Bee: NBA yet to pull out big gun

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/32503.html

Commissioner Stern has taken prominent role in other arena efforts
By Mark Kreidler - Bee Staff Writer
Last Updated 12:47 am PDT Monday, October 2, 2006
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A1


Among the myriad names and faces associated with the most recent effort to build a new arena that would house the Kings, one of the most prominent has gone missing: NBA Commissioner David Stern.

The history of the National Basketball Association, with Stern aggressively pushing for improved facilities and lease deals for his teams, suggests that will change sometime between now and the Nov. 7 election for the arena sales-tax proposal -- on the ballot in Sacramento County as Measures Q and R.

But is that the good news or the bad?

Through the years, Stern has established himself as a commissioner willing to go into a city and engage public debate on arena issues, but increasingly his results have been checkered. In the recent case of Seattle, Stern's strident approach appears to have backfired almost completely.

"I think David Stern thought he was coming to Seattle to boost the Sonics' chances, and instead he undermined them," said Nick Licata, president of the Seattle City Council.

Still, Stern is viewed as an indispensable ally by owners around the league, including Joe and Gavin Maloof, who in 2004 first asked the commissioner to help them in their effort to leave Arco Arena for a new facility.

"He (Stern) is directly involved," said Kings president John Thomas. "It's safe to say that there is nothing going on in the NBA that David does not know about, and he is always available to his teams and his owners."

How heavily Stern becomes involved is often a matter of timing. Both Thomas and NBA spokesman Brian McIntyre said last week that there are no current plans for Stern to visit Sacramento to stump for the sales-tax proposal, with McIntyre adding, "That could change."

Behind the scenes, though, Stern's communication with the Maloofs is constant. It was Stern's decision to send one of his most trusted associates, Harvey Benjamin, to help broker the agreement that resulted in Measures Q and R.

"That is a direct reflection of the commissioner's involvement in the issue," said Joel Litvin, the NBA's president of league and basketball operations.

Publicly, the commissioner, who already has said several times that Arco Arena needs to be replaced, has seldom been afraid to take a hard-line approach. He won't hesitate to at least vaguely threaten the movement of a franchise if a new arena is not built.

"He has intervened in a lot of other cities, and the speech is generally the same," said Licata, who is among the leaders of the opposition to public funding for the Sonics. "It's basically, 'If you guys don't acquiesce, we'll pull the team out of town,' although he never puts it in exactly those words."

Stern once famously tweaked the venerated fans in Boston, saying in 1993 of the old Garden, "If the city of Boston can't provide the Celtics with (a) first-class facility, then we're going to have to think about where the Celtics should be located -- or relocated."

The Celtics wound up in a new building, sharing space at the Fleet Center with the National Hockey League's Bruins. But Stern's campaigns haven't always gone so swimmingly.

When Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz and his investor group struggled to gain support for a new lease deal for the SuperSonics, they called in Stern. Stern responded by making a trip to Seattle in February, when he asked Washington state legislators to approve using public money to renovate KeyArena and establish a new lease with the team.

By April, though, little progress had been made, and Stern's mood darkened considerably. In a conference call with reporters, he said Seattle "is making it pretty clear what they want us to do, and we'll accommodate them. ... What I mean is that they're not interested in having the NBA there."

Stern's words drew a pointed response from the office of Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, once a strong supporter of a new deal. While Nickels wanted the Sonics around for decades to come, a spokeswoman said, "We have a lease through 2010, and we fully expect that the lease will be honored."

In July, Schultz, explaining that he believed he could never receive public approval on a new deal, sold the Sonics for $350 million to a group from Oklahoma City, leaving open the possibility that the franchise will leave Seattle after 40 years there.

Stern has often said he considers franchise movement "a failure," since it is generally preceded by the breakdown of negotiations in the teams' current cities. But over the past several years, the Grizzlies left Vancouver for Memphis, the Hornets went from Charlotte to New Orleans, and the Sonics have been put into play as a potential relocation.

In fact, three West Coast cities -- Seattle, Portland and Sacramento -- are facing arena-related issues at the same time. Like the Sonics, the Trail Blazers were briefly put up for sale this summer, before owner Paul Allen withdrew them from the market.

"I think it's fair to say it is pure coincidence that each of these issues has occurred within the last year or so. That's happenstance," said the NBA's Litvin, who last week issued a statement urging a signed memorandum of understanding among the Maloofs and Sacramento city and county representatives.

"We always have a concern where there is an arena 'situation,' and I use that term broadly, because these cases are all so different," Litvin said. "(But) there is certainly nothing to suggest that it's anything more than coincidence."

Stern was heavily involved in Portland, where he attempted to join the Blazers and their arena, the separately owned Rose Garden, into a single entity for sale. But he withdrew the NBA from that process in April amid acrimony and finger-pointing, including a scathing letter to the arena's operators in which Stern laid the blame at their feet and warned of "grave consequences for the city of Portland."

More recently, Stern has turned his attention to Orlando, where the Magic hopes for a new, $385 million arena as part of a $1.1 billion package of entertainment and sports projects funded primarily by a hotel tax. The team currently plays in the TD Waterhouse Centre, which opened in 1989.

"Flat out, the (current) Orlando arena is the last of its kind," Stern said in a video presentation to Orange County, Fla., commissioners. "Every other NBA arena either has been replaced or there are plans in place for replacements."

About the writer: The Bee's Mark Kreidler can be reached at (916) 321-1149 or mkreidler@sacbee.com.
 
While reading this I had a very interesting idea. Why doesn't the NBA pay for the arena itself and then lease it to the Maloofs?

;)
 
While reading this I had a very interesting idea. Why doesn't the NBA pay for the arena itself and then lease it to the Maloofs?

;)
Well, honestly, I do think the NBA needs to do something about the inequities between big market and small market teams. A salary cap isn't really much good, when the revenue streams are so unequal.

"Flat out, the (current) Orlando arena is the last of its kind," Stern said in a video presentation to Orange County, Fla., commissioners. "Every other NBA arena either has been replaced or there are plans in place for replacements."
Stern must be counting Arco One as replaced in this statement? :eek:
 
The NBA needs to get more political savvy. This is a time when cities are really hurting for money, having to make very hard choices between things like schools, police coverage and street maintenance. You pay a big price for shortchanging any of those in the mid-long run, but they have to make those choices.

How can the NBA expect people to feel good about giving them a subsidy when they can't even keep city services operating properly? It's gall.

The problem is that the current political ideology of this country is to favor investment income over wage income. City tax revenues increase with wage income because most people derive the bulk of their income from wages. Things were better for cities in the 90's because wage income was favored, which had a positive feedback to investment income. It doesn't seem to work well the other way, investment income doesn't spur wage income in the same way that wage income spurs investment income.

The NBA needs to learn how to put its begging hat out at the right time.
 
Actually this arena push was started in the 90's. The city had their heads you know where back then as well. This city is running just as well as it always has. These things are cyclical and always have been. As soon as this arena thing goes away one way or the other - things will remain the same as they always have been. It looks like the fear campaign is winning again.

Crime will always be on the "rise".
Money is always short.
The levees will always concern us.
Traffic is always bad.

These aren't facts - they're hype as always.
 
Last edited:
This was too rushed to begin with...

People are starting to see the problem. Sacramento isn't the problem, per se; it is merely a symptom of those problems.

Just add up all the revenue streams teams get, from national and local TV revenue, to naming rights, to tickets, corporate partnerships, and so forth. Because Sacramento is a small market, it is limited by the dollar value on its TV rights. I imagine that the Warriors get a lot more in local TV rights than the Kings do, for example.

So the Maloofs looked for an alternate revenue stream: An 8,000 spot parking facility that 1) The City will pay for, and 2) for which the Maloofs will get 100% of the revenue, 100% of the time. It's a new form of revenue I imagine no other team has. And they want it because of the size of the market.

The same logic applies to the "sphere of influence" the Maloofs want.

But here's the problem: If the City builds the 8,000 spot parking lot, they could easily put parking garages they already operate out of business. How? Well, it's not that far from Old Sac, so if the Maloofs do this right, they'll charge $5/day for their lot for off days (the catch is, you'd pay a penalty if not out by 6 p.m.). That sounds a lot better than $2/hour to park in Old Sac to most tourists (or downtown office dwellers).

So the Maloofs have a great incentive to stick to their guns on this one, and the City has a great incentive to stick to theirs. Deadlock. Neither side has a reason to budge, and because Sacramento is a small market, the Maloofs really do need that money.

Now, that poll yesterday... I think that's yet another nail in the coffin. The majority, who are unwilling (or, in select cases, unable) to pay a tax increase will not change their minds. That number will shift very, very little.

I want to point out a very dishonest part of the Q&R campaign. Go to their website, and watch the picture change between "Before" and "After." Even if Q&R pass and survive a Prop 218 challenge, the "After" picture is highly, highly misleading. All Q does is build AN ARENA; the canal, the roads, the other venues? Nope. Q may help spur development, but it funds absolutely nothing else. What that campaign needs to show is that it won't help that little kid sail his boat; it ONLY builds the arena and parking lot (and a sphere of influence).

I only bring this up because after seeing the TV ad ShareTheVision put together, it looks merely like an extension of the website. Q will NOT help that kid sail a boat. To most people, I think that will merely increase the rate at which they're already rolling their eyes.

You folks (and me, too, because I said all along I'd vote for a fair deal, and right now, we don't have ANY deal, fair or unfair) should be mad at Rob, Roger and Darrell for this. I've pointed it out before, I'll point it out again: They failed to assemble a deal that reached out to the middle. That is a problem. I don't see that changing.

It really is too bad, because it would be nice to keep the Kings. But the NBA is really messed up right now. Salaries and egos way out of control; revenue picture very screwed up; inequities growing out of control; and so forth. The NBA may need to pare teams. That might end up being the only answer.

Look at all the marginal talent that keeps hanging around. I can't believe Matt Barnes still has a career (and don't take that personally). 20 years ago, a player of his ability would have made it halfway through training camp. Why? Too many teams.

Something has to change.

And by the way, you don't build a mall without at least two major anchors (in fact, you tear them down; Two words here: Florin Mall). If we proceed without the Maloofs, "They" WILL NOT come. Look to Kansas City for an example of this.

I truly am sorry for you dedicated fans that our leadership could not assemble a deal. I was going to say "better deal", but right now, we don't have an MOU or a contract. Five weeks before the election; no MOU.

Wow. That's really impressive, Rob, Roger and Darrell.

Egad.
 
Seattle has three pro teams - two of which they did build first class facilities for. Apples and oranges.
Exactly. I'm tired of hearing that comparison.

I don't think any city has ever had all its "needs" met. California does labor under some very severe restrictions regarding government budgeting and ability to raise revenue. Nobody in California trusts "politicians" with money. I'm not sure why these people bother to vote anyone into office, since whoever they elect apparently becomes immediately suspect in character.

To me, the arena and other "optional" expenditures can be compared to having a baby. I've known people who wanted to wait until they had "enough" money, before having children. There is never "enough" money to have children for at least 95% of us. If we all waited for that, the human race would cease to exist.

If we waited until there was enough money to meet every single perceived "need" we would never fund museums, theater, parks, opera, ballet, art, zoos, public recreational facilities, etc.

I'm not minimizing the real needs that exist. In my job, I've be trying to meet some of those needs for over 30 years now. Not to mention contributing to efforts to meet needs.

I just wonder what is different between people in Sacramento and people in New Orleans. The "needs" there are far more dire than Sacramento even wants to think could happen here. Yet, the citizens there seem pretty happy that their government spent $185 million to get the Dome in shape again.
 
I don't think its at all dishonest for the Q&R folks to depict the development that could be spurred by having an arena downtown. I do believe development could occur faster with an arena there. Just listen to folks (people who have first hand knowledge) talk about the area around Phoenix's arena or around Memphis' arena or even around Clinton's presidential library in Little Rock that was built in a blighted area.

Even if there is no arena and no Kings, the city intends to develop the area don't they? All the infrastructure still has to be built. So why is it dishonest to depict what the railyards could become? And who is to say that some of the other money raised won't be allocated by the city to developing the railyard infrastructure? If they ever hope to develop that area, they will have to put in the infrastructure.
 
...

I don't think any city has ever had all its "needs" met. California does labor under some very severe restrictions regarding government budgeting and ability to raise revenue. Nobody in California trusts "politicians" with money. I'm not sure why these people bother to vote anyone into office, since whoever they elect apparently becomes immediately suspect in character.
...

I'm just calling it like I see it. Real wages have fallen, income has only gone up because people are working longer hours at lower paying jobs. Pensions are getting cut as are social services that stretch low incomes. The public always wants more than it can afford, the difference is that now they're having to pick and choose which necesity to skimp on rather than which luxury to forego.

The govt. revenue system in CA is ridiculous. Prop 13 needs to be rewritten to differentiate between small commercial/residential property owners and large corporate landowners. Right now they both receive the same protection from it.
 
Kennadog, it is dishonest because the $600 million they want to spend will not result in a pretty little canal and a boy happily sailing his toy boat there. It might result in that opportunity, but only after parties spend another $2 billion there.

If you don't like my term "dishonest," then you certainly have to agree with "exaggeration." But the real point here is that if the TV ad campaign is merely an extension of the billboards and the website, this campaign is in very deep trouble.

Regardless, people are really turned off by this. Sacramento is not the problem; it is the symptom of a problem. You don't treat pneumonia with cough syrup; the NBA currently has pneumonia.

I have loved this sport forever. The first pro team I really followed won it all (Warriors, 1975), and I've been hooked ever since. And it pains me to say this, but this patient is very, very sick. It's not a head cold.

People are even hoppin' mad about Orlando. Have you seen the reactions down there?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...l2806sep28,0,2512460.column?coll=orl-news-col

Their deal is considerably more equitable than the vague outlines we're seeing in Sacramento; apparently, DeVos doesn't get all profits from all events, only the 50 or so nights the Magic uses the arena. I think that's fair... Except Orlando is still paying for the first arena!

Read the comments on the article too. They sound very similar to the comments on sacbee.
 
AS, I agree with much of what you say (hard to believe, but I do). However, I think that you are a bit hard on the city officials. You yourself admit that it is the NBA that is the sick patient driving this situation. Also, the railyards will be developed with other private money. There may not be a canal, but there will be many other places to shop, eat and drink. BassPro will be alot of people to the area.

I wish the city would have taken a different approach here. They are trying very hard to get the Maloofs to agree MOU before the election and the Maloofs are asking for some items in the MOU which are a bit unusual. I wish the city would have just laid out the plans to the voters (build a 1/2 billion dollar arena in the spirit of Indy and Memphis) and the let the people decide. If the voters say yes, I dare the Maloofs - no I double dawg dare the Maloofs to leave the city without their parking, their sphere of influence or other specifications.
 
Has anyone besides me seen the billboards? I regularly drive down Broadway, west of Riverside to get to my job. There's a billboard there that you can only see from Broadway as you head west (towards Miller Park).

You can just barely see it. Just barely. It's the same avatar you use, kupman.

The problem I have with it as a billboard is that it just looks like a blob of paint up there. You have to be driving really slowly and paying close attention to see what it is. I consider it to be yet another misstep in this campaign.

The biggest misstep, though, was voting to put this on the ballot prior to having a signed contract. An MOU wouldn't have done because those are subject to change, and realistically, you cannot expect fence-sitters to vote for something that isn't set in stone. You know, you can write contracts that allow wiggle room; that's not unreasonable at all.

But to get this close to mailing of absentee ballots is unacceptable. They'll be receiving their first absentee votes before they agree to an MOU, and in a deal worth $600 million or more (bet on "more" here), that's just not reasonable. I don't think I'm being unrealistically critical to say that.

Plan B is still not dead, though. I believe that, because they know it would be foolish for the City and County powers-that-be to proceed without one. They are understandably keeping their cards close to their vests here; denying a plan B is perfectly understandable.

Look at it this way: They must know that if they don't make their own Plan B that the Maloofs will consider drawing up a Plan B of their own. I have a feeling kingsfans won't like the Maloof Plan B. A gut instinct, you can call it.

I think AKT's plan from last year may still be breathing.
 
I'm just glad to see the article from Kreidler. He has, once again, put the facts out there and he's letting us - the readers - decide how we feel about it.

I want a new arena for the Kings. I want them to stay in Sacramento. I want the railyards to be developed into something other than an eyesore that makes you cringe.

But, more and more, I'm having a lot of doubts about whether or not this plan really has a chance. There are too many unanswered questions. My heart really wanted this to be the answer, but my head - more and more - is telling me it could end up being a disaster, not because of the minutiae but because of the basic fundamental flaws in how the measure got to the ballot AND the lack of anything definitive about what will and won't be done.

I don't want to see the people of Sacramento voting for a pig in a poke. There are a LOT of questions that need to be answered. Things need to be laid out in black and white before something like this is passed. I can only hope the proponents have enough time to do it IF the Maloofs even sign off on the newest drafts.

This is a pretty drastic change in attitude on my part, but there just doesn't seem to be enough time to get this done in a way that will actually do the things it's supposed to do.

In my mind, the developer needs to actually close escrow on the property AND they need to reach an agreement with the Maloofs and the city/county on what will be developed. In addition, the MOU has to be finalized. I'm just wondering if that's possible or likely any longer.

It's not about blame, in my mind. There will be time enough for finger pointing down the road. Right now, it's about getting the ducks in the right row in time to show the voters what they're actually voting for.
 
I think AKT's plan from last year may still be breathing.

Ok don't dodge this question.

AKT's plan requires borrowing the money up front to build the arena. Who is going to borrow that money?

If you answer was AKT, that's the wrong answer. Every private plan falls apart because the goal of the private person is not the same goal of building the arena. Nobody signs on the dotted line if they are the byproduct beneficiary.

End of discussion on private deals until somebody shows me who is guaranteeing the loans.
 
Arenas take patience. I remember watching the Giants work to get out of Candlestick. I think it went to the voters 3 times before it passed, and then only with private financing.
 
I'm just glad to see the article from Kreidler. He has, once again, put the facts out there and he's letting us - the readers - decide how we feel about it.

I want a new arena for the Kings. I want them to stay in Sacramento. I want the railyards to be developed into something other than an eyesore that makes you cringe.

But, more and more, I'm having a lot of doubts about whether or not this plan really has a chance. There are too many unanswered questions. My heart really wanted this to be the answer, but my head - more and more - is telling me it could end up being a disaster, not because of the minutiae but because of the basic fundamental flaws in how the measure got to the ballot AND the lack of anything definitive about what will and won't be done.

I don't want to see the people of Sacramento voting for a pig in a poke. There are a LOT of questions that need to be answered. Things need to be laid out in black and white before something like this is passed. I can only hope the proponents have enough time to do it IF the Maloofs even sign off on the newest drafts.

This is a pretty drastic change in attitude on my part, but there just doesn't seem to be enough time to get this done in a way that will actually do the things it's supposed to do.

In my mind, the developer needs to actually close escrow on the property AND they need to reach an agreement with the Maloofs and the city/county on what will be developed. In addition, the MOU has to be finalized. I'm just wondering if that's possible or likely any longer.

It's not about blame, in my mind. There will be time enough for finger pointing down the road. Right now, it's about getting the ducks in the right row in time to show the voters what they're actually voting for.

I'm about where you are VF. Its depressing me, but I think this plan was put together in slapdash fashion. I understand some of the reasons why, but it doesn't make the situation any better. I just hope the city gets another chance to keep the Kings in Sacramento. I'm not counting on it, tho. :(
 
I love the Kings, but I also love Sacramento. If the various parties can get together and have a cohesive plan for what will be done, fine. Then I'm all for it. But there are a lot of loose threads right now.

If the Maloofs want to move the team that badly, they'll find a way to do it come hell or high water. If they don't - and I don't think they do - they'll learn from this experience (should the measures not pass) and find a way to make this work the next time around.