Mark Kreidler: The sum of all fears

albeitrue · May 29, 2005

Don't know how many of the 17,000 are season ticket holder seats, but if you figure the population of Sacramento (don't even know what that is, maybe close to 750,000?), 12,000 season ticket holders (?) and 5,000 fans ready to "pay the price" may just be a pretty outstanding ratio comared to other cities who have a larger population and a hard time even selling out a couple of games a year. Would be an interesting statistic to investigate for someone with ability (not me)...

Bibby_Is_Clutch · May 29, 2005

^^ Thats why a bigger arena would be nice. Still the same (hopefully) or more season ticket holders but more of the fans who just want to see a game and be in the atmosphere can come. Like QD said they will and are testing this ticket price thing to see just how high they can go before losing fans, etc.

G_M · May 29, 2005

albeitrue said:

Actually, the GREATER Sacramento area has closer to 1.5 million. I'm a season ticket holder and I live in Placer County. I would guestimate that at least 30% of the season ticket holders live outside of Sacramento.

albeitrue · May 29, 2005

Bibby_Is_Clutch said:

Testing the waters to see just how high they can go before losing fans is meant to be an offensive assumption. Course, we fans are on the OTHER side and can do nothing to control it, except complain. I suspect that's where season ticket holders come in, since they pay the biggest part of the lions share. And I can bet they are doing just that! As for us little people, we can choose to either pay, or not. And we will.

A new arena will not really solve the ticket price dilemna, only solidfy having an NBA team in town for 10-15 years longer and allow more people in to watch the games. Don't believe that prices will ever decrease, just isn't the American way.

With that, I personally believe a new arena will happen because I believe in the Maloof's interest in business management, nothing more. They seem a little disassociated with "the game", but business is definitely their bag. And it's just good business to stay in Sacramento.

albeitrue · May 29, 2005

G_M said:

Which makes sense, since the closest venue besides Sacramento would be Oakland - the Warriors are looking much better, but not a fun place to drive to for games. So 70% of season ticket holders, possibly 8,400 fans come from the Sacramento region of 1.5 million, while possibly 3,600 come from outlying areas. I would guess those fans in outlying areas who have to also drive the distance to get to the games would be yelling the loudest. Especially at 2.40/gallon!

Vlad · May 29, 2005

Amory said:

lol, very nice

loopymitch · May 30, 2005

Don't feel bad, they just raised ticket prices in Atlanta AGAIN and the Hawks suck so obviously how good the team is has nothing to do with it. IT's still probably cheaper at Phillips than Arco but then more people want to see the Kings than the Hawks. I paid $4 last year for a soda and I hear that went up too. Ticket prices in general went up for everything, look at movies. It's called inflation not greed.

Bibby_Is_Clutch · May 30, 2005

loopymitch said:

True but the point im trying to get across is the Maloofs arent going to go broke or anything drastic if they lower the ticket prices. These men are rolling in money with the franchise and dont they have a hotel chain or casino chain? Anyways I think they can afford to lower them a little but they want more money. I mean if they can put a championship contender on the floor every single year then I dont care as much because people WILL sell it out no matter how expensive. But if we get a team that is a lottery team then why would I spend my hard earned money to see them? Too bad we cant be more like the warriors... cheap tix and it doesnt kill you to go see your team play.

chelle · May 30, 2005

Bibby_Is_Clutch said:

Not in any way am I interested in being like the Warriors, no matter how exciting they promise to be next season.

On a side note . . . We all know that ticket prices are out of control, but I will still go see them play. I go both times they come to play the Hornets. I usually pay $50.00 for tickets in the highest level of the lower bowl. I pay $5.00 for a Coke. THIS IS FOR A HORNETS' GAME! This makes me agree with the person who said that prices really do not depend on how good the team is. Of course the state of Louisiana is having to pay the Hornets organization lots of money because they could not average more than about 9,000 fans a game (contract stipulation when they moved). I also am planning a vaction to come see the Kings play in Arco this season (barring a lockout). We are just wait for TDOS to end and the schedules to be released!

As for the Maloofs, yes, they have a great deal of money. They could AFFORED to lower ticket prices, but who among us would turn down the opportunity to make more money? Supply and demand, it's all economics. I am afraid that they are about to realizing that they are close to out pricing the demand, but I'm still buying tickets, even if it has to be the cheap (relative term) seats.

Bibby_Is_Clutch · May 30, 2005

chelle said:

Im not reffering to their skill or team but their prices, etc.

kennadog · May 30, 2005

I've lived in Sacramento for almost 40 years. To me, a good quality arena does not just benefit the Maloofs. I think it benefits everyone in the region. I, for one, am so glad I don't have to drive to to the Bay area to see anything. For a long time that was the only choice. Only about one fourth of the events at the arena are NBA/WNBA basketball games.

In a Bee article not long ago, they talked to people who book events and generally found out that a lot of events are passing up Sacramento, because of how outdated Arco is. It won't just be the Kings that are gone if no new arena is built.

The Maloofs have opened the books on the franchise to the Sacramento Bee twice, that I know of, since they took over. They are not "rolling in dough" from this operation. In fact, in the majority of years, the team was in the red. (The deeper into the playoffs, the more likely to end up in the black.) This is why they decided they had to start cutting payroll. You can't run a business if you lose money every year. Why people seem to think they should, I can't fathom. You don't become rich doing something that stupid.

And if the Maloofs had to privately finance a new arena with conventional loans, the team could not possibly pay the annual debt, without raising ticket prices enormously or cutting team salary to an unrealistic level, unless you want a team that will never be able to compete for a championship.

As for just paying for it themselves with all that money they have.....No, business people do not have lots of cash sitting around. It's invested in their assets and business. I'll guarantee the Maloofs are building their new additions in Las Vegas with construction financing and there will be plenty of cash flow to pay loan debt. Besides, if you are taking money from one business to keep a losing business afloat, you are not a very sound business person and will be unrich in no time.

Sacramento's problem is really no corporate base here. That's why there will be a limit on luxury boxes in any new arena to about what other small market cities have (50-60). They know they are limited in how many boxes they could sell. And that is partly why the fans pay as much as they do for seats. Instead of lots of big corporate money (which is a write-off for them), the fans have to pay. There will not be a lot of seats added. The Maloofs want about 18,000 (about 700 more), so the intimacy of Arco won't be lost.

The Maloofs appreciate the market they have here. They do not want to leave. However, they can be given no choice. And a lot of people will then blame it on the greedy Maloofs.

Ryle · May 30, 2005

kennadog said:

I've lived in Sacramento for almost 40 years. To me, a good quality arena does not just benefit the Maloofs. I think it benefits everyone in the region. I, for one, am so glad I don't have to drive to to the Bay area to see anything. For a long time that was the only choice. Only about one fourth of the events at the arena are NBA/WNBA basketball games.

In a Bee article not long ago, they talked to people who book events and generally found out that a lot of events are passing up Sacramento, because of how outdated Arco is. It won't just be the Kings that are gone if no new arena is built.

The Maloofs have opened the books on the franchise to the Sacramento Bee twice, that I know of, since they took over. They are not "rolling in dough" from this operation. In fact, in the majority of years, the team was in the red. (The deeper into the playoffs, the more likely to end up in the black.) This is why they decided they had to start cutting payroll. You can't run a business if you lose money every year. Why people seem to think they should, I can't fathom. You don't become rich doing something that stupid.

And if the Maloofs had to privately finance a new arena with conventional loans, the team could not possibly pay the annual debt, without raising ticket prices enormously or cutting team salary to an unrealistic level, unless you want a team that will never be able to compete for a championship.

As for just paying for it themselves with all that money they have.....No, business people do not have lots of cash sitting around. It's invested in their assets and business. I'll guarantee the Maloofs are building their new additions in Las Vegas with construction financing and there will be plenty of cash flow to pay loan debt. Besides, if you are taking money from one business to keep a losing business afloat, you are not a very sound business person and will be unrich in no time.

Sacramento's problem is really no corporate base here. That's why there will be a limit on luxury boxes in any new arena to about what other small market cities have (50-60). They know they are limited in how many boxes they could sell. And that is partly why the fans pay as much as they do for seats. Instead of lots of big corporate money (which is a write-off for them), the fans have to pay. There will not be a lot of seats added. The Maloofs want about 18,000 (about 700 more), so the intimacy of Arco won't be lost.

The Maloofs appreciate the market they have here. They do not want to leave. However, they can be given no choice. And a lot of people will then blame it on the greedy Maloofs.

One other quick note. The Rolling Stones are by-passing ARCO this year in favor of playing in Fresno.......if that's not a slap in the face I don't know what is......

quick dog · May 30, 2005

Ryle said:

Maybe there are more senior citizens in Fresno?

VF21 · May 30, 2005

kennadog said:

I've lived in Sacramento for almost 40 years. To me, a good quality arena does not just benefit the Maloofs. I think it benefits everyone in the region. I, for one, am so glad I don't have to drive to to the Bay area to see anything. For a long time that was the only choice. Only about one fourth of the events at the arena are NBA/WNBA basketball games.

In a Bee article not long ago, they talked to people who book events and generally found out that a lot of events are passing up Sacramento, because of how outdated Arco is. It won't just be the Kings that are gone if no new arena is built.

The Maloofs have opened the books on the franchise to the Sacramento Bee twice, that I know of, since they took over. They are not "rolling in dough" from this operation. In fact, in the majority of years, the team was in the red. (The deeper into the playoffs, the more likely to end up in the black.) This is why they decided they had to start cutting payroll. You can't run a business if you lose money every year. Why people seem to think they should, I can't fathom. You don't become rich doing something that stupid.

And if the Maloofs had to privately finance a new arena with conventional loans, the team could not possibly pay the annual debt, without raising ticket prices enormously or cutting team salary to an unrealistic level, unless you want a team that will never be able to compete for a championship.

As for just paying for it themselves with all that money they have.....No, business people do not have lots of cash sitting around. It's invested in their assets and business. I'll guarantee the Maloofs are building their new additions in Las Vegas with construction financing and there will be plenty of cash flow to pay loan debt. Besides, if you are taking money from one business to keep a losing business afloat, you are not a very sound business person and will be unrich in no time.

Sacramento's problem is really no corporate base here. That's why there will be a limit on luxury boxes in any new arena to about what other small market cities have (50-60). They know they are limited in how many boxes they could sell. And that is partly why the fans pay as much as they do for seats. Instead of lots of big corporate money (which is a write-off for them), the fans have to pay. There will not be a lot of seats added. The Maloofs want about 18,000 (about 700 more), so the intimacy of Arco won't be lost.

The Maloofs appreciate the market they have here. They do not want to leave. However, they can be given no choice. And a lot of people will then blame it on the greedy Maloofs.

Word.

whozit · May 30, 2005

This may be a little off topic.

It's been mentioned about the 3 thousand or so souls on the waiting list. It has also been reported that the team won't open up what the numbers are on renewing, ect. I wonder if that three thousand doesn't include those that indicated that they would like to move up or elsewhere?

SactoGreg · May 30, 2005

One other quick note. The Rolling Stones are by-passing ARCO this year in favor of playing in Fresno.......if that's not a slap in the face I don't know what is......

Why?

Because Fresno has a relatively new arena: The Save Mart Center.

In addition, Mick Jagger knows the Arco Arena is old and needs to be replaced...

VF21 · May 30, 2005

whozit said:

All we know is what Grant Napear and Jerry Reynolds said numerous times during the latter part of the season and our brief appearance in the play-offs. "There are over 3,000 people waiting on the season ticket list." That's it...that's all we've got.

VF21 · May 30, 2005

SactoGreg said:

I saw The Rolling Stones in concert at Memorial Auditorium...

God, I am SO old!

SactoGreg · May 30, 2005

Zipped Lips...

VF21 said:

And it's no coincidence the Kings front office won't give Kreidler or anyone else that asks information regarding ticket sales. It's a mystery the employees keep quiet, for anyone that asks.

I tried by asking my previous ticket account manager (on two occasions) and was "stone-walled", for lack of better terms.

I was told by a recent ex-employee that the 3,000+ waiting includes those that do not wish to fork over the money for more expensive, lower level seats. Instead, over 2/3 of those waiting want or can only afford the less expensive seats upstairs.

What has happened is exactly how Kriedler describes, but it's not only limited to the front row ticket holders. Most, if not all lower level seats have jumped in price dramatically over the past four or five seasons. And the biggest shame of it all is the mix of fans that it now has created, leaving a void with respect to the reputation Arco once had.

The loyal ones that used come to every game can longer afford it.

And I don't blame any of them. Heck, I AM one of them!

Corporations have stepped in and bought up many seats and dole them out to reward employees, people that wouldn't go to the games otherwise. And these corporations really aren't being mentioned when it comes to ticket sales, because the Maloof camp wants (and needs) more corporate sponsors that can afford the luxury suites, not just seats in the lower level.

To layer on another growing problem, the issue of a new arena just might be the dagger in the Kings collective, company throat. It's something that the city should be approaching as if it needs to be done without question, financing of the project notwithstanding. There is so much to gain, and so little to lose, but no substantial momentum has been built thus far.

The scary thing is that none of the aforementioned addresses the looming issue of off-season free agency and/or personnel changes. This could be defined as one of the most important times in the short, 20 year history this team has been in Sacramento.

I may sound somewhat skeptical when I say this town may lose one of the best things that ever happened to it. And when it does happen, many people are going to wonder why...

VF21 · May 30, 2005

I'm not ready to sound the death knell quite yet. Yes, the town MIGHT lose one of the best things that ever happened to it if those who can get something done don't start doing it. I prefer to believe that it will get done, hopefully because there are more people of vision than what we've been led to beleive. Sure there are those who don't want a new arena, don't think its of any benefit, etc. but just because those are the only voices some surveys, etc. apparently hear doesn't mean they're the ONLY voices to be heard.

There's a lot of complacency about this whole issue, just as there was about the Alhambra Theatre. No one actually believed it would be torn down until the day they showed the wrecking ball hitting the side... If I lived in Sacramento I would be more than willing to work with my local supervisor to spread the word but I am limited in what I can do from this far away.

Sacramento NEEDS a new arena, not just for the Maloofs but for a wide variety of reasons. The capital of California needs to get with the program; to grow and to improve. IMHO the new arena could well be a focal point. "If you build it, they will come."

Entity · May 30, 2005

I wonder if a move would do anything to the comcast deal they have now.

Kingsgurl · May 30, 2005

Dangerous line of thinking, IMO, my friend. It has to be considered a very real possibility, not one that we can comfortably continue to assure ourselves will never happen. Heck, even the 'rabid' portions of the fan base are split on the need for a new arena. Until those issues are resolved, and resolved to the general public, the ones who don't CARE if there is a team here or not. Something has to be done to at least debate those that oppose it.
This is a very real threat and one that maybe we have some responsibility in, as well.

chelle · May 30, 2005

Bibby_Is_Clutch said:

gotcha!! Sorry for the confusion!

SacTownKid · May 30, 2005

SactoGreg said:

The Save Mart Center is an utter piece of crap. You think ARCO's bad....

VF21 · May 30, 2005

Kingsgurl said:

I think you're misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make. I fear that having people sound the death knell too soon can be just as harmful as people acting as though there's no chance the team will leave. I am very well aware that the threat is real - I've seen up close and personal what can happen when complacency is allowed to take charge. And I still cringe every time I'm in Sacramento and pass the Safeway Market and parking lot that used to be the Alhambra Theatre.

There is a fine line people need to walk. If TOO MUCH doom and gloom is broadcast there's a real possibility of people simply giving up, tuning out and/or not believing it. That's what happened with the Alhambra. Everyone figured someone else would take care of it and that things couldn't possibly be as bad as they were being told. What I'm saying is that instead of simply talking about things, people in Sacramento who CARE have to start doing something.

It seems the Bee is making an honest effort to finally bring something to their readership that can encourage further investigation and debate. That's what has to be encouraged right now. We see a lot of letters to the Bee in opposition to the arena but how many of us have actually taken the time to sit down and write a letter ourselves to express our opinions? I'm writing mine tonight...and I strongly urge everyone else to do the same.

Bibby_Is_Clutch · May 30, 2005

chelle said:

And if we had the Warriors GM we wouldnt have sold out a game at Arco and they wouldnt be called the Sacramento Kings. Who knows... do the Warrios go after another foreign big man?

Im happy with our team and organization and most of all our fans. I know what kind of world this is and why ticket prices are so high. That doesnt mean I like it but theres nothing a guy like me can do about something of this magnitude. Anyways I think this will all be solved and depend on the ok'ing of a new arena. No new arena, prices keep rising... new arena prices rise but not as much. (more seats to fill)

albeitrue · May 30, 2005

SactoGreg said:

Boy you got THAT right. Why waste good money on a product in decline? Albeit true, perhaps the city is simply just dragging their feet like a good used car dealer does, "Sure, we can afford to give you such and such leeway, but we won't if we don't have to .... ". I know it's a shallow analogy, but posturing--whether or not it is moral on it's face--is still a common business practice, even when you're talking about millions of dollars. ESPECIALLY when you're talking about millions of dollars.

The city HAS to know the rewards and advantages of not only having an state-of-the-art arena, but in keeping the thing here that put Sacramento on the Big League Sports map. It's just good business for all concerned to buid a new arena.

Sure bet an arena has many more advantages than housing an NBA team, but if the NBA team isn't deemed "worthy", well you know... why put out the bucks, says the city. Well, because the NBA in Sacramento bell has already been rung, does it just get up and leave because the city won't put up the bucks? Just "poof", no NBA in Sacramento anymore?

The city will cough up the dough and the Maloof's will kick in their share. I believe what gets the ball rolling into sincere negotiation between the city and the Maloof's will be a private contributor who puts up the biggest bankroll for the project. Just my little pipedream...

I heard it said somewhere that a team cannot move to another city without a consistent decline in attendance/fan support and a consistent loss of revenue. Does anyone else know anything about this rule?

P.S.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryle
One other quick note. The Rolling Stones are by-passing ARCO this year in favor of playing in Fresno.......if that's not a slap in the face I don't know what is......

Maybe there are more senior citizens in Fresno?

LMAO!

slugking50 · May 31, 2005

VF21 said:

I heard that it was a electrifying good time for Keith Richards.

My mom has always refused to shop at Safeway because she misses the Alhambra as well. From pics you can see that it was an amazing theatre.

SactoGreg · May 31, 2005

albeitrue said:

Not true.

With respect to Sacto's issue, David Stern has already gone on record as saying if a new arena isn't built for the Kings, he would support the Brothers Maloof if they moved the team.

In addition to the arena woes, Sacramento already has a dilemma with hotel availability/capacity. Even if the city were to get a new arena, it would be sometime before Sacto could host an All-Star game simply because it cannot accommodate the media and the fan base.

Even if the Kings were to move (gulp), the city would benefit from a new arena. Thus, it HAS to get done BEFORE it's too late. And people aren't moving with the idea that this is a legitimate, viable threat to our community. The naysayers are simply uninformed, or simply don't care about what the Kings mean to the entire Sacramento area. Heck, I still read or hear people talk about "why not just put a few bucks into the existing Arco? It's good enough for NBA basketball!". Hello? That's the problem: Only a "few bucks" were put into that building to begin with (approximately $40 million), and that is part of the problem.

I apologize that this thread has gravitated towards the arena issue. And I wasn't trying to depress anyone with my thoughts on the subject.

But it's time the community really take this issue seriously, and begin educating the general public. The biggest issue, IMO, isn't getting the financing flushed out. It's getting everyone that can make a difference to understand the issues, and work together to come up with a solid strategy.

Other cities have done it.

We can do it...

Kingsgurl · May 31, 2005

Don't think that is a 'rule' at all. I think all it takes is approval from the league (Stern, basically

) and a 2/3 vote in support from the rest of the owners. It's true that the last couple teams to move did have attendance problems, and that those problems make it an easier 'sell' to the league and the other owners, but I don't think it's a requirement. It wasn't a factor in the Jazz moving, for example, out of New Orleans. Stern has already made his position pretty crystal clear on the issue.

Mark Kreidler: The sum of all fears

Bench

Starter

Starter

Bench

Bench

Bench

All-Star

Starter

Starter

Starter

Dog On It!

Starter

Starter

Super Moderator Emeritus

Starter

G-League

Super Moderator Emeritus

Super Moderator Emeritus

G-League

Super Moderator Emeritus

Hall of Famer

Starter

Starter

Hall of Famer

Super Moderator Emeritus

Starter

Bench

All-Star

G-League

Starter