Taking the Hornets from New Orleans and calling them the Kings sucks. It really sucks. Slightly less so than having no team in Sacramento, but it's still bad news. I want there to be a team here next season. But I don't want to see another city lose their team to do it. Hopefully the NBA will force the Maloofs to stop being idiotic, sell the damn team to the billionaire that wants to keep them here and let the mayor who wants to keep them here finish putting together a new arena plan to make them economically viable for the next 20+ years. If they want an NBA team in Anaheim that badly, they should find a team with fans and a city who won't mind seeing them go. Good luck with that.
Board of Gov Meeting Updates
- Thread starter ReinadelosReys
- Start date
Same.. Think of it this way.. In the time it would ake to get the Hornets (3-5 years) how many Kings would still be left anyway? From 2002 Kings to 2007 Kings the difference was pretty much every player. Except maybe Miller and Bibby?
The Kings are the Kings, and I would still root for them even if it's a new bunch of players. Not to mention all the guys that have been giving us a hard time that are still going to follow the "royals" will be gone too! yay!
The Kings are the Kings, and I would still root for them even if it's a new bunch of players. Not to mention all the guys that have been giving us a hard time that are still going to follow the "royals" will be gone too! yay!
Last edited:
That would cerainly put me in an interesting position. Because if somebody buys the Hornets and brings them to Sacto, that's not the Kings. You can call it whatever you want, but that's not the same franchise. Meanwhile the real Kings are off to another locale under a different name. Unless you are currently Sac situated, those kind of rooting gymnastics are difficult, and maybe in the end too much. Not sure.
In any case that seems an awkward way to go. The Kings have major history in Sac, a devoted fanbase. If you are suddenly going to get a billionarie involved I doubt the best way to go about things is to run a shell game where you move two franchises instead of 1 (and the Hornets are supposed to be guaranteed of staying this year since they met attendance figures), stuff a third group in a single market down in L.A., end up with 5 Califronia franchises etc. Adn all this because the Maloofs don't want to sell? Even if the NBA goes for the Burkle idea there has to be a way to massage it better than that.
In any case that seems an awkward way to go. The Kings have major history in Sac, a devoted fanbase. If you are suddenly going to get a billionarie involved I doubt the best way to go about things is to run a shell game where you move two franchises instead of 1 (and the Hornets are supposed to be guaranteed of staying this year since they met attendance figures), stuff a third group in a single market down in L.A., end up with 5 Califronia franchises etc. Adn all this because the Maloofs don't want to sell? Even if the NBA goes for the Burkle idea there has to be a way to massage it better than that.
markkreidler
Kings official told me twice in last 15 minutes the franchise is not for sale. Burkleites say no hostile takeover, either...
...so we're still at relocation question, which remains the first domino. After that, an arena. Burkle ain't buyin' one by himself.
But if u conisder the mood at Arco last nite, and then the stunning news today, that's some tectonic emotional shift in Sac. #whiplash
Kings official told me twice in last 15 minutes the franchise is not for sale. Burkleites say no hostile takeover, either...
...so we're still at relocation question, which remains the first domino. After that, an arena. Burkle ain't buyin' one by himself.
But if u conisder the mood at Arco last nite, and then the stunning news today, that's some tectonic emotional shift in Sac. #whiplash
The thing is though, if we keep the Kings with the Maloofs as owners, we have like zero security. We'd have to go on dealing with that fact that they could sell or relocate at any time. With a heavy hitter like Burkle that could actually contribute something substantial to an arena and not run the team like a bargain basement, we might be a lot better off in the long run.
Frankly, I think everybody who is saying "Man, I couldn't root for a team in Sacramento if we jacked them from another city." Is forgettng about the fact that we stole the Kings out of KC. You'll feel bad for a while, but you'll get over it.
I forgot that NO gets "one more year" but the lockout fixes the problem of the fact that: (1) it will take the city several months to study and fund an arena; and (2) NO gets 12 more months. If this happens, I bet we don't get the name, but get it back before the Royals/Kings take the court in Anaheim.
Finally, Burkle would get two honeymoons. First, the I saved the team honeymood. Second, the come see the new arena honeymoon ... which is what the Giants got from 1995-2005.
I forgot that NO gets "one more year" but the lockout fixes the problem of the fact that: (1) it will take the city several months to study and fund an arena; and (2) NO gets 12 more months. If this happens, I bet we don't get the name, but get it back before the Royals/Kings take the court in Anaheim.
Finally, Burkle would get two honeymoons. First, the I saved the team honeymood. Second, the come see the new arena honeymoon ... which is what the Giants got from 1995-2005.
And there's still Seattle and, to a lesser extent, Kansas City, trying to get back in the game. And there's still the Sacramento loan to account for (less of an issue with a billionaire owner in the picture, but still, I don't know that Burkle would want to throw an extra $80 million at a small market with no arena).
Yeah, don't know if I care what Kriedler is reporting here. If Maloofs get George Shinned, it doesn't matter one bit whether they want to sell or not. Burkle may not be openly trying hostile takeover yet, but didn't Webber mention that the "new group" is trying to address/restrcuture the bond/note on the arena? Wouldn't Burkle be able to acquire majority stake by buying out minority owners and buying note on Arco from the city? He may not want to play that card - yet, but it is there, isn't it.
I think onus is now squarely on Maloofs to prove that both Sacramento is not viable NBA city and that they are viable NBA oweners. I seriously doubt they can do either with any degree of certainty. Do the other owners really want to take risk of another move followed by forced buy out in few years a la Hornets? Anaheim might work as an NBA city but that doesn't change fact that Maloofs are proving to be shaky businessman.
I think onus is now squarely on Maloofs to prove that both Sacramento is not viable NBA city and that they are viable NBA oweners. I seriously doubt they can do either with any degree of certainty. Do the other owners really want to take risk of another move followed by forced buy out in few years a la Hornets? Anaheim might work as an NBA city but that doesn't change fact that Maloofs are proving to be shaky businessman.
If the Maloofs take the team to Anaheim, I've gotten enough vibes that many of the long time figures we identify with the Kings will not follow. A new team may come. But even if the players are different, you might still be watching Grant and Jerry doing Kings games on TV and listening to the G-man on radio. I wouldn't even be shocked to see Petrie standing in the tunnel as the team's GM. The purple and black will be there and the rafters will still have Sacramento player jerseys and banners hanging. Wouldn't that work for most of you?
Unfortunately the Maloofs can't be forced to sell. If we take them at their word that they were looking for advice, perhaps they are reasonable mixed with serious financial desperate enough and would sell if the BOG advised it. It doesn't seem unreasonable that they would advise that.
I know they don't want to sell and I am enough of a Maloof apologist to think they didn't want to leave. They have their backs against the wall.
I know they don't want to sell and I am enough of a Maloof apologist to think they didn't want to leave. They have their backs against the wall.
You actually have considerabel security -- assuming you quit being idiots and just build the arena. If the Maloofs don't move its because the NBA BIG say they can't. And if you build an arena that "can't" is only going to grow that much more firm. Let alone having a billionaire on the side willing to buy the team and keep it in Sacto. That may be Burkle's biggest role in the end -- you make the move seem that much more unnecessary. There are options. And as long as there are options, the BOG is not going to want to abandon Sacramento. The Maloofs best case is that there are no options -- the city is stupid and won't build an arean, we can't amke money, we have no choice. Once those complaints are knocked off, once options are available, getting a move through the BOG becomes more and more difficult, especially wiht what should be rising atendance as the team gets better.
sam_amick Sam Amick
Burkle been working on this for weeks. When KJ told Stern he had a possible buyer, the commish made crack about it being a local car dealer.
sam_amick Sam Amick
He dropped Burkle's name, and source says Stern went quiet. "You've got Burkle?"
TonyBizjak Tony Bizjak
Mayor sez Burkle, who is very rich, and local developer Darius Anderson are very serious about keeping or bringing a team to Sac
#HEREWESELL!!!!
Burkle been working on this for weeks. When KJ told Stern he had a possible buyer, the commish made crack about it being a local car dealer.
sam_amick Sam Amick
He dropped Burkle's name, and source says Stern went quiet. "You've got Burkle?"
TonyBizjak Tony Bizjak
Mayor sez Burkle, who is very rich, and local developer Darius Anderson are very serious about keeping or bringing a team to Sac
#HEREWESELL!!!!
I don't think Burkle's people said he wanted to buy the team. I think he said he would do what he could to keep the Kings in Sacramento. That leaves a lot of options open. ICON/Burkle. Cool.
"The Maloofs have been strong owners and a positive part of the Sacramento community for years, but it is important that Kings fans and residents of the Sacramento region know that the Burkle Group is ready to commit the resources and expertise necessary to keep the NBA in Sacramento. Our group believes Sacramento is an important NBA market that can thrive with new ideas, new resources and an absolute commitment to delivering the best on and off-court experiences for fans."
"The Maloofs have been strong owners and a positive part of the Sacramento community for years, but it is important that Kings fans and residents of the Sacramento region know that the Burkle Group is ready to commit the resources and expertise necessary to keep the NBA in Sacramento. Our group believes Sacramento is an important NBA market that can thrive with new ideas, new resources and an absolute commitment to delivering the best on and off-court experiences for fans."
Last edited:
So what? Who has the best fans of the three? Which city needs a team out of the three? KC has football/baseball, Seattle has football/baseball.. Sacramento has the BEST fans in the NBA and we are to be left out because some a-hole owners think they can score a better tv deal elsewhere? Sacramento deserves a team. We as fans did NOTHING wrong. We don;t have BB and FB to fall back on either.
Look, we all know what it feels like to lose a team now. I was sympathetic toward Seattle because I think they got a raw deal, but I have way more empathy for their fans now than I did when it happened because you can't really understand what it feels like until you go through it yourself. If the Hornets move to Sacramento I would probably eventually root for them, but this isn't just about satiating my need to watch basketball. As a fan I would feel terrible about my fellow NBA fans in New Orleans going through exactly what I'm going through now. I wasn't around when the Kings moved from Kansas City, I think I was learning to walk at the time. I probably would have been excited about having a team. But I know more now. It would never sit well with me that we took New Orleans' team because I know there's people there who care about their team just as much as we do.
The Hornets have been in NO for all of 8 years-ish (Hell, I remember them playing in Charlotte and I'm a youngster around these parts) and have struggled to sell out PLAYOFF GAMES, something that would never happen in Sacramento even if a zombie apocalypse annihilated half of the city's population. If we're looking at this from an NBA perspective, it makes sense (once the arena conflict is resolved)