Maloofs have trademarked domain name for Los Angeles Royals.com(something like that)

[ParniValjak]

I love how Maloof apologists are rewriting history and ignoring the fact that the Maloofs killed an arena effort in the past with their ridiculous demands. They wanted their cake and eat it too, an arena built for them that they would then control. Heck, they didn't even want competing food businesses within 1000 feet of the place! How anyone could defend these spoiled control freaks in beyond me. I'm not saying Sacramento is without blame, but to ignore the role the Maloofs played in getting where we are is absurd.

Its actually how these things work in large.

Have a look at the Honda Center in Anaheim.....built by the city but Samueli has a total control of it. How is that different to Maloof's "ridiculous demands"

Its not about being a Maloof apologist, its about being a realist and its the people that are removed from Sacramento that can look at this issue realistically. What you consider to be "ridiculous demands" is actually not that unusual because the majority of the NBA arenas are controlled by the owners of the NBA teams. Why should Sacramento be any different?

 

[Glenn]

Why should Sacramento be any different?

It just is but I'm thinking of something else.

 

[est.1999]

Can't stand that saying "Maloof apologists".

 

[fansinceday1]

Forgot to mention SF showed the Giants the door and they had one foot planted in St. Petersberg before McGowan stepped in and built PacBell. So SF was willing to ket the Giants leave and are in the process of losing the 9ers to Santa Clara. So what does that say about SF? Its not just sacramento.

 

[est.1999]

Forgot to mention SF showed the Giants the door and they had one foot planted in St. Petersberg before McGowan stepped in and built PacBell. So SF was willing to ket the Giants leave and are in the process of losing the 9ers to Santa Clara. So what does that say about SF? Its not just sacramento.

While you make some decent points, you're completely ignoring the fact that the Kings are the ONLY thing the city of Sacramento has(when it comes to professional sports). They really really REALLY can't afford to lose the Kings.

 

[Hoovtrain]

We can sit and say all that behind a keyboard, but when push comes to shove, you choose your family, your livelihood, your means of supporting your children and future over dissapointing thousands of strangers. Unless you are giving away all the money you make at your job, I don't think you, nor I, nor anyone here has a leg to stand on when discussing what is or is not "heartless" when we are discussing financials of PRIVATE individuals.



We already HAVE seen what they do without any of the "loyal fans' money" and "ratings." Seats are empty. You can't GIVE tickets away. They just showed an ad for $30 lower level seats. Unless you regularly purchase entire sections when you attend, your anecdotal spending has zero bearing on the overall figures. Do you really think your $20 dollar ticket is going to make a difference when they could stand to make half a million on one suite? Your ratings are worth what they are worth currently; not much. If you watching was so profitable for them, the TV deal would be better and they would see better profits from it. They aren't. Yes, they make money off of you and you have no right to object with how they run their own private business. Your only right as a customer and consumer is to give them money or not. You, as a customer, only have as much influence and power as the amount of money you spend. So tell me, how much do you spend on the Kings? Take that, figure out how much of total revenue you contribute and that is how much you are worth to the Kings. No more, no less. Sorry, your heart, unless manifested into dollars to buy a jersey, is worthless to the Kings.



Not sure how you decided on that metaphor, but you can try again. Mortgages have contracts built in that do not allow the bank to take back their house (because it is theirs, you are correct) as long as you are making your payments. If you fall behind, and they take back the house, I absolutely have no problem with that. Why? Because it was agreed upon and signed by both parties. We never signed anything that said we can keep them here as long as we want. Your posts are pretty intelligible usually, I can only surmise that I am angering you and prompting you to fly off the handle. We have rights to live on bank property as long as we make loan payments. We have no rights to the Kings.


These responses... believing your 50 bucks or 200 bucks is worth more than just that, believing your heart has monetary value, trying to apply real estate mortgages to a fan-team relationship, are all very off the mark and not only show outright bias, but alarmingly little understanding of not only the business world, but everyday aspects of life such as a mortgage or simple car loan.

"What do you mean you're closing this Mcdonalds? But I come in here once a week to buy 2 McDOUBLES!!! How can you do this to me??? Are you telling me the once a week purchase isn't enough to pay for your rent, wages for workers, insurance, UI, DI, and random fat people suing you guys because they decided to eat 3493890 calories? WHAT THE HELL? I loved you guys!"

"No, you can't move this coffeehouse. You see, I like your coffeehouse here. What do you mean it's in a bad neighborhood? I don't give a crap. You were here for 5 years, and god damn it, you're going to stay here. I stunted my growth for you guys!!! Isn't that worth anything???"

Seriously people, this is a business. No more, no less. The aforementioned quotes are ridiculous, but why do you guys think they are OK to apply to the Maloofs?

Excellent post. I was actually thinking about the same McDonalds analagy. I spend a lot of money at many businesses. Does that somehow entitle me to tell the owner of that particular establishment what he can or can't do with his/her business? Absulutely not. I choose to spend money at these businesses. I would never presume to tell an owner of a business what they should do just because I happen to purchase their product. If I don't like the product, I don't go back. Last time I checked that is the definition of a consumer. I didn't realize that spending money on a product made me a partner, otherwise I would all be a lot richer. I may be more invested in the Kings than say an In & Out or a Best Buy, but who the hell am I or anyone else to try and tell someone what to do with their business? Get over it. It hurts that the Kings may leave, but don't act as though the Maloof's are out to get you. But hey, I guess I am just a Maloof apolgist

 

[fansinceday1]

While you make some decent points, you're completely ignoring the fact that the Kings are the ONLY thing the city of Sacramento has(when it comes to professional sports). They really really REALLY can't afford to lose the Kings.

Had McGowan not stepped in and built PacBell (with his and his investors cash) SF would not have baseball, basketball, and in the final phase of losing football. So they would be in the same boat as Sacramento.

 

[King Baller]

LOL If I have no entitlements or anything, and no business being involved in anything, then we'll see how they do without any of the loyal fans money and without any of the loyal fans ratings when it comes to viewership. Yeah, people like me are the reason they make money off of this ****, but we really have no right to object to anything at all. That really makes sense(end sarcasm).

The first rule of business is that the customer is number one.

KB

 

[Section 101]

We already HAVE seen what they do without any of the "loyal fans' money" and "ratings." Seats are empty. You can't GIVE tickets away. They just showed an ad for $30 lower level seats. Unless you regularly purchase entire sections when you attend, your anecdotal spending has zero bearing on the overall figures. Do you really think your $20 dollar ticket is going to make a difference when they could stand to make half a million on one suite? Your ratings are worth what they are worth currently; not much. If you watching was so profitable for them, the TV deal would be better and they would see better profits from it. They aren't. Yes, they make money off of you and you have no right to object with how they run their own private business. Your only right as a customer and consumer is to give them money or not. You, as a customer, only have as much influence and power as the amount of money you spend. So tell me, how much do you spend on the Kings? Take that, figure out how much of total revenue you contribute and that is how much you are worth to the Kings. No more, no less. Sorry, your heart, unless manifested into dollars to buy a jersey, is worthless to the Kings.

The sacramento Kings have 2 of the longest sellout streaks in NBA HISTORY! You can't take that away. Yes the arena is empty now, but the maloofs have more to do with it than anyone. Bad product and the potential move. If they came out and said they were going to work with the city this year then more people would have gone to the games.

Now put down the crack pipe. Where are you getting this 1/2 a million dollars for a suite? THEY WOULD NOT OWN THE ARENA !! In fact all the suites are already sold and money paid. They at most would get the money from just the games played there and probably not even all of it because the management company would want their cut.

 

[mr. moustache]

The first rule of business is that the customer is number one.

KB

Not true.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

I will be replying with a much longer 'goodbye' post/letter later, I now see the proverbial writing on the walls...but for now I leave you with this:

edit: I am a Sacramento Kings fan until I die! IF Sacramento is lucky enough to get another team, and IF they name them Kings...I will be back! But until then, the NBA will be dead to me! Man...so many memories these past 26 years...so many memories...

 

[Superman]

Requires a little persistence, and 6 months waiting, but the sunk costs, lawyer aside, are less than $1000.

Aha. Lawyer aside! Bloodsucking vultures. It's probably a $10,000 proposition by the time these losers get paid.

::grins::

 

[Superman]

Yes, the attorney they use for this type of stuff. The NBA predates yes, but like I said it hasnt been used in 39 years by the NBA. It's something the courts will most likely decide.

It's still not intellectual property of MLB, because the NBA predates. I don't know how it will get settled, I'm just stating my opinion. I don't think MLB has an argument here.

 

[Section 101]

It's still not intellectual property of MLB, because the NBA predates. I don't know how it will get settled, I'm just stating my opinion. I don't think MLB has an argument here.

But it would be poetic justice if they start using royals only to have MLB win a lawsuit. They could become the Anaheim Mickey Mouses.

 

[Superman]

But it would be poetic justice if they start using royals only to have MLB win a lawsuit. They could become the Anaheim Mickey Mouses.

I don't know how it would be poetic justice, but whatever.

 

[fiction916]

Seriously people, this is a business. No more, no less.

I think it's pretty clear we don't treat sports teams the same as we do other businesses. sports teams are locational in a way that other concerns are not; there is an inherent community component in sports. expansion into different markets is limited--teams have a home arena. other than promotional games played in specific places, teams aren't on a traveling circuit like the Harlem Globetrotters.

moreover, there are literally 'rules of the game' which prohibit free enterprise in the NBA: each team must have 15 players, there are 82 games per season, performance enhancing drugs are prohibited, etc. this limits the extent to which teams can diversify their product offering.

I'm not sure there's a perfect analogy to explain the way our society handles sports teams in relation to other businesses--the professional level is somewhat monopolistic, but it's possible for other leagues to compete.

check out how ownership works in the German Budesliga.

 

[rhythmless]

I think it's pretty clear we don't treat sports teams the same as we do other businesses. sports teams are locational in a way that other concerns are not; there is an inherent community component in sports. expansion into different markets is limited--teams have a home arena. other than promotional games played in specific places, teams aren't on a traveling circuit like the Harlem Globetrotters.

moreover, there are literally 'rules of the game' which prohibit free enterprise in the NBA: each team must have 15 players, there are 82 games per season, performance enhancing drugs are prohibited, etc. this limits the extent to which teams can diversify their product offering.

I'm not sure there's a perfect analogy to explain the way our society handles sports teams in relation to other businesses--the professional level is somewhat monopolistic, but it's possible for other leagues to compete.

check out how ownership works in the German Budesliga.

Oh, I completely understand the emotions behind these posts. These are emotional reactions and I would be baffled if we did not have people like this. What irks me is when people try to blame their emotions on "evil" or otherwise underhanded practices of others. We should all be sad. We can even feel ill will towards the Maloofs, as long as we understand this is an emotional reaction that is not rooted in good vs evil or corporate greed vs simpletons.

Again, this is simply a business that believes it can be more viable elsewhere.

However you want to slice it, that single sentence is all it comes down to. If the Maloofs think that they are better suited here, they would stay. That's all there is to it. Perhaps they are wrong. Maybe they will regret it in the end. But for now, they believe that their business could be more successful in Anaheim. How can anyone fault that? We should not make up analogies to a housing mortgage and kicking us out of a home. There is no place for that because it is in no way applicable. We should all cry, but we should not villianize others to somehow placate ourselves.

 

[kennadog]

The first rule of business is that the customer is number one.

KB

Unfortunately, the customer can't be number one at a business that can't keep its doors open. I've lost a couple of favorite restaurants that way, among other favorite places. The only two bookstores near me have gone out of business, one of them was a really wonderful independent store.

First off, I don't consider myself a Maloof "apologist." Both sides bear some fault, but the city has really dragged its feet on sitting down to serious, fundamental negotiations. I just can't stand people blaming the Maloofs for everything. It does take two sides to accomplish a mutual goal.

Q and R failed for two reasons. 1) it was a bad, rushed plan; 2) the Maloofs and the NBA backed out of supporting the measures after a meeting with Thomas, who told them the city had basically mislead all of them (read: lied). The city had told all of them that the city had all the funds committed for the infrastructure in the rail yards, when, in reality, they had no clue how they were going to come up with all of the financing.

After that, the Maloofs asked the NBA to step in, because they had become such a lightening rod for local venom, including in the media (Bee). I agree the Maloofs had some fault in the public missteps they took. Moag's instructions from Stern were to come up with something that might be financiable without public funding. An extremely difficult task.

After failure of the convergence plan, the NBA backed out completely on trying to get a deal done. I'm sure at that point, the Maloofs started looking elsewhere in earnest.

To say we had no warning is just wrong. Some people may not have realized it, but we received our warning 14 years ago, when the prior ownership started trying to get a new arena. Since when is fourteen years not enough warning?

By the way, MSE is losing money. Almost $10 million last year, according to Forbes, and they borrowed money with the league. We were in good copmany, though, as almost half the teams lost money last year.

Yes, ticket prices were too high and that's why the Maloofs kicked Thomas out of the marketing job midway through last season. But people also have to realize that we had one of the highest payrolls in the league back in the glory years. It took a long time to clear that salary out, first to get below the luxury tax, then to get below the salary cap for some flexibility. So we paid for those glory years, long after they were over. The big mistake was not just blowing up the team completely much, much sooner.

Finally, even before the current economy tanked and the Maloofs (along with a whole lot of other people in this country), found themselves in financial difficulty, the Maloofs were a long way from the upper echelons of wealthy owners in the NBA.

Also, when "corporate presence" is discussed, it's a discussion of how many corporate headquarters a city has. Sacramento is very poor in that respect. Having business offices in a city does not mean "corporate presence" ala Budweiser in St. Louis.

Finally, the NBA needs to do more financially to help small and medium markets, if it hopes to keep teams in those cities. The CBA is going to be critical for that. Better revenue sharing and cutting player salaries are the things that need to happen. Heck, the Maloofs have laid off plenty of staff, let the Monarchs fold and obviously have deferred some maintenance this year on the arena. The players need to sacrifice, too. Will they?

Last, California is a very hard place to finance anything, anymore. Its due to the 2/3rds requirement for any new taxes. (I hate that. It should be majority rules, period.) So San Jose got their arena with a 54% vote? Today, that would be a failed vote, no arena in San Jose. That's why the discussions centers around things like a rental car tax, food and beverage tax, hotel tax. Those are easy and mega-revenue producing deals in a place like Anaheim that is a huge tourist destination. Not so easy in Sacramento.

Edit: Sorry this is so rambling and may not read well. It was typed in bits and pieces of time.

 

[Glenn]

kennadog, now people have to read, understand, and believe. I learned from what you wrote and it all rang true. I know you've been dealing with the nitty gritty and dirty part of this effort as much or more than the rest of us.

 

[fiction916]

Oh, I completely understand the emotions behind these posts. These are emotional reactions and I would be baffled if we did not have people like this. What irks me is when people try to blame their emotions on "evil" or otherwise underhanded practices of others. We should all be sad. We can even feel ill will towards the Maloofs, as long as we understand this is an emotional reaction that is not rooted in good vs evil or corporate greed vs simpletons.

Again, this is simply a business that believes it can be more viable elsewhere.

However you want to slice it, that single sentence is all it comes down to. If the Maloofs think that they are better suited here, they would stay. That's all there is to it. Perhaps they are wrong. Maybe they will regret it in the end. But for now, they believe that their business could be more successful in Anaheim. How can anyone fault that? We should not make up analogies to a housing mortgage and kicking us out of a home. There is no place for that because it is in no way applicable. We should all cry, but we should not villianize others to somehow placate ourselves.

wait, I'm serious: check out how ownership works in the Bundesliga.

we're really moving into interesting territory, and though I haven't myself condemned the Maloofs publicly (perhaps a little under my breadth), this is a good opportunity for us to consider the assumptions that support the notion of free enterprise economics.

private property is a theory.
for Locke it's based on labor, for Hegel personhood, for Bentham utility.

like with any number of philosophical concepts of which our real-world institutions are founded, it is important to define the boundaries of individual ownership.

of course, we already restrict ownership in a number of ways: no one can own another person or a person's organs, nature reserves are protected, the ownership of public utilities is tightly controlled.

the governance structure in the German Bundesliga requires community ownership: a minimum 51% of each club must be owned by club members.

while I understand that the Maloof's are within their legal authority to treat the Kings like any other business, this should not inhibit us from working towards a system in which they are not--as citizens (and customers of the NBA), this is within our purview.

 

[Superman]

wait, I'm serious: check out how ownership works in the Bundesliga.

we're really moving into interesting territory, and though I haven't myself condemned the Maloofs publicly (perhaps a little under my breadth), this is a good opportunity for us to consider the assumptions that support the notion of free enterprise economics.

private property is a theory.
for Locke it's based on labor, for Hegel personhood, for Bentham utility.

like with any number of philosophical concepts of which our real-world institutions are founded, it is important to define the boundaries of individual ownership.

of course, we already restrict ownership in a number of ways: no one can own another person or a person's organs, nature reserves are protected, the ownership of public utilities is tightly controlled.

the governance structure in the German Bundesliga requires community ownership: a minimum 51% of each club must be owned by club members.

while I understand that the Maloof's are within their legal authority to treat the Kings like any other business, this should not inhibit us from working towards a system in which they are not--as citizens (and customers of the NBA), this is within our purview.

What does the governance structure in Bundesliga have to do with an NBA franchise?

 

[fiction916]

What does the governance structure in Bundesliga have to do with an NBA franchise?

we are losing our team. the reason we are losing our team is because the private owners of the team are choosing to move the team. were the NBA to have a community-based ownership model, we would not be losing our team.

 

[Superman]

we are losing our team. the reason we are losing our team is because the private owners of the team are choosing to move the team. were the NBA to have a community-based ownership model, we would not be losing our team.

Okay. But the NBA does NOT have a community-based ownership model, nor will it have a community-based ownership model. It's kind of a moot point. You're talking about revolutionizing the way the sport is run in order to protect a small market that can't get an arena built. This wouldn't be a question if Sacramento and the Maloofs had done an arena deal years ago when it was financially feasible. This wasn't an issue for the other small market cities that built arenas for their teams (not just in the NBA but in other professional sports as well.)

I mean, I get what you're saying, but the NBA isn't going to allow community-owned teams just to keep the Kings in Sacramento (or any other team in a small market). This is the free market operating: If you won't do what I need, someone else will. May not be fair, may not be right, but it's the way it is. If Sacramento can't get an arena deal to keep the Kings, another city will. And that's better for the team and the league. The only people that lose are the people of the city and surrounding areas, which is why the city should have been busting its hump over the past decade to get an arena built. The Maloofs will be okay; the NBA will be okay. Sacramento is up the creek.

 

[rhythmless]

I don't know how it would be poetic justice, but whatever.

Emotional diatribe. That is all. Those with no true footing from which to argue will go into emotional verbiage in order to sway others. Blatant in this thread and blatant in most politics.

 

[fiction916]

May not be fair, may not be right, but it's the way it is.

the league needs small market, community-based clubs--this is important for the sanctity of the sport.

profit-sharing is a step in the right direction.

 

[rhythmless]

Emotional diatribe. That is all. Those with no true footing from which to argue will go into emotional verbiage in order to sway others. Blatant in this thread and blatant in most politics.

the league needs small market, community-based clubs--this is important for the sanctity of the sport.

profit-sharing is a step in the right direction.

Again, words used based on emotion. Who can argue sanctity? These are called strawmen.

You have no evidence that the league needs this or not. Given the Maloofs leaving a fervent small community for a basketball crowded large community, it would seem that if teams need anything, it would be large communities to be successful.

 

[jcwkings]

you guys had a nice run sacramento, but the writing was on the walls for years about a new arena. nothing gets done, and you guys just lost your team. i think OC will appreciate having an NBA team an I am definetly going to plenty of games next year. This is the best move for the franchise basketball wise too, now we are no longer a small market team, we are in so cal, top 3 destinations for free agents along with new york and miami. this move will only help the franchise imo

 

[Superman]

the league needs small market, community-based clubs--this is important for the sanctity of the sport.

profit-sharing is a step in the right direction.

The league has no small market, community-based clubs, and is doing just fine. Professional sports in general has only one small market, community-based club, the Green Bay Packers. The big market, privately-owned clubs do just fine.

I don't understand why you think the league needs to have publicly owned and operated franchises in order to be successful. That's not a part of the business model of any professional sports league in this country.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

you guys had a nice run sacramento, but the writing was on the walls for years about a new arena. nothing gets done, and you guys just lost your team. i think OC will appreciate having an NBA team an I am definetly going to plenty of games next year. This is the best move for the franchise basketball wise too, now we are no longer a small market team, we are in so cal, top 3 destinations for free agents along with new york and miami. this move will only help the franchise imo

You know...I notice you're a new member...welcome, btw! And I also notice you're in the Kings' soon to be new home county...that's cool, enjoy it...I honestly could see you guys winning an NBA championship in a few years, breaking the hearts of many Sacramentans like myself who have been here since day one, 1985. The Kings will do the same thing that the Carolina Hurricanes did to Hartford and Denver did to Quebec in the NHL, and that's leave a city that they NEVER won a title in and win one(more than one in the Av's case)in their new cities, leaving the former fans in their old cities even more sad, and always wondering how it would have been to win a championship.

 

[fnordius]

Its actually how these things work in large.

Have a look at the Honda Center in Anaheim.....built by the city but Samueli has a total control of it. How is that different to Maloof's "ridiculous demands"

That arena cost $123M, and was built almost a generation ago. Times have changed, and new ML arena construction in California over the last 15 years has been nonexistant. California's NFL teams play in the oldest stadia in the league. Oakland Raiders venue: ground broken in 1961. San Diego Chargers: 1965. SF 49ers: 1958. LA Rams: After 48 years in SoCal, decided that they couldn't stand any of LA's 3 existing football arenas, and fled to a state offering a publicly-financed arena. (Ironically, the current owners of the Rams also own the Denver Nuggets and Colorado Avalanche, AND the arena they play in, Pepsi Center.)

Due to the prohibition on political subjects here, I can't go into any detail as to how changes in California tax laws since 1979 have ensured that outcome, but it now requires a 2/3 vote to pass any law which increases the most abundant sort of tax revenues. There is probably nowhere in California where voters would do that for an arena. Local sales taxes, hotel taxes, and similar nickel-and-dime funding measures still only require majority votes, and in California's two or three largest urban centers, that *MIGHT* do for funding. Not in Sac, though.

Meanwhile, LA/OC has had 3 pro football arenas, with up to 100,000 seats, but both of their NFL teams moved away over 15 years ago, and none have come to replace them. Unless the NFL simply hates older arenas, I can't explain what's up with that.