RookieOfTheDay
Starter
And when we finally get an arena it should be called the Chris Webber Pavilion and have a HUGE statue of him in front!
Webber doing all he can to keep team in Sacramento
- Thread starter rainmaker
- Start date
And when we finally get an arena it should be called the Chris Webber Pavilion and have a HUGE statue of him in front!
No i think the small market owners will vote YES because when they are struggling they will want the option of moving to a bigger market.The bigger market owners however, will probably vote NO because they wouldnt want smaller teams to invade their territory
bozzwell
Starter
I suggest they should all vote NO just to be on the safe side.
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
It could go either way. They could do that, or maybe they'd have some extra empathy for Sacramento and want The Maloofs to give us more time.
There are some small market teams that are entrenched in their markets and won't ever have an easy arena excuse like the Maloofs do to get out. There are others that like being small market teams or have ownership based in those markets and are happy to be there and don't want to compete against a dozen superteams coming out of 3 or 4 super-markets.
I am sure that Stern would love it if one of the 4 or 5 major financial centers were always guaranteed a deep playoff run though.
Fear the Putin
Starter
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
It's possible. Billionaires are just people like everyone else.
Section 101
All-Star
Or they could vote no because they could lose out on the revenue sharing deal if they allow a small market team to move to a big.
how would they lose out on rev sharing? wouldnt a move mean the small markets get more of a share because there would be less small teams to share with? im jus asking i really dont know
The revenue sharing will be determined by vote and it looks to be a tight one, a team in Sacramento can be counted on as a yes vote. A team in Anaheim can be counted on as a no vote.
So approving the move could theoretically swing the vote.
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
I hadn't thought about it like that. If the Maloofs do move to Anaheim and this goes through it would be poetic justice if they had to then share their precious TV deal with small markets just like the one they abandoned.
Section 101
All-Star
Correct. A team moving in on a big market could mean the difference between having revenue sharing and not having revenue sharing. If Buss and Sterling have to share now with the Kings and then have to share with the rest of the small market teams that could be a deal breaker.
On the otherhand, if the team moves and then they have to pay out to small market teams which drops whatever potential gains they made by moving to zero or negative that would be poetic justice.
Section 101
All-Star
There are rumors for each at this point.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
Nothing, he's basically repeating what we've heard. He says he thinks it's 85/15 that the Kings are leaving at this point. 
Hoovtrain
All-Star
Gut says they will stay, but he puts it at 85% gone 15% stay. Webb wanted to buy the team along with some investors and put an offer in, but was turned down. Team is not for sale. Now he is trying to do what he can, even though the ship has most likely sailed. The Maloofs are done with this city leaders and the Bee, but not the fans. So even with Webb's help, it won't matter, but a possible league block is our best bet.
ReinadelosReys
Starter
He said orginally Webb (along with a group of investors) wanted to buy the team, the Maloofs said no. Then he tried to buy part of the team, the Maloofs said no. So now, we with a group of other investors are trying to take over the $77 million loan for them. CarmichaelDave said today that this group had the deal, but needed one other investor to contribute a substantial amount and found Chris Webber.
Grant also said that the Maloofs will move the team, that much we already know, the only thing standing in their way are hurdles that may come up in the next few days with the NBA Board of Gov meetings.
Jim Les
G-League
See, this is why I can't understand why some people keep apologizing for the Maloofs. If a genuine offer were on the table to buy the team (and that may be a big IF), the Maloof's simply would not sell. I think that much has been made clear. That, to me, is pretty indicative of their intentions. I understand that it is their team, but if it made more financial sense for them to sell rather than to relocate, and they still choose to leave town, how could anyone really defend that? It just seems like they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Gary
All-Star
Have a feeling that the Maloofs wanted to leave Sacramento since they bought the team, and used any chance they got to shoot down any Arena deal because that would have meant they would have had to stay in Sac if a new one was built. I don't think they ever wanted to be here, and I don't think they would have ever allowed an arena deal to work here in Sac. Screw the Maloofs. I have known all along they are snakes, and they have just proved me right.
If the team stays in Sacramento I hope that people would throw things at the Maloofs if they try to watch from courtside. Make them watch from a secure box. Make them want to sell this team. God I hate them.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Oh that I would precisely defend. They like owning a team. They have no duty to sell it just because that would be nice for you.
It does put them firmly at odds with your interests, but its perfectly reasonable.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
JGar just posted this link that gives more details.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/rumors/post/Chris-Webber-leads-charge-to-keep-Kings-?urn=nba-343407
I can see the problem. If CWebb gets together $500 mil (unlikely but am using that number to make the point) the Maloofs don't have to let his group in. On the other hand, if they invest in an arena, it's a different ball game. My sense is that if this involves players, they want a piece of the team and not an arena. If they just want profit, they may look at many ways of investing their money. They need to be sold on the idea that Sacramento should not lose a team and that no matter where they put their money, it will help towards that goal. Ex-Kings get it. On this particular day, Chuck gets it. They can't be alone.
CWebb is off in a direction I doubt other people could predict but I'll take Chuck's money also.
...and Vlade's and Bibby's. Then you're talking serious dough.
Look, the Maloof's are screwed as far as I am concerned. Unless they can absolutely just give the keys of the Palms to their creditors without having their creditors come after them personally, they will continue to bleed $$$ like a stuck pig. And I highly doubt that that can happen - otherwise they wouldn't have sold their solid beer distribution business, they would have unloaded the Palms. The Anaheim move doesn't change that for them. Those Anaheim guys are just going to squeeze when the Maloofs get desperate, and then the Maloofs will finally capitulate and sell to them, like a very bad stock deal gone bad. So why not have some of these players like Webb come in and take the place of Anaheim? Just give it up, Maloofs. You are done. It can be now, or it can be later. Give it up, and let those with the strong hands take over.
Jim Les
G-League
Then why not come out and just admit that? Why not come out and say, "Hey Sacramento, it's our team, and we're taking our talents to Long Beach. Don't like it? F****n screw! Sacramento is nice, but we can make more money in Anaheim. Deal with it!"
Why even carry on with the dog and pony show, pretending to work with the city to get an arena done in earnest. Not waiting to see the results of the Taylor/Icon study. Not even considering selling the team to local investors. Why even bother going to such superficial lengths to avoid being labeled the villain?
If Sacramento had theoretically gotten an arena deal done, I'm not convinced that they wouldn't have tried to find another reason to move the club.
Last edited:
Trueblood
Bench
But they would've been forced to sign a 20 or 30 year lease before shovels hit dirt. That's why I put as much blame on the city as I do the Maloofs.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Actually in all liklihood all the Maloofs have to do is survive the recession. Their great problem is that the heart of their empire lay in one of the world's most recession sensitive industries. Big recession, Vegas crashes (not to mention of course stocks), and poof their goes their money at a bad time for them with the Palms so leveraged. I would imagine they are just trying to survive until the worm turns back in their favor. Just as Vegas feels recessions, it feels boom times -- there is no place idiots prefer to blow their money in the good times.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
Didn't you know it was their team?
I doubt if there is any fan within the sound of my voice who would think that the Maloofs would sell the team to ANY mythical local group. We don't even know if such a group exists. This is their lifeblood - fame. Being an owner. If they simply wanted to make money they would be distributing beer in New Mexico.
They have been under orders from the NBA not to talk about what is going on. Million dollar fine. So they are quiet. I'll defend them because they brought the only winning team in this area's history. We set a pro sports record for the number of years in a row when the team was below .500.
They actually took part in the community which is more than can be said for Thomas.
They stayed a lot longer than the paranoid people of this area thought. From day one, while they were buiilding homes in Sacramento, people were saying they were buying the team and taking it to Las Vegas. They didn't do it. In a silly manner there are still people who think that this present scenario proves they bought the team so they could take it to another city.
They gave to the community. They are fans and owners. They probably are near broke. They certainly have the right to handle their financial foolishness the best way available.
The city and area has let them down - big time. I doubt if there are many people who think differently.
I think they were loose with their money but then if they hadn't been, that would have been criticized also.
So you think the reasonable thing to do is what?
Jim Les
G-League
What would you consider a mutually beneficial contract, then? Serious question. I know I like to rail on the Maloof's (because it's fun) but I'm not entirely removing blame from the city. But, with that being said, I would think that the city would be wise to secure their investment if they were to help fund an arena. Finding that middle ground is open for debate, but I really don't think the Maloof's put forth an earnest effort to get a deal done. Did the city compromise enough to get a reasonable deal done? Well, that's certainly up for debate. But I don't think we have to lay out blame equally for all the parties involved (and I'm not accusing you of doing that, just to be clear). I guess what it comes down to, in my opinion, is who holds more responsibility to make sure a team stays. That's certainly debatable, but I'm pretty sure you can guess where I lean on that issue.
As to respond to Glenn, I don't really disagree with any of your points, except for your position that the city let down the Maloofs. That, I simply do not agree with.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
And that's because you read a book that said that pro arenas and I hope the team that is in them are not fiinancially good for a city, right? People are hurting.
As to your position, I presume you think the team's owners have an obligation to the city and the city has less obligation - in order to exist together, of course. I very much think a community has some obligation and that is based on the fact I come from an area that seems to know how to make these things work. The latter issue has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum for YEARS.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
