Wert it's not that people don't want to stop being kings fans if they move it's that THEY WANT TO KEEP THE KINGS IN SACRAMENTO.
Sure and if they don't, my point is that it's not the end of the world if the city doesn't have an NBA franchise.
I will say that yelling at me in ALL CAPS doesn't make your point in any stronger. Quite the opposite in fact.
Honestly if the city gets a new arena then there is definitely a lot of POTENTIAL for things that would be good for the city. If you can't see that then it sucks for you.
I can see that, but I can also look at boondoggles like the convention center and see that a new arena could end up in a very similar situation. (ie not enough hotel rooms/infrastructure for larger events). You are quite right to use the word "potential", because there are no guarantees here at all, no matter what the more rabid propenents might have one believe. Folks say, "well gee, it worked in these other cities!". But the demographics of those cities, the competition they have for events, doesn't always give a good correlation. Just because Sacramentan's are able to support the Kings very well (and their astronomically rising ticket prices) is in no way a predictor that they'll support other events equally. Our per capita income isn't great and frankly there's are only so much a small market can support no matter how spectacular the venue/complex.
I guess it sucks to be a lot of people in Sacramento as multiple polls show a majority of locals obviously don't see the benefit of a hugely expensive new sports arena as clearly as the more rabid Kings fans obviously do. If I were the city planners, I'd be very concerned at poll numbers showing the amount that taxpayers think the city should pay. It's going to make any ballot issue a really tough sell.
Folks here seem to have their "fan glasses" on to the point that they take a preconceived notion (i.e. Sacramento needs a new arena desperately no matter what the cost!) and fit their arguments to support that by selectively parsing the available data. Of course others might look at the same data and have legitimate concerns. Those who are fans of the Kings, but not necessarily fans of the financing schemes for a new arena are not necessarily ignorant nor does it "suck to be them."
I probably won't STOP being a kings fan but I love being able to go to a couple games a year.
Yeah, I enjoy Kings games too, but find myself increasingly priced out of them. And I can only chuckle at those who think that a new arena is somehow going to mean lower ticket prices. I find it unconvincing that the Maloofs are going to spend millions and millions as part of their "fair share", yet give us lower ticket prices out of the kindness of their hearts or just because they have a new facility.
Though I really enjoy the Kings games (in those rare times these days when I can actually afford them), losing that isn't going to change my life a bit. There are other things to do in Sacramento and the surrounding areas. And with our proximity to San fran, Tahoe, Reno, etc., I doubt I'll be hurting for entertainment choices. Unlike some folks here (who I think are grasping a bit), I don't think driving to those places (as thousands of Sac Commuters do daily) is a huge deal at all. Most of these locales are easily with "daytrip" distance and I avail myself of that option all the time with no complaint about the drive. (like 1-2 hours on the road is going to kill me or something!)
goes through then the Maloofs will be spending MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
As those who will be amongst the primary financial beneficiaries of such a deal, I don't think it's crazy to ask them to pay their "fair share". Which is going to be millions, but so what? They had no such reservations about spending on the Palms. (and yeah, some will bleat "But that's totally separate!", forgetting that in the end it's all Maloof family money and how they choose to spend it as a family decision). And let's hope that the city doesn't roll over and make sure that said "fair share" doesn't include sweetheart deals for Maloofs in terms of excusing previous loans, getting a disproportionate cut of non Kings/monarchs revenue, control of parking, arena naming rights, etc.
And yeah, I know that NBA franchises aren't the most profitable of ventures, normally only showing a major profit upon sale, but the Maloofs use the visibility of the Kings in a synergistic way to promote more profitable ventures such as their Vegas Casino. Much in the same way they link the Palms brand to televised poker tourneys, reality tv shows, etc.
I tend to think that the Kings would need to take a large enough share of any profits of a new arena that taxpayers and city might blanch. So when I say above that they'll likely be some of the primary financial beneficiaries of a new arena, I'm not saying that to slam them, it's just a fact of any deal that's likely to be cut. I don't blame the Maloofs for wanting to maximize profits/reduce their risk/etc. but I'm honestly not sure if that can be done effectively while keeping the will of the taxpaying masses in mind.
I'm a bit bummed that it looks like negotiations aren't going great in Vegas as I'd truly love to see a proposal fit for the ballot so that the voters can decide. Heck, even the Maloofs are content to let it come to a vote, so I'll say that I'm with them on that. 100%.
