Hansen, Seattle Council reach deal on financing new sports arena

butteredbiscuit said:
Thank you for the info. I didnt know about the levee. Now I see why they don't want to do anything. Let me ask you this.. I understand the Maloofs don't want to be in the rail-yard because they would just be tenants and have to be renters on the property. So what would get done faster A railyard arena with EIS cleanup or building a new arena at Natmos?

So to build an arena on the rail-yard, How much is it going to cost? How much you "think" for Natmos? I am learning about this
Click to expand...

There's something you keep ignoring. The city is putting up most of the funding, and the city wants to do a revitalization of the downtown area. So they kill two birds with one stone by putting the arena in the railyards. As stated, if the Maloofs want to foot the bill for the arena, they can build it wherever they want. But what they want is for someone to build it for them, where they want it, and then collect all the revenues from it. Thats not going to happen.

Everything your proposing caters to the Maloofs, and I don't understand why? The league and the city bent over backwards to solve the problem, and the Maloofs blew it up. So if they want to be part of a new arena, then they have to come hat in hand back to the table. No one, and I mean no one on this fourm, or on the city council, and probably damm few on the BOG are going to kiss the Maloofs a$$ at this point. They burned all the good will they had.

The bottom line is, if the city is going to put up $255 million for a new arena, then the city is going to decide where that arena goes.
 
bajaden said:
There's something you keep ignoring. The city is putting up most of the funding, and the city wants to do a revitalization of the downtown area. So they kill two birds with one stone by putting the arena in the railyards. As stated, if the Maloofs want to foot the bill for the arena, they can build it wherever they want. But what they want is for someone to build it for them, where they want it, and then collect all the revenues from it. Thats not going to happen.

Everything your proposing caters to the Maloofs, and I don't understand why? The league and the city bent over backwards to solve the problem, and the Maloofs blew it up. So if they want to be part of a new arena, then they have to come hat in hand back to the table. No one, and I mean no one on this fourm, or on the city council, and probably damm few on the BOG are going to kiss the Maloofs a$$ at this point. They burned all the good will they had.

The bottom line is, if the city is going to put up $255 million for a new arena, then the city is going to decide where that arena goes.
Click to expand...

To further put a fine point on this, this is not an "either or" prospect for the city. The $255 million coming from the city almost entirely depended on the city parking concession. As it exists today, that concession is not as valuable under it's current use of daytime office worker parking. It only becomes more valuable if there is a reason to park after the 9-5 hours. The ESC in the railyards was that reason.

So anyone hoping for a Natomas arena better list item #1 on their "to do" list is coming up with another idea on how to generate $255 million because the city cannot.
 
Keep your ears open and don't be surprised if a totally new player comes into the fray very soon with this...JMA Ventures, who just bought the Downtown Plaza from Westfield.
 
Circa_1985_Fan said:
Keep your ears open and don't be surprised if a totally new player comes into the fray very soon with this...JMA Ventures, who just bought the Downtown Plaza from Westfield.
Click to expand...

Who is this and how much cash do they have? Would they be in an arena deal or buying the Kings somehow?
 
Last edited:
Section 101 said:
Interesting since I thought the AEG part of his companies was the one helping get the football stadium.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a lot depends on who the new buyer is. It could be a great thing for NFL football fans in LA. The new owners can say that not only are they committed to the stadium, they are also willing to bring in a team without being majority owners. The big problem with bringing the NFL back to LA is that previous AEG ownership demanded to be majority owners and nobody is willing to sell right now. If the new guys take that carrot off the table, it facilitates a move to LA for someone like the Raiders, Rams or Chargers.

OTOH, the new guys can say that it's too risky and that they don't want to do the stadium at all. That puts LA back at square one.

Most importantly, I have no idea how this effects the Kings. I would hope that the new guys would be on board just in case the Maloofs sell and KJ revives the deal. Then again, if they don't make any firm commitments, it may just make a bad situation here become even worse.
 
bajaden said:
Everything your proposing caters to the Maloofs, and I don't understand why? The league and the city bent over backwards to solve the problem, and the Maloofs blew it up. .
Click to expand...


I was going to refrain on this issue, as I know we are all passionate about the Kings and seing an arena built, but at the risk of sounding like a broken record...

What if there are problems that have not been solved, like the collateral issue that they might not be able to deal with? Where does this then move forward? (I thought when the parties reconvened, to negotiate in Sacramento weeks later the collateral issue and the length of the lease helped keep the sides apart. It was also an issue the Maloofs disagreed with from the start. From my perspective, the Maloofs having insufficient collateral funds were/are a major block)
 
Last edited:
Kingsfan23 said:
I was going to refrain on this issue, as I know we are all passionate about the Kings and seing an arena built, but at the risk of sounding like a broken record...

What if there are problems that have not been solved, like the collateral issue that they might not be able to deal with? Where does this then move forward? (I thought when the parties reconvened, to negotiate in Sacramento weeks later the collateral issue and the length of the lease helped keep the sides apart. It was also an issue the Maloofs disagreed with from the start. From my perspective, the Maloofs having insufficient collateral funds were/are a major block)
Click to expand...

Who's fault is that? Nobody on this planet doesn't put up collateral on a large loan. Nobody.
 
It wasn't just the length of the lease. George wanted to be able to sell the team and have the lease non-binding to any party he sold the team. Basically making the Kings more valuable as a team ready to relocated and making it nearly impossible to build the ESC in the first place.

There are points of give and take negotiation and then there is bad faith negotiations. This was 100% bad faith on George's part. He never planned to accept a deal in Sacramento. He left the Orlando All Star weekend negotiations knowing he was going to blow them up soon enough.
 
JB_kings said:
It wasn't just the length of the lease. George wanted to be able to sell the team and have the lease non-binding to any party he sold the team. Basically making the Kings more valuable as a team ready to relocated and making it nearly impossible to build the ESC in the first place.

There are points of give and take negotiation and then there is bad faith negotiations. This was 100% bad faith on George's part. He never planned to accept a deal in Sacramento. He left the Orlando All Star weekend negotiations knowing he was going to blow them up soon enough.
Click to expand...

This^^^
 
Trueblood said:
Most estimates have the Maloofs just as well off financially as tenants at a brand new building as they are as owners at Arco. A new building brings in more fans at a higher ticket price. But beyond that, there is the issue of being a member of the community and being a partner in something that makes the city a better place overall. A railyards arena does that. Even if it were feasible to build a new arena in Natomas, it just does very little for the betterment of Sacramento. The fact that the Maloofs have no interest at all in helping the community is a big let down.




Good ideas but again, you have the levee situation so it becomes a moot point.



I'd be on board with the railyards plan, no questions asked. Personally, I'm a staunch supporter of downtown arenas and whatever deal there is that puts the Kings downtown is what I would go with. It wouldn't have to be the railyards. I'd be fine with K St. and whatever other ideas there are but since I'm being realistic, the railyards would be the way to go.

As far as personnel is concerned, I'd keep everyone in place for a year just to give them a chance to prove themselves. I've seen what Petrie can do when he's not limited by cheap ownership tactics.

I'd keep Smart but would have no problem giving him the axe if I didn't see favorable results. Stan Van Gundy would be high on my list of potential new coaches. In fact, he would've been the King coach had Billy Donovan followed through on his commitment to be the Magic head coach back in the summer of '07.



Yes, Walker was bad but it was Howard Schultz who ultimately made Payton leave town.

Bennett had yet to buy the team when they draft Saene in '06. The sale happened about a month after the draft and Bennett immediately hired Presti. Presti took Durant with the no brainer as his first pick but getting Westbrook at 4, Ibaka late in the 1st and Harden were all great picks.

If I had to choose between Walker and Petrie, I'd take Petrie.



Like I mentioned in the earlier part of the post, I'd keep Petrie for a year to see if he can re-work the magic of the late 90's and early part of this century.

I feel bad for Hugh Weber. OTOH, he doesn't get the job in the first place if he's not an in law of George Shinn. Not saying he's not qualified since he proved his worth but it's just how things go. Shinn hired him because of familiarity with him personally and now he's getting axed because Benson is comfortable with Loomis.

It's not the end of the road for Weber though. He has a nice addition to his resume and is someone I'd consider bringing in.

I like Demps and he was about as mature an individual as there was during that very overrated and media blown out of proportion CP "debacle". OTOH, if I'm in his shoes, I don't do business with the Lakers in the first place. A deal with the Lakers while the team is being owned by the league just looks horrible after the lockout and the supposed message of creating competitive balance. Making the Lakers a stronger team just defeats the purpose of what the lockout was about.

Piggy backing on that theme, it's why I was hoping for some effort on the part of the Maloofs to be partners with the community. Sometimes a short term step back turns into a long term benefit. I feel the same way about individual NBA teams. Sometimes you have to sacrifice making a deal with a big market, historically strong team for the betterment of the league at large. After all, a less top heavy league gives everyone, your own team included, a better shot at a title. That, in and of itself, is reason to not make the CP trade or for Phoenix to do the Nash sign and trade. Same with the Maloofs. Lose ownership of the building but rake in fans, higher ticket prices and a higher valued team makes things better in the long run.
Click to expand...

Very interesting points you got there. I am learning a lot about this arena deal in Sacramento. So you can't really build on ARCO arena land because of a levee and really building it on really doesnt make sense. But I would say one thing though. With all this salary you have to pay, you have to get money any way that you can.

Ok with AEG changing hands, it sounds like to me that the rail-yard situation is going to be shifting. Spending a billion dollars to get this project up and running seems a little far-fetched to me. Who is going to put in money to cover AEG's part of it? I don't know but I know someone is willing to do it.

With a city broke, I just dont think the city uses the money properly. Like in the city of Los Angeles, They said they dont have money for parks and the city of Whittier, Bell and other cities put in money to help the parks but then the city manager says "Oh we found hidden money in our budget to do it." Sounds like to me that governments are hiding money and pretending they are broke.

I am just saying I can see

Personally, I would be for a Dell Demps as GM and Monty Williams as coach of the Kings. he is young and when you have an owner who has money and has a meeting with staff and says bring me a championship team, I know Dell can do it. I don't know Petrie that well per say. I know he is a great draft evaluator but some of his moves well I just don't get. Aaron Brooks is a good pickup. Robinson is good but Jimmer as a starter? Forget it! Bring him off the bench (like JJ Redick) and let him gun it.

PG- Thomas
SG- Evans
SF-???
PF-Robinson
C- Cousins


"Lose ownership of the building but rake in fans, higher ticket prices and a higher valued team makes things better in the long run. " I mean this would mean that you lose power and just be a tenant. You pay the city rent but you don't make much money outside of that. The arena doesn't belong to you. I wish I knew how much it would cost to buy the rail-yard and you make your own arena and money. Seems like you have to be dependent on the City to make money. Then have to put in your own money to build it. Maybe I don't get it. It is like "Ok I cant build on Arco site because of the levee and then I have to pay to help with the railyard arena which outside of that I dont get money for parking. I only pay rent to the city for the use of the arena What benefit is that to me?

As thinking of an owner, what would be the benefit of keeping a team in Sacramento compared to moving it to Seattle?

Seattle #13th biggest market and Sacramento #20
 
butteredbiscuit said:
As thinking of an owner, what would be the benefit of keeping a team in Sacramento compared to moving it to Seattle?

Seattle #13th biggest market and Sacramento #20
Click to expand...

1. Sacramento is an exclusive market; Seattle has the Mariners and the Seahawks to compete for the sports dollars.

2. Sacramento fans have shown consistently a loyalty to their team that, until recently, was unequaled by any other small market team. Check the sellout streak records.

3. I don't know about anyone else, but you're asking for an unbiased opinion by people who, for the most part, are not unbiased. We're SACRAMENTO Kings fans. We do not want to lose them.

I'll recommend again that you peruse some of the past threads in this forum. There's a lot of information there to be gleaned.
 
VF21 said:
1. Sacramento is an exclusive market; Seattle has the Mariners and the Seahawks to compete for the sports dollars.

2. Sacramento fans have shown consistently a loyalty to their team that, until recently, was unequaled by any other small market team. Check the sellout streak records.

3. I don't know about anyone else, but you're asking for an unbiased opinion by people who, for the most part, are not unbiased. We're SACRAMENTO Kings fans. We do not want to lose them.

I'll recommend again that you peruse some of the past threads in this forum. There's a lot of information there to be gleaned.
Click to expand...


Seattle also has a well-supported Major League Soccer team - F.C. Sounders, who at this point I think would generate as much fan support as the Kings... then the market also has a WNBA team and major NCAA... yes, the Seattle market doesn't need another team but the Sacramento market begs for one, making this situation all the more frustrating
 
bajaden said:
There's something you keep ignoring. The city is putting up most of the funding, and the city wants to do a revitalization of the downtown area. So they kill two birds with one stone by putting the arena in the railyards. As stated, if the Maloofs want to foot the bill for the arena, they can build it wherever they want. But what they want is for someone to build it for them, where they want it, and then collect all the revenues from it. Thats not going to happen.

Everything your proposing caters to the Maloofs, and I don't understand why? The league and the city bent over backwards to solve the problem, and the Maloofs blew it up. So if they want to be part of a new arena, then they have to come hat in hand back to the table. No one, and I mean no one on this fourm, or on the city council, and probably damm few on the BOG are going to kiss the Maloofs a$$ at this point. They burned all the good will they had.

The bottom line is, if the city is going to put up $255 million for a new arena, then the city is going to decide where that arena goes.
Click to expand...

I can see it from the Maloofs side. Here is the deal: I have a team and an arena. I don't have a lot of money but I generate income with the TV deal, radio, sponsors, parking revenue etc. I also get revenue when rodeos, concerts, conventions. I am currently independent to do what I wish. Now your coming to me and your saying" let's build a new arena in which you becoming the head become the tail." instead of you making money, you have to give money. The Natmos land gets sold and the money comes to the city. Then you don't own the arena, you have to pay rent in it. Then you don't get anymore money for parking and for other events in the new arena. So your losing money. So what is the advantage in that?

It is like having your own house. Your living in it and you know it needs to be remodeled but you haven't because you have too many bills and you letting it go for now. Then your being told to move into a gated community that is better but you hate the people in the gated community (mayor) So is it better to move into the gated community when you hate everyone or be where your happy?

I am not for the Maloofs in everything they have done (just so everyone knows) (I am against everything except this point) but I am saying I can understand money revenues being lost and why wouldn't they want to back out of the deal? Unless I would get the same deal as I get in Natmos, why would I leave it? Does this mean that the Kings aren't working with the community if they don't do this rail-yard deal?

maybe I am not seeing it like how you are seeing it. Help me to see it in a better way! I must be missing something! That is why I am asking you!
 
VF21 said:
1. Sacramento is an exclusive market; Seattle has the Mariners and the Seahawks to compete for the sports dollars.

2. Sacramento fans have shown consistently a loyalty to their team that, until recently, was unequaled by any other small market team. Check the sellout streak records.

3. I don't know about anyone else, but you're asking for an unbiased opinion by people who, for the most part, are not unbiased. We're SACRAMENTO Kings fans. We do not want to lose them.

I'll recommend again that you peruse some of the past threads in this forum. There's a lot of information there to be gleaned.
Click to expand...

1) Completely agree. The mariners are actually opposing the new arena saying that it is too close to their field and the traffic would be a nightmare. mariners say that in April and if the Sonics made the playoffs there would be major congestion all the time. Then end of the season would be trouble.

2) Sacramento Kings fans are the best hands down. You give the Kings any kind of help, the fans support. Next would be Portland Trailblazers, Seattle Supersonics and Utah Jazz fans.

3) I would like to see some threads. Point me in the right direction.

4) If you take Arco Arena away from Natomas, what will happen to Natomas? That is about the only thing that keeps Natomas going.
 
Last edited:
butteredbiscuit said:
I can see it from the Maloofs side. Here is the deal: I have a team and an arena. I don't have a lot of money but I generate income with the TV deal, radio, sponsors, parking revenue etc. I also get revenue when rodeos, concerts, conventions. I am currently independent to do what I wish. Now your coming to me and your saying" let's build a new arena in which you becoming the head become the tail." instead of you making money, you have to give money. The Natmos land gets sold and the money comes to the city. Then you don't own the arena, you have to pay rent in it. Then you don't get anymore money for parking and for other events in the new arena. So your losing money. So what is the advantage in that?

It is like having your own house. Your living in it and you know it needs to be remodeled but you haven't because you have too many bills and you letting it go for now. Then your being told to move into a gated community that is better but you hate the people in the gated community (mayor) So is it better to move into the gated community when you hate everyone or be where your happy?

I am not for the Maloofs in everything they have done (just so everyone knows) (I am against everything except this point) but I am saying I can understand money revenues being lost and why wouldn't they want to back out of the deal? Unless I would get the same deal as I get in Natmos, why would I leave it? Does this mean that the Kings aren't working with the community if they don't do this rail-yard deal?

maybe I am not seeing it like how you are seeing it. Help me to see it in a better way! I must be missing something! That is why I am asking you!
Click to expand...

Operating costs. You pay to use the building, rake in money from concessions and ticket/merchandise sales. And you don't have to pay the mortgage. You RENT the place, like a farmer, sell the crops, then laugh on the way to the bank.
 
butteredbiscuit said:
I can see it from the Maloofs side. Here is the deal: I have a team and an arena. I don't have a lot of money but I generate income with the TV deal, radio, sponsors, parking revenue etc. I also get revenue when rodeos, concerts, conventions. I am currently independent to do what I wish. Now your coming to me and your saying" let's build a new arena in which you becoming the head become the tail." instead of you making money, you have to give money. The Natmos land gets sold and the money comes to the city. Then you don't own the arena, you have to pay rent in it. Then you don't get anymore money for parking and for other events in the new arena. So your losing money. So what is the advantage in that?
Click to expand...

The Maloofs were willingly to be tenants in Anaheim. What's the advantage in that? The team's value would rise and the Maloofs would be able to sell the Kings at a higher price to Henry Samueli. The Maloofs are NBA broke. That basically sums it up.
 
butteredbiscuit said:
1) Completely agree. The mariners are actually opposing the new arena saying that it is too close to their field and the traffic would be a nightmare. mariners say that in April and if the Sonics made the playoffs there would be major congestion all the time. Then end of the season would be trouble.

2) Sacramento Kings fans are the best hands down. You give the Kings any kind of help, the fans support. Next would be Portland Trailblazers, Seattle Supersonics and Utah Jazz fans.

3) I would like to see some threads. Point me in the right direction.

4) If you take Arco Arena away from Natomas, what will happen to Natomas? That is about the only thing that keeps Natomas going.
Click to expand...

This is the New Arena forum. All you have to do is look at the list of thread titles http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?18-New-Arena and you'll see a wide variety of topics. If you go back in reverse chronological order, I think you'll find any number of discussions about the arena proposals, the Maloofs, the meeting during the All-Star break and much more.

You keep saying you can see things from the Maloof point of view. Until you read up on the whole story, you're trying to identify an elephant by feeling the tip of his tail.
 
butteredbiscuit said:
I am not for the Maloofs in everything they have done (just so everyone knows) (I am against everything except this point) but I am saying I can understand money revenues being lost and why wouldn't they want to back out of the deal? Unless I would get the same deal as I get in Natmos, why would I leave it? Does this mean that the Kings aren't working with the community if they don't do this rail-yard deal?

maybe I am not seeing it like how you are seeing it. Help me to see it in a better way! I must be missing something! That is why I am asking you!
Click to expand...

Money revenues are being lost because of incredibly stupid moves by the Maloofs. The Sacramento Kings are their one remaining asset, aside from a large chunk of Wells Fargo stock that may or may not be tied up as collateral in some other deal. The move to Anaheim would have included, from all reports, a very large loan from Henry Samueli to the Maloofs.

They backed out of the latest arena deal because they (meaning George) never meant to go through with it in the first place. His mind-boggling press conference rant was one step above lunatic babbling.

Kings fans have been burned time and time again by the Brothers Maloof. We love our team but that feeling does not extend to the owners. We trusted them when they said they wanted to stay in Sacramento and then watched as they tried to file for relocation. We trusted them again when they publicly celebrated the deal between the NBA, the city and MSE and then watched as George blew it up. They have done NOTHING to merit any further loyalty or trust from the fans. The one thing they could do is sell the team to one of the groups that wants to keep the Kings in Sacramento.

The Maloofs are looking out for one thing only - themselves. And they aren't even doing a very good job of that. I'm sure their father must be rolling in his grave.
 
butteredbiscuit said:
1) Completely agree. The mariners are actually opposing the new arena saying that it is too close to their field and the traffic would be a nightmare. mariners say that in April and if the Sonics made the playoffs there would be major congestion all the time. Then end of the season would be trouble.
Click to expand...
That's hilarious, I've been up there to see the Sox play. Mariners draw 3 teams a year. Yankees, Sox and Toronto (seriously). The Cubs if they get them in interleague. The Sounders FC MLS team draws more than they do and they actually play at the same time. Seattle is a fair weather city. Always has been. Win and you draw, suck and you are a distant memory.
 
Mike0476 said:
The Maloofs were willingly to be tenants in Anaheim. What's the advantage in that? The team's value would rise and the Maloofs would be able to sell the Kings at a higher price to Henry Samueli. The Maloofs are NBA broke. That basically sums it up.
Click to expand...


The advantage would be that he would be getting paid and he actually would be getting along with Samueli. Maloofs wont get along with KJ.
 
VF21 said:
Money revenues are being lost because of incredibly stupid moves by the Maloofs. The Sacramento Kings are their one remaining asset, aside from a large chunk of Wells Fargo stock that may or may not be tied up as collateral in some other deal. The move to Anaheim would have included, from all reports, a very large loan from Henry Samueli to the Maloofs.

They backed out of the latest arena deal because they (meaning George) never meant to go through with it in the first place. His mind-boggling press conference rant was one step above lunatic babbling.

Kings fans have been burned time and time again by the Brothers Maloof. We love our team but that feeling does not extend to the owners. We trusted them when they said they wanted to stay in Sacramento and then watched as they tried to file for relocation. We trusted them again when they publicly celebrated the deal between the NBA, the city and MSE and then watched as George blew it up. They have done NOTHING to merit any further loyalty or trust from the fans. The one thing they could do is sell the team to one of the groups that wants to keep the Kings in Sacramento.

The Maloofs are looking out for one thing only - themselves. And they aren't even doing a very good job of that. I'm sure their father must be rolling in his grave.
Click to expand...


I am sure he is rolling in his grave. Read this today

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019205321_kingarena20m.html

Now, I have a question. Is the deal with Chris Hansen iron clad? Meaning if another person comes in (example The Maloofs) and wants to build an arena say at Seattle Center key arena area competing in Chris Hansen's territory, can they do that or is the Seattle City Council agreement only with Chris Hansen? So no one can come in and build an arena in Seattle that isn't Chris Hansen?
 
butteredbiscuit said:
Well we sure can't allow that to happen!
Click to expand...

The Anaheim deal is no longer a prime concern. David Stern made it pretty clear the league is not inclined to favor relocation to Anaheim. I'm also fairly certain Henry Samueli is not in any hurry to get into any kind of business deal with the Maloofs at this point - they (meaning primarily George) have shown themselves to be pretty toxic. Samueli's plan all along was to make a deal that could have netted him the Kings if the Maloofs were unable to meet their contractual obligations. That ship has pretty much sailed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tetsujin
Jake Fisher article: Sabonis extension expected to be around 4years/120 million
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
6K
KainLear
KainLear
T
Sources: Sacramento Kings re-signing veteran forward Maurice Harkless to new two-year deal
Replies
0
Views
289
The Sacramento Bee
T
T
Sources: Kings bring free agent big man Alex Len back to Sacramento on new two-year deal
Replies
0
Views
284
The Sacramento Bee
T
jcassio
Kings not forthcoming about “donation” of Natomas arena for Coronavirus hospital
Replies
24
Views
2K
Jkbiker
Jkbiker
Y
Expansion to Seattle, elsewhere reportedly not on NBA's timeline until at least 2025
Replies
0
Views
313
Yahoo Sports
Y
Back
Top