(Bee) Breton: Wary fans force Stern to go soft

[ladyjay114]

He we are seeing clear signs that the NBA wants Sacramento and is taking an unprecedented step to help.

Why does the NBA want to help? Out of affection for the fans and people of Sacramento? You don't think that's the case, do you?

Just like Dave Stern likes the Sacramento Kings, he would quickly become a lover of the Las Vegas Kings, if that ever happens. We, who actually DO care about the team itself, wouldn't make that switch.

I dont know how many times this has to be repeated, but David Stern does NOT want a team in Vegas. He has said this countless times. Also there are too many "ifs" and issues with moving/expanding a team to LV.

The league stepped in because the NBA's most successful ticket base, Sacramento, is at risk. We're the only NBA city that doesn't have another pro league to compete with, Arco is the only building that always sells out and we've got 2 recognizable, dynamic owners that have put a good product on the court for 8 consecutive years. The NBA is in an uneasy crossroads with owners and arenas now, so the last thing it needed was negative publicity about one of its most successful franchises and the reputation of its most passionate owners getting torn apart.

 

[kupman]

The league stepped in because the NBA's most successful ticket base, Sacramento, is at risk.

Actually, the reason that they stepped-in is becuase the Maloofs asked them to step-in. I agree with what you are saying though.

 

[JB_kings]

The state of Arco is a red herring. The Maloofs want a new arena because they want the revenue streams that will be financed by taxpayer dollars. You seem like an intelligent person...you must know that.

Let Sacramento fix Arco, just the stuff that supposedly makes it unsafe. Would the Maloofs agree to stay on that account? Of course not. They want the added revenue a new arena would bring....what was that whole squabble with the parking spaces about? They want this revenue, they NEED this revenue to compete.

All over the US, teams are demanding (and often getting) new stadium deals chock full of all kinds of goodies. Even Yankee Stadium is being replaced, not because it's falling down, but because Steinbrenner sees a way to grab some taxpayer goodies to finance his $200 million per year salary expense. The Maloofs want a deal like that, too. If Arco had ZERO construction deficiencies, it wouldn't change a thing.

I don't want anyone to build me anything. By all means, let's build an arena (or fix up the one we currently have) without regard to the Maloof's overhead problems. I also don't want the taxpayers to have to pay the NBA's bloated salaries. That is in essence what the Maloofs want, though indirectly.

By the way, what you say is condescending, I say is direct. There is no reason for sweet talk. This is the way I see it- no adult should be frightened by direct debate or frank discussion.

I cannot possibly disagree more with your assessment of Arco. There are a number of key items that must be replaced that make it costly enough that a new buillding is more practical. Replacing the roof, stands and game floor are just a few of the major concerns. The roof has been an ongoing problem since just after the building was contstucted. The stands are made of plywood instead of concrete and are showing signs that they need replacement. The flooring was supposed to be multipurpose for ice and it was done so poorly that only a jackhammer can fix it. The building footprint is small by NBA standards the day it opened. Compare that to the Palace of Aubrun Hills which opend the same day and has been renovated twice since then. I've been in the Palace once a few years after it opened and once again last year. And I can tell you that I would have switched buildings with them back then and now. Face it - Arco is a dump. To fix it up would require leveling more of it then makes sense. If the Maloofs move and somehow the city takes ownership of the building, it would be cheaper for them to take the wrecking ball to it rather than to fix it up. I'm sorry but it looks like you just haven't done much background research into this and I don't accept your statements. I have been inside of Arco during the game with the Sixers when Lukenbill climbed to the top of the rafters and had to hold a banner under a rain leak in order for them to finish a game. That was barely more than a year after the building opened. It's been patched over many times, but anyone who has looked at it says it needs to be removed and rebuilt. I have relatives and friends who were responsible for making the ice at Arco, they tell me it is the worst floor of any building in the country. The piping within the floor is faulty and they had to jackhammer sections in order to get it to drain properly. You say they can fix the safety issues, but I challenge you to walk around the lower and upper concourses and tell me how that can be done. It was poorly designed and poorly built.

 

[kennadog]

^^^Add to that the apparent fact that the orientation of the floor to the stands is 90 degrees from other arenas, making accomodating some shows difficult; the marsahling area is too small; and there are so few loading docks compared to other arenas its a joke. And it can't be remodeled, because the foundation can't take it. The list goes on and on.

And with how small the single concourse is (newer ones have at least two and are roomier); I'm surprised the fire marshall let's it operate, to tell the truth. When I've been caught in a crush leaving Arco and have trouble just keeping my feet, I imagine the horror if there was ever an emergency. Went to the United Center in Chicago. Omigod, 21,000 fans leaving at once and you could put your arms out without toughing anyone in the concourse! It was heaven. Nice stores and restaurants inside, too. No nearby competition that I could see, either.

The Palace of Auburn Hills is the perfect example of how paying more to begin with, gives you a much better value in the long run. Arco II = $40 million, Palace of Auburn Hills = $80 million. Not that I blame Lukenbill. He went broke just getting a team here and trying to keep it going. However, Arco is a flat out dump. The Maloofs have done a good job of keeping up appearances and keeping it functioning, but its clear that that cannot happen a whole lot longer.

And yes, I can almost guarantee it would be more cost effective to demolish and rebuild, then to try and salvage. And that's true whether the Kings are here or we just want a functioning arena for events in the Sacramento region.

 

[sandrail]

Maloofs and profits

sandrail - If I've come across too harshly, I apologize.

This topic is very near and dear to my heart. I have been a Kings fan since 1985, as have a lot of the people on this board. We don't want to give up the Kings without doing absolutely everything possible to keep them here. And it's not just about the Kings. It's about Sacramento and the future of this town that has been home to my family for generations.

As far as voteno and the contention that the Maloofs are somehow hiding profits or understating their income goes, I refer to my question above. Do you and voteno honestly think the Maloofs shouldn't be allowed to make a profit?

The Maloofs are good owners. More importantly, however, they are good members of the community. I think bashing them either outright or through subtle innuendo is unfair.

Again, I apologize if I come off too strongly. But you're talking about my Kings.

VF: to answer your question, Yes the Maloofs should be allowed to make a profit. After all it is a business. I think that the question that was posed was a simple one, and I don’t know the answer. I am not sure anyone on this forum would know the answer. The truth is that it really doesn’t make a difference as all expenses were correct.

The question that was posed was simply: Have the Maloofs in any past year determined by their income how much to pay on the outstanding loans, by how much revenue they have coming in. They have every right to do this. It seems to me that Voteno was posing this question, but never worded it like this.

The underlying question then, is it ethical if this is indeed occurring to claim that you are losing money this many years out of this many. Most businesses make their financial decisions based on making a profit. The maloofs have other businesses that they can tap their profits to pay the bills, so maybe a profit isn’t considered a high priority for them. Should they be allowed to make a profit, yes. But I do believe that they can control whether this business shows a profit or not.

As far as which “year” to consider. It would have to coincide with the frame of reference that the article in the bee was referring to.

So back to the question that was posed. If the Maloofs showed that they had a profit that year, then they had a profit of over 12 million dollars for that year. However if they showed a loss, I am curious as to how much of a loss they posted. I am not trying to cause trouble or talk bad about the owners. I do think that they have been good for the area. However, numbers can be misleading, if you only look at the numbers

BTW: thanks for the apology. Please accept mine as well as we got off on the wrong foot.

Kennadog: you stated : Why should taxpayers in most states subsidize the grossly high home prices in California for the homeowners here? Can you elaborate on this? Although it is offtopic, I am curious to know how this occurs

 

[Spartans_fan]

I dont know how many times this has to be repeated, but David Stern does NOT want a team in Vegas.

It doesn't need to be repeated for my benefit. I know that. I was just using that as an example, hence my use of the words "if that ever happens."

The NBA is in an uneasy crossroads with owners and arenas now, so the last thing it needed was negative publicity about one of its most successful franchises and the reputation of its most passionate owners getting torn apart.

Publicity matters, but publicity is a means, not an end. The end is $$$. If the NBA and or the Maloofs get a better deal somewhere else, they're gone. I don't think that's any secret.

 

[Spartans_fan]

I cannot possibly disagree more with your assessment of Arco. There are a number of key items that must be replaced that make it costly enough that a new buillding is more practical. Replacing the roof, stands and game floor are just a few of the major concerns.

I don't deny any of that. It's true. Arco is a mess from top to bottom. But I'm saying that even if those problems didn't exist at all, the Maloofs would STILL want a new building, one they could make more $$$ out of. They can't make money to pay their bills and make a profit UNLESS they get their mitts on taxpayer subsidies, the subsidies that go along with a potential new arena. They don't care about the roof.


I'm sorry but it looks like you just haven't done much background research into this and I don't accept your statements.

I don't understand. When did I ever say Arco was in great shape as is? Never. I don't want to repeat myself (what're the odds) but the issue is not the shape of Arco...the issue is whether the Maloofs can use the need for a new arena to subsidize their operation.

I think I am being clear, but...!


You say they can fix the safety issues,

No, no, no. I said EVEN IF THEY DID fix the safety issues and all the other stuff, it wouldn't ultimately matter as to the Maloofs staying or not. They can't afford to stay here under current circumstances, leaky roof or no.

 

[Spartans_fan]

VF: to answer your question, Yes the Maloofs should be allowed to make a profit.

What is the alternative? To NOT make a profit? You know what happens to businesses that don't make a profit. They go to that big ex-business scrap heap in the sky.


The question that was posed was simply: Have the Maloofs in any past year determined by their income how much to pay on the outstanding loans, by how much revenue they have coming in. They have every right to do this. It seems to me that Voteno was posing this question, but never worded it like this.

Someone said on this board that paying loans can be considered part of a "loss" for the year. Accounting 101- paying off loans has nothing to to with profit and loss, except that of course the interest is an expense. But if you decide to pay off $100,000 in loan principal instead of $10,000, that doesn't mean you lost an extra $90,000 that period. That's silly.


Most businesses make their financial decisions based on making a profit.

I can't think of any offhand that don't, even non-profits can't afford to bleed money

. The maloofs have other businesses that they can tap their profits to pay the bills, so maybe a profit isn’t considered a high priority for them.

No. This is a misconception that some people have about deep-pocketed owners, Paul Allen in Portand comes to mind. Why don't they just lose money on this, they make so much money on other things? That's not how things work. Tell your banks, your investors, the SEC, and your board, so what if we lose money in this quarter? We got lots more where that came from!

Should they be allowed to make a profit, yes. But I do believe that they can control whether this business shows a profit or not.

They certainly can. Relative to other businesses, this one is actually fairly predictable. Most of the revenues and expenses are pretty much set.

 

[VF21]

Spartans_fan...

No offense whatsoever, but your posts are extremely confusing. If you don't know how to use the quote function, that's not a problem. What is a problem is you simply using the bold to indicate someone else's comments. Might I suggest if you're going to do that you at least preface their statement with their name.

I suggest this because bold facing is generally used to indicate something you want stressed, NOT something you are quoting from someone else.

If you do want to break up someone's post and respond between parts of it, you can do it by typing [ followed by the word quote and then ], all without any spaces between the [ quote ] Type in the part you're quoting and then end it with [ / quote ], again without any spaces. After that you can add your reply.

You can repeat that process for each item you want to rebut.

Hope this helps.

 

[kennadog]

Kennadog: you stated : Why should taxpayers in most states subsidize the grossly high home prices in California for the homeowners here? Can you elaborate on this? Although it is offtopic, I am curious to know how this occurs

If you are a homeowner, you get the benefit of one of the biggest government subsidies there is. Mortgage interest writeoff on your taxes. The higher the mortgage, the higher the loan, ususally, thwe more the interest that gets written off.

My point being, that most people don't mind much when they are a private citizen getting a huge government subisidy, but then get all horrified at the thought of a private business getting a government subsidy. And the city of Sacramento has provided millions of dollars in sudsidies to private businesses, anyway. Happens all the time.

 

[kennadog]

Someone said on this board that paying loans can be considered part of a "loss" for the year. Accounting 101- paying off loans has nothing to to with profit and loss, except that of course the interest is an expense. But if you decide to pay off $100,000 in loan principal instead of $10,000, that doesn't mean you lost an extra $90,000 that period. That's silly.

For tax purposes for the IRS this is true. It is based on the idea that you own your asset at its original purchase price with NO liens against it, and then you are taking depreciation on that original purchase price as an expense every year. Decrease in liabilities, increase in asset value is what normally happens. That isn't really true for Arco under scenario.

But that's all paper stuff. In reality they do have to make principal and interest payments on the loan every year and it has to be paid out if the business cash flow. I'm sure that homeowners don't think of their mortgage as something that doesn't use up part of their cash flow. We could subtract out the depreciation expense and add in the principal as an expense, if we knew the numbers. One way or the other, though, there is an expense.

The above description is further complicated by the fact, that unlike a regular loan, despite all the payments they've made there has been negative amortization on the first loan. Right now, the amount owed on the arena on the first loan is more than originally borrowed. The second loan was to help pay interest on the first loan. In other words, the first loan was provided, because the owners (not the Maloofs at that time) were going bankrupt. With not enough cash flow to make the interest payments on the loan, they had to have the second loan to make payments on the first for a while.

Unpaid interest has been accruing on the first loan and not a dime of the principal has been paid down. I suspect the Maloofs choose to pay off the second loan, when they had cash available, so that they could stop or at least reduce the accumulating interest on the first loan.

Since that loan was paid off, it is more likely that their payments might eventually start paying off some actual principal on that second loan. At least they may be able to pay off the interest that's accruing each year, even if they can't pay enough to bring the principal down. I assume they would rather that the debt owed to the city doesn't increase each year anymore.

EDIT: Geez, I hate talking about financing. Really the undeniable bottom line is a pro team is likely a good investment for the long term, if you plan on selling to make your money. But as an operation from year to year, it sucks as a money maker, except maybe in LA, NY or Chicago. Rich folks own teams, because they love it. Its a hobby or toy. Like owning race horses or extremely expensive cars.

 

[Kingzrool]

But I'm saying that even if those problems didn't exist at all, the Maloofs would STILL want a new building, one they could make more $$$ out of.

Like that.

So your point is that the Kings do need a new arena but even if they did not they would still want one????

How is this in the slightest bit relevant??? And why do we care what happens in this hypothetical reality???

They DO need a new arena, that is what matters. And yes, they will need it to be profitable. These arena threads are getting a tad crazy.

 

[VF21]

^^I have to agree, Kingzrool. If someone cannot accept the reality about the declining status of Arco Arena as a public entertainment venue, then there really isn't anything to talk about with them.

 

[JB_kings]

I don't deny any of that. It's true. Arco is a mess from top to bottom. But I'm saying that even if those problems didn't exist at all, the Maloofs would STILL want a new building, one they could make more $$$ out of. They can't make money to pay their bills and make a profit UNLESS they get their mitts on taxpayer subsidies, the subsidies that go along with a potential new arena. They don't care about the roof.

In a court room, that doesn't fly as it's called, "speculating". And it doesn't fly with me either since it's borderline straw man again. The fact is that the building is near the end of it's life. So your redirection is still not valid.

 

[Spartans_fan]

So your point is that the Kings do need a new arena but even if they did not they would still want one????

Sort of. You're getting warmer. The Kings, like many other professional teams over the past several years, want a new arena because the new arena would bring them lots of new revenue. That doesn't mean in many cases, of course, that the existing arena is in terrible physical shape, only that the team would get more money out of a new one. Yankee Stadium is a good example of many. It doesn't need to be replaced. It WILL be replaced, however, because this way the team can get their hands on millions of dollars of taxpayer support.

In Sacramento's case, our arena really DOES need to be replaced. We DO need a new one. But if one isn't constructed as to give the Maloofs the maximum bang for the buck (in terms of maximizing their revenue via taxpayer subsidy) they aren't going to stay. The arena is just a way for them to get their hands on taxpayer $$$.

I think this is actually pretty clear. I don't know what the confusion is.

How is this in the slightest bit relevant???

Because why can't the Maloofs compete without figuring out a way to wring taxpayer subsidies? Because the overhead/cost side is out of control. That's what's annoying people. Why should taxpayers subsidize Stern's folly?

You call it a hypothetical, but look at the recent election results. They are anything but hypothetical.

 

[Spartans_fan]

I have to agree, Kingzrool. If someone cannot accept the reality about the declining status of Arco Arena as a public entertainment venue

If you are talking about me, I never said Arco is NOT declining. Do you have a quote where I said this?

 

[VF21]

So your point is that the Kings do need a new arena but even if they did not they would still want one????

Sort of. You're getting warmer. The Kings, like many other professional teams over the past several years, want a new arena because the new arena would bring them lots of new revenue. That doesn't mean in many cases, of course, that the existing arena is in terrible physical shape, only that the team would get more money out of a new one. Yankee Stadium is a good example of many. It doesn't need to be replaced. It WILL be replaced, however, because this way the team can get their hands on millions of dollars of taxpayer support.

In Sacramento's case, our arena really DOES need to be replaced. We DO need a new one. But if one isn't constructed as to give the Maloofs the maximum bang for the buck (in terms of maximizing their revenue via taxpayer subsidy) they aren't going to stay. The arena is just a way for them to get their hands on taxpayer $$$.

I think this is actually pretty clear. I don't know what the confusion is.

How is this in the slightest bit relevant???

Because why can't the Maloofs compete without figuring out a way to wring taxpayer subsidies? Because the overhead/cost side is out of control. That's what's annoying people. Why should taxpayers subsidize Stern's folly?

You call it a hypothetical, but look at the recent election results. They are anything but hypothetical.

Could you please read my post above http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=396868&postcount=69

It would be greatly beneficial to everyone else if you could format your posts in the manner I've indicated.

Thanks.

 

[VF21]

And just a request?

You've made the same point innumerable times now. You insist the Maloofs would want a new arena even if one wasn't necessary. That's irrelevant because one IS necessary.

There isn't any confusion. There's just disbelief among a number of us that you would continue to try and sell that particular brand of snake oil.

The election results in Sacramento County showed only one thing conclusively. What was it? That people are not going to vote to raise sales tax when they don't have any idea what the money will actually be going towards. Anything else is pure speculation.

As far as what Stern and the Maloofs have in mind, unless you're one or the other you cannot possibly know. Why not wait and see wht happens before you keep sounding the death knell to the Kings and to the Maloofs?

 

[Spartans_fan]

In a court room, that doesn't fly as it's called, "speculating".

No, speculating is when a witness testifies based on theory for which he has no personal knowledge, nor has previous foundation been laid. That the Kings want Sacramento to hand them a taxpayer subsidy is not a theory. That sports franchises have been employing a similar strategy as the Maloofs to gain taxpayer $$$ is well documented, too.


And it doesn't fly with me either since it's borderline straw man again.

A non-sequitor. "Borderline straw man" has no meaning.

The fact is that the building is near the end of it's life.

I agree. And they are using that fact to wring cash out of our taxpayers.

Geez. I didn't think this strategy by the Maloofs was all that oblique. The question is not whether they are doing it (???) but if we allow them to do it to keep the team here. I say unfortunately no, but others have a different view.

 

[ShatteredVision]

NBA has been given some negative light lately about Arenas (Seattle, Portland, Orlando, Sacramento, Milwaukee).

But how has the NHL been at building arenas? I hear Pittsburgh is having troubles garnering support for a home for the Pens. The Minnesota Wild have had their nice hockey facility in St. Paul. In South Florida, the Panthers have a building somewhere on the outskirts of the Everglades, miles away from Downtown Miami, just like most of their teams, except the Heat...

Detroit manages to play in an old arena and the Phoenix team moved to the burbs to replace the poor situation at the old America West.

There must be some parallels between the NHL and NBA...

 

[Spartans_fan]

You've made the same point innumerable times now. You insist the Maloofs would want a new arena even if one wasn't necessary. That's irrelevant because one IS necessary.

No, it's not irrelevant. They still want something the taxpayers are obviously not willing to give them. Therefore, it's obvious that the entire project is stalled. That's not an irrelevancy.

There's just disbelief among a number of us that you would continue to try and sell that particular brand of snake oil.

The disbelief is on my end, trust me. I mean honestly- you don't see this deal as a way for the Maloofs to get their hands on new arena revenue streams- financed by taxpayer dollars? Why do they want it so bad, because they are first and foremost concerned with Sacramento having a new entertainment venue?


The election results in Sacramento County showed only one thing conclusively. What was it? That people are not going to vote to raise sales tax when they don't have any idea what the money will actually be going towards. Anything else is pure speculation.


That's the spin some are putting on it. There are of course many reasons why people vote the way they do. I give people more credit that that. I think it says people don't want to subsidize the NBA's millionaires, and they are right for not wanting to.

As far as what Stern and the Maloofs have in mind, unless you're one or the other you cannot possibly know.

Oh, yes I can. What are they doing? They are in business. What does a businessperson want to do, first and foremost? It's not a mystery to anyone, anywhere. I know I don't need to say it's all about the money. So I won't.

Maybe you're right though- maybe Stern's/the Maloofs strategy would be a bit more mysterious if the SAME thing hadn't been done already in many other cities.

Game plan​

1) Have your league salaries go up so high you can't compete without some additional revenue sources (if then).

2) Start whining you need a new arena or you will have to move (sometimes it's true, sometimes it's less true).

3) Have your city build one, with taxpayer finance, giving you all sorts of revenue streams at taxpayer expense. It's not like the taxpayers directly cutting you a check, but it's close.

4) Eureka! You have some extra revenue! But since #1 will happen again, you will be back for another go-round...



Why not wait and see wht happens before you keep sounding the death knell to the Kings and to the Maloofs?

I want very much for the Kings and the Maloofs to stay. But I don't think any "solution" I have seen can be supported on principle. I would love to see solutions that could be supported by fair minded taxpayers who don't want to subsidize the NBA's waste.

 

[VF21]

Whatever, dude. You're not going to quit beating the horse but that doesn't mean any of us have to continue to stand around and watch.

Have a nice evening.

 

[JB_kings]

I want very much for the Kings and the Maloofs to stay. But I don't think any "solution" I have seen can be supported on principle. I would love to see solutions that could be supported by fair minded taxpayers who don't want to subsidize the NBA's waste.

Only on your very narrow terms. You obviously share similar beliefs with Dave Jones. In which case there is no reason to continue discussing your terms because they have no possible positive outcome.

 

[Geoff]

So let me get this straight...

Since the Maloofs are billionaires, and since the NBA has a flawed business model, and since both parties will be beneficiaries of a new arena, the taxpayers of Sacramento have decided to punish both parties by not supporting the construction of a new arena. This is the case, even if all parties are agreed that a new arena is needed, and the main beneficiaries of this arena would be the taxpayers of Sacramento.

I admit that I can talk freely because I don't live in Sacramento, but it seems to me that the anti-arena people are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Who has the most to lose if the Kings leave Sacramento? It's not the Maloofs, they'll still have their billions. It's certainly not the NBA; Okhlahoma City has shown itself to be a ready and willing home for an NBA team, and there are many other cities out there who would want a team. The Kings will not be homeless if they have to leave Sactown.

Maybe Sacramento is like Seattle, in that they don't care one way or another if their ball team leaves. If so, no harm no foul.


If that's not the case however, then those who have the most to lose are the ones who will have to shoulder the heaviest load. How badly do the taxpayers of Sacramento want to keep their basketball team?

 

[JB_kings]

So let me get this straight...

Since the Maloofs are billionaires, and since the NBA has a flawed business model, and since both parties will be beneficiaries of a new arena, the taxpayers of Sacramento have decided to punish both parties by not supporting the construction of a new arena. This is the case, even if all parties are agreed that a new arena is needed, and the main beneficiaries of this arena would be the taxpayers of Sacramento.

I admit that I can talk freely because I don't live in Sacramento, but it seems to me that the anti-arena people are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Who has the most to lose if the Kings leave Sacramento? It's not the Maloofs, they'll still have their billions. It's certainly not the NBA; Okhlahoma City has shown itself to be a ready and willing home for an NBA team, and there are many other cities out there who would want a team. The Kings will not be homeless if they have to leave Sactown.

Maybe Sacramento is like Seattle, in that they don't care one way or another if their ball team leaves. If so, no harm no foul.


If that's not the case however, then those who have the most to lose are the ones who will have to shoulder the heaviest load. How badly do the taxpayers of Sacramento want to keep their basketball team?

Good points. However, Seattle can afford to play hard ball with the NBA and the Sonics because they already have two other major professional teams with the Mariners and Seahawks. And Seattle cannot be called out because they participated in building two new venues for those teams. Sacramento has yet to be involved in one single public entertainment facility that compares. They couldn't even figure out how to work out a AAA baseball stadium when little West Sacramento could.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

Good points. However, Seattle can afford to play hard ball with the NBA and the Sonics because they already have two other major professional teams with the Mariners and Seahawks. And Seattle cannot be called out because they participated in building two new venues for those teams. Sacramento has yet to be involved in one single public entertainment facility that compares. They couldn't even figure out how to work out a AAA baseball stadium when little West Sacramento could.

I want to correct this statement.

Sacramento County DID participate in the construction of Raley Field. Raley Field is the product of a JPA formed by Sacramento County, West Sacramento, and Yolo County. This deal worked because of the $70 million or so that was needed to construct this stadium, $40 million came from Raley's. The rest was financed through public bonds; the taxpayers of Sac County, Yolo County and West Sac guaranteed those bonds.

But here's the important part: The bonds are being repaid by a ticket surcharge on events at the stadium. Just like Sacramento Theatre Company is repaying its loan from Sacramento City with a $3 surcharge on every event they show. Same for Music Circus.

There was no general tax hike; there was a seat surcharge. No public vote required.

(Do you think I might be trying to say something here?)

 

[JB_kings]

I want to correct this statement.

Sacramento County DID participate in the construction of Raley Field. Raley Field is the product of a JPA formed by Sacramento County, West Sacramento, and Yolo County. This deal worked because of the $70 million or so that was needed to construct this stadium, $40 million came from Raley's. The rest was financed through public bonds; the taxpayers of Sac County, Yolo County and West Sac guaranteed those bonds.

But here's the important part: The bonds are being repaid by a ticket surcharge on events at the stadium. Just like Sacramento Theatre Company is repaying its loan from Sacramento City with a $3 surcharge on every event they show. Same for Music Circus.

There was no general tax hike; there was a seat surcharge. No public vote required.

(Do you think I might be trying to say something here?)

Maybe I missed it. You didn't ever mention the City of Sacramento. I saw Yolo and Sac County. I saw the City of West Sacramento... Where is Sac City? Did they not also have the stadium land next to Arco?

And as soon as you can figure out how to build an arena for 70 million, you may be on to something. Didn't we also cover this ground and a surcharge of a few dollars isn't enough to pay back the kind of bonds required to build a new building?

Quick math - $3 a seat for Kings ((17k x 42) x $3)) and Monarchs ((7k x 34) x $3 ) would return around 2.3 million dollars. Given there is no data from other events, I'm guessing that's maybe another 1-2 million? So you have 3-4 million in revenue to repay the debt. Should we go 10, 20 or 30 years? You see that you can't even borrow 100 million and expect the surcharge to cover the debt. Is Raleys going to cover the same 50-60 percent of the total cost here?
If there was an easy answer to the financing, we wouldn't be having this problem now would we?

 

[kennadog]

Not only that, but it was the City of West Sacramento that took the leadership role and got it done. Definitely something neither the City of Sacramento, nor the County of Sacramento were able to do or have ever shown they are capable of doing.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

Not only that, but it was the City of West Sacramento that took the leadership role and got it done. Definitely something neither the City of Sacramento, nor the County of Sacramento were able to do or have ever shown they are capable of doing.

There is no way the City of West Sac was going to get that done alone.

I'm not suggesting a $3 surcharge would be enough for an NBA arena. It may take an AVERAGE of $10 to fund PART of it. In fact, I think the average surcharge for the $73 million loan is already close to $10; in some seats, it's $1, and in others, it's far higher, like $30. The City did not require the borrowers to print what the surcharge is; they should have.

I don't know who took the leadership role for Raley Field, but Roger Dickinson was out personally lobbying for it. That's the first and only time I met Roger; he walked through our neighborhood, asking for support. Because of the very small dollar amount requested and the fact that it was mostly privately financed, I really didn't oppose that deal.

That JPA has 5 members; 2 from Sac County BOS, 2 from West Sac Council, 1 from Yolo BOS.

 

[kennadog]

There is no way the City of West Sac was going to get that done alone.

I didn't say they could have done it alone. But it was West Sacramento that took the governmental leadership role.