rent. He was legally able to hold out long enough to the point where he sold the team and now is under the impression that he can just let new ownership inherit the rent debt. What the story doesn't mention is that Cohan may still be on the hook for the $10.7 million. All it says is that they don't know if it's Cohan or the new guys trying to get the SF court to overturn the ruling. If it's Cohan, then that would seem to suggest that there's language in the sale contract that doesn't make it clear that the new guys have to inherit the debt and that Cohan is still on the hook.
At the end of the day, they'll pay the $10.7 million if they have to and considering they were able to afford $450 million for the team, that's a drop in the bucket but there's no reason to pay it if they don't have to. That's where the SF judge comes in.
Yes, there are teams with financial problems in the league and it's not as rosey as my posts make it seem to be but as far as the Warriors are concerned, this whole mess is completely on Cohan and his cheap ways. The W's could be the most profitable team in the league but if there is any loophole whatsoever that he thinks he can take advantage of, he will. This is the same clown that took the best man in his wedding to court and now no longer speaks to him.
Cohan owed/owes the IRS more than $100 million in back taxes and was trying to hold out as long as possible on paying the back rent. He was legally able to hold out long enough to the point where he sold the team and now is under the impression that he can just let new ownership inherit the rent debt. What the story doesn't mention is that Cohan may still be on the hook for the $10.7 million. All it says is that they don't know if it's Cohan or the new guys trying to get the SF court to overturn the ruling. If it's Cohan, then that would seem to suggest that there's language in the sale contract that doesn't make it clear that the new guys have to inherit the debt and that Cohan is still on the hook.
At the end of the day, they'll pay the $10.7 million if they have to and considering they were able to afford $450 million for the team, that's a drop in the bucket but there's no reason to pay it if they don't have to. That's where the SF judge comes in.
Yes, there are teams with financial problems in the league and it's not as rosey as my posts make it seem to be but as far as the Warriors are concerned, this whole mess is completely on Cohan and his cheap ways. The W's could be the most profitable team in the league but if there is any loophole whatsoever that he thinks he can take advantage of, he will. This is the same clown that took the best man in his wedding to court and now no longer speaks to him.
Exactly why they won't get it. It would be on their land with restrictions and ultimately at the mercy of the board and the legislature. The best Visionquest could do would be to lease the land.
Why put up with the board's control and the legislature looming, when you can develop something far more profitable and without the restrictions on your own piece of land? Even if Visionquest were to only lease the land, it would undoubetedly be with limited restrictions compared to the Cal Expo site. It would be a no brainer choice for me.
Why put up with the board's control and the legislature looming, when you can develop something far more profitable and without the restrictions on your own piece of land? Even if Visionquest were to only lease the land, it would undoubetedly be with limited restrictions compared to the Cal Expo site. It would be a no brainer choice for me.
Last edited:
Cohan's sleeze is well documented. He sues people (including friends who are now former friends) whenever convenient and avoids paying taxes until the IRS forces him to. It's an ongoing history with him.
Bottom line is this is another situation where he just doesn't want to pay. If you don't think that's rationale, well now you have some insight into how Chris Cohan thinks the world should work for him. It wouldn't surprise me to see Cohan do everything he can to have the new incoming owners foot the bill for arena rent. He's just that kind of guy.
Bottom line is this is another situation where he just doesn't want to pay. If you don't think that's rationale, well now you have some insight into how Chris Cohan thinks the world should work for him. It wouldn't surprise me to see Cohan do everything he can to have the new incoming owners foot the bill for arena rent. He's just that kind of guy.
This is what I'm thinking. The article mentions that they aren't sure if it's Cohan or the new owners trying to get the SF judge to overturn the original ruling. I'm curious as to how things were worded in the sale transaction. I wouldn't put it past Cohan to try and leave the rent problem to the new owners without letting them know beforehand.