Anaheim may issue bonds to upgrade Honda Center for Kings
- Thread starter Mike0476
- Start date
You are abosulutely right. And for the Maloofs that means possibly moving the team. I guess every entrepreneur should just sit around and ride it out while they are hemorrhaging money. I mean they must be complete morons to explore the option of moving their team to a potentially more lucrative market.
You don't get it. Your explanation seems to support his points and contradict your earlier ones. The Maloofs sold their product and endeared themselves to the community for the greater part of a decade, and STILL no new arena deal was accomplished. They've done their due diligence and received NOTHING in return from the community.
The complainers for the most part are people in Sac who, when the team leaves, will probably stop following it out of hatred for the owners that moved the team.
The Madick sympathizers are mostly the people who live out of town and are fans of the team no matter where they are.
Notice I said mostly... You can't expect people to follow and support a team that leaves them high and dry not to mention put money in the owners pockets that did this to us. On the other hand the people that are not here in Sac are the people who have no vested interest in the area and are just a fan of the team. So take it for what it's worth. Outside of those two groups you probably won't have many middle ground people because it's just so ****ty what's going on.
The Madick sympathizers are mostly the people who live out of town and are fans of the team no matter where they are.
Notice I said mostly... You can't expect people to follow and support a team that leaves them high and dry not to mention put money in the owners pockets that did this to us. On the other hand the people that are not here in Sac are the people who have no vested interest in the area and are just a fan of the team. So take it for what it's worth. Outside of those two groups you probably won't have many middle ground people because it's just so ****ty what's going on.
Potentially lucrative market is key. the kings are averaging 13500 people per game. It is in the bottom of the league. But Sacramento has the highest unemployment just about anywhere now. Indiana has worse attendance. The Nets (in new york), 76ers, Grizzlies, Timberwolves and Hornets are all under 15000 per game. How many of these teams are moving? The Clippers average 17471 per game but they they are 91% of capacity. The Lakers do sell out 99.7%. But add another team and what might happen? Are there enough fans? The team with the worst record may not fare so well. Not to mention they are all in the same division. There will probably be an NBA game going on every night of the week there during the season.
Last edited:
well i think NJ will be moving to Brooklyn and there is a possibility of NO moving to who knows where. So that is potentially 2 out of 6. I do agree that the Kings possibly moving does not necessarily translate into them being successfull. But when you factor in a larger tv market, or just a larger market in general, it is more appealing.
The clippers averaged just over 14k people when they played at the Honda Center in the 90's. They didnt sell out. The Ducks dont sell out now and they are in a playoff run and just won a championship a few years ago. The number of NBA games on a night won't change much because the team in the Honda center will more than likely be playing the same time as the Lakers/Clippers and if not them then the hockey kings/Ducks.
The Clippers played 6 games in Anaheim during the 1995-1996 season and sold out every game. During the summer, the league meetings opened with Stern trying to talk Sterling into moving there full time. At one point, it looked like a done deal so much so to the point that the people who ran the Honda Center, then the Arrowhead Pond of Anahaim, had a sign on the dotted line party set up with Sterling and the rest of the Clipper front office people. Champagne was on ice when Sterling had to excuse himself from the party for a second. He said he had to use the restroom. He didn't come back and the deal never happended.
The following year, the Clips only averaged around 14,000 due to having no future in the arena as opposed to the year before when they thought they were setting up for a future with the team. My best guess is the rumors of the Staples Center being built were gaining steam and they told Sterling that they would want him to be a tenant so he backed out of the Anaheim deal.
The following year, the Clips only averaged around 14,000 due to having no future in the arena as opposed to the year before when they thought they were setting up for a future with the team. My best guess is the rumors of the Staples Center being built were gaining steam and they told Sterling that they would want him to be a tenant so he backed out of the Anaheim deal.
So what you are saying is that when a team shows that it looks like it has eyes on not staying put, attendance suffers? It think we've seen that one up close...
I think the Honda Center will be at near capacity in the first season. But it better be one where the team makes a run in the playoffs because those numbers will fall off a cliff if you get the current results of the team.
I think the Honda Center will be at near capacity in the first season. But it better be one where the team makes a run in the playoffs because those numbers will fall off a cliff if you get the current results of the team.
And:
1.) Bigger TV deal than in Sacramento
2.) Value of franchise can increase due to being in a large market. The increased value will allow the Maloofs to get substancial loans for other ventures.
3.) Possibility to lure FAs to the 2nd largest market (players= TV deals, notoriety, beautiful areas to live in; e.g. OC coastal, Anaheim Hills, Tustin, Irvine)
4.) A new, fresh beginning.
Are there risks to moving to Anaheim? Oh, yes. Nothing is guaranteed. I think its safe to say that the team must improve DRAMATICALLY and FAST for this possible relocation to be successful. The Maloofs are basically forced to put a good squad on the court with good coaching. I truly believe the Maloofs want to win and the latter should not be an issue for them.
1.) Bigger TV deal than in Sacramento
2.) Value of franchise can increase due to being in a large market. The increased value will allow the Maloofs to get substancial loans for other ventures.
3.) Possibility to lure FAs to the 2nd largest market (players= TV deals, notoriety, beautiful areas to live in; e.g. OC coastal, Anaheim Hills, Tustin, Irvine)
4.) A new, fresh beginning.
Are there risks to moving to Anaheim? Oh, yes. Nothing is guaranteed. I think its safe to say that the team must improve DRAMATICALLY and FAST for this possible relocation to be successful. The Maloofs are basically forced to put a good squad on the court with good coaching. I truly believe the Maloofs want to win and the latter should not be an issue for them.
Yeah, attendance will definitely fluctuate depending on how much the team wins. The problem for us is all the other revenue streams that the Maloofs can tap into. It's possible that you have a Donald Sterling scenario where the team can be profitable even if attendance is in the lower half or even lower third of the league.
The title of this thread should be amended to incude the possibility they may not even get around to a vote on a bond issue in time for a move this year. Nah, that's too long for a thread title.
BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if the Maloofs made money this year. Attendance is down and so are salaries. Maybe they balance each other.
BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if the Maloofs made money this year. Attendance is down and so are salaries. Maybe they balance each other.
Guess you didnt hear the story. One of the Clippers coaches got cancer a few years ago. His insurance wouldnt cover it if he were to get the surgery before the season. He would have to wait till right before the season. Sterling didnt want to set a precident by paying for it. So a few players stepped up and footed the bill.
So ya the Clippers make money because the owner is a cheap bastard.
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/news/story?id=6220206
So ya the Clippers make money because the owner is a cheap bastard.
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/news/story?id=6220206
Last edited:
Oh yes, they are definitely making money. It's virtually impossible to lose money when your payroll is at the league minimum of 43.5 million. My problem is that in order for them to profit nowadays, they have to put out a bottom tier team due to the low payroll. They have to choose to make money or win games. A better cba and new arena would allow them to do both.
FWIW, I think that's why they traded for Marquis Daniels. The payroll was at 43.5 million when they traded away Landry's $3 million in exchange for Thonton at $600,000. They needed another deal on the books to get back to the league mandated 43.5 million so they took on Daniels for nothing. Otherwise, there is no reason to take on an injured player with no future with the team.
FWIW, I think that's why they traded for Marquis Daniels. The payroll was at 43.5 million when they traded away Landry's $3 million in exchange for Thonton at $600,000. They needed another deal on the books to get back to the league mandated 43.5 million so they took on Daniels for nothing. Otherwise, there is no reason to take on an injured player with no future with the team.
There are already rummblings that Griffin might not resign with the Clips because Sterling is such a jack***. I'd believe they could lose him in the future due to Sterling. Griffin was on the court when Sterling was heckling B Davis. Used to happen frequently, from what I read in the LA papers at the time. There's already the racist reputation Sterling has, an Griffin has talked about how much racism has affected him growing up, being mixed. I'm sure it hits close to home. Then not paying for a coaches cancer opperation, which was a life/death situation apparently. And the list goes on and on.
I actually think it's better then 50/50 Griffin doesn't sign an extension with LA. When you look at the Clips, they're a frachise which makes money, but could make a whole lot more if Sterling operated with a moral compass.
I actually think it's better then 50/50 Griffin doesn't sign an extension with LA. When you look at the Clips, they're a frachise which makes money, but could make a whole lot more if Sterling operated with a moral compass.
Not exactly. Marquis Daniels was sitting on Boston's roster doing nothing but eating up luxury tax space. Boston was going to have to pay out his entire salary again in luxury tax if they didn't trade him, so they found the Kings (with cap space), and traded him to us along with cash to cover the rest of his (prorated) season salary and a little extra for our trouble. This transaction saved Boston several million dollars on their luxury tax payment and netted us some unknown amount of cash (probably less than one million). That's why the trade was done.
