NBA presentation Feb. 27 will set stage

[CruzDude]

Michael Shaw writes today in the Sacramento Business Journal that the presentation to Cal Expo board on 27 February will set the stage for the near and long term prospects for the Kings. Full article at;

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/02/23/story2.html?b=1235365200^1782365

Combined with Scott Howard-Cooper's inputs in the live Kings blog this morning (chances of Kings staying with an arena deal, 100%; chances without an arena deal 15-20%) next week becomes a potential make-or-break point for the Kings in Sacramento. Circumstances being what they are in the Perfect Storm of economic disasters upon us all in California, and specifically in Sacramento, as well as the overall economy, falling employment, foreclosures, overall business downturn (hitting the Maloofs especially hard) and the big time belt tightening hitting everyone, does not bode well for the near term prospects for a new arena.

Highlights from the Business Journal article:

- “There’s great opportunity there in Sacramento,” said Dan Rascher, founder of Oakland-based SportsEconomics LLP..."

- The plan, to be revealed at a board of directors meeting Feb. 27, will be unlike most others across the country..... But despite the league’s prosperity, those (new) arenas were highly subsidized, with just 20 percent to 40 percent of the financing coming from private sources, Rascher said.

- Outright public subsidies won’t fly in Sacramento.

- That leaves a developer-driven proposal, in which investors come aboard expecting tax breaks or profits from ancillary development such as retail shops, hotels and offices. During good economic times, the prospect of free or cheap land and development rights can be a draw. But the economic recession has dampened developer demand and financing for these kinds of ventures.

And the final sentence in the article:

“The NBA generally supports a team moving,” Rascher said, “when the situation just doesn’t work out as far as a facility is concerned.”

 

[kennadog]

Crap. Lost the connection when I hit post on a reply.

There's nothing new in the article. Nothing. They're just killing time now the the proposal date is close.

By the way, this type of arena deal is being considered in other places and before this proposal. They were trying a new football stadium in SF that was development driven, but it didn't pan out.

I hang onto hope that something is going to work out, but there isn't a lot of time left. I do not expect the franchise to stay here without a new arena in the not too distant future. They can't and we can't expect them to go bankrupt, just because we want them to stay here. No league would force a franchise to stay in an untenable financial situation and go bankrupt. Sacramento is not financially viable without a new arena, period. Nobody and none of the multiple studies disagrees with that.

The Maloofs (who are majority owners, not sole owners) rescued this team from bankruptcy when they bought it. At that time they said they had no plans to move the franchise after the purchase. They kept their word. We could have lost the team then. On top of that, they invested lots of money in the team and upgrades to the arena.

By the way, the NBA is making their presentwation to the Cal Expo board on the 27th. The boards reps have already said they plan to get their own financial feasiblity study done after the proposal, provided they like it. So it will be hurry up and wait for another study. Even if everybody thinks this is possible and looks reasonably feasible, it's be quite a while befoire ground's broken.

It's not even just keeping the Kings. With no Kings there will be no arena at all here for all the other events that come to Arco (way more events than the number of basketball games). That would really be a shame for the region.

 

[VF21]

And the final sentence in the article:

“The NBA generally supports a team moving,” Rascher said, “when the situation just doesn’t work out as far as a facility is concerned.”

Completely misleading at this point in time. The NBA may eventually support moving the Kings from Sacramento but it's extremely premature to make that comment right now. Stern has made it more than abundantly clear they want to do everything possible to facilitate the Kings ability to get a new facility.

At some point, we may in fact have to address the real issue of the Kings departing for greener pastures. What surprises me, however, is how so many people almost seem to want to be the bearer of bad news, to find things to point at as "evidence" that it's already a fait accompli.

As kennadog said, there is really nothing new whatsoever in that article. With the economy in general turmoil, the Maloofs aren't going to pull up roots and leave unless they can receive guarantees they won't just be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire...

 

[KCKingsCountry]

It's not even just keeping the Kings. With no Kings there will be no arena at all here for all the other events that come to Arco (way more events than the number of basketball games). That would really be a shame for the region.

Thats the real key. Sprint Center here in Kansas City has over 120 events this past year without a major sports tenant. Which would add only about 42 to 50 extra dates a year.

 

[kingsnation]

I'm just tired of all the talk and ready for it to come to an end. I hope the 27th comes fast.

 

[Merdiesel]

It makes me sick that we are actually discussing the Kings leaving Sacramento...

I mean really, 354 consecutive sellout games. A packed arena with the leagues loudest fans. Nevermind Cleavland's little stint this season, Sacramento was the hardest place to win in BY FAR for years. I will be truly heartbroken if my team leaves. The Maloofs and the City of Sacramento owe it to us fans. Get it done.

 

[Sac4cwebb]

stimulus package?

I am sure glad Heather Fargo isn't Mayor. I think KJ and the Terminator are very supportive of building a new arena. Call it part of the stimulus package. It would create jobs and benefit the community. The Memorial Auditorium was built during the New Deal, if I am not mistaken. The Maloofs would however have to share some of the revenue with the State.

 

[kupman]

I will go out on a limb and make the bold prediction that no matter what is presented on Friday there will be people complaining. It will also provide a time for the angry people to take shots at the Maloofs.

Why do people have to be so bitter and angry anyway?

 

[jdbraver]

It is obvious the Maloofs want to leave. They cut payroll and want to leave this excessive tax state. The worst part is that they will blame the city for the loss. They will say we dont build an arena for them and they cant be competitive because of it. Further they will say we don't support our team as seen by low attendance. I hope they prove me wrong, but I guess I can't blame them for chasing the $.

 

[BritishColumbia]

It is obvious the Maloofs want to leave.

We do not know. It is not obvious. This statement is speculative.

The worst part is that they will blame the city for the loss. They will say we dont build an arena for them and they cant be competitive because of it. Further they will say we don't support our team as seen by low attendance.

I guess they will be right then.

 

[vikinginferno]

It is obvious the Maloofs want to leave.

The Maloofs want to do everything they can to keep this team here and only would move when it is the only option left. They are saving money just like every other owner is trying to do.

 

[VF21]

It is obvious the Maloofs want to leave. They cut payroll and want to leave this excessive tax state. The worst part is that they will blame the city for the loss. They will say we dont build an arena for them and they cant be competitive because of it. Further they will say we don't support our team as seen by low attendance. I hope they prove me wrong, but I guess I can't blame them for chasing the $.

Actually, none of what you've said is anything more than conjecture based on an erroneous lead statement. It is not, in fact, obvious the Maloofs want to leave. If anything, the obvious thing is that the Maloofs want to do anything and everything they possibly can to stay.

You putting words into the mouths of the Maloofs are nothing more than proposed script writing, and totally without basis in fact.

They are totally and completely aware of why the attendance has declined...and it's not because we don't want the Kings here. The reasons for the declining attendance start with ticket prices and the economy and include a team without heart or substance, but the Maloofs aren't quitters.

Other than the Sacramento Bee, which has made what at times appears a conscious effort to do everything possible to alienate the Maloofs and drive them out of town, the general opinion of the Maloofs is that they are good businessmen who support their employees and are very generous with their donations to various community non-profit organizations.

If they were simply chasing the money, as you say, they wouldn't have purchased the franchise in the first place. They're aware, possibly more than some fans, that franchises have highs and lows.

If the time ever comes when the Maloofs do start to seriously consider moving the franchise, it will not be because they didn't want to be here. Sacramento may be a small-market town but the Kings have a strong fan base that is, under better circumstances, the envy of most of the rest of the NBA.

The current economic situation is rough on everybody everywhere and there is very little reason to think they could move the franchise and get more support elsewhere without a much better product to draw new fans. It would be especially difficult in an area like Anaheim, which already boasts two NBA teams and a myriad of other sports teams all trying to compete for the same fans...

 

[Oscar]

It would be especially difficult in an area like Anaheim, which already boasts two NBA teams and a myriad of other sports teams all trying to compete for the same fans...

I don't think it would be that difficult for Anaheim. They would kill for the opportunity. They would have a huge fan base in Orange County with lots of money, proximity to Riverside and San Diego counties with even more fan base potential, a state-of-the-art arena just sitting there waiting for a tenant, and they are geographically and culturally far enough away from L.A. that those franchises wouldn't affect them adversely. It would be a slam dunk for Anaheim.

 

[kennadog]

I don't think it would be that difficult for Anaheim. They would kill for the opportunity. They would have a huge fan base in Orange County with lots of money, proximity to Riverside and San Diego counties with even more fan base potential, a state-of-the-art arena just sitting there waiting for a tenant, and they are geographically and culturally far enough away from L.A. that those franchises wouldn't affect them adversely. It would be a slam dunk for Anaheim.

I have to agree with this. Orange County is a huge market in it's own right, separate from LA and is closer than LA for some of those other areas.

To me the strangeness is that the Lakers and Clippers share exactly the same market.

 

[kingsnation]

I have to agree with this. Orange County is a huge market in it's own right, separate from LA and is closer than LA for some of those other areas.

To me the strangeness is that the Lakers and Clippers share exactly the same market.

Has there ever been any talk about the Clippers moving to Anaheim or San Jose? Just curious, because they have been sucking for years and like you pointed out, are sharing the exact same market as one of the best teams in history.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

To me the strangeness is that the Lakers and Clippers share exactly the same market.

They don't really share the same market. The Lakers serve the Hollywood glamour market, the Clippers serve the away fans and fans of the game that can not afford Lakers tickets market. These two markets just happen to reside in the same city, but I don't think the Clippers would be able to get away with that business strategy behind the orange curtain.

 

[kennadog]

They don't really share the same market. The Lakers serve the Hollywood glamour market, the Clippers serve the away fans and fans of the game that can not afford Lakers tickets market. These two markets just happen to reside in the same city, but I don't think the Clippers would be able to get away with that business strategy behind the orange curtain.

I can see that lower ticket prices would have an effect, but not huge. If I was in the area, I'd rather go to one Lakers game than four or six Clippers games (if I was deciding on supporting a local team), so ticket price would not be what my decision would be based on. I find it intriguing that the Clippers actually have fans. I'd have to think there's an anti-Laker factor going on, to some extent.

As for the "Hollywood" crowd, that is such a teeny piece of the total market it barely counts. Although they probably are an additional draw factor for the Lakers. Fans coming to see the celebs, too.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I can see that lower ticket prices would have an effect, but not huge. If I was in the area, I'd rather go to one Lakers game than four or six Clippers games (if I was deciding on supporting a local team), so ticket price would not be what my decision would be based on. I find it intriguing that the Clippers actually have fans. I'd have to think there's an anti-Laker factor going on, to some extent.

As for the "Hollywood" crowd, that is such a teeny piece of the total market it barely counts. Although they probably are an additional draw factor for the Lakers. Fans coming to see the celebs, too.

"Hollywood" was meant to include all the corporate seats and stuff that is out of the range of the average basketball fan as well as celebrities, as well as people that go to the games to be seen at the game rather than because they care about the game.

There is certainly an anti-Laker factor going on with the Clippers base, as well as the hipster-likes-the-crappy-team-ironically thing going on. But again a sizeable chunk of their market is away team fans going to see their team once or twice a year.

So they have a nice racket in Clipperland as a permanent B level team and moving to Orange County would make it more expensive and time consuming for those blue collar fans in LA proper as well as the Valley and the LA commuter areas east/north of LA. Before I lived in LA I lived in Santa Barbara and my buddy and I wouldn't mind shelling for Clippers tickets to see the Kings, Celtics or Spurs (his team). The extra 40 miles which can be 2-3 hours if you get unlucky with LA traffic would definitely have caused us to think twice about that.

And while the Angels and Ducks get credit for good attendance the past few years they are also playoff regulars with titles in the past few years. A few years before that the Ducks' story wasn't as pretty.

 

[Section 101]

I don't think it would be that difficult for Anaheim. They would kill for the opportunity. They would have a huge fan base in Orange County with lots of money, proximity to Riverside and San Diego counties with even more fan base potential, a state-of-the-art arena just sitting there waiting for a tenant, and they are geographically and culturally far enough away from L.A. that those franchises wouldn't affect them adversely. It would be a slam dunk for Anaheim.

This is where I disagree. Orange county maybe a different market, but the overwelming majority of NBA fans will already be laker fans. How many would actually switch to a new team just because they are closer (only by 30 miles, think el dorado hills to arco). Especially when you are talking about a team like the lakers vs a team at the bottom. As an example, I'm a Yankees and Cowboys fan, if a baseball or football team moved to sacramento I would not switch teams. Its one thing to move to an area w/o a team, it's another to move into anothers market, especially a well established one like the lakers.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

This is where I disagree. Orange county maybe a different market, but the overwelming majority of NBA fans will already be laker fans. How many would actually switch to a new team just because they are closer (only by 30 miles, think el dorado hills to arco). Especially when you are talking about a team like the lakers vs a team at the bottom. As an example, I'm a Yankees and Cowboys fan, if a baseball or football team moved to sacramento I would not switch teams. Its one thing to move to an area w/o a team, it's another to move into anothers market, especially a well established one like the lakers.

I guess it depends on how closely you identify with your city, I think most Sacramento residents would jump on board. Same with Portland if we got NFL or MLB (or MLS, which is very possible), I know I would in those cases though I'd still follow my other teams.

But I agree that Orange County is a different beast. I mean the Angels owner actually had the gall to rename the franchise the "LA Angels of Anaheim" and the Rams still claimed LA despite playing in Anaheim for 15 seasons. Not to mention OC/Anaheim has a horrible track record when it comes to supporting losing teams.

 

[kennadog]

I don't think Orange County folks particulary like always being clumped into "LA." Yes they would likely lose some folk north and east of LA, but there is plenty of population in Orange County. Suddenly people in Riverside, Imperial and San Diego Counties would be closer to an NBA team, as well. Clips orignally started in San Diego.

I wouldn't be so quick to say a lot Sacramento fans would be on board with Anaheim due to the long-standing, pre-Kings loathing of SoCal up here. If the Kings have to go at some point, I'd rather have them move anywhere but SoCal. I wouldn't like Las Vegas much either, since that is Laker Land.

Funny, but the possible place where I wouldn't mind still following them so much is KC. That actually appeals to me more than the San Jose "Reyes."

 

[Section 101]

I guess it depends on how closely you identify with your city, I think most Sacramento residents would jump on board. Same with Portland if we got NFL or MLB (or MLS, which is very possible), I know I would in those cases though I'd still follow my other teams.

But I agree that Orange County is a different beast. I mean the Angels owner actually had the gall to rename the franchise the "LA Angels of Anaheim" and the Rams still claimed LA despite playing in Anaheim for 15 seasons. Not to mention OC/Anaheim has a horrible track record when it comes to supporting losing teams.

So you think if say the Chargers moved here or the Bronco's then Raider fans would switch teams? Or if the Rams moved here then 49er fans would switch? Wait the last one is bad example with the fair weather 49er fans. If the PAdres moved here would the giants fans switch? Etc etc.

I don't think the river cats would do as well if they were an affilate of say KC Royals.

 

[RKid]

This is where I disagree. Orange county maybe a different market, but the overwelming majority of NBA fans will already be laker fans. How many would actually switch to a new team just because they are closer (only by 30 miles, think el dorado hills to arco). Especially when you are talking about a team like the lakers vs a team at the bottom. As an example, I'm a Yankees and Cowboys fan, if a baseball or football team moved to sacramento I would not switch teams. Its one thing to move to an area w/o a team, it's another to move into anothers market, especially a well established one like the lakers.

Wow dude spot on. Im a Raider fan and even if they suck nachos I'll still be a raider fan even if the cowboys came to LA.

By the way I wonder how you chose your football and baseball teams.

 

[Section 101]

Wow dude spot on. Im a Raider fan and even if they suck nachos I'll still be a raider fan even if the cowboys came to LA.

By the way I wonder how you chose your football and baseball teams.

Started watching in the mid to late 70's when I was a kid. I read about the yankees of the past in school. Cowboys because they were on TV alot with Roger Staubach.

 

[KCKingsCountry]

Has there ever been any talk about the Clippers moving to Anaheim or San Jose? Just curious, because they have been sucking for years and like you pointed out, are sharing the exact same market as one of the best teams in history.

Before they moved in the Staples Center, the Clippers used to play some games at the Pond. The Clippers problem is Donald Sterling. I think the NBA will get them in Anaheim at some point.

Another question - whatever happened to the Giants propsal of building an arena near AT&T Park?

 

[pdxKingsFan]

So you think if say the Chargers moved here or the Bronco's then Raider fans would switch teams? Or if the Rams moved here then 49er fans would switch? Wait the last one is bad example with the fair weather 49er fans. If the PAdres moved here would the giants fans switch? Etc etc.

I don't think the river cats would do as well if they were an affilate of say KC Royals.

I'll tell you that the bulk of Sacramento area residents that are Kings fans weren't Kings fans prior to the team arriving in Sacramento. Quite a few were Lakers or Warriors fans. I do believe that any major team that moved into Sacramento would immediately develop a very devout fan base. The odds of it being a hated division rival of the closest team are pretty slim, more than likely it would be some other random team and fans would like both teams for a while until the home town team took over years down the road.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

The thing with Anaheim is that it probably has the best potential for the Kings. Anaheim is a big area with huge population that have decent income. Cities going further away from LA near Anaheim are considered as well off... such as Irvine, Newport Beach etc. Its about 1 hr drive with no traffic to Staples so I think these cities would really want a team of their own.

Many said the Ducks would fail back in 1993 because of the LA Kings domainance of So Cal. The Ducks are actually doing better in attendence and in recent success now than the LA Kings. Similar things can be said about the Angels. Though you can still say LA is still a Dodger town, the Angels has had much more recent success within the last 10 yrs and attendence is very good. Many LA kings and Dodger fans did convert. It comes down to building a good team that starts winning. Why would someone in Irvine not support a winning local team and drive all the way out to Staples?

 

[VF21]

pdx - The bottom line for ANY professional team, regardless of sport, coming to Sacramento is still going to be a facility where they will be able to play. We have nothing right now so whether it's MLB, NFL, etc. something would have to be built. And that's the whole crux of the matter.

I don't think any professional team is going to be looking at the Sacramento market with good vibes if the Kings depart.

 

[VF21]

The thing with Anaheim is that it probably has the best potential for the Kings. Anaheim is a big area with huge population that have decent income. Cities going further away from LA near Anaheim are considered as well off... such as Irvine, Newport Beach etc. Its about 1 hr drive with no traffic to Staples so I think these cities would really want a team of their own.

Many said the Ducks would fail back in 1993 because of the LA Kings domainance of So Cal. The Ducks are actually doing better in attendence and in recent success now than the LA Kings. Similar things can be said about the Angels. Though you can still say LA is still a Dodger town, the Angels has had much more recent success within the last 10 yrs and attendence is very good. Many LA kings and Dodger fans did convert. It comes down to building a good team that starts winning. Why would someone in Irvine not support a winning local team and drive all the way out to Staples?

What about the Rams? And the Raiders? Sorry, but moving a professional team to LA isn't an automatic slam dunk, so to speak. And in today's economy I still maintain the Maloofs aren't going to pull up stakes and move the team until/unless they have exhausted every single alternative. And if they do, the economic benefits of Kansas City, including taxes, would be much more enticing than remaining in California...

 

[pdxKingsFan]

pdx - The bottom line for ANY professional team, regardless of sport, coming to Sacramento is still going to be a facility where they will be able to play. We have nothing right now so whether it's MLB, NFL, etc. something would have to be built. And that's the whole crux of the matter.

I totally understand that, I was initially comparing certain markets like Sacramento to LA/Orange County and that a market like Sac has a track record of supporting the teams they do get (even the Surge and Rivercats at higher than avg. levels) while OC is notorious for only supporting teams with winning records. Yes that Angels and Ducks are doing great today, they've won championships recently. In 2002 they were talking about contracting the Ducks franchise as part of a plan to save the NHL. (that is more for Peter Gibbons, btw).

I realize that Sacramento is not a player for the NFL or MLB right now, and frankly I hope they come to Portland first But I'm sure you'd agree that if they did come to town the good people of Sacramento would support that team.