Bee: What Kings mean to local businesses

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#1
http://www.sacbee.com/content/business/story/14280733p-15089072c.html

What Kings mean to local business
A pro team opens doors nationally, some say, but others see little benefit.
By Jon Ortiz -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:01 am PDT Sunday, July 23, 2006


In December, the California Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators came to Sacramento for a convention. Its members spent more than $1 million at local businesses over six days and racked up 2,800 nights of local hotel room rentals.

And it wouldn't have happened without the Sacramento Kings, according to officials from the Sacramento Convention and Visitors Bureau.

They said they won over the association's event planner, IMN Solutions of Washington, D.C., during a skybox meeting at a Kings-Wizards game in 2003.

"When we're marketing to nationally based associations, they're a tough crowd, a spoiled crowd, that is offered everything under the sun," said Steve Hammond, the bureau's president and CEO. "They get hundreds of calls from all over the country. The one thing we know will get us in front of them is a suite at an NBA game."

The story illustrates what several Sacramento-area business owners say is the intangible value of having a successful major league sports franchise in town, and what will be lost if the team leaves for a better arena deal in another city.

Still, no study has ever conclusively shown that professional sports franchises boost the economy of their host cities.

"I view these things as a zero-sum game," said Stephen Pruitt, a professor of finance at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. "There's just no evidence to suggest that these kinds of projects do much for a local economy. You're just moving entertainment dollars around."

What the Kings mean to the region will likely be part of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors' discussion when it meets Tuesday to consider putting a sales tax measure before voters. If approved, the tax would finance new arena construction at the Union Pacific railyard.

Hammond said that his bureau's estimates show that, from 2004 through 2011, delegates and exhibitors in town as a result of successful courtside recruiting will spend $14 million locally. The student financial aid association has already booked Sacramento for its 2011 convention and will spend an estimated $1.4 million while here.

"And of course, we expect that total will go up as we negotiate more conventions at Kings games," Hammond said.

In their travels, many local business leaders say, they learn that the Kings influence how Sacramento is perceived around the world and how locals think of the region. They also contend that a new sports and entertainment venue in the railyard would spur construction on surrounding land that city leaders have talked about developing for years with little result.

"The Kings are very, very valuable with very tangible benefits in my world," said Bob Dean, executive vice president for real estate brokerage Grubb & Ellis. "Before the Kings were here, I'd be out of town representing (the region). I was often asked, 'Is Sacramento closer to L.A. or San Francisco?' "

With few corporate headquarters to call its own and an economy largely based on government employment and construction, Sacramento needs the Kings to give it a national identity, said Sanjay Varshney, the business school dean at California State University, Sacramento.

"This is a government town, remember, and the business sector hasn't kept pace with the region's population growth," Varshney said. "The Kings have put Sacramento on the national map."

Sacramento and the Kings remind economics professor Bruce Johnson of Jacksonville, Fla., and its sole major league sports team, the Jaguars of the National Football League.

Johnson and a team of researchers in 2002 surveyed Jacksonville residents about what they perceived were the "tangible and intangible benefits" that the city enjoys from being a pro sports town.

"We found that there was overwhelming consensus. People believed that having a team makes Jacksonville a big-league city, gives it a national profile and even improves race relations," said Johnson, a professor at Centre College in Danville, Ky. "These are benefits enjoyed by everyone in the town, not just people who go to games or watch the team on TV."

The survey, summarized in the August issue of the Journal of Sports Economics, included a scenario and a question: The team is bought by out-of-town owners who will move it unless they get a new stadium. How much would you be willing to pay in taxes to keep the club here?

"About $30 million -- total," Johnson said. "That's the value of the Jags to people who live in Jacksonville. They love having a team, but they're not really willing to pay very much for it."

Still, it's a recognition tied to wins and losses. Few out-of-towners talked about Sacramento and the Kings before the team started what has been an eight-year postseason run in the 1998-99 season, Dean said.

"The turning point was making the playoffs, no doubt," he added. "The world takes notice of your city when your team is in the postseason."

So what happens if the team goes on a losing streak and misses the playoffs for a year or two?

"It wouldn't take Sacramento back to where we were before," Dean said. "It wouldn't mean we would fall all the way back to zero."

However, it would probably affect the ability of the Maloof family, owner of the Kings and the Monarchs, to bargain with Sacramento or any other city for favorable arena terms, Varshney said.

"They have leverage right now because they (the Kings) make the playoffs every year," Varshney said. "But that could change with a couple of losing seasons."

Troy Carlson, who owns two Old Sacramento businesses, Stage Nine Entertainment and G. Willikers Toy Emporium, said that the larger question is whether the community is serious about downtown development, particularly the railyard.

"The Kings aren't all that Sacramento is about. The team isn't the be-all and end-all," he said. "But it is a cornerstone to a new arena in the railyard. And a new arena in the railyard would be the cornerstone to getting the rest of the area developed."

The proposal that county officials will consider Tuesday for November's ballot calls for a quarter-cent sales tax increase that would raise about $1.2 billion over the next 15 years.

At least half of the money would go back to the county and cities. The rest would be used to build the arena, estimated to cost between $470 million and $542 million.

Not everyone supports the arena deal, however. People United, a grass-roots group including union activists, environmentalists and affordable-housing advocates, has criticized spending public money on an arena.

And the Sacramento County Taxpayers League argued that putting the quarter-cent tax proposal on the November ballot as a general tax is illegal.

By law, a sales tax increase for general purposes requires only a simple majority of votes for passage. But if the tax is to be used for a specific purpose, it requires a harder-to-achieve two-thirds vote.

Old Sacramento business owner Carlson calls the sales tax "minuscule" and figures that would not have much impact on his retail businesses.

"We have too much to lose if the Kings leave and this venue isn't built, especially if it would get railyard development moving," Carlson said. "It's just been all talk, and it's frustrating to drive by the railyards and see mounds of dirt. We need to get this done."

About the writer: The Bee's Jon Ortiz can be reached at (916) 321-1043 or jortiz@sacbee.com
 
#2
It's funny, you talk to people that do business and they sing the praises of what pro teams mean to them. You talk to people who teach business and they don't see it.
Go figure.
 
#3
Sorry for the knock on education profession. I really don't want to run those guys down. It's just that I've found that no matter what you learn in a classroom, the real world has it's own spin on how it really works. That's real life. Education gives you the tools for making your way in life, experience finishes the job. The instructor I had for a tech class I had a few weeks ago said that he would give us the tools and theory on how to diagnose problems, but the real way to learn was to get out and bleed over some real problems to really understand.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#4
I agree, JB, and I respect a good number of those who have entered the teaching profession.

My main complaint is the media often goes to someone like Professor Pruitt of the Univeristy of Missouri for his opinion on something he really knows nothing about. Speaking in generalities about "these projects" is just not gonna cut it.

This isn't just another one of "these projects." There are conditions and situations unique to Sacramento that he couldn't possibly understand. I'd rather listen to People United. They may not look at things the same way I do, but at least they are familiar with the area and the people.
 
Last edited:
#5
What does a high profile sporting event like the Olympics do for a city?

- A city will build a network of apartments to house the athletes of the world. After the Olympics are over, the housing facilities become condos for everyone else.

- The stadiums and venues they build become public parks, converted to new facilities for other sports (Turner Field), Olympic sized pools become Olympic sized public pools

- A new infrastructure gets build up in anticipation for the large amounts of people visiting, hotel space becomes a premium, highways and airports can be redone,

Lots of money spent to build up to the Olympics, but in the end, the city benefits from all of the stuff that gets left behind.

Sports fans are money spending machines, wouldn't hurt to have them in any city...
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#6
Good points, SV. And the potential for the Olympics to be held in San Francisco in 2016 could mean a LOT for Sacramento if there was a beautiful state-of-the-art arena here.
 
#7
It's funny, you talk to people that do business and they sing the praises of what pro teams mean to them. You talk to people who teach business and they don't see it.
Go figure.
While I utterly and completely agree with you JB, I'd rather list specifically why this learned scholar, Pruitt, is wrong and see what responses may pop up. Here's what he said:

"I view these things as a zero-sum game," said Stephen Pruitt, a professor of finance at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. "There's just no evidence to suggest that these kinds of projects do much for a local economy. You're just moving entertainment dollars around."
It's CLEARLY not zero-sum:

-- More (and perhaps bigger draw) events will come to the new arena than to our current Arco. New events, new dollars.

-- The new arena will represent a dining, shopping, and entertainment destination, not just an arena to go to. North Natomas is not currently a destination for citizen dining, shopping, and entertainment either before or after an event there. Kingsgurl and I like a Chinese restaurant on Truxel near the gym and go there periodically before Kings games. Other than that, no money is spent in the area outside of the arena. Zero sum? Nope, not for us. We really don't go to another location to spend money either before or after. We would spend more money in a revitalized downtown around the arena. New location, more new dollars.

-- More conventioneers will visit because of the arena and the presence of the Kings. Little arena suite space available for this now, plenty to be available in a new arena. New suites, more convention customers, more new money. BTW does anybody think that the key players in the Sacramento Convention and Visitors Bureau are just a bunch of blind-to-the-facts Kings fans?

-- I'm not sure where you draw the line geographically to claim zero-sum, but certainly some amount of money shift will take place within the County from the cities to downtown SAC. However, what about regional dining and entertainment dollars from other nearby Counties shifting to downtown? I don't consider that zero-sum, if you draw a line around SAC County to look at benefits. The other Counties don't have a vote or a direct impact to pay for this project. Downtown destination? More new dollars being spent from outside SAC County.

NOT zero sum...
 

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#8
One of those things where if you have a predisposition to a certain outcome (say, an agenda) you can try to tweak the language of any arguement to fit your point of view....
 
#11
You cannot argue with the basic premise of zero-sum theory for entertainment dollar spending. Because a new arena is built does not mean that more money is suddenly manufactured out of thin air and available for spending at the new arena and surrounding vibrant new downtown shops and eateries.

Well, of course...

But this scholar, one of the supposed majority of scholarly experts on economic impacts of new sports arena construction that says it's a losing proposition, cannot make the jump from theory to practicality.

True, some unknown amount of dollars that would normally be spent in Elk Grove or Folsom, or anywhere else within the County where the minute sales tax increase kicks in, would shift to downtown businesses. But what about...

More dollars that would be spent downtown by County residents rather than in San Francisco or Tahoe? (kupman)

More dollars that would be spent downtown from nearby BUT outside the County (Yolo, Placer, El Dorado, in particular)?

Bigger events that would draw more dollars from Bay area residents traveling to SACTown?

Ability to draw more and larger conventions where massive spending takes place in a very short period of time, thus more dollars spent in downtown from total out-of-towners, out-of-staters?

Yes, it's a zero-sum game alright. The theory holds. But practically speaking for the folks of Sacramento County (that's where the line needs to be drawn), there's a heckuva lot more potential spending from lots of "outside" places to render inconsequential any arena-coaxing shifting of dollars spent by County residents within the County.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#12
You cannot argue with the basic premise of zero-sum theory for entertainment dollar spending. Because a new arena is built does not mean that more money is suddenly manufactured out of thin air and available for spending at the new arena and surrounding vibrant new downtown shops and eateries.
I can - and will - argue with it. Disposable income can go for a lot of things. And "entertainment" is a very vague concept. Is reading entertainment? Is dining out entertainment? While people may now spend money on what I would consider non-entertainment items, they may decide to spend some of that disposable income on a trip to the arena AND dinner out, etc. That will mean an increase in entertainment spending. In my case, it might well mean forgoing a trip to Barnes and Noble and NOT spending money on food treats.
 
#13
I can - and will - argue with it. Disposable income can go for a lot of things. And "entertainment" is a very vague concept. Is reading entertainment? Is dining out entertainment? While people may now spend money on what I would consider non-entertainment items, they may decide to spend some of that disposable income on a trip to the arena AND dinner out, etc. That will mean an increase in entertainment spending. In my case, it might well mean forgoing a trip to Barnes and Noble and NOT spending money on food treats.
Seems to me, though, that you are talking about a reallocation of entertainment spending. As far as the city is concerned, your choice to spend your money near the arena instead of at BN creates generates no new spending money. Just a shift in where it is spent.

Unless, I suppose, you're forgoing a trip to BN in a different city to spend that money in Sacramento. But, then again, that's why I'm a science teacher and not an economist. :eek:
 
Last edited:
#14
Seems to me, though, that you are talking about a reallocation of entertainment spending. As far as the city is concerned, your choice to spend your money near the arena instead of at BN creates generates no new spending money. Just a shift in where it is spent.
Dinner and two tickets to see the Kings in person = $300
Buying a book at BN = $10

(The math does not work)

Keeping the Kings in Sac = priceless (sorry - could not resist:D )
 
#15
Dinner and two tickets to see the Kings in person = $300
Buying a book at BN = $10

(The math does not work)

Keeping the Kings in Sac = priceless (sorry - could not resist:D )
But the difference between that 10 dollars and the 300 had to come from somewhere else in your discretionary spending. That's the idea. You can't create money you don't have...you can only shift how you spend it. But if it's all being spent within the city, it really doesn't matter where you decide to spend it.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#16
Seems to me, though, that you are talking about a reallocation of entertainment spending. As far as the city is concerned, your choice to spend your money near the arena instead of at BN creates generates no new spending money. Just a shift in where it is spent.

Unless, I suppose, you're forgoing a trip to BN in a different city to spend that money in Sacramento. But, then again, that's why I'm a science teacher and not an economist. :eek:
I don't live in Sacramento, remember? The B&N I go to is not in Sacramento. I would shift my discretionary spending solely to attend games AND go to dinner in the downtown area.

In fact, I'd shift a lot more than that. It wouldn't be the first time paying a bill had been delayed so I could see a Kings game.

:p
 
#17
I don't live in Sacramento, remember? The B&N I go to is not in Sacramento. I would shift my discretionary spending solely to attend games AND go to dinner in the downtown area.
I know...that's why I added my last sentence. In your case, the premise of zero-sum theory doesn't hold up.
 
#18
But the difference between that 10 dollars and the 300 had to come from somewhere else in your discretionary spending. That's the idea. You can't create money you don't have...you can only shift how you spend it. But if it's all being spent within the city, it really doesn't matter where you decide to spend it.

alright, alright.....I would spend (blow actually) the other $290 on offshore, internet sports gambling :D. I have to do something to keep myself occupied given that I don't have the Kings to cheer for anymore in this scenerio.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#19
I know...that's why I added my last sentence. In your case, the premise of zero-sum theory doesn't hold up.
And that's the point I was struggling to make. The zero-sum theory only applies if there aren't external factors in play. In the Sacramento area, especiallly, SACRAMENTO is the only game in town in northern California for a lot of entertainment, etc. People who normally won't use their discretionary income for entertainment NOW may well be changing their minds when the arena is built and top-notch draws are appearing there. They'll spend money on a show, they'll spend money on dinner, and they may well spend the night in a hotel. I know people in four surrounding counties who will certainly do so.
 
#20
And that's the point I was struggling to make. The zero-sum theory only applies if there aren't external factors in play. In the Sacramento area, especiallly, SACRAMENTO is the only game in town in northern California for a lot of entertainment, etc. People who normally won't use their discretionary income for entertainment NOW may well be changing their minds when the arena is built and top-notch draws are appearing there. They'll spend money on a show, they'll spend money on dinner, and they may well spend the night in a hotel. I know people in four surrounding counties who will certainly do so.
And this is one of the reasons that they shouldn't be asking opinions of people who have no clue about our region's economy. Yes, I have a finite amount of discretionary income, but I'm definitely more likely to spend more of it in Sacramento county, if they have an arena. Like VF, I don't live in Sacramento County. Heck, there are people from Nevada that are Kings fans and spend money here. And other than pro sports I'm pretty sure Tahoe and Reno/Sparks have plenty of other entertainment options.;)

What I think would be great would be to have the NCAA final four here!;)
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#21
And a new state-of-the-art arena would at least open up the possibility of the NCAA tournament returning to Sacramento.
 
#22
And a new state-of-the-art arena would at least open up the possibility of the NCAA tournament returning to Sacramento.
...not to mention the possibility of an NBA All-Star weekend. I believe the NCAA tourney will be here next March. However, we could start a list of possible attractions with a new arena.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#24
That's not at all far-fetched, BC. The Maloofs have been very interested in obtaining an NHL team. The main deal-breaker for bringing a team to Sacramento is the three-day turnaround on dry to ice and back to dry. A new arena would certainly remove that blockade from the equation.