Breton: Ref scandal may ease arena deal

[VF21]

http://www.sacbee.com/kings/story/290275.html

Marcos Bretón: Ref scandal may ease arena deal
By Marcos Bretón - Bee Columnist
Last Updated 1:02 am PDT Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B1

It's a national story with strong implications for Sacramento:

An NBA referee is accused by the feds of betting on games he officiated and providing confidential information on games to bookmakers.

NBA Commissioner David Stern said Tuesday that the specter of games affected by gamblers is the most serious threat to the NBA in his 40 years with the league.

And Sacramento fans -- perhaps the best in the NBA -- are left to wonder: Can we go to Arco Arena again and fully trust the outcome of Kings games?

Or how about this for a question: Does Sacramento even want to be in business with the NBA for the long term?

It's an idea worth exploring now more than ever.

Before the NBA presents a new arena plan for Sacramento in a few months -- before the old scab of public money or public lands for a private enterprise is ripped open again -- citizens and civic leaders should ask: Why are we turning ourselves in knots for a league where a veteran referee -- one who officiated playoff games only months ago -- is a key suspect in a federal gambling probe?

At the very least, the tenor of negotiations between Sacramento and the NBA should give Sacramento unprecedented leverage with a league drowning in bad press.

Along with the current scandal, the NBA Finals were dull and had poor TV ratings. A marquee matchup between the San Antonio Spurs and Phoenix Suns was altered by controversial player suspensions. And the NBA All-Star Game in Las Vegas was a debacle where police arrested hundreds of revelers at NBA parties gone wild.

Add scores of empty seats in arenas around the league and you have an NBA losing streak where cities such as Seattle aren't so willing to toe Stern's line anymore.

Sacramento should be taking note.

"The timing of this couldn't be worse for the NBA, for (Kings owners) Joe and Gavin Maloof, and for fans' enthusiasm for a new arena," said Doug Elmets, a political consultant and spokesman for the failed arena campaign of 2006.

"Political leaders are going to be a lot more cautious stringing themselves out personally and politically ... Sacramento loves the Kings, but at what cost?"

Until now, the Kings owners have had all the leverage in arena negotiations -- and used it.

Who can forget what happened in Las Vegas a year ago, when Sacramento city and county officials would emerge from negotiations looking as if they'd been run over by big trucks? Meanwhile, the Maloofs seemed as fresh as spring flowers.

It was all about who had the leverage. And many in Sacramento wondered then if Las Vegas would be the ultimate destination for the Kings. But that idea seems dead now in light of the rancid All-Star Game experience and an alleged gambling ref.

"I think the sequence of events could make the NBA more willing ... to come up with things they can contribute to an arena deal," said Roger Dickinson, a Sacramento County supervisor who represented Sacramento in arena negotiations.

"You can get a lot of things if people feel good toward you," Dickinson said. "That's where the Maloofs have serious recovery work. To get the community back to where it's willing to give much."

What if the league hasn't gotten the message? Can it have a long-term future in Sacramento if it tried to bully the city again on a future arena deal?

Don't bet on it.

About the writer: Reach Marcos Bretón at (916) 321-1096 or mbreton@sacbee.com.

 

[chelle]

I had almost forgotten how much I dislike tihs guy. So now, because of this ref, we should reconsider having an NBA team in Sac? Give me a break.

 

[kupman]

I really have a hard time believing that the SacBee cannot do any better than Marcos Breton. I mean seriously, he has lost all objectivity and credibility relating to the Kings, the arena issue and most of all the Maloofs.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

Donaghygate will have absolutely no effect, one way or the other, on Sacramento's ongoing struggles to get a new arena.

I cannot state it more succinctly than that. But I could have saved Breton a little time.

There are only two things standing between us and a new arena: Sacramento's lack of corporate presence (hereafter referred to as Mount Everest), and lack of voter will (hereafter referred to as Denali). Donaghy doesn't even represent a pothole compared to these other barriers.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

More good stuff on Donaghy here:

http://www.mercextra.com/blogs/kawa...s-b-a-d-but-heres-how-it-could-get-much-worse

 

[kennadog]

Donaghygate will have absolutely no effect, one way or the other, on Sacramento's ongoing struggles to get a new arena.

I'm not so sure. Stern has held up Sacramento as the big small-market success story for a long time. The Kings leaving a supportive small market like Sacramento would be very bad publicity for the league. Right now, the very last thing the league needs is a failure and the resulting bad press sure to follow.

I believe that's why Stern became involved in trying to figure something out in the first place. This latest bad news, just provides more incentitive for Stern to "win" by keeping the Kings in Sacramento.

On the other hand, Stern is not a miracle worker. If he can make it work without any public funds, more power to him. I just don't think it will be easy. I'm dying to hear his proposal, tho.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

I'm not so sure. Stern has held up Sacramento as the big small-market success story for a long time. The Kings leaving a supportive small market like Sacramento would be very bad publicity for the league. Right now, the very last thing the league needs is a failure and the resulting bad press sure to follow.

I believe that's why Stern became involved in trying to figure something out in the first place. This latest bad news, just provides more incentitive for Stern to "win" by keeping the Kings in Sacramento.

On the other hand, Stern is not a miracle worker. If he can make it work without any public funds, more power to him. I just don't think it will be easy. I'm dying to hear his proposal, tho.

Stern's entire career is on the line here, and it's not because of Sacramento, it's because of gambling. But Stern has made other mistakes as well, including too much expansion.

Stern's entire career is on the line here. He may be forced out, because of one revelation: He knew about Donaghy in January, and did nothing of note until this week. Trust me, a lot of owners HAVE to be mad about this. The league doesn't own the teams; the teams own the league.

This last statement is also why the league won't build the Kings an arena. The teams are not going to voluntarily tax themselves $10 million so the Kings can stay in Sacramento. That is not going to happen. And if Stern demands it, the team owners will fire him.

This crisis is running deeper and deeper.

 

[VF21]

Stern's entire career is on the line here, and it's not because of Sacramento, it's because of gambling. But Stern has made other mistakes as well, including too much expansion.

Stern's entire career is on the line here. He may be forced out, because of one revelation: He knew about Donaghy in January, and did nothing of note until this week. Trust me, a lot of owners HAVE to be mad about this. The league doesn't own the teams; the teams own the league.

This last statement is also why the league won't build the Kings an arena. The teams are not going to voluntarily tax themselves $10 million so the Kings can stay in Sacramento. That is not going to happen. And if Stern demands it, the team owners will fire him.

This crisis is running deeper and deeper.

I think you're really making a much bigger deal out of what Stern might have known and when he might have known it that is true.

He's addressed the previous allegations of Donaghy AND he's addressed the contact with the FBI. I've yet to see how it could have been handled differently.

The ONE thing I'm pretty confident about is that Stern is going to move quickly to distance the NBA from the association with gambling. In my mind, it's akin to when NASCAR removed Winston from the Winston Cup series and replaced them with a sponsor that wasn't being dragged through the news on a daily basis for knowingly providing a product that kills people.

I think the team owners more than anyone else can appreciate the position Stern is in right now and was in when he was contacted by the feds.

Sorry, Arena Skeptic, but once again you seem to be pronouncing a lot of unfounded allegations as fact ... and just like with Breton, I'm not willing to blindly buy into them.

 

[kennadog]

Stern's entire career is on the line here, and it's not because of Sacramento, it's because of gambling. But Stern has made other mistakes as well, including too much expansion.

Stern's entire career is on the line here. He may be forced out, because of one revelation: He knew about Donaghy in January, and did nothing of note until this week. Trust me, a lot of owners HAVE to be mad about this. The league doesn't own the teams; the teams own the league.

This last statement is also why the league won't build the Kings an arena. The teams are not going to voluntarily tax themselves $10 million so the Kings can stay in Sacramento. That is not going to happen. And if Stern demands it, the team owners will fire him.

This crisis is running deeper and deeper.

I have never thought this would be what Stern comes up with for exactly that reason. That still leaves a very large universe of possible solutions, if the right people put their minds to it.

I have considered the possiblity that owners could agree to contribute some revenue to a fund that would be used to help finance new arenas through loans that could be tailored in any number of ways to be far more favorable than private lender financing. The repayments (with interest) could go back to the fund for future loans. Basically you can end up with self-perpetuating revolving loan fund. The owners would all own a percentage of that fund. If the fund is terminated, the money goes back to the franchises.

The issue is sufficient up front capitalization of the fund. Depending on the amount needed to make the fund viable, it might or might not sell with the owners.

Another possiblity that would take less up-front capitalization would be to create a fund that could back private loans. A loan guarantee to induce favorable terms from lenders by providing loss protection....reducing the risk to them. An advantage to either of the above is that is the league has a financial interest as a lender or loan guarantor, they'll have to look at the feasibility of each deal.

Neither of these ideas would be for providing 100% financing. Sometimes though, a deal just needs some amount of really favorable financing to make it fall into place and to get private lenders to buy in.

 

[VF21]

I have never thought this would be what Stern comes up with for exactly that reason. That still leaves a very large universe of possible solutions, if the right people put their minds to it.

I have considered the possiblity that owners could agree to contribute some revenue to a fund that would be used to help finance new arenas through loans that could be tailored in any number of ways to be far more favorable than private lender financing. The repayments (with interest) could back to the fund for future loans. Basically you can end up with self-perpetuating revolving loan fund. The owners would all own a percentage of that fund. If the fund is terminated, the money goes back to the franchises.

The issue is sufficient up front capitalization of the fund. Depending on the amount needed to make the fund viable, it might or might not sell with the owners.

Another possiblity that would take less up-front capitalization would be to create a fund that could back private loans. A loan guarantee to induce favorable terms from lenders by providing loss protection....reducing the risk to them. An advantage to either of the above is that is the league has a financial interest as a lender or loan guarantor, they'll have to look at the feasibility of each deal.

Neither of these ideas would be for providing 100% financing. Sometimes though, a deal just needs smoe amount of really favorable financing to make it fall into place and to get private lenders to buy in.

Good ideas, kenna!

I like the idea of a revolving fund for future arenas. Maybe some of the player fines - especially those for arguing with the officials - could go there, too.

 

[kennadog]

Good ideas, kenna!

I like the idea of a revolving fund for future arenas. Maybe some of the player fines - especially those for arguing with the officials - could go there, too.

Aw...they go to charity now. I don't want to take that away.

I'm sure Stern has access to some of the most creative financial minds around. I hope they can come up with something really, really good. (hope, hope, hope)

 

[Arena Skeptic]

I think you're really making a much bigger deal out of what Stern might have known and when he might have known it that is true.

He's addressed the previous allegations of Donaghy AND he's addressed the contact with the FBI. I've yet to see how it could have been handled differently.

The ONE thing I'm pretty confident about is that Stern is going to move quickly to distance the NBA from the association with gambling. In my mind, it's akin to when NASCAR removed Winston from the Winston Cup series and replaced them with a sponsor that wasn't being dragged through the news on a daily basis for knowingly providing a product that kills people.

I think the team owners more than anyone else can appreciate the position Stern is in right now and was in when he was contacted by the feds.

Sorry, Arena Skeptic, but once again you seem to be pronouncing a lot of unfounded allegations as fact ... and just like with Breton, I'm not willing to blindly buy into them.

I can only assume, now that facts are slowly coming out, that you're gradually coming closer to my POV on this.

Other names are going to get dragged into this. You'll see. I hope I'm wrong, and that this is just an isolated incident, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

The fact remains: David Stern knew about the Donaghy investigation in January; Donaghy resigned on July 9. Why was there a 6 month period in which Donaghy was not suspended (with pay)? That's a question Stern needs to answer.

Bottom-line, though, to get back to the original point: This doesn't help any city get a taxpayer-funded arena. Whether it's Las Vegas, Orlando (where it apparently didn't hurt, either), Sacramento or Seattle, it helps no one.

 

[uolj]

The fact remains: David Stern knew about the Donaghy investigation in January; Donaghy resigned on July 9. Why was there a 6 month period in which Donaghy was not suspended (with pay)? That's a question Stern needs to answer.

Where did you see this? Didn't Stern say in his press conference that the league found out about it on June 20th, after the finals?

 

[Arena Skeptic]

Where did you see this? Didn't Stern say in his press conference that the league found out about it on June 20th, after the finals?

Well, basically, you're right, I misread one story.

Donaghy and Stern did have some interaction regarding gambling in January of 2005...

http://www.boston.com/sports/articles/2007/07/25/chronology_of_donaghy_case/

The reason the league could find no connection was that they didn't check with the bookies, only the legalized gambling establishments.

I'm not sure Stern could have taken stronger action then, but I'm not sure a suspension without pay would have been inappropriate at that time. Hard to tell, though.

 

[VF21]

Sorry, AS, but you're pulling things out of thin air and making it sound as though this is some kind of huge conspiracy that's going to come to light.

Other names are going to get dragged into this. You'll see. I hope I'm wrong, and that this is just an isolated incident, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Oh, please.

So if even one other referee is named, you're going to scream from the highest point "I TOLD YOU SO!!"?

And just for the record I'm not coming to your POV. I'm reading pretty much everything that I can find and, so far, I'm not anywhere close to your POV. Why? Because I'm not in that much of a hurry to establish a viewpoint without making sure I have enough information to do so.

As far as the "suspension without pay" goes, it would not only have been inappropriate it probably would have been illegal and against the terms of the contracts the NBA has with the officials.

 

[kennadog]

The reason the league could find no connection was that they didn't check with the bookies, only the legalized gambling establishments.

Like bookies are going to reveal who is placing bets with them, if you just ask?

 

[BMiller52]

Well, basically, you're right, I misread one story.

Donaghy and Stern did have some interaction regarding gambling in January of 2005...

http://www.boston.com/sports/articles/2007/07/25/chronology_of_donaghy_case/

The reason the league could find no connection was that they didn't check with the bookies, only the legalized gambling establishments.

I'm not sure Stern could have taken stronger action then, but I'm not sure a suspension without pay would have been inappropriate at that time. Hard to tell, though.

Are you for real? LMAO. What is Stern supposed to say, just go up to the bookies and ask them "hey I understand you were doing some illegal gambling with one of my refs right? Well, please just verify this and stuff you can get thrown in jail and we can get rid of your buddy Donaghy"? You honestly expect the bookies to cooperate if Stern asks them stuff? That's incredibly naive and Kennadog said it best...

 

[Arena Skeptic]

Are you for real? LMAO. What is Stern supposed to say, just go up to the bookies and ask them "hey I understand you were doing some illegal gambling with one of my refs right? Well, please just verify this and stuff you can get thrown in jail and we can get rid of your buddy Donaghy"? You honestly expect the bookies to cooperate if Stern asks them stuff? That's incredibly naive and Kennadog said it best...

Wow, you're... Amazing.

Of course I know he's not going to ask the bookies. I'm laughing MINE off because you thought that's what I meant!

It also proves that, no matter where you live, there are gamblers. Sacramento? Check. Las Vegas? Check. Salt Lake City? Check. You can't get away from them. Legalized sports gambling, which represents about 99% of what goes on in Vegas, isn't the problem. Illegal sports betting, which represents about 100% of the sports betting that goes on in Sacramento, is.

So what city have we decided shouldn't get a sports team?

Stern knew there were problems with Donaghy in January 2005, and had good reason to suspect gambling problems. He only checked the casinos, then stopped?? Wow, that's some great investigatin' they got goin' on there.

THAT is my point. You don't ask the legal establishments, you investigate they guy's patterns. Who are his friends, and so forth.

I'd be glad to spell it out more explicitely for you if you don't get my point yet.

If Stern was in charge of the FBI:

"Well, Richard Nixon told me he wasn't a crook. Call off the dogs, boys."

 

[VF21]

Wow, you're... Amazing.

Of course I know he's not going to ask the bookies. I'm laughing MINE off because you thought that's what I meant!

Maybe because that's what you said.

As far as how far Stern's investigation into Donaghy's activities go, we don't know one way or the other how far the NBA went.

You can knock of the condescending comments. Thanks...