How do they go from supposedly wanting to stay in Sacramento to wanting out at any cost? http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/27784843
Maloofs say they're willing to pay the two L.A. teams whatever it takes to relocte
- Thread starter RookieOfTheDay
- Start date
Yeah they're clearly dishonest. That's a given. What i don't get though is why anyone would pay over a hundred million dollars (paying off the Sacramento loan and paying the NBA, Lakers, and Clippers) just so they can make ten or twenty million more on a TV deal. It doesn't even add up. There has to be more incentive that we don't know about if they're willing to pay such a high toll to move. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some back room deal between The Magoofs, Stern, and whatever that vulture that owns the Ducks name is.
maybe the next move is getting the clips out of la? it makes sense to have two teams in LA seeing as how profitable the clippers have been, but stern might want to force the clippers to a new market with an owner committed to winning. putting a team in sterling's back yard might just be the only way to make him scared that his free ride is going to come to an end and sell.
Hmm, I dont think the Clips and Lakers care how much the Maloofs will pay them. They wont be able to make up a potential loss if the Kings do steal their audience and if they dont then the Maloofs will go bankrupt/not get any ratings after paying all that money. Cant believe Joe and Gavin are doing this **** to us though, this is a knife in everyone in Sac's back. This is bs.
I wouldn't be taking what the Daily New York News is reporting as they are notorious for writing crap that never even close to the mark especially with the dribble that they always come up with "sources close to the...".
How can people believe that the Maloofs will pay anything is takes?! There is a limit to everything. If Lakers and Clippers wanted $100 million each, there is no way the Maloofs would pay that. For $300 million they could buy a new team in a market that has the arena.
Secondly, the $30million relocation fee is NOT mandatory as they suggest. Its at the disgression of the NBA board of governors. They could pay up to $30 million or nothing at all!
Yet another speculative piece that people are jumping on. Its certainly looks like the chances of us moving to Anaheim is increasing but to say at any cost is absolutely laughable. How can owners that are apparently in financial trouble be willing to pay "any cost" to move. Thats just bull**** by a gutter jounalist who works for one of the worst papers around, trying to create more tension between the team and the city.
How can people believe that the Maloofs will pay anything is takes?! There is a limit to everything. If Lakers and Clippers wanted $100 million each, there is no way the Maloofs would pay that. For $300 million they could buy a new team in a market that has the arena.
Secondly, the $30million relocation fee is NOT mandatory as they suggest. Its at the disgression of the NBA board of governors. They could pay up to $30 million or nothing at all!
Yet another speculative piece that people are jumping on. Its certainly looks like the chances of us moving to Anaheim is increasing but to say at any cost is absolutely laughable. How can owners that are apparently in financial trouble be willing to pay "any cost" to move. Thats just bull**** by a gutter jounalist who works for one of the worst papers around, trying to create more tension between the team and the city.
This whole thing is just stupid. Long-term, it's in the best interest of the NBA to get a world-class arena in Sacramento. Even if you double-up the top media market (NY, LA, Chi, Bay Area) you still want a team in Sacramento, given its size and dedicated fan base. The NBA should put more time and money into getting a new arena here, not alienating one good market while cannibalizing another.
The Ducks officials have reportedly offered a $100 million loan that could make it feasible to make the move now, with approximately $70 million being used to pay the city of Sacramento back for the Arco Arena loan and the remaining $30 million expected to be used for relocation fees. A Kings official, however, said on Monday that the report was "not accurate."
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/21/another-sign-points-to-kings-desire-to-leave-sacramento/
Was the $100 million loan not accurate? Was the $30 million part not accurate? Your guess is as good as mine.
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/21/another-sign-points-to-kings-desire-to-leave-sacramento/
Was the $100 million loan not accurate? Was the $30 million part not accurate? Your guess is as good as mine.
I think you're giving Sacramento a little too much credit. I want the team to stay because I am a Sacramento native, but it makes no sense for any pro sports team to ever be in Sacramento. If it did, the Kings leaving wouldn't be such a big deal because we would have a MLB, NFL (or NHL for that matter) team also.
They could almost build a new arena for 300 mil. The Maloofs don't have that kind of money, and at this point, I doubt the NBA Board of Governors let's the Kings move to Anaheim. It doesn't make sense for the league to have three teams in Southern California, meanwhile burning one of the best fanbases in the NBA. Stern knows that if the Kings bolt, another team won't be as successful in Sacramento if another team were to ever come here.
Where do people keep getting these rediculous numbers for a TV contract? The Clippers get $12.5/year. The Kings currently get $9.5/year. I've gone over how TV advertising dollars works. They wont get more than the Clippers. They would be going up against the Lakers/Clippers/Hockey Kings just about every game in the same time slot.
Where did you get the 9 a year figure? I'm not saying it's wrong, but it doesn't seem right. If I recall, the Maloofs, during they good times, entered into a deal with Comcast where they buy the airtime, sell their own ads, and take the profit/risk. I'm sure at one point, they were making 9 a year ... but ratings are way way down over the past few years, which lowers what you can charge for ads. Which is why you see a lot of ads for Arco events, the Palms, and Wellsfargo (I'm sure they pay for them, but since the Maloofs are a MAJOR share holder, I'd bet they get a rate.) I'd be shocked if there was a story that says, in 2011 they will make 9.5 million from their TV deal.
Whereas going to Fox would give them a set contract where they get money for games. At this point, its probably not only a bigger check but a steady check, and when you have cashflow issues that matters.
Also, while you are correct on Clippers v. Kings on ratings/headcount (which drives the dollars), don't forget that that, generally speaking, the OC is a very weathly market. Lots of money in LA of course, but its a mirco market that will help offset a smaller headcout. I think the Clippers deal will probably remain bigger, but the Kings can sell ads down there and Fox knows it.
Whereas going to Fox would give them a set contract where they get money for games. At this point, its probably not only a bigger check but a steady check, and when you have cashflow issues that matters.
Also, while you are correct on Clippers v. Kings on ratings/headcount (which drives the dollars), don't forget that that, generally speaking, the OC is a very weathly market. Lots of money in LA of course, but its a mirco market that will help offset a smaller headcout. I think the Clippers deal will probably remain bigger, but the Kings can sell ads down there and Fox knows it.
A statement of fact! And, we don't have one. As to the article, just who are their sources. It starts with, "A few weeks back". Few is defined as at least three. They can't even get that right. They asked for an extension just over a week ago. Who are their sources? I thought the Kings were told not to say anything to anyone about the suppossed move.
If it wasn't the New York Daily News that was the source of this info, I'd give it more credence. I'm not saying its inaccurate, but they have a history of writing half truths. For instance. A reporter could have asked someone close to the Maloofs about the Lakers and the Clippers opposing a Kings move into their territory. His reply could have been." Well, if we think its the right deal, and in the best long term interest of the team, then we might be willing to pay whatever it takes to get the deal done." With the New York Daily News, all you would have gotten out of that reply is, " Maloofs willing to pay whatever it takes to move the team to Anaheim".
Not saying thats the case. Its just that they have a history of that type of journalism.
If it wasn't the New York Daily News that was the source of this info, I'd give it more credence. I'm not saying its inaccurate, but they have a history of writing half truths. For instance. A reporter could have asked someone close to the Maloofs about the Lakers and the Clippers opposing a Kings move into their territory. His reply could have been." Well, if we think its the right deal, and in the best long term interest of the team, then we might be willing to pay whatever it takes to get the deal done." With the New York Daily News, all you would have gotten out of that reply is, " Maloofs willing to pay whatever it takes to move the team to Anaheim".
Not saying thats the case. Its just that they have a history of that type of journalism.
Hey we finally have MLS and we're quite excited about it! Should sell out every game at around 20k. The Portland - Seattle - Vancouver rivalry is expected to draw big attention to the league this year.
The Blazers actually actively try to keep other teams out of the market - we lost our AAA baseball team ostensibly because the MLS team displaced it from a shared venue but the Blazers fought tooth and nail to keep a minor league park from being built in the Rose Quarter and so the city lost federal dollars earmarked as "spectator funding" (very curious if Sacramento has/had such a thing available, it doesn't amount to much when it comes to building an NBA level arena but it was still significant).
And Portland could have potentially had an NFL team in the late 60s but the city voted to kill the stadium project. Now I love the NFL but I'm ok with that because it would have killed a lot of our smaller city charm, made a heavily congested area even worse and the park that we have in its place serves a lot of people.
The Blazers actually actively try to keep other teams out of the market - we lost our AAA baseball team ostensibly because the MLS team displaced it from a shared venue but the Blazers fought tooth and nail to keep a minor league park from being built in the Rose Quarter and so the city lost federal dollars earmarked as "spectator funding" (very curious if Sacramento has/had such a thing available, it doesn't amount to much when it comes to building an NBA level arena but it was still significant).
And Portland could have potentially had an NFL team in the late 60s but the city voted to kill the stadium project. Now I love the NFL but I'm ok with that because it would have killed a lot of our smaller city charm, made a heavily congested area even worse and the park that we have in its place serves a lot of people.
A few things. First, you don't know if the Kings have any opt outs. As their naming rights, KHTK contract, and several sponsor ads end this year (and were signed at or near the time of the TV deal) it would seem odd that they couldn't get out of the TV deal. Second, the lockout will probably wipes out any damages for next year. Kings breach contract, but if NBA says no games, then no damges for the games lost (maybe all of next year). Thus, the two years might mean nothing or very little.
Second, you are a little off about "how ads work." It's not just the market, it's who's watching the in market. After that, it's not just the people watching. That is a huge factor, but ads rates are based upon who is watching. They study that a ton based upon age, gender, and income. They are always looking for people with money and people who are going to spend it. Any ad person would take a smaller market with money as opposed to the larger market that doesn't spend. You'd rather sell ads for cars, financial services, insurance, ect ... than burgers and concerts ... those people buy a lot of ads and pay a lot for them.
Based upon the Kings rating and how the Comcast deal is set up ... that 9 million figure is very very dated, even if the story isn't.
It will be a huge bump in TV money when they move.
Second, you are a little off about "how ads work." It's not just the market, it's who's watching the in market. After that, it's not just the people watching. That is a huge factor, but ads rates are based upon who is watching. They study that a ton based upon age, gender, and income. They are always looking for people with money and people who are going to spend it. Any ad person would take a smaller market with money as opposed to the larger market that doesn't spend. You'd rather sell ads for cars, financial services, insurance, ect ... than burgers and concerts ... those people buy a lot of ads and pay a lot for them.
Based upon the Kings rating and how the Comcast deal is set up ... that 9 million figure is very very dated, even if the story isn't.
It will be a huge bump in TV money when they move.
My recollection of the Kings TV deal is identical to yours. The Maloofs actually buy the air time from Comcast and then have to find sponsers. Which means its money out of their pocket up front that has to be made up by the sponser sales. The hope of course, is that you not only make up all the up front money, but eventually make a profit. If you keep seeing the same commercial over and over again, its a good indication that things aren't going well with sponsership sales.
Thats an entirely different scenario than having someone like Fox give you 10 mil up front and they sell all the commercial time. In sacramento, the only reason the Maloofs broadcast all 82 games is in the hope that it will attract fans to the arena. I doubt they're making much money, if any, this year from TV generated sales. Maybe memories are short, and we do tend to take things that we have for granted, but if memory serves, the Maloofs are the first owners in sacramento to broadcast all 82 games.
It's not rocket science to figure out, that if the TV rights were real money makers, previous owners would have been broadcasting every game as well.
Thats an entirely different scenario than having someone like Fox give you 10 mil up front and they sell all the commercial time. In sacramento, the only reason the Maloofs broadcast all 82 games is in the hope that it will attract fans to the arena. I doubt they're making much money, if any, this year from TV generated sales. Maybe memories are short, and we do tend to take things that we have for granted, but if memory serves, the Maloofs are the first owners in sacramento to broadcast all 82 games.
It's not rocket science to figure out, that if the TV rights were real money makers, previous owners would have been broadcasting every game as well.
The landscape was more than a little different before they took ownership, cable was still only 60-70 channels and the tickets were dirt cheap, with their status as perrenial cellar dwellars you have to assume the tv interest was a lot lower. It's always fun to be in the crowd no matter how the team is doing, to watch a bad team on tv takes some extra dedication.
Let me ask you one question first. Have you ever known a nielson rating family? I haven't. It's really a super small % of TV viewers. They actually have boxes connected to TV's and each family member has their own remote to login. The check whether commercials are watched or forwarded. They only look at who watches commercials. That's how your TV ratings are determined. It doesn't matter how many actually watch the program if they skip the commercials they don't count.