As far as I'm concerned, the Maloofs do not want a downtown arena

Thanks VF.

AS: We do know about the Oct 6th deadline.

Actually I do think Thomas Enterprises is pulling a version of your 11-year old, $14,000 Nissan. First rule of negotiation is to ask for a lot more than you realistically think you can get.

But I don't think that's the real reason. I think they are asking a ridiculous price exactly to say "look elsewhere." I don't think TE wants the arena on their development site (provided they ever close escrow). I think they probably feel they can make a lot more money developing that land with something else. They ticked off the Maloofs way back when their first proposal for the site contained no arena.

However, as to the term sheet, no one can sue to enforce a void, unenforceable deal. Well they could, just like a lot of other frivolous lawsuits. Just no legal point to sue over. And I don't think the opponents can have it both ways. If they think its too vague a deal for public to vote on, and/or that certain terms were bad for the taxpayers, then it would certainly be silly or look stupid to try an enforce what was too vague or bad in the first place, according to them.

Besides, if they bring up what MSE agreed to, MSE can also point to what the City/County agreed to. Just a useless debate at this point. If a deal is to be done, sit down and figure out what you can mutually still agree to in that deal and re-negotiate from there. And not in public. Come up with a deal and then present it publicly for approval or disapproval.
 
Last edited:
That was a great post Kenna (the previous), as I said I am pretty frustrated right now with this entire thing.

Not sure what to think what any side wants these days. Your post put it nicely.
 
I agree with most of what you write Kennadog. However, I must say that it less than excites me. The Maloofs are asking for Sacramento pays for most of the arena, yet we build it in a manner that is best for them. Not cool with me. If we pay for most of it, we own it, then we do what is best for Sacramento - not for the Maloofs. Therefore we put it downtown, we limit parking and resist the sphere of influence. If they insist on building it in a way that is best for them, then I say they should pay for most of it.

I really do not know if I could get behind a deal that was not best for Sacramento if the residents are paying for it.

As far as putting a light rail line out to Arco, I say 'save your money.' With 11,000 parking spots at only $10, I think very few people will find light rail more appealing than driving their own car. Putting light rail in the middle of a giagantic parking lot really does not make much sense and I doubt it would be used much.
 
Bricklayer said:
The Maloofs are either the stupidest owners alive, or I smell a rat of some sort. Everything you can possibly do wrong in a political campaign, they've done. Every opportunity, has been missed.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the party. I said almost exactly the same thing a few weeks ago. I have nothing but suspicion to go on, but I think another city has already put a sweetheart deal on the Maloof table.
 
JB_kings said:
They have done a lousy job of covering their tracks if their true intent was to move. The transparent way they have gone about undercutting this deal has to make even David Stern cringe. If they announced a move a few months after the vote, they would roasted alive by the national media.
Click to expand...

They won't announce a move. If it happens, they'll just up and go over the summer.
 
NewMonkey said:
They won't announce a move. If it happens, they'll just up and go over the summer.
Click to expand...

Not really. The NBA and all the team have to vote on any move. There is a dollar amount that the franchise has to pay in order to move which is distributed among all the teams. That amount is also discussed and voted on. You can't keep 29 other owners silent on that. And if Anaheim is that destination, don't you think the Lakers and Clippers are going to say something?
Every move has pretty much been known in advance.
 
Actually, it should be about compromise. About realizing that each side has a right to concerns and each side has a right to some concessions.
 
kupman said:
I agree with most of what you write Kennadog. However, I must say that it less than excites me. The Maloofs are asking for Sacramento pays for most of the arena, yet we build it in a manner that is best for them. Not cool with me. If we pay for most of it, we own it, then we do what is best for Sacramento - not for the Maloofs. Therefore we put it downtown, we limit parking and resist the sphere of influence. If they insist on building it in a way that is best for them, then I say they should pay for most of it.

I really do not know if I could get behind a deal that was not best for Sacramento if the residents are paying for it.

As far as putting a light rail line out to Arco, I say 'save your money.' With 11,000 parking spots at only $10, I think very few people will find light rail more appealing than driving their own car. Putting light rail in the middle of a giagantic parking lot really does not make much sense and I doubt it would be used much.
Click to expand...
So we build an arena downtown and then what? Without an anchor tenant, we will have a nice, expensive arena without being able to pay the bills. The city/county is then responsible for operating losses, instead of MSE. That does not excite me either and won't do MSE or the city much good. Everyone loses.

Since light rail will go to the airport anyway, how hard can it be to add a light rail stop as close to the arena as possible? Maybe the train only stops there when there are events. A ton of folks drive to the A's baseball park, but a lot of folks arrive by BART which stops right behind the stadium. But that's a minor issue to me.

As VF said, its got to be about all parties sitting down and hammering out a compromise deal, with all the details agreed on and a clear path to getting it done.
 
This is the way I am looking at the situation.

The Maloofs really do have the city over a barrel so to speak. They have nearly all of the negotiating power with the non-verbalized threat of the Kings leaving hanging over our heads.

As a result, they really do not have much reason to compromise on much of anything. What significant compromises have they made to date? They are currently in a position where they can pretty much demad that the taxpayers pay for the vast majority of the arena yet they retain the power to dictate where and how they thing is built.

If they do not get what they want - they can simply walk away and leave us all wondering if they will leave. They essentially pulled the plug on Q&R because they did not get everything the asked, even though some of their wishes were clearly out of the norm.

I am tired of it.

I would like to be able to call them on their demands. I would like to tell them, 'we are building a first class arena in the spirit of Memphis and Indy and we are putting it downtown. We are building it in way that is best for our city.' If the Maloofs do not like what we design and agree to build they can leave.

I feel confident that they will stay because it will compare very well with other possibilities in other cities. I also believe that they would stay because I am not sure that the NBA would allow a team to leave after the city agreed to build them a 1st class arena for 1/2 billion dollars.
 
I've been nosing around a bit, and yeah, as of Oct 6, there is no more term sheet. None of what they discussed this summer is theoretically in place. I don't think that nullifies a vote, but if it passes, we really have no idea what we passed. A $142 million contribution from the Maloofs? Maybe that's still alive, but as of Oct 7, that number is now unknown.

As for moving teams, what RE said on the radio the other day is really true. Sure enough, if the Kings want to move, they'll first do things the "nice" way; they'll seek league approval. But people forget about how the Baltimore Colts became the Indy Colts. I've said it before: The NBA does not have an antitrust exemption. The NBA rejected the Clippers move to LA; where do they play today? Not San Diego, right?

So it's nice to say, "The league will just stop a move to Anaheim/LV", but the fact is, they can't really stop it. MLB has an antitrust exemption; they're the only league that does. David Stern has no authority over Nevada state laws or casino policies. He can't stop a team that is determined to move, well, anywhere.

Yeah, I think the Kings have a deal in place, and are prepared to play hardball with Sacramento. Think of it as a "right of first refusal"; if we match, they stay.

But right now, Measure Q is a blank check. The terms set forth are no longer in force. If you vote for it, you will probably be voting for a blank check. I no longer think there will be an MOU before November 7, which means a yes vote means "I approve signing a blank check."

I have never heard of such a thing, in my 30 years of voting. I have voted for many school bond issues, and those are specific in terms of how the money is spent (the facilities, not salaries). But right now, Measure Q is at square one, and I won't vote for that.

I'm resigned to one thing: The Maloofs got a better offer from someone else. That's life.

Heck, maybe that's even what prompted them to stop negotiating with Sac. They got an offer that was better than what our voters are willing to back, and now they just want to make it look like someone else's fault. It wouldn't surprise me.
 
Arena Skeptic said:
As for moving teams, what RE said on the radio the other day is really true. Sure enough, if the Kings want to move, they'll first do things the "nice" way; they'll seek league approval. But people forget about how the Baltimore Colts became the Indy Colts. I've said it before: The NBA does not have an antitrust exemption. The NBA rejected the Clippers move to LA; where do they play today? Not San Diego, right?

So it's nice to say, "The league will just stop a move to Anaheim/LV", but the fact is, they can't really stop it. MLB has an antitrust exemption; they're the only league that does. David Stern has no authority over Nevada state laws or casino policies. He can't stop a team that is determined to move, well, anywhere.
Click to expand...

Thanks for bringing this up again, AS. There are those that would like to think that the Kings are at less risk for moving than say a team in the NFL or NHL because the NBA is somehow different with David Stern. Simply not true. He is a good commisioner, but he really does not have much power to keep the Kings in Sac.
 
If they have a better offer elsewhere, it wouldn't be anybody's "fault," if the Maloofs accepted it. Sac would just have lost the bidding war. Simple as that. Does somebody really expect a business to turn down the best offer for their product, the one that would sustain or improve their bottom line?

If they truly have a better offer elsewhere, I couldn't possibly blame the Maloofs for taking it. And I would just have to accept the fact that Sacramento didn't want the Kings to stay enough to come close to matching the other offer.

Depending on what the Maloofs get elsewhere, that might be the right answer for both sides, depressed as I'd be. Although it should be all about me! ;)
 
The Maloofs have most certainly received very good offers. That's not the point. The point is some of you are pretty much accusing the Maloofs of fraud, false intent, and I don't know what else.

I'm not going to buy into that. And I'm certainly not going to buy the "they just want to make it look like someone else's fault..." theory. That's just silly. They don't have to make it look like anything. If, as kennadog has said, they decide to make the business decision to move the team because they can do better elsewhere, then they have the right to do it.

Yes, they are dragging their feet. The negotations have not gone well. The measure was pushed onto the ballot with a LOT of unanswered questions. That's not the Maloof's fault. It has been the city/county dragging their collective feetsies for years.

There is a lot of blame to go around on this. It shouldn't all be put at the feel of the team owners.
 
JB_kings said:
Not really. The NBA and all the team have to vote on any move. There is a dollar amount that the franchise has to pay in order to move which is distributed among all the teams. That amount is also discussed and voted on. You can't keep 29 other owners silent on that. And if Anaheim is that destination, don't you think the Lakers and Clippers are going to say something?
Every move has pretty much been known in advance.
Click to expand...

Rumors of the move might leak - heck that's already happening in RE Graswich's column, and it isn't the first time we've heard about Anaheim. But it would be a matter of weeks between the first REAL news leak and the move. The Maloofs would long since have split town by the time that happens. I really hope I'm wrong about the whole thing.
 
There's a lot of things that can technically be done. But doing them is whole 'nother thing. There is a relocation fee to be paid and it does have to be voted and approved by the NBA board and team owners. Plus in the situation of Anaheim, there most certainly will be some resistance from the LA teams. They can even sue for infringing on territorial rights. I don't know what the circumstances were with the Clippers in their move from San Diego, but don't bet on it being an easy or smart thing to do today. The league has better lawyers now and they don't tend to make mistakes more than once.
And there is the matter of the Maloofs reputation. This goes beyond the NBA world. Would they really want to be mentioned among names like George Shinn and Donald Sterling? Sacramento still has a reputation of strongly supportting the Kings. If it appears that the Maloofs undercut the arena and then ran, they would be branded as greedy carpet baggers by the national media. Sacramento isn't looking bad yet, but time is running out.
 
Appearances do count, but if they have a better offer, they aren't "undercutting" anything. They'd be taking the best available offer. Again, what's the problem with that?

And I don't think that comes close to putting them in the category of Shinn or Sterling. They have been great owners for 8 years, IMHO. I'm not saying the current deal is the best, but if "Sacramento strongly supports the Kings", they need to sit down and figure out how to do it.

Don't confuse Orange County as being the same market as LA. Totally different and a huge bascially, NBA untapped market. Also more likely to draw fans from San Diego. If there is an issue in the LA market, its having the Clips and Lakers in the same market. They are the ones in direct competition for the same market.
 
Let me back up here and explain. They can up and do whatever they like with their team. But they have to be careful with how they do it. If nothing changes and Q & R go down next month, then I believe the Maloofs will share some blame for that. And that is what I mean by undercutting the arena effort. They have to share the blame. It has nothing to do with what they have done for 8 years. There is a difference between a city like Seattle that have flat refused to build anything. Sacramento has at least tried to get something done. And I don't think I'm far off the mark by saying that had the Maloofs not threw a wrench into the works, that we might be discussing a 50-50 shot at this passing. Instead even the most supportive people believe this isn't going pass.

Since the Maloofs haven't even supported this, how can they even claim that the citizens of Sacramento have spoken on funding an arena? It's pretty much talking out both ends. If they tried to pick up and run after this, then it will reflect poorly on them from a national perspective. So I'm not saying they already are the same as George Shinn. But if they aren't real careful, they will be compared to him. I would hope they have more respect for their current reputation than to run after playing a part in the failure of the vote.

That said, Sacramento can also shoot themselves in the foot if they aren't working on a plan B. If they don't, then it's handing the Maloofs the excuse to leave. Keep at this and something is bound to get done.
 
JB_kings said:
But they have to be careful with how they do it. If nothing changes and Q & R go down next month, then I believe the Maloofs will share some blame for that. And that is what I mean by undercutting the arena effort. They have to share the blame. It has nothing to do with what they have done for 8 years. And I don't think I'm far off the mark by saying that had the Maloofs not threw a wrench into the works, that we might be discussing a 50-50 shot at this passing. Instead even the most supportive people believe this isn't going pass.

Since the Maloofs haven't even supported this, how can they even claim that the citizens of Sacramento have spoken on funding an arena? It's pretty much talking out both ends. If they tried to pick up and run after this, then it will reflect poorly on them from a national perspective.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Maloofs see it that way. I don't think the Maloofs see themselves as having done anything wrong. They believe the blame lies entirely on the other side of the table. It follows that if the Maloofs believe they're completely in the right, their national reputation wouldn't suffer if they moved the team.

Now *I* personally hold the Maloofs more responsible than anyone for the failure of these measures. They single-handedly shot Measures Q&R dead when they walked away from negotiations less than two months before the election.

I don't see any chance for ballot financing of an arena in Sacramento. The earliest anything could get on the ballot is 2008, which means construction wouldn't start until 2009, and an arena wouldn't be finished before 2011 or 2012. I don't see the Maloofs waiting that long. I believe that the only way the Kings stay in Sacramento is some combination of private and public funding that doesn't require a vote. I'd really like to see the team stay, but I don't know how many more chances we have left.
 
JB_kings said:
Let me back up here and explain. They can up and do whatever they like with their team. But they have to be careful with how they do it. If nothing changes and Q & R go down next month, then I believe the Maloofs will share some blame for that. And that is what I mean by undercutting the arena effort. They have to share the blame. It has nothing to do with what they have done for 8 years. There is a difference between a city like Seattle that have flat refused to build anything. Sacramento has at least tried to get something done. And I don't think I'm far off the mark by saying that had the Maloofs not threw a wrench into the works, that we might be discussing a 50-50 shot at this passing. Instead even the most supportive people believe this isn't going pass.

Since the Maloofs haven't even supported this, how can they even claim that the citizens of Sacramento have spoken on funding an arena? It's pretty much talking out both ends. If they tried to pick up and run after this, then it will reflect poorly on them from a national perspective. So I'm not saying they already are the same as George Shinn. But if they aren't real careful, they will be compared to him. I would hope they have more respect for their current reputation than to run after playing a part in the failure of the vote.

That said, Sacramento can also shoot themselves in the foot if they aren't working on a plan B. If they don't, then it's handing the Maloofs the excuse to leave. Keep at this and something is bound to get done.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I blame the city more than the Maloofs. The city has sat and done nothing much for the last 5 years, while the Maloofs have pleaded with them to negotiate something. So the city comes in past the 11th hour and negotiates a rushed, bare bones deal and that's somehow the Maloofs fault? Only because the citizens will want to blame them, because they are "rich, greedy billionaire playboys," not because it bears a relationship to who should shoulder the burden of the blame here.
 
I blame the maloofs for this going down because even as the deal stands right now, they have a very very good deal from their end. The city is taking it in the pants if this passes and they are willing to do that. The maloofs want more and are willing to kill the whole deal to get that 1000 ft. buffer around the arena and 8,000 parking spots. Something that no other city would or has ever given their franchises. The maloofs knows that the city cannot ever deliver on these 2 demands and they are the reason that this downtown arena will not get built. The city actually looks better than the maloofs in this one.
 
fansinceday1 said:
I blame the maloofs for this going down because even as the deal stands right now, they have a very very good deal from their end. The city is taking it in the pants if this passes and they are willing to do that. The maloofs want more and are willing to kill the whole deal to get that 1000 ft. buffer around the arena and 8,000 parking spots. Something that no other city would or has ever given their franchises. The maloofs knows that the city cannot ever deliver on these 2 demands and they are the reason that this downtown arena will not get built. The city actually looks better than the maloofs in this one.
Click to expand...
Those are hardly the only details up in the air at this point. If every thing is so vague nobody wants to vote for it, why should the Maloofs accept such a mess of a deal at this point? They'd be stupid to do so. I wouldn't trust the city or Thomas Enterprises farther than I can spit.

Not only that, everything agreed to in the Intent to Enter into an Agreement is null and void at this point. So neither side can hold the other to anything agreed to in that draft.
 
fansinceday1 said:
I blame the maloofs for this going down because even as the deal stands right now, they have a very very good deal from their end. The city is taking it in the pants if this passes and they are willing to do that. The maloofs want more and are willing to kill the whole deal to get that 1000 ft. buffer around the arena and 8,000 parking spots. Something that no other city would or has ever given their franchises. The maloofs knows that the city cannot ever deliver on these 2 demands and they are the reason that this downtown arena will not get built. The city actually looks better than the maloofs in this one.
Click to expand...


Hey, welcome aboard! You may now be the one person on this board that sees things the way I do. It is good to have company.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Spike
What Do The Kings Mean to You?
Replies
6
Views
439
Siranthony
S
S
The NBA buisiness model. Is it working?
Replies
15
Views
585
kingsboi
kingsboi
Ozymandias
A few words on (a)the Jaden Hardy trade (b)the Kings multi-year draft outlook
Replies
3
Views
674
Ozymandias
Ozymandias
Capt. Factorial
Can we get a quality player in the 2023 draft?
2
Replies
56
Views
4K
206Fan
2
Ozymandias
I think Chet wins the ROY
Replies
7
Views
679
funkykingston
funkykingston
Back
Top