new aticle in the bee regarding the Maloofs and the move.

[Siranthony]

http://m.sacbee.com/sacramento/db_99761/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=nI3Tugtr&src=cat

It says the Kings are losing 8 mil a year. Which is it? The story seems to change daily. But KJ just got them an extra 10 mil plus more from Comcast. So what's the hold up?

 

[Trueblood]

http://m.sacbee.com/sacramento/db_99761/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=nI3Tugtr&src=cat

It says the Kings are losing 8 mil a year. Which is it? The story seems to change daily. But KJ just got them an extra 10 mil plus more from Comcast. So what's the hold up?

They may have lost $8 million in the past despite the Maloofs saying that they lost $20 but that's besides the point. They've lowered the payroll to such a point that it's impossible to lose money. They were profitable last year and they'll be profitable again next year provided the fans don't jump ship and I seriously doubt they would given that we all have one year left to not only get an arena deal done but convince whoever the owner is that the fanbase is alive and well for now and the future.

 

[Siranthony]

They may have lost $8 million in the past despite the Maloofs saying that they lost $20 but that's besides the point. They've lowered the payroll to such a point that it's impossible to lose money. They were profitable last year and they'll be profitable again next year provided the fans don't jump ship and I seriously doubt they would given that we all have one year left to not only get an arena deal done but convince whoever the owner is that the fanbase is alive and well for now and the future.

I agree. And with the team playing better attendance will go up. Not to mention possible revenue sharing changes.

 

[Trueblood]

I saw the blurb that said that some "consultant familiar with the Kings' finances said the team is losing about $8 million a year. The losses would be higher, except that the Kings operate with the lowest player payroll in the league – around $44 million in the just-concluded regular season."

Trust me on this one. That's a classic case of making a counter point before the question can even be asked. The Maloofs know that their league low payroll has been an issue and lots of people, myself included, know that they made money so they have someone make a statement like that to eliminate the possibility of follow up questions.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I saw the blurb that said that some "consultant familiar with the Kings' finances said the team is losing about $8 million a year. The losses would be higher, except that the Kings operate with the lowest player payroll in the league – around $44 million in the just-concluded regular season."

Remarkably, the Maloofs have left about $10M in annual sponsorships lying around unused because either they couldn't bother to go get them, or they wanted to sabotage their own finances to more easily convince the league to let them leave the town and fans they love so much.

Looks like a little hoof work would have made them profitable, even with a lousy team in a down economy. Go figure.

 

[SacTownKid]

The Maloofs are turning to their last ditch effort plan of, "we're poor!!!" not realizing that it will in all likelihood be their DEMISE as owners in the NBA. If you can't afford to run the team SELL IT!!! That simple. Very dangerous situation for a precedent to be set now that if your a struggling owner just simply move to Chicago, LA, or NY for a quick fix. It would be different if they were just simply interested in leaving Sacramento, but their not. Their more interested in getting their hands on that loan and entering a bigger market. C'mon NBA DO THE RIGHT THING!!!!

Throughout the years I've read more than once about how almost all good teams in the NBA are money losers. The Maloofs have even bragged about that very same thing in the past talking about how they spent money during the glory years.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Very dangerous situation for a precedent to be set now that if your a struggling owner just simply move to Chicago, LA, or NY for a quick fix.

Exactly. That's what I thought months ago when this first came up. I thought the NBA owners would see it that way. But then I was swayed by literally everyone in the media saying that if they filed they'd automatically get the votes. The way they talked as if it it was a given they'd get the votes, I figured they knew more about it than me so they must be right. Just goes to show that sometimes the media doesn't know anymore than we do.

 

[jpsls]

Don't the Maloofs understand that most owners don't become rich from owning an NBA team? If you NEED your team to profit just to stay afloat, you shouldn't own one in the first place.

 

[Krunker]

Agreed, the "we can't afford it" card will work with a lot of businesses but just raises doubts with the NBA rich boys club. It also seems the smarter business move would have been to keep the beer distributorship and sold the Palms, but I guess the Palms fits their interest/lifestyle better.

 

[Bricklayer]

Remarkably, the Maloofs have left about $10M in annual sponsorships lying around unused because either they couldn't bother to go get them, or they wanted to sabotage their own finances to more easily convince the league to let them leave the town and fans they love so much.

Looks like a little hoof work would have made them profitable, even with a lousy team in a down economy. Go figure.

That one I still don't belive. That money wasn't there until it came time to save the Kings, and there is no way the Maloofs could have made the same pitch to those advertisers as KJ did. If its teh Maloofs, its mafia -- its them coming to other private entities and saying pay us or we'll leave town. At which point the other companies probably say bleep you. When its KJ, with the team obviously already about to leave town, then its a civic duty, the threat is immediate, its not just some dude hitting you up for cash, and by buying in you get to be a bit of a hero.

I suspect the phone call went out to Samueli, or vice versa, the day after the Cal Expo board voted down the swap plan.

 

[ArcoKings]

Remarkably, the Maloofs have left about $10M in annual sponsorships lying around unused because either they couldn't bother to go get them, or they wanted to sabotage their own finances to more easily convince the league to let them leave the town and fans they love so much.

Looks like a little hoof work would have made them profitable, even with a lousy team in a down economy. Go figure.

We don't know that at this point. For example, we don't know if the Maloofs didn't try getting more money for the arena naming rights from companies. It appears they got the HIGHEST proposal from Power Band. That amount is very low. Why didn't Arco extend its contract? Why didn't Comcast come forward? Everyone in the Sacramento area and every firm specializing in marketing in the U.S. who has access to that sort of information knew that the Arco contract was going to end. Why didn't a MAJOR corporation step forward? I just can't believe that the Maloofs would say to XYZ Company "thanks for your interest in sponsoring our arena. Your proposal is double more than Power Band. We prefer P.B."

 

[SacTownKid]

Agreed, the "we can't afford it" card will work with a lot of businesses but just raises doubts with the NBA rich boys club. It also seems the smarter business move would have been to keep the beer distributorship and sold the Palms, but I guess the Palms fits their interest/lifestyle better.

I hope it also raises doubts because they're trying to play both sides of the fence. First it was, "our finances are fine", now it's, "we can't survive in Sacramento"???? Either you're OK, or you're not!

The problem with the Palms is that it's probably worth half, if that, of what they still owe on it so selling wouldn't help them much right now. They clearly need cash, although, at the board of governers meeting they said they're fine. Hmmmm....somebody is indeed playing both sides of the fence if this is all true.

 

[SacTownKid]

That one I still don't belive. That money wasn't there until it came time to save the Kings, and there is no way the Maloofs could have made the same pitch to those advertisers as KJ did. If its teh Maloofs, its mafia -- its them coming to other private entities and saying pay us or we'll leave town. At which point the other companies probably say bleep you. When its KJ, with the team obviously already about to leave town, then its a civic duty, the threat is immediate, its not just some dude hitting you up for cash, and by buying in you get to be a bit of a hero.

I suspect the phone call went out to Samueli, or vice versa, the day after the Cal Expo board voted down the swap plan.

I agree, but with the way the Maloofs have seemingly run every business venture of theirs into the ground, including the Kings, it still leaves some plausible doubt. hehehe.

 

[ArcoKings]

Agreed, the "we can't afford it" card will work with a lot of businesses but just raises doubts with the NBA rich boys club. It also seems the smarter business move would have been to keep the beer distributorship and sold the Palms, but I guess the Palms fits their interest/lifestyle better.

I think if the Maloofs had walked away from the Palms they would have ruined their credit rating [possibly even more]. That would have prohibited them from ever getting a loan or credit for a future business endeavor and it would have been embarrassing to say the least. Before the economy took a dump everyone is Las Vegas was rolling in the bucks. They probably thought they could hold-on for 24 or so more months while the economy improves. The condo project sunk that property not the gaming side.

 

[macadocious]

Don't the Maloofs understand that most owners don't become rich from owning an NBA team? If you NEED your team to profit just to stay afloat, you shouldn't own one in the first place.

I really wish people would stop saying things like this. It's getting asinine. Of course the team needs to be profitable. Sports franchises are not just play toys for rich people. They are businesses. Man this thought process tilts me so much.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I really wish people would stop saying things like this. It's getting asinine. Of course the team needs to be profitable. Sports franchises are not just play toys for rich people. They are businesses. Man this thought process tilts me so much.

I gotta say, the notion that sports teams are just toys for rich big boys and that losing millions every year is just status quo, is pretty ridiculous. I never gave it much thought until i saw you point out has absurd it is. But then I was like yeah, that's just nonsense.

 

[jpsls]

I gotta say, the notion that sports teams are just toys for rich big boys and that losing millions every year is just status quo, is pretty ridiculous. I never gave it much thought until i saw you point out has absurd it is. But then I was like yeah, that's just nonsense.

Unless you own the Celtics, Bulls, Pistons, Lakers, Knicks, or Raptors, you will most likely lose money. If you're team doesn't run in the red, you won't make that much. You profit most when you sell them team. 23 teams lost money last year, but I only see one owner who says moving is their only option to keep them financially stable.

This is the NBA not the NFL.

 

[PurpleHaze]

No one ever purchased a pro sports franchise to get rich. They got rich first and then decided they wanted to have a hobby, status symbol, cool play thing by owning an NBA, NFL, MBL or NHL team. It's well known among majority owners and minority owners of such franchises that most teams don't make money, but in fact lose money all the time, and only get some kind of decent return on the original investment (if you can call it an investment) when sold.

Anyone who thinks being the owner of a professional sports franchise is in it to make big whopping profits knows nothing of history of such businesses and should never make a serious investment themselves without doing lots of in-depth research.

 

[Section 101]

http://m.sacbee.com/sacramento/db_99761/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=nI3Tugtr&src=cat

It says the Kings are losing 8 mil a year. Which is it? The story seems to change daily. But KJ just got them an extra 10 mil plus more from Comcast. So what's the hold up?

The question is how much of that is servicing the debt?

 

[macadocious]

No one ever purchased a pro sports franchise to get rich. They got rich first and then decided they wanted to have a hobby, status symbol, cool play thing by owning an NBA, NFL, MBL or NHL team. It's well known among majority owners and minority owners of such franchises that most teams don't make money, but in fact lose money all the time, and only get some kind of decent return on the original investment (if you can call it an investment) when sold.

Anyone who thinks being the owner of a professional sports franchise is in it to make big whopping profits knows nothing of history of such businesses and should never make a serious investment themselves without doing lots of in-depth research.

That is just patently false.

Jerry Jones paid 140Million for the Cowboy in 1989. Current value = 1.6 Billion
Steinbrenner paid 10Million for the Yankees in 1973. Current value = 1.2 Billion
Kraft paid 175Million for patriots in 1994. Current value = 1.2

Should I keep going?

 

[Glenn]

I really wish people would stop saying things like this. It's getting asinine. Of course the team needs to be profitable. Sports franchises are not just play toys for rich people. They are businesses. Man this thought process tilts me so much.

Me, too. The NBA depends on people to lose money so big boys in short pants can make monye none of us could consider having.

 

[Glenn]

No one ever purchased a pro sports franchise to get rich. They got rich first and then decided they wanted to have a hobby, status symbol, cool play thing by owning an NBA, NFL, MBL or NHL team. It's well known among majority owners and minority owners of such franchises that most teams don't make money, but in fact lose money all the time, and only get some kind of decent return on the original investment (if you can call it an investment) when sold.

Anyone who thinks being the owner of a professional sports franchise is in it to make big whopping profits knows nothing of history of such businesses and should never make a serious investment themselves without doing lots of in-depth research.

Not true. Calvin Griffith of the Twins when they moved from DC had one business, the Twins. They did fine.

The real rich guys who have managed to make money off their teams depend on a bunch of cannon fodder like team, the Kings, to contine to make more and more money. They feed off of guys who are wiling to lose money. Now we know where that leads.

 

[Section 101]

That is just patently false.

Jerry Jones paid 140Million for the Cowboy in 1989. Current value = 1.6 Billion
Steinbrenner paid 10Million for the Yankees in 1973. Current value = 1.2 Billion
Kraft paid 175Million for patriots in 1994. Current value = 1.2

Should I keep going?

Maloofs paid $247 million for 53% share in 1999. Current value about $150 million.

 

[Krunker]

That is just patently false.

Jerry Jones paid 140Million for the Cowboy in 1989. Current value = 1.6 Billion
Steinbrenner paid 10Million for the Yankees in 1973. Current value = 1.2 Billion
Kraft paid 175Million for patriots in 1994. Current value = 1.2

Should I keep going?

Having your team go up in value is one thing (has the value of the Kings gone up?), but the owner has to have enough cash to cover operating costs. Especially in the NBA in a small-market team where you gotta expect to either lose or break even if your team plays poorly and then make it up on those years when you go deeper in the playoffs.

 

[PurpleHaze]

That is just patently false.

Jerry Jones paid 140Million for the Cowboy in 1989. Current value = 1.6 Billion
Steinbrenner paid 10Million for the Yankees in 1973. Current value = 1.2 Billion
Kraft paid 175Million for patriots in 1994. Current value = 1.2

Should I keep going?

With all due respect, you need to stop going with all the uninformed nonsense. It seems you need a course in Econ 101 or even a remedial reading course. Those numbers you throw out are NOT PROFITS, REPEAT NOT PPOFITS, they are only on paper as PERHAPS future investment returns and back up exactly what I said. Most pro sports owners only make a big profit or any kind of profit when THEY SELL.

 

[macadocious]

With all due respect, you need to stop going with all the uninformed nonsense. It seems you need a course in Econ 101 or even a remedial reading course. Those numbers you throw out are NOT PROFITS, REPEAT NOT PPOFITS, they are only on paper as PERHAPS future investment returns and back up exactly what I said. Most pro sports owners only make a big profit or any kind of profit when THEY SELL.

Um, i didn't know we were looking at PL statements of each team. I thought we were talking about ROI.

Yankees made 25Mill profit last year, Cowboys 30 million.

 

[jpsls]

Um, i didn't know we were looking at PL statements of each team. I thought we were talking about ROI.

Yankees made 25Mill profit last year, Cowboys 30 million.

Because they are the Cowboys and Yankees, two of the most prestigious franchises.

 

[Section 101]

Um, i didn't know we were looking at PL statements of each team. I thought we were talking about ROI.

Yankees made 25Mill profit last year, Cowboys 30 million.

Your referring to the 2 top teams in their sports. They are not the norm.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

No one ever purchased a pro sports franchise to get rich. They got rich first and then decided they wanted to have a hobby, status symbol, cool play thing by owning an NBA, NFL, MBL or NHL team. It's well known among majority owners and minority owners of such franchises that most teams don't make money, but in fact lose money all the time, and only get some kind of decent return on the original investment (if you can call it an investment) when sold.

Anyone who thinks being the owner of a professional sports franchise is in it to make big whopping profits knows nothing of history of such businesses and should never make a serious investment themselves without doing lots of in-depth research.

That kind of goes without saying since you have to be rich to buy one. That doesn't mean you buy it to lose money though.

 

[jpsls]

That kind of goes without saying since you have to be rich to buy one. That doesn't mean you buy it to lose money though.

On a year-to-year basis, if your team is in a small market, you will lose money or at best break even. Owning an NBA team is not just about the money. There is an acquired fame to owning a pro sports franchise.