Saramento law maker says Sacramentans should buy the team.

this would be a dream, i had a long chat on fb with marcos breton, i used to work with him at the BEE, he said new ownership would be the best turnout, but he also said that it would not happen here like it did in sf. But today lo and behold this article comes out. But Maloofs dont want to sell. I have a question though, does the nba require a new arena for the kings or is it just the maloofs requiring it to stay? lets say we get new ownership but they will keep kings here without arena, would nba allow that?
 
pupsingh said:
this would be a dream, i had a long chat on fb with marcos breton, i used to work with him at the BEE, he said new ownership would be the best turnout, but he also said that it would not happen here like it did in sf. But today lo and behold this article comes out. But Maloofs dont want to sell. I have a question though, does the nba require a new arena for the kings or is it just the maloofs requiring it to stay? lets say we get new ownership but they will keep kings here without arena, would nba allow that?
Click to expand...


I would highly doubt it.
 
beb0p said:
There is two problems:

1) The Maloofs doesn't want to sell

2) Stern wants to keep the Hornets in New Orleans

If Stern is ok with the Hornets leaving he would have allowed Larry Ellison to buy the team.
Click to expand...

I know they say they dont want to sell. That doesn't mean they wouldnt be agreeable if they were getting another franchise.

Stern said he wanted to keep the Kings in sacramento too. Difference is the Kings have had support from fans. The Hornets are barely getting the support to keep them there.
 
Kind of a pointless idea since her Malloofs have invested a tremendous amount in the Kings and have shown no interest at all in selling.

really its just more fantasy about how to avoid just building the arena. Yeah, Sacto will buy it...adn then STILL need an arena. Somehow this reality seems to bounce off Sacramentans. The current building is not financially feasible. So you can't put together moeny to build an arena, so let's go have a fantasy of buying a team instead, then we can have them play in the old barn until it falls down around them. Of course if anything that plan costs MORE money than the arenas Sac has consistently failed to build, let alone the reality of the situation, which i that you would have to come up with the money to BOTH b uy the team and build an arean..
 
pupsingh said:
this would be a dream, i had a long chat on fb with marcos breton, i used to work with him at the BEE, he said new ownership would be the best turnout, but he also said that it would not happen here like it did in sf. But today lo and behold this article comes out. But Maloofs dont want to sell. I have a question though, does the nba require a new arena for the kings or is it just the maloofs requiring it to stay? lets say we get new ownership but they will keep kings here without arena, would nba allow that?
Click to expand...

A new arena is needed no matter what.
 
Section 101 said:
I know they say they dont want to sell. That doesn't mean they wouldnt be agreeable if they were getting another franchise.

Stern said he wanted to keep the Kings in sacramento too. Difference is the Kings have had support from fans. The Hornets are barely getting the support to keep them there.
Click to expand...


Makes no sense for the Maloofs to swap franchise with the Hornets because they're basically inheriting a team and personnel installed by someone else; while giving up a young talented team with a lot of cap room that they themselves spend years to construct.

Under that scenario, it'd be much simpler to allow the Maloofs to move to Anaheim and move the Hornets to Sacramento. But there's no way Stern allows a team to come to Sac w/o a new arena.

The bottom line is that this is a about a new building. Pure and simple. If Sac build one in time, the Kings will stay.
 
I think the idea is somehow that if the people own the team they won't mind buying the arena.

Of course that would sorta make the players the highest paid public employees in the state.
 
pdxKingsFan said:
I think the idea is somehow that if the people own the team they won't mind buying the arena.

Of course that would sorta make the players the highest paid public employees in the state.
Click to expand...

Would be like the Packers being owned by Green Bay. I just don't think it's realistic these days for that kind of deal to come together. In the 1920s when Green Bay had to raise $7500 to make the deal happen, that was one thing. Sacramento would have to raise upwards of $300 million to make this deal happen.
 
beb0p said:
There is two problems:

1) The Maloofs doesn't want to sell

2) Stern wants to keep the Hornets in New Orleans

If Stern is ok with the Hornets leaving he would have allowed Larry Ellison to buy the team.
Click to expand...

I think the issue was not wanting a team in SJ, since it would compete with the Warriors and eat into their East Bay market. I think the other issue was wanting to avoid having a PR backlash from taking a team from NO soon after Katrina, but I think as time goes on that will be less of a concern.

The Hornets will probably get moved eventually. But as you say, there's no way it would be to Sac without a new arena.
 
Superman said:
Would be like the Packers being owned by Green Bay. I just don't think it's realistic these days for that kind of deal to come together. In the 1920s when Green Bay had to raise $7500 to make the deal happen, that was one thing. Sacramento would have to raise upwards of $300 million to make this deal happen.
Click to expand...
I don't know about the NBA but I'm also fairly certain it is now in the NFL charter that such a publicly owned team is impermissible.
 
pdxKingsFan said:
I don't know about the NBA but I'm also fairly certain it is now in the NFL charter that such a publicly owned team is impermissible.
Click to expand...

It is. 32 owners per team max, one of them has to have a minimum 30% stake. The Packers ownership situation was grandfathered in.

Beyond it being impermissible, I think it's impossible, due to the ridiculous amounts of money involved. It was $5/share, minimum five shares back when the Packers did it. That was a lot of money back then, but even adjusted for inflation, I don't think it approaches the amount of money that tens of thousands of residents would have to pay to fund a public takeover of a pro sports franchise.

Also --- Sac residents should note that the threat of a public takeover had a lot to do with Bob Irsay moving the Colts out of Baltimore in the 80s. I know no one's talking about a forced coup, but the Maloofs have stated regularly that they don't want to sell their team. I'm 99.999% certain that this idea is a nonstarter. Your hopes lie exclusively with Taylor and ICON.
 
Superman said:
It is. 32 owners per team max, one of them has to have a minimum 30% stake. The Packers ownership situation was grandfathered in.

Beyond it being impermissible, I think it's impossible, due to the ridiculous amounts of money involved. It was $5/share, minimum five shares back when the Packers did it. That was a lot of money back then, but even adjusted for inflation, I don't think it approaches the amount of money that tens of thousands of residents would have to pay to fund a public takeover of a pro sports franchise.

Also --- Sac residents should note that the threat of a public takeover had a lot to do with Bob Irsay moving the Colts out of Baltimore in the 80s. I know no one's talking about a forced coup, but the Maloofs have stated regularly that they don't want to sell their team. I'm 99.999% certain that this idea is a nonstarter. Your hopes lie exclusively with Taylor and ICON.
Click to expand...

Its not referring to public ownership, but people who are from here owning the team.
 
This is about as likely as one of Brick's "pretty girls" climbing out of my monitor to help me forget about the Kings latest loss.
 
Ugh. Going to sacbee's comments, and people are asking why taxpayers should do this.

Reading comprehension FAIL.

But this really is one of Dickinson's dumbest ideas. It truly is. As we've all discovered, it takes a billionaire to run a sports franchise well these days. Oh, sure, someone with a "mere" $500M can leverage themselves to the hilt and buy one, and then you end up with Chris Cohan. I bet it hardly ever works.

How many people in Sac have more than $100M in assets? Can't be more than 20.

How many of them are interested in owning any part of a pro team?

And are the Kings for sale?

Dickinson really didn't think this one through. Not saying he's a dummy, that'd be insulting. But this idea is a loser.
 
Arena Skeptic said:
Ugh. Going to sacbee's comments, and people are asking why taxpayers should do this.

Reading comprehension FAIL.

But this really is one of Dickinson's dumbest ideas. It truly is. As we've all discovered, it takes a billionaire to run a sports franchise well these days. Oh, sure, someone with a "mere" $500M can leverage themselves to the hilt and buy one, and then you end up with Chris Cohan. I bet it hardly ever works.

How many people in Sac have more than $100M in assets? Can't be more than 20.

How many of them are interested in owning any part of a pro team?

And are the Kings for sale?

Dickinson really didn't think this one through. Not saying he's a dummy, that'd be insulting. But this idea is a loser.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it would almost depend on Spanos jumping in.
 
It doesn't really matter who owns the team if there isn't an arena for the team to play in. Some of the articles I've read in the Bee the past week have been atrocious.
 
rainmaker said:
It doesn't really matter who owns the team if there isn't an arena for the team to play in. Some of the articles I've read in the Bee the past week have been atrocious.
Click to expand...

Yep, I have to agree with that. And I would add that the Maloofs have to be willing sellers. People in other cities that faced relo convinced themselves that the league could step in and force a sale to keep a team in its home city. Hasn't happened and it doesn't work that way.
 
twosomeca said:
Yep, I have to agree with that. And I would add that the Maloofs have to be willing sellers. People in other cities that faced relo convinced themselves that the league could step in and force a sale to keep a team in its home city. Hasn't happened and it doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

And from everything you here, you've got to believe that at this moment in time Stern and the League are on the side of the Maloof's and not the side of Sacramento. It's no secret that the Maloof's have been trying to get an arena for years. So there is no chance that the Stern would take action to wrest control of the Kings away from the Maloofs.
 
Uncia03 said:
And from everything you here, you've got to believe that at this moment in time Stern and the League are on the side of the Maloof's and not the side of Sacramento. It's no secret that the Maloof's have been trying to get an arena for years. So there is no chance that the Stern would take action to wrest control of the Kings away from the Maloofs.
Click to expand...

Agree with that as well. Seattle publicly gave the NBA the finger and threw Stern into a rage. Sac has not publicly done that, but perhaps the passage of time has. I don't think Stern is angry about it like he was up in Seattle, but he seems to be resigned to the fact that it isn't going to happen here. IMO, the city has to come up with a plan right now (next few weeks) that funds the arena and doesn't involve a vote. OTOH, I feel that any arena involving public funding will not work here at this time. It's a severe catch-22, I think. It's like there is no way out.

Anaheim is not the best answer, but it may be an alternative that the Maloofs find acceptable at this time given the situation in Sacramento.

BTW, Stern is ALWAYS on the side of his owners, especially publicly and even for owners he despises (see George Shinn)
 
rainmaker said:
It doesn't really matter who owns the team if there isn't an arena for the team to play in. Some of the articles I've read in the Bee the past week have been atrocious.
Click to expand...

I love it how these experts come up with all these "dumb as bucket of ****" ideas. Its easier to run a team with someone else's money! If those same idiots were couting their coin to run the team in Sacramento with the ancient arena then they would have a better idea of understanding why Anaheim is an attractive proposition to Maloofs AND why Sacramento is in DESPERATE need of a new sports and entertainment complex.

In all honesty, if the Maloofs were in two minds of whether they want to keep the Kings in Sacramento or move them to Anaheim, the sort of crap that has been written in the Bee lately and the opinions of every Tom, Dick and Harry published have in NO WAY helped the situation. If anything, its pushing the Maloofs to take their team and move it else where. Just by relocating from Sacramento to OC would significantly increase the value of the team if they were to sell. Not only that but the money they would get from TV rights and other deals would be significantly better in OC.

The last thing we need is to have politician slagging off Maloofs publicly to infuriate those naysayers even more and push the Maloofs into open arms of OC.
 
This guy has right Idea, but wrong property

This is such a stupid Idea because Maloofs dont want to sell the team and fighting
the NBA for many owners would be hard.

He has the right Idea but the wrong purchase

What the city needs is an arena owner that will finance a building:

So who should this owner be?

Seems pretty damm simple to me, who needs a new Arena?


The new Sac Arena Owners, Limited Partnership
would consist of the following:

General Partner:

Maloof Sports and Entertainment- owned by Maloofs and Minority Owners

Im not sure if Maloofs own the old Natomas arena or the MSE entity does

They can contribute their share of the old property which can be sold
ASAP (maybe that group that wants to put up an amusement park)
Money is used to repay the 70mil to the City and the balance is the MSE investment in
the new arena ownership group

They would be the General Partner who would Run the Arena, collect arena rentals
parking, and lease revenue from the Kings Team (long term lease as anchor to help with financing) and all other events

General Partner #2:

City of Sacramento

They own the land downtown contributes the Land to the Partnership
They use the 70 Mil as cash investment into Arena Partnership
They use redevelopment money maybe as investment, sell redevelopment bonds
and invest as loans to the arena partnership (Repayment a partnership priority as
bonds are repaid from partnership operations)

General Partner #3

David taylor ICON group

They going to get $300 Mil to build
Maybe they invest their profit into ownership shares
Investing 45 Mil

Limited Partners

Sacramento owners, wealthy fans, long time fans

Limited Partners invest 50% of 2 season tickets - upper or lower
Get first pick of seats
Gets 10% of future ticket purchases as a guarenteed return
on investment from the Arena Partnership


Real property loans for balance of the project

After MSE money from Natomas (Ownership invest)
City money from loan repayment (subordinated loan to Parnership)
City redevelop money (subordinated loan to Partnership)
City donates land (Ownership Invest)
David Taylor- ICON (Ownership Invest)
Limited Partner money (ownership invest)

Like any other long term real estate project

The partnership gets a 1st mortgage on the property from a lender
(With MSE,City,ICON, as deep pockets and all of the money invested
above- should not be hard to get lender)


Why does it work?

Maloofs and MSE dont have to put in up front money-just old arena
City puts in Land, loan repaym money, and new Redev money
ICON gets new project to build in tough economy
Sac fans and Sac Old Money gets to keep team, new arena
discounts on future events

Win Win Win!!!!!!


Why doesnt it work?

Makes too much damn sense!!!
But prob too complicated to make it work
 
Jkbiker said:
General Partner #2:

City of Sacramento

They own the land downtown contributes the Land to the Partnership
They use the 70 Mil as cash investment into Arena Partnership
They use redevelopment money maybe as investment, sell redevelopment bonds
and invest as loans to the arena partnership (Repayment a partnership priority as
bonds are repaid from partnership operations)
Click to expand...

what land does the city own now? I believe Sacramento owns the plot where the Amtrak station currently is and the Intermodal will go. there was at a time talk of combining the arena and the station into one facility, leveraging federal transportation funding for some portion of the arena infrastructure.

also, Governor Brown seems to be putting an end to redevelopment funding statewide.

on a different note: remember reading an article indicating the Maloof's were losing money on the team even back in like '05--anyone have a reference for this? when was the team last profitable?
 
fiction916 said:
what land does the city own now? I believe Sacramento owns the plot where the Amtrak station currently is and the Intermodal will go. there was at a time talk of combining the arena and the station into one facility, leveraging federal transportation funding for some portion of the arena infrastructure.

also, Governor Brown seems to be putting an end to redevelopment funding statewide.

on a different note: remember reading an article indicating the Maloof's were losing money on the team even back in like '05--anyone have a reference for this? when was the team last profitable?
Click to expand...

The city does own the section of the railyards where the train station is all the way over to the railyard sheds.. Recent arena concept artwork has shown them being utilized together. The city is currently contracting out to have the tracks moved towards the shed. Plus, don't forget that the city owns the land north of Arco where the concrete slab for a baseball stadium was put. So buying land is one less expense and having some available land to sell helps towards a new facility.

It does appear Moonbeam: Part 2 is going to snip out redevelopment funds. It's one of his favorite tricks. You can go see his other favorite trick from the 1970's where he turned a downtown freeway into a freeway to nowhere. It's right near I-80 as it passes over Roseville Road.

The Maloofs were losing money because they had a huge payroll in the winning years. Once they trimmed that down to a league low payroll, in recent years they haven't lost money on the Kings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

pdxKingsFan
Greg Lukenbill talks to Sacramento Historical Society
Replies
4
Views
2K
pdxKingsFan
pdxKingsFan
V
What should a good NBA GM know - and when should he/she know it ? (A LONG read - be warned)
2
Replies
53
Views
3K
Noble
Noble
E
Should Vlade At Least Be In The Conversation For Executive Of The Year?
Replies
24
Views
2K
pdxKingsFan
pdxKingsFan
Y
Judging who should and shouldn't have been asked to attend the NBA draft lottery (Ball Don't...
Replies
0
Views
595
Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
Y
Y
Dominique Wilkins reportedly wants to buy the Atlanta Hawks, but will that change anything?...
Replies
0
Views
351
Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
Y
Back
Top