I have already said this many times - I won't be a fan any more. I am not a fan of our players or the Kings as a business franchise, I am a fan of a team that represents Sacramento or this region. It is just a business for some of you; fortunately, not for me. It is only about your favorite players; fortunately, not for me. I will never be a fan of the Royals of LA/Anaheim. I am not gonna hate them either ...
I Will Still Be A Fan of THIS Team...
- Thread starter pilot305
- Start date
I have never complained about what KJ has done; just his mouth. I think the Maloofs have waited a long time and I am surprised that they haven't waited for the ICON/Taylor study. I also don't understand why it takes three months to study something that has been in the works for over a decade. Believe me I am on the side of keeping the Kings here. I like all the purple around town. I also can understand the Maloofs frustration. I absolutely think their financial problems with the Palms has made them desperate and maybe foolhardy. I don't know their situation and I don't know what they have been promised. None of us do and it is all speculation. My guess is that they would stay if they could if their finances allow it. I think this is a last ditch shot on their part.
And, hey, all this fuss has certainly motivated the city. Maybe something can get done. The problem is they declare before the ICON/Taylor report comes back. If it is all as simple as it seems, why 3 months? Even at that, I believe that group said public money would be necessary and they knew that was a tremendous long shot.
I don't know what they need to know. It seems to be more about money than construction. I think the study would be done quicker if it was paid for. It is being done pro bono. The city wanted a free study and are getting what they paid for.
And, hey, all this fuss has certainly motivated the city. Maybe something can get done. The problem is they declare before the ICON/Taylor report comes back. If it is all as simple as it seems, why 3 months? Even at that, I believe that group said public money would be necessary and they knew that was a tremendous long shot.
I don't know what they need to know. It seems to be more about money than construction. I think the study would be done quicker if it was paid for. It is being done pro bono. The city wanted a free study and are getting what they paid for.
Last edited:
I resisted this for a long time but finally have come around to the same conclusion. I would have hoped that if the Palms is really a half billion under water they'd have the sense to abandon ship and take whatever they could get out of it rather than sink all their other assets with it.
It really troubles me that the NBA would allow a team to move out of a market because of the ownership's personal (or non-NBA business) affairs. Seattle proved that anything was possible, and as a Portland resident it is very troubling to me that I could get invested in the Blazers down the road only to have them split for Seattle or some other bright lights. I get that Stern is "done" with Sacramento but really he's the one that came in and backed a plan that relied on State entities with no interest in Sacramento as a whole to get on board. It is great that he came in to extend a helping hand but it's also hard to wonder why they couldn't have come up with a more reasonable plan at the same time? I hate the conspiracy stuff, but really was involving Cal Expo the best possible option?
As for why it takes 3 months, I believe Kennadog has adequately gone over the process, and since ICON was coming in cold at the last minute they were actually fast-tracking as it was.
It really troubles me that the NBA would allow a team to move out of a market because of the ownership's personal (or non-NBA business) affairs. Seattle proved that anything was possible, and as a Portland resident it is very troubling to me that I could get invested in the Blazers down the road only to have them split for Seattle or some other bright lights. I get that Stern is "done" with Sacramento but really he's the one that came in and backed a plan that relied on State entities with no interest in Sacramento as a whole to get on board. It is great that he came in to extend a helping hand but it's also hard to wonder why they couldn't have come up with a more reasonable plan at the same time? I hate the conspiracy stuff, but really was involving Cal Expo the best possible option?
As for why it takes 3 months, I believe Kennadog has adequately gone over the process, and since ICON was coming in cold at the last minute they were actually fast-tracking as it was.
I don't get it. The City of Sacramento paid $150,000 to a law firm to review Arco Arena leasing documents but ICON is trying to put together a long shot of a plan pro bono? The city should have paid ICON some money to '"accelerate" the analysis given the looming March 1st date to apply for relocation. ICON could have hired experts in this field to assistant in the studies and to cut some time off. I know IF the plan would to be successful and the project got under way that ICON would 'bury' the price of the studies in their bid proposal. The thing is time is of the essence.
That was February 8. Three months puts us at May 8. The Maloofs have an NBA deadline of April 18. So maybe it's not possible to get this kind of study done, which was to diagnose the viability of the proposal over a 20 year period, in less than 90 days. But what do they have so far?
Given that Taylor/ICON is essentially doing this proposal pro bono, and any viable plan is pretty much going to require that the Kings stay, it would seem to me that they would be arranging a meeting with the Maloofs for sometime within the next week or so to start their pitch. Something to say "look, if you stay, we can make this work. If you give Sacramento another year, this is the best chance you have to get a new state of the art arena, and we're working on a way to include the $77 million in the plans." Their study might not entirely complete and signed off on by city officials by April 18, but they should be able to get 85% of the way there, and have something with some substance to show the Maloofs and the NBA.
You've stated yourself that you see this as the best chance Sacramento has ever had to get a deal done and keep the Kings. If that's really true, if Taylor can actually deliver, he better have some sort of pitch ready for the Maloofs. And he better be all over the media making it clear to everyone that he wants to sit down with them. Then, if the Maloofs blow him off, you'll have plenty of reason to hate them, because it will be clear that they had already given up on staying. But if he doesn't push for that meeting at all, then I'll wonder whether his group was really able to put something together that had a reasonable chance of getting done, in which case what difference does it make if you wait another year?
Given that Taylor/ICON is essentially doing this proposal pro bono, and any viable plan is pretty much going to require that the Kings stay, it would seem to me that they would be arranging a meeting with the Maloofs for sometime within the next week or so to start their pitch. Something to say "look, if you stay, we can make this work. If you give Sacramento another year, this is the best chance you have to get a new state of the art arena, and we're working on a way to include the $77 million in the plans." Their study might not entirely complete and signed off on by city officials by April 18, but they should be able to get 85% of the way there, and have something with some substance to show the Maloofs and the NBA.
You've stated yourself that you see this as the best chance Sacramento has ever had to get a deal done and keep the Kings. If that's really true, if Taylor can actually deliver, he better have some sort of pitch ready for the Maloofs. And he better be all over the media making it clear to everyone that he wants to sit down with them. Then, if the Maloofs blow him off, you'll have plenty of reason to hate them, because it will be clear that they had already given up on staying. But if he doesn't push for that meeting at all, then I'll wonder whether his group was really able to put something together that had a reasonable chance of getting done, in which case what difference does it make if you wait another year?
ICON is putting together a plan Pro-Bono because they stand to make millions down the road.
It's like a sales guy coming in to show you a product, he may take you out to a fancy meal afterward and wine you and dine you and hey it's a free meal. But really its all part of doing business and if he closes enough deals it is nothing at all.
Plus he writes it all off win or lose.
It's like a sales guy coming in to show you a product, he may take you out to a fancy meal afterward and wine you and dine you and hey it's a free meal. But really its all part of doing business and if he closes enough deals it is nothing at all.
Plus he writes it all off win or lose.
The reason I became so upset with the Maloofs is because they already refused to cooperate and Taylor-ICON almost walked away completely. It sounds like they may actually meet now which is great, and the city has asked them to go forward either way - which leads me to believe that the city is committed to making this happen no matter what. And obviously without the Maloofs that means even more public funds. Obviously city leadership in the past thought they could contribute less or maybe shouldn't contribute anything at all, but all signs with this deal are that the city was willing to find a way to put up a fair share.
I just didn't see it that way. The Maloofs agreed to give them the data and studies that had been done over the past several years related to efforts to get an arena built. They did not agree to give them access to their own personal financial information. At least not publicly. Then Taylor/ICON comes back and says "we were supposed to get these financials from the Maloofs, and they never gave them to us," and Kevin Johnson says "yeah, where's the financials? They must be determined to leave." It struck me as a smear campaign. They were accusing the Maloofs of not living up to an obligation that they never made.
As far as a plan without the Maloofs is concerned, it just doesn't seem viable to me, not for an NBA arena. Anything using public funds has to go on a ballot, doesn't it? It seemed like a long shot with the Maloofs. I don't see how it's possible without them. Which is why Taylor/ICON should have been roping the Maloofs in, not publicly besmirching them.
As far as a plan without the Maloofs is concerned, it just doesn't seem viable to me, not for an NBA arena. Anything using public funds has to go on a ballot, doesn't it? It seemed like a long shot with the Maloofs. I don't see how it's possible without them. Which is why Taylor/ICON should have been roping the Maloofs in, not publicly besmirching them.
I'm fairly certain there are use taxes that the city or county can approve legislatively. I think the roadblock has always been that the most favorable to the public are tourist taxes that originate just outside city limits (hotels and car rental) and the county and city won't/can't work together. But that doesn't mean they can't come up with something else. I would think a sales tax could even pass if it was designated within a certain business district located around the arena (I who am well on record as being anti-sales tax would support that, which I realize is nothing more than anecdotal evidence). The key is making people think it doesn't effect them directly or only if they are getting a direct benefit then all the sudden attitudes go from "Don't tread on me!!!" to "Heck yeah, I support that!".
I get the optimism for that kind of plan if the Kings are the primary tenant, but if it's a longshot with them, it seems impossible without them.
Edit: I'm speaking from Taylor/ICON's point of view. Being that they're doing this pro bono, they should be schmoozing the Maloofs because that improves the likelihood of them actually getting paid for their work.
Edit: I'm speaking from Taylor/ICON's point of view. Being that they're doing this pro bono, they should be schmoozing the Maloofs because that improves the likelihood of them actually getting paid for their work.
Last edited:
I don't know. The problem is that too many people are comfortable with Arco/PBP. If it goes dark completely the kind of people who don't give a hoot about basketball but still get their wrasslin, monster trucks or occasional big concert will flip out too. So you'd probably get something, though it would be scaled down. But might be enough to get the NCAA back and more regular concerts along with keeping the stuff that's still willing to come.
Sorry, I edited my post right as you were responding. But I get you. Just fairly certain that wouldn't appease the local Kings fans, especially if the city gets its act together for a scaled-down project right after them team leaves. It's like lemon juice in the papercut. Even worse is that a scaled-down arena won't ever bring the NBA back, so you're pretty much locking yourself out.
I would like to see the players succeed but I won't be a fan. Not being a victim of consumerist culture, I can see that the Maloofs as not being blame free. I won't even pick up another NBA team. The NBA is one of the most troubled leagues in NA sports. A lockout looms, more teams than just the Kings threaten to move, megastar teams are eerily like the even more screwed up MLB and to those who have been paying attention, the mask that David Stern has kept over his true tyrannical face has begun to fall off. Once that happens, he'll lose the backing of the press and it will be hard for people to ignore that issue in a political sense and a financial sense.
It's weird to think that in a country so obsessed with sports, the NFL is the only league getting things somewhat right, and even still its looking like a lockout for them.
It's weird to think that in a country so obsessed with sports, the NFL is the only league getting things somewhat right, and even still its looking like a lockout for them.
Football is probably my favorite sport and I do love the NFL, but they've become so successful and "gotten it right" by treating their athletes like utter dog crap. I mean sure, guys are still getting paid nicely to play a game while we treat teachers like the scum of the earth if that's the way you choose to look at it, but that line of thinking aside, many of the players leave the game broken and battered and there is no decent post-career aftercare for many players. Especially the legends of the game that didn't reap the huge pay days but also suffered lifelong debilitating injuries and have received nothing in retirement. Then there are these other guys in their early 40s showing up in homeless shelters or dead on park benches.
...? lol That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
they will no longer be in Sacramento.
they will no longer be known as the Kings.
I'm not a "real" fan for not following these ****ing sellouts to Laker and Dodger land?!
As far as I'm concerned, It's a brand new team that I want absolutely nothing to do with.
I will permanently be done with the NBA, but I will always be a Sacramento Kings fan.
To the people passing judgment on whose a real fan or not, remember one thing..
The name and the memories are staying here in Northern California where they belong.
I've spent 25 years following the Kings. I guess I'll read about them and catch when they're on tv but it just won't be the same. I just could never find myself rooting too hard for a socal team. I don't really have another NBA team that I'll be a fan of. I don't have anything against the Warriors but they just don't do it for me.
I'll probably just follow the 49'ers more closely.
I'll probably just follow the 49'ers more closely.
I don't disagree with what you say about the NFL's care for their players, but I don't think that's what's made them profitable. They have an insanely marketable product (the NFL Draft drew more viewers than the first round of the NBA playoffs last year), and they've pushed it in every way they could. They've favored exclusive vendors for their products, making their sponsorships more lucrative (and perhaps violating anti-trust laws along the way). And they've promoted a semblance of parity with true revenue sharing and a hard salary cap. To be honest, proper care for retired and disabled players is a drop in the bucket, which is what makes the lack of it so inexcusable.
Maybe not, but if you build something that can't support an NBA team, you're the one making sure that's the case.
As for leaving room for expansion, even on something better than Arco and Honda Center, you're still talking about a $250 million project, and with no NBA tenant, you're talking about significant public funds. If -- IF -- you can get that done, why not push for the extra $50-75 million and knock it out of the park, that way you potentially put yourself at the top of the list for any relocating franchise. Maybe someone buys the Hornets or Grizzlies and brings them to Sacramento, because you have a top five building and a downtown scene that attracts some commerce. The Maloofs offer to lease for $10 million/year would help the city make it's money back, and even if you get someone else for half of that, you're much better off.
As for leaving room for expansion, even on something better than Arco and Honda Center, you're still talking about a $250 million project, and with no NBA tenant, you're talking about significant public funds. If -- IF -- you can get that done, why not push for the extra $50-75 million and knock it out of the park, that way you potentially put yourself at the top of the list for any relocating franchise. Maybe someone buys the Hornets or Grizzlies and brings them to Sacramento, because you have a top five building and a downtown scene that attracts some commerce. The Maloofs offer to lease for $10 million/year would help the city make it's money back, and even if you get someone else for half of that, you're much better off.
Eh, there are two other significant factors in what makes the NFL more successful than other N.A. sports, which none of the other sports can duplicate, one because it simply isn't viable, and the other because you simply can't close Pandora's Box once it's been opened:
1. MLB plays 162 games. NBA and NHL play 82 games each. NFL only plays 16. Even MLS and WNBA play more than twice that many. The NFL is therefore more viable from an attendance perspective, simply because there are many more people who can afford to spend $40-100 to go to a game eight times a year than there are who can afford to spend $40-100 to go to a game 41-81 times a year.
2. As previously mentioned, the NFL tends to treat its players like crap, relative to other sports leagues in North America, and they just about have the weakest player's union, also. And, because they treat the players like crap this helps the NFL to successfully market players over team. This provides the NFL with a degree of marketability with their brand that the other leagues don't have; as the replacement players experiment proved, people will just tune in to watch football, and don't really care about the schlubs wearing the jerseys.
To say nothing, of course, of the impact that gambling and fantasy has had on football's popularity.
1. MLB plays 162 games. NBA and NHL play 82 games each. NFL only plays 16. Even MLS and WNBA play more than twice that many. The NFL is therefore more viable from an attendance perspective, simply because there are many more people who can afford to spend $40-100 to go to a game eight times a year than there are who can afford to spend $40-100 to go to a game 41-81 times a year.
2. As previously mentioned, the NFL tends to treat its players like crap, relative to other sports leagues in North America, and they just about have the weakest player's union, also. And, because they treat the players like crap this helps the NFL to successfully market players over team. This provides the NFL with a degree of marketability with their brand that the other leagues don't have; as the replacement players experiment proved, people will just tune in to watch football, and don't really care about the schlubs wearing the jerseys.
To say nothing, of course, of the impact that gambling and fantasy has had on football's popularity.
Agree and I'd include some sense of accountability the league has, though I think they are overly conservative with their image control, the fact I can believe in each season makes it different than other sports. By "believe", I mean that I can have an interest in my team because teams do turn it around all the time, but in the MLB I know the A's aren't real contenders and never will be, and I know teams like the Kings and Pacers or Blazers will have to beat the refs as well as their opponents, and after you realize those things the emotional investment becomes less real year after year until you just stop watching(as I have with MLB).
Yeah...I gotta say...I have been a fan of the Kings since they moved to Sacramento. I now live in Detroit and am still a Kings fan...a SACRAMENTO Kings fan. I was raised in Yuba City...they are my team because I grew up watching them and going to games when I was older. If and/or when they move to Anaheim or any other city, they cease to be the Sacramento Kings...and cease to be my team. In fact, it's just a great reminder that the NBA is nothing but a business and really doesn't matter. If/when that happens, I say good-bye to the NBA as well. I will no longer spend my money to go to games (I go to just about every game here when the Kings visit Detroit) and I will no longer buy any merchandise. I will accept free tickets and root for the Pistons (I love basketball), but no more of my money will be spent on the NBA. I'll watch from home.