This was found by someone else on another web site:
http://articles.latimes.com/1998/aug/23/sports/sp-15940
http://articles.latimes.com/1998/aug/23/sports/sp-15940
Kings to Anaheim since 98?
- Thread starter Mike0476
- Start date
Seems to have been discussed or a LONG time...
http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showthread.php?10898-NYDaily-Kings-to-Anaheim
http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showthread.php?10898-NYDaily-Kings-to-Anaheim
This is not only old news it was well known at the time (1998). If you Google "Jim Thomas Kings" you will find at least couple other reports around that time documenting former Kings owners growing frustration over local authorities in Sac not cooperating to get started on a new arena plan. This is why I've said repeatedly the final train wreck WAS NOT predominately any Kings owners fault but fault of local politicians who call themselves leaders instead of what they are - anti business obstructionists.
Look, I want the Kings to stay in Sac too, but I don't think it's fair to point the finger at politicians. Their job is to protect the interests of taxpayers in Sacramento, and just giving millions of dollars to a sports franchise isn't "anti-business obstructionism." This issue is not your typical left vs right political argument. It's very hard to justify building a new arena for half a billion dollars when the city is very unlikely to see a return on the profit. There isn't much sense in supporting "business" when that business is doing very little to facilitate the growth of the community.
This isn't an issue of local governments raising corporate tax rates driving profitable businesses out of town. In fact, it's almost the opposite. It's a business demanding money from the local government. It's a twisted ultimatum that the NBA is giving its host cities. We've seen Charlotte and Seattle both recently lose teams, and it is in all likelihood going to continue after Sacramento loses the Kings. These relocations are occuring at an alarming rate and they are not likely to slow down any time soon. I can only hope that local governments begin to wise-up and stop falling for the same trick, over and over again.
Think of it this way, do you think Microsoft or Wal-Mart could demand that local governments build them new state-of-the-art facilities to run their respective operations? Of course not. The mere suggestion of doing so would get them laughed right out of city hall. Yet the NBA seems to have no reservations about doing just that. Now think about this: A new arena would probably cost around $500 million. The new Trump Tower in downtown Chicago cost $800 million. And guess which one is more likely to have a longer shelf-life?
In my opinion, the NBA has proven to be financially corrupt. If they can't afford to pony up the cash to build the facilities needed to run their private operations, then they should not be able to own these arenas and turn a profit. They're passing the risk off on taxpayers, and when that falls through, they ditch you for a new life-line. It's disgusting, and I think it's indicative of a league (and commissioner) who holds his customers/fans in contempt. I sincerely think David Stern thinks he is entitled to brand new arenas without having to pay for his share.
This isn't an issue of local governments raising corporate tax rates driving profitable businesses out of town. In fact, it's almost the opposite. It's a business demanding money from the local government. It's a twisted ultimatum that the NBA is giving its host cities. We've seen Charlotte and Seattle both recently lose teams, and it is in all likelihood going to continue after Sacramento loses the Kings. These relocations are occuring at an alarming rate and they are not likely to slow down any time soon. I can only hope that local governments begin to wise-up and stop falling for the same trick, over and over again.
Think of it this way, do you think Microsoft or Wal-Mart could demand that local governments build them new state-of-the-art facilities to run their respective operations? Of course not. The mere suggestion of doing so would get them laughed right out of city hall. Yet the NBA seems to have no reservations about doing just that. Now think about this: A new arena would probably cost around $500 million. The new Trump Tower in downtown Chicago cost $800 million. And guess which one is more likely to have a longer shelf-life?
In my opinion, the NBA has proven to be financially corrupt. If they can't afford to pony up the cash to build the facilities needed to run their private operations, then they should not be able to own these arenas and turn a profit. They're passing the risk off on taxpayers, and when that falls through, they ditch you for a new life-line. It's disgusting, and I think it's indicative of a league (and commissioner) who holds his customers/fans in contempt. I sincerely think David Stern thinks he is entitled to brand new arenas without having to pay for his share.
Exactly! The NBA business model is to strong arm cities into building state of the art arenas, or lose their team to a city that already has one. It doesn't matter how old or loyal a fan-base is, what the economy is like, what the voters have said, etc., a state of the art arena has become more important than any of those things. It's all about prestige and increasing the NBA and owners bottom line. It's to the point that any city that doesn't have a fancy arena has to fear losing the team and that's just pee poor. Then, when teams do love, the blame conveniently goes on the fans and city for not rolling out the red carpet. People justify it by saying "well that's what other cities are doing" but that doesn't make it right. The whole business model is corrupt.
Last edited:
Think of it this way - an additional $30± million back in the late 80's from the City would have meant that the Kings would have been playing in a "Palace at Auburn Hills" type of arena instead of ARCO. I think that $30 million from the City to a finanacially strapped pro team would have been worth it. Either the City could have ponied up or the loan could have been $100 million instead of $70 (or whatever the exact amount was at the time), but then we would have had a showcase facility instead of one outdated before opening night. And we wouldn't be in the situation they are now, contemplating a $300+ million investment in a new facility now and our only pro team on the way out the door.
That would have been REAL leadership and looking out for the taxpayers. Not burying your head in the sand and then pointing fingers 15 years later.
That would have been REAL leadership and looking out for the taxpayers. Not burying your head in the sand and then pointing fingers 15 years later.
This article makes sense. I bet nothing has been done to Arco since 1998. It took more than a couple of years for it to get in the state it's in.
The sad fact is the NBA is not like any other buisiness. Any buisiness is there to put out a competative product at competative price while making a profit. In the NBA you hold cities up for hostage and demand $400,000,000 arenas. If you don't get what you want you move to a city that will give you something a little better. Pro sports is a pretty ruthless and self centered buisiness. There is no loyalty except to the money. It's sad. After the 4 wins recently I am looking forward to next season. I hope they are still here but it doesn't look good.
The sad fact is the NBA is not like any other buisiness. Any buisiness is there to put out a competative product at competative price while making a profit. In the NBA you hold cities up for hostage and demand $400,000,000 arenas. If you don't get what you want you move to a city that will give you something a little better. Pro sports is a pretty ruthless and self centered buisiness. There is no loyalty except to the money. It's sad. After the 4 wins recently I am looking forward to next season. I hope they are still here but it doesn't look good.
How exactly in your hypothetical situation would loaning $30 million to a financially strapped business be "real" leadership? If the business was financially strapped, loaning them that money would make ZERO sense, as they would likely not be able to pay it back. And the notion that Arco was outdated the day it was completed is hazy revisionist history. There are even youtube clips of David Stern applauding the arena during its infancy. But whatever, that's beside the point. The point is that it should not be the cities responsibility to fund a building if they are not going to see a return on the investment.
I'm a fan too, but at some point you have to take off your purple/black tinted glasses and see this for what it really is, a struggling business demanding that the public fund one if its necessary costs. The NBA has pulled a slight-of-hand on the public, convincing fans that it is the burden of the city to pay for a large portion of the overhead necessary for a private business to run its operations. That was the overriding point of the rest of my original post. Consider how much money the NBA grosses annually, and then ask yourself why they don't feel the need or obligation to build their own arenas to sell their product. Do you think any other business could make these demands? What makes the NBA so special? And before you make the claim that teams boost local economies (they don't), read this: http://kcal.ca/coates.pdf or this: http://news.illinois.edu/news/04/1117stadiums.html
The NBA feeds on fans desires to have a hometown team. And they fleece the public while they're at it. At what point should a city continue to eat the financial losses and say that enough is enough?
I'm a fan too, but at some point you have to take off your purple/black tinted glasses and see this for what it really is, a struggling business demanding that the public fund one if its necessary costs. The NBA has pulled a slight-of-hand on the public, convincing fans that it is the burden of the city to pay for a large portion of the overhead necessary for a private business to run its operations. That was the overriding point of the rest of my original post. Consider how much money the NBA grosses annually, and then ask yourself why they don't feel the need or obligation to build their own arenas to sell their product. Do you think any other business could make these demands? What makes the NBA so special? And before you make the claim that teams boost local economies (they don't), read this: http://kcal.ca/coates.pdf or this: http://news.illinois.edu/news/04/1117stadiums.html
The NBA feeds on fans desires to have a hometown team. And they fleece the public while they're at it. At what point should a city continue to eat the financial losses and say that enough is enough?
Jim Les: You make some good points, but at the end of the day that's how things are.
We can either find a way to save our identity, history, etc. in OUR SACRAMENTO KINGS or we lose them forever along with everything that comes with it and some other city does what we could never do, which I find to be very sad.
We can either find a way to save our identity, history, etc. in OUR SACRAMENTO KINGS or we lose them forever along with everything that comes with it and some other city does what we could never do, which I find to be very sad.
I totally get the desire to want the team to stay. I've been obsessing over this relocation for weeks now (even though I've been expecting it for years), and I haven't lived in Sac for over 13 years. The best way for me to cope with the loss is to paint David Stern as an evil, contemptuous Devil, which I firmly believe he is. I mean, c'mon, he's letting this team leave Sacto to LA of all places. Was it not gratifying enough to give them an undeserved championship in '02, that he now has to give them our team as well?
And I understand that it "is what it is." I really do. But I sincerely think that the best way to normalize the situation is to bring light to the issue. As more fans realize how they are being played, maybe it will eventually lead to enough resistance to force the NBA to get their financial house back in order. For now, as bitter as it feels, I'm going to say goodbye to the NBA. I can't continue to financially support a league/business that openly bites the hand that feeds it. I can't. It's too hard for me to continue to emotionally invest in a product that has zero reverence for my support. I can't continue to support a commissioner who sees me as only a mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging pay check. David Stern is an evil, evil man, and I sincerely hope he gets his come-upins sooner rather than later.
And I understand that it "is what it is." I really do. But I sincerely think that the best way to normalize the situation is to bring light to the issue. As more fans realize how they are being played, maybe it will eventually lead to enough resistance to force the NBA to get their financial house back in order. For now, as bitter as it feels, I'm going to say goodbye to the NBA. I can't continue to financially support a league/business that openly bites the hand that feeds it. I can't. It's too hard for me to continue to emotionally invest in a product that has zero reverence for my support. I can't continue to support a commissioner who sees me as only a mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging pay check. David Stern is an evil, evil man, and I sincerely hope he gets his come-upins sooner rather than later.
I am saying that it would have been smarter for the City to pay $30 million during ARCO II construction to have a modern arena that could be renovated than have to fork out $300 million later to replace the cheap one built entirely with private funds. Built in the same year, ARCO II and the Palace cost differential was $30± million.
While some studies show that arenas don't make money for the city, others show that there is substantial benefit (not just financial) that arenas and pro teams bring a city. See the UC Davis study, for one. OBVIOUSLY Anaheim thinks so. Sacramento (belatedly) seems to be realizing what it is losing. Other cities have built arenas and want to lure pro teams as well. They aren't stupid. There are REASONS cities want to lure pro teams in.
Anyone with common sense can see that an arena built on the cheap won't last and can't be remodeled.
If the City had kicked in <50% of the cost and received a share of profits (either in loan payments or just as a revenue source keeping partial ownership) we would currently have a fully functional and economically viable arena. Some info on the Palace from wiki:
Think of all the additional revenue the arena would have had during the great sellout streaks here in Sacramento with an additional 4,500+ seats available for sale! Think of the $300 million we would not be talking about needing now for a new facility! Think of not having to worry about the Kings leaving town!
While some studies show that arenas don't make money for the city, others show that there is substantial benefit (not just financial) that arenas and pro teams bring a city. See the UC Davis study, for one. OBVIOUSLY Anaheim thinks so. Sacramento (belatedly) seems to be realizing what it is losing. Other cities have built arenas and want to lure pro teams as well. They aren't stupid. There are REASONS cities want to lure pro teams in.
Anyone with common sense can see that an arena built on the cheap won't last and can't be remodeled.
If the City had kicked in <50% of the cost and received a share of profits (either in loan payments or just as a revenue source keeping partial ownership) we would currently have a fully functional and economically viable arena. Some info on the Palace from wiki:
Think of all the additional revenue the arena would have had during the great sellout streaks here in Sacramento with an additional 4,500+ seats available for sale! Think of the $300 million we would not be talking about needing now for a new facility! Think of not having to worry about the Kings leaving town!
