Maloof Family Will Consider Moving Kings

#31
Actually ive been following this since day 1 and neither the city or the maloofs have even broached the subject of putting it out next to the current arena. I know it not the prime site but are we gonna ignore the best site we have to date? I dont care if we have to revisit the arena deal in 5-10 years. At least the kings will still be here!! At the rate we're going now they're gone in 2 years max.
 

Capt. Factorial

ceterum censeo delendum esse Argentum
Staff member
#33
Actually ive been following this since day 1 and neither the city or the maloofs have even broached the subject of putting it out next to the current arena. I know it not the prime site but are we gonna ignore the best site we have to date? I dont care if we have to revisit the arena deal in 5-10 years. At least the kings will still be here!! At the rate we're going now they're gone in 2 years max.
Don't be silly. We've already gone through two arenas with "short" lifespans. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is putting up a third temporary arena. If an arena gets done, it will be done so that it has an expected lifetime of at minimum 30 years.

And while you claim that neither the city nor the Maloofs has broached the idea of putting an arena on the current ARCO land...neither the city nor the Maloofs are putting forth the proposals in the first place. One of the four proposals under consideration (The Natomas-ESC group) in fact proposes to build on land adjacent to ARCO. From looking at the proposals, I think it's one of the more fleshed out ones and does have a chance.
 

Capt. Factorial

ceterum censeo delendum esse Argentum
Staff member
#34
What the kings and the city are going through now is mirroring what happened in Seattle. That didnt turn out well.
It doesnt look good folks. Enjoy them while we have them.
Well, instead of just hiding away and waiting for the inevitable, go out and do something. Read up on the proposals. Go to the City Council meeting on the 25th. Tell your friends you support an arena being built, and tell them you support using public money to build one (if you do). Encourage them to consider the costs of not having an arena in town. Get public awareness up, drum up support, and maybe we can actually get this done.

Do something. Do anything. Just don't sit there on your hands and mope!
 

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#35
What the kings and the city are going through now is mirroring what happened in Seattle. That didnt turn out well.
It doesnt look good folks. Enjoy them while we have them.
Well except that Seattle could afford to lose the Sonics, Sacramento can't. Seattle has 2 other major sports teams plus MLS which is setting records (30k per game). Seattle has major universities and Microsoft bringing an influx of young talented people in the area and keeping them there. If the Kings leave well there goes the main attraction. This will have serious ramifications that go well beyond basketball and even beyond what else goes on the other 320 odd days and nights in the facility. It will set the perception of the city back 25 years.
 
#36
Actually ive been following this since day 1 and neither the city or the maloofs have even broached the subject of putting it out next to the current arena. I know it not the prime site but are we gonna ignore the best site we have to date? I dont care if we have to revisit the arena deal in 5-10 years. At least the kings will still be here!! At the rate we're going now they're gone in 2 years max.
That is simply not true. It was considered, but the problem was how to pay for it, as has always been true. Then the city decided it would be nice to jump start the railyards with an arena. The Maloofs wouldn't have cared where it was built as long they could get some public financing help.

Essentially its the city that's been pushing for the Railyards. And as the UC Davis report indicated,a properly located downtown arena can reviltalize an area economically. That would be money in the bank for the city. A revitalized new area would bring in plenty of revenue to a city that doesn't have much relative to newer areas, like Rosevill with the Galleria and all the businesses aroud the Galleria.
 
#37
We knew the Maloofs would do this. They had to. I've said several times I would have.
That should read, we pretty much all knew they'd have to do this if they couldn't get any public help with an arena.

But I'm not sure a site that calls itself "kingsfans" quite has its finger on the public's pulse, and for this, I blame the Maloofs. They've done a terrible job of selling this.
I understand perfectly well what the public "pulse" is. I don't blame the Maloofs. I blame people in the public and even our local newspaper who keep spouting misleading or wrong information or reporting rumors like they're facts. I'm not just a kingsfan member. I'm a decades-long reasident of the region.

Right now, your average resident sees that Arco Arena is a privately-held facility, and that the Maloofs are trying to turn this into, in effect, public property.
Under the last proposal, it wouild have indeed been owned by the public.
They see this as government involvement where no government is actually required.
As far as I'm concerned a lot of the public are completly misinformed on the subject and on public subsidies, in general, since the city, county and state and feds give billions out in public subsidies to private businesses every year and have done so for a very long time. (My present employer included) To private persons, too. FHA home loans and the mortagage interest deduction are a public subsidy to private persons.

Remember, 80% of us voted against Q&R. Of those who voted on Q&R and who post at fan forums, I'd bet a majority voted against Q&R, too. The terms in that lease proposal were ridiculous.
The Stern and the Maloofs backed off on that deal well before the election, when Thomas spilled to beans to them that the city had lied to them about infrastructure funding availability.

So maybe it's just time the Maloofs picked 3 problems with the current arena and fixed them, quite publicly ("See? Now athletes can take hot showers!"), and at the same time said, "You have 3 years to figure this out, and we pledge 20%".
That is simply a wrong-headed way to go. It would be like saying you'll put a new roof on your house that just got flooded. No one, the Maloofs or otherwise should put money into a building that's obsolete and in need of replacement. They're going to need every dime of that money for a new building. Putting money into Arco anymore other than for simple upkeep is like flushing money down the toilet.

And we don't have 3 years. We've already had eleven and the consultants reports said Arco was near economic obsolescence several years ago. Personally, I think the Maloofs have been extrememly patient.

And yes, by the way, with a project of this size, even if a vote is not legally required, I think they should have one anyway. We have layoffs, we have deficits, we have streets falling apart, and spending $300M-$600M is, in fact, an optional expense. Not asking the taxpayers would be deceitful and disrespectful. Not laying out the risks (suppose the tax revenue is not as expected; then what? I bet Cincinnati wishes they had pressed that point harder) is deceitful and disrespectful.
Staging a vote is very expensive. Not only that but some funds can't be spent on some of the things you pointed out. Redevelopment funds, for example can't be spent on those things, except in a defined redevelopment area..

There will be open meetings to discuss the proposal, including funding, at the point that they actually have a proposal to lay out before the public. Which may not happen, actually. As usual the report to the council, available to be viewed by anyone, will lay out the negatives and positives as well as expected cost. The public is free to attend any and all meetings to express their opinion. If they can't attend they are free to submit written comments. Voting is not the only citizen right/duty. Not to mention the paltry numbers of people that bother to vote. Makes it easy for a comminted minoirty group to swing a vote.

The Maloofs were crazy to not press the "We're considering relocating" button way sooner. They pressed it too late, if you ask me. They activated the Drakes after they missed the corner and drove off the cliff.

That's all I got for now.
Since so many people have been accusing them for years of not wanting to stay in Sacramento and really wanting any arena deal to fail so they'd have an excuse to leave, I think that would have been a huge public gaffe. And they still haven't actually said that.
 
Last edited:
#38
Larry Ellison supposedly put in a bid for the Hornets after missing out on the Warriors. He bid $350 million and the NBA bought it for $300 mil. The reason is Ellison wants to buy and then move the team to San Jose, much closer to his home base. If he buys the Kings, he would do the same. Also I don't think the Maloofs are going to sell unless the have no other choice on the money situation.
The Maloofs just went on record during tonight's Kings game they will not sell the team or any portion of it. Let's put that ugly rumor to rest.
 
#40
The Maloofs just went on record during tonight's Kings game they will not sell the team or any portion of it. Let's put that ugly rumor to rest.
Yes, but a move is clearly being considered. He reiterated that the Maloofs are business people and they will consider all alternatives available to imcrease the financial viability of the franchise. He said the Maloofs have tried for 11 years to get a new arena and the prior owner tried for 3 years. That's 14 years of trying to get an arena deal. They are obviously thinking of a move. I take the statements as the beginning of preparing the fans for the Kings leaving town. They may already know where they're going. Guess we'll know March 1st.

The truth is, none of the current proposals has any certain financing that will make them pencil. That's only problem there's been all along and it persists. I won't give up my faint hope until an announcement is made, but the "Sacramento" Kings are on life support.
 
#42
This is the melarky and part of the myth that keeps people in Sacramento from realizing a new arena is needed.

The city consulted engineers regarding that possibility a long time ago. They also had consultants analyze the existing Arco. I've dug up those city reports before, but I'm not going to do it anymore, because evertyone just ignores them. It's like beating my head against a brick wall.

We're are not talking about a super-duper arena and its not just the Maloofs or the NBA. Remember, the NCAA doesn't even find it acceptable for a regional BB tournament. The Maloofs don't even want many more seats than the existing arena. They do need better seating and more lluxury boxes. Not many luxury boxes, but maybe the same as in San Antonio, a city similar to Sacramento in market size.

However, at least two concourses are needed (upper and lower) to ease ingress and egress. I can't imagine a full arena having a disaster stike without having countless people trampled to death in the panicked exodus. (I have to think the current arena practically violates fire code.) They need more kitchen space, a larger marshalling area, more loading docks, better locker rooms, more room for concessions, more restrooms, new an better ice-making equipment and a whole long list identified in the reports as inadequate.

The engineers examined Arco thoroughly and determined that the existing foundation could not support the the necessary expansion to make Arco a modern, viable arena for sports and entertainment. Foundations are designed to support a certain load. Arco was cheaply built. To "remodel" to the standards needed, you'd have to even tear out the foundation. It would almost assuredly take more money to rehab the existing arena structure, than to build a new one from the foundation up. (I work in the area of financing contstruction and rehabilitation. Believe me, I've seen rehab cost more than brand new.)

Next, the city has had at least two consultants examine Arco for viability more or less as it is, with no expansion. The report came back and listed all the things that the current Arco lacks (my list above was part of it). They concluded that Arco was near the to the end of economic viability. It may not be structurally falling down, but their conclusion was that it would soon be economically obsolete.

So rehab into an economically viable arena was not in the picture anymore. That's why, although there has been proposals to build on the same site, the idea of rehabbing the existing building has been out of the picture since those reorts were prepared.

The Palace of Auburn Hills was built the same year as Arco, It is still fine, becasue they could remodel it. However, the Palace was built at a cost of $80 million, while Arco was built for $40 million. The owners bought the team and built two arenas. Neither Arco was really built with a long term future in the plans. The push for a new arena in Sacramento was started before the Maloofs became owners of the team. I guess they never figured it would be a near impossible task.

Finally, we're not talking about an arena just for basketball, whatever some of the naysayers want to believe. Many of the needs cited are needs for large touring entertainment shows. That's the reason for things like a larger marshalling area, more loading docks, better ice-making equipment, etc. That's why some large shows are just not coming to Arco anymore.

So the whole issue of trying to remodel the current arena has benn very thoroughly reviewed by multiple engineers and consultants. If you still want to call it melarkey, then fine. You must have knowledge that those engineers and consultants don't have for their multiple reports on the subject. You should share it with the city.

Of course, Arco was cheaply built. The owners bought the team and paid to build two arenas with no public financing at all. Guess what, it wasn't a sustainble situation, financially. The team was so bad, they couldn't charge too much for tickets, but they couldn't cover their debt load and expenses either. They were on the verge of bankruptcy when Mayor Serna stepped in an gave the owners that $70 million dollars, plus a loan to pay interest on the loan. But the owners have been trying to get a new arena ever since and still eventually got out by selling a large share to the Maloofs.

That loan gave us a more then 10 year reprieve from losing the Kings and we were lucky that the Maloofs stepped in and didn't want to move the Kings from Sacramento. Our luck has just about run out.
Excellent stuff. You hit the nail on the head with your comments.
 

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#43
considering they're most likely broke then this is actually bad for us right?
All we really know is that the Palms is a mess. The Kings are a separate entity. As are the Maloofs other holdings. They don't pay basketball salaries out of their stock portfolio or money the casino takes in. There are conflicting reports on if the Kings are currently turning a profit or running a loss. We do know that most NBA team run a loss on paper but we don't exactly know to what extent that is true vs. the corporations that hold them cooking the books because they are all privately held. Everything we read and think we know is still colored by some amount of speculation.
 
#44
Actually, the Maloofs have said they are running to about break even on the franchise. Of course, that could be considered not so good as we are down to the lowest payroll in the league (I think). Hard to field a legitimate playoff team, let alone a contender on such a low payroll. I'll give them credit for doing everything they can think of to keep the team afloat, though.If only they could get an arena.
 
#45
Larry Ellison supposedly put in a bid for the Hornets after missing out on the Warriors. He bid $350 million and the NBA bought it for $300 mil. The reason is Ellison wants to buy and then move the team to San Jose, much closer to his home base. If he buys the Kings, he would do the same. Also I don't think the Maloofs are going to sell unless the have no other choice on the money situation.
id much rather have them in san jose then anaheim or vegas. at least they would still be in norcal and under an owner with billions. but like others have said, maloofs arent planning on selling them. i just brought ellison up as someone i wouldnt mind buying IF they were to sell. not trying to start any rumors
 
#46
Gavin Maloof reitereated last night that the family has no intention of selling the team. The team is not for sale.

Would they consider a move to a city with an acceptable arena deal? That's a whole other quetion. I'm not so sure the latest is just what we know has be going on for some time. The Maloofs will listen to any offer of an arena deal, whether its in Sacramento or elsewhere, because as Joe said, they are business people. Business people will listen to offers realted to their business all the time. Doesn't mean the Maloofs have heard an offer they really like, yet. We are running out of time, though. Fourteen years is a long time to try and get an arena deal here in Sac.
 
Last edited: