Should Sacramento Buy the Kings?

The Green Bay Packers are literally owned by their fans.

"Presently, 111,507 people (representing 4,748,910 shares) can lay claim to a franchise ownership interest. Shares of stock include voting rights, but the redemption price is minimal, no dividends are ever paid, the stock cannot appreciate in value, and there are no season ticket privileges associated with stock ownership. No shareholder is allowed to own more than 200,000 shares, a safeguard to ensure that no one individual is able to assume control of the club."

In order to keep the team in Sac, and to protect against new stadium hold-ups (i.e. "build us an expensive new stadium at public expense or else..."), would you support a similar arrangement for the Kings?
 
Heuge said:
No! I wouldn't want the success of my team on the shoulders of tax payers.

The tax payers wouldn't buy the team, only people interested in owning shares. This arrangement actually protects the taxpayers because it provides for control over the team's BOD by the shareholders, presumably local taxpayers since the investment isn't all that attractive for people not interested in the team itself.

As to whether the Maloof's would sell, that's another question.

This arrangement works really well for the Packers.
 
Only if we can have input in all administrative decisions. ;) Do we really want to trade this guy? Should we really change the uniforms? Trade picks and players to move up looking for the next big thing? :D
 
Let me get this straight, In order to avoid the Maloofs possibly moving the team beceause the tax payers would not spend 350 mill on a new stadium, you are suggesting the tax payers should spend 330 million to buy the team (cost based on Forbes magazine estimates). This at best represnts a 20 mill savings except the tax payers now OWN the team that is playing in a small, rapidly declining areana that under capitalizes their investment and if they wnat to remedy the situation the tax payers will HAVE to build the 350 million dollar complex with a total investment in the team at 670 million. If seemslike a good idea to you ok... uh... ok... if you say so.
 
bibbinator said:
The Green Bay Packers are literally owned by their fans.



In order to keep the team in Sac, and to protect against new stadium hold-ups (i.e. "build us an expensive new stadium at public expense or else..."), would you support a similar arrangement for the Kings?

really are they? i live in wisconsin and i didnt even know that
 
Where have you been? That's one of the reasons that a lot of people around the country (and the world) like the Packers, it's part of their small, underdog community feel.


ReinadelosReys said:
Only if we can have input in all administrative decisions. ;) Do we really want to trade this guy? Should we really change the uniforms? Trade picks and players to move up looking for the next big thing? :D

If you want the team to drive straight into the ground, then yes. Making the tough unpopular decisions is critical to a teams success. And people are forgetting how much the Maloofs mean to the Kings. Without them, players wouldn't want to play in Sacramento. They bring a huge amount of appeal with them and have got a reputation around the league for treating players very well.

A much better idea would be a simliar community owned organization, only a group designed to build and own the arena. That could get all of the money raised by having fans buying shares in the project and then selling it back to the Maloofs over time in the form of returns of the shares.
 
This is a hypothetical question, I don't expect this to happen any time soon.

First of all the tax payers don't end up buying or owning the team, the shareholders do. The expected shareholders would include many taxpayers in Sac, but not all of them. The city would probably have to play some role in the financing but it ultimately would not come out of the taxpayer money. A respectable NBA franchise like the Kings has many tangible and intangible benefits to the city. Local, permanent ownership of the team allows for smart long term planning and cooperation with the city as the shareholders are taxpayers and have an interest in the future of Sac.

Second, team management would continue under the direction of the BOD who would report to the shareholders just as in a regular corporation. We couldn't tell the Kings to trade Peja any more than a Coca Cola shareholder could ask for a new coke formulation.

Third, if we do build a new stadium the financial benefits are retained by the shareholders and put back into the team. If the public is going to pay for the new stadium why not capture the returns?

But all this aside, wouldn't it be cool to say you were a co-owner of the Kings?

Packers fans love the fact that they own their team.
 
captain bill said:
Where have you been? That's one of the reasons that a lot of people around the country (and the world) like the Packers, it's part of their small, underdog community feel.




If you want the team to drive straight into the ground, then yes. Making the tough unpopular decisions is critical to a teams success. And people are forgetting how much the Maloofs mean to the Kings. Without them, players wouldn't want to play in Sacramento. They bring a huge amount of appeal with them and have got a reputation around the league for treating players very well.

A much better idea would be a simliar community owned organization, only a group designed to build and own the arena. That could get all of the money raised by having fans buying shares in the project and then selling it back to the Maloofs over time in the form of returns of the shares.

sry i DONT watch football, i'm a kings fan!!! :)
 
Here's the story behind the Green Bay Packers:

Of all the reasons that make the Green Bay Packers and their story so incredible and unique, the most significant is simply this: The team is literally owned by its fans.

Presently, 111,507 people (representing 4,748,910 shares) can lay claim to a franchise ownership interest. Shares of stock include voting rights, but the redemption price is minimal, no dividends are ever paid, the stock cannot appreciate in value, and there are no season ticket privileges associated with stock ownership. No shareholder is allowed to own more than 200,000 shares, a safeguard to ensure that no one individual is able to assume control of the club.

The team has had three owners, all in its first four years, 1919-22. The first owner, Indian Packing Company, paid an unofficial purchase price of $500 to supply Curly Lambeau with uniforms and equipment. In turn, Lambeau and team manager George Calhoun called the club "Packers."

Shortly thereafter, Acme Packing Company bought Indian Packing Company and all its assets, including the fledgling team. In 1921, Lambeau convinced new owners John and Emmitt Clair to apply for membership in the new American Professional Football Association (early NFL).

With the team already headed for bankruptcy, the APFA revoked the franchise after Lambeau used illegal college players in a non-league game later that year. But before the 1922 season, Lambeau by himself reapplied and the league reinstated the Packers, with Lambeau as owner. When rain threatened to sink the team in '22, A.B. Turnbull came to the rescue.

Turnbull, publisher of the Green Bay Press-Gazette, grocery man Lee Joannes, attorney Gerald Clifford and Dr. W. Webber Kelly cancelled Lambeau's $2,500 debt, then rallied the community behind the team. In August, 1923, with more than 400 in attendance at a local Elks Club, the club was transformed into a non-profit entity, the Green Bay Packers Corporation. The five men, including Lambeau, were nicknamed the Hungry Five.

There now have been four stock drives in the 84-year history of the team. The first stock sale, which took place at that 1923 meeting, saw local merchants raise $5,000 by selling 1,000 shares for $5 apiece, with a stipulation that the purchaser also had to buy at least six season tickets.

The second, in 1935, raised $15,000 after the corporation had gone into receivership. At that point, the non-profit Green Bay Football Corporation was reorganized as the Green Bay Packers, Inc., the present company, with 300 shares of stock outstanding.

The third, in 1950, came on the heels of founder Curly Lambeau's 30-year dominion, when the club's officers arranged to amend the corporation's bylaws to permit the sale of up to 10,000 total shares of stock (opening up more than 9,500 shares for purchase), to limit the number of shares that any individual could own. The team also increased the number of directors from 15 to 25.

The response to the '50 drive was inspiring, with people from all across Wisconsin, as well as former Green Bay residents living in other states, coming forward to buy the $25 shares of stock. Roughly $50,000 was raised in one 11-day period alone. Reportedly, one woman from a farm near Wrightstown, Wis., showed up at the team's offices with $25 worth of quarters in a match box. A total of about $118,000 was generated through this major stock sale, helping to put the Packers on a sound financial basis once again.

The fourth came late in 1997 and early in 1998. It added 105,989 new shareholders and raised more than $24 million, monies which were utilized for the Lambeau Field redevelopment project. Priced at $200 per share, fans bought 120,010 shares during the 17-week sale, which ended March 16, 1998.

With the NFL supporting the plan, the existing 1,940 shareholders overwhelmingly voted to amend the articles of the corporation on Nov. 13, 1997. The vote authorized the Packers to sell up to 1 million shares to raise funds for capital improvements, and received a 1,000 to 1 split on their original shares. Fans immediately were able to call a special toll-free number, or tap into the team's web site for information on how to buy the 400,000 shares made available to the public.

The initial response to the recent stock offering was staggering. In the first 11 days, roughly one-third - or $7.8 million - of the total amount transacted was sold. Paid orders poured in at a rate of 3,500 per day during this early period, generating about $700,000 each day. The sale hit its high point during the first week of December as fans purchased shares as holiday gifts.

Shares of stock were purchased by citizens from all 50 states, in addition to fans in Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Over half (or roughly 64,300) of the new shares during the 1997-98 offering were bought by Wisconsin residents, followed by inhabitants of Illinois (9,600), Minnesota (4,300), California (3,700), Florida (2,900), Michigan (2,800), Texas (2,500) and Ohio (2,000).

Today, an annual meeting of stockholders is held in July - most recently at Green Bay's new Resch Center. As a means of running the corporation, a board of directors is elected by the stockholders. The board of directors in turn elect a seven-member Executive Committee (officers) of the corporation, consisting of a president, vice president, treasurer, secretary and three members-at-large. The president is the only officer who receives compensation. The balance of the committe is sitting gratis.

Shares of stock cannot be re-sold, except back to the team for a fraction of the original price. Limited transfer of shares (ie., to heirs and relatives) is permissible.

Based on the original 'Articles of Incorporation for the (then) Green Bay Football Corporation' put into place in 1923, if the Packers franchise was sold, after the payment of all expenses, any remaining monies would go to the Sullivan-Wallen Post of the American Legion in order to build "a proper soldier's memorial." This stipulation was enacted to ensure that the club remained in Green Bay and that there could never be any financial enhancement for the shareholder. The beneficiary was changed from the Sullivan-Wallen Post to the Green Bay Packers Foundation on the basis of a shareholder vote at the November 1997, meeting.

http://www.packers.com/history/fast_facts/stock_history/
 
The whole point in "needing to buy the team" isn't just moot. There is no similarity in circumstances and NO reason to believe the Maloofs would agree to sell the franchise. Why should they? They could move it.
 
bibbinator said:
Only if they were made an offer too good to refuse.

Yeah, and Mark Cuban would do the same thing if HE was made an offer too good to refuse. Everything has a price.
 
buying the team is dumb, but why not buying the arena? the maloofs obviously don't want to pay for it themselves, so why not have a third party corporation do it? if it's owned by kings fans and not just a city, it makes it much easier to get done- ie, people who want the arena are paying for it as opposed to a beauracratic city body that doesn't want to spend money.
 
I was thinking the other week, what about a publicly owned stadium? It wouldn't require tax money or 1 owner digging deep into his bank account, just a collection of share holders who would reap dividend from leasing the stadium to teams, concerts, etc.
 
If stadiums made money owners wouldn't ask the city to pay for it.

Especially without a solid anchor attraction.

The whole point of buying the team is to keep the team in Sac.

Maybe 10 years down the road the Maloof's get tired of being owners?

Who knows. This isn't going to happen anytime soon, it's just something to think about.
 
stadiums make money, but the maloofs wouldnt make money because the kings are the primary money makers from the venue, so they would just be paying themselves. but if a seperate group owned the venue and leased it to to the kings- not to mention others what would be attracted to a better venue- they could make loads of money. staples is owned by a seperate corporation that owns several sports venues. granted, a new arena in sacramento wouldnt make as much, but over time it would turn a profit for the stockholders. maybe a long time, but the shareholders would generally be fans who wouldnt mind taking the loss- or at least, would mind a lot less than the city of sacramento.
 
Anyone see the recent news about additions to The Palms in Vegas? Hundreds of millions of Maloof dollars went into it. It's not that they don't have the money. The Maloofs are shrude business people. They aren't going to spend their money if they can get away with spending someone else's. How far the owners are willing to go in forcing their hand is probably only known to them.

Sacramento has relatively few large corporate sponsors available. However, their may be many who would be willing to spend what they could to be part owners of the arena. A publicly traded company could be created for the sole purpose of owning the arena. Kind of like a Real Estate fund. Problem is, no one would want to buy in unless there was some assurance that enough would be generated to build an arena. No sense in owning 1000 shares of a company with no assets or revenue.
 
this obviously wouldn't be a money making enterprise. if push comes to shove, and the maloofs come up with a real exit plan to get the kings out of sacramento (not just bluffing, actually trying it, like getting stern's approval to go to vegas) then i can see lots of fans being willing to open their wallet to help keep their team in town, especially if it means they can own a part of the kings magic, even if it's only their stadium
 
All 4 major team sports have said they will not allow any team under any circumstances to become another GB Packers. So this thread is kind of pointless:p
 
I'll answer the hypothetical one with another. If you are a shareholder in Kings Inc. and someone offers you double the face value so they can get a controlling interest and move the team, you gonna turn the cash down over loyalty?
 
Back
Top