Breton: Talks show who really wants an arena

[VF21]

http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/14278732p-15087543c.html

Marcos Bretón: Talks show who really wants an arena
The city and county of Sacramento step up in their dealings with the Maloofs.
By Marcos Bretón -- Bee Columnist
Published 12:01 am PDT Sunday, July 16, 2006

For a long time, there has been a widely held view around Sacramento -- or was it a neurosis? -- that this cow town was too dimwitted to build a new arena for the Kings.

But at this point, it's the city and county of Sacramento -- and not the Kings -- who better understand what it takes to build an arena in an anti-tax state like California.

They have more people on their side who have built arenas and stadiums, such as River Cats owner Art Savage.

In fact, Sacramento officials seem to want an arena deal more than the Kings.

After arena-financing negotiations with the Kings broke off in late June, it was city and county officials who flew to New York to ask the NBA for help.

The move worked because last week, Sacramento Vice Mayor Rob Fong, County Supervisor Roger Dickinson and a contingent of taxpayer representatives flew to Las Vegas to renew arena talks with the Kings' owners, the Maloof family.

One wonders, however, if there was a deeper meaning to Fong's New York trip, a gesture to the NBA that Sacramento is a great NBA market with or without the current Kings owners.

No one with the city and county would ever say that because they want to make a deal with the Maloofs and don't want to antagonize them.

This column has no such restrictions.

In fact, let's repeat the point again: Sacramento is a great NBA market no matter who owns the Kings.

The NBA undoubtedly understands this because the people Fong met with in New York are real smart. NBA lawyer Harvey Benjamin, for example, is wise counsel to the smartest guy in the game -- NBA Commissioner David Stern.

These guys will back the Maloofs publicly at every turn because it's their job. But they know a gold mine when they see one.

Sacramento has sold out Arco Arena 312 consecutive times. This is the market where Kings ticket prices have skyrocketed, yet the fans keep lining up for more. This is where the Kings enjoy unrivaled adoration from Fresno to the Oregon border, a region that will vastly grow in size and wealth in the next 20 years.

And most important, elected officials from the city and county appear eager to make an arena deal when doing so is bound to enrage a certain segment of the electorate.

The polls against publicly funded arenas are bleak. The odds of getting voters to approve an arena deal this November are daunting.
This could blow up at the ballot box in November, yet the city and county want a make a deal that I'd bet will go something like this:

A $500 million arena in the Union Pacific rail yards with the city and county, largely through a quarter-cent sales tax, picking up roughly 75 percent of the total cost. The Maloofs' contribution would be between 20 and 25 percent. They would control most or all of the revenues from all events at the new arena, not just basketball games.

And personally, I would be shocked if the Maloofs agree to pick up any of the inevitable cost overruns on the new arena.

Why? Because other NBA owners in Indiana, San Antonio, Memphis, etc., have not had to pay cost overruns -- or in some cases have not had to pay anything -- while raking in all the dough from the arenas built for them by taxpayers across the United States.

That's pro sports, baby. The Maloofs aren't uniquely evil, they're NBA owners. It's a relative comparison, but they are better than most, if not all, of their colleagues in terms of accessibility, affability and a desire to win.

Some of you will argue that dealing with them is corporate welfare and shouldn't be entertained by local officials -- themes we'll explore in another column.

The point now is: Sacramento got its act together, got to the negotiating table and showed a level of commitment that some homeless sports teams would kill for.

I'd bet the A's would jump at a deal like the one the Kings might get here. Will the Maloofs before time runs out this week on getting an arena measure on the November ballot?

And if they don't make a deal, is it time to build a downtown arena without them? Or to search for an alternate ownership group that will know a great deal and a great home when it sees one?

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

 

[VF21]

More food for thought.

The other day, one of the Maloofs made the comment that the Kings deserve a new arena, NO MATTER WHO OWNS THEM.

And now, in this column, Breton says:

And if they don't make a deal, is it time to build a downtown arena without them? Or to search for an alternate ownership group that will know a great deal and a great home when it sees one?

That's an interesting twist I don't think I've seen before.

So just how much would it cost to buy out the Maloofs?????

 

[Wert]

They (the Maloof's) would control most or all of the revenues from all events at the new arena, not just basketball games.

So just how much would it cost to buy out the Maloofs?????

I would be much more supportive of buying out the Maloof's if the alternative is them having too much control and taking too much revenue from the city on non sporting events.

But I'm not sure the Maloof's would be keen on giving up the ancillary income from non King's/Monarchs events if it came to that.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

More food for thought.

The other day, one of the Maloofs made the comment that the Kings deserve a new arena, NO MATTER WHO OWNS THEM.

And now, in this column, Breton says:



That's an interesting twist I don't think I've seen before.

So just how much would it cost to buy out the Maloofs?????

and who would the list of potential buyers include...??

 

[VF21]

No idea, Circa. I just thought it odd when I heard Joe (I think) say it and then, when Breton included it in his article, it immediately rang a bell.

I don't know if it's anything more than a coincidence of terms.

Right now, I'm not going to start advocating that the Maloofs be forced to sell the team or anything like that. All in all, they've done a great job as owners. I haven't agreed with some of their decisions, but it's not my multi-million dollars at stake so I can't really judge.

I probably shouldn't have pointed it out because now I suppose it'll end up being about that one small comment and not the article as a whole, which I think is a shame. I don't always agree with Breton but I think he's made points worth discussing.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

No idea, Circa. I just thought it odd when I heard Joe (I think) say it and then, when Breton included it in his article, it immediately rang a bell.

I don't know if it's anything more than a coincidence of terms.

Right now, I'm not going to start advocating that the Maloofs be forced to sell the team or anything like that. All in all, they've done a great job as owners. I haven't agreed with some of their decisions, but it's not my multi-million dollars at stake so I can't really judge.

I probably shouldn't have pointed it out because now I suppose it'll end up being about that one small comment and not the article as a whole, which I think is a shame. I don't always agree with Breton but I think he's made points worth discussing.

no, actually I'm glad you did, its definetely more food for thought...hmmmm...maybe there's another Jay Z or Mark Cuban(minus the fiery attitude, of course)...oh well, not quite that time yet, we still have until after November to think about stuff like that.

 

[Warhawk]

I don't see the Maloofs selling. They reap some nice cross-promotional benefits and stature from being NBA owners.

 

[Warhawk]

In fact, Sacramento officials seem to want an arena deal more than the Kings.


And most important, elected officials from the city and county appear eager to make an arena deal when doing so is bound to enrage a certain segment of the electorate.

The point now is: Sacramento got its act together, got to the negotiating table and showed a level of commitment that some homeless sports teams would kill for.

I'm not sure I agree with this.

The city/county, until that trip to NY, seemed to be mighty blase about building a new arena. No fire, no motivation, throwing out blindsiding absolutes with no real negotiation. Now they appear anxious to sit down, but they still seem to be arguing about the cost. Construction costs are "relatively" fixed and known for a given structure - it seems like the government reps have been in sticker shock expecting something for $300 mil while the real costs are looking more like $400-450 mil. And if nothing is done now it is going to be $500 mil minimum when negotiations start again.

The Maloofs have repeatedly wanted to negotiate and discuss this over the years but it seems as though there was no bargaining to be found at the bargaining table until the last couple weeks. Might be too little, too late given the complexity of negotiations....

 

[Wert]

Might be too little, too late given the complexity of negotiations....

18 major issues still needing to be resolved in the next few days certainly isn't encouraging.

 

[Carole]

As an alternate buyout option, how about offering shares to the fans. Would anyone want to put up $100 to own a piece of the new arena? Maybe buy a share-a-month?

 

[Wert]

Maybe buy a share-a-month?

That's an interesting thought. I wonder if there's any precedent for that sort of thing and how it would work. Would really allow the more fervent supporters to "put their money where their mouth is".

 

[D-Mass]

As an alternate buyout option, how about offering shares to the fans. Would anyone want to put up $100 to own a piece of the new arena? Maybe buy a share-a-month?

I'm in...and I'm not even a ticket holder.

 

[Kingsgurl]

I would be much more supportive of buying out the Maloof's if the alternative is them having too much control and taking too much revenue from the city on non sporting events.

But I'm not sure the Maloof's would be keen on giving up the ancillary income from non King's/Monarchs events if it came to that.

You are the master of quoting things out of context and running with them, aren't you?

From this

This could blow up at the ballot box in November, yet the city and county want a make a deal that I'd bet will go something like this:

A $500 million arena in the Union Pacific rail yards with the city and county, largely through a quarter-cent sales tax, picking up roughly 75 percent of the total cost. The Maloofs' contribution would be between 20 and 25 percent. They would control most or all of the revenues from all events at the new arena, not just basketball games.

To this

They would control most or all of the revenues from all events at the new arena, not just basketball games.

Certainly, that's one scenario, and apparently the one that Breton is envisioning. However, quoting it the way you did, like that IS what is happening is rather deceptive on your part.

 

[Carole]

That's an interesting thought. I wonder if there's any precedent for that sort of thing and how it would work. Would really allow the more fervent supporters to "put their money where their mouth is".

I've seen it done for memorial projects that honor a local hero - like a gazebo in a park with bricks sold for a set price; and for church building projects where you can 'buy a brick'. They figure the total amount, divvy it up to how much per 'brick', and record who donates. And then they set up a prominent thermometer to show how the sales are progressing. In neither of these would you 'own' a part of the action, but maybe that could be worked in, like stockholders, of a sort. With opinion rights, maybe even voting rights. Special admittance tickets for a level of contributions?

 

[Wert]

You are the master of quoting things out of context and running with them, aren't you?

It's my opinion of a possible scenario outlined in the article. I didn't make it up or misquote it at all. Heck, I even made sure to insert the clear qualifier "If" in my post precisely so that folks could understand that I was not making an absolute statement.

I'm truly sorry that you feel some innate need to paint me as being "deceptive" for simply commenting on a possibility that is clearly mentioned in the article.

Please note the rather crucial bolded verbiage in what I actually wrote. I think it's reasonable to realize that I was engaging in a bit of idle speculation, making a real effort not to make any factual claims. Especially since the context can be easily seen in the complete text of the article found in the very first post of this thread.

I would be much more supportive of buying out the Maloof's if the alternative is them having too much control and taking too much revenue from the city on non sporting events.

But I'm not sure the Maloof's would be keen on giving up the ancillary income from non King's/Monarchs events if it came to that.

Which was a response to the possibility (from Breton) that was mentioned in the article (and that I never claimed to be anything more than a possibility).

They would control most or all of the revenues from all events at the new arena, not just basketball games.

And while this is just one scenario (which might or might not happen) , I don't think it's necessarily a crazy or unbelievable one. As others have mentioned, it is not uncommon for other NBA franchise owners to have this sort of control. So what Breton posits here doesn't make it seem impossible (or even unlikely) that the Maloof's might expect the same. Heck I'd question their business acumen if they didn't try to get that sort of control.

So disagree with me if you will (and hey, I'm totally fine with that ), but I would sincerely appreciate being asked for clarification before having "deceptive" motives ascribed to me.

Thank you.

 

[Wert]

In neither of these would you 'own' a part of the action, but maybe that could be worked in, like stockholders, of a sort. With opinion rights, maybe even voting rights. Special admittance tickets for a level of contributions?

Yeah, that would be cool. I know disney sells "personalized bricks" that are a permanent part of the park to raise some revenue. Don't know if something like that would make a dent though.

Perhaps if enough of these kinds of "alternative" funding could be brought to reality, an overall package that is more appealing to the tax base could be floated and actually pass.

 

[D-Mass]

I've seen it done for memorial projects that honor a local hero - like a gazebo in a park with bricks sold for a set price; and for church building projects where you can 'buy a brick'. They figure the total amount, divvy it up to how much per 'brick', and record who donates. And then they set up a prominent thermometer to show how the sales are progressing. In neither of these would you 'own' a part of the action, but maybe that could be worked in, like stockholders, of a sort. With opinion rights, maybe even voting rights. Special admittance tickets for a level of contributions?

I like it, but even if you were able to sell them at $100 each to an arena full of people, you'd still only have about 1.7 million dollars. Now I realize that a lot of people who don't attend games would donate, and I also know that the arena is not filled with the same people for every game...it's just an example. Anyway, it's a nice chunk of change, but not compared to the 400 million dollar price tag. You'd need greater volume, a higher price point, and some big donors. But...it's a start, and it would make many of us not feel so helpless.

 

[DocHolliday]

I don't get Breton's point. So he's saying the city and county might want to circumvent the Maloofs and even if they move the team build a new arena?? If we can't get an arena built with them possibly putting in 20-25% we sure as hell can't get one built without them.

If we can, then the city is holding back on the Maloofs. If they somehow can pull up ALL the money themselves if the Maloofs weren't in the picture. The whole premise doesn't make any sense to me.

I sure as hell would be pissed if the Kings were moved THEN we got a new arena. That would be a slap in the face to the Maloofs, the entire Kings organization and to each and every person in the area that was a fan of the Kings.

 

[Wert]

I don't get Breton's point. So he's saying the city and county might want to circumvent the Maloofs and even if they move the team build a new arena?? If we can't get an arena built with them possibly putting in 20-25% we sure as hell can't get one built without them.

I see what you mean.

If the Maloofs leave, and raze Arco and sell the land, the most I could see the city getting from them is the balance of their loan (not sure if it's still around 70 million?) If that's the case and the arena costs 400 mil (and yeah I know it probably would be more), that repaid loan would only cover 17.5% of the cost. Much less as time passes and the cost of construction grows at a crazy rate.

 

[love_them_kings]

I don't get Breton's point. So he's saying the city and county might want to circumvent the Maloofs and even if they move the team build a new arena?? If we can't get an arena built with them possibly putting in 20-25% we sure as hell can't get one built without them.

If we can, then the city is holding back on the Maloofs. If they somehow can pull up ALL the money themselves if the Maloofs weren't in the picture. The whole premise doesn't make any sense to me.

I sure as hell would be pissed if the Kings were moved THEN we got a new arena. That would be a slap in the face to the Maloofs, the entire Kings organization and to each and every person in the area that was a fan of the Kings.

That's exactly how I feel. IF they let the Kings move and then magically can get a whole arena funded, I would be furious. I was confused when I read the article to ... it's like, what, Sac is trying to prove we're a great NBA city even if we don't have the Kings?? To have an NBA team we need a new arena. Why would build a new arena for some random team if we won't build it for the team we have and love?

 

[BigWaxer]

The article is pretty much what I have been saying. Thats a decent Article by Marcos.

 

[BigWaxer]

I would add LTK if your point is true then my assumption about the Maloofs wanting to stay is false. This article is weird in that way. Like the article but it adds another layer of confusion for me.

 

[VF21]

I don't get Breton's point. So he's saying the city and county might want to circumvent the Maloofs and even if they move the team build a new arena?? If we can't get an arena built with them possibly putting in 20-25% we sure as hell can't get one built without them.

If we can, then the city is holding back on the Maloofs. If they somehow can pull up ALL the money themselves if the Maloofs weren't in the picture. The whole premise doesn't make any sense to me.

I sure as hell would be pissed if the Kings were moved THEN we got a new arena. That would be a slap in the face to the Maloofs, the entire Kings organization and to each and every person in the area that was a fan of the Kings.

I think there are several points Breton is trying to make, albeit not all successfully:

1. The city/county has finally realized the real need for a new arena.

2. He thinks the city/county is trying to send a message to the NBA that they want to remain an NBA city, with or without the cooperation of the current Kings ownership.

3. He thinks the NBA recognizes the gold mine they have in the Sacramento fan base.

4. He suspects the Maloofs simply do not understand how anti-tax a good portion of the Sacramento populace is.

5. He envisions the possibility of a deal on the ballot for November that would include the railyards as the site, a quarter-cent sales tax increase and a contribution by the Maloofs of between 20-25%. Breton thinks the Maloofs would not be amenable to picking up any cost overruns of the project because owners in other NBA cities haven't had to do so.

6. Owners in other NBA cities control most or all of the revenues, so Breton thinks the Maloofs want to retain that control. It doesn't necessarily mean they KEEP all the revenues. It means they control how any disbursements are made.

7. Breton thinks the city/county have finally gotten their act together and are willing to negotiate seriously but that the Maloofs might not be ready to jump on the deal the city comes up with.

8. His questions are the end are clearly rhetorical and his thoughts only. Both the notion of building an arena without Maloof contributions or searching for an alternative ownership group to buy out the Maloofs are just a way to end the column, IMHO.

I hope this clears it up just a bit.

IMHO the underlying theme here is that since the beginning, the Maloofs were jerked around by various members of the city council, not taken seriously and ridiculed by various members of the local media. Now that the city council is ready to be serious, I think the Maloofs are - understandably - a little gun shy.

 

[kennadog]

The other day, one of the Maloofs made the comment that the Kings deserve a new arena, NO MATTER WHO OWNS THEM.

I wonder if that just alludes to the fact that this has been turned into a pro- or anti-Maloof thing as much as an argument about pro- or anti-arena.

 

[VF21]

Probably, kenndog. I just thought it was interesting (most likely because I, like everyone else, is trying to read way too much into things)...

I am very impressed, however, with the amount of coverage the Bee is putting forth all of a sudden. Had they done this - without the rancor of fools like R.E. Graswich - this whole thing might be much further along IMHO.

 

[Kingsgurl]

So disagree with me if you will (and hey, I'm totally fine with that ), but I would sincerely appreciate being asked for clarification before having "deceptive" motives ascribed to me.

Thank you.

Wert- I was using this ONE post as an example of a tendancy you have displayed throughout this discourse. No clarification needed. You have cut out portions of articles that support your view, while merely linking to the rest (so others could read for themselves what context the particular passage is reffering to ) You also tend to twist what others have said by quoting snippets of posts. Just an observation. Also, for someone who doesn't care if the Kings leave, you sure are probably THE most vocal participant in these threads. That crosses the line from someone who 'doesn't care' to someone who DOES care, but in the opposite direction. Savvy?

 

[Wert]

Wert- I was using this ONE post as an example of a tendancy you have displayed throughout this discourse. No clarification needed.

Yeah, a very poor (heck, flat out wrong) and useless example.

If you disagree with something I write, could you please extend me me the courtesy of asking for clarification before prematurely unleashing the hounds?

You have cut out portions of articles that support your view, while merely linking to the rest (so others could read for themselves what context the particular passage is reffering to )

Goodness, I always make sure the complete text is available via a prominent link right at the beginning of such posts. I figure it's not tough to expect folks to click a link if they want to read more.

Just because I chose to respect the copyrights of others and post within the concepts of "fair use" doesn't mean I have the sort of sinister or "deceptive" agenda that you seem so anxious to hang around my neck.

You also tend to twist what others have said by quoting snippets of posts. Just an observation.

A false one. And a fairly transparent way to unfairly denigrate opinions simply because they differ from your own.

I realize that it's perhaps easier to invent/demonize some sort of faux "deceptive" motives on my part rather than addressing (or not, if you choose) what I've actually said.

Also, for someone who doesn't care if the Kings leave, you sure are probably THE most vocal participant in these threads.

Aren't a lot of the folks here fond of saying "It's not just about the Kings!", focusing on how much the arena means to the area anyway? If so, as someone who has been known to attend both Kings and Non Kings events, as someone who lives in the area, votes and pay taxes, why is it wrong to be "Vocal" here? Simply because my opinions don't necessarily jive with yours?

To my dismay, I suspect that might be the case.

That crosses the line from someone who 'doesn't care' to someone who DOES care, but in the opposite direction. Savvy?

Crossing the line?

Not at all.

As a taxpayer, local resident, Kings fan and one who uses Arco for attending Kings and non Kings event, I realize that a lot of different scenarios may eventually occur and I have opinions about that. Now some might argue that I have no right to express such honestly held opinions here simply because such opinions might be "too vocal" or not hew to a desired "cheerleading" tone.

As someone who cherishes an honest back and forth dialog about such things, I think that's a real shame.

Savvy?

Is there any chance that we can can go away from the personal attacks and get back to discussing the actual topic here? (as you'll note I've done in the post following this one)

If my words/opinions about this issue cause anyone here undue stress, I recommend taking VF21's very wise advice to just ignore/let such things go.

Thank you.

 

[Wert]

Concerning this article posted at the beginning of this thread.

While it's interesting and a good read, it doesn't give me much beyond just being a "human interest" sort of thing. I realize the Bee and other news outlets don't really have much to report in terms of the actual talks right now, but I suppose these sort of stories (even though they're fairly "fact free") at least keep the issue in the public eye which I don't think is a bad thing at all.

When (fingers crossed!) a real solid plan is hammered out, I hope the Bee and other local media report it in as full detail as possible, so that voters can make an truly informed decision when the time comes to decide the issue.

 

[BibityBobtyBoom]

i honestly don't want another arena. I don't think it will effect the team in anyway because they will still be under achievers. It will only wasting money on something we already have. I'm sure a lot of fans would like it, but what is that? The 17,000 a night that attend the games? That still leaves hundreds of thousands that could probably care less about if a new arena exists. Arco has good memories, for me at least and i would hope that we keep it as the home as the kings for at least another few years.

 

[VF21]

i honestly don't want another arena. I don't think it will effect the team in anyway because they will still be under achievers. It will only wasting money on something we already have. I'm sure a lot of fans would like it, but what is that? The 17,000 a night that attend the games? That still leaves hundreds of thousands that could probably care less about if a new arena exists. Arco has good memories, for me at least and i would hope that we keep it as the home as the kings for at least another few years.

Do you have any idea, even remotely, about WHY there's a need for a new arena?

It's not about just replacing the existing Arco for the fun of it. It's not about affecting the team. You really need to read up on this before you just jump in with comments that show you have no idea what you're talking about. And excuse me for sounding rude, but ignorance is no excuse.

It's not about you and your good memories of this current incarnation of Arco Arena.