Plan B?

Obviously... but a smaller scale than the original plan? Or same scale with more AEG $$? Or private investors?

Surely, if a plan is to be presented within a week, there must be some info floating around.... :-)
 
I don't recall in the mass of data that has been thrown out what the Kings would have reaped in income from the new arena. I DO remember something like half of the signage income and that was to be shared with AEG. Remove the Kings from the requation and give 100% to AEG and what do we have? There was also something about suites.

If I have this wrong due to the gradual onset of dementia or just plain stupidity, never mind! :) You get where I am going I hope. Nothing would change from the city's standpoint and AEG would get more income. I REALLY hope someone remembers.
 
Last edited:
MDM said:
I recall the Kings' profit being over 20 million per year as a conservative estimate, but of course relying on the Kings as an anchor tenant. Without the Kings, how much would that portion drop?
Click to expand...

I guess we leave this up to KJ and AEG but it seems a certain amount of shifting of profits to AEG could be quite an amount. How to determine this is not easy without knowing details because projecting the amount of usage of the arena without the Kings is beyond me.
 
I keep hearing about a "non compete" clause in the Sacramento loan that allows the Maloofs to walk away form the loan if the City builds a competing facility. Does anybody know about that? And if that is the case, why would the Mayor even consider a building without the Kings.

I am sure he knows what he is doing.
 
Purple Reign said:
I keep hearing about a "non compete" clause in the Sacramento loan that allows the Maloofs to walk away form the loan if the City builds a competing facility. Does anybody know about that? And if that is the case, why would the Mayor even consider a building without the Kings.

I am sure he knows what he is doing.
Click to expand...

It would be hard to argue that ARCO would be a competing property. Promoters avoid it like the plague. It, and the land it sits is worth what... 29 million now? There must be a clause that if you let the thing go into a state of such disrepair and drive away nearly ALL event business that you can no longer be considered competition to a decent venue.

They have what? like 6 events scheduled until September???
 
Dreamtiger said:
I wonder under what circumstances would the Maloofs agree to moving the Kings to the new arena as tenants only?
Click to expand...

That's what the deal they just sabotaged was supposed to be. So, basically, the circumstances would be that they REALIZE they made a mistake, the entire NBA is angry at them, they've got no chance to move the team and their only other option is selling. In other words, probably never.
 
The Hammer said:
It would be hard to argue that ARCO would be a competing property. Promoters avoid it like the plague. It, and the land it sits is worth what... 29 million now? There must be a clause that if you let the thing go into a state of such disrepair and drive away nearly ALL event business that you can no longer be considered competition to a decent venue.

They have what? like 6 events scheduled until September???
Click to expand...

Something else to consider. When would a new ESC be considered competition? When it starts construction, when it starts booking or after it's opened? Lots can happen between now and 2015/16.
 
Section 101 said:
Something else to consider. When would a new ESC be considered competition? When it starts construction, when it starts booking or after it's opened? Lots can happen between now and 2015/16.
Click to expand...

Good question. I would think it couldn't be considered competition until AEG - or whomever ends up running the place - actually starts advertising and soliciting contracts for the use of the venue.
 
VF21 said:
Good question. I would think it couldn't be considered competition until AEG - or whomever ends up running the place - actually starts advertising and soliciting contracts for the use of the venue.
Click to expand...

But technically nothing has happened until an event takes place. Events get cancelled all the time. Plus, I think MSE would have to show they event would have happened at PBP w/o a new ESC.
 
I think the Maloofs MIGHT have an argument about competition once potential users are given the option to consider the new ESC as opposed to PBP if their event is booked far enough in advance. I'm not saying it would be a valid argument, but it might carry some weight. I'm more interested in the argument that might be brought forth by AEG that the Maloofs allowed their facility to get to such a point of disrepair that it was not a viable option for potential clients, and therefore could not be considered a competing venue.
 
Wouldn't accepting the Maloof's contributions with their crazy demands be better than no contribution and no tenant at all? Not that I am in favor of the city caving in to the Maloofs
 
Kingsfan23 said:
Wouldn't accepting the Maloof's contributions with their crazy demands be better than no contribution and no tenant at all? Not that I am in favor of the city caving in to the Maloofs
Click to expand...

We're not that desperate. Also, it would political suicide for anybody who voted for it because it leaves the city too exposed. If they bolted after 15 years (the lease they want)... that would look real bad.

Also, with 15 year lease, not likely we could get as much for the parking lease.

If we wait them out, they have no way out. They're likely done as owners anyway. It's all a lot of huffing and puffing by George. The more he talks, the more he lies. There are probably also a few key things about the current loan fine print and other issues that are significantly affecting decisions on both sides that the general public probably doesn't know about.
 
Folks, we can't build a competing arena, if it would allow the Maloofs to walk away from the bond loan that has a $67 million principal still owing.

It's not simply a matter of the bondholders not being repaid. It wasn't the city the original loan funds came from, it was municipal bond investors. The city's involvement is to guarantee repayment to the bond purchasers. In other words, if the Maloofs default, the city becomes liable for repayment of the balance of the loan payments (principal and interest). Our city has enough fiscal problems without taking on the burden of repaying the Maloofs' loan balance, plus interest payments.

It would just be a nightmare for the city on top of all the other financial issues facing Sacramento.

(Note there is also a penalty amount for paying of the loan early, if we even could.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Y
All 29 other NBA owners show support for Adam Silver's ban on Donald Sterling, setting stage...
Replies
0
Views
892
Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
Y
Mike0476
Here We Stay calls on public to attend Tuesday council meeting
Replies
2
Views
1K
Mike0476
Mike0476
Circa_1985_Fan
Councilmember Kevin McCarty: Why I voted NO on arena plan...
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
The Hammer
T
J
Sacramento officials, NBA, arena developers to meet in Dallas
Replies
26
Views
3K
kennadog
kennadog
VF21
Bee: Cohn denies there's a Plan B
Replies
7
Views
1K
Bricklayer
Bricklayer
Back
Top