The 11th Hour

[Larry David]

While the Maloofs insist their trip to Seattle was merely a fact finding inquiry regarding the plight of the Sonics, its certainly fair to assume some very cursory and preliminary steps were taken to assess whether the city is viable option for the team. There are two reasons why that’s completely logical.

At first glance, Seattle seems like a poor fit because there is no road to a new arena in Seattle. However, after a decade with numerous failed plans here, it’s becoming painfully obvious there is probably no road to a new arena in Sacramento either. Thus, should the convergence plan fail, the Maloofs will – or perhaps have already finished-- gather the facts necessary to weigh all of their options. Which includes a debate between an old arena in Sacramento v. an old arena in Seattle.

Second, it’s not like the Maloofs haven’t kicked the tires/assessed/understand the viability of the other cities on the table.

They’ve admitted San Jose was assessed in 2009. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/134004

Clearly, they understand the dynamics of moving the franchise to Las Vegas – both with and without a new arena.

They know their options in Anaheim. In 2003, they considered bidding on the Ducks and the Pond. http://articles.latimes.com/2003/nov/08/sports/sp-pond8 So, they clearly have a strong understanding of the market and the numbers down there.

Consequently, it’s not shocking to believe they gathered some facts regarding the Seattle market. Even if this was just a meet and greet – at some point - the Seattle market will be assessed.

HOWEVER, this is not about exploring a move right now. No matter how you rank the cities above, there are two huge shoes that have to drop before the Kings pull up stakes. The first is the Convergence Plan. The second is the arena push in Las Vegas. There is no shot the Kings move before those are resolved. But both processes should run their course in the next 12-24 months.

I don’t think there is any debate that – should the Convergence Plan succeed – Sacramento is the hands down the winner and saga ends. Yet, it becomes more and more clear the Convergence plan is a long shot to pass the state legislature.

Should it fail, I can’t see the Maloofs making any decision until the Las Vegas arena process is completed. No matter what you think of that market, there is a huge difference between playing in Thomas and Mack and new NBA quality arena. Even if they aren’t moving there, you can’t make a smart decision without all of the facts. Moreover, the Kings probably won’t need to wait on Vegas, because their process should resolve about the same time as Sacramento’s. Thus, this is probably the second shoe that needs to fall.

If I had to bet today, I’d say both the Convergence Plan the Vegas public arena push will fail.

At which point, the Maloof’s options for the foreseeable future are – in some order: old arena in Sacramento, sharing the Bay area market in San Jose, carving out the Anaheim market in Southern California, and old arena in Seattle. (I just don’t think Vegas is a real contender without a new arena, but with one they are in the hunt.) There are no stellar options there and you can make endless arguments for each (I’m sure some will be posted below.) Yet, you cannot deny that Sacramento has the worst economy, smallest corporate base, and smallest television market. (Assuming Vegas is out.)

The handwriting is on the wall. When the last two shoes fall, the Maloofs will crunch the data they’ve collected and make a final decision. One way or another, I think we are really at the beginning of the end. No later than this fall, this will start to speed up quickly. We may not see much of it on the surface, but we’ve entered the 11th hour.

 

[PurpleHaze]

Excellent analysis and I completely agree. It is 11th hour and sand in the hour glass clock looks like this to me going forward. By the fall, certainly by years end it will be 11:30 and if prevailing uncertainty is at same level it is now (or worse) the Maloofs will be preparing their road map for a move - not that they want too - just no choice. Remaining in the old arena no doubt is an option but NBA requires a notice of intent to move a franchise by March. In March 2010 the Maloof's did not file necessary paperwork to the relief of their Sacramento fans - that might not happen this time around. Thus, March 2011 could be when clock finally strikes the ultimate midnight hour on Sac-town and the Kings begin to look to places like up in King County, Washington.

 

[kupman]

I really don't think Seattle is much of an option. The relationship between the NBA/Stern and the city of Seattle may be beyond repair at this point. I think Stern even went on record as stating that once the Sonics left, it would be a very long time before that city ever saw the return of the NBA.

San Jose and Anaheim are potential options, but have their own significant issues as outlined. The other city that should be listed as a possibility with its own unique issues is KC.

Upside: a downtown arena waiting for a major tenant and the nearest NBA city is a long distance away.

Downside: it is in a city that is not too glamorous and the city may already be saturated with other professional sports given it's size.

 

[The Hammer]

Wouldn't be a problem for me if they moved to Seattle, I live here!

 

[Emma]

So, what's the "feel" you've got on the Kings leaving? My gut tells me that they're %70 likely to leave town, and they deserve to go if they can't cut through the endless red tape put up by the city and state. I'm getting every one of the names of the people who stood in the new arena's way and I'm telling my family and friends not to vote for them in the future, that's about 90 votes off the top of my head, and most people do respect my opinion. These politicians and bureaucrats ARE replaceable, and they will have cost me one of the few things that I care deeply about.

 

[Trueblood]

As always, great analysis from Larry David. Much appreciated.

I will say that I'm pretty neutral towards the Maloofs. I seriously dislike all the anti Maloof jokers on the Sac Bee forums but at the same time, I don't believe everything they say either. Trying to tell us that visiting Seattle was to just "get a feel" for what they went through in their pursuit of an arena is an insult to our intelligence. If they wanted to do that, they just have to take one look at "Sonicsgate" or do some easy internet research. When you go up there to meet in person, there is more to it.

That being said, I don't blame them for what they did. Seattle is the top non NBA market out there right now and you would be dumb not to kick the tires with them. I would think that the meeting had more to do with trying to gauge what it would take to get an arena done in Seattle. I wouldn't be surprised if George even brought up what is happening in Sacramento with the convergence plan and asked if Seattle might have a chance if it tried something like that. The one problem with the Seattle and Stern was that they told him to screw off from the get go. Nobody got creative and put together Cal Expo and convergence type plans. The Maloofs may just be thinking that if the convergence plan is not going to happen, what would the chances be in Seattle if we all got on the same page and tried something similar?

It should also be noted that a committed ownership group would be a difference maker. Bennett really wanted OKC all along and put the Renton deal together with very little input from anyone else so it was a non starter.

All that being said, I'm a little more optimistic that the convergence plan will happen and that if it doesn't, we might have a plan B to fall back on it provided it happens quick. My thinking is this. Macquarie Capital has talked about providing between $600 and $700 million towards an arena. I'm guessing that since infrastructure is still a hurdle with a downtown arena, that money would go towards infrastructure and we'd still need to get actual arena funding from the selling of parcels at the old state fair plus outside resources.

If a Plan B was to just build a new arena behind Arco, and since infrastructure is already in place, couldn't that entire $600 million just be put towards the arena with the Maloofs paying back via rent like they would do in the convergence plan?

 

[Larry David]

Assuming there is a “next plan” it’s not option B. We are 10 years in. By my count, the Convergence is the 5th plan. All have had the same fundamental flaw. No financing. Thus, the next plan would be plan F ... And if you are banking on plan F ... then Kings fans are f___ed.

A recap:
• Sept. 17, 1996: Sacramento Kings owner Jim Thomas proposes a downtown sports and entertainment complex anchored by a major league baseball stadium and a new arena for his basketball team.
• May 2000: During her mayoral campaign, Heather Fargo calls for construction of a replacement arena at the Union Pacific downtown railyard.
• Oct. 28, 2003: The Maloofs accuse Sacramento City Manager Bob Thomas and the downtown railyard developer of sabotaging the arena project at Seventh and K streets. The City Council puts the plan on hold.
• Aug. 5, 2004: Sacramento City Council sets guidelines for a new arena deal downtown. City's investment is capped at $200 million and Maloofs must contribute $150 million. Maloofs walk out of the meeting and discontinue talks with the city.
• Sept. 3, 2004: Sacramento County Sheriff Lou Blanas unveils a proposal to pay for a new Kings arena by opening up 10,000 acres of North Natomas farmland to development.
• Feb. 23, 2005: A plan by a consortium of local landowners, lawyers and community leaders to finance a new arena privately through expedited development in Natomas falls through.
2006: Measures Q & R
2008: NBA’s Cal Expo Plan
2010: Convergence plan.
It was pretty preliminary, but the team also explored the folks at Thunder Valley building the arena up there.

As I see it:

(A) In 2003 and 2004, the city council got pretty serious on this. Enough that they were ready to commit between $200 and 175 million to the project. The Maloofs were ambushed at the meeting with: (1) a big contribution; and (2) a lesser building capped at a cost of $350 million. At the time, both the city and the Maloofs had cash.

(B) Blanas land swap. Ose family pulls out because they believed their Natomas land was more valuable than Blanas’ plan called for. How’s that plan looking now? That land still hasn’t been rezoned and it’s worth a fraction of what it was going for then.

(C) Q & R. For all of the mistakes and misrepresentations made – this was an exercise in futility. This city isn’t going to tax itself for an arena.

(D) Cal Expo I - Derailed by the collapse of the economy. The numbers might have penciled out at one point, but not after the fall of 2008.

(E) Cal Expo II - The Hail Mary. With city and county public funds a third rail politically, all parties turn to the state and hope for the first time … the state will get involved in a deal that nets a city a new arena.

As you can see, the plans just get more and more complex and more unlikely.

 

[Larry David]

Second thought – I don’t want to get back into the whole “state financed v. not state financed debate” (But if you don’t believe what I’m saying below, that thread will help clarify the issue.)

However, a lot of fans have the misconception that Macquarie’s 3/4 of a billion dollars is: (1) on the table; and (2) available for the next plan – should the state refuse to approve the convergence plan.
That’s not the case.


The deal works like this: (a) Kamillos gets to redevelop or auction or whatever Cal Expo; (b) but that money won’t roll in for a while; (c) in the meantime, he needs to build the new arena and modify the old arco property; but (d) there is enough money at the finish line that Kamillos makes a profit in the end. Macquire’s roll is a loan to Kamillos that gets him from a to d. In the meantime, Macquire makes money on the interest. Thus, everybody wins.


Without the Cal Expo land – there is: (a) no land for Kamillos to redevelop ... thus no money to do the project or pay Macquire’s loan; (b) no collateral and/or profit source for Macquire to make a loan or be part of this deal.

If they could do with without Expo, Macquire’s money is enough to build the new arena right now ... the problem is ... no way to pay them back. The Kings don’t make much money and the Maloofs are talking about paying $300 million in rent (on a deal that would net them a share of the backend of the convergence). Even if they offered to pay back $300 million to Macquire – and they’ve never been able to do this themselves, why does Macquire loan them $300 million to build a place in Natomas and get paid back only $300 million over 30 years. I’m pretty sure they can make a profit with that money somewhere. You won’t see Macquire’s money in a Natomas deal.

Without the state’s land ... we are in the same spot we’ve been for a decade ... no financing.

 

[Trueblood]

Thanks for the clarification. By Plan B, I was thinking in terms of a backup plan to the convergence plan as I am aware of the past blunders. There were several bids put out when the convergence won out and I'm just hoping, even if it's a long shot in the dark, that one of them could come to the rescue should this fail. But if Macquarie's money only works with state cooperation and the Kamilos financial connection, then the convergence plan may be our only hope.

The 2004 deal for the Maloofs actually looks pretty good right now. They would've contributed $150 million when they were flush with cash and had a profitable situation. Now, they are looking at paying double that amount over 30 years and aren't rolling in nearly as much dough.

 

[Trueblood]

City Council extends time to negotiate with the leaders of the convergence plan. This seems to have more to do with allowing the Cal Expo board to study the financial ramifications and what not. At the end of the day, I'm glad they are at least studying it hard and giving it consideration as opposed to just slamming the door in our faces.

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/22/2906814/city-council-extends-time-to-negotiate.html

 

[kennadog]

As far as moving the teams goes, I truly believe that's the last thing the Maloofs want. There are good reasons why Seattle, Anaheim and Las Vegas are problematic.

Seattle, still no arena there. The city actually passed an ordinance prohibiting any city assistance going to any more sports stadiums/arenas. Of course Seattle had already spent a lot on football and baseball stadia, so they were a bit fatigued. They did try a county stadium in the suburbs move, but that failed, too.

Las Vegas. Right now any arena built there, the Kings would be lessees only. Not only that, but unlike Sacramento, there is major competition for entertainment dollars and big acts have a choice of venues, not just one. And that's even if you can get the NBA and all casinos to agree about the betting ban. Why would other casino owners give up massive revenue to help the Maloofs take away business from them?

Anaheim. It would be the third NBA franchise in the general LA/Orange County area. You'd have to compete with the Lakers for fans. I can't see Donald Sterling not objecting greatly to such a move. The NBA owners are not likely to want to approve a move that might really hurt another franchise (Clippers). Again the Kings would be lessees only. Not likely to get revenue from anything else at the arena, except maybe parking and concessions for 42 games.

Kansas City would seem a good fit. Brand spanking new arena, NBA ready and a city that would be ecstatic to get their Kings back. They regret letting them go before. I just don't think Kansas City appeals to the Maloofs. Too far away from their western base.

The Maloofs seem to be willing to hang in there with Arco for a while. At least until they can fill it up again. But besides being an ultra cheap arena, the last time I was there (recently) I couldn't help but notice that it really looks its age. It's pretty sad. Unfortunately since the city's own consultants even admit Arco is near the end of its useful economic life, it isn't worth putting major money into deferred capital items like a new roof. It would be like making $130,000 dollars in repairs to a house estimated to be worth $100,000.

I've decided I can't let myself get too upset all the time about this. If the team leaves, it will be because they were shown the door. I'd be miserable about it, but until they actually put in a request to the NBA to move, I'll keep some hope.

 

[bajaden]

I will admit to not being up to speed on this entire situation. To be truthful, its not my forte. But I have a question for Larry David, who seems to be the guru. Or at least one of them. This I know. The state of California is in terrible financial shape. Mainly because of guaranteed money owed to plubic service unions via their retirement and health plans. So it seems to me that any plan for Cal Expo that might show a profit for the state would be inticing to the legislaters. Not knowing all the particulars of the current deal on the table, mostly because of bad short team memory. My question is, whats in it for the state of California, other than a new facility in a better, more accessable location?

To go one step futher. If there's a change of power in Washington, and the new congress changes bankruptsey laws to allow states to file. What would happen to Cal Expo if the state of California filed for bankruptsey?

 

[kennadog]

To go one step further. If there's a change of power in Washington, and the new congress changes bankruptcy laws to allow states to file. What would happen to Cal Expo if the state of California filed for bankruptcy?

Interesting question. Cal Expo is subject to the State Legislature and Governor, but it is a separate legal entity from the "State of California." The State expects Cal Expo to cover its own costs, so it is its own separate reveune and expense cash flow. The State of California filing for bankruptcy doesn't automatically include Cal Expo. I'm pretty certain Cal Expo would have to file its own bankruptcy, just like any other separate political subdivision, such as a city or county.

As to what's to gain? There's no doubt that the current Cal Expo is run down and pretty pathetic looking. Hardly a showcase for the best of California, that's for sure. Its just a tired venue and limited by its original design.Its struggling with attendance. The Natomas site would be much more accessible, especially when light rail goes by there. It would have access from 3 major highways, 5, 99 and 80. It wold be highly visible from I-5, the major north-south highway on the west coast.

Yes, its less land, but they don't really use all of the land they have now and they have been thinking for some time, before the arena deals, about getting rid of racing. The track, barns and equipment take up a major part of the current site. The racing community isn't happy, but racing has been in decline at some tracks. Venerable Bay Meadows is gone.

My guess is they end up with a much more modern and efficient fair with a much better location for a lot of reasons.

[personal rant-feel free to ignore]
BTW, if the State gets out of its obligations to retirees, I may be screwed. A lot of people don't realize that State employees like me paid into both Social Security and my State pension plan. It was about 10-12% of my gross income every year. It burns me when any people who have worked for an employer for many years and paid into a pension plan, in good faith, for all those years, suddenly loses everything thanks to a bankruptcy.

It just makes you realize that whether you invest in an IRA or a pension plan or the stock market or CDs, or mutual funds or real estate, or whatever, if you are basically a small investor just trying to save for your kids college or retirement or medical expenses, you are betting on a poor risk. Junk bonds, savings and loan collapses, bankruptcies of corporations, predatory lenders. The average Joe always loses. Most wealthy people just end up less wealthy, but having 10 million instead of 20 million isn't unsurvivable. The average guy is the one that loses most.
[/personal rant]

 

[Trueblood]

Good questions. The thing I worry most about is the state not willing to sign off on the deal. Plus, there is always the thought of them not wanting to open a can of worms by helping the Kings and then worrying about helping the Chargers, Niners, Raiders and A's as well.

My question to Larry David would be this. If I'm not mistaken, the state doesn't have to spend money to help the Kings. They would just have to agree to move from a larger parcel of land to a smaller one. Kamilos would then be able to fund the arena from the money he makes from what he develops at Cal Expo plus the selling off of parcels from the old state fair. To avoid the problems with the other teams, couldn't they just say that if those city's would be just as creative, like Sac with the convergence plan, to a point where the state wouldn't have to spend any money, they would have no problem helping there as well?

 

[Larry David]

My follow ups
True – it see this flaw in the idea (but its creative and well thought out argument around the biggest problem). You are basically saying that – as long as it doesn’t require money from the general fund … the legislature can keep carving up state assets until every team has new digs. I don’t see how that argument prevails.

Let me make a very 1/2 baked hypo to show you how that would be repugnant to some people. The Fresno convention center is outdated and not making any money – probably true. Let’s say the Rail Road museum was shabbier and had 10 unused acres (still a lot of nice trains). Fresno calls for the Rail Road museum to leave Sacramento to a much smaller plot in Stockton that will be more modern - eventually. The profits will be split equally between the redevelopment of the Convention Center in Fresno, the new Stockton Rail Road museum, and the state.

As a citizen and/or rep from Sacramento, how does that strike you? Isn’t your first blush, wait – what are you people doing? Are you thinking - either leave well enough alone or improve your own property?

You might want to say – wait, that’s moving something that belongs to Sacramento to another city. First, while you may view it that way … it’s not the case. We just did a land swap of state property – the RR museum, which just happens to be located in Sac, and used the profits from downsizing to help a city in the state. While the moving parts are very different, the Convergence plan downsizes a state asset to help a city – Sacramento. Second, the other reason you may consider this a “stretch” is you probably assume the city of Sacramento will just always have the state fair … or we have dibs … because we are the Capitol. While probably practically true, if you are calling for the state to “redo” the state fair … it’s an assumption that it must remain here. Ok, yes that was 1/2 baked and a stretch … but it allowed you to logically work through the problems associated with True’s plan and view the Convergence plan from another cities eyes for a brief moment.


Bankruptcy is a red herring.

First, the state cannot declare bankruptcy. The likelihood of that changing anytime soon is somewhere between unlikely and remote. State pensions aren’t in great shape but they are mostly funded – something like 85%. It’s the county pensions that are in horrible shape. And while potentially unpopular, there are many solutions to make the state solvent – which the state would have to attempt to do before discharging the debt in a bankruptcy court.

Second, if that’s even remotely on the table … the state isn’t waiting 5-10 years for a portion of the backend. They are simply selling 100% of expo to the highest bidder – without the convergence plan – to help fill that hole. Some completely made up numbers to show you how the convergence plan works. Expo is sold or auctioned for redevelopment. 30% goes to build the new arena. Once PROFITS start to come in, the state gets 25% of the profits. BUT – that money is supposed to go to complete “modernizing the Arco Expo.” Because as it stands now, for several years the state fair is a: (1) split level arco; (2) a parking lot; (3) a dirt lot; and (4) maybe a practice facility but perhaps not. So the state is getting 17.5% of Expos’ value on the back end. Let’s assume they don’t completely short change the Arco Expo, the put the 7.5% to improve it some. That takes more time. At this point, the state is looking at 10% of the value of Expo hitting the general fund – slowly as the last development dollars trickle in over 10 -15 years.

OR – the state could sell 100% of Expo asap and try to close this budget with it. Thus, I’m not sure a state cash crunch is a carrot for this deal. In fact it’s a big fat sick for Kings fans. (Maybe you are saying, what about the state fair? The state just moved to existing fair ground ___ in city ___. Pick one 1/2 the size of Cal Expo. Done and done.)

If you notice, the convergence plan originally called for the proposed sale/land swap to hit the floor already. I’m guessing that part of the delay is somebody grabbed someone by the shoulders and said – don’t walk into the legislature before an epic budget fight and say, “Hey, maybe the state should sell off some of Expo and the state could get a fraction of that money in 10 years.” Wait until the dust clears and they are done smashing piggy banks.

Finally, to the best of my knowledge Cal Expo is a separate legal entity – but essentially it’s state property that’s managed by a board, which cannot encumber or sell the property. And the state can sell it right from under that board or simply take it back.

 

[Larry David]

Kenna, I’m need to take issue with your post - #11. You are entitled to an opinion and to be a fan with blind loyalty. I think your counter argument is very light on facts and critical analysis based primarily upon a lot of the myths that are being perpetuated by the local media. Most of this post is directed at the bad media coverage and how fans over rely upon it …so don’t take this personally. I’m trying to root out the unsubstantiated junk that continuously clutters this debate. I’m using to as an example … but I’m not trying to make an example out of you.

I laid out the case that: (1) for the foreseeable future, there isn’t going to be a new arena in Sacramento; (2) the owners are evaluating other potential homes for the team; and (3) the team is probably on the verge of moving. Really – there isn’t a real debate on the first two issues. At this point, they are facts. Which leads to the logical conclusion that – once the Convergence Plan fails – this team will openly negotiate with these other cities and then move.

After agreeing that: (1) the owners have waited through a decade of failed plans; and (2) for the foreseeable future, there are no prospects for a new arena in Sacramento, your counter argument is “I think they will keep hanging in for a while.” But why? And how long? Look, if it’s just blind hope … then that’s fine, but its’ not really an argument.

To me, it sounds like you are basing your hopes on some very poor and biased work by the local media. Look, the dirty little secret is that most of the local sports media – KHTK, the Bee, ect as well as the Kings media… know that: (1) the Kings are really close to moving and this might be the last season; (2) but there is money to be made in the meantime, unless fans become resigned to the fact that the team is moving. Look, for all the bad reporting and bias on some issues, the Bee makes make a ton of money off Kings coverage. When the Kings move, less than 12 months later the Bee’s sports department will probably have a local columnist and a couple of staff member that construct a sports page from wire stories and reprinting a beat reports for the bay area teams. They aren’t pushing these facts. Have you ever seen Bob Bradley take questions on this issue? He makes Kenna look like me. The last thing he wants is the team to go or for fans to become resigned to the move.
As for KHTK. First, a lot of the staff works directly for the team – who can’t sell tickets if the fans think the team is moving. The hosts know they can go there but they can’t dwell on it… and if they pushed too hard you’ve got to believe they would get a call from their other boss – the Kings. And it doesn’t end with the people double dipping. KHTK was a profitable station when the Kings were winning. The number of live shows exploded from a couple to over a half dozen. Well, those days are behind them. Koz’s midday show was pulling in 1% of the market (while it sucked, that also demonstrates the station can no longer throw a bad host on for 3 hours, take Kings calls, and pull ratings --- that’s a change), and the station is cutting live talent left and right. With ESPN radio in town and the prospect of no local team to cover, KTHK brought back Don and bought the rights to Love Lines. Last year, they tried to cram the Sharks down our throats --- despite the fact that most people here don’t like hockey --- because it’s the one of the few major Bay Area teams that isn’t locked up by 680 or 1050. During this debate, they also tried and failed with the A’s. KHTK is already preparing for a post-Kings era … and every non-Kings employee knows the format of the station might completely shift … thus leaving them out of work. Do not except to see a long hard look at the facts I’ve laid out on that station.

The latest “KHTK” talking point is that “filling up the building” will keep the Kings here long term. Sure, lack of attendance would hasten a move. But we know that: (1) they aren’t going anywhere until the Cal Expo plan is decided; but (2) if they don’t get an arena, they will eventually leave. Thus, the number of fans this season certainly is not determinative; the Kings are waiting on the Convergence Plan to finish up one way or the other. After that, it doesn’t matter how many fans come … the Kings can make more money in other cities. If it comes down to selling tickets, it’s much easier to see tickets to an excited new fan base, in larger cities, with more affluent fans. Moreover, it doesn’t address the fatal flaw – there is no road to an arena in Sacramento. Ticket sales don’t fix that. But the Kings will make money and those profits and fun buzz trickle down to the media. The media knows what’s going on and the best argument to keep you watching is – you should attend as many of the remaining 41 homes games as possible. Even if you don’t think I’m right. You cannot dispute the bias of the media and team on this topic. In addition, there is a serious flaw in the logic that short term attendance number influences the long term arena prospects in this city.

I mean really – look at the coverage the fans rest their faith and hopes upon. Repeatedly, you hear media … and later fans … respond to the cold hard facts with, “Well, the team says they want to be here long term, so I’m going with that until I hear different.” First, that’s not even responsive to the issue. The whole point is the team wants to stay, but they are about to leave because there isn’t going to be an arena here. So you are just ignoring the facts. Second, why would the team ever show their cards to the public? Do you think the owners saying, “Look we tried for 10 years, but this latest plan is dead in the water. So we are talking to other cities now and will probably have to relocate - at least during the lockout” … might have some impact on the number of lower blow tickets the Kings can sell on a Tuesday night against the Grizzlies next season? Beyond costing themselves millions, it hurts the Maloofs bargaining power with other cities, with whom they will need to negotiate lease. If you are relying on the “They say they want to be here, and until I hear them say otherwise” argument … you should do some reading on other relocations processes. That press conference occurs in the next city – not this one. If they Kings are never going leave Sacramento, they would say they are never leaving. It’s also what they would say if they are in Settle right now negotiating a rent agreement behind closed door over a Starbucks. The statement itself means very very little.

For example, I’m not sure the the Maloofs might have sell either the team or at least the Natomas lang… but it’s not off the table. To many Kings fans, poor local reporting has made that statement heresy. However, there is ample outside reporting that: (1) the Palms is hemorrhaging red ink; (2) the Maloofs took out 380 million revolver for the Palms expansion; (3) when the size of their holdings shrank in the market collapse, they tripped covenants in the deal; (4) the beer distributorship was sold and they paid 30 million to the principal and kick this down the road; and (5) 350 million balance will mature March 2011.

In March, three options jump off the page for the Maloofs. Liquidate the Well Fargo Stock, allow another group – most likely Harrahs to take control of the Palms, or sell at least controlling interest of the Kings or Arco. Do they want to sell the Kings? No. Again, that’s not the point and not responsive to the issue. I’m sure the family also don’t want to see their investment in the Palms, which is much larger than the Kings, go down the drain and into the hands of a business rival either.

There is a real issue here concerning this revolver and the March due date – which coincides with the relocation date. Except, the Maloofs won’t acknowledge it exists, or the real reason they sold the beer distributorship, or that the Palms is losing money. They respond to this issue with, “Things in Vegas are fine. We’re never going to sell and we want to leave this team to our nephews.” And that’s good enough for 90% of the fans and apparently all of the media. But there are more that an few logical followup questions regarding Sacramento’s future. Like “If you aren’t selling the team, are you willing to move to another city and using the sale of the Natomas land to pay of the debt?” or “Are you letting the Palms go instead?” Except to ask those big questions - you have to/needed to confront the Maloofs on the facts above, and fans aren’t excited to root for financially distressed owners, on the verge of relocation. And sports media isn’t really “news” and the media rely on fan excitement. (Have you noticed how the some of the media needs to tip toe around the “Why aren’t the Kings spending” debate this summer?) Thus, no tough follow ups or critical analysis. Which is really isn’t a problem – per se – we have bigger ones in this town. But if folks are going to repeat these unsubstantiated and logically flawed talking points, then prepared to have them challenged.

In fact, when I raised the revolver last time – Kenna responded to the facts above with – “I’m not saying they might not be forced to sell the team, I’m saying they don’t want to.” That’s not addressing the issue. I’m not attacking your view of– let’s just wait and hope for the best without any facts … just the argument. I think it’s not based on anything and it perpetuates a myth that will blindside the fans. Because this team is almost gone, and the fans need to start realizing that. Whether or not anybody in the media wants to be honest and do their job.

 

[kennadog]

Larry: You clearly don't know me at all. I'm no blind fan. I've been one of the most pessimistic people on this board for a very long time when it comes to getting a new arena in Sacramento. I most definitely believe the Maloofs will move the team when they decide there's no hope for an arena. If the convergence deal falls through, I'm sure we'll hear the Maloofs' and Stern's answer in short order.

Do I think the Maloofs want to move? No, I really don't think they do. It will cost them a lot of money to move the team and they actually have to find a place the team can move to that actually makes economic sense and that the NBA owners will allow them to move to. They have to pay the league (other owners) something like $50 million just for the privilege of moving.

Other cities can make offers and promises, but can they actually deliver? We have zero proof that an acceptable deal is on the table from other cities. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. (Kansas City is possible...gee the city just went and built a really nice new arena, plus lots of other nice downtown amenities. They wanted NCAA games back, for one thing.) Do I think the Maloofs are listening to offers? Of course I do. The Kings are an obvious target for any city wanting a professional sports team. A person would have to be nuts to think other cities aren't trying to woo the Kings away. Everyone and his cousin knows Arco is dead as an NBA arena and if the Kings can't get a new arena they have to move. They'll have no choice. The NBA won't let them stay.

Of course the Maloofs aren't gong to openly discuss the possibility of a team move. They'd be downright stupid to shoot themselves in the foot like that. You're right, they still need to sell tickets. You can say a lot of things about the Maloofs, but I don't think you can call them stupid business people. And the Maloofs themselves have already said they get offers all the time.

Nowhere in my post did I express the thought that the Kings won't leave Sacramento and soon, without an arena deal.

For a long time now, I've believed that Sacramento will lose the Kings. Why? Because I have no belief in any of the political leaders of Sacramento to do anything of real vision or originality regarding anything, not just a sports/entertainment center. I've lived in the Sacramento region for over 40 years now. Its still pretty much the bland product of mundane, pedestrian planning, design and thinking. No risk-taking at all.

I can't believe you think there are any Kings fans that don't know perfectly well that Sacramento is on the verge of losing the team. You think this is news to anybody? I know that as clearly as I know my own name. As I've said, the legislature is the hard part of this deal and I fully expect the legislature to kill the proposal. If they don't I'll be ecstatic, but I don't think it will happen.

Essentially, though, it doesn't matter whether its this March that the team applies to move or another, later date. If they leave it won't make a damn bit of difference when or any of the other details. What Kings' fan in Sacramento will care about the timing or any of the details about how it happened?

I actually believe this city will do nothing and the Kings will be forced to leave. So give me a break and let me hang on to a shred of hope, until the actual announcement of the move is made, without calling me a blind fan. That almost non-existent shred is all I have left. I've realized that nothing said about what may or may not be happening matters at all. What is going to happen will happen and we're going to know what actually happens soon enough now.

 

[Larry David]

That's very fair outlook, and I've never taken issue with it.

 

[fansinceday1]

This whole ordeal is just depressing.

 

[BMiller52]

Kenna, I’m need to take issue with your post - #11. You are entitled to an opinion and to be a fan with blind loyalty. I think your counter argument is very light on facts and critical analysis based primarily upon a lot of the myths that are being perpetuated by the local media. Most of this post is directed at the bad media coverage and how fans over rely upon it …so don’t take this personally. I’m trying to root out the unsubstantiated junk that continuously clutters this debate. I’m using to as an example … but I’m not trying to make an example out of you.

I laid out the case that: (1) for the foreseeable future, there isn’t going to be a new arena in Sacramento; (2) the owners are evaluating other potential homes for the team; and (3) the team is probably on the verge of moving. Really – there isn’t a real debate on the first two issues. At this point, they are facts. Which leads to the logical conclusion that – once the Convergence Plan fails – this team will openly negotiate with these other cities and then move.

After agreeing that: (1) the owners have waited through a decade of failed plans; and (2) for the foreseeable future, there are no prospects for a new arena in Sacramento, your counter argument is “I think they will keep hanging in for a while.” But why? And how long? Look, if it’s just blind hope … then that’s fine, but its’ not really an argument.

To me, it sounds like you are basing your hopes on some very poor and biased work by the local media. Look, the dirty little secret is that most of the local sports media – KHTK, the Bee, ect as well as the Kings media… know that: (1) the Kings are really close to moving and this might be the last season; (2) but there is money to be made in the meantime, unless fans become resigned to the fact that the team is moving. Look, for all the bad reporting and bias on some issues, the Bee makes make a ton of money off Kings coverage. When the Kings move, less than 12 months later the Bee’s sports department will probably have a local columnist and a couple of staff member that construct a sports page from wire stories and reprinting a beat reports for the bay area teams. They aren’t pushing these facts. Have you ever seen Bob Bradley take questions on this issue? He makes Kenna look like me. The last thing he wants is the team to go or for fans to become resigned to the move.
As for KHTK. First, a lot of the staff works directly for the team – who can’t sell tickets if the fans think the team is moving. The hosts know they can go there but they can’t dwell on it… and if they pushed too hard you’ve got to believe they would get a call from their other boss – the Kings. And it doesn’t end with the people double dipping. KHTK was a profitable station when the Kings were winning. The number of live shows exploded from a couple to over a half dozen. Well, those days are behind them. Koz’s midday show was pulling in 1% of the market (while it sucked, that also demonstrates the station can no longer throw a bad host on for 3 hours, take Kings calls, and pull ratings --- that’s a change), and the station is cutting live talent left and right. With ESPN radio in town and the prospect of no local team to cover, KTHK brought back Don and bought the rights to Love Lines. Last year, they tried to cram the Sharks down our throats --- despite the fact that most people here don’t like hockey --- because it’s the one of the few major Bay Area teams that isn’t locked up by 680 or 1050. During this debate, they also tried and failed with the A’s. KHTK is already preparing for a post-Kings era … and every non-Kings employee knows the format of the station might completely shift … thus leaving them out of work. Do not except to see a long hard look at the facts I’ve laid out on that station.

The latest “KHTK” talking point is that “filling up the building” will keep the Kings here long term. Sure, lack of attendance would hasten a move. But we know that: (1) they aren’t going anywhere until the Cal Expo plan is decided; but (2) if they don’t get an arena, they will eventually leave. Thus, the number of fans this season certainly is not determinative; the Kings are waiting on the Convergence Plan to finish up one way or the other. After that, it doesn’t matter how many fans come … the Kings can make more money in other cities. If it comes down to selling tickets, it’s much easier to see tickets to an excited new fan base, in larger cities, with more affluent fans. Moreover, it doesn’t address the fatal flaw – there is no road to an arena in Sacramento. Ticket sales don’t fix that. But the Kings will make money and those profits and fun buzz trickle down to the media. The media knows what’s going on and the best argument to keep you watching is – you should attend as many of the remaining 41 homes games as possible. Even if you don’t think I’m right. You cannot dispute the bias of the media and team on this topic. In addition, there is a serious flaw in the logic that short term attendance number influences the long term arena prospects in this city.

I mean really – look at the coverage the fans rest their faith and hopes upon. Repeatedly, you hear media … and later fans … respond to the cold hard facts with, “Well, the team says they want to be here long term, so I’m going with that until I hear different.” First, that’s not even responsive to the issue. The whole point is the team wants to stay, but they are about to leave because there isn’t going to be an arena here. So you are just ignoring the facts. Second, why would the team ever show their cards to the public? Do you think the owners saying, “Look we tried for 10 years, but this latest plan is dead in the water. So we are talking to other cities now and will probably have to relocate - at least during the lockout” … might have some impact on the number of lower blow tickets the Kings can sell on a Tuesday night against the Grizzlies next season? Beyond costing themselves millions, it hurts the Maloofs bargaining power with other cities, with whom they will need to negotiate lease. If you are relying on the “They say they want to be here, and until I hear them say otherwise” argument … you should do some reading on other relocations processes. That press conference occurs in the next city – not this one. If they Kings are never going leave Sacramento, they would say they are never leaving. It’s also what they would say if they are in Settle right now negotiating a rent agreement behind closed door over a Starbucks. The statement itself means very very little.

For example, I’m not sure the the Maloofs might have sell either the team or at least the Natomas lang… but it’s not off the table. To many Kings fans, poor local reporting has made that statement heresy. However, there is ample outside reporting that: (1) the Palms is hemorrhaging red ink; (2) the Maloofs took out 380 million revolver for the Palms expansion; (3) when the size of their holdings shrank in the market collapse, they tripped covenants in the deal; (4) the beer distributorship was sold and they paid 30 million to the principal and kick this down the road; and (5) 350 million balance will mature March 2011.

In March, three options jump off the page for the Maloofs. Liquidate the Well Fargo Stock, allow another group – most likely Harrahs to take control of the Palms, or sell at least controlling interest of the Kings or Arco. Do they want to sell the Kings? No. Again, that’s not the point and not responsive to the issue. I’m sure the family also don’t want to see their investment in the Palms, which is much larger than the Kings, go down the drain and into the hands of a business rival either.

There is a real issue here concerning this revolver and the March due date – which coincides with the relocation date. Except, the Maloofs won’t acknowledge it exists, or the real reason they sold the beer distributorship, or that the Palms is losing money. They respond to this issue with, “Things in Vegas are fine. We’re never going to sell and we want to leave this team to our nephews.” And that’s good enough for 90% of the fans and apparently all of the media. But there are more that an few logical followup questions regarding Sacramento’s future. Like “If you aren’t selling the team, are you willing to move to another city and using the sale of the Natomas land to pay of the debt?” or “Are you letting the Palms go instead?” Except to ask those big questions - you have to/needed to confront the Maloofs on the facts above, and fans aren’t excited to root for financially distressed owners, on the verge of relocation. And sports media isn’t really “news” and the media rely on fan excitement. (Have you noticed how the some of the media needs to tip toe around the “Why aren’t the Kings spending” debate this summer?) Thus, no tough follow ups or critical analysis. Which is really isn’t a problem – per se – we have bigger ones in this town. But if folks are going to repeat these unsubstantiated and logically flawed talking points, then prepared to have them challenged.

In fact, when I raised the revolver last time – Kenna responded to the facts above with – “I’m not saying they might not be forced to sell the team, I’m saying they don’t want to.” That’s not addressing the issue. I’m not attacking your view of– let’s just wait and hope for the best without any facts … just the argument. I think it’s not based on anything and it perpetuates a myth that will blindside the fans. Because this team is almost gone, and the fans need to start realizing that. Whether or not anybody in the media wants to be honest and do their job.

So if you think the team is done and there is no hope and you're just waiting for them to leave why do you even post here? Are you enjoying this? For what its worth I disagree with you about some stuff but I don't care enough to type up a huge post like that.

 

[Larry David]

If you'd like to stick your head in the sand, you don't have to read it.

 

[bajaden]

Interesting question. Cal Expo is subject to the State Legislature and Governor, but it is a separate legal entity from the "State of California." The State expects Cal Expo to cover its own costs, so it is its own separate reveune and expense cash flow. The State of California filing for bankruptcy doesn't automatically include Cal Expo. I'm pretty certain Cal Expo would have to file its own bankruptcy, just like any other separate political subdivision, such as a city or county.

As to what's to gain? There's no doubt that the current Cal Expo is run down and pretty pathetic looking. Hardly a showcase for the best of California, that's for sure. Its just a tired venue and limited by its original design.Its struggling with attendance. The Natomas site would be much more accessible, especially when light rail goes by there. It would have access from 3 major highways, 5, 99 and 80. It wold be highly visible from I-5, the major north-south highway on the west coast.

Yes, its less land, but they don't really use all of the land they have now and they have been thinking for some time, before the arena deals, about getting rid of racing. The track, barns and equipment take up a major part of the current site. The racing community isn't happy, but racing has been in decline at some tracks. Venerable Bay Meadows is gone.

My guess is they end up with a much more modern and efficient fair with a much better location for a lot of reasons.

[personal rant-feel free to ignore]
BTW, if the State gets out of its obligations to retirees, I may be screwed. A lot of people don't realize that State employees like me paid into both Social Security and my State pension plan. It was about 10-12% of my gross income every year. It burns me when any people who have worked for an employer for many years and paid into a pension plan, in good faith, for all those years, suddenly loses everything thanks to a bankruptcy.

It just makes you realize that whether you invest in an IRA or a pension plan or the stock market or CDs, or mutual funds or real estate, or whatever, if you are basically a small investor just trying to save for your kids college or retirement or medical expenses, you are betting on a poor risk. Junk bonds, savings and loan collapses, bankruptcies of corporations, predatory lenders. The average Joe always loses. Most wealthy people just end up less wealthy, but having 10 million instead of 20 million isn't unsurvivable. The average guy is the one that loses most.
[/personal rant]

Now you know why I live in Mexico. You have my sympathies. You and the state of California are in an untenable position, and at some point, no good end is going to come of it. As is usually the case, the politicians will walk away unscathed, while you and others will take the blunt of their spending mistakes. Anyway, I don't really want to open that can of worms. Come down here when your ready to retire. We'll find you a real nice place overlooking the bay. Cheap too!!

 

[bajaden]

If you'd like to stick your head in the sand, you don't have to read it.

Excuse me for a moment while I brush the sand out of my hair.. OK, thats done.. So your basicly saying that there is little or no hope for the state legislature to approve this deal. So my question is, if thats the case, and it must have been the case from the get go, then why did smart business men even waste their time going through the motions? From what you say, this deal was dead on arrival. So why bother? Was it all just a PR excercise to make it look like the Maloof's gave it the old college try?

I realize that your trying to be logical and dealing with just the facts as they lie. But to remove all emotion from the decision making would make us nothing more than machines without hearts. Perhaps I'm shooting arrows in the air in hope that one of them hits the target. But I have to believe that someone involved in this thought it had a chance to work, or else why do it. I admit to not being overly optimistic. But I've always been the glass is half full type. It would be too depressing to go through life the other way. My rant aside, what do you think the odds are of the legislature approving this deal, and does anyone backing the deal get a chance to pitch it before the legislature, or is this just a lobbying type of approach.

By the way, you stated that California couldn't file bankruptsy, and thats true becuse current law doesn't allow for it. But the mood in Washington is changing, and there's a lot of opposition to anymore bailouts. There are a lot of rumors that the new congress will take up changing bankruptsy laws to allow states to file. Knowing how congress works, this could take years to accomplish. But there is a sense of urgency in washington with thier poll ratings down to 11% favorability.

 

[Larry David]

No, this was not a cynical exercise or a pr stunt. All of the parties walking up to the state will benefit from this and so will Sacramento. Sacramento gets a couple of new facilities as an engine for growth. The Kings get new digs. For taking this risk, the developer makes money. While it has some problems, it’s good for Expo. For everybody on that side of the table, it makes a ton of sense. That’s why they are doing it.

So, there are two obvious reasons for trying this. The first is the time tested notion of “Why the hell not. It’s all upside and except for a little embarrassment on the back end … very little downside.” The convergence plan is sorta like asking out the hottest girl in school. Most likely she’s saying no. But really, why not ask.

Second, everybody wants the team to stay here, and they’ve tried everything else. As you can see from the timeline above, the plans just keep getting more complex, convoluted, and unlikely. First, it was the city that would finance most of this, then farmers, then a tax, and then it was helping Cal Expo redevelop their own property. Now we are asking the state. The first Cal Expo was a long shot, and this is more complex and politically difficult.

And that’s assuming Cal Expo doesn’t inflict fatal flaws before this has a chance to take off. We saw that before. The Maloof walkout, the Ose pull out, and the city’s “sure we’ve got those rose covered double talk.”

I’m actually hopeful (see it happens) the two month delay is strategic to allow this to have some shot of hitting the floor and passing. It could be an Expo problem.

 

[bajaden]

No, this was not a cynical exercise or a pr stunt. All of the parties walking up to the state will benefit from this and so will Sacramento. Sacramento gets a couple of new facilities as an engine for growth. The Kings get new digs. For taking this risk, the developer makes money. While it has some problems, it’s good for Expo. For everybody on that side of the table, it makes a ton of sense. That’s why they are doing it.

So, there are two obvious reasons for trying this. The first is the time tested notion of “Why the hell not. It’s all upside and except for a little embarrassment on the back end … very little downside.” The convergence plan is sorta like asking out the hottest girl in school. Most likely she’s saying no. But really, why not ask.

Second, everybody wants the team to stay here, and they’ve tried everything else. As you can see from the timeline above, the plans just keep getting more complex, convoluted, and unlikely. First, it was the city that would finance most of this, then farmers, then a tax, and then it was helping Cal Expo redevelop their own property. Now we are asking the state. The first Cal Expo was a long shot, and this is more complex and politically difficult.

And that’s assuming Cal Expo doesn’t inflict fatal flaws before this has a chance to take off. We saw that before. The Maloof walkout, the Ose pull out, and the city’s “sure we’ve got those rose covered double talk.”

I’m actually hopeful (see it happens) the two month delay is strategic to allow this to have some shot of hitting the floor and passing. It could be an Expo problem.

Good response, and with a glimmer of hope. What more can anyone ask for... I can follow the team where ever they go. I live in Ensenada with four satelite dishes on my roof. I want this for Sacramento. It would be a tragic loss for the city. Even those that aren't necessarily in favor of the deal will at some point regret the loss of the team and the arena. I hope and pray that sacramento can move into the future with the Kings.

 

[BMiller52]

Good response, and with a glimmer of hope. What more can anyone ask for... I can follow the team where ever they go. I live in Ensenada with four satelite dishes on my roof. I want this for Sacramento. It would be a tragic loss for the city. Even those that aren't necessarily in favor of the deal will at some point regret the loss of the team and the arena. I hope and pray that sacramento can move into the future with the Kings.

If they move to Vegas or SoCal I probably wouldn't follow the team anymore but if they moved to San Jose I would. I don't really care where they play as long as it's in Northern California. The reasons I think they'll be a bit patient with Sac till the economy rebounds even if the convergence deal falls through or gets put on hold is because all of the cities they'd potentially move to are flawed just as much if not more than Sac is:Seattle: definitely no new arena in sight and Key Arena is in just as bad as shape as Arco, pointless to move considering they'd need to pay 100 mill to move the team.Anaheim: They'd be competing with the Clippers and Lakers for fans in an area where the Kings are already pretty disliked from their rivalry with the Lakers, plus they still wouldn't have a great arena to play in.Vegas: A new arena is somewhere off in the distance at best right now, Stern wouldn't be too cool with a team moving to Vegas as long as NBA is still gambled on there, and Vegas has a smaller population than Sac area does with more entertainment venues, meaning that if the team isn't winning nobody will go to the games.Kansas City: They have a great new arena but the Maloofs don't want to go that far east, plus remember the Kings moved from KC in the first place before they were in Sac. So for right now new arena or no new arena, Sac is still the best place for the Kings. If they decide it isnt in the new future hopefuly they decide on SJ instead.

 

[Rookie]

Thanks for the information Larry.

 

[kennadog]

Okay...found it. The Sonics had to pay the other NBA owners a $30 million "relocation fee." I couldn't find out how the amount is determined. Flat fee or some calulation based on certain factors.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2004358405_websonivote18.html

Since I'm not sure the Maloofs can afford even $30 million, its going to have to be a pretty attractive offer to from another city. Of course, other owners could force the issue, by deciding that Arco is just not an acceptable NBA venue anymore. Not sure they would take that drastic a step soon, but you never know.

 

[VF21]

As far as moving the teams goes, I truly believe that's the last thing the Maloofs want. There are good reasons why Seattle, Anaheim and Las Vegas are problematic.

Seattle, still no arena there. The city actually passed an ordinance prohibiting any city assistance going to any more sports stadiums/arenas. Of course Seattle had already spent a lot on football and baseball stadia, so they were a bit fatigued. They did try a county stadium in the suburbs move, but that failed, too.

Las Vegas. Right now any arena built there, the Kings would be lessees only. Not only that, but unlike Sacramento, there is major competition for entertainment dollars and big acts have a choice of venues, not just one. And that's even if you can get the NBA and all casinos to agree about the betting ban. Why would other casino owners give up massive revenue to help the Maloofs take away business from them?

Anaheim. It would be the third NBA franchise in the general LA/Orange County area. You'd have to compete with the Lakers for fans. I can't see Donald Sterling not objecting greatly to such a move. The NBA owners are not likely to want to approve a move that might really hurt another franchise (Clippers). Again the Kings would be lessees only. Not likely to get revenue from anything else at the arena, except maybe parking and concessions for 42 games.

Kansas City would seem a good fit. Brand spanking new arena, NBA ready and a city that would be ecstatic to get their Kings back. They regret letting them go before. I just don't think Kansas City appeals to the Maloofs. Too far away from their western base.

The Maloofs seem to be willing to hang in there with Arco for a while. At least until they can fill it up again. But besides being an ultra cheap arena, the last time I was there (recently) I couldn't help but notice that it really looks its age. It's pretty sad. Unfortunately since the city's own consultants even admit Arco is near the end of its useful economic life, it isn't worth putting major money into deferred capital items like a new roof. It would be like making $130,000 dollars in repairs to a house estimated to be worth $100,000.

I've decided I can't let myself get too upset all the time about this. If the team leaves, it will be because they were shown the door. I'd be miserable about it, but until they actually put in a request to the NBA to move, I'll keep some hope.

Excellent assessment, kennadog. And I've bolded the last part because it's pretty much the approach I've decided to take, too. I will do anything I can to help keep my Kings in Sacramento, but at the end of the day the decision will be made at a pay grade much, much higher than mine. In the meantime, I'll just continue to support them, enjoy them and keep my fingers and toes crossed that something can/will be done.

 

[BMiller52]

Okay...found it. The Sonics had to pay the other NBA owners a $30 million "relocation fee." I couldn't find out how the amount is determined. Flat fee or some calulation based on certain factors.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2004358405_websonivote18.html

Since I'm not sure the Maloofs can afford even $30 million, its going to have to be a pretty attractive offer to from another city. Of course, other owners could force the issue, by deciding that Arco is just not an acceptable NBA venue anymore. Not sure they would take that drastic a step soon, but you never know.

Yeah I don't think they can afford another 30 million out of pocket. Maybe a year from now but right now I think the relocation fee is a bit much for them to pay. Who knows though, not my decision, but that's what I'd guess.