Marcos Bretón: Time to let people decide the arena issue

[Warhawk]

Though local politicians couldn't cut a deal with the Kings' owners to finance a new downtown arena, maybe they should put it before voters anyway.
There is still time to put a sales tax to fund a downtown arena on the November ballot. Why not let the people decide if they want it or not?
Because at least then, the conversation would be more about a major downtown redevelopment, instead of what it's about now: Kings co-owners Joe and Gavin Maloof.

Like it or not -- and the Maloofs hate it -- they are the polarizing figures that always muddy the arena question even though they've tried mightily to hide in the background.
It always becomes about how an arena will enrich them, not about how an arena will enrich Sacramento.
That happened again last week when city and county officials gave up trying to craft an arena deal for voter consideration in November's election.
Neither side could agree on how much the Maloofs should pay or how much local governments should contribute for a new arena that could exceed $400 million.
But it doesn't take a genius to deduce that politicos feared taxpayers would be asked to pay too much.
And it sure seems that the city and county have little leverage to negotiate with the Kings -- if they have any leverage at all.
Indeed, the government side has good people representing taxpayers, but that hardly matters in a one-sided give-and-take. The Kings hold all the cards, the table and the gun in their holster.
They can play it as they wish, waiting for a deal to their liking. Or they can go someplace else.
Why?
Because under the Maloofs, the Kings have become a perennial playoff contender, a must-see attraction where Arco Arena has sold out for 312 consecutive games.
What leverage does the city have against that?
Painting the Tower Bridge purple?
Putting up billboards promising free car washes for all Maloofs if they sign a deal?
Or totally giving away the store to get an arena deal done and face the wrath of taxpayers?
So let's pose the question again:
What if this were just about an arena and not about two rich dudes in the arena?
Would it stand a better chance of passing by voters?
If history is any judge, the answer is yes. San Jose and Anaheim built new arenas in the past 15 years with millions in taxpayer dollars.
The arenas were sold to taxpayers as large pieces of sweeping redevelopment. And they scored when the arenas opened in 1993.
And it all happened when taxpayers reached into their own pockets to get better concerts and shows and games in their own back yard.
But in Sacramento, the conversation always becomes about how much the Maloofs will pay compared to taxpayers and how much they will profit.
So why not go ahead and put the arena on the ballot without the Kings involved?
Because academic studies show that arenas are not the economic windfalls they are presented to be?
Because it would cost taxpayers much more to build a new arena without the Maloofs as involved parties? Because Arco Arena is already there?
All true.
But County Supervisor Roger Dickinson says that if the Maloofs leave Sacramento, they likely will demolish Arco Arena to pay off their $72 million loan from the city.
Isn't that blackmail? Yes, it's all part of the sports game.
But that's an ideological rat hole I choose not to go down anymore, even though I'm breaking my vows as contrarian columnist guy. And even though it's easier to darken someone's teeth with a pen than to try to draw a realistic picture.
So here goes: In the real world, I drive past the SP railyards all the time and imagine a beautiful addition to Sacramento with an arena surrounded by restaurants and clubs -- a central gathering point.
As a taxpayer, that would be worth something to me -- and if an arena ballot came before us in November, I would vote yes, if the numbers made sense. It's not that I want the Maloofs or the Kings to leave to accomplish that. I don't. Maybe an arena gets done with them, maybe it doesn't. But it's time to focus on the real prize here: improving a great place to live.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/14274220p-15084083c.html

 

[Bricklayer]

Breton having this astounding change of heart/mid-life crisis thing remains truly remarkable to me. Not only how much he has changfed his tune, but how self-conscious he is about it -- even ribbing himself for being the contrarian columnist + the line about darkening people's teeth. There is some up front honesty there that just wasn't before. Maybe he met a good woman, who knows?

 

[kennadog]

^^LOL

So here goes: In the real world, I drive past the SP railyards all the time and imagine a beautiful addition to Sacramento with an arena surrounded by restaurants and clubs -- a central gathering point.
As a taxpayer, that would be worth something to me -- and if an arena ballot came before us in November, I would vote yes, if the numbers made sense. It's not that I want the Maloofs or the Kings to leave to accomplish that. I don't. Maybe an arena gets done with them, maybe it doesn't. But it's time to focus on the real prize here: improving a great place to live.

I feel like falling on my knees and shouting hallelujah! Finally, someone in that paper has said what I have said all along, as a near lifetime Sacramenten.

And its not blackmail to say that Arco will be razed. If the Maloofs leave and sell the land, it WILL be razed. The land is worth millions for development, while operating a hopelessly out-of-date arena that needs major repair is a questionable venture, at best.

Too bad the Bee's editorial page blamed the Maloofs once again. Idiots. And as Breton points out, if we want an arena after the Maloofs leave, we'd then have to fund 100% of the cost. How dumb is it to drive out millions in investment for an arena from the Maloofs?

 

[VF21]

The Bee has become so enamored of their "one paper in a big market" status that they're really destroying what little if any journalistic integrity they once had.

A newspaper should report the news. It should NEVER attempt to become or sway the news. The Bee has done both and it's the good people of Sacramento and the surrounding areas who are being hurt the most.

My "favorite" part of today's Bee was the self-serving, self-congratulatory tone of the column written by the person now holding the "ombudsman" position. The whole column was about how great it was the Bee had written an article about the young man trying to raise money for funeral expenses for his father. I hope the writer didn't break his arm patting himself and his newspaper on the back.

Yes, the Bee wrote a nice article but to congratulate themselves for it just seems smarmy. They should be writing more human interest articles anyway but they seem to shun the idea. After all, they're the BIG newspaper in town.

I subscribe now, not because I want to see the Bee's takes on things, but because they at least give me a heads up on things that I can then go research elsewhere.

I, too, am really surprised at Breton's turnaround, not only about the arena but about the Monarchs and a couple of other things. I think Bricklayer may be right...

 

[slugking50]

Maybe, Just maybe... He realised his job is on the line. If the Kings leave, I highly doubt the sports department would keep 3 fulltime columnists around.

 

[JB_kings]

Maybe, Just maybe... He realised his job is on the line. If the Kings leave, I highly doubt the sports department would keep 3 fulltime columnists around.

I pointed out that very same thing to him in an email last year. I got a profane response from him and was called a racist.

 

[Wert]

Maybe, Just maybe... He realised his job is on the line. If the Kings leave, I highly doubt the sports department would keep 3 fulltime columnists around.

Very relevant I think.

And I think Marcos makes a good point when he mentions:

Because academic studies show that arenas are not the economic windfalls they are presented to be?

I think people make all sorts of assumptions about a new arena that aren't supported with much in the way of hard facts at all. I'm not convinced this sort of small market (and Sac is a small market like it or not), can support the kind of insanely expensive arena/complex some folks insist we need so badly.

 

[kennadog]

Very relevant I think.

And I think Marcos makes a good point when he mentions:



I think people make all sorts of assumptions about a new arena that aren't supported with much in the way of hard facts at all. I'm not convinced this sort of small market (and Sac is a small market like it or not), can support the kind of insanely expensive arena/complex some folks insist we need so badly.

Why? There are certainly as small or smaller cities with new arenas. San Antonio for one. Memphis, Kansas City, etc.

 

[BigWaxer]

I got a profane response from him and was called a racist.

What??? Are you serious? Makes me hate the BEE even more, you should see some of the emails I have fired off at AV. Never got a reply back. LOL I wouldn't reply to what I said either.

Sacramento so needs another paper and another sports station. Thats the only way to keep these complete fools in check.

I don't agree with MB on putting out a vote just to put one out. I think thats a terrible strategy and one that would fail. His point is wrong his heart seems to have changed to the right place.

 

[VF21]

Very relevant I think.

And I think Marcos makes a good point when he mentions:



I think people make all sorts of assumptions about a new arena that aren't supported with much in the way of hard facts at all. I'm not convinced this sort of small market (and Sac is a small market like it or not), can support the kind of insanely expensive arena/complex some folks insist we need so badly.

You continue to act as though Sacramento is a one-horse town stuck in the past. It's not; it's growing and it's becoming more and more civilized.

Small market? For what? The types of entertainment Arco and even the Sleep Train amphitheater have drawn?

It isn't just about the Kings or the Monarchs. It's about having a place for the future to showcase entertainment. Sacramento is reaching out to get more of the tourist dollar and to be more of a destination. A part of that will be the availability of suitable venues for large audience performances.

Whether an arena is an economic windfall depends more on the management of the arena than the size of the city.

 

[JB_kings]

Small market? It's number 19 in the country. No it's not NY, LA or Chicago. But then that wouldn't be much fun if only 3 cities had professional sports teams.
Yes, one-horse town Sacramento is a bigger market than, St Louis, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Milwaukee, Kansas City... I could go on. What really sucks is these smaller markets kick our butt on sports teams and venues.

 

[Wert]

You continue to act as though Sacramento is a one-horse town stuck in the past. It's not; it's growing and it's becoming more and more civilized.

Quite the opposite. I don't believe it's been that for a long time.

In fact, I take great exception to notion that lack of a large exceptionally expensive sports arena will somehow cause the capital of California to be relegated to "cow town" status again. I didn't think Sacramento was a cow town before the Kings/arco came and I don't think it will become a "cowtown" if things don't work out with a new stadium/kings.

Small market? For what? The types of entertainment Arco and even the Sleep Train amphitheater have drawn?

A look at Arco's event calendar shows it either sits empty for much of the year or draws events that aren't that profitable (compared to the 40 or so days the kings fill it out).

It isn't just about the Kings or the Monarchs.

Did'nt you mention to me privately that you were a supporter of this site (save our Kings)? It makes it exceptionally hard to take you seriously when you trot out the old "It's not just about the Kings!', when sites like this make it pretty clear that it is.

And you know, this is a Kings Fans board, so that's exactly what I'd expect. It's why I welcome a vote on the issue and am disappointed it didn't make the ballot for this November.

They provide the lions share of the profit (which generates the lions share of the tax revenue, etc), so yeah, I think it is primarily about them. Wanna bet the Kings are going to want a cut of non Kings events also? Or a percentage of the signing rights? If the Kings weren't here, would the push for such a large and very expensive stadium be as strong? I doubt it.

It's about having a place for the future to showcase entertainment. Sacramento is reaching out to get more of the tourist dollar and to be more of a destination. A part of that will be the availability of suitable venues for large audience performances.

I think this is wishful thinking. They can't even fill up arco as it is. This month alone (July) there's a whopping 9 events at arco, leaving the arena empty for the lions share of a 31 day month. August? Yet another 9 measly events. From what I've seen, this is not unusual.

I see no reason to believe that a nicer/newer/terribly expensive new facility is going to raise the "occupancy" of profitable events that much. Where are the extra hotel rooms that are going to handle all this new tourism this stadiums is (supposedly) going to generate? Competition from the sleep train amphitheater won't be something to sneeze at as frankly, sports stadiums (even the best of them) simply don't have the same acoustics to provide a superior concert going experience as a true amphitheater can. Factor in competition from the new Stockton arena, likely ever higher ticket prices for whatever we build, and I just don't see this huge explosion of new business for our new arena that people seem to be taking for granted.

A larger stadium won't change that much. And the higher prices that will likely follow (as the Maloofs have made Kings tickets some of the most expensive in the NBA at this point) surely won't help filling even more seats in this relatively small market (and yeah, you're not going to to convince me that the disposable income is there in this market to support a huge arena with its likely even higher ticket prices)

Whether an arena is an economic windfall depends more on the management of the arena than the size of the city.

The size of a city in terms of tax base is very important. Good management can help that, but not change the basic facts. Certain "small market" towns have better overall demographics than we do in some ways, making it easier for them to support a pro sports team.

For instance, Memphis isn't much larger (population wise) than Sacramento, and I'd definitely also call it "small market", yet the per capita income there is $32,741 compared to Sacramento County's $21,142. Someone mentioned San Antonio, which does have a lower per capita income than Sac, but the city proper has nearly three times the population.

Los Angeles county has an even worse per capita income than Sacramento ($20,683) yet being as incredibly huge market as they are makes up the difference.

So there are a lot of statistics/demographics to keep in mind here.

 

[kennadog]

One of the reasons Arco is drawing less and less events is becasue it is being passed up by major events and has been for awhile. The arena is just a poorly designed, cheap venue in the first place and also its loading/docking areas are inadequate for many modern shows.

It has trouble making ice and when the ice-making pipes break in the out-dated system, they have to jack-hammer out the concrete. The roof needs replacing which will be quite costly just on its own and really, just pouring good money after bad.

Yes, being in the Sacramento region since 1967, I'd be sorry to see a decent sports/entertainment venue gone. I'd really hate to have my only option be driving to the Bay area again. And the Sleep Train Amphitheater is not nearly as versatile. You certainly aren't hosint ice shows there for instance.

As to being on the ballot, there is absolutely nothing to vote on now. Unitl a proposal is put together so every one can see the deal, there's no point to a vote. I certaily couldn't make a choice on a simple yes or no to an arena, because it depends on the details.

Yes, I am a Kings fan. But that does not mean my opinion is based solely on whether or not the Kings leave or stay. Its not fair to imply that. If the Kings leave, I would still want to see a sports/entertainment arena in the Sacramento region, becasue I think its an enhancement to the general quality of life.

By the way, the arena is only proposed to be marginally larger than the current one. Maybe 18,000 seats. As to ticket prices, San Antonio says that having a modest number of luxury boxes added in their new arena, allows their ticket prices to the average ticket buyer to be lower. In other words, without the money paid for the luxury boxes, their general ticket prices would have to be higher. That is part of the reason Arco has high ticket prices.

 

[Wert]

One of the reasons Arco is drawing less and less events is becasue it is being passed up by major events and has been for awhile. The arena is just a poorly designed, cheap venue in the first place and also its loading/docking areas are inadequate for many modern shows.

OK, what major events are going to come to a new arco, and for how many days? And assuming that this will bring a lot of out of towners, where will they stay? Sacramento still is sorely deficient in total number of available hotel rooms for huge events. Sleep train Ampitheater is pretty close to Sacramento and not as decrepit as Arco, yet I note they have about the same amount of events each month. I just don't think the situation here (with lack of hotel rooms, etc) is such that simply having a great new arena is going to draw substantially more and better business.

It has trouble making ice and when the ice-making pipes break in the out-dated system, they have to jack-hammer out the concrete. The roof needs replacing which will be quite costly just on its own and really, just pouring good money after bad.

Unless we're guaranteed to get an NHL hockey team here, I don't see the ice making issues as having a lot of impact in terms of getting new events/business for a new arena.

And the Sleep Train Amphitheater is not nearly as versatile. You certainly aren't hosint ice shows there for instance.

In terms of acoustics/overall concert going experience, even smaller venues like these tend to be superior to sports arenas no matter how nice they are. Sports arenas just aren't set up to have the same acoustics or sitelines that a good amphitheater does.

As to being on the ballot, there is absolutely nothing to vote on now. Unitl a proposal is put together so every one can see the deal, there's no point to a vote. I certaily couldn't make a choice on a simple yes or no to an arena, because it depends on the details.

Well, best of luck to them on getting some language hammered out.

It's interesting to me to hear the proponents saying "tick tock! gotta hurry and get something on the ballot before the Kings up and leave!" and then when it doesn't work out "Well, they couldn't get their act together, so I guess it's OK to wait now."

Whenever they do get their act together, I'll be thrilled to vote on it.

Yes, I am a Kings fan. But that does not mean my opinion is based solely on whether or not the Kings leave or stay. Its not fair to imply that. If the Kings leave, I would still want to see a sports/entertainment arena in the Sacramento region, becasue I think its an enhancement to the general quality of life.

But without the kings/monarchs, would you feel as strongly about it? I doubt that strongly.

By the way, the arena is only proposed to be marginally larger than the current one. Maybe 18,000 seats. As to ticket prices, San Antonio says that having a modest number of luxury boxes added in their new arena, allows their ticket prices to the average ticket buyer to be lower.

In other words, without the money paid for the luxury boxes, their general ticket prices would have to be higher. That is part of the reason Arco has high ticket prices.

Hahahahaha, the Maloofs have been sticking it to us for years with some of the highest prices in the NBA and you think they're going to lower prices after (hopefully) having to pay millions as part of their share of a new arena? Not to mention the large loan from the city still hanging over their heads. I strongly doubt there would be whole sites ( saveourkings.com to which this particular forum is their official forum ) or the strong level of discourse dedicated to a new non sports arena if there wasn't the possibility of losing the Kings. I'd think the Kings generate the lions share of revenue from of all the events at the arena even though they're only their for 40 days each year. Heck, a lot of the other events have much smaller ticket prices than going to a kings game and yet often don't come even close to selling out. To say it's not mainly about the Kings strikes me as a bit disingenuous. Sure, there are other benefits, but the Kings are the ones that bring in the real bling here. Especially if (as I strongly suspect) a new arena won't draw substantially more or more profitable events compared to arco's history.

And with large corporations already dropping out of the limited number of luxury boxes we have now, where are the replacements going to come from? How are they going to fill even more of them? Which I bet will cost even more than the current one's that large corporations are increasingly finding they don't want anymore.

You sound like those folks with their rose tinted predictions for the Convention Center.

I hear a lot of "build it and they will come" type of sentiments, but without much in the way of supporting facts, I think a lot of it is simply wishful thinking.

 

[kennadog]

But without the kings/monarchs, would you feel as strongly about it? I doubt that strongly.

Its easy to pick apart single sentences without taking in the whole. I'm not going to respond to each remark, which are your opinions, same as I have mine.

But you have clearly made assumptions about arena supporters and decided they are all the same, especially if they happen to also be Kings/Monarchs fans. The answer to this particular question for me is absolutely I would feel as strongly about it. Of course, I don't expect you to believe that.

People have every right to decide on an arena if taxes or fees are involved, when the times comes to vote on it. And it may be too late to keep the Kings here, when that happens.

But I think it would be the height of stupidity and a waste of time and taxpayer money to put an incomplete or poorly conceived plan on the ballot. The parties just started talking to each other too late for this particular ballot deadline, that's all. So yes, the pressure is off as far as that one deadline goes.

As to ticket prices? I can go to a Kings games for a lot less than many concerts ala Sleep Train Amphitheater. I've gone for a under $30 a ticket and have even bought $10 tickets. I can't go often, but find that not unreasonable compared to tickets to many plays, symphonies, ballets, concerts, museums, theme parks, art exhibits, fine dining, etc. I enjoy all of those things on rare occassions as I can afford. I think a variety of entertainment options is what enhances quality of life in a city.

 

[Warhawk]

Let me add my $0.02.

I am a Kings fan and do not want them to leave. However, over the years, I think I have been to more events at both old and new ARCOs that have been non-Kings related than Kings-related.

Over the years I have gone to numerous concerts of various setups (traditional and in-the-round), the circus, the Wiggles concert with my 3-yr old son, and a monster truck event. Those are just right off the top of my head, there's probably more.

A new ARCO is vital to entertainment in the Sacramento area. Concerts and other events skip ARCO every year because of the outdated facility and the slow turnaround time for ice events, like Disney/Stars on Ice-type events. We have had to travel to places like the Stockton Arena to see events. It's sad when Stockton can draw events like Sara Evans/Brad Paisley concerts and ARCO can't draw these events in. I am going to have to drive up to Sleep Train to see a concert next month which is going to cost a lot more in gas and time than being able to see it in Sacramento. I know some folks just don't go when the events are that far away.

Point is - the arena serves a need whether the Kings are here or not. If the Kings leave, we will still need a new arena and one of the largest tenents will be gone. Not good for the community and the owners of a new arena trying to fill seats as many days a year as they can.

 

[love_them_kings]

Let me add my $0.02.

I am a Kings fan and do not want them to leave. However, over the years, I think I have been to more events at both old and new ARCOs that have been non-Kings related than Kings-related.

Over the years I have gone to numerous concerts of various setups (traditional and in-the-round), the circus, the Wiggles concert with my 3-yr old son, and a monster truck event. Those are just right off the top of my head, there's probably more.

A new ARCO is vital to entertainment in the Sacramento area. Concerts and other events skip ARCO every year because of the outdated facility and the slow turnaround time for ice events, like Disney/Stars on Ice-type events. We have had to travel to places like the Stockton Arena to see events. It's sad when Stockton can draw events like Sara Evans/Brad Paisley concerts and ARCO can't draw these events in. I am going to have to drive up to Sleep Train to see a concert next month which is going to cost a lot more in gas and time than being able to see it in Sacramento. I know some folks just don't go when the events are that far away.

Point is - the arena serves a need whether the Kings are here or not. If the Kings leave, we will still need a new arena and one of the largest tenents will be gone. Not good for the community and the owners of a new arena trying to fill seats as many days a year as they can.

Word! Thank you for pointing out what many seem to miss. Getting a new arena is NOT only about the Kings. Getting a new arena is necessary to make Sacramento a city that can attract many events/attractions/concerts. We are ALREADY missing out on concerts and events because Arco is outdated. If the Kings leave, and Arco continues to decline, we will soon not attract anything. So, despite living in the state's capital, we will be driving hours anytime we want to see a concert. Not to mention the sales tax dollars that will be lost by people not coming here for events.

I see this playing out one of two ways. Either we get this together, get a new arena in the next 5 years, and keep the Kings here. Or, we let the Kings leave, and 10-15-20 years down the road end up getting a new arena for the "good of the community" and desperately trying to lure a team to Sacramento to help fill the seats and help with the costs. And that would be a shame.

 

[Wert]

Its easy to pick apart single sentences without taking in the whole. I'm not going to respond to each remark, which are your opinions, same as I have mine.

Which means, "Hey, I can see you've got some valid points, but it's much easier to just chalk all that up to "opinion" and blow it off". Gotcha.

But you have clearly made assumptions about arena supporters and decided they are all the same, especially if they happen to also be Kings/Monarchs fans.

Nope, I asked a question and stated an opinion about it. I made no blanket stereotype as you claim. But here, on a Kings forum, I think it's most reasonable to expect that maintaining the Kings would be a top priority. I do not find that to be some kind of wild unfounded assumption. Does not this very forum links to (and act as the official forum for) a site called saveourkings.com ? That says a lot I believe.

The answer to this particular question for me is absolutely I would feel as strongly about it. Of course, I don't expect you to believe that.

If I saw you posting at non kings forums about an arena, setting up new non kings sites to support an arena, or whatever, then yes I'd believe you. Otherwise...

People have every right to decide on an arena if taxes or fees are involved, when the times comes to vote on it. And it may be too late to keep the Kings here, when that happens.

I agree with you 100% here.

But I think it would be the height of stupidity and a waste of time and taxpayer money to put an incomplete or poorly conceived plan on the ballot.

Well, I've said if they need time, so be it. I was hoping they'd have their act together to get something going by November, but evidently not.

As to ticket prices? I can go to a Kings games for a lot less than many concerts ala Sleep Train Amphitheater.

They've got their share of overpriced events too, no doubt. It may be a good reason they're only having 8-10 events every month. But I'm sure they have some reasonable tickets available for some of their events as sometimes happens at arco and other local venues. A top flight concert is going to demand a certain ticket price pretty much wherever they play. So your comparison rings a bit hollow for me.

I've gone for a under $30 a ticket and have even bought $10 tickets. I can't go often, but find that not unreasonable compared to tickets to many plays, symphonies, ballets, concerts, museums, theme parks, art exhibits, fine dining, etc.

That's funny, because I'm talking Kings prices here, not the prices of other events. And I can say without doubt, that the Kings charge one of the highest premiums for their tickets in the whole NBA. No dithering around about "Well hey I scored a cheap ticket to the circus!" or the like is going to change that.

I enjoy all of those things on rare occassions as I can afford. I think a variety of entertainment options is what enhances quality of life in a city.

I agree. However, I don't necessarily think a hugely expensive arena is necessary to provide that sort of thing. We already have sleep train (which is pretty close), not to mention smaller venues for plays, concerts, etc. From what I hear around here, I'd think that without a brand spankin' new arena, Sacramento residents won't have much to do at all. And I bet plenty of folks don't attend arena events at all, yet still manage to find activities around the region. I think a new arena would be really nice, but I don't think it's essential. Well, it is if folks with to maintain the Kings here, but otherwise...

 

[Wert]

Let me add my $0.02.

I am a Kings fan and do not want them to leave. However, over the years, I think I have been to more events at both old and new ARCOs that have been non-Kings related than Kings-related.

The Kings, being a private corporation, do not release their profit and loss statements, but I'll say this.

Folks who don't believe that (moneywise, tax revenue-wise,etc.) the Kings games/merchandise/etc. don't dwarf all the other events combined are living in a fantasy world.

Money talks here, and the Kings wield the biggest stick in that regards no matter how much people natter on about the very infrequent concerts/circuses/etc.

A new ARCO is vital to entertainment in the Sacramento area.

No, it it would certainly be nice, but "vital"? Don't see it sorry.

We have had to travel to places like the Stockton Arena to see events. It's sad when Stockton can draw events like Sara Evans/Brad Paisley concerts and ARCO can't draw these events in.

I couldn't even tell you who those folks are, so that means nothing to me.

Point is - the arena serves a need whether the Kings are here or not.

Your point is just the re-hashed wishful thinking that this forum is already full of. If the Kings leave (and likely demolish arco to pay of their debt to the city), the area will adjust, perhaps building smaller venues or people will simply drive to get to the bigger events. It's a bit inconvenient sure, but it's not the end of the of world. Sacramento existed just fine before they had a large arena and they'll exist just fine if they find themselves in that situation again.

If the Kings leave, we will still need a new arena and one of the largest tenents will be gone. Not good for the community and the owners of a new arena trying to fill seats as many days a year as they can.

For years, arco hasn't been able to draw much business other than the Kings (compared to other arenas out there) and I believe this is more a function of or population and per capita income rather than the fact that it's older now and falling apart.

 

[Wert]

Word! Thank you for pointing out what many seem to miss. Getting a new arena is NOT only about the Kings.

It most certainly is, because they're the primary tenant that generate the primary revenues. Without them, who is to say that a new arena can draw any better than arco, sleep train, and other local venues?

Getting a new arena is necessary to make Sacramento a city that can attract many events/attractions/concerts.

Really? And I suppose that'll draw all these imaginary tourists that we have no hotel rooms to accommodate right? I suppose it's going to draw business the same way our shiny boondoggle convention center is doing? The numbers (population, per capita income and other figures) tell us that there's only so much that can likely be squeezed out of locals. If folks in San francisco, Stockton, etc. already have a decent venue, you think they're going to make a special trip out here?

If the Kings leave, and Arco continues to decline, we will soon not attract anything. So, despite living in the state's capital, we will be driving hours anytime we want to see a concert.

Sleep train isn't hours away. And many fine acts play the smaller venues around town. Sure, for the occasional mega concert, one might have to drive a bit, but damn, even san fran, Tahoe, reno are not that far. Many of us here drive up there all the time to gamble, see a show, visit friends, etc. without whining about it. And with a very small modicum of effort, hotel rooms (sometimes even bundled with the show you want to see!) can be found at nice prices in Tahoe and Reno.

...and desperately trying to lure a team to Sacramento to help fill the seats and help with the costs. And that would be a shame.

You start your post with the hoary "It's not about the kings!", but then you wrap it all up with a lament about how much the area needs to have a local pro sports team.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

Now, this is one that doesn't quite make sense to me:

"Your point is just the re-hashed wishful thinking that this forum is already full of. If the Kings leave (and likely demolish arco to pay of their debt to the city), the area will adjust, perhaps building smaller venues or people will simply drive to get to the bigger events. It's a bit inconvenient sure, but it's not the end of the of world. Sacramento existed just fine before they had a large arena and they'll exist just fine if they find themselves in that situation again."

I heard years ago, at the time of the original loan, that we had technically entered into a "purchase-leaseback" agreement with the previous owners of the arena (first Thomas, now the Maloofs) where the City owns the arena, and we're leasing it back to the previous owners. If that is true, what right do the folks leasing the arena (the Maloofs) have to demolish the arena? So they can THREATEN to demolish, in much the same way that I can THREATEN to drive a leased car off a cliff (unoccupied, of course); I'm STILL on the hook for the payments.

The "We'll demolish it!" threat rings very hollow to me.

Next, I agree entirely with Wert: Kennadog said that the Kings occupy the building only 25% of the time. False. There are about 170 events/year, many of which are designed to be entirely non-profit. Between the Kings and Monarchs preseason, regular season and playoffs, that's very close to 75 events a year, which is almost half the events.

The amount of rent charged per event should be based on the revenue generated by the event, and the Kings games easily raise the most revenue. That makes them easily the largest user of the facility; they should pay for most of the arena.

Last, I want to point out that the Maloofs refused to disclose how much their share would be. Since they refuse to disclose, I can assume no value other than $0. There's absolutely no way any politician in this area would present "The Maloofs refuse to disclose their share" before the voters. You would have to be a complete fool to support that. It would be political suicide for a politician to support that. I think that's the real reason this died now.

Let's face it, would you go into business with your best friend if, while building the business, your best friend refused to say what his/her financial share would be? Really, he/she wouldn't be your best friend for very long if they tried that.

Anyway, I think the Maloofs already have a deal set up with another local government (outside California, probably) where all they're going to do is pay rent. They're just waiting until the All Star Game in Vegas to announce it. I don't think this is personal against us; I think it's just business. If they're getting a great deal from some other city, and we refuse to match it, I don't blame them for taking such an opportunity.

 

[kennadog]

I am going to have to drive up to Sleep Train to see a concert next month which is going to cost a lot more in gas and time than being able to see it in Sacramento. I know some folks just don't go when the events are that far away.

Not to mention, it adds to pollution and traffic congestion. One time it took my son's summer school bus 4 hours to get home from an A's game thru rush hour traffic. I felt sorry for the parents that had to go thru that with a busful of kids.

One of the benefits about an arena downtown, is it would be right near the proposed regional transportation hub.

 

[Warhawk]

The Kings, being a private corporation, do not release their profit and loss statements, but I'll say this.

Folks who don't believe that (moneywise, tax revenue-wise,etc.) the Kings games/merchandise/etc. don't dwarf all the other events combined are living in a fantasy world.

Money talks here, and the Kings wield the biggest stick in that regards no matter how much people natter on about the very infrequent concerts/circuses/etc.

No, it it would certainly be nice, but "vital"? Don't see it sorry.

I couldn't even tell you who those folks are, so that means nothing to me.

Your point is just the re-hashed wishful thinking that this forum is already full of. If the Kings leave (and likely demolish arco to pay of their debt to the city), the area will adjust, perhaps building smaller venues or people will simply drive to get to the bigger events. It's a bit inconvenient sure, but it's not the end of the of world. Sacramento existed just fine before they had a large arena and they'll exist just fine if they find themselves in that situation again.

For years, arco hasn't been able to draw much business other than the Kings (compared to other arenas out there) and I believe this is more a function of or population and per capita income rather than the fact that it's older now and falling apart.

I never said the Kings weren't the largest tenent or money-maker, I'm saying that as an individual who goes to events at ARCO, I see more non-Kings events than Kings events.

I don't care if you "see it" - it's the truth. Sacramento needs to have facilities to hold events. Where else are they going to hold all the events now being held at ARCO? Memorial Center? Music Circus? Lousy Cal Expo? Drive 1-3 hours to see events at plaves like SF, Tahoe, and Reno? Stockton? Sleep Train?

Why drive to these places to see events when we can have them here with a decent facility? Look at the money wasted in gas and time wasted driving all over the countryside going to travel to these places. Maybe you are fine with that - I am not. I don't want to have to go to SF to catch a concert on a weeknight. I have a family and a job. Having to go to far-away places effectively means I cannot go to these events. It's not "inconvenient" - it's a deal breaker for most.

"Those folks" are two of the biggest names in country music. Don't let your ignorance blind you to their importance as income-makers to a facility. Not all of us go to see Half Dollar or whoever the latest misspelled rapper is nowadays.

Build smaller venues? For what? You think that artists are more interested in making money from 50 fans at a time? Shoot, maybe they will start going door-to-door for the "intimate" atmosphere approach.

 

[VF21]

Now, this is one that doesn't quite make sense to me:

"Your point is just the re-hashed wishful thinking that this forum is already full of. If the Kings leave (and likely demolish arco to pay of their debt to the city), the area will adjust, perhaps building smaller venues or people will simply drive to get to the bigger events. It's a bit inconvenient sure, but it's not the end of the of world. Sacramento existed just fine before they had a large arena and they'll exist just fine if they find themselves in that situation again."

I heard years ago, at the time of the original loan, that we had technically entered into a "purchase-leaseback" agreement with the previous owners of the arena (first Thomas, now the Maloofs) where the City owns the arena, and we're leasing it back to the previous owners. If that is true, what right do the folks leasing the arena (the Maloofs) have to demolish the arena? So they can THREATEN to demolish, in much the same way that I can THREATEN to drive a leased car off a cliff (unoccupied, of course); I'm STILL on the hook for the payments.

The "We'll demolish it!" threat rings very hollow to me.

Next, I agree entirely with Wert: Kennadog said that the Kings occupy the building only 25% of the time. False. There are about 170 events/year, many of which are designed to be entirely non-profit. Between the Kings and Monarchs preseason, regular season and playoffs, that's very close to 75 events a year, which is almost half the events.

The amount of rent charged per event should be based on the revenue generated by the event, and the Kings games easily raise the most revenue. That makes them easily the largest user of the facility; they should pay for most of the arena.

Last, I want to point out that the Maloofs refused to disclose how much their share would be. Since they refuse to disclose, I can assume no value other than $0. There's absolutely no way any politician in this area would present "The Maloofs refuse to disclose their share" before the voters. You would have to be a complete fool to support that. It would be political suicide for a politician to support that. I think that's the real reason this died now.

Let's face it, would you go into business with your best friend if, while building the business, your best friend refused to say what his/her financial share would be? Really, he/she wouldn't be your best friend for very long if they tried that.

Anyway, I think the Maloofs already have a deal set up with another local government (outside California, probably) where all they're going to do is pay rent. They're just waiting until the All Star Game in Vegas to announce it. I don't think this is personal against us; I think it's just business. If they're getting a great deal from some other city, and we refuse to match it, I don't blame them for taking such an opportunity.

I disagree with the notion the Maloofs are not bargaining in good faith; that they already have an agreement elsewhere and are just waiting for the All-Star game (??????????) to announce it. That implies Vegas and I still maintain the Maloofs are NOT going to move the Kings to Las Vegas since they would be competing with themselves for revenue $$$. All-Star games? Sure! Summer leagues? Yes! Those bring people into Vegas and, once there, those visitors will undoubtedly spend money in the casinos.

Bring a regular NBA team to Las Vegas? I don't think the Maloofs want 20,000 in town NOT going to the casinos. And if people are going for a regular game, they would most likely simply go to the game and then return home. It wouldn't be the destination weekend of fun like the All-Star game.

As far as the Maloofs refusing to disclose their share, that's simply erroneous. They have mentioned ballpark figures, but since the cost of the arena itself isn't known at this point I don't see how they could possibly be expected to give a "cast in stone" figure. That's just not how business is done.

Bottom line, however, is still NOT about the Maloofs. It's about the city of Sacramento and the lack of vision they appear to have for the future. THAT will be the factor that determines whether or not a new arena/entertainment comlex is built before it's too late to retain a professional NBA franchise.

 

[VF21]

Nice to see you back trying to shoot down any hopes of a new arena, Wert...

I'm not going to respond to your comments for the simple reason you don't care what other people say. You'll only be happy, for whatever reason, when the Kings are gone.

Have a nice day.

 

[Warhawk]

I heard years ago, at the time of the original loan, that we had technically entered into a "purchase-leaseback" agreement with the previous owners of the arena (first Thomas, now the Maloofs) where the City owns the arena, and we're leasing it back to the previous owners. If that is true, what right do the folks leasing the arena (the Maloofs) have to demolish the arena? So they can THREATEN to demolish, in much the same way that I can THREATEN to drive a leased car off a cliff (unoccupied, of course); I'm STILL on the hook for the payments.

The "We'll demolish it!" threat rings very hollow to me.

Next, I agree entirely with Wert: Kennadog said that the Kings occupy the building only 25% of the time. False. There are about 170 events/year, many of which are designed to be entirely non-profit. Between the Kings and Monarchs preseason, regular season and playoffs, that's very close to 75 events a year, which is almost half the events.

The amount of rent charged per event should be based on the revenue generated by the event, and the Kings games easily raise the most revenue. That makes them easily the largest user of the facility; they should pay for most of the arena.

Last, I want to point out that the Maloofs refused to disclose how much their share would be. Since they refuse to disclose, I can assume no value other than $0. There's absolutely no way any politician in this area would present "The Maloofs refuse to disclose their share" before the voters. You would have to be a complete fool to support that. It would be political suicide for a politician to support that. I think that's the real reason this died now.

If the Kings have to move, the only way to pay off the loan is by demolishing the arena and selling the land to developers. The arena is becoming obsolete and is not worth trying to sell as-is, IIRC.

The Kings have the arena for about 25% of the days of operation. A more modern arena could hold many more events per year. You are confusing nights used with nights available.

Why should an event pay more to use the arena just because it is more popular? If the arena is booked for a night, what difference does it make to the arena owner whether it is a Kings game, a circus, or a concert? They should all pay equally for the use of the facility. It's not the Kings' fault that some concerts don't sell out. Why place that cost where is doesn't belong? I don't get your reasoning.

So you assume 0 even though they have publically said they will pay their fair share, assumed to be up to what, 25% or so, IIRC? Very convenient. Wrong, but convenient.

 

[kennadog]

By the way Wert, the Maloofs opened the books (profit and lose) on the franchise twice for the Sacramento Bee. The Bee confirmed that the franchise had run in the red up until the Kings started making it past the first round of the playoffs (more tickets.) The loan to the franchise from the city was based on the fact that the team was awash in red ink every year.

And the 25% of dates is as Warhawk explained and was also published in the Bee.

The Kings own ARCO and the land its on. The loan gave the City a lien on the property, with technically lease-back rights to the team. Once the team meets the commitment terms of having remained in Sacramento for 10 years, they can move, pay off the loan and they own the land free and clear, with no more restrictions. The land will be worth more for development without Arco on it.

 

[Warhawk]

Really? And I suppose that'll draw all these imaginary tourists that we have no hotel rooms to accommodate right? I suppose it's going to draw business the same way our shiny boondoggle convention center is doing? The numbers (population, per capita income and other figures) tell us that there's only so much that can likely be squeezed out of locals. If folks in San francisco, Stockton, etc. already have a decent venue, you think they're going to make a special trip out here?

Because we aren't trying to pull folks from the Bay Area to ARCO, we're trying to get folks in Vacaville, Davis, Galt, Elk Grove, Lodi, Jackson, Ione, Folsom, El Dorado Hills, Rocklin, Auburn, Grass Valley, Yuba City/Marysville, Oroville, Chico, and the greater Sacramento area in general to come spend money in Sacramento instead of going to Tahoe, Reno, and SF. That's the point. These folks don't necessarily need hotel rooms, they just need a regional facility that can handle world-class events and entice them to attend.

And hotel space has been on the rise locally. New facilities have been built in the past few years and the proposed high-rise projects downtown are to include more high-end hotel rooms as well.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/community_news/sacramento/story/14263245p-15076240c.html

http://www.news10.net/storyfull1.asp?id=12071

Places to stay isn't going to be a problem. Attracting ecents to draw people to the area and stay will be more of a problem if we lose our only pro sports arena.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

"Why should an event pay more to use the arena just because it is more popular?"

That is the way they do it now, for sure. If the City/County rented the facility to CSUS for graduation ceremonies and charged the same rate they do for Kings games, CSUS would simply go elsewhere. That's the way you MUST run a facility like this. There's no other way.

Since the Maloofs do not own the current arena (the City does, as many here have said), the Maloofs have no right to tear it down. They don't own it. Now, if your car dealer decides to crush the car you leased from them, that's their business. And, by the way, that'd be very bad business.

Trust me on this: If the City/County (or whatever JPA is put together to run an "Events Center") decided to charge all events the same rent, that arena would not be hosting 170 events a year. Many, many events would simply go away.

By the way, I don't think it'll be Vegas. I honestly have no idea what city it could be. The gambling is an issue. I think the casinos would rather have gambling on the NBA than a single team.

Could be Anaheim; could be KC; could be somewhere else.

The original quote is this:

"But the two sides failed to reach an agreement on a host of complicated issues that included such fundamental items as the cost of a new arena and how much the Kings' owners -- the Maloofs -- would pay."

When you enter into a business agreement with someone, statements like this make me believe that you absolutely cannot put that to the voters. I assure you, it would lose very large. Really, for those who want to keep the Kings, the agreement falling apart for reasons like this is not a bad sign. It was a sign that they had nothing that would pass to put toward the voters.

Personally, I absolutely need to hear, at the least, 30% of the costs, plus overruns. If they come back with 20% and no overruns, you stop negotiations, simply because the voters will reject it by huge margins. This is just my thinking, but I'd say anything where the Maloofs do not contribute at least 40% of the costs will be rejected. I'm just being realistic here. But this is a sliding scale: If the public pays 0%, it wins easily; if the public pays 100%, it loses huge. At 40%, I think it has a shot.

I think the Maloofs are hoping for 0%.

Good luck getting that past voters.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

"The Kings own ARCO and the land its on. The loan gave the City a lien on the property, with technically lease-back rights to the team. Once the team meets the commitment terms of having remained in Sacramento for 10 years, they can move, pay off the loan and they own the land free and clear, with no more restrictions. The land will be worth more for development without Arco on it."

There's no way that land is worth $50 million, which is all they'd have if the razed the facility. Plus, the only way I can lease something to you is if I own it in the first place. I cannot lease you something I don't own.

If you destroy the collateral, you owe the money still.

There's no way they wreck the thing. If they do, they're on the hook, big-time.

Personally, I think they hand the City the current arena and a check for $20 million (this was the collateral for the loan in 1997) and then close the books.

But, really, I think we (VF, Wert, Kennadog, everyone) can agree on: If you cannot pin the Maloofs to a specific monetary amount, it's political suicide to take that to the voters. That's why this lost this time.

I think the clock is ticking big-time, unfortunately. That facility has at most 3 years left in it, which means they need to move into something by the summer of 2009. It has to be game-ready by July 2009. I now think that's impossible, given that the next chance for a vote is 2008. It's really just a numbers game, I'm afraid.

Nothing personal; just, "Will you have a building game-ready by July 2009? No? Well, we must do what we must do. We love you. Nothing personal."