Reporting like this really irks me

[RookieOfTheDay]

Is this really the time for defeatism and negativity? What possible purpose could rehashing the problems between the NBA and Sacramento serve right now? I've never been one to blame the bee, but stories like this make me wonder if maybe they play a bigger role in all this than I'd given them credit for. http://www.sacbee.com/2011/04/10/3541374/marcos-breton-why-the-nba-doesnt.html

 

[kupman]

Is this really the time for defeatism and negativity? What possible purpose could rehashing the problems between the NBA and Sacramento serve right now? I've never been one to blame the bee, but stories like this make me wonder if maybe they play a bigger role in all this than I'd given them credit for. http://www.sacbee.com/2011/04/10/3541374/marcos-breton-why-the-nba-doesnt.html

The bee is all about defeatism and negativity. It goes well beyond the Kings and arena issues unfortunately. There are a few good points in this article, but as a whole the piece is just another piece of cra*.

 

[Siranthony]

I don't get it. Whats so negative about the article? The first positive is it wasn't written by that Voisin chick. Second is I thought it was pretty factual. I agree with everything it said.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I don't get it. Whats so negative about the article? The first positive is it wasn't written by that Voisin chick. Second is I thought it was pretty factual. I agree with everything it said.

The premise that the NBA won't work in Sacramento doesn't strike you as slightly negative and counter productive? Especially one week before the deadline for the Maloof's to file for relocation? I don't question whether it's factual or not. The timing just stinks and it's not telling us anything we don't already know.

 

[KingNoy]

Stupid article by a stupid newspaper that continuously tries to blow its own city to dust.

 

[sacgirl88]

It is a very negative article smh.

 

[Siranthony]

The premise that the NBA won't work in Sacramento doesn't strike you as slightly negative and counter productive? Especially one week before the deadline for the Maloof's to file for relocation? I don't question whether it's factual or not. The timing just stinks and it's not telling us anything we don't already know.

What I got from it was that revinue sharing is needed and that it will be difficult for small market teams to survive without it. also that even the giants in SF didn't get a staduim built by the taxpayers.

 

[Superman]

What I got from it was that revinue sharing is needed and that it will be difficult for small market teams to survive without it. also that even the giants in SF didn't get a staduim built by the taxpayers.

I just don't understand why the thought that AT&T (Pac Bell) was built without public funds is even relevant. First of all, there was a $90 million contribution from the city for infrastructure development, so it wasn't totally without public funds. Secondly, that was the first time a MLB park was built without public funds in 40 years, so it was the exception, rather than the rule.

Lastly, the question is no longer whether Sacramento should or even can put up funds to build a new arena. The question is now whether any other city or region can put a plan together that makes the Kings and Maloofs financially viable and even profitable in the long term. That being the case, the city's concern should be with getting a plan and financing together right now -- or at least have the beginnings of a legitimate plan. Taylor/ICON need to come up with a big play in the next week.

 

[LPKingsFan]

1. This isn't reporting, it's an opinion column.

2. The general point, that in the NBA the deck is stacked against the success of smaller markets, is spot-on. The league needs some form of revenue sharing if it wants smaller market franchises to stay competitive. Successful NBA teams apparently need gobs of revenue from luxury boxes, lavish TV contracts, and publicly-funded arenas. Those items are hard to come by in Sacramento and similarly-situated cities. That's a fact.

3. I'm not sure why people think the Bee would want the Kings to leave. I'd imagine the Kings drive a significant amount of interest in the newspaper. Otherwise, why would the Bee be advertising so heavily during Kings games?

 

[Jim Les]

This is a good column. It's highly critical of an NBA business model that expects small markets to shoulder more weight than they are capable of. It's not defeatist, it's just illuminating the glaring issues of the NBA and the current state of things.

Sacramento is likely to see its entire team travel down Interstate 5 to Anaheim in the coming months. The Hornets needed the NBA to take over the team to keep it solvent. And the next Hall of Fame-bound free agent who jumps to Indiana or Cleveland will be the first.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=adande_ja&page=SmallMarkets-110407

That's the article referenced in the Bee article which discusses some obstacles small markets face.

 

[Trueblood]

Yeah but what's stupid about articles like this is that the NBA can't just implement a new revenue sharing model while the old cba is still in effect. It's been widely reported that a new revenue sharing system has already been agreed to or is close to completion and will go into effect as soon as the new cba is ratified. Articles like this that act like there is no hope or that the league is purposely ignoring a new revenue sharing model are stupid or written by uninformed writers.

That being said, I completely agree with Breton when he talks about how it should be seen as no coincidence that the Anaheim talks started heating up as soon as the Laker's TWC contract was inked. I and a host of others have hinted at that and it's becoming more and more clear. Throw in the arena and the Maloof's love of the socal lifestyle and Sacramento is up against it. And even if Sacramento had what Anaheim could offer from a tv contract standpoint, a new revenue sharing model still won't be able to build a new arena out of thin air.

 

[Löwenherz]

This is a good column. It's highly critical of an NBA business model that expects small markets to shoulder more weight than they are capable of. It's not defeatist, it's just illuminating the glaring issues of the NBA and the current state of things.

I agree. The article is attacking the current NBA system that values TV contracts over actual fan interest and support.

 

[Glenn]

I don't get it. Whats so negative about the article? The first positive is it wasn't written by that Voisin chick. Second is I thought it was pretty factual. I agree with everything it said.

Twice today I have agreed with you. Frightening.

Isn't this simply a fact:

"The NBA simply doesn't work in Sacramento, and it won't unless the league changes its financial structure so teams without big TV contracts can remain viable by sharing in revenue more equitably."​

This is crucial. Even his comments on the success of some smaller than large media market teams is spot on. The injury or retirement of a few key players and they sink.

 

[Trueblood]

I don't know. It's not just San Antonio and OKC that are doing good. Portland and Orlando are one horse towns that are on the verge of another 50 win season as well.

3 years ago, the public was complaining that the NBA favored small markets when Seattle was moving to OKC. We never heard a thing about the lack of revenue sharing because the cap helped Utah get to the WC finals, the draft helped Portland get right back into the mix and a strong lease kept the league in New Orleans. All the public cared about was bitching about Seattle losing it's team even though their leaders did everything they could to force the team out.

Now all of a sudden, the league hates small markets and is doing everything they can to get into saturated markets due to more corporate sponsors and tv deals. Which is it?

At the end of the day, it's not about the cap, revenue sharing, tv deals, small markets, big markets and whatever other elements that are out there that these journalists don't understand. What it comes down to is that when the perfect storm of bad regional leadership, old arenas and owners that can't be worked with all hit the eye of the storm at once, a fan base gets screwed.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

When I moved to Portland the team was where the Kings were a year or two ago and there was very real talk we could lose the team. They were giving away tickets left and right. It's fairly amusing because way back when before the Kings fans were the best in the NBA they would say that about the Blazers. The one huge difference between the teams is ownership. Blazers have Paul Allen, we've got the Maloofs. But still it wouldn't surprise me if at the next Blazers downcycle he moved the team to Seattle.

 

[Trueblood]

When I moved to Portland the team was where the Kings were a year or two ago and there was very real talk we could lose the team. They were giving away tickets left and right. It's fairly amusing because way back when before the Kings fans were the best in the NBA they would say that about the Blazers. The one huge difference between the teams is ownership. Blazers have Paul Allen, we've got the Maloofs. But still it wouldn't surprise me if at the next Blazers downcycle he moved the team to Seattle.

This is true. I guess my point is there are reasons beyond the league's control that lead to relocations. Everyone tries to predict trends, guess what elements of a collective bargaining agreement they don't understand are reasons for relocations, sometimes be flat out wrong and other times just make no sense at all when trying to hope or predict the league's downfall. The fact of the matter is that there are many contributing factors that go beyond revenue sharing and the collective bargaining agreement when figuring out why relocations happen.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

This is a good column. It's highly critical of an NBA business model that expects small markets to shoulder more weight than they are capable of. It's not defeatist, it's just illuminating the glaring issues of the NBA and the current state of things.

This is pretty much the business model of all professional sporting leagues in this country. Let me just say I think it sucks, but at the end of the day you decide do you want to be a player and have a team or not? As a native Sacramentan living outside the region for half my life I must say that I think having the team is a net positive. Not only does it give people something to do 40 something nights a year, it provides a sense of pride for residents and natives alike, recognition for the city nationwide and draws in tourist and other business interests. Even if the latter does not account for a "profit" for the city the value of the other benefits more than makes up for it.

 

[Gary]

The premise that the NBA won't work in Sacramento doesn't strike you as slightly negative and counter productive? Especially one week before the deadline for the Maloof's to file for relocation? I don't question whether it's factual or not. The timing just stinks and it's not telling us anything we don't already know.

It won't though.. At least not as well.. I think they were trying to compare the whole NFL deal with the NBA when it comes to revenue sharing.

 

[Siranthony]

I don't know. It's not just San Antonio and OKC that are doing good. Portland and Orlando are one horse towns that are on the verge of another 50 win season as well.

3 years ago, the public was complaining that the NBA favored small markets when Seattle was moving to OKC. We never heard a thing about the lack of revenue sharing because the cap helped Utah get to the WC finals, the draft helped Portland get right back into the mix and a strong lease kept the league in New Orleans. All the public cared about was bitching about Seattle losing it's team even though their leaders did everything they could to force the team out.

Now all of a sudden, the league hates small markets and is doing everything they can to get into saturated markets due to more corporate sponsors and tv deals. Which is it?

At the end of the day, it's not about the cap, revenue sharing, tv deals, small markets, big markets and whatever other elements that are out there that these journalists don't understand. What it comes down to is that when the perfect storm of bad regional leadership, old arenas and owners that can't be worked with all hit the eye of the storm at once, a fan base gets screwed.

what happens to OKC Thunder after 5 or 10 years, the team is losing and the newness has worn off? Do they move to a new city? That's the point. Even if a small market team is winning 50 games they can't touch Laker type money. Revenue sharing brings stability to the league.

 

[Siranthony]

Nothing wrong with that! I agree with you to agree with you.

 

[Glenn]

One last comment on this which may come a bit from left field. We are discussing whether medium or small market teams have a meaningful disadvantage. Maybe I have misinterpreted.

How about looking at it from the opposite end. Do large market teams have an advantage? When will the next large market team move? When will a large market team ever move? Debate this as you will but they have it good. I guess some would say that all cities have equal opportunity. When a large market team moves, I will agree.

 

[Glenn]

Nothing wrong with that! I agree with you to agree with you.

Oh, Lord, a pact with Satan!

 

[twosomeca]

The premise that the NBA won't work in Sacramento doesn't strike you as slightly negative and counter productive? Especially one week before the deadline for the Maloof's to file for relocation? I don't question whether it's factual or not. The timing just stinks and it's not telling us anything we don't already know.

Personally, I think the NBA has big, big problems when it comes to it's business ops. This article, if anything, strikes me as the master of the obvious, but casual fans don't understand the problems of the NBA. I didn't really have a problem with the article, but this writer does seem to have a certain history. Still, he is a columnist, so what can you expect?

 

[Geoff]

Twice today I have agreed with you. Frightening.

Isn't this simply a fact:

"The NBA simply doesn't work in Sacramento, and it won't unless the league changes its financial structure so teams without big TV contracts can remain viable by sharing in revenue more equitably."​

This is crucial. Even his comments on the success of some smaller than large media market teams is spot on. The injury or retirement of a few key players and they sink.

I haven't read the article yet (i'm about to) but I'd want to hear more about exactly how the NBA doesn't work in Sacramento. What does that statement mean?

 

[Trueblood]

what happens to OKC Thunder after 5 or 10 years, the team is losing and the newness has worn off? Do they move to a new city? That's the point. Even if a small market team is winning 50 games they can't touch Laker type money. Revenue sharing brings stability to the league.

But that was the point of my original post in this thread. The league has already or are in the process of setting up a revamped revenue sharing model. It's just that they can't implement it right now while the cba is still in effect. As soon as the new cba is ratified, the new revenue sharing model will be in place. That's all the more reason why I wish the Maloofs would give the city and ICON/Taylor one last shot at this.