Kings players not happy about move either
- Thread starter RookieOfTheDay
- Start date
They aren't getting a new arena by moving to Anaheim. The Arena is just sort of the ongoing saga that will initially get blamed, but if Samueli ends up owning the Kings or the Maloofs sell to someone else, it will be pretty obvious that the move was a way to up the price on the team before getting out of the NBA. If it goes to Samueli, its a pretty slick way to assure him that if he buys the team he won't have any roadblocks in moving it as it will already be moved.
It's weird. People say the Maloofs left because they needed the arena, but they also say the Maloofs are going to Anaheim because they are offering them the financial liferaft. I'd think people would recognize that if it was truly an arena issue, other towns would be involved, but its Anaheim and Samueli with an older arena instead of KC's Sprint Center.
So would the Kings still be looking to relocate if they had the arena? Well, they might be too tied in financially to relocate, but to be honest if the town had built the arena and Maloofs invested into it as well, both would be even more busted than they are wouldn't they? That's the one thing I keep thinking about. What if the city had built the arena and had that debt on top of all the other economic problems? Would things really be better?
It's weird. People say the Maloofs left because they needed the arena, but they also say the Maloofs are going to Anaheim because they are offering them the financial liferaft. I'd think people would recognize that if it was truly an arena issue, other towns would be involved, but its Anaheim and Samueli with an older arena instead of KC's Sprint Center.
So would the Kings still be looking to relocate if they had the arena? Well, they might be too tied in financially to relocate, but to be honest if the town had built the arena and Maloofs invested into it as well, both would be even more busted than they are wouldn't they? That's the one thing I keep thinking about. What if the city had built the arena and had that debt on top of all the other economic problems? Would things really be better?
They'd be better in the sense that the team was staying. I suppose it really depends on how much value you put on that. I put a lot of value on it. It's hard to put a price tag on what The Kings are worth to the region just in terms of their giving us something to get excited about in an otherwise pretty boring town. They give us an identity and an image. Without The Kings, we're basically Fresno north.
Last edited:
while moving the franchise is bad for the fans. it is best for the kings. I hate that, but it reminds me of that old adage; "if you love it, let it go." the funny part is, we probably can do the kings more good from a distance. We will still be watching the games, even buying the merchandise. If you like basketball, and the current roster, you probably will find a way to go along for the ride. If anything, i think the honda center should "borrow" the kings, until we can work out an arena situation. but since sacramento failed as a team, i dont see any reason why the kings should follow suit.
No way is a saturated sports market where you have to compete with two other NBA teams, baseball teams, hockey teams, celebrities, beaches, Disneyland, etc. better than having a whole region to yourself because you're the only game in town. Sacramento is an ideal NBA market. It has a proven fanbase and the region is projected to grow rapidly. All it needs is an arena. Granted that's taken way longer than it should have but it's worth seeing it through now that there's a mayor that actually cares about keeping the team. Anaheim may work great as a quick fix, especially in the team is good, but no way will it ever have the long term dedication and love for The Kings that Sacramento has. There's just too much competition down there for that. Too many other things to do, other things to spend money on, etc.
Last edited:
Not a new arena, but a ready arena and a more suitable one...I agree that there are other incentives that make the Maloofs focus on Aneheim as opposed to other arena-ready places like Kansas City or Louisville, but the main tangible non-inferred reason why the Kings are looking to move is because the arena they have now is inadequate. I think that people need to clarify the difference between the Kings LEAVING Sacramento, and the kings GOING to Aneheim. What matters isn't the arena's age, but the arena's condition.
If Sacto had built a new arena when they could have, maybe both sides would be busted, maybe they wouldn't; but at least the arena would be there and the Kings would not be leaving.
In my view, it all boils down to this: If Sacramento had built a replacement arena for the Kings AND for themselves (the arena would be multi-purpose), then the Kings would not be on the verge of leaving now. If you think that it is better to have not built the arena because things might be worse economically now, well, this current situation is what you end up with and you can't be angry with the Maloofs for leaving. Arco is not a suitable venue for NBA basketball anymore. Arco cannot be relied upon for the long-term. It makes no sense for the Maloofs to keep their product in a place that is not suitable for it.
Sacramento sowed the wind by dilly-dallying with the arena issue, and now they are reaping the whirlwind. Any other speculation on motives, financial positions, greediness of the Maloofs, giving KJ a chance, yada yada is secondary to the clear fact that if Sacramento had done what they KNEW they needed to do, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
On a semi-related note, I see that Anaheim voted to pay any moving fines/fees incurred if the Kings come...
If Sacto had built a new arena when they could have, maybe both sides would be busted, maybe they wouldn't; but at least the arena would be there and the Kings would not be leaving.
In my view, it all boils down to this: If Sacramento had built a replacement arena for the Kings AND for themselves (the arena would be multi-purpose), then the Kings would not be on the verge of leaving now. If you think that it is better to have not built the arena because things might be worse economically now, well, this current situation is what you end up with and you can't be angry with the Maloofs for leaving. Arco is not a suitable venue for NBA basketball anymore. Arco cannot be relied upon for the long-term. It makes no sense for the Maloofs to keep their product in a place that is not suitable for it.
Sacramento sowed the wind by dilly-dallying with the arena issue, and now they are reaping the whirlwind. Any other speculation on motives, financial positions, greediness of the Maloofs, giving KJ a chance, yada yada is secondary to the clear fact that if Sacramento had done what they KNEW they needed to do, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
On a semi-related note, I see that Anaheim voted to pay any moving fines/fees incurred if the Kings come...
Time will tell on all those things...
and while there is a significant fan base, why is it only now that there's a mayor that actually cares about keeping the team? Are you admitting that previous mayors didn't give a damn about keeping the team? It HAS taken much longer than it should have, and that's why it's happening as it is now; we haven't even seen anything tangible on the arena front since then. If the fan base doesn't include the people in power, then the fan base HAS no power.
and while there is a significant fan base, why is it only now that there's a mayor that actually cares about keeping the team? Are you admitting that previous mayors didn't give a damn about keeping the team? It HAS taken much longer than it should have, and that's why it's happening as it is now; we haven't even seen anything tangible on the arena front since then. If the fan base doesn't include the people in power, then the fan base HAS no power.
I know this is a tangent, but I've been thinking more and more about this move into second position on the loans that we did.
1) If you read the transaction, it's pretty clear about who owns the arena. It may only be "a technicality", but in the documents, it specifies that the City purchased the arena. I don't really care what Napear says; he's wrong about a lot of things, and this is one of them.
2) The deal specifies that the bond-holders take the risks -- that if there's a default, the bond-holders, and not the general fund, take the fall.
3) Later, the City comes along and allows the bond-holders to move into second position. Recognize that there are several parties here; the Authority, the Council, the bond-holders, and the tenants.
4) In effect, one party (the City) has told another party (the bond-holders) that they're now in second position. Are you with me so far?
How can one party tell another party that they're now in second? Shouldn't there have been clauses in the bonds that said something about that? Some information given, that these debts may be subordinated at a later date, and this subordination might increase the risks of the bonds, but that's okay, because we will raise the payments (effectively, the bond-holder interest rate) if they do?
If there isn't any such language, under what authority was the subordination done?
What I'm asking is, Was the subordination legal? If the purchase-leaseback agreement says it was possible the Council could do that later, then fine, my question is answered. But if it doesn't specifically say this could happen, I think the bond-holders could sue the City Council for permitting the move.
If it was not legal, this could be good news or bad news. It would be good news if the City could rescind this move before the league approves a move. It would be bad news if the team went ahead and moved, and then the Maloofs said, "But we don't have your money right now, so here's the keys to your arena and a $25M IOU." Because, in effect, the $25M piece of the team really is an IOU.
The bad news would get even worse in the event of a bond-holder lawsuit against the City Council. Remember, many parties are at work here; the leasing authority and the city council are separate entities. The bond holders could easily look at the contract and demand to know where it says that the City had the authority to subordinate.
I really hope the City is able to resolve this, well, today would be good, but as soon as possible. It just seems to me that if the City had no legal basis to move into second, that could be great news for those who want the team to stay. Not saying they would stay; am saying it would improve the odds.
I have a feeling that if the team moves and the bonds are not repaid, the bond-holders would sue -- and probably win. So we should all hope that the move into second can be rescinded.
1) If you read the transaction, it's pretty clear about who owns the arena. It may only be "a technicality", but in the documents, it specifies that the City purchased the arena. I don't really care what Napear says; he's wrong about a lot of things, and this is one of them.
2) The deal specifies that the bond-holders take the risks -- that if there's a default, the bond-holders, and not the general fund, take the fall.
3) Later, the City comes along and allows the bond-holders to move into second position. Recognize that there are several parties here; the Authority, the Council, the bond-holders, and the tenants.
4) In effect, one party (the City) has told another party (the bond-holders) that they're now in second position. Are you with me so far?
How can one party tell another party that they're now in second? Shouldn't there have been clauses in the bonds that said something about that? Some information given, that these debts may be subordinated at a later date, and this subordination might increase the risks of the bonds, but that's okay, because we will raise the payments (effectively, the bond-holder interest rate) if they do?
If there isn't any such language, under what authority was the subordination done?
What I'm asking is, Was the subordination legal? If the purchase-leaseback agreement says it was possible the Council could do that later, then fine, my question is answered. But if it doesn't specifically say this could happen, I think the bond-holders could sue the City Council for permitting the move.
If it was not legal, this could be good news or bad news. It would be good news if the City could rescind this move before the league approves a move. It would be bad news if the team went ahead and moved, and then the Maloofs said, "But we don't have your money right now, so here's the keys to your arena and a $25M IOU." Because, in effect, the $25M piece of the team really is an IOU.
The bad news would get even worse in the event of a bond-holder lawsuit against the City Council. Remember, many parties are at work here; the leasing authority and the city council are separate entities. The bond holders could easily look at the contract and demand to know where it says that the City had the authority to subordinate.
I really hope the City is able to resolve this, well, today would be good, but as soon as possible. It just seems to me that if the City had no legal basis to move into second, that could be great news for those who want the team to stay. Not saying they would stay; am saying it would improve the odds.
I have a feeling that if the team moves and the bonds are not repaid, the bond-holders would sue -- and probably win. So we should all hope that the move into second can be rescinded.
^Isn't the city getting paid because if the Maloofs skip town the city picks up the tab on the bonds? And the whole reason the city is demanding that it get paid before the NBA takes a relocation fee and allows the team to move is so that the above everyone gets shafted and lawsuits reign supreme scenario doesn't happen?
Why would he find trouble in LA? Because he grew up in a rough neighborhood in Philly? This totally looks like a personal agenda, regardless of what you say. Tyreke to me looks like someone who has been blessed with an opportunity to create a better life, to move out of that east coast hellhole, and hasn't done anything to deserve the label you've put on him since being here in Sacramento. It's not like he's gun-running in the off-season or anything.
A better argument would be to say that he's enjoyed small-town life in Sacramento (which he has), and that he's noted, as other players have, that you really have to go out and look for trouble in Sacramento. In SoCal, trouble can easily find you.
A better argument would be to say that he's enjoyed small-town life in Sacramento (which he has), and that he's noted, as other players have, that you really have to go out and look for trouble in Sacramento. In SoCal, trouble can easily find you.
I think what gets lost in all of this is the Maloof/socal angle. As much as it pains me to say this, these guys are truly socal and Anaheim presents them with the perfect opportunity to move there. Their sister stars in a show based there, they own homes there, it's perfect for their playboy lifestyle and is close to Vegas. Add that to the arena and tv deal and you have their "justification" for moving.
Oh yeah, absolutely and I'm not necessarily attacking the Maloofs on this angle. They would've been more than happy to stay in Sacramento with zero regrets. But at the end of the day, there are so many angles besides the tv deal and arena that are out there and their preference for the single life in socal can't be overlooked.
Yep, but do you really think "the single life in SoCal" is that big a deal to them. I don't. The TV deal, and newer arena, yes. But Joe and Gavin are in their mid-50's, not dashingly handsome, tend to be a bit overweight or at least out of shape, hobbled by various ailments (such as Joe's knee replacements), and can get at least "something" anytime, anywhere they want with all their money (however strapped they may currently be in the exclusive millionaire/billionaire club). I recall several years ago when they said they wanted to "connect more" with fans (Kings fans, their fans, some kind of fans) but I saw no evidence they ever did except for a few parties for season tix holders. Other than that, they seemed almost like hermits to me around town. I never saw them anywhere at local clubs, etc. However, once on the ground in Vegas (often) they seemed much more "exposed" out on the town or at The Palms with little bro' George and his posse of playboy bunnies - and he may be the most unattractive looking of the whole Maloof crew. The Maloofs were "outsiders" when they arrived in Sac over a decade ago and in many ways remain so. Maybe not all their fault because Sacramento is mostly unkind to outsiders and jealous of anyone who is successful, with money earned the hard way in private business.
I'm kind of in agreement with this sentiment. Yeah, Arco is the worst arena in the league and needs to be replaced. But if it had been replaced, I'm not convinced it would have made much of a difference. Look at the the New Jersey Nets. They will be moving to New York, even though the Prudential Center is only 5 years old. I know the distance is nearly as drastic as Sacramento to Anaheim, but the situation is still relevant. Building a new arena wasn't enough to retain the team.
As fans and citizens, we have to stop falling for the same gambit that a new arena will secure our teams. As long as teams are privately owned, the team will always be subject to the whims of their owners; fan loyalty and tax monies be damned.
This is just my opinion, but I think once the Maloof's got Anaheim and SoCal in their minds, Sacramento as a host city lost all of its value to the family empire. Anything the city did at that point would have probably been done in vain as far as retaining the Sacramento Kings.
Last edited:
The Prudential Center was built AFTER Bruce Ratner gainted control of the team. Once he had the team, he was going to do what he could to move them to Brooklyn/Atlantic Yards and if and only if they failed, he would sell them to someone who would move them to the Prudential Center full time.
I'll rewind a bit. The original goal around the time 9/11 happened was to move the Nets and Devils to a downtown Newark arena. Unfortunately, it couldn't get off the ground so the Nets looked for options and outside buyers. The owners were fed up with trying to find a new arena so they chose to sell.
After a few months, it came down to a 3 way race and bidding war between Ratner, Charles Wang and a New Jersey group. Wang owns the Islanders NHL team and felt that having an NBA team would enhance his shot of building a new crib on Long Island. Ratner wanted Brooklyn and the Jersey group wanted to stay in the Meadowlands and renovate the old arena.
Ratner won and the team would be Brooklyn bound. Meanwhile, the Devils were at the time content to just stay in the Meadowlands.
From there, things got twisted. Ratner would be faced with numerous political and legal hurdles to get things done almost to the point where Atlantic Yards was about to fail. At that same time, the city of Newark gained an influx of cash and decided to spend the whole thing on a new arena. Despite being criticized by the public, the mayor and city council went through with it and the Devils would wind up moving to the new arena known as the Prudential Center.
At that point, it appeared like the Nets would join them but in came Mikhail Prokhorov to save the day and offer tons of money to help build the Brooklyn Arena and buy the Nets as well. The compromise for Newark was that the Nets would temporarily move there for 2 seasons, this season being year 1 and help decrease the arena debt while waiting for the Brooklyn Arena to finish up.
In summation, Prudential Center wasn't built for the Nets. Had it been, they would've signed a 20 year lease and stuck to it. It's not like they built it and then Ratner stuck his head inside and told them that it still wasn't good enough and that he would go to Brooklyn anyways.
I'll rewind a bit. The original goal around the time 9/11 happened was to move the Nets and Devils to a downtown Newark arena. Unfortunately, it couldn't get off the ground so the Nets looked for options and outside buyers. The owners were fed up with trying to find a new arena so they chose to sell.
After a few months, it came down to a 3 way race and bidding war between Ratner, Charles Wang and a New Jersey group. Wang owns the Islanders NHL team and felt that having an NBA team would enhance his shot of building a new crib on Long Island. Ratner wanted Brooklyn and the Jersey group wanted to stay in the Meadowlands and renovate the old arena.
Ratner won and the team would be Brooklyn bound. Meanwhile, the Devils were at the time content to just stay in the Meadowlands.
From there, things got twisted. Ratner would be faced with numerous political and legal hurdles to get things done almost to the point where Atlantic Yards was about to fail. At that same time, the city of Newark gained an influx of cash and decided to spend the whole thing on a new arena. Despite being criticized by the public, the mayor and city council went through with it and the Devils would wind up moving to the new arena known as the Prudential Center.
At that point, it appeared like the Nets would join them but in came Mikhail Prokhorov to save the day and offer tons of money to help build the Brooklyn Arena and buy the Nets as well. The compromise for Newark was that the Nets would temporarily move there for 2 seasons, this season being year 1 and help decrease the arena debt while waiting for the Brooklyn Arena to finish up.
In summation, Prudential Center wasn't built for the Nets. Had it been, they would've signed a 20 year lease and stuck to it. It's not like they built it and then Ratner stuck his head inside and told them that it still wasn't good enough and that he would go to Brooklyn anyways.
