My idea for a new arena

[BMiller52]

How about selling PSLs(Personal Seat Licenses) to tickets in a new stadium, to the corporations/businesses who have committed to deals for the next few years? They do this in the NFL, and these licenses are good for like 25 years. Sac's not the biggest business area, but its obvious we have businesses with money who are interested in the team. They could also be good for things like concerts/ice shows etc.

 

[BMiller52]

Not sure they've got the millions to commit each and every year for 25 years though.

I'm not sure how PSLs work but I think its like a 1 time contribution and you get the license to the seat. It might not fund the whole arena, but we are probably going to need 3 or 4 sources of income to fund this thing.

 

[Section 101]

PSL's suck.

Just put a $5 surcharge on all tickets sold at the arena.

 

[kennadog]

PSL's suck.

Just put a $5 surcharge on all tickets sold at the arena.

I agree. Actually there's a $2 surtax on tickets right now. It goes toward repayment of the current loan. $5 is actually quite a bit, but I'm willing to pay some amount of surtax.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

PSL's are awful. I love the NFL but there is a lot wrong with the league and the way it treats the common fan. The NBA for all its faults in that regard is leaps and bounds better, though its probably because they play an 82 game schedule which makes it difficult to sell every single seat to corporations instead of people every game.

 

[Sac.1989]

scout the consumer base and see if there is a market for this sort of thing. I feel its a bit premature to write it off currently. It might not be an extensive operation but we would be stupid to not think about giving corporate business this option if they are indeed interested

 

[Gary]

PSL's suck.

Just put a $5 surcharge on all tickets sold at the arena.

Exactly.. The peopel that use the arena should help pay for it..

Think of it this way.. You have U2 coming to Sacramento. some guy is pissed because he doesn't think he should pay $5, but then another fan comes in and swipes his seat.. They will sell out along with MANY other concerts here. Tacking on $5 to help pay for the arena is the way to go. I would be willing to pay this...

Then you have the people that don't want to pay taxes on something they wont use.. OK well they won't have to.. The surcharge is ONLY for people that use the arena or watch an event at the arena.. Problem solved.

 

[rainmaker]

Hard to argue against a $5 surcharge when most fans don't hesitate to buy $10 beers and $7 hotdogs.

 

[Warhawk]

Hard to argue against a $5 surcharge when most fans don't hesitate to buy $10 beers and $7 hotdogs.

Yep. I have no problems with a ticket surcharge either.

 

[folsomfella]

ticket surcharge + hotel tax + rental car tax + sin tax + $ kicked in from Sac, Sac County, Yolo, Folsom, Roseville = arena

 

[Löwenherz]

Assuming sellouts at PBP for the Kings 41 home games - a $5 surcharge would raise $3.5 million in a season (unless my math is wrong, which it often is)

A far cry from the $300 million+ needed, but it's certainly a start. And it's not even including all the other events during the year. Would also be a nice counter to the anti-arena folks continually clamoring "those who use the arena should pay for it."

Is anyone really against this or is there a down side?

 

[kupman]

I have been clamoring for ESR's for years now - but I think that I might be the only one who sees this method as a possibility - LOL.

 

[Section 101]

Assuming sellouts at PBP for the Kings 41 home games - a $5 surcharge would raise $3.5 million in a season (unless my math is wrong, which it often is)

A far cry from the $300 million+ needed, but it's certainly a start. And it's not even including all the other events during the year. Would also be a nice counter to the anti-arena folks continually clamoring "those who use the arena should pay for it."

Is anyone really against this or is there a down side?

You dont understand how it works. The city sells the bonds to generate the upfront money. Then they just need to make the payments on the bonds. So that $3.5 million/year is enough to pay off about $70 mill in 30 year bonds at 3% interest. And that is just the Kings games that take up 25% of the events at the arena. If all other events (150) average 10,000 people that's another $7.5 mil. That's $148 mil. So add those together for about $218 mil.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Assuming sellouts at PBP for the Kings 41 home games - a $5 surcharge would raise $3.5 million in a season (unless my math is wrong, which it often is)

A far cry from the $300 million+ needed, but it's certainly a start. And it's not even including all the other events during the year. Would also be a nice counter to the anti-arena folks continually clamoring "those who use the arena should pay for it."

Is anyone really against this or is there a down side?

Don't forget it would also apply at all events at the arena not just basketball. If the alternative is selling PSLs and pricing the common fan out of the arena there really isn't a down side other than it being a matter of getting the consumer portion of the arena paid for upfront vs. over the life of the arena.

 

[Löwenherz]

You dont understand how it works. The city sells the bonds to generate the upfront money. Then they just need to make the payments on the bonds. So that $3.5 million/year is enough to pay off about $70 mill in 30 year bonds at 3% interest. And that is just the Kings games that take up 25% of the events at the arena. If all other events (150) average 10,000 people that's another $7.5 mil. That's $148 mil. So add those together for about $218 mil.

Ah good, thanks for explaining that. That makes sense.

So again, there doesn't seem to be a down side.

 

[Gary]

Speaking of surcharges again, if that $5 prices someone out of actually attending an event then they shouldn't be using money to buy tickets in the first place.