just saw on the news that there is a march 1st deadline for the maloofs to file relocation papers. other details about how many days it would take for everything to move through but i missed the specifics. del rogers has an interview with them at 6pm tomorrow, but bottom line is if theyre going to move or stay for "next season", we will know by march 1st
KCRA update
- Thread starter jon e
- Start date
Not sure why this is news. Everyone knows the deadline to file for relocation is March 1st, every year. Will the Maloofs file? Maybe yes, maybe no. Thought it could have happened last year. Until there' a realistic arena proposal, this will be a date to watch. Since there still isn't any realistic, financially viable arena plan, of course they could file this year, but we've known that for a long time.
The one update I saw, for which I can find no link, was a very short report on KOVR, during the 6 o'clock news on Sunday night, that Joe Maloof said, "We can no longer comment on the arena". I may not have that quote exactly correct.
But I don't like it when the Maloofs do that. What's the City supposed to do, GUESS what the Maloofs want to do? I know there's a debate on this specific point, and both sides make reasonable arguments, but I think it's essential that the Maloofs take a leading role in defining the arena. In my opinion, the Maloofs need to be more involved.
I don't want to get into the entire history of the Maloof family's bad PR moves, but let's face it, there have been some blunders (storming out of meetings, the abandonment of Q&R, the burger ad, Power Balance, etc.). The public face of the Maloof organization has definitely left itself open for criticism.
"We can no longer comment on the arena" seems like fodder for the critics to me.
But I don't like it when the Maloofs do that. What's the City supposed to do, GUESS what the Maloofs want to do? I know there's a debate on this specific point, and both sides make reasonable arguments, but I think it's essential that the Maloofs take a leading role in defining the arena. In my opinion, the Maloofs need to be more involved.
I don't want to get into the entire history of the Maloof family's bad PR moves, but let's face it, there have been some blunders (storming out of meetings, the abandonment of Q&R, the burger ad, Power Balance, etc.). The public face of the Maloof organization has definitely left itself open for criticism.
"We can no longer comment on the arena" seems like fodder for the critics to me.
It has been suggested that this coming year would be a great time to file for relocation if it was believed that a long work stoppage was inevitable.
If the Kings were to file for relocation do they have to also name their destination or can/could they do it while still attempting to negotiate this last attempt at an arena deal downtown?
If the Kings were to file for relocation do they have to also name their destination or can/could they do it while still attempting to negotiate this last attempt at an arena deal downtown?
If they file in March. It's over. They will move after this season. It would just throw a major wrench into any negoitiations for the arena and everyone would walk away. Or they can sit on this and see if the offers improve over the next year or the current arena proposals flesh out. If the best offer out there is for Anaheim and a loan of $100 million from the owner of the Ducks to move, then I would pass on that if I were the Maloofs. The Kings aren't losing money here and next season is a lockout anyway so no downside to staying put a year longer. So waiting a year is a good thing for them on many levels.
Yep, I was going to say the same thing. Plus, until the city picks a winner, and I'm using that word loosely, I don't think its appropiate for the Maloofs to say anything. I know that talks could be taking place in privite between the Maloof's and some city with an arena that needs a team. So its possible that they could have a destination and we wouldn't know about it. But I find that hard to believe in this world of instant news via the internet and wiki leaks. And if they don't yet have a destination, I would find it hard to believe they would file. Unless I'm missing something.
When you look at the 100 million dollar loan from Anaheim, and then figure out what it would cost the Maloofs to move, which would include paying off what they owe the city, it doesn't look like such a good deal. Especially when the Maloofs are tightening all their purse strings. I only see two easy answers for the Maloof's. One of the arena deals actually comes to pass, with the financing figured out. Or they sell a huge chunk of the team to another party. Probably giving up majority ownership. In which case that party will probably move the team elsewhere. Unless the Maloofs stipulate that the new owner has to keep the team in sacramento as part of the deal. Wishful thinking on my part.
When you look at the 100 million dollar loan from Anaheim, and then figure out what it would cost the Maloofs to move, which would include paying off what they owe the city, it doesn't look like such a good deal. Especially when the Maloofs are tightening all their purse strings. I only see two easy answers for the Maloof's. One of the arena deals actually comes to pass, with the financing figured out. Or they sell a huge chunk of the team to another party. Probably giving up majority ownership. In which case that party will probably move the team elsewhere. Unless the Maloofs stipulate that the new owner has to keep the team in sacramento as part of the deal. Wishful thinking on my part.
I see no point in the Maloofs getting involved at this point. They have no offer on the table to look at. Its all up to the city right now.
Besides, the Maloofs were just used as whipping boys by the naysayers when they were active before, no matter what they said or did. Who needs to put up with that crap on a daily basis? The best thing they did was step back and let the NBA do the talking.
IF the city can pick a developer and IF that developer can negotiate successfully with the Maloofs and IF they can come up with a viable financing scenario acceptable to the city councilall around. then will be the time for the organization to speak up.
The Maloofs have said they need a new arena at some point and soon. What else is there to say?
Besides, the Maloofs were just used as whipping boys by the naysayers when they were active before, no matter what they said or did. Who needs to put up with that crap on a daily basis? The best thing they did was step back and let the NBA do the talking.
IF the city can pick a developer and IF that developer can negotiate successfully with the Maloofs and IF they can come up with a viable financing scenario acceptable to the city councilall around. then will be the time for the organization to speak up.
The Maloofs have said they need a new arena at some point and soon. What else is there to say?
Last edited:
I think the best thing going for Sac at this point in time, is the lack of viabe options for the Maloofs. I don't blame them if they do ultimately decide to move, because what they have is a partnership with the city, and the city IMO hasn't lived up to its end of the bargain.
Going back to the lack of options, on top of a possible relocation fee, paying rights in the anahiem market(possibly), the current loan with the city, and the risk of not knowing if fans in another market will even fill up the arena, are all in the fans favor at this time. KC, Seattle, Anahiem, and San Jose have been the cities mentioned. Seattle doesn't have an arena. Not sure KC has that great of a fan base compared to Sac when things are going well, or is the type of market the Maloofs would want to move to. Anahiem I hear often, but I don't see them having the need fanbase to make a move worth doing in the long run, and the Maloofs would possibly have to pay both the Lakers/Clippers territorial rights. I live in the Bay Area, and San Jose doesn't seem like an upgrade to me. I could see it working, but competing with the bay area isn't a smart longterm move either IMO. I just don't see the Maloofs filing for relocation with the options they currently have.
Nonw of those cities look like good options to me. Seattle would be great for another nba franchise, but they need an arena. Until a "sexier", more viable market comes to the table, and maybe it has and we don't know, I see the Maloofs options as pretty limited. Not sure what the arena situation is like in Vancouver, but I think it would be scary if Canada decides it wants a 2nd nba team again, and vancouver becomes an option. In general, and in this economy, I don't see many cities with the potential fanbase needed to support an nba franchise, which don't already have a team.
Going back to the lack of options, on top of a possible relocation fee, paying rights in the anahiem market(possibly), the current loan with the city, and the risk of not knowing if fans in another market will even fill up the arena, are all in the fans favor at this time. KC, Seattle, Anahiem, and San Jose have been the cities mentioned. Seattle doesn't have an arena. Not sure KC has that great of a fan base compared to Sac when things are going well, or is the type of market the Maloofs would want to move to. Anahiem I hear often, but I don't see them having the need fanbase to make a move worth doing in the long run, and the Maloofs would possibly have to pay both the Lakers/Clippers territorial rights. I live in the Bay Area, and San Jose doesn't seem like an upgrade to me. I could see it working, but competing with the bay area isn't a smart longterm move either IMO. I just don't see the Maloofs filing for relocation with the options they currently have.
Nonw of those cities look like good options to me. Seattle would be great for another nba franchise, but they need an arena. Until a "sexier", more viable market comes to the table, and maybe it has and we don't know, I see the Maloofs options as pretty limited. Not sure what the arena situation is like in Vancouver, but I think it would be scary if Canada decides it wants a 2nd nba team again, and vancouver becomes an option. In general, and in this economy, I don't see many cities with the potential fanbase needed to support an nba franchise, which don't already have a team.
It goes both ways - if you file anticipating the lockout then the "lost" season of a team in transit is scaled back a bit because the whole league's season is lost and you aren't paying player salaries.
On the other hand the huge boost that you'd get with a move may be hurt by the lockout. It might also diminish the deals that other cities are offering. I think the $100 million dollar loan deal for an Anaheim move is a joke considering that some poor city with no team in any sport and an empty arena will probably pay through the tooth to get a pro sports franchise to move rather than just a loan that barely covers relocation expenses and looks like a set up for a future hostile takeover. But nobody is going to do that until the league is stable again.
On the other hand the huge boost that you'd get with a move may be hurt by the lockout. It might also diminish the deals that other cities are offering. I think the $100 million dollar loan deal for an Anaheim move is a joke considering that some poor city with no team in any sport and an empty arena will probably pay through the tooth to get a pro sports franchise to move rather than just a loan that barely covers relocation expenses and looks like a set up for a future hostile takeover. But nobody is going to do that until the league is stable again.
Yeah but there are cities out there with vacant arenas that will likely pay some or all of the relocation expenses to get the team in their arena and then grant better terms for the arena lease, including some control of the arena operations where the profits are. Anaheim has all that and Samueli is just looking for another tenant to line his pockets (and maybe weasel away control of the team down the road).
Its about $10 mil early termination fee + $30mil relocation fee with the league. As far as we know to date, there is suppose to be no territorial fee. So they are looking at $40-$45 million instead of $120 million range some people were reporting. Big difference. It just comes down to how much are they really making or losing in Sac and how much do they anticipate making in another city.
There really has never been a "partnership" with the city, in the truest sense. The kings were purchased by a local ownerhsip group who also paid for both arenas. When I say "paid," I mean mostly financed from private lenders. The city gave the prior owners a loan, because they were on the verge of bankruptcy at that point. The city contributed nothing to actually building Arco I or Arco II.
I keep hearing people on the anti-arena side saying the city has already paid for two arenas. In effect, this may be true, but that was not what the loan was actually for. If the city had partnered on the arenas, then the prior owners might not have been pushed to the brink of bankruptcy. Who knows. They still ended up having to sell majority interest.
Also, Peter Gibbons is right. They can pay off the city, but they'll still owe that money to someone, likely at a better interest rate, though. However, if they get a better deal and a decent arena, then it's worth it in the long run. The problem with Arco is one of enough annual cash flow to be competitive in the NBA.
I keep hearing people on the anti-arena side saying the city has already paid for two arenas. In effect, this may be true, but that was not what the loan was actually for. If the city had partnered on the arenas, then the prior owners might not have been pushed to the brink of bankruptcy. Who knows. They still ended up having to sell majority interest.
Also, Peter Gibbons is right. They can pay off the city, but they'll still owe that money to someone, likely at a better interest rate, though. However, if they get a better deal and a decent arena, then it's worth it in the long run. The problem with Arco is one of enough annual cash flow to be competitive in the NBA.
Last edited: