Potential Anaheim Lease For Sacramento Kings Released; Centerpiece Is $50 Million Loa
- Thread starter Peter_Gibbons
- Start date
Sadly, I don't think Sacramento gets another team regardless of what happens.
The 3 team market would be a first for the NBA but not pro sports. The NHL currently has 3 teams in the NY metro area with the Rangers at MSG, the Devils in Newark and the Islanders on Long Island. MLB also had 3 teams in NY with the Yankees, Giants and Dodgers at one time.
Also, MLB currently has 10 teams in 5 markets when you consider the Dodgers and Angels in LA, Sox and Cubs in Chicago, A's and Giants in the bay, Yankees and Mets in NY and the Orioles and Nationals in the DC/Baltimore metro area.
Don't get me wrong. It sucks and I don't like it one bit. I wish that Sterling would sell the Clippers to Samueli and that would give Sacramento one less relocation option and buy us more time. But at the end of the day, the Maloofs would figure something else out and we'd be left without a team regardless of what type of trend is being set with multiple teams in however many markets.
The 3 team market would be a first for the NBA but not pro sports. The NHL currently has 3 teams in the NY metro area with the Rangers at MSG, the Devils in Newark and the Islanders on Long Island. MLB also had 3 teams in NY with the Yankees, Giants and Dodgers at one time.
Also, MLB currently has 10 teams in 5 markets when you consider the Dodgers and Angels in LA, Sox and Cubs in Chicago, A's and Giants in the bay, Yankees and Mets in NY and the Orioles and Nationals in the DC/Baltimore metro area.
Don't get me wrong. It sucks and I don't like it one bit. I wish that Sterling would sell the Clippers to Samueli and that would give Sacramento one less relocation option and buy us more time. But at the end of the day, the Maloofs would figure something else out and we'd be left without a team regardless of what type of trend is being set with multiple teams in however many markets.
The problem as I see it is that if I am the owner of a team, I want the city coming after me to blow me away with a deal. I have an NBA team and I am sought after by many cities. We've all now seen the lease and reduced loan amount from 100 to 50 million. I presume this was to protect the ownership of the Kings in a larger loan scenario. So I ask myself did Anaheim blow me away with this?
- I get a loan that POTENTIALLY only pays my moving fees. Not a gift, but a loan to pay back fees I would otherwise not incurr to stay in Sacramento.
- I get a major market. But I have to share it with two other NBA teams I directly compete with. One of which I can never match nor win over their fans. The other has a rapidly rising star that I have to hope either gets injured or leaves the market in free agency.
- I have to compete for the local sports money against the NHL, 2 NBA teams, 2 MLB team, 2 college programs that draw better than most small market pro franchises. And perhaps an NFL team in the near future. Most of the time this competition is head to head during my season.
- I have to compete for the entertainment dollar against Disney and countless other options locally. The weather is so good, that they can spend on outdoor entertanment pretty much year round.
- I don't get to manage the arena. I have to settle for what I get after management decides what they want. I become a renter as oopposed to an owner. Less risk and fixed expenses... but no chance to make bigger profits from managing the facility.
- NBA facing lockout. Possible long term lockout. I would have to move my team during this lockout and set up shop without any revenue coming from basketball games until sometime in 2012 likely. Best case scenario would be a shortened 50 game season like last time.
I see lots of risk here for my move. Why is it better to rent in a large market versus being the manager in a small market? Samueli runs the Honda Center and makes money off an NHL team and other gigs. He's in a major market, but the second preference to Staples in that market. He comepetes with less and still comes out ok. Now he gets to add a second billing that is more marketable than his NHL team. His only out of pocket expense is 25 million to upgrade his building to add new lockers and build a practice facility. Maybe even polish up with some nice bling for his building. He backs 50 million in bonds and has me the NBA team to pay it off. And he has me by the balls to make sure I pay that back.
So in the Maloof family sit down to discuss this proposition. They have to see the risk involved. So who in this family is the sensible one that sees the red flags? They should have seen red flags on the Palms second tower, but they gambled. Forgiveable because they thought they were flush with investments in Wells Fargo and they had stable business in the beer distrbutor business. But no free passes this time because they should be feeling those lessons learned. But here we are and it looks like they are full steam ahead into the risk again.
Smart gamblers are the ones who gamble with other peoples money. In this scenario, Samueli is the smart gambler.
- I get a loan that POTENTIALLY only pays my moving fees. Not a gift, but a loan to pay back fees I would otherwise not incurr to stay in Sacramento.
- I get a major market. But I have to share it with two other NBA teams I directly compete with. One of which I can never match nor win over their fans. The other has a rapidly rising star that I have to hope either gets injured or leaves the market in free agency.
- I have to compete for the local sports money against the NHL, 2 NBA teams, 2 MLB team, 2 college programs that draw better than most small market pro franchises. And perhaps an NFL team in the near future. Most of the time this competition is head to head during my season.
- I have to compete for the entertainment dollar against Disney and countless other options locally. The weather is so good, that they can spend on outdoor entertanment pretty much year round.
- I don't get to manage the arena. I have to settle for what I get after management decides what they want. I become a renter as oopposed to an owner. Less risk and fixed expenses... but no chance to make bigger profits from managing the facility.
- NBA facing lockout. Possible long term lockout. I would have to move my team during this lockout and set up shop without any revenue coming from basketball games until sometime in 2012 likely. Best case scenario would be a shortened 50 game season like last time.
I see lots of risk here for my move. Why is it better to rent in a large market versus being the manager in a small market? Samueli runs the Honda Center and makes money off an NHL team and other gigs. He's in a major market, but the second preference to Staples in that market. He comepetes with less and still comes out ok. Now he gets to add a second billing that is more marketable than his NHL team. His only out of pocket expense is 25 million to upgrade his building to add new lockers and build a practice facility. Maybe even polish up with some nice bling for his building. He backs 50 million in bonds and has me the NBA team to pay it off. And he has me by the balls to make sure I pay that back.
So in the Maloof family sit down to discuss this proposition. They have to see the risk involved. So who in this family is the sensible one that sees the red flags? They should have seen red flags on the Palms second tower, but they gambled. Forgiveable because they thought they were flush with investments in Wells Fargo and they had stable business in the beer distrbutor business. But no free passes this time because they should be feeling those lessons learned. But here we are and it looks like they are full steam ahead into the risk again.
Smart gamblers are the ones who gamble with other peoples money. In this scenario, Samueli is the smart gambler.
Don't forget, they are still operating the Arena in Sacramento. The last scheduled event is the Michael Jackson event next January the last time I looked. They have to keep paying for insurance and maintence on the arena for the events they already have scheduled. They still have to pay property taxes on the Arena. They will probably have to refund suite holders money for no Kings games next year.
They would still have to make payments on the Anaheim loan even if there is a lockout.
They would still have to make payments on the Anaheim loan even if there is a lockout.
The baseball 3 teams is kinda irrelevant since it was 60 years ago before teams were even on the west coast. Totally different era. Also, when looking at baseball teams in the same city one is american league and the othre national. They play different teams except for interleague play which started in the past 15 years or so. All 3 teams in the NBA would be in the same division.
My main point was that the original post suggested that the league would be taking a risk by making "history" by putting 3 teams in one region. The NY MLB argument had justification because it qualified as "history" regardless of era. I wasn't necessarily saying that it would be a good thing or was the equivalent of the old days.
Still, the NHL has 3 teams in one NYC metro area and they all play in the same division as well. If the less popular NHL can pull it off then I'm guessing the NBA can as well although I and many others don't like it. And even if Anaheim falls apart, the Maloofs will go somewhere else if Sacramento continues to drag it's feet. It seems like we've resorted to hoping Anaheim shoots itself in the foot as opposed to hoping that we get something done here and that's unfortunate.
Still, the NHL has 3 teams in one NYC metro area and they all play in the same division as well. If the less popular NHL can pull it off then I'm guessing the NBA can as well although I and many others don't like it. And even if Anaheim falls apart, the Maloofs will go somewhere else if Sacramento continues to drag it's feet. It seems like we've resorted to hoping Anaheim shoots itself in the foot as opposed to hoping that we get something done here and that's unfortunate.
Regarding the BOGs not approving due to having too many teams in one area... The number of teams in an area depends a lot on the population in that metropolitan area. There is already a precedent in the NHL where there are 3 teams in the same area. Two in NY, one in NJ.
Before you jump on the fact that one is in another state, Newark NJ is part of the same NY metropolitan area (tri-state). Its just across the Hudson river at less than 10 miles away from the NY Rangers and only 38 miles away from the NY Islanders. The Devils are the last of the 3 to move there and they approved the move. They paid territorial fees to both NY teams but they were allowed to move there and share that area.
The reason is that the NYMA has over 19 million population while the LAMA has almost 18 million population per census. If you take the easy route and divide 18 by 3, thats 6 million people per NBA team. Buss and Sterling can't make a convincing argument by saying that they don't have enough population to keep their fan base because about 14 million of that population is in the actual LA area. Thats not counting cities that stretch further north such as Santa Barbara etc.
There are NBA teams in markets where there are less than 2 million population. With 18 million, there is plenty of population to build a fan base for everyone. Also, I don't see how Buss can convince enough owners to feel sorry for him when he just signed an historic $3 billion TV deal for 20 years. That averages out to $150 million a year folks!!!! Their TV deal alone is higher than other teams' entire revenue. How can you feel sorry for a team like that? If anything, you want to do whatever you can to weaken them. Thats just my take.
Before you jump on the fact that one is in another state, Newark NJ is part of the same NY metropolitan area (tri-state). Its just across the Hudson river at less than 10 miles away from the NY Rangers and only 38 miles away from the NY Islanders. The Devils are the last of the 3 to move there and they approved the move. They paid territorial fees to both NY teams but they were allowed to move there and share that area.
The reason is that the NYMA has over 19 million population while the LAMA has almost 18 million population per census. If you take the easy route and divide 18 by 3, thats 6 million people per NBA team. Buss and Sterling can't make a convincing argument by saying that they don't have enough population to keep their fan base because about 14 million of that population is in the actual LA area. Thats not counting cities that stretch further north such as Santa Barbara etc.
There are NBA teams in markets where there are less than 2 million population. With 18 million, there is plenty of population to build a fan base for everyone. Also, I don't see how Buss can convince enough owners to feel sorry for him when he just signed an historic $3 billion TV deal for 20 years. That averages out to $150 million a year folks!!!! Their TV deal alone is higher than other teams' entire revenue. How can you feel sorry for a team like that? If anything, you want to do whatever you can to weaken them. Thats just my take.
Population says something. But it's not the whole picture. The real market is current NBA fans and untapped potential NBA fans. You will have to acheive one of the following: Convert loyal Laker fans over to Kings fans (love to see that promo!). Attract casual fans to include you as an additional team worth buying tickets to see. And lastly draw in new NBA fans that somehow didn't notice the Lakers winning championships for the last 50 years. Lets just say that despite the population, they have a chore ahead of them there unless they start up a strong Laker rivalry.
The real potential is the coporate business as ticket buyers and sponsers. No doubt this is the real chance to make some revenue. Providing of course they get past the lockout and start playing games so they can collect on that influx. And even then it's not going to be a slam dunk. The Lakers own the market appeal. Advertisers and corporations like to identify with a winner and will spend there first. Look at the Clippers to see how that trickle down theory has worked for them. Essentially the Kings will have to have a business plan that depends on winning games and beating the Lakers. It's no longer just a side benefit of owning a franchise, the competition aspect has to be part of a successful plan.
The real potential is the coporate business as ticket buyers and sponsers. No doubt this is the real chance to make some revenue. Providing of course they get past the lockout and start playing games so they can collect on that influx. And even then it's not going to be a slam dunk. The Lakers own the market appeal. Advertisers and corporations like to identify with a winner and will spend there first. Look at the Clippers to see how that trickle down theory has worked for them. Essentially the Kings will have to have a business plan that depends on winning games and beating the Lakers. It's no longer just a side benefit of owning a franchise, the competition aspect has to be part of a successful plan.
It is extraordinary how the attitude of this forum has changed not that we have facts vs fantasy.
I want to and I am sure I won't be successful to stop comparing the plan of the NBA compared to other major league sports. The league wants teams in small markets in the NBA. Stated fact! I don't know about hockey or football. I know that the commish of baseball wants rich people to get rich and win. He could care less about smaller markets. He almost shut down a few teams because they were too small and not spending enough money. Did the cheap arse Twins win a world Series? Don't remember that clearly.
I think this is going a little too far afield for my tastes. But go ahead ... I'll watch NASCAR. Kyle Busch against Carl Edwards ought to be great.
Update: Kyle beats Carl by .713 sec. Wish I could predict basketall so well.
I want to and I am sure I won't be successful to stop comparing the plan of the NBA compared to other major league sports. The league wants teams in small markets in the NBA. Stated fact! I don't know about hockey or football. I know that the commish of baseball wants rich people to get rich and win. He could care less about smaller markets. He almost shut down a few teams because they were too small and not spending enough money. Did the cheap arse Twins win a world Series? Don't remember that clearly.
I think this is going a little too far afield for my tastes. But go ahead ... I'll watch NASCAR. Kyle Busch against Carl Edwards ought to be great.
Update: Kyle beats Carl by .713 sec. Wish I could predict basketall so well.
Last edited:
I think it got serious run at one point and I would even go so far as to say that they are in 2nd place if Anaheim falls apart. There are 3 main reasons why Anaheim is beating them out though.
1) TV deal. More than anything else, this is why the Maloofs are considering Anaheim. They can afford to give up a nice chunk of arena revenue to Samueli because they more than make up for it in the tv deal. In San Jose, they would most likely be getting half of what they can get in Anaheim.
2) Samueli. The owner of the arena and NHL team is willing to front a loan to the Maloofs that would cover relocation costs as well as a good chunk of what the Maloofs owe the city of Sacramento. While San Jose wants the team, they aren't willing to go to that length.
3) Lifestyle for the Maloofs. They fit well in OC. They aren't Silicon Valley types. In fact, they already have homes in the socal area and their sister stars in a show that takes place in socal. Plus, it's closer to Vegas.
The one thing San Jose offers is that it's obviously a lot closer to their current home. The Maloofs would keep a good core of their central California fan base that aren't fans due to Sacramento pride but rather the Kings are close in proximity. Unfortunately, they are in such financial dire straits that they aren't in position to look out for those fans. I'm not going to take a guess as to whether or not they care but the fact of the matter is that they need up front money now and Samueli offers that.
1) TV deal. More than anything else, this is why the Maloofs are considering Anaheim. They can afford to give up a nice chunk of arena revenue to Samueli because they more than make up for it in the tv deal. In San Jose, they would most likely be getting half of what they can get in Anaheim.
2) Samueli. The owner of the arena and NHL team is willing to front a loan to the Maloofs that would cover relocation costs as well as a good chunk of what the Maloofs owe the city of Sacramento. While San Jose wants the team, they aren't willing to go to that length.
3) Lifestyle for the Maloofs. They fit well in OC. They aren't Silicon Valley types. In fact, they already have homes in the socal area and their sister stars in a show that takes place in socal. Plus, it's closer to Vegas.
The one thing San Jose offers is that it's obviously a lot closer to their current home. The Maloofs would keep a good core of their central California fan base that aren't fans due to Sacramento pride but rather the Kings are close in proximity. Unfortunately, they are in such financial dire straits that they aren't in position to look out for those fans. I'm not going to take a guess as to whether or not they care but the fact of the matter is that they need up front money now and Samueli offers that.
I couldn't give you a solid answer on that one. But Warriors also chose to go with a renovated Oracle Arena over sharing the HP Pavilion with the Sharks permanently. Maybe someone who's followed the Warriors more than I can answer that one?
Personally I'm not a big believer in bay sports as great two team town for all pro sports. I think MLB and NFL get away with the National/American separation. But even there only one team seems to thrive in each sport and the other suffers poor attendance. Mostly the Oakland fanchises. In the NBA no such distinction exists and I would think one team would suffer even worse.
Personally I'm not a big believer in bay sports as great two team town for all pro sports. I think MLB and NFL get away with the National/American separation. But even there only one team seems to thrive in each sport and the other suffers poor attendance. Mostly the Oakland fanchises. In the NBA no such distinction exists and I would think one team would suffer even worse.
I don't understand how some people still consider the maloofs to be savvy businessmen.
They sold their grandfathers beer distributorship which had been the families business cornerstone since 1937. 1937! They also sold the Fiesta casino that his grandfather built and operated. I haven't heard how much Wells Fargo stock they still have but I would assume that they would have liquidated said stock before selling their cash cow beer distributorship.
They said they sold the beer distributorship because they hadnt been back to NM in a long time and because they saw great promise in the Maloof Money Cup, a 2 year old skateboarding championship. Really?
I just don't see this family suceeding in Anaheim. That is not sour grapes. It's looking at what the maloofs have done in totality.
One more thing on the beer dist.,
The Joe G, Maloof Co. beer distributing business had and estimated annual revenue of 20 to 50 million. The company had monopoly status that would help the maloofs weather the recession. The company held exclusive right to distrubute Coors products in New Mexico. Im not a big ballin business man so theres no way to know the details of the maloofs business troubles but for the life of me I can't see how you can get rid of a business that is as close to guaranteed money as this one was.
Its my opinion that these business examples show all of us that the maloofs run on emotion more than anything. Even if the Anaheim deal is a suspect deal if the maloofs "FEEL" like this is their only option they will do it. Even if it will ultimately bite them in the arse.
They sold their grandfathers beer distributorship which had been the families business cornerstone since 1937. 1937! They also sold the Fiesta casino that his grandfather built and operated. I haven't heard how much Wells Fargo stock they still have but I would assume that they would have liquidated said stock before selling their cash cow beer distributorship.
They said they sold the beer distributorship because they hadnt been back to NM in a long time and because they saw great promise in the Maloof Money Cup, a 2 year old skateboarding championship. Really?
I just don't see this family suceeding in Anaheim. That is not sour grapes. It's looking at what the maloofs have done in totality.
One more thing on the beer dist.,
The Joe G, Maloof Co. beer distributing business had and estimated annual revenue of 20 to 50 million. The company had monopoly status that would help the maloofs weather the recession. The company held exclusive right to distrubute Coors products in New Mexico. Im not a big ballin business man so theres no way to know the details of the maloofs business troubles but for the life of me I can't see how you can get rid of a business that is as close to guaranteed money as this one was.
Its my opinion that these business examples show all of us that the maloofs run on emotion more than anything. Even if the Anaheim deal is a suspect deal if the maloofs "FEEL" like this is their only option they will do it. Even if it will ultimately bite them in the arse.
Last edited:
Thats all well and good and you make some very good points.
However, you are assuming that in current circumstances Sacramento is a viable option. Fact is that without the new Arena, its not a financially viable option. Its not a viable option at all.
People keep on harping about this but for goodness sake, Sacramento is overlooked in SO many things because it does not have a sports and entertainment complex. I mean seriously, NCAA has deemed it as not good enough years ago and all of a sudden its supposed to be good for an NBA team as a full time tenant?!
Now we can all debate if Anaheim is the right place for this team (despite everything, it has its great points and its not good points) but the fact remains that in its current state, Sacramento is not a viable option to have an NBA team.
However, you are assuming that in current circumstances Sacramento is a viable option. Fact is that without the new Arena, its not a financially viable option. Its not a viable option at all.
People keep on harping about this but for goodness sake, Sacramento is overlooked in SO many things because it does not have a sports and entertainment complex. I mean seriously, NCAA has deemed it as not good enough years ago and all of a sudden its supposed to be good for an NBA team as a full time tenant?!
Now we can all debate if Anaheim is the right place for this team (despite everything, it has its great points and its not good points) but the fact remains that in its current state, Sacramento is not a viable option to have an NBA team.
That's the story we've been sold but i don't buy it. I've read the Maloofs actually turned a profit on the team last year. And we all know the problems with Arco but it's not as if it's going to suddenly collapse or something. It's perfectly suitable to use for a few more years while a new arena is built.
They turned the profit because the team has the LOWEST payroll in the league. Can a team be competitive and profitable at the same time!
And please do tell how much longer do they have to wait?! 5 years? 10 years? 50 years?
These issues have been apparent for over a decade and all of a sudden this is seen as a knee jerk reaction!
The experts disagree with you that its perfectly suitable for a few more years but I guess you will claim that those experts are corrupt because they are getting paid by the Maloofs and Stern to say that!
Unbelievable!
And please do tell how much longer do they have to wait?! 5 years? 10 years? 50 years?
These issues have been apparent for over a decade and all of a sudden this is seen as a knee jerk reaction!
The experts disagree with you that its perfectly suitable for a few more years but I guess you will claim that those experts are corrupt because they are getting paid by the Maloofs and Stern to say that!
Unbelievable!
They turned the profit because the team has the LOWEST payroll in the league. Can a team be competative and profitable at the same time!
And please do tell how mych longer do they have to wait?! 5 years? 10 years? 50 years?
Thease issues have been apparent for over a decade and all of a sudden this is seen as a knee jerk reaction!
Unbelievable!
And please do tell how mych longer do they have to wait?! 5 years? 10 years? 50 years?
Thease issues have been apparent for over a decade and all of a sudden this is seen as a knee jerk reaction!
Unbelievable!
But they would still play in an infinitely better arena and with a better TV deal!
And how many years is a few years in your mind?
Here is the thing, every new arena effort we keep hearing how this is the best one yet and the parties have never been more committed to the cause yet each and every one of these has failed and WILL fail because of the funding. Arco I and Arco II have both been built with a private funding. In their existence Sacramento has never build an arena with public funds or partly public funds. Its just not how the area works.
Now how do you think they will get the funding for this latest effort?! The money will fall from the sky?! I can guarantee you that any public funding of the new arena WILL require increase in some taxes and as soon as you mention that, there is NO WAY that those proposals will pass.
This effort is NO different to the ones before because there is no one that is privately willing to fund the new arena and any public funding WILL include increase in taxes which will NEVER be approved by the city.
You have claimed the the current Arena is perfectly viable for a few years. If that is the case answer this question:
If a current NBA team needed to move out of their current arena for a season because it needs to be demolished and rebuilt, would Sacramento's current arena allow Sacramento to be one of the top 5 options for that team to consider?
I think you and I both know what the answer is so that there tells you that the arena is badly outdated and would never attract a professional team even temporarily. For goodness sake, its not good enough to attract NCAA let alone a professional team.
The place has been obsolete for a decade now.
And how many years is a few years in your mind?
Here is the thing, every new arena effort we keep hearing how this is the best one yet and the parties have never been more committed to the cause yet each and every one of these has failed and WILL fail because of the funding. Arco I and Arco II have both been built with a private funding. In their existence Sacramento has never build an arena with public funds or partly public funds. Its just not how the area works.
Now how do you think they will get the funding for this latest effort?! The money will fall from the sky?! I can guarantee you that any public funding of the new arena WILL require increase in some taxes and as soon as you mention that, there is NO WAY that those proposals will pass.
This effort is NO different to the ones before because there is no one that is privately willing to fund the new arena and any public funding WILL include increase in taxes which will NEVER be approved by the city.
You have claimed the the current Arena is perfectly viable for a few years. If that is the case answer this question:
If a current NBA team needed to move out of their current arena for a season because it needs to be demolished and rebuilt, would Sacramento's current arena allow Sacramento to be one of the top 5 options for that team to consider?
I think you and I both know what the answer is so that there tells you that the arena is badly outdated and would never attract a professional team even temporarily. For goodness sake, its not good enough to attract NCAA let alone a professional team.
The place has been obsolete for a decade now.
Last edited:
So basically, you must feel there was never any hope so why bother trying because if it failed in the past, it will fail in the future. That seems like a pretty defeatist attitude. As for this much talked abut TV deal, how great a TV deal is a team coming off a 20 win season gonna get in a market where they're the 3rd NBA team in town? As for the "infinitely better arena", so what? The Maloofs are only tenants in it. It's not like all those luxuries are going to reap huge profits from them. They'll just be renters. If they stuck it out in Sacramento a few more years they could have the whole region to themselves and surely a much more desirable lease situation.
Last edited:
I feel bad to have been taken in by a story that was wrong. No money, no politician, no nothin' but a desperate attempt.
I still think that given the financial situation of the times, the financial situation that I think is the Maloofs, and that contract that the Maloofs may sign could cause them to lose everything, especially if there is a lock out. I realize that a lockout cuts expenses. It just provides no income and I think, despite their protestations, that they need income right now to not only pay their tenant's fees to Samueli but to salvage the Palms.
I don't like what is happening in a major, major way but I still like the Maloofs and please, don't argue with me who I have a right to like. I just think they may sink. None of the arguments I have read about how all this will be peachy keen take into aoccount that there very well may be no income and no one can say how long that will last. No media money, no suites, no seats, no parking, no nuthin'.
Sometimes very tough decisions need to be made. I wouldn't want to make the decisions they have to make.
Money is fungible. I never really understood what that meant until I began to think of the Maloofs/Kings/Palms.
I still think that given the financial situation of the times, the financial situation that I think is the Maloofs, and that contract that the Maloofs may sign could cause them to lose everything, especially if there is a lock out. I realize that a lockout cuts expenses. It just provides no income and I think, despite their protestations, that they need income right now to not only pay their tenant's fees to Samueli but to salvage the Palms.
I don't like what is happening in a major, major way but I still like the Maloofs and please, don't argue with me who I have a right to like. I just think they may sink. None of the arguments I have read about how all this will be peachy keen take into aoccount that there very well may be no income and no one can say how long that will last. No media money, no suites, no seats, no parking, no nuthin'.
Sometimes very tough decisions need to be made. I wouldn't want to make the decisions they have to make.
Money is fungible. I never really understood what that meant until I began to think of the Maloofs/Kings/Palms.
This time was actually the best shot to get the arena built here. The threat of moving was very real. If ICON-Taylor they had come back in May and said there is no way this can be built without the city putting in a certain amount of contribution and the city did not agree to provide that, then we would all be done with this. I would have helped them pack their boxes. We wasted years trying to play "protect the taxpayer" with one long shot scam scheme after another. And in the end we lost something much worse than a few pennies of tax money.
They could have just worked with ICON-Taylor and found out in May if this could work or not. The league is going nowhere this summer after the lockout. Delay the April BOG meeting and see what happens. Frankly right now, it looks to me like the Maloofs were afraid that ICON-Taylor and the city could come up with an agreement. It seems like they measured their responses to not cooperate.
They could have just worked with ICON-Taylor and found out in May if this could work or not. The league is going nowhere this summer after the lockout. Delay the April BOG meeting and see what happens. Frankly right now, it looks to me like the Maloofs were afraid that ICON-Taylor and the city could come up with an agreement. It seems like they measured their responses to not cooperate.
I ask the same question again, in your mind how many years is "a few more years"?!
""infinitely better arena", so what?" - Are you for real?!?!?! Ask any NBA player and they would say that Arco arena is arguably the worst in the league because of the inadequate facilities. Its the only arena in the NBA that has no hot water is visitor's locker room?!
Like I said, experts have proclaimed Arco obsolete some time ago but apparently according to you its perfectly good to house a professional basketball team for "a few more years"!
Lets not forget that Maloofs have been approached by other NBA cities where they would be the sole tenant and possibly manage the arena but they are leaning towards Anaheim and one of the main reasons might well be the TV rights deal. They would have some idea of what that would be roughly and its obviously good enough for them to think that it would be better thna staying in Sacramento.
""infinitely better arena", so what?" - Are you for real?!?!?! Ask any NBA player and they would say that Arco arena is arguably the worst in the league because of the inadequate facilities. Its the only arena in the NBA that has no hot water is visitor's locker room?!
Like I said, experts have proclaimed Arco obsolete some time ago but apparently according to you its perfectly good to house a professional basketball team for "a few more years"!
Lets not forget that Maloofs have been approached by other NBA cities where they would be the sole tenant and possibly manage the arena but they are leaning towards Anaheim and one of the main reasons might well be the TV rights deal. They would have some idea of what that would be roughly and its obviously good enough for them to think that it would be better thna staying in Sacramento.
It's only better because they're desperate and looking for a quick fix. An "infinitely better arena" is just fancy talk when they'll be splitting most of the profits. If the team is bad, they'll probably wind up making less than they made here. As for a few more years, I mean however long it takes to build an arena. Figure at least six months for the details to be ironed out and then three years to build it. If nothing was getting done this time next year, i could see bailing out. But not now, not while there's a chance.
Years? Ha, they were opposed to wait one month and provide financials to a serious effort. And it was the most serious effort in over 5 years. I'm sorry but the NBA "help" and the Cal Expo thing was the longest of long shots. Stern and everyone with lick of common sense knew this. So when we all finally got the clue that pubic support would be needed after the last convergence plan, and the city council started talking publicly that they agreed. Then it's time to split town? You got the dang city finally getting real and it's suddenly time to go?