New Arena update
- Thread starter slugking50
- Start date
And in Forbes 2006 list of the world's billionaires there are roughly 360 Americans listed. NONE of them have the name Maloof.
There's about 360 Americans listed. By the way, Blazer-owner Paul Allen is #6 in the world. He privately financed his arena renovation and went bankrupt.
So another myth (created by Graswich?) bites the dust. The Maloofs may be millionaire playboys, but are not billionaire playboys.
The Maloofs have the controlling interest in the ownership, but do have 5 limited partners.
There's about 360 Americans listed. By the way, Blazer-owner Paul Allen is #6 in the world. He privately financed his arena renovation and went bankrupt.
So another myth (created by Graswich?) bites the dust. The Maloofs may be millionaire playboys, but are not billionaire playboys.
The Maloofs have the controlling interest in the ownership, but do have 5 limited partners.
Last edited:
If this is indeed the proposal, then the Maloofs are giving the city $100 million in equity. Of course, they are doing so in expectation of making money, but if anything goes wrong with the "business," they lose $100 million. Not chump change. If they went out and got a private loan for 80% of the cost (which is likely financially infeasible) and made a 20% downpayment, they would own the property and keep any equity, no matter what.
And you're right, I can't imagine a normal business transaction where the tenant gives the owner 20% toward the construction of a facility and property that the tenant would have no ownership interest in and has to pay rent to boot.
EDIT: As to the city managing the arena, they would probably pay a management company to do it, the city is not doing a good job of running the Memorial Auditorium right now. (If the city built an arena without the Kings/Maloofs, I'd assume they hire a management firm anyway.)
And you're right, I can't imagine a normal business transaction where the tenant gives the owner 20% toward the construction of a facility and property that the tenant would have no ownership interest in and has to pay rent to boot.
EDIT: As to the city managing the arena, they would probably pay a management company to do it, the city is not doing a good job of running the Memorial Auditorium right now. (If the city built an arena without the Kings/Maloofs, I'd assume they hire a management firm anyway.)
Last edited:
This was in Sacramento Business Journal:
and
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2006/07/17/daily23.html
So it looks like we will know if there is a deal no later than tomorrow morning
and
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2006/07/17/daily23.html
So it looks like we will know if there is a deal no later than tomorrow morning
Now please don't shoot me for posting this link (or assume that I share all of his views because I don't), but I think his article encapsulates a lot of what a marketing plan would have to overcome for a successful ballot measure.
Not having seen/debated the final proposal, I can't say which way I'd vote. But without full facts, I can't say I find this type of article terribly convincing.
Not having seen/debated the final proposal, I can't say which way I'd vote. But without full facts, I can't say I find this type of article terribly convincing.
Last edited:
Wow.....I think this guy needs to do some more research before he writes an article like this. 100% privately funded arenas are the exception and usually only pulled-off in major metropolitan areas. He should take a look and see how many venues are 100% publicly funded. He fails to mention that it looks like the Maloofs will be giving the city about 100 million dollars. I would like to keep people like that around here for awhile. I am sure Anaheim or Kansas City would love to have them. Lastly - sure Arco is fine, there is nothing wrong with it. There is also nothing wrong with my 15" black and white TV. You guys want to come to my house and watch the Kings or would you rather go to my neighbor's house and watch the Kings on the 70" HDTV?
WOW! 30 year lease. Here for 30 years, not LA. I know this still has rumor status, but somebody pinch me I think I am dreaming. Is it time to organize yet? I guess we have to wait for official word, too bad the opposition does not see it that way.
"Quarters for the Kings!"
_________________________________________________________
Please.....anywhere but LA
"Quarters for the Kings!"
_________________________________________________________
Please.....anywhere but LA
Y
$400-450 million dollars?!??!?!!?
That's seems like a bit much for a basketball arena. The best arena in the NBA, Staples, was $375 million. Conseco Fieldhouse was $185 million.
The brand new Arizona Cardinals Stadium was $355 million. Reliant Stadium, considered the gold standard for NFL stadiums cost around 450 million...but that has a retractable roof! Those are 65,000 capacity stadiums which are much have larger scale production costs. No arena that seats 20,000 with a permanent roof should be this expensive. Sacramento relative to other locations is cheaper...doesnt make sense
WHAT is up with the cost of the arena???
That's seems like a bit much for a basketball arena. The best arena in the NBA, Staples, was $375 million. Conseco Fieldhouse was $185 million.
The brand new Arizona Cardinals Stadium was $355 million. Reliant Stadium, considered the gold standard for NFL stadiums cost around 450 million...but that has a retractable roof! Those are 65,000 capacity stadiums which are much have larger scale production costs. No arena that seats 20,000 with a permanent roof should be this expensive. Sacramento relative to other locations is cheaper...doesnt make sense
WHAT is up with the cost of the arena???
Last edited by a moderator:
Construction costs have skyrocketed since Katrina. Here:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/27/news/construction_costs_soar/index.htm
Ken Simonson, chief economist for The Associated General Contractors of America, issued an analysis this week that compared construction costs over a four-year period from 2001 to 2005.
Before the storms hit, the prices of construction materials had barely budged, with gains of just a few percentage points.
But by September of 2004, steel and copper construction products had soared as much as 62 percent higher than a year earlier. Gypsum products were up 21 percent, asphalt and lumber had climbed 12 percent, and insulation materials rose 11 percent.
Higher diesel fuel prices, up more than 50 percent, hit contractors hard. Not only did they have to pay more to run their own trucks, bulldozers, backhoes, and generators, they also had to pay more for fuel-thirsty materials such as concrete, which burns considerable energy while being mixed and transported in heavy loads to sites.
High fuel costs contributed to concrete prices that rose more than seven percent from September 2003 to September 2004 and more than 12 percent through September 2005.
Overall, construction material cost climbed about 11 percent in the 12 months ended this past September.
http://www.realestatejournal.com/columnists_com/plotsploys/20050908-plots.html
Hurricane Katrina will likely push up already rising construction costs and possibly slow the pace of building by pulling workers from projects across the country.
"Because of Katrina, you're going to see a major, major increase in costs over the next 12 to 24 months," says John Dunkerley, director of cost-management services for Phoenix-based construction-consulting firm PinnacleOne. "It's going to be at least 10% and as much as 20%."
That increase comes on top of already rising costs. In the past year, construction costs nationwide have grown 13.2%, according to a recent survey of 167 owners of construction companies. PinnacleOne, which commissioned the study, reports that nearly a fifth of the surveyed respondents saw construction costs jump in the past year by more than 20%.
Mr. Dunkerley also expects Hurricane Katrina to create labor shortages in other parts of the U.S. because workers may be able to get paid more for taking jobs in this devastated area.
"Skilled labor is going to pour into Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana," he says. "It's going to take away skilled labor from other parts of the country."
Construction-company executives largely blame rising oil and gas prices for these increasing costs. Survey results show that 48% were concerned about rising fuel costs well before the hurricane.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9312212/
Prices for diesel fuel and other petroleum and natural-gas products, cement and tires for heavy equipment are already rising, the Baltimore Business Journal reports. Prices for lumber and labor are expected to soar. And delays in projects are likely coast-to-coast.
Damage to refineries and pipelines caused the spike in fuel prices. Cement and rubber prices have risen because of closure and damage at the Port of New Orleans, one of the nation's busiest ports. Ken Simonson, chief economists for the Associated General Contractors of America, told the Baltimore Business Journal that 9 percent of the country's cement imports came through New Orleans and the devastated city is also the entry point for the nation's imported rubber.
The cost of lumber will also rise because of damaged mills in the deep south and as demand increases with the rebuilding of communities nearly leveled by Katrina. Already, some contractors are seeing hikes of 8 percent or more in the cost of lumber.
The hammering has begun for one Pennsylvania contractor. John Zang of Zendoco Construction Co. in Penn Hills told the Pittsburgh Business Times his company had received notice of an $11.50 fuel surcharge per truckload of concrete.
The cost of many materials, such as steel and cement, have already been on the rise thanks to booming construction demand here and abroad. In the South Florida market, which has seen a big ramp up in condo construction, construction prices have gone up 30 percent, Richard Horton, president of the Builders Association of South Florida, told the South Florida Business Journal.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/27/news/construction_costs_soar/index.htm
Ken Simonson, chief economist for The Associated General Contractors of America, issued an analysis this week that compared construction costs over a four-year period from 2001 to 2005.
Before the storms hit, the prices of construction materials had barely budged, with gains of just a few percentage points.
But by September of 2004, steel and copper construction products had soared as much as 62 percent higher than a year earlier. Gypsum products were up 21 percent, asphalt and lumber had climbed 12 percent, and insulation materials rose 11 percent.
Higher diesel fuel prices, up more than 50 percent, hit contractors hard. Not only did they have to pay more to run their own trucks, bulldozers, backhoes, and generators, they also had to pay more for fuel-thirsty materials such as concrete, which burns considerable energy while being mixed and transported in heavy loads to sites.
High fuel costs contributed to concrete prices that rose more than seven percent from September 2003 to September 2004 and more than 12 percent through September 2005.
Overall, construction material cost climbed about 11 percent in the 12 months ended this past September.
http://www.realestatejournal.com/columnists_com/plotsploys/20050908-plots.html
Hurricane Katrina will likely push up already rising construction costs and possibly slow the pace of building by pulling workers from projects across the country.
"Because of Katrina, you're going to see a major, major increase in costs over the next 12 to 24 months," says John Dunkerley, director of cost-management services for Phoenix-based construction-consulting firm PinnacleOne. "It's going to be at least 10% and as much as 20%."
That increase comes on top of already rising costs. In the past year, construction costs nationwide have grown 13.2%, according to a recent survey of 167 owners of construction companies. PinnacleOne, which commissioned the study, reports that nearly a fifth of the surveyed respondents saw construction costs jump in the past year by more than 20%.
Mr. Dunkerley also expects Hurricane Katrina to create labor shortages in other parts of the U.S. because workers may be able to get paid more for taking jobs in this devastated area.
"Skilled labor is going to pour into Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana," he says. "It's going to take away skilled labor from other parts of the country."
Construction-company executives largely blame rising oil and gas prices for these increasing costs. Survey results show that 48% were concerned about rising fuel costs well before the hurricane.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9312212/
Prices for diesel fuel and other petroleum and natural-gas products, cement and tires for heavy equipment are already rising, the Baltimore Business Journal reports. Prices for lumber and labor are expected to soar. And delays in projects are likely coast-to-coast.
Damage to refineries and pipelines caused the spike in fuel prices. Cement and rubber prices have risen because of closure and damage at the Port of New Orleans, one of the nation's busiest ports. Ken Simonson, chief economists for the Associated General Contractors of America, told the Baltimore Business Journal that 9 percent of the country's cement imports came through New Orleans and the devastated city is also the entry point for the nation's imported rubber.
The cost of lumber will also rise because of damaged mills in the deep south and as demand increases with the rebuilding of communities nearly leveled by Katrina. Already, some contractors are seeing hikes of 8 percent or more in the cost of lumber.
The hammering has begun for one Pennsylvania contractor. John Zang of Zendoco Construction Co. in Penn Hills told the Pittsburgh Business Times his company had received notice of an $11.50 fuel surcharge per truckload of concrete.
The cost of many materials, such as steel and cement, have already been on the rise thanks to booming construction demand here and abroad. In the South Florida market, which has seen a big ramp up in condo construction, construction prices have gone up 30 percent, Richard Horton, president of the Builders Association of South Florida, told the South Florida Business Journal.
First off: Conseco was built seven years ago in Indiana. Go check home prices in Indiana, then an equivalent house in Sacramento. That should explain a lot. Staples was built 7 years ago. You couldn't hope to build it for that now. Arizona land and construction (soft and hard) costs also don't compare to California.
The closest comparison and most recent completed NBA arena is the Memphis arena. Which was completed 2 years ago for $250. Land and construction costs are cheap there compared to California, not to mention inflation and the long term increase in labor and materials coused by hurricane Katrina. That is the arena that was used as the basis for the proijected cost for Sacramento's arena.
EDIT: Warhawk beat me AND did a better job.
The closest comparison and most recent completed NBA arena is the Memphis arena. Which was completed 2 years ago for $250. Land and construction costs are cheap there compared to California, not to mention inflation and the long term increase in labor and materials coused by hurricane Katrina. That is the arena that was used as the basis for the proijected cost for Sacramento's arena.
EDIT: Warhawk beat me AND did a better job.
Last edited:
I agree that it is what has to be overcome. The article I posted in the thread about the 49er stadium points out something he conveniently ignored. The private investment of the owners in a new stadium is contingent upon the city giving them approval to develop all the land they own around the arena site. That is how they will finance much if not all the cost of the stadium. Given the location, development there is probably worth a mini-fortune.
First off: Conseco was built seven years ago in Indiana. Go check home prices in Indiana, then an equivalent house in Sacramento. That should explain a lot. Staples was built 7 years ago. You couldn't hope to build it for that now. Arizona land and construction (soft and hard) costs also don't compare to California.
The closest comparison and most recent completed NBA arena is the Memphis arena. Which was completed 2 years ago for $250. Land and construction costs are cheap there compared to California, not to mention inflation and the long term increase in labor and materials coused by hurricane Katrina. That is the arena that was used as the basis for the proijected cost for Sacramento's arena.
EDIT: Warhawk beat me AND did a better job.
The closest comparison and most recent completed NBA arena is the Memphis arena. Which was completed 2 years ago for $250. Land and construction costs are cheap there compared to California, not to mention inflation and the long term increase in labor and materials coused by hurricane Katrina. That is the arena that was used as the basis for the proijected cost for Sacramento's arena.
EDIT: Warhawk beat me AND did a better job.
The other part to add here is the fact that due to potential seismic loading costs are much higher for ductile construction.
Sacramento is in UBC Seismic Zone 3 - with a maximum of 4 - while the other cities (except for LA) are in:
Indy: 1
Glendale, AZ: 1
Memphis: 2 or 3, but probably 3
Add the cost of construction in California vs. these other locations and the recent cost increases outlined previously, and there you go....
Y2 I believe Dallas's arena was 450mil.. Thought staples was more then 375 but may be wrong and don't feel like looking it up.
Figure land cost in CA, parking, construction. No matter were we put it, its going to cost. It would be cheaper in Natomas probably by about 100 mil... but I would rather see it get done downtown vs Natomas if possible.
Either way it still wouldn't change the amount of tax. Well total amount yes but not % wise.
Figure land cost in CA, parking, construction. No matter were we put it, its going to cost. It would be cheaper in Natomas probably by about 100 mil... but I would rather see it get done downtown vs Natomas if possible.
Either way it still wouldn't change the amount of tax. Well total amount yes but not % wise.
There are so many points left out of Crandell's list that it really should be hard for any of us to form a position yet. It doesn't mention...
Who gets the signage rights (if it's the Maloofs, that effectively cuts their contribution $50 million or more over the 30 year period);
If the original $72 million loan is forgiven;
Yes, there are 365 days in a year, but no arena anywhere is booked 365 days a year, so saying they'll only have control of the building 15% of the time is absolutely wrong (especially considering they'd control all arena revenues, in which case it doesn't matter if it's booked 58 nights a year or 358 nights a year);
If the County covers cost overruns, I can easily see the County having to somehow come up with another $100 million, which means the Maloofs pay 1/6 of the arena costs, not 1/5; but if the Maloofs control all arena revenues, that means taxpayers will have spent $400-$500 million (remember, the $400 million is the estimate BEFORE overruns) for the Maloofs to control all the revenues, which sounds a lot like "We're investing our money so they can make money."
I think you're looking at a very, very tough sell, even if this gets past the Board of Supervisors. There's a general feeling out there that taxpayers are getting the "bum's rush"; that the Maloofs waited until the last minute to do this to minimize the opposition at the public hearings for this (and there will probably only be 1 of those now).
As someone who isn't a legal expert, this sure looks like special tax to me. I really do think, even if this gets 50% of the vote, that courts will rule this violates Prop 218. I'm taking a wait-and-see on that one, but if this gets on the ballot, you will probably see legal challenges to it. There is no way we'd be voting for a tax increase without the arena proposal, and the pols have already linked the arena "advisory" measure with the "general (wink wink) tax hike."
I'm curious to know how we'd proceed if one of the measures passed while the other failed. Would we have a tax hike (and nowhere to spend it), or would we have permission to build the arena (but no funding)? I'd think "tax, no; arena, yes" would create a real mess for the county; but if they write into the measures that if one of these fails, they both fail, that sets up a Prop 218 lawsuit in a huge way (they'd both be off the ballot before the sample ballots got printed).
Who gets the signage rights (if it's the Maloofs, that effectively cuts their contribution $50 million or more over the 30 year period);
If the original $72 million loan is forgiven;
Yes, there are 365 days in a year, but no arena anywhere is booked 365 days a year, so saying they'll only have control of the building 15% of the time is absolutely wrong (especially considering they'd control all arena revenues, in which case it doesn't matter if it's booked 58 nights a year or 358 nights a year);
If the County covers cost overruns, I can easily see the County having to somehow come up with another $100 million, which means the Maloofs pay 1/6 of the arena costs, not 1/5; but if the Maloofs control all arena revenues, that means taxpayers will have spent $400-$500 million (remember, the $400 million is the estimate BEFORE overruns) for the Maloofs to control all the revenues, which sounds a lot like "We're investing our money so they can make money."
I think you're looking at a very, very tough sell, even if this gets past the Board of Supervisors. There's a general feeling out there that taxpayers are getting the "bum's rush"; that the Maloofs waited until the last minute to do this to minimize the opposition at the public hearings for this (and there will probably only be 1 of those now).
As someone who isn't a legal expert, this sure looks like special tax to me. I really do think, even if this gets 50% of the vote, that courts will rule this violates Prop 218. I'm taking a wait-and-see on that one, but if this gets on the ballot, you will probably see legal challenges to it. There is no way we'd be voting for a tax increase without the arena proposal, and the pols have already linked the arena "advisory" measure with the "general (wink wink) tax hike."
I'm curious to know how we'd proceed if one of the measures passed while the other failed. Would we have a tax hike (and nowhere to spend it), or would we have permission to build the arena (but no funding)? I'd think "tax, no; arena, yes" would create a real mess for the county; but if they write into the measures that if one of these fails, they both fail, that sets up a Prop 218 lawsuit in a huge way (they'd both be off the ballot before the sample ballots got printed).
If you recall, the Maloofs have been trying to get something done for years. They are not the ones who waited to the last minute to get "serious".
This method has already been used and deemed legal. Over half the tax raised will be going to projects other than the arena, but the arena will be the largest single item supported by the tax if it passes. It is a general tax with one large project taking up less than half the anticipated revenue.
Why do you think there would be no place to spend the $$$ if the advisory measure fails? You honestly think that worthy projects couldn't be found? Also, the second measure is non-binding and advisory in nature and holds no weight on it's own, from what I gather.
This method has already been used and deemed legal. Over half the tax raised will be going to projects other than the arena, but the arena will be the largest single item supported by the tax if it passes. It is a general tax with one large project taking up less than half the anticipated revenue.
Why do you think there would be no place to spend the $$$ if the advisory measure fails? You honestly think that worthy projects couldn't be found? Also, the second measure is non-binding and advisory in nature and holds no weight on it's own, from what I gather.
I mentioned it before AS, This is CA... there will be legal challenges no matter what.
Nobody really knows any figures right now so not sure how you get an overrun of 100mil? That is 100% speculation but I do realize that in reality overruns will happen with projects like this. The benefits for the city will be more then the money we spend. Your comments are pretty common and I understand that, but it's not reality. The new business's that crop up... the tax revenues gained from it all will probably out weight it. Would really like to see some figures once they get it all ironed out. City after city with a downtown arena has flourished. Lots of examples out there, the Bee and local TV media is not doing it's job.
Nobody really knows any figures right now so not sure how you get an overrun of 100mil? That is 100% speculation but I do realize that in reality overruns will happen with projects like this. The benefits for the city will be more then the money we spend. Your comments are pretty common and I understand that, but it's not reality. The new business's that crop up... the tax revenues gained from it all will probably out weight it. Would really like to see some figures once they get it all ironed out. City after city with a downtown arena has flourished. Lots of examples out there, the Bee and local TV media is not doing it's job.
In terms of the tax being a specifit tax-I've heard that the county expects to raise an additional $500 million beyond their contribution to the arena to be used in other areas not related to the arena.
I think this has been done for Staples and Its legality may have been challenged then. I would be surprised if there is no prior precedent in regards to this issue.
I think this has been done for Staples and Its legality may have been challenged then. I would be surprised if there is no prior precedent in regards to this issue.
Yeah, it was San Jose and Art Savage has the experience with it. If the vote was tax-no, arena-yes, the city would know the voters wants an arena, but they would be left with no way to finance it. Unless alternative financing comes up (unlikely) its an "advisory" vote that dies a natural death. The voters could advise that they's like it if everyone got a publicly-finded swimming pool, but with no money it can't happen.
I would assume, if its tax-yes, and arena-no, then we'd have a ten-year sales tax increase, but no arena. It would then be spent on other worthy public projects/programs.
I would assume, if its tax-yes, and arena-no, then we'd have a ten-year sales tax increase, but no arena. It would then be spent on other worthy public projects/programs.
Last edited:
There are a lot of details we don't know yet.
I did hear something on KHTK about the Maloofs having to pay an additional $90 million after the 30 years of payments. Not sure, but maybe that's related to the original loan?
If the city owns the arena, once the building is completed and ready for use, at minimum the city has an immediate $100 million in equity in the property. The Maloofs kiss that good-bye and can't get it back unless the city reneges somehow.
It is the city that waited until the last gasp.
And apparently they have determined that the cost to build downtown or at Natomas is approximately the same. Dickinson explained why, but I wasn't paying close attention.
Well, we'll know soon enough. I do agree, it will be a tough sell.
I did hear something on KHTK about the Maloofs having to pay an additional $90 million after the 30 years of payments. Not sure, but maybe that's related to the original loan?
If the city owns the arena, once the building is completed and ready for use, at minimum the city has an immediate $100 million in equity in the property. The Maloofs kiss that good-bye and can't get it back unless the city reneges somehow.
It is the city that waited until the last gasp.
And apparently they have determined that the cost to build downtown or at Natomas is approximately the same. Dickinson explained why, but I wasn't paying close attention.
Well, we'll know soon enough. I do agree, it will be a tough sell.
I got a phone call yesteday to participate in a survey mostly about the city of Elk Grove but they also asked me about a proposed measures on the November ballot, the first one they asked me about was a county wide (1/4) increase in sales tax which the poller made sure to say would be used to fund projects including a new "downtown arena."
I said I would vote yes. Absoulety, she asked? I said yes, absolutely.
She then mentioned what the effects would be on the city of Elk Grove with this measure and asked me how I would vote.
I said yes again. Absoultey, she asked? I said, well...maybe.
I said I would vote yes. Absoulety, she asked? I said yes, absolutely.
She then mentioned what the effects would be on the city of Elk Grove with this measure and asked me how I would vote.
I said yes again. Absoultey, she asked? I said, well...maybe.
I got a phone call yesteday to participate in a survey mostly about the city of Elk Grove but they also asked me about a proposed measures on the November ballot, the first one they asked me about was a county wide (1/4) increase in sales tax which the poller made sure to say would be used to fund projects including a new "downtown arena."
I said I would vote yes. Absoulety, she asked? I said yes, absolutely.
She then mentioned what the effects would be on the city of Elk Grove with this measure and asked me how I would vote.
I said yes again. Absoultey, she asked? I said, well...maybe.
I said I would vote yes. Absoulety, she asked? I said yes, absolutely.
She then mentioned what the effects would be on the city of Elk Grove with this measure and asked me how I would vote.
I said yes again. Absoultey, she asked? I said, well...maybe.
Since were panting after nibbles of hope, its worth something.
EDIT: Just listened to part of a KHTK interview with a Seattle reporter. Guess 3 pro-teams were just too much for folks. Anyway, we know that Stern said that the Sonics revenue-sharing, lease deal with the city was the worst in the league.
Apparently Shultz (part od the ownership group) said the current group has lost $15 million since buying the team. He said even if they sold out every seat for every game (Storm, too) they would still lose money. So they sold for $150 million more than they paid. Had to stop the bleeding, because there was no relief in sight under the current lease.
The new group hasn't said much, but looks like they have a deadline of a year to work out something with the city. Coincides with the Hornets leaving OK City. The reporter expects the announcement would come around the All-Star break.
EDIT: Just listened to part of a KHTK interview with a Seattle reporter. Guess 3 pro-teams were just too much for folks. Anyway, we know that Stern said that the Sonics revenue-sharing, lease deal with the city was the worst in the league.
Apparently Shultz (part od the ownership group) said the current group has lost $15 million since buying the team. He said even if they sold out every seat for every game (Storm, too) they would still lose money. So they sold for $150 million more than they paid. Had to stop the bleeding, because there was no relief in sight under the current lease.
The new group hasn't said much, but looks like they have a deadline of a year to work out something with the city. Coincides with the Hornets leaving OK City.
The reporter expects the announcement would come around the All-Star break.
Last edited:
