SAcbee: Some say lost Arena bid was Calculated

[kupman]

Have they ever suggested or implied that they should contribute a sizeable portiong of an arena cost, or have they always felt that someone else should pay all the costs associated with a new arena.

They have never suggested that they would pay for a sizeable portion - they do not need make such an offer. The market is clearly on their side. It is kind of like 'why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?'

If this cow (town) does not put out, they will find a cow that will.

It stinks I know, but the market is indifferent.

 

[Warhawk]

They have never suggested that they would pay for a sizeable portion - they do not need make such an offer. The market is clearly on their side. It is kind of like 'why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?'

If this cow (town) does not put out, they will find a cow that will.

It stinks I know, but the market is indifferent.

Actually, we don't really know that for sure, however you are probably correct.

Frankly, whatever deals have been discussed in the past are bygones and have no bearing on the situation at hand.

 

[kennadog]

I am sure there will be a lot of discussion about your viewpoints. I also have to question how great of businessmen they really are. Especially with their antics during the negotiations. There were much better ways that they could have handled themselves.

I am curious if anyone has the answer to this question. The Maloofs have said that they have tried many times to get an arena financed over the last 6 or so years. Have they ever agreed or suggested that they put up a substantial amount of money to finace an arena. I am not asking if they have suggested that they pay over haf of the money. I know that answer. Have they ever suggested or implied that they should contribute a sizeable portiong of an arena cost, or have they always felt that someone else should pay all the costs associated with a new arena.

I'm amazed that the Maloofs seem to be able to say things over and over and so many never seem to hear. They have said many times they were willing to go up to typical in the league or 20-25%. They have emphatically never said the public should pay 100%, ever.

 

[Venom]

I'm amazed that the Maloofs seem to be able to say things over and over and so many never seem to hear. They have said many times they were willing to go up to typical in the league or 20-25%. They have emphatically never said the public should pay 100%, ever.

But the deal on the table was going to be 100% financed by the county, with a modest amount of money set aside by the Maloofs for initial operating costs and 30 year lease that would have ended up being in the amount of roughly 20% of the overall costs. That's assuming no cost overruns. Which is all fine, because I think Sacramento should publicly finance the whole thing. That's just how it works in today's market. However, if we finance the whole thing then we get to decide where the arena most benefits us (downtown), how much parking there is going to be, what other establishments are going to be in the immediate vicinity, and how much public transportation we want in the surrounding area.

MSE was going to get a new place in a revitalized downtown for their Kings. In addition, they were going to operate a venue where they could trudge all their crappy rock bands in front of the entertainment starved Sacramento region in order to launch albums/tours. I understand that the costs and financing of such a deal are extremely complex, but I don't trust the Maloofs. If Cuban/Trump/Jones/Snyder was telling the city that it just was not feasible, then OK. We need to find a new area to build or understand that the Kings are moving. But the Maloofs are not business men of that degree, and I do not trust that they are doing their full due-diligence.

 

[voteno]

where exactly was this amount in the arena negotiations?

I'm amazed that the Maloofs seem to be able to say things over and over and so many never seem to hear. They have said many times they were willing to go up to typical in the league or 20-25%. They have emphatically never said the public should pay 100%, ever.

You state that they never said the public should pay 100% ever. Ok then where is there 25% contributuon? You cant be claiming that their lease payment is what they consider to be their contribution? That is not a contributuon, that is a lease for the use of the facility. Those are 2 entirely different things.

If they are truly saying that they will contribute 25%, then that should be the total cost and either upfront or they finance their cost of the building just like the taxpayers would have. They also wanted to shave off 1 million dollars ( 25% ) off of their lease had they not liked the design. That is not sharing the cost of 25%. In the response to the city, they state that the 20 million for maintenance was their ONLY contribution regardless of the total cost.

you cant claim you are willing to put in 20-25% of the cost and expect to pay this amount over time. If you are claiming you are paying this %, it needs to be up front, or at least when the facility is handed over to you to run.

 

[kupman]

But the deal on the table was going to be 100% financed by the county, with a modest amount of money set aside by the Maloofs for initial operating costs and 30 year lease that would have ended up being in the amount of roughly 20% of the overall costs. That's assuming no cost overruns. Which is all fine, because I think Sacramento should publicly finance the whole thing. That's just how it works in today's market. However, if we finance the whole thing then we get to decide where the arena most benefits us (downtown), how much parking there is going to be, what other establishments are going to be in the immediate vicinity, and how much public transportation we want in the surrounding area.

Dude - thanks for posting! This is the way that I have been thinking about the deal, but nobody else seems to see this way. At least there is one other person who see it like this.

 

[JB_kings]

But the deal on the table was going to be 100% financed by the county, with a modest amount of money set aside by the Maloofs for initial operating costs and 30 year lease that would have ended up being in the amount of roughly 20% of the overall costs. That's assuming no cost overruns. Which is all fine, because I think Sacramento should publicly finance the whole thing. That's just how it works in today's market. However, if we finance the whole thing then we get to decide where the arena most benefits us (downtown), how much parking there is going to be, what other establishments are going to be in the immediate vicinity, and how much public transportation we want in the surrounding area.

MSE was going to get a new place in a revitalized downtown for their Kings. In addition, they were going to operate a venue where they could trudge all their crappy rock bands in front of the entertainment starved Sacramento region in order to launch albums/tours. I understand that the costs and financing of such a deal are extremely complex, but I don't trust the Maloofs. If Cuban/Trump/Jones/Snyder was telling the city that it just was not feasible, then OK. We need to find a new area to build or understand that the Kings are moving. But the Maloofs are not business men of that degree, and I do not trust that they are doing their full due-diligence.

How do you know they haven't done due diligence? And frankly, it doesn't really matter. It gets back to the nitpicks again. I can take any one of your preferred billionaires and make them look like thieving schmucks if I spent as much timeon them as the Bee has on the Maloofs. In the end, will you feel better if the Kings are gone and the Bee has told you that the Maloofs are bad guys? That should be good for a few days right up until the next NBA season starts and the word Sacramento is nowhere to be found in the standings.

This deal gets closer to being done when everyone stops trying to gain the high ground position on the blame game.

 

[kennadog]

Have they ever agreed or suggested that they put up a substantial amount of money to finace an arena. I am not asking if they have suggested that they pay over haf of the money. I know that answer. Have they ever suggested or implied that they should contribute a sizeable portiong of an arena cost, or have they always felt that someone else should pay all the costs associated with a new arena.

Voteno: I'm not going to debate anything else, because, at the moment, there is no deal to even talk about. Your post quoted above, implied they had never offered to pay anything, which is not true. If you're so into the details of the arena, you should have heard the Maloofs talk about this for years. Exactly how much and when and everything else is moot for discussion, because no proposal = nothing to debate the merits or demerits of.

 

[voteno]

Kennadog: maybe you should read the quote instead of thinking you know what it says

I was asking a question. I was not impying anything. I freely admit that I have just recently jumped on the bandwagon for the arena. I havent really cared before they put it on the ballot. I ahve always ignored talks of the arena as I always and still do think that it really doesnt make a differnce what I think. The Maloofs will basically get whatever they want from the city, ot they will move their team. I personally dont care either way.

 

[kennadog]

Have they ever suggested or implied that they should contribute a sizeable portiong of an arena cost, or have they always felt that someone else should pay all the costs associated with a new arena.

Okay, then consider it an answer to your question. Yes, they have always said they are willing to pay the "typical percentage" of costs in the most recent arena deals. No they have never, ever said they expected the public to pay 100% Is that more clear?