Las Vegas most likely out of the running

[Trueblood]

Not trying to start any rumors nor am I making any conclusions about how loyal the Maloofs are to Sacramento but I figured that as long as the AEG arena in Las Vegas isn't completely dead, they will always be a threat of sorts as far as being a future home of the Kings is concerned.

I like this article though.http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/now-and-then/2008/sep/15/report-harrahs-out-proposed-arena-partner/ It seems to be saying that the investor group that has taken over for Harrah's, who recently bowed out, is looking to bring the NHL instead of the NBA.

This article here http://blogs.lasvegasnow.com/downtown/2009/01/20/9704931/ makes it look like everyone is on a different page and there are still traffic study hurdles that need to be taken care of before they can even break ground.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

Not trying to start any rumors nor am I making any conclusions about how loyal the Maloofs are to Sacramento but I figured that as long as the AEG arena in Las Vegas isn't completely dead, they will always be a threat of sorts as far as being a future home of the Kings is concerned.

I like this article though.http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/now-and-then/2008/sep/15/report-harrahs-out-proposed-arena-partner/ It seems to be saying that the investor group that has taken over for Harrah's, who recently bowed out, is looking to bring the NHL instead of the NBA.

This article here http://blogs.lasvegasnow.com/downtown/2009/01/20/9704931/ makes it look like everyone is on a different page and there are still traffic study hurdles that need to be taken care of before they can even break ground.

And the NBA generates more gaming revenue than the NHL, so it would be alot easier to outlaw gaming on that sport, which would have to happen in order for Bettman to grant expansion/relocation of a team there. I've been telling people this since day 1 the Maloofs bought the team...the Kings are NOT EVER going to move to Vegas! No chance, no how! People think that its so easy for the team to just pick up and move there...when in all actuality that would take 10 years to make happen due to the corruption it would cause from NBA betting. Been saying that IF..and thats a big IF, the Kings do move anywhere, it would be right back to KC, ironically. Vegas' chance of getting the Kings=0%. Vegas' chances of landing the NHL=25%(LOTS of hurdles to clear yet).

 

[Showtime]

Here's the biggest issue of having a pro sports team in Vegas:

Fan support.

Vegas is a tourist town. It's all based on entertainment drawing outside visitors. The local population isn't enough to support teams, and it's not a big enough draw for visitors considering the competiting entertainment options. Nobody is going to be on vacation and say "Hey, let's go see that Kings game tonight" over the other options.

 

[VF21]

Here's the biggest issue of having a pro sports team in Vegas:

Fan support.

Vegas is a tourist town. It's all based on entertainment drawing outside visitors. The local population isn't enough to support teams, and it's not a big enough draw for visitors considering the competiting entertainment options. Nobody is going to be on vacation and say "Hey, let's go see that Kings game tonight" over the other options.

Exactly.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

Here's the biggest issue of having a pro sports team in Vegas:

Fan support.

Vegas is a tourist town. It's all based on entertainment drawing outside visitors. The local population isn't enough to support teams, and it's not a big enough draw for visitors considering the competiting entertainment options. Nobody is going to be on vacation and say "Hey, let's go see that Kings game tonight" over the other options.

Well...the city of Las Vegas has a population of 600,000...and Clark County has a population of 2 million...not THAT small. I lived there when they had the XFL(and actually went to a few games)and they pretty much sold out Sam Boyd the first 3 games of the season for that gawd awful league, and had an average attendance of nearly 30,000, and that was the 'minor' league. I dont think it's a question of enough people anymore, I think it still falls back on the sports gaming, ultimately.

 

[Trueblood]

Well, it looks like David Stern is breathing a sigh of relief. The Las Vegas Arena idea is officially dead, at least for now.....

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/aug/02/arena-plan-dead-what-next-former/

While Stern would prefer to not have any teams in Vegas, he would come up against some legal challenges should someone seek to relocate there and he try to deny them. And as long as the Maloofs have business in Vegas, they'll always be a candidate to relocate to Vegas. Not saying that they aren't committed to Sacramento but this is still good news just in case.

 

[One and Done]

Well, now all we have to worry about is Anaheim & San Jose. Let's hope those fall through as well, and should the Maloof's choose to move, they'll be trapped!

 

[kupman]

Well, now all we have to worry about is Anaheim & San Jose. Let's hope those fall through as well, and should the Maloof's choose to move, they'll be trapped!

Don't forget a return to KC. They already have a new arena with no tenant. They would love the Kings back.

 

[VF21]

They might love to have the Kings back, but I'm pretty sure the Maloofs aren't interested in moving to the middle of nowhere...

 

[One and Done]

They might love to have the Kings back, but I'm pretty sure the Maloofs aren't interested in moving to the middle of nowhere...

Agreed - that's why I didn't include KC...

I have a feeling that if things don't work out here in Sac, Anaheim, in a business sense, is the most probable relocation. San Jose, IMO, has a location conflict with the W's...

Also read something somewhere that brought up a good argument against KC as a possibility - vague I know, but it was recent, if anybody cares to find it...

 

[=LarryLegend=]

If they move back to KC....can they bring back blue jerseys??? that would be sick.

I am not worried about if they are going to move or not. just as long as they win more than 20 games.

 

[kupman]

KC is a solid sports town. They have had MLB and the NFL there for decades. That is a lot more than I can say for Sactown.

Also, from a business sense KC may make the most sense. San Jose will compete with Warriors. An Anaheim location would mean the 3rd team in SCal. A KC location would compete with no other teams.

So basically you have:
1) an NBA monoploy
2) a new NBA-ready arena in a downtown location
3) a town that wants a "winter sport" and will likely give you a sweet rental deal
3) a town that has proven for decades that it can support professional sports

It may not happen, but it is clearly an option.

 

[VF21]

You can say that all you like. I still maintain that the Maloofs, if forced to move the team, are not looking to move into the midwest. You may think it's an option but I truly doubt if they do.

 

[PurpleHaze]

I think if the Maloofs are "forced" to move their team it will then be an "ABS" (Anywhere but Sacramento) scenario. By next March (only about 6 months away) we should know since that's next deadline for filing to move an NBA franchise and by then the local economy will be same 'ol same 'ol stagnant (pretty likely), in some form of recovery (God I hope so) or totally in the tank (still scary possibility). Clearly, two of those scenarios mean proposed massive Cal Expo development/arena project will not have a snowballs chance in purgatory - if it ever did.

As horrible as the economy is here in Sac valley it's not as bad in some other places. Kansas City and Midwest economy although not great is actually doing better than both Las Vegas and Sacramento. Oklahoma City is a relative mecca with some new burgeoning development fueled by its surging oil and gas revenue, and a strong business friendly attitude. It may not be most desirable place to live (I've lived there) but the get 'er done Sooner State (and Texas for that matter) could teach California a lot about how to promote economic growth in hard times. Slight editorial comment (and I won't go further on it). Seattle needs a team (they always claim) and things usually seem to be moving along pretty nicely up in King County (ironic name) compared to down in the dumps Sacramento.

I guess all I'm saying is I'm rather down, the local economy is way down, the Kings have tumbled down as they can go based on last season, and faint rays of hope simply nowhere in sight. Still, I'm an optimist at heart and when I see any hope I'll surely jump for joy. In the meantime, it's the realist in me that has me - lets just say - concerned.

 

[kennadog]

As a realist, I'm concerned, too. Sacramento's recovery is likely to be much slower than other areas of the country, because of the State's financial mess, which is the biggest employer in the region. With 15% pay cuts, some State employee's are now slipping toward foreclosure and/or bankruptcy. Same for local government employees. That is having a big impact on local businesses as well. And let's not even talk about the numerous businesses that depend on government business or contracts funded with State money. Neverthless, I will remain hopeful, until the Maloofs actually file a request to move the team. I do think this March is when we'll know. It's too bad that developers have said the plan is feasible, just not in the current market. The market may not improve soon enough in Sacramento.

Actually, I think the fact that Kansas City has MLB and the NFL is a negative for them. That's two well-established major pro sports teams that will compete for the sports fans' dollars. It doesn't matter that the NBA has a slightly different season. You're only talking about an NBA monopoly for a 2-3 months at best. I don't think season ticket holders for football and baseball are suddenly going to buy NBA season tickets for a mediocre team. Maybe with the novelty, but that wouldn't last, I don't think.

Seattle is not going to get another NBA team any time soon and, again, you have to compete for dollars with two other pro sports teams. Warriors ownership will fight having a team in San Jose. I'd still say Anaheim is a possibility. Orange County has a huge population that would likely love having a team based in Anaheim. Not to mention a huge a population to the south, for whom Anaheim would be closer. The only local competition is baseball. Significant, but not as bad as having football, too. I think the Clippers would fight that move, though.

I never have seen Vegas as too likely. BTW, the arena was always supposedly targeting the NHL. But Vegas has a substantial local population. It's long past being mainly populated by tourists. On the other hand, their housing market was one of the worst hit in the country. I'd say they're still better off economically than Sacramento, though. Gambling is the issue there. The disastrous All-Star game there did not help LV with the NBA, either.

 

[kupman]

Participating in this thread has actually made me feel a little better about keeping the Kings. There is reason to be concerned about keeping them until we have a new arena. However, looking at the alternative cities you find that there is no ideal place.

Yes, KC has it's imperfections and it may not be sexy enough for the Maloofs. However, I find it hard to believe that San Jose is a great option with the Warriors in town and they will even be competing with the Sharks to an extent. Anahiem would mean 3 teams in Scal. Yes, they have the population to support it, but Scal often does not support its teams well. The Clippers have looked to move (shopped KC from what I hear). The NFL is noticably absent and hockey has struggled (I think the LA Kings have also shopped KC).

Keeping the Kings in Sac may be a risk, but it looks like the other cities are big risks as well. It is no wonder that the Maloofs would like to stay here. Once there is a new arena, this becomes a great place for the Kings.

 

[BritishColumbia]

As a realist, I'm concerned, too. Sacramento's recovery is likely to be much slower than other areas of the country, because of the State's financial mess, which is the biggest employer in the region. With 15% pay cuts, some State employee's are now slipping toward foreclosure and/or bankruptcy. Same for local government employees. That is having a big impact on local businesses as well. And let's not even talk about the numerous businesses that depend on government business or contracts funded with State money. Neverthless, I will remain hopeful, until the Maloofs actually file a request to move the team. I do think this March is when we'll know. It's too bad that developers have said the plan is feasible, just not in the current market. The market may not improve soon enough in Sacramento.

Actually, I think the fact that Kansas City has MLB and the NFL is a negative for them. That's two well-established major pro sports teams that will compete for the sports fans' dollars. It doesn't matter that the NBA has a slightly different season. You're only talking about an NBA monopoly for a 2-3 months at best. I don't think season ticket holders for football and baseball are suddenly going to buy NBA season tickets for a mediocre team. Maybe with the novelty, but that wouldn't last, I don't think.

Seattle is not going to get another NBA team any time soon and, again, you have to compete for dollars with two other pro sports teams. Warriors ownership will fight having a team in San Jose. I'd still say Anaheim is a possibility. Orange County has a huge population that would likely love having a team based in Anaheim. Not to mention a huge a population to the south, for whom Anaheim would be closer. The only local competition is baseball. Significant, but not as bad as having football, too. I think the Clippers would fight that move, though.

I never have seen Vegas as too likely. BTW, the arena was always supposedly targeting the NHL. But Vegas has a substantial local population. It's long past being mainly populated by tourists. On the other hand, their housing market was one of the worst hit in the country. I'd say they're still better off economically than Sacramento, though. Gambling is the issue there. The disastrous All-Star game there did not help LV with the NBA, either.

You forgot about the Ducks ... they are actually very popular in the area and a solid team.

 

[kennadog]

You forgot about the Ducks ... they are actually very popular in the area and a solid team.

You are right. Mea Culpa. Idon't follow hockey closely, but I like hockey.

 

[CruzDude]

Anaheim would be ideal for a lot of reasons. The Clips may not have a political leg to stand due to their owner Donald Sterling who likely has no real supporters among owners. But will the NBA allow 3 teams in one market even if it has 10-12 million folks to draw from? Don't think the Lakers care one way or the other. They have had a much better rivalry with the Kings than the Clips in the past 11 years anyway.

My bet is there are virtually no Clipper fans in Orange County and even less in San Diego County. Heck, the Kings may have more fans than the Clips in San Diego!!!! And I like the previous arguments that cities having MLB and NFL would be very tough to add an NBA team and especially here in San Diego. Three times would be no charm down here with two previous NBA failures (Rockets and Clippers).

David Stern is the ultimate business man who is a top attorney and always seems to get done what is best for the league and the teams. The Anaheim arena I think is ideal for NBA now, seats 17,808 for basketball and is ideally located for both car and trains (the amtrak station is walking distance. Guess we just have to wait and see.

 

[kennadog]

Thats' why I didn't mention the Lakers likely being fervently against a team in Anaheim. Their fan base is solid. I was figuring another NBA team in the area would likely hurt the Clips the most. As to other owners siding with Sterling or not, I think they would if Sterling really objected. Why? Because they could be in the same position someday (or something similar) and need support from as many owners as possible themselves.

 

[Trueblood]

Thats' why I didn't mention the Lakers likely being fervently against a team in Anaheim. Their fan base is solid. I was figuring another NBA team in the area would likely hurt the Clips the most. As to other owners siding with Sterling or not, I think they would if Sterling really objected. Why? Because they could be in the same position someday (or something similar) and need support from as many owners as possible themselves.

Sterling is in no position to veto a move or expect sympathy from other owners though. He's had plenty of opportunities to move to Anaheim and hasn't done so. Everyone from the league, to the fans, to the media and everyone in between pushed for the move but he relented. Therefore, it would almost be a form of poetic justice if someone were to move to Anaheim and snatch up his potential broadcast and corporate revenue, not to mention whatever few fans he has left.

 

[bajaden]

Anaheim would be ideal for a lot of reasons. The Clips may not have a political leg to stand due to their owner Donald Sterling who likely has no real supporters among owners. But will the NBA allow 3 teams in one market even if it has 10-12 million folks to draw from? Don't think the Lakers care one way or the other. They have had a much better rivalry with the Kings than the Clips in the past 11 years anyway.

My bet is there are virtually no Clipper fans in Orange County and even less in San Diego County. Heck, the Kings may have more fans than the Clips in San Diego!!!! And I like the previous arguments that cities having MLB and NFL would be very tough to add an NBA team and especially here in San Diego. Three times would be no charm down here with two previous NBA failures (Rockets and Clippers).

David Stern is the ultimate business man who is a top attorney and always seems to get done what is best for the league and the teams. The Anaheim arena I think is ideal for NBA now, seats 17,808 for basketball and is ideally located for both car and trains (the amtrak station is walking distance. Guess we just have to wait and see.

Now Cruzy you know that the only reason you posted this is because you now live there. Wait a minute! I live close to there. Way to go!!

 

[Trueblood]

Long shot at best. Says that it's just a feasability study but I don't like how he is now emphasizing NBA whereas the now dead AEG project seemed to be aiming for the NHL.

Regardless, it's something to keep an eye out for. It's not a threat to the Kings for now. My thinking is that if nothing happens here, the team will be gone long before this thing breaks ground.

http://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/oct/29/goodman-20000-seat-downtown-arena-could-bring-nba-/

 

[Trueblood]

Another long shot but here's a Las Vegas/Maloofs oriented story.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_y...slug=aw-maloofkings121409&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

 

[Double-K]

Well...the city of Las Vegas has a population of 600,000...and Clark County has a population of 2 million...not THAT small. I lived there when they had the XFL(and actually went to a few games)and they pretty much sold out Sam Boyd the first 3 games of the season for that gawd awful league, and had an average attendance of nearly 30,000, and that was the 'minor' league. I dont think it's a question of enough people anymore, I think it still falls back on the sports gaming, ultimately.

Being a sport fan living in Vegas, I can vouch for that. Though my love for the Sacramento Kings is larger than my love for Vegas. I'm as big a fan to see a pro sport team (Especially from the NBA) in Vegas as our mayor, but I'd hate to see the Kings move to Vegas...

or let me rephrase, I'd hate to see the kings move outta Sacramento.