PurpleHaze
All-Star
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/08/4616399/marcos-breton-sacramento-stuck.html
My signature sums up how I see Maloofs
My signature sums up how I see Maloofs
Breton sums up Maloofs and our woes
- Thread starter PurpleHaze
- Start date
Kingsfan23
All-Star
Yes, I wonder if the Maloofs actually pay people to comment, or the anti-arena people are just so pesky in their persistence
Well, they do have a tendency to accuse pro-arena posters of being paid to post, so there might be a bit of projection there...
kingjatt
Starter
i remember when grant used to scream at callers for being to hard on the maloofs and he use to say the bee was crazy for not treating the maloofs like great owners. breton was the only one to call the goofs out whille most everyone else was sucking up i.e brian may etc, there was a time when i believed peaches and gave the benefit of the doubt to the goofs but breton never did that. he had always called them out as shady owners and was finally vindicated when they backe out of the deal.
That really is the most annoying part of the whole charade. There's a great wall of dishonesty about their intentions just for the benefit of their future profit. It makes the team look worse than if they were upfront about looking for a buyer. If players knew the team was about to be sold to wealthier ownership that had a sense of commitment, I think players would have more commitment to the organization. Yet, when your owners are doing a little song and dance like this, I can't imagine players seeing the organization as anything but a joke.
Every time I venture down and read some of the user comments at The Bee I promise myself I'll never do it again. But then curiosity gets the best of me. I read some of the comments on this article too. Never has the phrase "abandon all hope, ye who enter here" seemed more appropriate.
I had a hard time figuring out VF21's comments and the ones that followed through the thread until I figured out that you folks are reading Breton's comments on line and then peoples comments that followed. I read the article in the Bee. I have not reae comments on line other than here. Breton's article I believe is to be commended as a very very clear analysis for all to read. How people react is another matter.
kennadog
Dog On It!
There is no plan to sell the team. The Maloofs plan is to move the team. That just turns off fans and away from wanting to spend any money on tickets or souvenirs.
Trueblood
Bench
Is KJ going after the A's?
http://newsok.com/sacramento-gives-...bringing-mlb-team-to-city/article/feed/401912
Until I see some quotes, I have a hard time believing that KJ is "giving up" on keeping the Kings.
http://newsok.com/sacramento-gives-...bringing-mlb-team-to-city/article/feed/401912
Until I see some quotes, I have a hard time believing that KJ is "giving up" on keeping the Kings.
Trueblood
Bench
Well, I found some quotes here. Looks like MLB is a no go no matter how much KJ wants them.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/09/46...ted.html?storylink=lingospot_related_articles
Stay focused on the Kings.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/09/46...ted.html?storylink=lingospot_related_articles
Stay focused on the Kings.
This is the single most useful button on the entire sacbee.com web site:
Ohhhhhh, I LIKE that button!
Well, the A's aren't interested but that doesn't mean another MLB team won't be at some point. Then again, would MLB want a sixth team in California? Not likely. Considering the cost of building a baseball stadium though, I don't think this was ever a realistic option. Not anymore. Maybe 20 years ago it would have been.
Lew Wolff is almost as bad as the Maloofs anyway. He's got money but he won't allow the team to spend it because he thinks an empty stadium is his quickest path to San Jose. Unless he sells the team, bringing the A's into Sacramento would just be exchanging one problem for another.
I feel they only want to move the team to increase its value and then sell the team. With the deal Samueli presented, there's little doubt in my head that Samueli would end up with the team in a few years.
arwen undomiel
Bench
Spot on - the A's were never more than a pipe dream as far as Sac is concerned. I'm still hoping Stern is working up some means of dealing with the Maloofs to reward Sac for its years of devotion and its commitment in spite of the Maloofs. For years I heard Stern referred to as "Little Napoleon" - right now we could use Emperor Stern's clout.
kennadog
Dog On It!
Anaheim is out for the forseeable future, anyway, according to Stern. I think Samueli would have ended up with the team, too, by the back door. Not so sure the Maloofs were bright enough to envision that probable outcome though.
butteredbiscuit
G-League
Carmichael Dave said today Maloofs want to go back to the table and talk with KJ.
http://cdnet.podbean.com/mobile/2012/07/09/uncensored-july-9-2012/
Last edited:
kennadog
Dog On It!
I'll believe it when I see it. If they do, my guess is it will be because of significant pressuree from Stern and the league.
hoops4kings
Bench
Dave was saying it as a hypothetical not fact.
butteredbiscuit
G-League
I completely agree. Seattle does not want the Maloofs to be owners in Seattle. I'll copy the post from what people are saying in Seattle.
I don't think you need to worry. If your heart is set for the team to be in Seattle, you could have tiny problem. But if you dont care when it will be in King County, then you wont have any worries.
You have a few choices:
a) Accept the deal and build an arena.
b) Deal gets turned down and the re-writing of the proposal happens.
c) Deal gets turned down, they go negotiate in Bellevue and talk about land on "Auto row."
d) Hansen gets mad and goes home without an arena. This is a 1% chance.
e) A savior comes in and builds the arena (paying for everything)
Remember: Ballmer has a billion dollars from his Microsoft shares, so there is money there to build an private arena and also buy a NBA team just in case Hansen's group and the city can't come to terms. Chris Van Dyk says the proposal for I-91 is almost compliant but Hansen's group needs to put more money into it upfront. So they are pretty close.
testdrive
Registered User
Here is the response from Nick Licata when people reacted to his earlier comments
"...In brief, the proposal calls for a $200 million public contribution for a $500 million arena, with a cap in public funding. $120 million of the bonds to fund the arena would come from the City of Seattle, and $80 million from King County; $300 million would come from investors. Taxes collected at the arena rent would be used to pay off the bonds over 30 years. An estimated $258 million in city taxes, with a net present value of $106 million, would be included. The investors could extend the lease for five years up to four times, making this a potentially 50-year agreement.
The Council is considering the proposal in the Government Performance and Finance Committee, and considering a list of issues released in May, which includes closely examining the agreement for clear financial responsibilities and obligations, transportation and freight mobility, the future of Key Arena, the provision of City services, and other issues.
Here’s my perspective and analysis. This proposal is better than previous arena proposals, with less public funding, no brand-new tax to pay for it, and a significant private sector contribution. Secondly, the intent of the proposal is to address Initiative 91, approved by 74% of Seattle voters in 2006, which requires a fair value return on any investment by Seattle taxpayers in facilities provided for professional sports organizations.
Third, I want to ensure city services are not affected. We must maintain services to those most in need, and cannot sacrifice them. In addition, we must maintain our obligation to fund critical infrastructure. Seattle has a large volume of necessary construction projects, most notably the waterfront seawall, and limited bonding capacity. The seawall must be funded in the next few years, and will require approximately $300 million. I’ve asked city staff how this proposal would affect the City’s debt capacity, policies and construction needs.
The Council is receiving briefings on Initiative 91, and how best to calculate fair value. We must receive fair value in return for our investment, as set in Initiative 91.
Most previous arena and stadium proposals have generally focused on state funding. This proposal would rely on the use of City of Seattle credit and bonding capacity, so any potential risk would be borne by the City and its taxpayers, not the state. General obligation bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the City of Seattle. We must determine what the appropriate level of risk is for a municipal government.
The MOU contains details that need to be fully understood. For example, one provision in the MOU would allow the investors to request that the City and County amend the terms of the MOU to facilitate financing for the private side of the deal. Presumably, this would take place after an NBA team was attained. Although the City and County could say no, this provision could result in a situation where the Council could either choose to amend the MOU and get a worse deal, or lose an already acquired team.
Under current federal tax law, a key tax benefit that accrues to NBA owners diminishes after 15 years; the “roster depreciation allowance” allows sports team owners to write off 100% of the team purchase price as a loss over 15 years. It’s therefore reasonable in considering the MOU to assume ownership may change over a 30-year time period.
I am continuing to closely scrutinize the proposal with other Councilmembers to reach a decision that can work fairly for the city, taxpayers, and the owners of any new franchise.
Videos of the meetings of the Government Performance and Finance Committee can be viewed here.
Sincerely,
Nick Licata
Last edited:
Similar threads
