NBA's commitment to small market teams?

[Siranthony]

The NBA has expanded over the years. They have put teams in places that don't have the money like so cal does. They seem to want to exspand thier market as far as possible. It makes sense. The bigger the market the better it is for everyone. When the economy is good, all is well.

But is the league really dedicated to the small markets? When the economy gets bad ticket sales are hit hard. Small market teams flounder and move from place to place trying to find a better deal. Does that make sense? Wouldn't it be better for the NBA to keep it's small market teams where they are for stability? Is it reasonable to expect small market teams to have 400mil+ pallaces with luxury suites no one can afford.

Maybe they should put at least three NBA teams in the largest richest cities and skip all the drama else where. Who needs all these cow towns with no money. They can't get rich that way!

I'm throwing in some sarcasm but it's not far from the truth. The Maloofs knew what they were buying. Now they seek more lucrative markets. Yes there are always people who want to blame the city or the Maloofs. The truth lies somewhere in the middle I'm sure.

I really think the NBA should support Sacramento. This is a good market with a loyal fan base that has a history of supporting this team.

 

[pshn80]

I think the NBA management will be really disappointed if the Kings move to Anaheim. But I can't imagine a scenario where they would stop it. In the end it is money. If you're Meg Whitman and you own the Kings and you don't run for governor you wouldn't have to worry about a little downturn in the economy. But she doesn't own the Kings, the Maloofs do and the albatross in Las Vegas is dragging them down.

 

[Siranthony]

It's a bummer the Maloofs are having trouble in Vegas. But who buys a casino off the strip in todays indian casino world? A bad idea if I've ever heard one.

 

[Jim Les]

I think the NBA is only committed to profit. Small markets are expendable. There's plenty of small markets lining up willing to give the house away for an NBA team.

The league's idea of competition is getting cities to compete with one another for the luxury of having an NBA team instead of competing on the court.

It's a shame that the NBA doesn't take a page from the NFL model. More profit sharing, more parity, and more fan support.

Yes, I'm bitter.

 

[pshn80]

I think the NBA is only committed to profit. Small markets are expendable. There's plenty of small markets lining up willing to give the house away for an NBA team.

The NBA's idea of competition is getting cities to compete with one another for the luxury of having an NBA team instead of competing on the court.

It's a shame that the NBA doesn't take a page from the NFL model. More profit sharing, more parity, and more fan support.

Yes, I'm bitter.

It would also help if they underwrote the Maloof's casino in Las Vegas.

I don't think you can lay big blame here on the NBA. It is not a charity. I do blame the Maloofs for not talking with us season ticket holders. That neglect is a real shame. We couldn't do anything much for them but we have been their bread and butter. I just did a quick calculation and I've paid the Kings organization over $50,000 over the last 26 years. And in that time at least an equal number of emails but not one asking my permission or opinion or forgiveness for moving to Anaheim. Of course, they haven't moved yet but I have seen some hints that they might.

 

[LPKingsFan]

The most tragic thing about this is that the new CBA might really have stronger revenue sharing and other support for the smaller markets... all too late for us, Im afraid.

But in terms of your main point, yes, David Stern and the league need to think about what kind of message this sends to the fans elsewhere. Pay up every time your arena gets old or else you are toast. I'm not sure that's a sustainable model.

 

[Trueblood]

I think the NBA is only committed to profit. Small markets are expendable. There's plenty of small markets lining up willing to give the house away for an NBA team.

The league's idea of competition is getting cities to compete with one another for the luxury of having an NBA team instead of competing on the court.

It's a shame that the NBA doesn't take a page from the NFL model. More profit sharing, more parity, and more fan support.

Yes, I'm bitter.

Like the last 2 posters have noted, the NBA is working on more revenue sharing and what not. Even my sig outlines ways to help the small markets and they'll be doing more negotiations soon.

This is and has always been about the lack of a suitable arena in Sacramento. The league isn't holding markets hostage and forcing them to get new buildings. As we've seen in Sacramento, they've given them over a decade to get things done. Unfortunately, time is up.

While the NBA may not be on par with the NFL, let's not forget that this league created cost control with the salary cap long before the NFL even understood the concept of a salary cap. Things will be better and teams in Indiana, Memphis and Charlotte will be on a more level playing field when the cba is finally ratified.

Let's not forget that MLB is worse off than the NBA and save the argument about all these different teams winning titles recently. It doesn't address the problem of the small market teams never being able to compete. Pittsburgh, KC, Baltimore and a few other teams have gone the last decade without having a winning record and you don't see that in the NBA. Orlando, Utah, San Antonio, Portland, New Orleans and OKC have all tasted much more success in recent years than they have struggled and you can't say that for the bottom feeders of MLB.

Lastly, it's strange how the tide has turned in how people are observing the relocation matter in the NBA. When Seattle went to OKC, everyone complained that the league was scared to compete with the NFL and MLB in the mid sized market and bolted for the small feel of OKC and now it's the opposite with the league going from a one horse town to a city with the NHL and MLB.

 

[Jim Les]

This is and has always been about the lack of a suitable arena in Sacramento. The league isn't holding markets hostage and forcing them to get new buildings. As we've seen in Sacramento, they've given them over a decade to get things done. Unfortunately, time is up.

The city failed to get an arena, yes. But won't that always be a difficulty with small market teams? Won't it always be harder for small market teams to find the corporate sponsorships and private funding to get such an expensive project built? Staples Center was privately funded, and I imagine it wasn't that hard to find investors in LA. Smaller markets don't have that luxury, which I think is a real shame, especially in government towns like Sacto where the potential pool of investors is much smaller. Smaller markets are much more likely to depend on public funds, and as was the case in Seattle, voters weren't warm to the idea of tax increase for a new arena when their previous arena had been fully renovated less than 15 years prior. The NBA needs more profit sharing to help out the smaller markets, otherwise small markets will always be playing musical chairs with one another to host a franchise when their constituencies object to another arena, which just doesn't seem like a sustainable business model.

Maybe they'll address all of that this year, but I'm afraid it'll be too late for me, as I'll likely be done with the NBA should the Kings leave (not that they'd care).

let's not forget that this league created cost control with the salary cap long before the NFL even understood the concept of a salary cap

Ehhh, maybe I'll give them an A for effort, but they really let that priority get away from them. Check out how drastically the salary cap has risen over the years: http://www.insidehoops.com/nba-salary-cap.shtml yiiiiiiiiiikes. 3.6 million in 1984, 57.7 million in 2010.

 

[Trueblood]

The thing is that most small markets already have a building that will be suitable for the next 30 years. I've been to every arena in the league and I rank Memphis, Charlotte, Orlando and Indiana as having 4 of the top 8 arenas in the league. The only real small market team that will be in Sacramento's shoes is Milwaukee and they're still a few years away from really being on the hook for a new building. Unlike Arco, the Bradley Center is located downtown, has 2 concourses and can convert to minor league hockey pretty quickly. It's not on the verge of being shut down by the fire marshall.

 

[Siranthony]

I keep hearing how the city had 10 years to get an arena done. 10 years ago Arco was 14 years old. Now matter how many demands the Maloofs make its hard to justify the expense of a new arena. It will take compromise not demands to get it done. Now that the Maloofs have run Arco into the ground they may get their new arena.

 

[sk4ever]

Question: Does CSN care that they will lose the Kings? I haven't seen anything on that. Or do they think we will all watch the Warriors instead. I won't

 

[swisshh]

I think the NBA is only committed to profit. Small markets are expendable. There's plenty of small markets lining up willing to give the house away for an NBA team.

The league's idea of competition is getting cities to compete with one another for the luxury of having an NBA team instead of competing on the court.

It's a shame that the NBA doesn't take a page from the NFL model. More profit sharing, more parity, and more fan support.

Yes, I'm bitter.

Unfortunately, that change won't ever happen with a megalomaniac like Stern running the league. Basketball fans are going to have to wait for him to keel over and die.

 

[Jim Les]

The thing is that most small markets already have a building that will be suitable for the next 30 years. I've been to every arena in the league and I rank Memphis, Charlotte, Orlando and Indiana as having 4 of the top 8 arenas in the league.

That's a pretty good point. But aren't all of those arenas less than 10 years old or so? And weren't all of them publicly funded? Time Warner Cable Arena may not have been, but then again, the city had just lost its previous team due to an inadequate arena dispute. So the burden still fell on the small markets to shoulder a large part of the cost. Meanwhile, large markets like LA don't have to worry about that. I think this is another reason to support revenue sharing, at the least.

 

[PurpleHaze]

I keep hearing how the city had 10 years to get an arena done. 10 years ago Arco was 14 years old. Now matter how many demands the Maloofs make its hard to justify the expense of a new arena. It will take compromise not demands to get it done. Now that the Maloofs have run Arco into the ground they may get their new arena.

Actually in 1998 Kings owner Jim Thomas was asking for a "plan" from the city on how to get started on a new arena. He knew it would take years to develop a plan and years more before the first shovel went in the ground. The Maloofs only got intense about asking about a plan around 2003-04, again knowing it would take years to get something done - especially dealing with Fargo and other idiots at City Hall. Then the Great Recession hit and even a former NBA all-star as the new mayor was no help.

The bottle line is, a year ago the NCAA declared that none of their sports (basketball, vollyball, etc) would be allowed to hold events at Arco Arena due to its structural condition. Surely it would only be a matter of time before NBA would declare the arena in Sacramento unacceptable by their standards and demand Kings relocate. Would the people in this area still be dumping on the Maloofs if NBA flat out forced them to move because their arena was hazardous to play in?

 

[Trueblood]

That's a pretty good point. But aren't all of those arenas less than 10 years old or so? And weren't all of them publicly funded? Time Warner Cable Arena may not have been, but then again, the city had just lost its previous team due to an inadequate arena dispute. So the burden still fell on the small markets to shoulder a large part of the cost. Meanwhile, large markets like LA don't have to worry about that. I think this is another reason to support revenue sharing, at the least.

Most of them were a public/private partnership although the majority of the money did come from the public. The point is that the board seems to think that there is this new trend of the NBA moving all of their teams into big markets and holding the little guy hostage when the fact of the matter is that the little guy has taken care of his problem in the form of new buildings.

I don't see this trend of moving into large markets either. Since we're on the topic of arenas, Chicago doesn't have a 2nd arena suitable for the NBA, the Bulls won't let anyone move into the UC and the city won't spend a dime to help some team from the outside build a crib there. The only possibility is having a team move to Newark when the Nets move to Brooklyn but if Jersey could never support a team with the Knicks as it's only competition in the area, how are they going to support one when they would now have to battle with the Knicks AND Nets as competition.

At the end of the day, this won't be a trend. In fact, the league doesn't even want 3 teams in one region. As soon as Sterling keels over and croaks or throws in the towel and sells, they will be the new Seattle Sonics or Larry Ellison will buy them and move them to San Jose. Yeah, yeah, the bay area will be crowded and it contradicts me saying that the league isn't oversaturating markets but 2 teams in the bay and 2 in socal beats 1 in the bay and 3 in socal.

 

[Jim Les]

Most of them were a public/private partnership although the majority of the money did come from the public. The point is that the board seems to think that there is this new trend of the NBA moving all of their teams into big markets and holding the little guy hostage when the fact of the matter is that the little guy has taken care of his problem in the form of new buildings.

Well, I can only speak for myself. I don't really think the trend is going to be to move all teams to larger markets. I think a more likely trend that will continue is to shuffle all the mid-small market teams to other mid-small market cities without a team. The usual suspects will all stay where they are (and in all likelihood, have the best chance of success) while the small markets rotate from city to city (unless, of course, they pay up). Those are the fans that will continuously get burned, in my opinion. A part of my wonders how long that pattern could last, but I'm afraid that there are plenty of Kansas City's/St. Louis'/Louisville's out there willing and eager to keep the cycle going.

And I'm sure you can see my objection that larger markets with corporate tie-ins and such have an easier time maintaining their seat at the top, while all the smaller markets will just struggle to stay afloat and are forced to fend for themselves. (I'm generalizing, obviously, but I think you get my point). It just seems like a "the rich get richer" type of situation, and without some drastic shakeup, I don't really see it changing.

 

[ParniValjak]

I keep hearing how the city had 10 years to get an arena done. 10 years ago Arco was 14 years old. Now matter how many demands the Maloofs make its hard to justify the expense of a new arena. It will take compromise not demands to get it done. Now that the Maloofs have run Arco into the ground they may get their new arena.

From the moment Arco was built, it was outdated. Even then it was by far the cheapest arena built. How is that hard to understand. It was a stop gap solution built by private funds for about $40million. By comparison, arena in Detroit was built around the same time for some $80 million. No one thinks Detroit's arena is outdated, even in the current climate!

If Sacramento were willing to put in anywhere between $30-40 million back then, we wouldn't be having this conversation at the moment.

 

[Trueblood]

Maybe not in the United Center, but what about Allstate Arena in nearby Rosemont? Seats 18,500, 48 luxury suites, and recently hosted the Regional Finals just like the Honda Center.

Yeah, that's the building that used to be known as the "Rosemont Horizon". It opened back in the late 70's and it's basketball capacity is equal to Arco's. The 18,500 is for concerts.

While they could probably get a decent tv deal, I have a feeling that a building the opened in the 70's will be turned down by the league.

 

[rainmaker]

From the moment Arco was built, it was outdated. Even then it was by far the cheapest arena built. How is that hard to understand. It was a stop gap solution built by private funds for about $40million. By comparison, arena in Detroit was built around the same time for some $80 million. No one thinks Detroit's arena is outdated, even in the current climate!

If Sacramento were willing to put in anywhere between $30-40 million back then, we wouldn't be having this conversation at the moment.

It's amazes me how some still don't understand that, or simply choose to ignore it. Arco was privately funded, and yes, if the city decided to help back then, we wouldn't be on this situation. That's why talk of an arena without the Kings is rediculous. Sac wouldn't spend on an arena when the Kings we coming here in the first place. They won't spend with a team here, and didn't spend when they knew a team was on the way. How the hell are they going to spend without a team, and no team coming?

It's asinine.

 

[BMiller52]

It's amazes me how some still don't understand that, or simply choose to ignore it. Arco was privately funded, and yes, if the city decided to help back then, we wouldn't be on this situation. That's why talk of an arena without the Kings is rediculous. Sac wouldn't spend on an arena when the Kings we coming here in the first place. They won't spend with a team here, and didn't spend when they knew a team was on the way. How the hell are they going to spend without a team, and no team coming?

It's asinine.

Yeah and you can say "well if sac had done this 20 years ago" or whatever but the fact of the matter is hindsight is 20/20. You can't change the past.

 

[ParniValjak]

Yeah and you can say "well if sac had done this 20 years ago" or whatever but the fact of the matter is hindsight is 20/20. You can't change the past.

Yeah but people are STILL coming up with some ridicilous reasoning that is deserving of those sort of responses.

Eg, Arco was 14 years old so how was Sacramento in the need of a new arena? OR another one that keeps getting repeated, Honda Center is only 5 years younger than Arco so its not that much better.

Its all relevant in this discussion.

 

[rainmaker]

Yeah and you can say "well if sac had done this 20 years ago" or whatever but the fact of the matter is hindsight is 20/20. You can't change the past.

It goes hand in hand with siranthonys last post. You can't say it's hard to justify needing a new arena, and blaming the Maloofs for runnig Arco into the ground, when we wouldn't need a new arena, if the city helped in any way at all when Arco was built. You can't bring up one while ignoring the other.

 

[Siranthony]

Actually in 1998 Kings owner Jim Thomas was asking for a "plan" from the city on how to get started on a new arena. He knew it would take years to develop a plan and years more before the first shovel went in the ground. The Maloofs only got intense about asking about a plan around 2003-04, again knowing it would take years to get something done - especially dealing with Fargo and other idiots at City Hall. Then the Great Recession hit and even a former NBA all-star as the new mayor was no help.

The bottle line is, a year ago the NCAA declared that none of their sports (basketball, vollyball, etc) would be allowed to hold events at Arco Arena due to its structural condition. Surely it would only be a matter of time before NBA would declare the arena in Sacramento unacceptable by their standards and demand Kings relocate. Would the people in this area still be dumping on the Maloofs if NBA flat out forced them to move because their arena was hazardous to play in?

please tell me who is responsible for the arena being supposedly unsafe!?!? I can understand it not being modern enough or not enough room in the lockers etc. Who is responsible for the roof that looks all its 24 years? The parking lot that needs resurfacing? Life and safety systems should have been kept up to standard under any circumstances.

 

[pshn80]

Forget the arena. You need a franchise and a franchise needs owners. We, in Sacramento, have both. The owners want to move somewhere else and it's their franchise.

What bothers me in this, the owners have shown no respect for the season ticket holders who have supported them while they've been here. I feel like I should be treated better than that. Have the Maloofs explained to me or anyone else here that they have a problem that requires them to leave? Hell no. Is that right? No, it's not. To be fair to me they explain their problem publicly and give the situation a year to work itself out.

 

[Brac-o-matic]

I don't blame the Maloofs for wanting to move. We've known the arena is very sub-par for years. And many people for the last several years have been saying this won't have a chance to get done until the Maloofs have one foot out the door. And this is where the Maloofs suck. They never gave us that opportunity. They never gave a deadline, "If we don't get an arena by April 2011, we're gone!". Instead, when they started negotiating with Anaheim, they got silent, when they should have been screaming this from the rooftops. Who knows if the city would have gotten something going. Or tried. But we never got the opportunity, thanks to their creepy silence. Thanks, Maloofs. Classy.

 

[kennadog]

I'm sorry, but some of this is ridiculous. Sacramento got their first warning about needing a new arena 14 years ago, before the Mallofs even became owners of the Kings. How much warning were we supposed to get?

As to why a new arena was needed? Gee, the city's own consultant reports said quite a few years ago that the arena was approaching economic obsolescence. The NBA told us several years ago that our arena was not up to NBA standards, anymore. Hell, the NCAA rejected Arco as inadequate for NCAA tournaments two years ago. If this move comes as a surprise to anyone, they've been either stupid or deliberately obtuse about the arena situation.

We had fourteen years to work something out and it never happened. We still aren't even close to a viable arena plan. Good grief. Be upset the Kings are moving, but you can't seriously think we didn't have plenty of warnings. We played chicken with the train coming down the track. Big surprise we're gong to get run over.

 

[Gary]

It would also help if they underwrote the Maloof's casino in Las Vegas.

I don't think you can lay big blame here on the NBA. It is not a charity. I do blame the Maloofs for not talking with us season ticket holders. That neglect is a real shame. We couldn't do anything much for them but we have been their bread and butter. I just did a quick calculation and I've paid the Kings organization over $50,000 over the last 26 years. And in that time at least an equal number of emails but not one asking my permission or opinion or forgiveness for moving to Anaheim. Of course, they haven't moved yet but I have seen some hints that they might.

Yah.. Personally I have gave the Maloofs about 10-15k, my FAMILY (including me) has given them approx 75,000-100,000 since they have taken over. Nobody heard anything about them moving the team. My father was the last of us to cancel his 2 season tickets before last year after being a season ticket holder since the early to mid 90s (would share with another person in the 90s and bought his own two seats in the early 2000s) We had basically season tickets on 7 seats from about 2004-2008. It was a lot of money and even though we were former season ticket holders we did notify them that once the economy and team improved we would go back to purchasing season tickets again.

I guess not now..

 

[Siranthony]

I'm sorry, but some of this is ridiculous. Sacramento got their first warning about needing a new arena 14 years ago, before the Mallofs even became owners of the Kings. How much warning were we supposed to get?

As to why a new arena was needed? Gee, the city's own consultant reports said quite a few years ago that the arena was approaching economic obsolescence. The NBA told us several years ago that our arena was not up to NBA standards, anymore. Hell, the NCAA rejected Arco as inadequate for NCAA tournaments two years ago. If this move comes as a surprise to anyone, they've been either stupid or deliberately obtuse about the arena situation.

We had fourteen years to work something out and it never happened. We still aren't even close to a viable arena plan. Good grief. Be upset the Kings are moving, but you can't seriously think we didn't have plenty of warnings. We played chicken with the train coming down the track. Big surprise we're gong to get run over.

Maybe this is all true. But look at the way you worded it. We were warned. That is what won't ever fly with tax payers here. Why is it the sole responsability of the tax payers and the city to build a $400 million dollar arena. I would support it of course. But the rest of the non basketball fans won't.

Even if you know your moving the team at some point you still have to maintain the building. You still have to put something back in up to the last day. You write all that stuff off anyway.

To me, the right aproach would be to have other financial backing. Then come to the city with a real plan. Ok we have $150 mil. Can the city come up with the rest for a 30 year lease?

If Arco was done after ten years, that says that Lukenbil had no plan in place. He bought the Kings and moved them here in the middle of the night hoping the city would help him. That's the picture I'm getting.

 

[Glenn]

The official view of the NBA and Stern in particular is in fact or in perception to support the small market teams. They want NBA universality. They can't have universality if teams fold in the US.

Anyway, that's the position.

I don't know what the CBA has to do with revenue sharing and it seems simpler to understand if they aren't meshed into the same deal. The league can revenue share if they believe continuing to have games in small markets is a good idea. There are a finite number of fans and if all small market teams eventually leave the small markets, TV revenues will fall as the only people who will be interested in NBA basketball are in New York, LA etc. What I mean is that a large market team may be able to make more money if there are small market teams and thereby an entire US interested in the NBA. An entire US filled with TVs.

 

[Geoff]

Maybe this is all true. But look at the way you worded it. We were warned. That is what won't ever fly with tax payers here. Why is it the sole responsability of the tax payers and the city to build a $400 million dollar arena. I would support it of course. But the rest of the non basketball fans won't.

Even if you know your moving the team at some point you still have to maintain the building. You still have to put something back in up to the last day. You write all that stuff off anyway.

To me, the right aproach would be to have other financial backing. Then come to the city with a real plan. Ok we have $150 mil. Can the city come up with the rest for a 30 year lease?

If Arco was done after ten years, that says that Lukenbil had no plan in place. He bought the Kings and moved them here in the middle of the night hoping the city would help him. That's the picture I'm getting.

I don't think you're seeing the fact that an areana in Sacramento is not for the NBA, or for the Sacramento Kings, but it's for the CITY OF SACRAMENTO (or at least it should be). The Kings woudl have benefitted from it yes, but the arena would be used for so many other things besides NBA basketball, it could be used for other sports events, concerts, you name it.

I didn't know until I read this thread that Arco was built with totally private funding, and I was SHOCKED that the city didn't put up any money for it at all. That tells me that even back then, the city didn't think it needed an arena for any purpose. That is small-minded, limited and totally backward thinking, and sad to say, it's the same thinking that seems to have been in effect up until now. If the taxpayers of Sacramento don't think that their city needs an arena, for whatever reason, then they don't deserve to have an arena. That's what has happened here.

Lukenbil probably brought the Kings thinking that the city would help him, yeah; but why should the private investor foot the entire bill for a building that the entire city would use and benefit from? It is not the sole responsibility of the taxpayers to build the entire thing, but there is indeed SOME responsibility for the tax payers to invest in something that will benefit their city. If they don't think it will benefit them, so be it, they won't get it; but they can't blame the others who use it if those others decide to leave town.