Maloof's need to fork out as much as $200M to relocate!

[kennadog]

In all honesty, I would not be surprised to see the Maloofs file for relocation on 03/01/11. I'd have a little more hope if any of the arena proposals had solid funding proposed, but they don't really. Certainly there's no way any of the proposals are happening wothout city and/or county financial support. We are still far away from having any kind of realistic arena deal.

The prior owner had tried for 3 years to get a new arena. When the Maloofs becasme the owners, I'm sure they had no idea how difficult it would be to get an arena in Sac. After all, the arena is about a whole lot more for Sacramento than just basketball. Add almost another 11 years passed, and we are talking 14 years with absolutley zero realistic proposal for a new arena.

I think there are lots of good reasons for the Maloofs to not to comment on the arena anymore. They aren't involved in them, unless the city puts their money behind one of the proposals. Then there would be negotiations with the Kings. Also, they don't want to be asked if they are staying anymore, because I think they can no longer stay 100% committed to Sacramento. Why should they be, at this point? Sacramento sure isn't committed to keeping the team.

The city trying to operate the current Arco is almost ridiculous. With the anchor tenant gone, I doubt Arco produces enough revenue to keep up with the maintenance issues. Talk about a drain on the public's money. Putting any money into Arco as an entertainment/sports complex would be a complete waste of taxpayer dollars.

 

[kennadog]

Convergence II is out; the financing details on the two downtown locations are missing; and the Natomas location is not preferred by the Maloofs and the NBA, and the developer gets too much of the money to suit those parties anyway. I simply cannot see a situation where the City gets enthusiastic about any of the 4 proposals.

Absolutely false. Find me any evidence that either the Maloofs or the NBA care where the arena is located. It has been the 100% city that has driven the Railyards location, because the city thinks itt would spark redevelopment and investment in that area, or at least make it happen faster. I guarantee that if the city and/or county could come up with the funding for an arena on the Natomas site, the Maloofs and the NBA would be thrilled, or at least would have been.

The problem has always been that a public/private partnership of some kind is needed.

EDIT: Warhawk beat me to it. Great minds and all that.

 

[Section 101]

And take note of this: The ARCO Arena naming rights run out on March 1st. The deadline to file for relocation is March 1st. The Maloofs signed a five-year naming rights agreement with RubberbandCo. beginning...March 1st. Do you really, truly think that the Maloofs are going to sign a five-year naming rights agreement and then file for relocation before it takes effect? "Oh, hey guys, turns out we're moving to an arena that already has a name. Sorry about that. Please don't sue us for breach of contract or nothing."

I'll be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the agreement has an out clause, but an out clause that they plan to execute before the contract begins??? What's the point? If the Maloofs were going to file for relocation, why in the world would they sign a naming rights agreement they full well knew they weren't going to fulfill?

Once again. It's a marketing contract between the 2 company's. The naming rights are only part of the deal. They will be marketing the products at the palms and other venues.

 

[Section 101]

That land the arena's on is what is valuable. Not as valuable as it once was, like everything else, but valuable none the less, even if they tear down Arco. Which is waht I would do with Arco...demolish it. I think anyone who ultimately buys the property for development will likely tear down Arco. If the city tried to find someone to manage the arena, they'd find out soon enough, that their consultants were right. It just isn't economically viable any more.

I work in Natomas. I see it every day. C-Webbs old resturant is still vacant. The entire new 12 story building next to me built by River city bank is vacant. There are vacancies all over the area. It will be a long time before the land has any value for a developer. Not to mention the other land in the area that still could be developed. They would have to sell it at a major discount for someone to pay the property taxes on it.

 

[Section 101]

The new news is that they are now refusing to talk about the issue. That's the change. Going from - Hey, we might have to move, let's be honest ... to ... I'm not going to address a story that we might move now ... is a change. Its probably because they took a little swipe at the city with "all options" and the league said "No more talking." That's logical.

If the league said no more talking then they risk being fined for doing so. So how is your first sentence their fault?

 

[Larry David]

If the league said no more talking then they risk being fined for doing so. So how is your first sentence their fault?

Re-read. I see two logical paths. It's not much of a story with no fault going the Maloofs way if the league really hushed them. But that line might just be spin of bad news. People do that when they don't want to talk. Like "No, we didn't sell the beer over the Palms issues. It was just a good price" or "the Palms is doing fine." No way to know what they are really saying for a little while, unless you can talk to Stern and get the scoop.

You are mixing those two ideas from my post up.

 

[kennadog]

I work in Natomas. I see it every day. C-Webbs old resturant is still vacant. The entire new 12 story building next to me built by River city bank is vacant. There are vacancies all over the area. It will be a long time before the land has any value for a developer. Not to mention the other land in the area that still could be developed. They would have to sell it at a major discount for someone to pay the property taxes on it.

I know all that and I work with developers. It clearly would have been worth more than the city loan a few years ago. A whole lot more, likely.

The land is part of the city's loan security. The Maloofs don't have to find buyer or anyone who wants to develop the site. They can just deed everything over to the ciy in full or partial payment of the debt. If it isn't enough, then they pay the difference to the city. I beleive a certain ownership percentage is also part of the security, but the city won't get that unless there's a foreclosure completed.

The city would then own all of that land, along with the land they currently own. The city would have to find a buyer for everything then.

I'm not saying the Maloofs would choose to deed everything over, but its one option to pay of that debt, instead off coming up with the cash.

 

[Vlade4GM]

And take note of this: The ARCO Arena naming rights run out on March 1st. The deadline to file for relocation is March 1st. The Maloofs signed a five-year naming rights agreement with RubberbandCo. beginning...March 1st. Do you really, truly think that the Maloofs are going to sign a five-year naming rights agreement and then file for relocation before it takes effect? "Oh, hey guys, turns out we're moving to an arena that already has a name. Sorry about that. Please don't sue us for breach of contract or nothing."

I'll be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the agreement has an out clause, but an out clause that they plan to execute before the contract begins??? What's the point? If the Maloofs were going to file for relocation, why in the world would they sign a naming rights agreement they full well knew they weren't going to fulfill?

Well, they would fulfill it for at least until the next season, because they wouldn't be moving right away. And, they may not even get approved for the move.

 

[kennadog]

Well, they would fulfill it for at least until the next season, because they wouldn't be moving right away. And, they may not even get approved for the move.

No way they don't get approved to move. It might depend on where, but I don't think anywhere that's been mentioned can be ruled completely off the table, unless there's no arena. And the Maloofs are not going to go somewhere else without an arena deal of some kind locked up.

 

[mr. moustache]

And what I'm saying is that this was covered last week:

http://blogs.sacbee.com/sports/kings/archives/2011/01/maloofs-reitera.html#ixzz1Ak0D0Pds

And there might be a second Bee story as well with even more quotes, I don't remember. My point is that this whole article is a rehash of last week's (incomplete) quote with, if anything, News10 calling them back and asking for another quote on a story they've already finished discussing. Is it any surprise that the Maloofs are being explicit about not commenting on the arena issue? There's no news. Have you ever had to deal with a toddler that keeps asking the same question over and over and over and over and over and you finally go red in the face and scream at them to shut up? That's what happened here. This is a "for the love of God please stop asking us this question, we've already dealt with it like 500 times" response not a "hush-hush can't talk now, making shady deals in the back room" response. Stop trying to read into it what isn't there.

I would never angrily scream at a baby.

 

[Vlade4GM]

No way they don't get approved to move. It might depend on where, but I don't think anywhere that's been mentioned can be ruled completely off the table, unless there's no arena. And the Maloofs are not going to go somewhere else without an arena deal of some kind locked up.

I'm just pointing that it's not a 100% guarantee to be approved. It would be very unlikely for it not to be approved, but the question was why would they have signed a deal if they planned on starting a move even before the contract started.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I would never angrily scream at a baby.

 

[mr. moustache]

.

 

[kennadog]

I'm just pointing that it's not a 100% guarantee to be approved. It would be very unlikely for it not to be approved, but the question was why would they have signed a deal if they planned on starting a move even before the contract started.

Apparently, under the contract, if the team moves, they get first naming rights for any new arena for the Kings. Wherever that may be.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Apparently, under the contract, if the team moves, they get first naming rights for any new arena for the Kings. Wherever that may be.

There could be a conflict there if the arena has existing naming rights.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

The Lakers didn't care because they already had their fanbase. And they probably wouldnt care again because they arent going to lose. Now the Clippers on the other hand will try and squeeze all they can.

Yup, especially as long as Slumdog Sterling is still in command.

 

[kennadog]

There could be a conflict there if the arena has existing naming rights.

I would assume it would only apply if there's a new arena somewhere or a "nameless" arena.