Bee: NBA boss arrives in capital, says he'll lead effort to build Kings new home.

#1
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/87706.html

NBA boss arrives in capital, says he'll lead the effort to build Kings a new home
By Mary Lynne Vellinga and Terri Hardy - Bee Staff Writers

Last Updated 2:03 am PST Tuesday, December 5, 2006

The first day of the bid by David Stern, center, to help the Kings build a new facility ends Monday at Arco Arena, where Sacramento lost to Orlando.

NBA Commissioner David Stern swept into Sacramento on Monday and declared that he would take responsibility for crafting a workable plan to build a new arena for the Kings and selling it to the public.

"If there is a plan, this will be a plan that I will put my name on," Stern said in a pre-game news conference at Arco Arena Monday evening.

While he has been involved in arena talks in other NBA cities, he said this is the first time he has taken the lead negotiator role.

Stern arrived in town Monday for a two-day whirlwind schedule of meetings with those in a position to help craft an arena plan, or shed light on why previous efforts have failed.

He said he came with no preconceived notions of what would work, but in meetings Monday he repeatedly brought up the idea of a statewide authority to help finance California sports venues.

Accompanying him was Baltimore sports and entertainment consultant John Moag, who plans to stay in town for at least two weeks to work on the effort.

Moag called the Sacramento arena effort to date "a little rudderless" and said Stern -- who officially represents the Maloof family, which owns the Kings -- will step into the role usually played by a political leader.

"Every one of these projects everywhere in the country needs a leader, and that's what David is doing," he said.

Stern spent the day meeting with Sacramento City Council members as well as leaders of the failed effort to raise sales taxes to build a new arena in the downtown railyard.

Today, he plans to sit down with Suheil Totah, vice president of downtown railyard developer Thomas Enterprises, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sacramento County officials, and Angelo K. Tsakopoulos, the region's most prominent developer and landowner.

The commissioner said he is trying to talk to a broad cross section of local and state leaders to come up with financing ideas.

"I'm here because the Maloofs have told me they want to stay and asked me to get involved," he said.

While Stern said he has no definite plan yet for financing a new arena, some of those who met with him said he brought up the idea of creating a statewide sports authority that could assist with the financing of sports venues throughout California.

Moag said he formerly chaired a similar authority in Maryland that used state revenue sources -- such as the lottery -- to build Oriole Park and nearby Ravens Stadium in Baltimore.

At Monday evening's news conference, Stern said he plans to investigate the idea further, even though he described his planned visit with Schwarzenegger primarily as a "courtesy call."

"I think there may ultimately be something that some legislative body could help with, but I don't know," he said. "This really is a courtesy call to the state's highest ranking elected official."

In last month's failed campaign to raise the Sacramento County sales tax to build a new arena, the Sacramento business and political establishment coalesced behind the idea that the arena should go in the railyard -- particularly if public money were involved in building it.

But Stern said he has "no preconceived notion" of where the arena should go. As for public funding, he said he doesn't see the voters' resounding rejection of Measures Q and R as a repudiation of the idea of any public money for an arena. Voters simply didn't like the deal on the table, he said.

"I would not rule out the possibility that some public dollars could be infused here," he said.

Stern met with five City Council members. Mayor Heather Fargo told reporters at an afternoon news conference that her meeting with Stern was cordial but produced no concrete solutions.

"He's looking for ideas," she said. "He didn't come with an answer."

She said Stern seemed willing to continue pursuing the idea of building an arena in the railyard or anywhere else that a viable plan could be put together. While city leaders prefer the railyard location, she said, they are open to other sites.

"We discussed location, and I think it's fair to say we're open to different locations in the city," Fargo said.

She said she personally suggested an NBA-wide program to help finance arenas in smaller city markets. "It would be difficult to get owners in other cities to help finance an arena here, but on the other hand we're part of the league," she said.

When she broached the idea, Fargo said, Stern "expressed concern about what other owners would think, but he didn't cut me off in mid-sentence."

But in the news conference, he said that was "not a likely scenario" for building an arena, although he is working on a revenue sharing plan to allow "mid-market teams to compete."

Fargo said she is encouraged by Stern's involvement but can't quickly forget seven years of failed arena efforts.

"At this point, there's no reason not to be optimistic, but given what I've been through, I'm not quite ready to break out the groundbreaking shovel yet," Fargo said.

Sandy Smoley, chairwoman of the Q&R campaign, said Stern told her during their meeting that he was in no hurry to reach a quick solution. Stern also was careful in his meeting with reporters not to set any deadline on reaching an arena deal.

"He said, 'We just want to take it slow and see what ideas are out there, and see if we can come up with something,'" she said.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#2
"I'm here because the Maloofs have told me they want to stay and asked me to get involved," he said.
Maybe now those who think this has all been a ruse by the Maloofs will have to find a new song to sing.

She said she personally suggested an NBA-wide program to help finance arenas in smaller city markets.
I cannot believe that Heather Fargo is actually trying to make it look as though it was her idea to pursue revenue sharing in the NBA. My God, why hasn't anyone else ever thought of that? :rolleyes:

Fargo said she is encouraged by Stern's involvement but can't quickly forget seven years of failed arena efforts.

"At this point, there's no reason not to be optimistic, but given what I've been through, I'm not quite ready to break out the groundbreaking shovel yet," Fargo said.
Earth to Heather Fargo: This isn't about you. The new arena, if it gets built, is NOT going to be named Fargo Arena, unless it's after Wells Fargo Bank. Learn to deal with it, Madame Mayor. You are NOT the driving force behind this prospect. In fact, the best thing you could do at this point is remain quiet and let those who know what they're talking about do the negotiating.
 
#3
I cannot believe that Heather Fargo is actually trying to make it look as though it was her idea to pursue revenue sharing in the NBA. My God, why hasn't anyone else ever thought of that? :rolleyes:
I think she is referring to having other teams help with building arenas, which is different than the revenue-sharing plans the NBA and other leagues use. ;)
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#4
...

So the Lakers should help build the Kings new arena? Yeah, I'm sure they're gonna sign right up for that project.

Fargo just doesn't get it. She never has and she never will. I haven't forgotten all the things she said about the Kings, even though she apparently has. The ONLY reason she's doing this now is to try and establish some kind of legacy for herself. I know she has dreams of a Serna-esque statue of herself some day. The sad truth is I don't think she even realizes what a gap exists between the influence someone like Joe Serna had on Sacramento and what people will think of her tenure as mayor down the road...
 
#5
Well yesterday was the "kicking the tires" phase. I'm sure they discussed some of the history and recapped the issues with the railyard. Which explains Stern's comment about learning a new word, intermodal. Which was likely used in this exchange:
DS: So what building projects do you have the funds to develop in the railyard so far?
HF: Our Intermodal Transit Facility!
DS: You have an inter-what?
HF: It's our old train depot building. We plan to pick it up and move it north a few yards. Then we'll move the Greyhound Bus depot there and set up a light rail stop. That's why it's intermodal because it serves several modes of transportation.
DS: Uh huh. What else are you prepared to build?
HF: Nothing until we figure out how to squeeze 300 million dollars out of nowhere with nobody noticing.
DS: Uh, huh. So lets talk about this land you own in North Natomas...
 
#6
...

So the Lakers should help build the Kings new arena? Yeah, I'm sure they're gonna sign right up for that project.

Fargo just doesn't get it. She never has and she never will. I haven't forgotten all the things she said about the Kings, even though she apparently has. The ONLY reason she's doing this now is to try and establish some kind of legacy for herself. I know she has dreams of a Serna-esque statue of herself some day. The sad truth is I don't think she even realizes what a gap exists between the influence someone like Joe Serna had on Sacramento and what people will think of her tenure as mayor down the road...

What all has she said about the Kings?
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#7
You'd have to go back years, BMiller52, to when the team was asking for a loan to be able to keep their heads even remotely above water. Fargo wasn't in favor of the loan (the $70 million that was eventually approved) and she made no bones about it. She thought there were a lot better things that could be done with that kind of money (even though it was a loan that was secured, not actual money out of the city coffers) and she made some very disparaging remarks about sports in general and, if I remember correctly, those who would put sports ahead of other needs. She even had a couple of pretty public heated exchanges with Joe Serna over it.

Fargo has only become enamored of the Kings because of the possibility of hitching the whole railyard project to the team.

I do not trust Heather Fargo or anything she says.
 
#8
All I'll say is, you really have to go watch the video of the press conference folks. The Bee left out a ton of stuff. Some of it pretty hilarious. :)
 
#9
That statewide authority would be nice, but I can't see it passing in CA. Moreover, it could get pretty unwieldy considering all the major cities we have. Maryland really only has Baltimore. What happens when LA wants to build a new football stadium to try to lure a football team? How would San Diego people take that, considering the Chargers are one team rumored to be possible for the LA area?
 
#10
Maybe not a statewide authority, but maybe a multi-county authority could be possible. That takes action by the State legislature and governor, tho.
 
#11
What all has she said about the Kings?
Below are several articles that were published in the Sacramento Bee and I will paste key sections.

Paper: The Sacramento Bee
Title: BIG PICTURE IS LOST IN DETAILS OF DEAL
Date: January 29, 1997

"The deal on the table may not be what Jim Thomas wants, but it's all that he needs," Mayor Joe Serna Jr. said.

The big picture was hovered over and touched upon by council members Heather Fargo and Robbie Waters and Steve Cohn, but even those astute representatives let it slip away.

Cohn made two critical points. He noted that the NBA is "making money head over heels" and wondered why the city was even considering a loan to the Kings.

"A subsidy should come from the NBA," Cohn said.

Next, Cohn asked whether Thomas would stake his considerable personal fortune to guarantee any losses suffered by the city's general fund. Thomas said he couldn't do that - it would make his family nervous, he said.

"You're making me nervous," Cohn said. "I worry about my family and the citizens of this city."

Waters made the point that nobody would invest in his hardware store if it were losing millions of dollars. According to Thomas, his investment in Arco Arena and the Kings is losing about $5 million per year. Why should the city loan money to a loser?

If the city is uncomfortable, Thomas suggested, the answer is simple - "Don't do this deal," he said.

Finally there was Fargo, who recognized that city residents represent a small portion of Kings' ticket holders.

"The people we need to hear from are city residents," Fargo said.

In public testimony Tuesday night, those people began to speak. The talked about priorities. They quoted the Bible. They said the Kings should take care of their own problems.

And after hours of discussion about the low risk involved with loaning money to the Kings, they still had trouble with the big question: What's the deal with millionaires needing a loan?

R.E. GRASWICH'S column appears four times a week. Write him at P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, 95852, or call (916) 326-5521. Copyright 1997 The Sacramento Bee
Author: R.E. Graswich
Section: SPORTS
Page: C1
Copyright 1997 The Sacramento Bee
 
#12
WARY, DIVIDED COUNCIL WRESTLES WITH KINGS DECISION
4 LEAN TOWARD OK, 3 LEAN AGAINST, FARGO UNDECIDED
The Sacramento Bee
January 30, 1997
Author: Tony Bizjak Bee Staff Writer

"Is this what the city is in business to do?" Fargo asked the council near midnight Tuesday, after hours of discussion.

The council has given loans to private businesses before - $26 million to lure Packard Bell two years ago - but none has received such intense public interest.

None has been as big. The $70 million being discussed would represent the largest loan the city has ever given to private enterprise.

A source close to the negotiations has said some council members appear to be reluctant to make a call on the issue. But several in turn say they are still displeased with the Kings' desire for a rush decision, and want to wait until outside financial experts see the Kings' books, review the deal and offer advice.

"We have to be absolutely certain as elected officials this is a good deal for the city," Fargo said.

Four council members suggest they are leaning toward approving the deal; three have suggested they are against it. And one, Fargo, is on the fence.

Mayor Joe Serna Jr. and Councilmen Rob Kerth, Sam Pannell and Darrell Steinberg all said they like the looks of the deal unveiled Tuesday night, but are awaiting confirmation from independent auditors this week that the Kings' numbers are real.

That has been Serna's mantra throughout his dealings with the Kings.

"Don't touch the general fund," he has said. "I won't vote for any deal that risks the general fund. I don't want sports that bad."

In a private moment last week, suffering from the flu, the California State University, Sacramento, political science teacher admitted he doesn't want to be the mayor who let the Kings go without a fight. He grumbled that the whole issue has been a "textbook public relations disaster."

Since then, Serna has fought to put a better spin on the deal.

Kings owner Jim Thomas' original proposal was for the city to invest in his team and proposed sports-entertainment complex, with a potential for millions of dollars of losses - or profits - for the city.

Thomas dropped the public's potential role in the entertainment complex and the deal eventually evolved into a loan with which Serna and several council members are more comfortable.

Tuesday night, Serna said he felt the deal is basically where he wants it.

"It does two things," he said. "It protects our general fund and it keeps the Sacramento Kings the Sacramento Kings."

Councilman Robbie Waters, on the other hand, has been against the Kings' proposals from the beginning.

Tuesday night, he demanded of Thomas why the Kings' owner couldn't go to a bank and get his own loan without involving the city.

Thomas' answer: A city loan, with tax-exempt bonds, saves him millions of dollars and is part of what it will take to make it economically workable to keep the Kings here. Waters disputed Thomas' figures.

They left the matter unsettled, Waters maintaining his distrust.

Councilmen Jimmie Yee and Steve Cohn both also sparred with Thomas.

"I think what we've embarked on here is a very slippery slope," Cohn said. By giving the Kings a loan, the City Council is doing nothing about the "root cause" of the problem, which is the National Basketball Association and its revenue-sharing policies, which don't adequately support small-market teams, he said.

"I don't know how we would prevent replaying this sequence three years or four or five years from now," he said. "That is a fundamental issue for me. We should say to the NBA, this is not right."

He and Yee both told Thomas he should put up some of his personal or corporate wealth for collateral, in addition to Arco Arena.

Yee said that would be a critical point for him to vote yes on the deal.

Thomas refused. "That would not be a sound business practice," he said.

Fargo, in whose district Arco Arena sits, appears to be the most undecided of all.

She, like most council members, ended Tuesday night's meeting with a list of more questions she'd like answered: about the Kings' financial statements, about the value the arena might have to the city if the Kings leave, whether the Kings can put up more security on a loan, or if someone else would come in to put up security.

"I do not feel comfortable all the questions have been answered," she said. Caption:
Bee photograph/Anne Chadwick Williams Heather Fargo wants more answers. Rob Kerth suggested he's leaning toward approval.
Edition: METRO FINAL
Section: MAIN NEWS
Page: A1

Copyright 1997 The Sacramento Bee
Record Number: 209
 
#13
VOTE ON FATE OF KINGS TONIGHT
BUT TALKS WITH ARCO STILL A KEY
The Sacramento Bee
February 5, 1997
Author: Gary Delsohn and Tony Bizjak Bee Staff Writers

Kings owner Jim Thomas has been asking Arco to pay more money for the right to continue having the company name on the arena, while Arco officials say they already have fulfilled their contract with the previous arena owners.

Pressure on the company intensified Tuesday as Mayor Joe Serna Jr. said in an interview that if Arco wasn't willing to pay up to $20 million to keep its name on the arena, then Packard Bell computers, headquartered in Sacramento, would gladly fill the void.

"If the Arco deal doesn't work, I'm sure Packard Bell would love to work a deal," Serna said before the regular Tuesday night City Council meeting.

Thomas has never identified any of several cities that he says have been courting his National Basketball Association franchise, but a Tennessee newspaper, the Nashville Tennessean, reported Tuesday that local businessman Craig Leipold has offered Thomas $145 million for the team. That's about what Thomas and his partners paid Sacramento developers Gregg Lukenbill and Joe Benvenuti for the team and Arco Arena five years ago.

"Make no mistake about what I am telling you," Thomas said when asked by Councilman Robbie Waters to disclose any offers he has received. "If we can't work out a deal we will have no alternative but to leave."

Leipold, who is also pursuing a National Hockey League expansion team for Nashville, denied he made an offer to Thomas.

"It is not true," he said. "It is not accurate. There are no facts to it. I am still trying to figure out where that came from."

But it underscored the possibility Thomas may be turning his back on a better deal, at least temporarily, to stay in Sacramento.

"On balance, this is a bad deal for Jim Thomas," Serna said of the city loan. "If Thomas is just into making money, his best thing to do is take the team out of here and make a big profit."

Councilman Steve Cohn pressed to know the absolute worst-case scenario if Thomas were to default, and when Bill Farley, the city's economic development director, said risk to the city was minimal, Cohn came up with several novel possibilities.

What if someone else, such as Placer County or a company such as Southwest Airlines, decided to build an arena to compete with Arco, Cohn asked. Wouldn't revenues at the existing Arco, the primary source pledged to retire city bonds sold to raise $70 million for Thomas, plummet, risking a city bailout?

Thomas has agreed to pay the loan back, at 7.5 percent annual interest, over 30 years. The city would take about 49 percent of net revenues generated at Arco Arena to cover the debt payments. A surcharge of up to $2 would also be added to Kings tickets and $1 to tickets on other arena events.

Despite three weeks of negotiations, Serna said earlier in the day that he still was somewhat puzzled about why Thomas didn't just sell and make a profit, and that was the first question he asked Thomas on Tuesday night.

Thomas said he liked Sacramento and wanted to build on the strong fan support the team enjoys. "If I didn't believe there was a future here and we could make this thing work," Thomas said, "I would not be going through this. We would like to be part of the potential that we see here."

Thomas also made it clear, however, that he had reached the end of the line. He needs a decision tonight. He said he already put his partners at risk of losing the offer from another city. And he told Cohn he certainly wouldn't wait until June, when voters could be asked whether they would approve the loan.

"I can assure you I will never go through a thing like this again," the usually private Thomas said. "We already bared our soul more than we liked to."
 
#14
THE KINGS DEAL Sacramento City Council is scheduled to vote tonight on the deal to keep the Kings in Sacramento.

Highlights of the plan:

1. The loan: City of Sacramento will float bond of $70 million to loan to Kings at 7.5% interest rate.

2. THE OBLIGATION: Kings will use money to pay off $51 million mortgage on Arco Arena. The city's loan offer is 2% to 3% lower than what is typically available from lending institutions.

3. COLLATERAL: Kings will put up Arco Arena, valued at $88 million with Kings in it, $50 million without Kings, and $20 million of team's value, currently estimated at $125 million.

4. REPAYMENT: Kings plan to use money from Arco Arena revenues and ticket surcharges of up to $2 for Kings games, $1 for other events.

5. CONDITIONS OF THE LOAN: Kings must negotiate a $20 million deal, possibly with Arco, about signage and advertising rights at the arena within 10 days of

City Council approval.

Kings must pay off debt if and when they leave Sacramento.

Kings' owners are restricted from taking more than 5% annual profits from the team.

Kings' sign 30-year lease and play in Sacramento a minimum of 10 years, with the following exception: Team is losing money and any of the following:

1. Gate revenue falls below 20th in league (currently 13th) or ...

2. Total team revenue is 25% to 30% below NBA average (exact percentage still undecided) or ...

3. Kings find themselves paying city excess of $100,000 more than 57% of team's net operating income.

Source: City of Sacramento
 
#15
CITY GOES FOR KINGS DEAL
COUNCIL VOTES 5-3 FOR $70 MILLION LOAN TO KEEP TEAM
The Sacramento Bee
February 6, 1997
Author: Gary Delsohn and Tony Bizjak Bee Staff Writers

"The cultural fabric of the city includes sports," Mayor Joe Serna Jr. said before casting the fifth and deciding yes vote. "The decision we're about to make is a good one for Sacramento, not just the Sacramento Kings."

In the end, though, it was City Councilman Jimmie Yee, openly skeptical just last week about the wisdom of city money going to professional sports, who clinched it for the Kings.

Yee did it with a dramatic flair, calling Thomas to his feet, then telling him: "Read my lips." The grinning councilman then held up a sign, "Go Kings," and shoved a fist in the air.

Yee joined Serna, Darrell Steinberg, Rob Kerth and Sam Pannell in the majority. Steve Cohn, Heather Fargo and Robbie Waters voted against the 30-year city loan.

Waters said he had 500 phone calls, almost all against the deal, but many longtime friends urged him to vote yes. Yee said his own household was divided on the issue. Fargo, calling it a "tough couple of weeks," held her decision to the last minute. Pannell said he hoped the divisiveness could be put behind as the city and council move forward. And Kerth said the entire council struggled with the tight time frame for making such an important call.

A Kings season ticket holder, Yee ultimately was swayed by staff assurances and Kings owner Jim Thomas' pledge over the weekend to put up $20 million of the team as loan collateral.

Only Serna, who had pushed to get the deal put together, seemed nonchalant about the decision at meeting's end. "Sure, I feel good, sure, fine," he shrugged. "Hey, this is probably the most secure loan the city has ever made."

Yee said the deal posed a minimal risk to city finances because the Kings are pledging Arco Arena as collateral, will impose a ticket surcharge for any shortfall on debt payments, and agree to fully pay off the loan before moving the team.

"With the kind of security provided," Yee said, "it gives the city a prudent risk. And that's all I'm asking for."

"Does this loan keep the Sacramento Kings in town?" Serna asked Thomas.

"It does for now," the Los Angeles developer said.

"Any future request will have to go to the ballot," the mayor responded.

Frustrated at the lack of progress, Thomas said he had a lucrative offer to move the team to another city and would have to take it without help from City Hall. He never disclosed where the offer came from, saying he was bound by a confidentiality agreement. But news reports said a Nashville businessman offered Thomas $145 million to buy the team and move it into the city's new downtown arena.

Thomas angered both city officials and the public when he said he needed an immediate answer or the other offer would expire.

Trying to make a $70 million decision in three weeks was a big part of what caused Fargo to vote against the deal.

"I am opposed to any city financial support for keeping the Kings in town at this point and in this way," she said, citing the city's own financial problems. "I don't think it's in the best interest of the city. . . . I don't think we can make a $70 million decision in three weeks."

Opponents said the public should have a right to vote, and that the city had too many financial problems to be giving a private business a loan.
 
#16
THOMAS TO CITY: KINGS WILL STAY
OWNER SAYS LAST-MINUTE DEAL FORGED WITH ARCO; FOES OF LOAN SUE
The Sacramento Bee
February 19, 1997
Author: Tony Bizjak and Gary Delsohn Bee Staff Writers

To seal the deal with Thomas, the council voted 5-2 to reinstate its loan offer. Voting for the deal were Serna, Darrell Steinberg, Rob Kerth, Jimmie Yee and Sam Pannell. Voting against were Heather Fargo and Steve Cohn. Robbie Waters, an opponent of the deal, was absent.

Cohn, who had been critical of the deal in part because it didn't involve a public vote, cautioned the council and Kings ownership that there is a lesson to be learned from the controversy.

"When talking about large sums of public money," Cohn said, "we really need to involve the public."

A group seeking to stop the city loan filed a lawsuit in Superior Court on Tuesday, and will have a hearing at 2:45 p.m. today before Judge Joe S. Gray to ask for a temporary restraining order.

The suit, filed by attorney Timothy Pappas, alleges a part of the loan deal involving a ticket surcharge at Arco Arena is in fact a special tax, and therefore must be brought to the voters for approval.

"The city can't hide behind the cloth on this, this is a tax," Pappas said.

City Attorney Sam Jackson disagreed. "The fact that a private property owner puts a surcharge on his events - that is not the city of Sacramento doing this," he said.
 
#17
KINGS PACKAGE GAINS FINAL OK
BUT NOT WITHOUT CONTINUED DEBATE
The Sacramento Bee
April 16, 1997
Author: Tony Bizjak Bee Staff Writer

The deal, also backed by a city-held $20 million lien on the team, requires the team to stay in Sacramento for 10 years, unless the team is losing money and revenues fall below stipulated levels. In any case, under the agreement the Kings must repay the entire loan if they leave.

Councilman Steve Cohn said the deal seemed too risky two months ago and still does. "I have not heard anything that discourages me from this."

Representatives of the groups filing the lawsuits were angry, saying their desires for a new appraisal were dismissed without serious consideration.

"This is fiscal malfeasance," said Mark Whisler of the taxpayers' group.

He and Dennis Neufeld also accused Serna of being rude and abridging their civil liberties by limiting their addressing of the council to only three minutes.

"You're a litigant," Serna told them. "Your forum is the courts."
 
#18
Thanks Mike0476.
Ah memory lane. So many politicians to hate and so little time. Why do we lose the good ones and the bad ones seem to hang around? Waters comment about a private business being able to secure a loan equal to the city with tax exempt bonds is really telling. Here has the all the city resources at his disposal to validate that he shouldn't ask such a dumb question and yet he did anyway. It also reminds me that Cohn will always be against anything to do with the arena. It would not surprise me in the least that Cohn and Waters could have been two of the unnamed local politicians that the public radio person was quoting in her question last night.

There you have it folks, the city leaders: Fargo, Cohn and Waters. It's little wonder that the city has a leadership void.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#19
Thanks a lot, Mike. It sure helps to put things in perspective.

Notice how long Graswich has been picking at the whole "millionaires needing a loan" concept?
 
#20
Statewide Funding Authority

I just wanted to point out what a bad idea I think a statewide funding authority would be. Look at the privately-funded sports venues in this State, many recently built: The Pond, AT&T, Staples, and so on. The A's new park will be privately funded.

Suppose this state agency gets going. It funds new facilities for the Chargers, 49ers, Kings and A's. Then the other teams all decide, hey, those loans put our teams (i.e., the teams that did NOT get to benefit from this new agency) at a competitive disadvantage, and unless they take over payments on our facilities, we "may have to fold or move."

So the State says, Sure, Giants, here's $180 million; Sure, 49ers, here's $300 million; Sure, Warriors, here's $100 million.

And this presumably would also cover other non-sports venues, so all of a sudden they're funding venues that host orchestras, theatre companies, ballets, and so on.

How many billion dollars should State taxpayers be willing to fork over for this?

The problems with the Kings in this town are market and league related. This market has no corporate presence and a bad TV contract, and no voter desire to step up in place of those two items. The NBA's mid-level teams are all suffering financially, because Sacramento is not alone in this.

This is why I said the other day: If a patient comes in with a broken finger and a severed artery, if you fix the broken finger and ignore the artery, simply because it was EASIER to splint a finger than it was to perform surgery on the artery, well, you're a bad doctor.

The NBA's problem is not isolated. Until we fix the larger problem, they need to ignore the smaller ones. You have to fix the real problem, not the symptoms of that problem. All paying for a new arena does is postpone the larger decision that COULD have eliminated the smaller one.

It is well within the realm of possibility that revenue sharing could eliminate the need for public funding for arenas entirely, or at least enough to make more than 50% of the population happy.
 
#21
AS, you bring-up some good points about a state-wide funding authority issues. That is not to say, however, that there are no solutions to the problems you present.

The state government is always trying to figure out how to allocate funds across a huge array of issues, i.e. what roads to build and/or repair; which schools get what money....the list goes on and on. I am not sure the issue of which city gets what kind-of arena is all that qualitatively different. I am not saying that I have a rock solid answer to the problem you pose, but rather that this type of problem is nothing new.

I may change my name to 'arena optimist,' to counter your skepticism. I see a sizable common ground that the city and the NBA/Maloofs have on this issue. We all understand that the team needs a bigger, better and newer facility. However, what is far less emphasized is this city's need to have a new venue for concerts, other types of shows, large graduations, an enhanced ability to attract conventions to our downtown and so on. Arco will not be able to fulfill these needs for very long.

So, what I am basically saying is that even if the Maloofs pack-up the team and leave, this issue will not leave our city once they are gone.

We may not need 1/2 billion dollar facility for the reasons cited above. However, we will need something and that something will not come cheap and will not be given to us. Therefore, I see the common ground being the public (city, county or state) paying for what is the city's need for some type of basic venue and the league's need for a state of the art venue. We should shoulder the cost of what a basic venue would cost and private money should be used for the additional costs of a state of the art venue.

Again, I am not saying I have a rock solid plan. I am just saying that there seems to be enough common ground between the Maloof's needs and the public's needs that I remain optimistic. If it does not happen, both the public and the league lose.
 
#22
I just wanted to point out what a bad idea I think a statewide funding authority would be. Look at the privately-funded sports venues in this State, many recently built: The Pond, AT&T, Staples, and so on. The A's new park will be privately funded.

Suppose this state agency gets going. It funds new facilities for the Chargers, 49ers, Kings and A's. Then the other teams all decide, hey, those loans put our teams (i.e., the teams that did NOT get to benefit from this new agency) at a competitive disadvantage, and unless they take over payments on our facilities, we "may have to fold or move."

So the State says, Sure, Giants, here's $180 million; Sure, 49ers, here's $300 million; Sure, Warriors, here's $100 million.

And this presumably would also cover other non-sports venues, so all of a sudden they're funding venues that host orchestras, theatre companies, ballets, and so on.

How many billion dollars should State taxpayers be willing to fork over for this?

The problems with the Kings in this town are market and league related. This market has no corporate presence and a bad TV contract, and no voter desire to step up in place of those two items. The NBA's mid-level teams are all suffering financially, because Sacramento is not alone in this.

This is why I said the other day: If a patient comes in with a broken finger and a severed artery, if you fix the broken finger and ignore the artery, simply because it was EASIER to splint a finger than it was to perform surgery on the artery, well, you're a bad doctor.

The NBA's problem is not isolated. Until we fix the larger problem, they need to ignore the smaller ones. You have to fix the real problem, not the symptoms of that problem. All paying for a new arena does is postpone the larger decision that COULD have eliminated the smaller one.

It is well within the realm of possibility that revenue sharing could eliminate the need for public funding for arenas entirely, or at least enough to make more than 50% of the population happy.
See that is a bad analogy IMO. Since both issues are fatal to our market, you have to fix the one that's going to kill you first. The arena problem is worse than the revenue sharing. That's not to say that revenue sharing isn't important, it just isn't what is going to be the death of the Kings in Sacramento in the immediate future. Stern stated he is negotiating with the owners on this and has been for years. It's not that it isn't important, it's that it's probably a more diffcult and painful thing to fix. You have to get 2/3 of the owners to agree to take away their money from the big market owners. And you thought a sales tax was a tough sell...

I also think you have different expectations of where the NBA is going than they actually are. They aren't going to suddenly be paying players a fraction of what they used to. That isn't going to happen until the revenue shrinks. I doubt the revenue will shrink since Stern is steering the NBA towards being a global league. I don't doubt he will because he is quite far along. And I agree with his global approach because that opens up new big markets with which to fuel growth. New TV contracts, new mega markets. Stern is thinking growth while you are thinking cutbacks. In a way, that mirrors the thinking of most anti-anything groups.
 
#23
Stern is pushing globally, and being successful, but the domestic market is dying. You can't move these teams to Munich, Beijing, and Barcelona and still maintain a league. You would need separate leagues for each continent, at least, like futbol.

Stern has made a fair amount of bad decisions since the end of the real MJ era, 1998. The new TV deal is ridiculous, as it puts most of the games on cable TV, which has decreased the visibility of the game in the domestic market.

I hate the defensive rule changes because it has reduced any emphasis on defense. The rule changes have certainly increased accessibility to the international market, and the success of international players (imagine Petro in this era), but Americans love defense and hard-nosed play. Couple the new rules with the worst officiating in any professional sport, with the exception Serie A, and you have a product that lacks true intensity.

The guaranteed max deal has been covered before and the lottery is a perennial joke.

But, the media are scared to death of Stern because he is a smarmy NY lawyer who, in the not too distant past, rode Bird, Magic, and MJ to a golden age in professional sports. The NBA was the show back then, and he still gets credit for that. I LOVE basketball! It is just a beautiful game, along with futbol and football. But increasingly, I can't stand the NBA.
 
#24
ArenaSkeptic: There is a fundamental difference between most Sports Authorities and the recent deals, so you can't talk about apples and oranges. Most SP's I've heard of own and operate the arenas/stadias they fund. Or at least hire someone to operate them. Very different types of deals from what was just proposed.
 
#25
Venom I'm not sure I agree with the games on cable being a problem. I've had either cable or satellite for at least two decades. Almost everyone I know has one or the other. I know there is still a section of the population that still relies on the old antenna or just gets lifeline cable, but those people really aren't in the target audience for pro sports anyway. It's not just a trendy thing, ABC moved MNF, one of the biggest network sports draw ever, over to ESPN. Stern was right to go to more games on ESPN and TNT with the current deals. The weekly network games weren't really drawing numbers unless it a a major market, playoffs, or finals games on the weekends. And as far as locally, the Kings fans screamed to get more games and were happy to see the Comcast deal. It's helping the league - not hurting.
 
#26
I'd just like to say that Stern getting involved makes me nervous and makes me think the team is leaving more than at any other time. The man is not trustworthy. He has slowly turned the NBA into the NBE and now he's coming to a small market that he has routinely dissed through lack of attention for years, plus the way the officials have routinely dissed Sacrameto... to handle the future of the franchise in this city? Oy. Stern is a shady (deleted).
 
Last edited by a moderator: