http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Sacramento_Kings.svg
Sacramento Kings

1x Champion:
1951


678,697 gross building sq. ft.
18,594 Seating Capacity
50 Luxury Standard Suites
20 Luxury Mini Suites
4 Luxury Party Suites
240 Premium Loge Seats
80 Premium Ledge Seats
1,430 Club Seats
330 Courtside Club Seats
Courtside Club Lounge
4 concourses

The price tag for the complex is $387 millon USD.

The goal is to secure funding before the March 1, 2012 (NBA relocation deadline) and build and complete the new arena by May 2015.

PDF of the plans: http://www.news10.net/news/pdf/arena-study-052611.pdf


http://www.news10.net/slideshows/Drawings-of-Proposed-Sacramento-Arena/01.jpg
http://www.news10.net/slideshows/Drawings-of-Proposed-Sacramento-Arena/02.jpg
http://www.news10.net/slideshows/Drawings-of-Proposed-Sacramento-Arena/03.jpg
http://www.news10.net/slideshows/Drawings-of-Proposed-Sacramento-Arena/04.jpg
http://www.news10.net/slideshows/Drawings-of-Proposed-Sacramento-Arena/05.jpg

:banana:

I may have lost all hope in this city being able to accomplish anything, but it would be great to see this arena actually happen. I wait with baited breath.

The price tag for the complex is $387 million USD.
Really? How did they get such a low price on this?

Yeap...I want to know why the low price. If there is a penny/dime/nickel to be put by taxpayers in the proposal...It will over.

Yeap...I want to know why the low price. If there is a penny/dime/nickel to be put by taxpayers in the proposal...It will over.

I would imagine the cost to acquire land is much less than a similar building in a bigger city. I believe I also heard earlier that they want to build this at the Cal Expo Center, which has plenty of open land that is already state of city owned, plenty of parking, existing utilities and is already set up to handle the traffic associated with big events. That would save a ton of money.

Great looking building inside and out. I hope this happens for Sacramento.

Is the interior a similar layout to the Amway Center? :dunno:

Can it be used for ice hockey ?

Really? How did they get such a low price on this?
That's pretty steep, actually...

Is the interior a similar layout to the Amway Center? :dunno:

I thought the same thing when i saw the renderings. It is a nice looking design though. I hope Sac will make this happen. LA/Orange County doesn't need a 3rd NBA team. The Clippers should've moved from LA like yesterday

Is the interior a similar layout to the Amway Center? :dunno:

The Amway Center was used as the blueprint.

Really? How did they get such a low price on this?

Cutting corners on construction costs. I would advise against sitting in the upper deck.

I kid.

Sacramento, please build this arena, the existing ARCO Arena is the currently the lamest in the NBA.

The Downtown/Railyards plan would be so much better in terms of atmosphere and revitalization

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/673/unled1ic.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/402/unled1ic.jpg/)

http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/9773/unled2yk.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/805/unled2yk.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

From: http://www.news10.net/news/pdf/arena-study-052611.pdf

^^ The Railyards would be great for the arena, but something also needs to be done about Downtown Plaza and K Street. I know a lot of people would be interested in tearing down the east half of DP and putting the stadium at the end of K Street. At this point, I don't care where the hell this gets built: AS LONG AS IT GETS BUILT.

Build it with High Speed Train in mind...so whichever has the terminal closes should be chosen.

Really? How did they get such a low price on this?

Look at the prices for NBA arenas. $387 million would put it near the top.

I prefer the Downtown Railyards location over the Natomas location.

Build it with High Speed Train in mind...so whichever has the terminal closes should be chosen.

The railyards location is surrounded by AMTRAK, light rail, and the future high speed rail

Yeah but most NBA arenas were built in the 90's so if you adjust for inflation their price tags would be much higher.

Yeah but most NBA arenas were built in the 90's so if you adjust for inflation their price tags would be much higher.
According to this inflation calculator, (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/) most NBA arenas would still not cost as much as this proposal if built today.

According to this inflation calculator, (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/) most NBA arenas would still not cost as much as this proposal if built today.
There's still that pesky building to withstand earthquakes thingy in California. Because we like our buildings to last. And please don't try to claim that Sacramento is too far from the main fault zones. That area is more active seismically than about 40 states in the US.

There's still that pesky building to withstand earthquakes thingy in California. Because we like our buildings to last. And please don't try to claim that Sacramento is too far from the main fault zones. That area is more active seismically than about 40 states in the US.
true dat

I know it factored into the costs for Cal's renovation

true dat

I know it factored into the costs for Cal's renovation
Even here that is a special case. I won't sit on the west side of that stadium.

Even here that is a special case. I won't sit on the west side of that stadium.

What's up with that?

What's up with that?
I think he's afraid of falling into the Pacific Ocean if there's an earthquake.

What's up with that?
The Hayward fault runs directly beneath/through the stadium. In the UC-Berkeley thread you can tell where the west side of the stadium is creeping north in relation to the east side, at roughly the same speed as your fingernails grow. So if I happen to be at an event when a larger quake strikes, I would much rather be sitting on solid ground (the east side) rather than a structure that could be ripped apart (the west side).

I think he's afraid of falling into the Pacific Ocean if there's an earthquake.
Uh, no. The San Andreas and related faults are of the strike/slip variety, which means the two sides move horizontally. The subduction made infamous by Indonesia and Japan cannot happen in California. And I actually live west of the fault.

more renders please?

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7621128/sacramento-kings-strike-arena-deal-stay-city

Seattle and Orange County's reaction:

http://static.tumblr.com/wkbhi3c/pDolycmf6/0714.fuuuuu.png-550x0.png

seattle yes, but oc never really wanted nor needs a team. Nobody here is upset. Anyway those renderings are really nice, glad sac is staying there.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7621128/sacramento-kings-strike-arena-deal-stay-city

Wow. I didn't see that coming. Also, I still find it weird hearing "Kevin Johnson" and "mayor of Sacramento" in the same sentence.

seattle yes, but oc never really wanted nor needs a team. Nobody here is upset. Anyway those renderings are really nice, glad sac is staying there.

Really? I've heard otherwise from Californians....

seattle yes, but oc never really wanted nor needs a team. Nobody here is upset. Anyway those renderings are really nice, glad sac is staying there.

im glad the team is staying in Sacramento and the proposal looks pretty good but Anaheim was definitely very close and is still interested in a team. they just allocated funds to improve the Honda center in order to get a team.

Really? I've heard otherwise from Californians....

No, he is correct. Getting an NBA team in Orange County is not a huge priority. They would definitely support the team if they did get one, but with two NBA teams in Southern California already, it's not a significant development.

Really? I've heard otherwise from Californians....

I'm sure there are a few ppl disappointed, but the vaaaaaaaaast majority don't give a shit.

Most NBA fans in OC are already fans of either the Lakers or Clippers.

iapDrwRyOFU

I'm sure there are a few ppl disappointed, but the vaaaaaaaaast majority don't give a shit.

Most NBA fans in OC are already fans of either the Lakers or Clippers.

True dat; I know serious sports fans who had no idea that Anaheim was going after a basketball team.

But, still, it will be a disastrous decision by the city and the Maloofs if the city council doesn't stop it. A small market with bad economics, govt. employment shrinking and few large businesses; increased ticket prices; selling off parking revenues for the foreseeable future. A white elephant for decades.

I'm sure there are a few ppl disappointed, but the vaaaaaaaaast majority don't give a shit.

Most NBA fans in OC are already fans of either the Lakers or Clippers.

Huh... well, ok then.

It takes the Kings of the eviction list, I guess.

So I guess it just begs this question.... which comes first (to Seattle)?

Relocation or expansion?

Does this latest news mean we'll see a completely new design? Rather than it being this:

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/3865/95430357.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/32/95430357.jpg/)

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/7544/4e57806b01c3172d9e50f7e.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/577/4e57806b01c3172d9e50f7e.jpg/)

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/5825/31b24ee4f181e7f91314542.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/689/31b24ee4f181e7f91314542.jpg/)

Seattle and Orange County's reaction:
/IMG]

Well I'm really glad that Orange County will not be getting a team. No metro area needs three teams. I wouldn't mind it at all if the Clippers left LA to be honest.

I do hope Seattle still can get a team though in the next few years. Growing up I always thought of them being one of the better basketball cities and they didn't lose a team do to apathey.

[QUOTE=RMB2007;88987923]Does this latest news mean we'll see a completely new design? Rather than it being this:

I would like to hope so. This looks like Amway Center West. From the interior to the exterior. Maybe these renders are just placeholders.

zLdx15vvkYE

Well I'm really glad that Orange County will not be getting a team. No metro area needs three teams. I wouldn't mind it at all if the Clippers left LA to be honest.

I do hope Seattle still can get a team though in the next few years. Growing up I always thought of them being one of the better basketball cities and they didn't lose a team do to apathey.

There are more people in LA than in over 35 states... LA most definitely can handle 2 teams, if not a third. Orange County alone has 4 million people.

Getting back to the arena... i like it a lot, but it seems to only have a few suites. will that fly with the NBA?

There are more people in LA than in over 35 states... LA most definitely can handle 2 teams, if not a third. Orange County alone has 4 million people.

Getting back to the arena... i like it a lot, but it seems to only have a few suites. will that fly with the NBA?

It will have between 76-79 suites, double what they currently have. I don't think the number is of concern since the NBA brokered the deal and was in on the process more than the Maloofs.

Rather, the issue is there a market there to sell them all with the lack of a team they are currently giving the public.

Orange County alone has 4 million people.
Actually the 2010 census had it at almost exactly three million.

The demographics are not a problem. The OC has well over 3M at this point, the IE around 5M and northern SD, which is very well-to-do and half an hour away, another 1M. And this does not include the rest of SD, which is another 2M without a basketball team. Plus all these areas are growing.

Sacto. is about 2M, depending on where you think Warrior territory starts; disproportionately govt. and logistics employees. And with looming govt. cuts, there's little reason to think it will either expand or grow wealthier.

I know Sacto. wants a team in the worst way, but it's a tough decision to support on rational grounds.

Let me get this straight...

This new arena won't be built near the existing Power Balance Pavilion?

Rather, it will be built on a bunch of railyards?

Where are these railyards located?

Where are these railyards located?

Northwest edge of Downtown next to I-5.

It's going to be roughly where the Amtrak Station is on this map:

http://www.carolmendelmaps.com/mapca/sacto.gif

Full term sheet has been released. (http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=21&event_id=663&meta_id=380674)

It includes another 1,000 seat "premium" garage which will be privately built.

Ticket surcharges on hoped for events; private parking lots to be built some time; more money perhaps needed from the Maloofs; bonds issued by the city secured by guys who are basically bankrupt. A few million to be raised by passing the hat.

A professional would give this an incomplete; it will be interesting to see what the city council says.

New renderings

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/02/4306725/city-of-sacramento-unveils-new.html

^^

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/1317/ovq51xl4.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/14/ovq51xl4.jpg/)

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/6876/ulunmxl4.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/402/ulunmxl4.jpg/)

Northwest edge of Downtown next to I-5.


Here is what the site looks like currently:
http://www.socaltrailriders.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=119515&d=1298611286

Here is what the site looks like currently:
http://www.socaltrailriders.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=119515&d=1298611286

Whoa.... yeah, that should help A LOT.

Here is what the site looks like currently:
http://www.socaltrailriders.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=119515&d=1298611286

Are they going to tear down those small buildings situated in the middle of that site? Are those buildings abandoned?

Are they going to tear down those small buildings situated in the middle of that site? Are those buildings abandoned?

The buildings are gonna stay. It looks like they are going to build around them. They are part of the old railyards and they are unused and abandoned. They hold some historical value, but I can see them turned into lofts of some type of mixed use space. The city sees the arena as away to spurn development at the site. They've been trying to do something with that land for decades.

The buildings are gonna stay. It looks like they are going to build around them. They are part of the old railyards and they are unused and abandoned. They hold some historical value, but I can see them turned into lofts of some type of mixed use space. The city sees the arena as away to spurn development at the site. They've been trying to do something with that land for decades.

Not to pick on you (I make mistakes constantly) but that's a funny typo there.

Not to pick on you (I make mistakes constantly) but that's a funny typo there.

Oops! My bad!

Looks like the development and arena will be tucked in a nice spot in the downtown area.

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/5565/sacremento.jpg

Looks like the development and arena will be tucked in a nice spot in the downtown area.
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/5565/sacremento.jpg
Doesn't that mean they will have to undo some of the brand new construction at the relocated station?

Looking at that design and the google map I think one of them is in the wrong place

This new project now needs its own Wikipedia page.;)

Any more on this? I suppose with the Maloofs getting cranky again, nothing is going on?

Any more on this? I suppose with the Maloofs getting cranky again, nothing is going on?

I turned on fox sports radio about a week ago and heard some guys out of LA saying they were most likely moving to Anaheim or Vegas with small chance of KC with the new arena in place if the deal in Sacramento falls through.

The deal with Sacramento has definitely fallen through if you ask the Maloofs. It was never really a deal at all but a "term sheet and handshake" which in deal parlance means that you will go back and see if it really works when you fill in the blanks and estimates and if the operations people, lawyers, finance, etc., can live with it. Then you negotiate the real deal.

Calling it a "done deal" was more PR for Johnson and the NBA than reality (if you saw the Maloofs' faces you got the impression they were at a funeral not a victory party).

This week we should know if the NBA is going to make the Maloofs negotiate or give them a chance to move to Anaheim, which is what they want. If they can't move I suspect they will sell (Larry Ellison and San Jose?).

Wow, the agony hits. A leading economist says that the new arena deal would leave the Kings losing money forever and put the city at the edge of bankruptcy (costs underestimated, attendance overestimated; additional uses highly improbable, etc.).

DJ says that the deal is final and won't change (which is highly disengenous since it was a "term sheet" which is well understood to be changeable based on review by professionals). George M. says in that case the deal is dead and proposes the renovation of Power Balance Arena (which really should be renamed since Power Balance isn't making any payments). And speaking of disengenuos, you wonder if George really means "the Duck Pond").

Unfortunately, it looks like it might just get uglier before it gets better.

According to ESPN, the deal for a new Kings arena has fallen apart:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7810708/deal-new-sacramento-kings-arena-falls-through

It doesn't take long. An Anaheim official says they have been in contact with George M and told him "they don't charge pre-development fees" to their tenants. Rumors are that loans are available to help the transition. Unclear if they will try to buy-out the last year in Sactown.

With KJ rejecting the Power Balance refurb (which I assume would have required a popular vote) this looks like a done deal. In fact, the whole thing looks pretty much orchestrated to allow KJ to say he gave his all but the Maloof wouldn't cooperate; the NBA sadly (but quickly) agrees the deal is dead; and the Maloofs (probably correctly) claim the economics just aren't there. Call me cynical, but when "crisis managers" have been hired, you know there is a gameplan somewhere.

So we must say hello to the Anaheim Kings?

So we must say hello to the Anaheim Kings?

They would be the Anaheim Royals. The Maloofs already trademarked the name last year when it looked like they were moving.

Looks pretty certain they'll be moving now--just a matter of where.

Seattle doesn't have a decent arena...Vegas, no good arena and horrible economy....KC and St.L are small markets...

Anaheim seems the only decent option--NBA ready arena...big TV money...only dilemma would be getting around the Clips and Lakers objections.

That's gotta be heartbreaking.


But I will still ask, which place would be best?

- Anaheim
- KC
- Louisville
- Vegas
- St. Louis
- Seattle, even with their out of date arena?

EDIT: I guess Marcky answered 5 out of these 6 for me...

They would be the Anaheim Royals. The Maloofs already trademarked the name last year when it looked like they were moving.

Looks pretty certain they'll be moving now--just a matter of where.

Seattle doesn't have a decent arena...Vegas, no good arena and horrible economy....KC and St.L are small markets...

Anaheim seems the only decent option--NBA ready arena...big TV money...only dilemma would be getting around the Clips and Lakers objections.

That's gotta be heartbreaking.


But I will still ask, which place would be best?

- Anaheim
- KC
- Louisville
- Vegas
- St. Louis
- Seattle, even with their out of date arena?

EDIT: I guess Marcky answered 5 out of these 6 for me...

The Maloofs can lobby all they want, but if the NBA BoG and collection of owners did not want a 3rd team in L.A./OC last year they won't in the 2012-13 season. Plus, they (apparently) are still to meet payroll, so they will still be able to control the franchise, not the NBA

It is not really about how much cash $$$ you have as an owner, but it is if the current group of owners want you "in their club". If the Kings moved to the O.C., Samueli will be puppeteer, with the Maloofs as the puppets in terms of ownership as well as a sub-tenant within Honda Center.

STL is out since the Blues and the Scottrade Center are still up for sale (the club owns/operates the physical building, but leases the land underneath it from St. Louis City/County).

Louisville, as a city, cannot make $$$ from the KFCYum Center now, and it would be Memphis v2.0 with the Cardinals Final Four trip. They would have to give more concessions to a NBA franchise to make it work, but they probably cannot afford to do that for 41+ dates

You're right about the NBA being a potential obstacle.

The economics is really a no-brainer. As has been discussed in many sports blogs, 3 teams in LA makes more sense than 1 team in STL, KC, Seattle, LV, etc. In fact, most of these cities are in economic trouble and/or have lost or are in threat of losing sports teams. They are wonderful cities, but the economics don't look promising.

SoCal has 22M people, of which 20M are in easy driving or train distance to LA or Anaheim. Even if you give the 10M in LA County to the Lakers and Clips, you have 3.5M in the OC, 1M in north SD county, 3M in close-in IE all up for grabs. And OC and SD are in the top 5 counties in the country in terms of millionaires (most of them avid sports, food and wine fans, which fits the target demographic perfectly). Add in the cable rights and possibility of joining the Rams/Raiders or other NFL team in a broadcast deal. The only real negative is Anaheim's insistance on keeping "LA" out of the name; smart marketing people will work their ways around that.

And a world-class arena is ready for use, AND being refurbed with expanded VIP entertainment and retail areas; new locker rooms and training facilities. And the City Council loves you and is willing to issue bonds and loan you money to make you happy.

Maybe not heaven, but not bad as the NBA goes.

We have the market and the facility here in So Cal to support a third NBA team, but as a fan of the game, I would like to see the Kings either stay in Sacramento or return to Kansas City. The Sprint Center in Kansas City is a gorgeous facility, and 2.1 million metro population is enough to carry an NBA team.

The Sprint Center in Kansas City is a gorgeous facility, and 2.1 million metro population is enough to carry an NBA team.

Population is only one variable of many needed to support an NBA franchise. TPI and corporate dollars are much more important than population.

KC's TPI and available local corporate sponsorship money might not be up to the task of supporting another team in the region.

*sigh* :(

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5111/6932852008_99cc294a87_b.jpg

I think Stern would prefer having Seattle back in the league if they can get that arena deal done.

*sigh* :(

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5111/6932852008_99cc294a87_b.jpg




photo unavailble !

Population is only one variable of many needed to support an NBA franchise. TPI and corporate dollars are much more important than population.

KC's TPI and available local corporate sponsorship money might not be up to the task of supporting another team in the region.
Shit like that doesn't matter if you win...

photo unavailble !

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5111/6932852008_99cc294a87_b.jpg

Actually, I'm surprised that SJ hasn't come up. The arena is there, it allows the current fans to take the train easily to games and puts the team in the middle of Silicon Valley's masses of billionaires.

Actually, I'm surprised that SJ hasn't come up. The arena is there, it allows the current fans to take the train easily to games and puts the team in the middle of Silicon Valley's masses of billionaires.

It would be the same situation as moving to L.A./Orange County. The team would be within the territory of an existing franchise (here Golden State). Also, the Kings would still be a secondary tenant to a NHL team and they would complain about that, the split of suite revenue, tv revenue...

The NBA BoG did not accept the bids which Oracle CEO/founder Larry Ellison placed for the Warriors, the Hornets, and most recently the Grizzlies because they fear he would relocate any team to San Jose. He easily has the $$$ to operate a team, but they have yet to allow him "in the club".

Thanks jjg but it still is not working. Think I might have to sign up to flickr :/

Thanks jjg but it still is not working. Think I might have to sign up to flickr :/
I'm signed up, and I get the 'photo unavailable' message, too.

^^What was it a picture of?

Huh...... Well now I can't even see it.

Oh well.

It was basically a meme joke with Dallas having a team and Fort Worth NOT getting a team, where Dallas had the Mavs and Fort Worth was "Forever Alone".

I guess it was deleted.

Epic Fail all round then.

Epic Fail all round then.

Oh well.

Either way, I still don't think there should be a 3rd team in the L.A. metro area.

Looks like the Kings story just gets better and better. A reality TV site indicates that Adrienne Malooff (one of the stars of Real Housewives of Orange County) didn't moved the team last year because she felt so sorry for the Sacto. fans, but that after the economics didn't work out, they are thinking they have to move after all. ( I refuse to post the link, but you can find it easily enough.)

And in the other corner, Chris Lehane, a poliltical attack dog, has formed a front group to force the Maloofs to sell the Kings. Lehane is best known as a Sacto/SF crisis manager who has worked for the power companies during the California power crisis and helped structure the attacks on the various women Clinton assaulted (allegedly, that is). He drew a bit of attention a while back when he was hired by one party and then switched sides when the other party offerred more money. With friends like this...

So who's really telling the truth: the media spin doctor or reality tv?

Oh, Kevin Johnson.

He wants to build the facility regardless if there is a tenant (http://blogs.sacbee.com/city-beat/2012/04/mayor-sacramento-should-continue-arena-effort-even-without-kings.html)


Johnson said the city would explore "the Kansas City model." City officials and arena operator AEG constructed the Sprint Center in Kansas City without a professional sports tenant.

The mayor said he still considers AEG a partner in its arena effort, even after the collapse of a deal that would have made the firm the operator of a downtown facility.

Johnson acknowledged that without the $73 million the Kings would have contributed to the arena, another facility might have to be smaller than the one originally proposed.

It is likely to be a challenge. David Taylor, the developer signed on to construct the downtown arena, said last year that the project would be a long shot without an anchor tenant, such as the Kings.

Oh well.

Either way, I still don't think there should be a 3rd team in the L.A. metro area.

I agree. It's good for Los Angeles that the Clippers are good this season. If the Kings move to Anaheim, they are not going to do well. Move them to San Diego.

I agree. It's good for Los Angeles that the Clippers are good this season. If the Kings move to Anaheim, they are not going to do well. Move them to San Diego.

I would actually sympathize with this but the economics seems to favor Anaheim. First, there is an NHL quality arena in place and a team to share costs with. Second, Honda Center is getting upgrades aimed at the pricey crowd that season tickets attract. Third, there are many wealthy individuals and companies in the area.

And most basically, SD can only count on about 3M people, assuming that north SD county is about as far as people will commute from. Anaheim can look for about 6-7M people (3.5M from the OC, 1M from north SD County), maybe 2M from the IE (assuming zero from LA County).

Speaking very abstractly, probably the most equitable for fans would be the Clips in Anaheim and the Kings in SD. But I'm not proposing this or hoping it happens.

The municipal arena in San Diego is decidedly substandard. Built in 1966, about 14,000 seats for basketball, and zero suites. And there is almost zero chance of a new arena being built there, as the football Chargers are going after every possible dollar. The Kings are much better off in Sacramento than in San Diego. The wiki link has a pic of the inside:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_View_Casino_Center

This article in SI.com explains a little bit more about what is going on with each side in this. But there is no impartial third party appraisal, so I would take it all with a grain or two of salt.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/sam_amick/04/16/thing.big.sacramento.kings/index.html

This article in SI.com explains a little bit more about what is going on with each side in this. But there is no impartial third party appraisal, so I would take it all with a grain or two of salt.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/sam_amick/04/16/thing.big.sacramento.kings/index.html

Exactly, since this group was formed by Mayor Johnson.

That said, the only third party resource for publicly financed sports facilities I look at is Field of Schemes.

That said, the only third party resource for publicly financed sports facilities I look at is Field of Schemes.
Field of Schemes can hardly be called unbiased, as they are against any new stadium or arena construction, and have been caught more than once making up lies about new projects. They never did explain their claim that AT&T Park would cost the taxpayers of San Francisco $500 million.

Field of Schemes can hardly be called unbiased, as they are against any new stadium or arena construction, and have been caught more than once making up lies about new projects. They never did explain their claim that AT&T Park would cost the taxpayers of San Francisco $500 million.

First, they are against public financing of facilities. Secondly, before the original book was ever written, they used reports from the Brookings Institution who was negative on the use of eminent domain for all cities, including San Francisco.

Secondly, every local paper has a beat writer/sports columnist/editorial writer who will want such a project. Some may have a detractor as well, but the concept locally is to always make sure that funds for such facilities are the best thing for their community as it makes them feel, "Major League". Then oftentimes, reality hits, as we see with Jobbing.com Arena, the Astrodome, and Edwards Jones Dome.

Leaving aside the broad city. vs. private funding issues, the Kings discussion seems to have entered into a period of chaos, with new ideas being tossed out seemingly at random. Mayor KJ suggests a smaller arena, with no tenant in sight (come on, is the NHL really going to Sactown? and for sure no NBA teams wants to be there).

Another rumor has it that KJ and the Maloofs knew all along that the funding made no sense, but "political considerations" which could not be written down affected their public positions. I lend this some credence because KJ folded rather suddenly and cut off the possiblity of further negotiations, but now has jumped back in under public pressure.

And another report says the Maloofs never bought into the numbers and that the city and NBA were the only ones who bought into them. Given that team profitability turned on a very large increase in broadcast revenues ("no comment" from Comcast), suite sales, ticket prices and revenues from additional arena uses, the Maloofs weren't willing to take the risk.

^^The Bay Area market overshadows the Central Valley market in NorCal.

Move them to San Diego.

Can't move to a city with no suitable arena or any plans, intention or financing to build one.

Can't move to a city with no suitable arena or any plans, intention or financing to build one.

We know.

But that's out most outsiders feel. Like San Diego HAS to have a team....

We know.

But that's out most outsiders feel. Like San Diego HAS to have a team....

This is the great tension: the big money investors and risk takers control the teams, but only in a few cases can they afford to lose money indefinitely. You try to resolve this by moving to the area with the most fans (attendance plus media).

Analogous to a small shop which is failing in one location moving to another a few blocks or a mile away: good for some, bad for others. But it really should be the owners call where to put his time and money.

I guess the real complications come when the city (trying to keep fans happy) and NBA (looking for cartel profits) step in...

Well, "As the Ball Spins" gets more interesting as a former Councilmember (acting as a dummy?) files a document request with respect to Anaheim's communications with the Maloofs. This presumably counters the request the Maloofs made for Sactown internal documents.

The theory is that getting more information will help the parties work together to build a stadium. This is sort of like saying that my wife finding out more about my affairs is going to help save our marriage.

And speaking of marriages, KJ and the Maloofs are now kissing and making up (or at least acknowledging that they should talk). KJ says they will talk again soon, but George kind of deflates the whole thing a bit, adding that talking by phone is good enough.

Oh, well, even if nobody is reading, maybe this gives me some psychic relief.

The latest is that everybody wants to take one more shot at working out an agreement. Is it just me, or is this just a transparent effort by the Maloofs (with city cooperation?) to get one more year of money out of season ticketholders before the ax does its work and they're off to Anaheim, Seattle, LV, KC, Omaha, etc.?

The last proposal was bordering on economic insanity for the city (selling off future parking revenues for a payment now; this is in effect a loan at an enormous interest rate, a way of avoiding usury laws and/or public outrage). And now they need to come up with more money for the Kings, which includes HUGE increases in ticket prices and aggressive assumptions on broadcast revenue? How does taking this much risk and another year on the edge help anybody?

On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong and everything will be beautiful.

Oh, well, even if nobody is reading, maybe this gives me some psychic relief.

The latest is that everybody wants to take one more shot at working out an agreement. Is it just me, or is this just a transparent effort by the Maloofs (with city cooperation?) to get one more year of money out of season ticketholders before the ax does its work and they're off to Anaheim, Seattle, LV, KC, Omaha, etc.?

The last proposal was bordering on economic insanity for the city (selling off future parking revenues for a payment now; this is in effect a loan at an enormous interest rate, a way of avoiding usury laws and/or public outrage). And now they need to come up with more money for the Kings, which includes HUGE increases in ticket prices and aggressive assumptions on broadcast revenue? How does taking this much risk and another year on the edge help anybody?

On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong and everything will be beautiful.
The only flaw that I find here, is in the pessimistic possibility of squeezing the Sacramento ticket holder for another year. What would be the motive? And how would they come out ahead staying in Sacramento for just one year, as opposed to moving to Anaheim now? They are going to face a bit of an uphill battle carving out a fanbase down there, even if they aggressively market themselves in Orange, San Diego and Riverside counties.

For sure the cleanest solution is to get to Anaheim and end the misery. I'm assuming that that is impossibl, perhaps due to NBA rules or word from Stern not to do it or perhaps excessive cost of lease-breaking or other logistics. But I don't really know.

Again, assuming that there really is no grounds for making a deal that works.

For sure the cleanest solution is to get to Anaheim and end the misery. I'm assuming that that is impossibl, perhaps due to NBA rules or word from Stern not to do it or perhaps excessive cost of lease-breaking or other logistics. But I don't really know.

Again, assuming that there really is no grounds for making a deal that works.

There is not lease as the Maloofs own Power Balance Pavilion. However, when the Maloofs bought the Kings, they received a loan by the city of Sacramento which they have not yet repaid; about $77M. In 2011, the county appeals board last week reduced the valuation of the arena, the adjacent building, the land and fixtures by $12 million. The arena and practice court now are assessed at $35 million, and the total site at $51 million.

There is not lease as the Maloofs own Power Balance Pavilion. However, when the Maloofs bought the Kings, they received a loan by the city of Sacramento which they have not yet repaid; about $77M. In 2011, the county appeals board last week reduced the valuation of the arena, the adjacent building, the land and fixtures by $12 million. The arena and practice court now are assessed at $35 million, and the total site at $51 million.

Thanks; I remember this now. I think last year Samueli was offerring to loan them funds to pay off the loan.

Well, the arena deal is “dead” again. But we’re not sure if we’re in the middle of the zombie movie or in the last 2 minutes. Remember that it doesn’t bother zombies to be “dead”; they're like that all the time. To be REALLY dead he has to be beheaded, burned to a crisp and for insurance, sprinkled with holy water, exposed to sunlight and have a stake through his heart. Scattered to the wind. 5 miles deep in the ocean.

My guess is the deal was already dead two weeks ago, but that KJ was getting heat from a fairly successful Maloof claim that he had killed the deal by refusing to negotiate further. This pressured KJ to go through the motions one more time although everyone knew the outcome.

Of course, what is really meant by “dead” is that the Maloof’s aren’t putting in money or pawning their remaining assets; this is actually a step forward because everyone now admits the original deal had money missing. Now its time for Sactown or AEG to put some in, which they certainly could do if they don't mind taxing and cutting here and there.

Getting an alternative buyer seems an idle discussion since there are a number of cities that would be happy to take the Kings as is. But I wonder if Seattle or KC makes much sense given the attendance at their baseball teams. Could be wholly unrelated to how a hoops team would do.

The deal is "dead" as long as the Maloofs are still considered a partner in the deal. The mayor and city are still committed to trying to get the complex built, but they are looking for other partners instead. KJ made it clear the city was not going to deal with the Maloofs any further after they backed out of their word. Unless they uphold the tearm sheet previously agreed to, there will be no further bending to the idiot sons. And he made it clear the city would have no part in renovating Arco Arena.

Right now they are looking for AEG or another wealthy investor to step in and fill the gap. The arena will be needed for the Reno-Tahoe Olympic bid and the mayor and other city officials have said they are looking for other professional franchises to call Sacramento home that are not called the Kings. They are also holding out hope Stearn and the other NBA owners will force the Maloofs to sell to a local owner or one who will look at the sweetheart deal the city offered and jump all over it. Its starting to appear the Maloofs might not have the money they claimed or the teams best interest at heart.

This saga is far from over and I think its going to get a whole lot more interesting.

The deal is "dead" as long as the Maloofs are still considered a partner in the deal. The mayor and city are still committed to trying to get the complex built, but they are looking for other partners instead. KJ made it clear the city was not going to deal with the Maloofs any further after they backed out of their word. Unless they uphold the tearm sheet previously agreed to, there will be no further bending to the idiot sons. And he made it clear the city would have no part in renovating Arco Arena.

Right now they are looking for AEG or another wealthy investor to step in and fill the gap. The arena will be needed for the Reno-Tahoe Olympic bid and the mayor and other city officials have said they are looking for other professional franchises to call Sacramento home that are not called the Kings. They are also holding out hope Stearn and the other NBA owners will force the Maloofs to sell to a local owner or one who will look at the sweetheart deal the city offered and jump all over it. Its starting to appear the Maloofs might not have the money they claimed or the teams best interest at heart.

This saga is far from over and I think its going to get a whole lot more interesting.

Probably will be interesting, but KJ seems to have make a more of a pretense of further negotiations, with another quick fade to black. Looks more like a PR show.

Now Stern is explicitly saying that Sactown was offerred a great deal from AEG, the NBA and the Kings and is making a mistake walking away from it. This is probably true IF the Kings will step up and put in some serious taxes to fund the stadium rather than mortgaging the parking revenues. The team is still keep-able but the locals need to pony up real money instead of calling the Maloofs names.

It's becoming obvious that every time the Maloofs are asked to contribute something, the whole process comes to a screeching halt. I bet they declare bankruptcy to get out of repaying the loan to the city.

Probably will be interesting, but KJ seems to have make a more of a pretense of further negotiations, with another quick fade to black. Looks more like a PR show.

Now Stern is explicitly saying that Sactown was offerred a great deal from AEG, the NBA and the Kings and is making a mistake walking away from it. This is probably true IF the Kings will step up and put in some serious taxes to fund the stadium rather than mortgaging the parking revenues. The team is still keep-able but the locals need to pony up real money instead of calling the Maloofs names.

KJ is simply the lead negotiator for a city and fan base that is tired of the current ownership and decades of broken promises. I honestly think the relationship has soured so badly that a deal will probably be un-salvageable so long as the Maloofs are owners of the Kings. Unless they take the deal on the table, as previously agreed upon, KJ and Sactown say no thanks and open the door for Anaheim, Seattle or somewhere else.

The city and AEG are already paying the bulk of the pricetag. The Maloofs were to pay somewhere around 20-33% or even less (can't remember all the details). What more taxes does Sacramento need to dish out? If the Maloofs want a piece of the pie, they need to contribute. The deal Sacramento put forth was praised by owners around the league. Many were quoted as being jelous and wished their municipalities had given them similar deals. I think this is a situation in which the Maloofs want something they can't afford. In the past they were able to hold the city hostage by threatening to move. This time Sacramento is telling them to take their ball and go play elsewhwere.

I'm not takind sides or emotionally involved here either way. But Stern's comments are pretty frank for someone who was seen as blocking the Maloofs from leaving last year.

It's nothing personal; there is just one overriding fact: no one thinks there is enough advantage to himself to motivate him to put more money in. This is the classic problem with small-town markets and with failed businesses in general. The revenue sources aren't there.

It will be interesting to see if a better deal can come out of Seattle or KC (whose baseaball teams are right at the bottom of MLB attendance) or Anaheim (which has to compete against the Lakers and Clips). Not obvious that there is a clear winner in those places either.

RIP: per various media, AEG has announced that it has no interest in pursuing a stadium deal without the Kings. This appears to kill this proposal.

KJ is now looking at alternatives, including an entertainment district, or a stadium for the A's or Raiders (with a big hug and kiss from Jean Quan, for all his help). You will recall that the "money" he has to spend is in fact to be effectively borrowed by selling off the future stream of parking revenues, so we now have a mayor struggling to find projects that no one has even thought about so as to spend money they can only get at a very high effective cost.

Anaheim seems to be the winner here since the Maloofs can now say there are no live plans for an improved arena in Sactown. I am assuming that no one in Seattle is going to build an arena unless he owns the team, and it looks like the Maloofs aren't selling.

I am assuming that no one in Seattle is going to build an arena unless he owns the team, and it looks like the Maloofs aren't selling.
Why would they sell? Milking the Orange County and San Diego markets will give them 3-4 times the income they had in Sacramento. It's a sad day for the Central Valley, but it just shows how much we are at the mercy of corrupt ownership.

Why would they sell? Milking the Orange County and San Diego markets will give them 3-4 times the income they had in Sacramento. It's a sad day for the Central Valley, but it just shows how much we are at the mercy of corrupt ownership.

If you're talking about the "leagues" (better, "cartels"), I agree. But if you're talking about the owners who want to move, you're talking about the victims.

My uncle had an ice cream store on a major street in SF; he went broke. He started a new store on another street a couple of miles away and did better. Per the sports leagues, this is unfair competition for the ice cream dealers who are charging twice as much on the popular street. For my uncle it was surviving as a competitive business and raising his family. For the economy, it was a lot more people enjoying ice cream at a lower price.

"Cartels". I like that. But I will never believe that the owners that moved the Sonics to Oklahoma, after lying about it several times over, are anything resembling victims.

move the Kings to Vancouver....

^^ Nah can see the Kings moving to Anaheim. South LA County has loads of fans

^^ Nah can see the Kings moving to Anaheim. South LA County has loads of fans
sad but true

there's markets like Louisville and KC which have NBA-ready arenas and will likely never get a franchise

"Cartels". I like that. But I will never believe that the owners that moved the Sonics to Oklahoma, after lying about it several times over, are anything resembling victims.

That's just straight from the textbooks and is not controversial. The pro leagues are cartels (groups who form to act in concert to divide markets, regulate access to an industry, set prices or the like).

Again, blame the victim. Not much choice but to lie when you have to wait for permission to move, pay fees to the fat cats, etc.

sad but true

there's markets like Louisville and KC which have NBA-ready arenas and will likely never get a franchise

And Louisville would be much like Memphis struggling early on. The Cardinals and the NBA franchise would still compete for the general season ticket fan. The tobacco and alcohol companies would still pay for the premium seats and suites.

http://insiderlouisville.com/news/2012/06/20/sources-arena-authority-will-officially-ask-university-of-louisville-for-changes-kfc-yum-center-contract/

I don't follow Sacto. sports or the Maloofs closely, but have they ever mentioned any city other than Anaheim? I know Seattle and LV and other smaller cities have declared themselves available, but are any of these live options with George and the bros?

I'm not saying they are moving to Anaheim, but I've never heard them talk about anywhrere else.

http://blogs.sacbee.com/breaking_news/2012/08/056990.html

The plot thickens

If they HAVE to move, there are 10 cities that should get the Kings before Virginia Beach gets them, and 4 of them are Seattle....

Virginia Beach? The only place I can see them building anything close to an NBA/NHL caliber arena, in the Tidewater area, is Norfolk. Even then, I can't see the Kings relocating there.

Just in case some of you don't know, having a team in Virginia Beach is like the Rangers or Cowboys being in Arlington. The Kings would essentially be moving to the Hampton Roads area, not just VA Beach.

Maybe I'm wrong and people know more about the area than I think. I don't know. I've read a lot if ignorant things about Hampton Roads today.

Just in case some of you don't know, having a team in Virginia Beach is like the Rangers or Cowboys being in Arlington. The Kings would essentially be moving to the Hampton Roads area, not just VA Beach.

Maybe I'm wrong and people know more about the area than I think. I don't know. I've read a lot if ignorant things about Hampton Roads today.

I'd STILL put 10 cities over any city in Virginia. Just don't see it happening.

Then again, I did say the same about OKC. . . . . .

The only arena that I could find in the area is called 'Norfolk Scope', and holds 10,253 for basketball. Why they would choose that area over Anaheim is beyond me.

I am completely against the Kings relocating. Sacramento has been a great market (http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/3/3/2027121/sacramento-kings-relocated-anaheim) for the NBA. With that being said (and if I may play the devil's advocate for a moment), the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News metropolitan area is larger (population 1,670,000) than 8 current markets that have professional sports teams (Nashville, Milwaukee, Jacksonville, Memphis, Oklahoma City, New Orleans, Raleigh, and Salt Lake City). With no other major professional teams in the area, and their proximity to other NBA cities (DC is the closest; 192 miles North), it looks more and more like an attractive option... Where to play shouldn't be an issue either. The Hampton Coliseum has a small seating capacity for basketball (10,147 (http://hamptonroadssports.org/venues/index/view/id/40/hampton-coliseum-)), but there is room for expansion. The floor of the arena is almost the size of a football field. They can gut the inside and lower the floor (similar to what was done in Seattle) to create a pretty nice temporary venue to house the team...

http://intl.ticketseating.com/maps/450w/2056-hampton-coliseum-basketball.jpg

http://hamptonroadssports.org/uploads/venue/thumbnails/hampton_coliseum_-520x349.jpg

http://weblogs.dailypress.com/entertainment/music/pop/blog/hampton-coliseum-2009%5B1%5D.jpg

...
678,697 gross building sq. ft.
18,594 Seating Capacity
50 Luxury Standard Suites
20 Luxury Mini Suites
4 Luxury Party Suites
240 Premium Loge Seats
80 Premium Ledge Seats
1,430 Club Seats
330 Courtside Club Seats
Courtside Club Lounge
4 concourses...

What's a Party Suit?

Well, the idea is to build a new arena, not use an old one (isn't it always?). But the Maloofs seem to have quickly squelched this idea, which does seem a bit beyond the pale. Should be a continuing story, since it seems likely they will move but the destination is not formally announced yet.

Moving from an obscure, small market to a more obscure, smaller market seems very odd.
Especially when the Anaheim market (including North SD County) is about 5M and among the richest in the country (I am conceding the 16M people in LA and the IE to the Lakers and Clippers).

I am completely against the Kings relocating. Sacramento has been a great market (http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/3/3/2027121/sacramento-kings-relocated-anaheim) for the NBA. With that being said (and if I may play the devil's advocate for a moment), the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News metropolitan area is larger (population 1,670,000) than 8 current markets that have professional sports teams (Nashville, Milwaukee, Jacksonville, Memphis, Oklahoma City, New Orleans, Raleigh, and Salt Lake City). With no other major professional teams in the area, and their proximity to other NBA cities (DC is the closest; 192 miles North), it looks more and more like an attractive option... Where to play shouldn't be an issue either. The Hampton Coliseum has a small seating capacity for basketball (10,147 (http://hamptonroadssports.org/venues/index/view/id/40/hampton-coliseum-)), but there is room for expansion. The floor of the arena is almost the size of a football field. They can gut the inside and lower the floor (similar to what was done in Seattle) to create a pretty nice temporary venue to house the team...


Hampton Roads is a great area and I would love to see them land a pro team eventually, but the biggest employer in the region is tha federal government and it doesn't have nearly as big a coorporate base as the other cities you reference. Coorporate support is a must for any pro-sports team and I just don't see a team moving there because of that.

All the DC teams are broadcast there and it's an easy weekend trip up to Washington from there, so I'd hardly consider the area underserved.

Hampton Roads is a great area and I would love to see them land a pro team eventually, but the biggest employer in the region is tha federal government and it doesn't have nearly as big a coorporate base as the other cities you reference. Coorporate support is a must for any pro-sports team and I just don't see a team moving there because of that.

All the DC teams are broadcast there and it's an easy weekend trip up to Washington from there, so I'd hardly consider the area underserved.

Come on. You wouldn't like to see the PETA logo slapped on an arena?

You know they would do it.

A couple of trashy OC sites have reported that the Maloofs have extended their use copyrights of "Los Angeles Royals", "Anaheim Royals" and similar names and intend to start using them within a short period of time. Unfortunately, that time is not otherwise specified.

The lawyers filing the extensions are LV based and do work for the Palm Resort and Casino. You wonder if this is Maloof personal, the Kings organization, or a consortium including investors in the Palm that is filing the extension of the copyright. I suppose the team could use, say, 50M or so of additional money for the move and OC marketing campaign.

What's a Party Suit?
a (usually larger) suite rented out for individual event days

a (usually larger) suite rented out for individual event days

Ah. Sounds great.

The Kings aren't going anywhere. It's a great NBA market with loyal fans. Poor attendance in recent years is attributed to poor ownership who refuses to put a great product on the floor. In the end, two or five years from now, all of this will be resolved. The NBA will not support relocation. After the Seattle fiasco, I don't think the NBA will put out of Sacramento knowing full well that the team had an arena agreed upon until the Maloofs backed out of the deal.

i hope you are right, but the money simply isnt there and the owners of the team dont want to be there. Anaheim and Seattle are too strong of a draw

The Kings aren't going anywhere. It's a great NBA market with loyal fans. Poor attendance in recent years is attributed to poor ownership who refuses to put a great product on the floor. In the end, two or five years from now, all of this will be resolved. The NBA will not support relocation. After the Seattle fiasco, I don't think the NBA will put out of Sacramento knowing full well that the team had an arena agreed upon until the Maloofs backed out of the deal.

Contradiction: loyal fans but poor attendance. Loyal fans are "loyal" through good and bad times. Fickle fans stop attending when the teams is losing.

"Refuses to put a great product on the floor". An odd way of expressing that the Sacramento market is too small to support a decent payroll.

There's always two sides. I suspect you would have a different view if there were no team in Sacramento and they were trying to lure the Grizz or Bobcats (or KC Royals). Would you talk about the loyal KC or Memphis fans being cheated or about the larger, growing Sacramento market deserving a team?

Contradiction: loyal fans but poor attendance. Loyal fans are "loyal" through good and bad times. Fickle fans stop attending when the teams is losing.
An argument can be made that the fans were loyal, until the Maloofs started playing the 'new arena or we move' games. An unpopular ownership can have a strongly negative effect on attendance, as those of us who remember Charlie Finley and the A's of the early 70s can tell you.

An argument can be made that the fans were loyal, until the Maloofs started playing the 'new arena or we move' games. An unpopular ownership can have a strongly negative effect on attendance, as those of us who remember Charlie Finley and the A's of the early 70s can tell you.

"That bitch is always complaining." "About what?" "About me starving and beating her mostly."

More blame the victim. The arena was run down, as everyone from DJ to Stern agrees. In any event, what owners don't complain about their arenas? And in Sacramento the complaints were entirely justified but got no effective response.

I don't follow Oakland history, but I've seen attendance stats from the locals showing that attendance was poor even during the World Series and Bash Bros. years. The problem may just have been the size of the Bay Area market. But again, not my area of knowledge.

"That bitch is always complaining." "About what?" "About me starving and beating her mostly."

More blame the victim. The arena was run down, as everyone from DJ to Stern agrees. In any event, what owners don't complain about their arenas? And in Sacramento the complaints were entirely justified but got no effective response.

I don't follow Oakland history, but I've seen attendance stats from the locals showing that attendance was poor even during the World Series and Bang Bros. years. The problem may just have been the size of the Bay Area market. But again, not my area of knowledge.
"the locals"? I thought that you lived here. Anyway, their attendance during their five straight AL West titles 1971-75, under Finley:
1971: 914,993
1972: 921,323 (Won World Series)
1973: 1,000,763 (Won World Series)
1974: 845,693 (Won World Series)
1975: 1,075,518

Attendance during the 1988-92 "Bash Brothers" peak, owned by Wally Haas:
1988: 2,287,335 (AL Champs)
1989: 2,667,225 (Won World Series)
1990: 2,900,217 (AL Champs)
1991: 2,713,493 (finished last in AL West)
1992: 2,494,160 (AL West Champs)

The local population hadn't grown that much. Numbers courtesy Baseball reference.com.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/OAK/

I live here now, but am not an Oakland history buff. I don't get into the debate over who treated who poorly in what year. It's interesting as history or explanation for how we got here, but not real relevant for future decisions.

Like in any business, those should be based on economics. No use telling the Kings they have to stay in Sactown any more than the telling the Yankees they had to stay in Baltimore. The precise reasons vary, but you move to where the demand is.

San Bernardino County and Chicago and several others are considering using eminent domain to buy mortgages held by lenders on property located in their jurisdiction. They would then do something to help local homeowners. This has a bunch of issues but don't worry about that for now.

How about Sacramento using eminent domain on the Kings? It should be easy to pay someone for a low valuation which the local courts will happily rubberstamp, dummy up a public need argument regarding redevelopment (they do it for shopping centers and hotels all the time), and then keep them planted right where they are forever! Forget the stadium improvements, they're just plain stuck!

Getting jurisdiction over the Kings s/b easy if they are organized in the local city; otherwise you have to get some help from your buddies at the county or state. (If they are organized out of state you need to get creative, but that's what the California Supreme Ct. is for: to invent new law to carry-out social policy.)

And no reason to stop there: if any of the Warriors, A's or Raiders is organized or HQ'd in Oakland, there should be enough jurisdiction to tie them up for a decade or so if not forever. The 49ers may be a lost cause, because their HQ is in Santa Clara. But you can eminent domain their pads and uniforms when they step into Candlestick. Maybe the contracts too if services are primarily performed in SF. Get creative, guys!

How about Sacramento using eminent domain on the Kings? It should be easy to pay someone for a low valuation which the local courts will happily rubberstamp, dummy up a public need argument regarding redevelopment (they do it for shopping centers and hotels all the time), and then keep them planted right where they are forever! Forget the stadium improvements, they're just plain stuck!
That won't fly. Oakland tried that with the Raiders in 1980, and were shot down in the courts. The ruling is below.

http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C3/32C3d60.htm

That won't fly. Oakland tried that with the Raiders in 1980, and were shot down in the courts. The ruling is below.

http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C3/32C3d60.htm

Thanks for that; I wasn't aware that the Ca. Supreme Ct. had already ruled on it. Some great old names there: Cruz Reynoso, Rose Bird, Stanley Mosk.

Of course, my comments were intended as a joke and I didn't really believe it was a legitimate use of eminent domain. But sometimes lawyers and courts can be awfully clever.

Thanks for that; I wasn't aware that the Ca. Supreme Ct. had already ruled on it. Some great old names there: Cruz Reynoso, Rose Bird, Stanley Mosk.

Of course, my comments were intended as a joke and I didn't really believe it was a legitimate use of eminent domain. But sometimes lawyers and courts can be awfully clever.
I was pretty sure that you were kidding, but someone else might have tried to run with it, so I wanted to toss that info out.

I remember some of my more conservative friends were almost foaming at the mouth to vote Rose Bird out of office, because she was a leading opponent of the death penalty. But most of them really couldn't have told me any specific about the death penalty ruling if I had paid them. And this was before the advent of Fox News.

I was pretty sure that you were kidding, but someone else might have tried to run with it, so I wanted to toss that info out.

I remember some of my more conservative friends were almost foaming at the mouth to vote Rose Bird out of office, because she was a leading opponent of the death penalty. But most of them really couldn't have told me any specific about the death penalty ruling if I had paid them. And this was before the advent of Fox News.

Yeah, conservatives were after her but a huge majority voted to remove her, even in California. She was famous for over-turning death penalty cases, but she was pretty much a loose cannon inventing or rejecting criminal and civil law as she went.

Stanley Mosk, on the other hand, was a real old-line liberal, very competent and fair. One of the real good guys in shaping California. Cruz Reynoso was an incompetent political hack and quite rightly shit-canned also.

That won't fly. Oakland tried that with the Raiders in 1980, and were shot down in the courts. The ruling is below.

http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C3/32C3d60.htm

will: I got around to reading the attached decision this weekend. It supports the City of Oakland's right to maintain an action of eminent domain to take control of the Raiders. It reverses the lower courts dismissal of the action and orders it reinstated, presumably for trial.

Do you have the follow-up case that actually resolved this? I assume that the Raiders won some litigation at some level since they did in fact move to LA.

EDIT: The courts seem to have finally resolved this by defining the power of eminent domain very broadly, but concluding that taking a private business in this context violates the commerce clause of the US constitution.

City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 414 [220 Cal.Rptr. 153]. I have not found this case on-line.

will: I got around to reading the attached decision this weekend. It supports the City of Oakland's right to maintain an action of eminent domain to take control of the Raiders. It reverses the lower courts dismissal of the action and orders it reinstated, presumably for trial.

Do you have the follow-up case that actually resolved this? I assume that the Raiders won some litigation at some level since they did in fact move to LA.

EDIT: The courts seem to have finally resolved this by defining the power of eminent domain very broadly, but concluding that taking a private business in this context violates the commerce clause of the US constitution.

City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 414 [220 Cal.Rptr. 153]. I have not found this case on-line.
Oh blast. I grabbed the wrong ruling. Goody. Now, if you will excuse me, I am going out to an ugly public park with a plastic spoon to commit seppuku.

Oh blast. I grabbed the wrong ruling. Goody. Now, if you will excuse me, I am going out to an ugly public park with a plastic spoon to commit seppuku.

Bye :wave:

..... so is something happening here, or what?

deleted

No, I goofed up and posted the wrong ruling in the Raiders vs. Oakland case, and made a wisecrack (that fell flat) about ending it all from the humiliation. I keep hoping that someday I'll develop a proper (and funny) sense of humor.

..... um..... ok?

..... um..... ok?
Never mind.

Well, I thought it was funny (and well deserved).

What is interesting to me is that if Sacramento (like Oakland) were to exercise eminent domain on the Kings (Raiders), the California Supreme Court would have no issues. That's how totally out of control eminent domain got. You had to go to federal law to keep every city, county and state from "nationalizing" whatever they thought was in the public interest for them to own. The court clearly says any property, any asset (tangible or intangible) with any significant connection to the city, for any public interest; not even Communist theory went this far, with only major means of production being subject to state ownership.

Corporations got themselves exempted through the commerce clause but individuals continued to be easy targets. Fortunately the fall-out of Kelo has limited this somewhat.

How bout the Kings move back to KC and don't go through all this trouble to build an arena? Sounds like a great idea to me!!!

How bout the Kings move back to KC and don't go through all this trouble to build an arena? Sounds like a great idea to me!!!

Back to where you left because it wasn't an adequate market? KC has certainly grown since then, but so have lots of other places, and in many cases much faster.

The Maloofs don't seem that active or interested in finding a solution, which may mean they are comfortable that they have one. My sense is that this is already a done deal and the Maloofs will announce it late in the upcoming season. Could be a sale, but more likely a move.

Back to where you left because it wasn't an adequate market? KC has certainly grown since then, but so have lots of other places, and in many cases much faster.

The Maloofs don't seem that active or interested in finding a solution, which may mean they are comfortable that they have one. My sense is that this is already a done deal and the Maloofs will announce it late in the upcoming season. Could be a sale, but more likely a move.

A lot of places have grown yes, but name 1 city without a team that has an arena as nice as the Sprint Center.


the only one I can think of is Louisville and the Louisville metropolitan area is a couple hundred thousand people smaller than the KC MSA.

It would be awesome for the Kings to come back to Kansas City.

I don't have anything against KC and if the Maloofs think that's how to maximize their return, then do it. The driver is usually the size of the expected media markets over the next 20 years, although sometimes rich locals are willing to take an economic hit for their hometown market.

While having a nice arena in place is a plus, it's not really the key factor. It does get a lot of attention because it is something that can be improved as part of the negotiations, while the size of the media market is normally just a given. Just on the west coast, SJ, SD, LV and Anaheim have nice arenas that could easily be made even better and that's without talking about Vancouver or Seattle. I'm sure there are many all over the country that would be more than acceptable with a little work if the local market warranted it.

A lot of places have grown yes, but name 1 city without a team that has an arena as nice as the Sprint Center.
Anaheim. With a metro area well over 10 million.

This might make things interesting...

Seattle City Council backs deal to build NBA arena (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/basketball/nba/09/11/seattle-arena.ap/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a6&eref=sihp)

SEATTLE (AP) Efforts to bring the NBA back to Seattle took a giant step forward in a revised arena deal announced Tuesday, with investor Chris Hansen agreeing to kick in more money for transportation improvements near a proposed new arena, personally guaranteeing the city's debt - and offering to buy everyone a beer.

The plan for the $490 million arena, which could also host an NHL team, represents the best shot at bringing the NBA back to Seattle. The SuperSonics ended their 41-year run here in 2008 and skipped town for Oklahoma City, where they became the Thunder.

Though formal votes are still required, Tuesday's announcement effectively gave Hansen, a San Francisco hedge-fund manager, and his fellow investors, including Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and Peter and Erik Nordstrom, of the department store clan, the green light to begin shopping for an NBA team.

The deal calls for $200 million in public financing to be paid back by arena-related taxes and rent. Under new terms announced by the City Council, Hansen would double to $30 million the reserves required to be kept on hand in case the arena's finances don't perform as expected.

Should the reserve run dry, Hansen would cover the balance himself. He agreed to be independently audited to assure that he's worth at least $300 million.

And at the end of the 30-year use agreement for the new arena, the city could force Hansen to buy it back for $200 million or make him pay to have it torn down should the team move on.

The three City Council members who announced the deal said the new terms mark a significant improvement for taxpayers over the original deal reached between Hansen and Mayor Mike McGinn in May. A council committee is expected to vote on the agreement Thursday, and the full council could vote as early as Monday. The King County Council already approved the earlier deal but would have to approve the changes as well.

"This agreement could fundamentally change the model of how public-private partnerships involving sports franchises are structured," said Councilman Tim Burgess.

Hansen, a Seattle native, early Facebook investor and big Sonics fan, said the talks were difficult, but that he was happy to be able to find common ground with the council. He thanked the fans who supported him through the process, and - though not actually part of the deal - he offered to buy a celebratory beer for anyone who shows up on Thursday evening at FX McRory's, a bar near the planned site of the arena.

The initial plan for the deal drew objections from the Port of Seattle, which expressed fears that putting a third sports facility in the neighborhood south of downtown - next to the Seahawks and Mariners stadiums - would choke crucial transportation corridors that support 30,000 jobs in the region and generate $3 billion in annual revenue.

The new agreement calls for $40 million to be put into an account to improve the mobility of freight in the area, an amount state Rep. Judy Clibborn described as a down payment that could be used to recruit further investments from the port and other organizations.

The port issued a statement Tuesday saying it would review the deal. The statement said the Port of Seattle Commission appreciates the council's efforts to revise the original proposal to respond to concerns.

The deal also includes $7 million in new money for KeyArena, where the Sonics used to play. The city would have sole discretion over spending that money.

Kris Brannon, a fan better known as "Sonics Guy," attended the news conference decked out entirely in Sonics yellow and green.

"I'm just overjoyed," he said. "Chris Hansen is just like us. He's a fan, and he wants to bring basketball back to Seattle."

Anaheim. With a metro area well over 10 million.

Anaheim have the Ducks. KC has no pro sports teams in the Sprint Center. That being said, Sprint is making money without a pro team, so AEG doesn't really care if a pro team comes.

Anaheim also has the LA metro-area to pull fans, Kansas can't pull in that many fans

I really doubt that many people in LA would switch allegiances from the Clippers/Lakers

I really doubt that many people in LA would switch allegiances from the Clippers/Lakers

The Clippers alone have PLENTY of Laker Fans to deal with....

Anaheim also has the LA metro-area to pull fans, Kansas can't pull in that many fans

The Sprint Center is in Missouri(not kansas), a state of 6 Million without a NBA team, and nearby Kansas has 3 Million, so there is 9 Million people without a NBA team so its an untapped market where as LA already has 2 established teams to compete against.

The Sprint Center is in Missouri(not kansas), a state of 6 Million without a NBA team, and nearby Kansas has 3 Million, so there is 9 Million people without a NBA team so its an untapped market where as LA already has 2 established teams to compete against.

So you include all of Kansas and all of Missouri in the KC market (and maybe some bits of East STL right across the river in Illinois too)? That's about a 300 mile circle, so I suppose Anaheim can include SD, Fresno and the Central Valley, Las Vegas and Northern Mexico? Maybe they can stretch a little and still include Stockton or even Sactown? :lol:

So you include all of Kansas and all of Missouri in the KC market (and maybe some bits of East STL right across the river in Illinois too)? That's about a 300 mile circle, so I suppose Anaheim can include SD, Fresno and the Central Valley, Las Vegas and Northern Mexico? Maybe they can stretch a little and still include Stockton or even Sactown? :lol:

I live 10 minutes from Honda Center, but I don't think a third team in Southern California makes sense. Sheer numbers are not the only thing that matter. There are a million other things to do in SoCal. The Clippers rarely sold out prior to last years very successful season. Contrary to popular belief, Lakers tickets are not very hard to come by. Compare that to one team towns like Oklahoma City, San Antonio and Portland who always draw well and are the only show in town. I think a third team in the SoCal market would struggle despite the large numbers of people who live here.

I do realize that Kansas City also has the Chiefs and the Royals, but with no Hockey team, an NBA team would dominate the winter sports scene there.

The Sprint Center is in Missouri(not kansas), a state of 6 Million without a NBA team, and nearby Kansas has 3 Million, so there is 9 Million people without a NBA team so its an untapped market where as LA already has 2 established teams to compete against.

Sorry I was talking about Kansas City.

Back to where you left because it wasn't an adequate market?
If you saw where Kemper Arena was located, you would understand why the Kings didn't draw very well there.

The West Bottoms isn't the easiest (or safest) place for 15,000 or so people to get into and out of.

This is a very different KC from that of the '70s and '80s.

I live 10 minutes from Honda Center, but I don't think a third team in Southern California makes sense. Sheer numbers are not the only thing that matter. There are a million other things to do in SoCal. The Clippers rarely sold out prior to last years very successful season. Contrary to popular belief, Lakers tickets are not very hard to come by. Compare that to one team towns like Oklahoma City, San Antonio and Portland who always draw well and are the only show in town. I think a third team in the SoCal market would struggle despite the large numbers of people who live here.

I do realize that Kansas City also has the Chiefs and the Royals, but with no Hockey team, an NBA team would dominate the winter sports scene there.


umm, the Lakers have sold out for 10 years in a row. Lakers tickets arent hard to come by? sure, if you are willing to spend a couple hundred bucks for nosebleed seats in the middle of the week vs sacramento.

The Clippers have drawn well for years, averaging at least 17,000 a game for years now.

A third team in the LA market in OC makes sense as they can draw from south OC and northern SD County.

Again, the economics: 3M in the OC; 3.5M in SD of which about 1M are in north county, convenient to Anaheim. Good growth rates, both in population and income. Lots of tourists. A per capita income nearly double that of KC. About 2M more people in the IE, that are much closer to Anaheim than they are to LA.

The OC and SD people are the perfect demographic: very well-to-do middle aged or retired small businessmen and investors with a strong interest in sports. The Angels draw FAR better than any "2nd team" in a metro area (NY, Chicago, DC, Bay Area, LA) and the Ducks are doing just fine (except on the ice, which is a separate issue). Laker and Clipper tickets are very expensive and generally available only through "brokers".

Compare this to the Royals or Mariners, each of which is down at Cleveland and Oakland attendance levels, bottom 20 percent. Not a good sign. And, of course, no hockey team has felt the need to come to their markets.

umm, the Lakers have sold out for 10 years in a row. Lakers tickets arent hard to come by? sure, if you are willing to spend a couple hundred bucks for nosebleed seats in the middle of the week vs sacramento.

The Clippers have drawn well for years, averaging at least 17,000 a game for years now.

A third team in the LA market in OC makes sense as they can draw from south OC and northern SD County.

Yes, the Lakers sell out. Of course they do, but good upper level tickets can be had for most games in the $40 - $50 range. Check Stubhub. Clipper attendance was embarassing at times prior to last year. Not official attendance figures maybe, but butts in the seats yes. Also, one must consider the amount of corporate dollars there are to go around. Companies aren't exactly jumping at the chance to spend money these days.

Let's face it, the Lakers own this area. The Clippers are picking up the fans who don't want to support the Lakers. I can't see a third team fitting into this market. Even New York City only has two teams, and I would say that is a better basketball market than LA.

Again, the economics: 3M in the OC; 3.5M in SD of which about 1M are in north county, convenient to Anaheim. Good growth rates, both in population and income. Lots of tourists. A per capita income nearly double that of KC. About 2M more people in the IE, that are much closer to Anaheim than they are to LA.

The OC and SD people are the perfect demographic: very well-to-do middle aged or retired small businessmen and investors with a strong interest in sports. The Angels draw FAR better than any "2nd team" in a metro area (NY, Chicago, DC, Bay Area, LA) and the Ducks are doing just fine (except on the ice, which is a separate issue). Laker and Clipper tickets are very expensive and generally available only through "brokers".

Compare this to the Royals or Mariners, each of which is down at Cleveland and Oakland attendance levels, bottom 20 percent. Not a good sign. And, of course, no hockey team has felt the need to come to their markets.

If we were talking about the Clippers moving to the OC, I would agree. If we were talking about a third team moving to San Diego, I would agree. But a THIRD team in the LA market is oversaturation no matter how you look at the numbers. New York has 2 teams. Chicago has ONE team. LA is not likely to get a THIRD team.

I live in the OC, and I don't consider it part of LA either, but in sports terms it is. People already have their allegiences. Are OC Laker fans going to switch to the Kings or whoever? Are OC Clipper fans? As for the people who don't already care enough to support one of those teams, they probably won't care enough to pony up for season tickets for a third team.

Good points.

The SD City market was certainly looked at, but that's an easy rejection, since the OC plus a marketing campaign into SD works almost as well, given the desirable population of North County and that SD has no other hockey or basketball choices, college or pro. Anaheim additionally provides access to 15M or so additional people in LA and the IE, not all of whom can get into Laker or Clip games.

The economic argument is actually moot: the Maloofs already did the numbers and concluded that Anaheim was the winner. They would already be playing there if they and their financial advisors had their way. The NBA delayed it for what can only be called political reasons, certainly not any issue with the self-evident weakness of the Sacto. numbers or the strength of the OC numbers.

If they don't go, it is because of NBA pressure. Then they have to choose among the second choices: stay where they are, Seattle, KC, etc. Could be they will do well in any of these, but it's far riskier than grabbing a piece of the LA pie.

Good points.

The SD City market was certainly looked at, but that's an easy rejection, since the OC plus a marketing campaign into SD works almost as well, given the desirable population of North County and that SD has no other hockey or basketball choices, college or pro. Anaheim additionally provides access to 15M or so additional people in LA and the IE, not all of whom can get into Laker or Clip games.

The economic argument is actually moot: the Maloofs already did the numbers and concluded that Anaheim was the winner. They would already be playing there if they and their financial advisors had their way. The NBA delayed it for what can only be called political reasons, certainly not any issue with the self-evident weakness of the Sacto. numbers or the strength of the OC numbers.

If they don't go, it is because of NBA pressure. Then they have to choose among the second choices: stay where they are, Seattle, KC, etc. Could be they will do well in any of these, but it's far riskier than grabbing a piece of the LA pie.

The Maloof's economic reasoning was Ducks owner Henry Samueli offered to give them a butt load of money to ignore the negative economic if factors. I believe the payment was enough to eliminate a large portion (if not all) of their debt. Their debt is believed to be overwhelming and one of the main reasons that prevented them from moving forward with the new arena. They couldn't afford it. But they just can't seem to give up their favorite toy. This is why they will move to any location willing to pay them.

Yes, the Lakers sell out. Of course they do, but good upper level tickets can be had for most games in the $40 - $50 range. Check Stubhub. Clipper attendance was embarassing at times prior to last year. Not official attendance figures maybe, but butts in the seats yes. Also, one must consider the amount of corporate dollars there are to go around. Companies aren't exactly jumping at the chance to spend money these days.

Let's face it, the Lakers own this area. The Clippers are picking up the fans who don't want to support the Lakers. I can't see a third team fitting into this market. Even New York City only has two teams, and I would say that is a better basketball market than LA.


lol, you cannot get good lakers tickets for 40 dollars, you are just wrong.

And the fact that you think NYC is a better basketball market is the funniest joke in years.

All this aside, the best two choices for the Kings are Anaheim and Seattle. I agree that the Lakers own the area and that the Clippers are a solid second choice, but i still think that a lot of North SD County, South OC folks dont want to associate with LA sports teams and this could be their team. Obviously, when the Lakers come to town, the arena will be full of Lakers fans, but i still think over time it can be a solid location for the Kings.

The Maloof's economic reasoning was Ducks owner Henry Samueli offered to give them a butt load of money to ignore the negative economic if factors. I believe the payment was enough to eliminate a large portion (if not all) of their debt. Their debt is believed to be overwhelming and one of the main reasons that prevented them from moving forward with the new arena. They couldn't afford it. But they just can't seem to give up their favorite toy. This is why they will move to any location willing to pay them.

Agree generally, but I think a better way of putting it is that he offerred to loan them enough money to finance the costs of leaving Sacramento. (I don't feel like looking it up, but I don't think he ever offerred to GIVE them money, certainly not enough to pay-off their debt.) Of course, it's hard to separate out pieces in a deal that also included rents, city involvement and expansion of the Honda Center.

Economically, I think Anaheim makes the most sense, but overall I would guess that Seattle is the leader. The Maloofs will sell at some price.

Agree generally, but I think a better way of putting it is that he offerred to loan them enough money to finance the costs of leaving Sacramento. (I don't feel like looking it up, but I don't think he ever offerred to GIVE them money, certainly not enough to pay-off their debt.) Of course, it's hard to separate out pieces in a deal that also included rents, city involvement and expansion of the Honda Center.

Economically, I think Anaheim makes the most sense, but overall I would guess that Seattle is the leader. The Maloofs will sell at some price.

I believe Samueli offered the Maloofs a figure of around $120 million in return for a minority share of the team and a chunk of the concession and parking revenue (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). His company operates he Honda Center which allowed him to negotiate a sweetheart deal with the Maloofs without having to jump through hoops or endure prolonged negotiations with the city.

The Maloofs owe a significant amount in loans to the city of Sacramento of around $75-$80 million. This has been their biggest road block as the city has demanded the Maloofs pay their loans before they leave. The Maloofs tried to claim Arco was worth the weight of their debt, but Sacramento refuted the claim and the NBA agreed. I believe the city found the arena to be worth closer to $25 million. If Seattle, Virginia Beach or Anaheim want the Kings, they will have to offer the Maloofs enough to wipe out their debt and still have some left over to make it worth their while.

If a city or investor can provide a situation like Samueli offered, the Maloofs will probably take it wherever its located. If they plan on having the Maloofs own the team, they will need to offer significant incentives. The right price may buy the team, but the Malofs have baulked at every offer. Their main goal in life seems to be to own an NBA franchise even if it causes their other businesses to fail. I think most of the cities looking for a franchise are based on ownership groups looking to own the franchise. The Maloofs won't go for that. If the city is simply offering an arena, I don't think the Maloofs can afford it.

The problem with Seattle is that a new arena would still be years away, and short-term they would be trading one outdated arena for another. Much like the NFL situation in L.A., breaking ground on a new arena wouldn't happen until a firm commitment is made for a new tenant.

Anaheim makes the most sense because the Honda Center is already a top tier arena.

As far as the fan bases, I'd say it's a wash. Seattle is a small market, but no team, so it's a vacuum....Greater L.A. is a HUGE market that can support a 3rd team--especially in Orange County, which is pretty affluent, has major corporate money to gobble up the suites, a fan base that has a natural rivalry of teams in L.A. proper.

If NYC metro can support 3 NHL teams, I see no reason L.A. can't support 3 NBA teams.

If NYC metro can support 3 NHL teams, I see no reason L.A. can't support 3 NBA teams.
I agree with you on most points, but there is some dispute as to whether the NYC area is actually supporting three NHL teams. The Rangers drew 100% of capacity last season, but the Devils were at 87.4% and the Islanders were at 81.3%.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

I agree with you on most points, but there is some dispute as to whether the NYC area is actually supporting three NHL teams. The Rangers drew 100% of capacity last season, but the Devils were at 87.4% and the Islanders were at 81.3%.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

The Islanders are a bad team that hasn't made the playoffs in years and play in an old crappy arena...and still filled their arena more than single-team markets that play in top-tier arenas like Dallas, Columbus and Phoenix. If the Isles played in a decent venue and actually won some games they would obviously draw a LOT more fans.

The Devils when playing well average near 90% capacity in a 17,500 seater.

You can't expect all 3 NY teams to play to 100% capacity every year--especially when one of those teams sucks and plays in a sub-par venue. And besides, hockey is the #4 sport in NYC.

In L.A. on the other hand, you'd have all 3 teams playing in 1st-class arenas. You can't underestimate the importance of that--just look at the HUGE jump in Clippers attendance when they moved from the Sports Arena up the road to Staples.

Again, It's not a perfect solution to have a 3rd team here, but it would work, and all 3 teams would be profitable.

Does this latest news mean we'll see a completely new design? Rather than it being this:

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/3865/95430357.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/32/95430357.jpg/)

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/7544/4e57806b01c3172d9e50f7e.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/577/4e57806b01c3172d9e50f7e.jpg/)

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/5825/31b24ee4f181e7f91314542.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/689/31b24ee4f181e7f91314542.jpg/)Wow......love it!!!

Sorry to hear that Kevin Johnson's "plan B" is declared dead. :(

Sorry to hear that Kevin Johnson's "plan B" is declared dead. :(
Plenty of letters left in the alphabet.

So the Kings seem to be bleeding sponsors: SleepTrain lost interest in naming rights at (former) ARCO since the Kings would not commit to more than one more year (subtle hint about moving?). Also, per various sites, Sutter Medical, Thunder Valley, Carl's Jr., VSP and one or more beer and liquor sponsors are dropping out or seriously considering doing so.

Not to sound cynical, but this has probably been the idea at least since the Kings retained PR specialists. The lack of sponsors is a nice piece of "make-weight" to add to the relocation request this spring. I'll take a shot at Stern's announcement:

"While we would like to have seen all the parties work this out in good faith and with the kind of attitude that the great Sacramento fans deserve, it seems clear that the process has gone too far now to allow the Kings to survive economically in Sacramento while fielding the kind of team that their fans deserve.

But at the same time we want to welcome the great city of [choose one] to the NBA family and look forward to the Kings fielding a team that will make the city proud." Cut to scenes of fans holding signs and wearing Kings logo gear, strangely already available by the thousands.

Back from the dead?

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/23/5212105/city-manager-seeks-authorization.html

City is going into formal negotiations with the equity investors this week and KJ is going to be presenting a team purchase bid to the NBA on Friday 3/1. They are hoping to finalize a new term sheet for the NBA in April.

FYI, the new arena site is moving from the railyards to the Downtown Plaza Mall site. It's a site that has been looked at for a long time but given up because the mall owners, Westfield, wanted 400-500 million for the site. They ended up selling it to JMA Ventures for 22 million last August. JMA and Ron Burkle are teaming up on the project for the arena and surrounding development.

Here are a few of the old concepts for that site. It will be changing since AECOM has been involved with JMA. So even the old Populous concepts will likely be outdated.

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2013/02/02/20/42/vn0Dp.Xl.4.gif

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iflb32pX7Dw/S1Yg4MwN_mI/AAAAAAAACeE/-6Q5JQzsuSw/s1600/800X532+aerial+day+with+logos+2.JPG

Another reason for me to want Sacramento to still have a team, the design of the arena is really good.

Another reason for me to want Sacramento to still have a team, the design of the arena is really good.

I have questioned the economic viability of the Sacramento market, but I have to agree that their fans are loyal and the stadium proposal quite nice. Of course, they may change now.

I kind of doubt this would actually happen, the Seattle buyers are more likely then not determined as hell to bring back the SuperSonics, even if it means having to relocate another team. Not to mention the owners, the Maloofs really don't care that much about the franchise as they care about making a quick buck, and see it as the fastest way.

Plus, Sacramento, to be rather frank, is not much of a sports city. Yes, I'm aware there are fans in the city, but not enough for it to be financially viable.

Agree in general, but why pick on the Maloofs? They are hardly making a "quick buck". They have owned the team 14 years and their history of looking for an improved stadium goes back at least a decade. My guess is that Hanson and Ballmer saw that they were not getting a viable deal in Sacramento and approached them, not vice-versa.

They may not be the best managers in history but the real villain here (as you point out) is a market that's too small.

Interesting legal development. The trustee's job is to get the best deal for the bankrupt's estate consistent with not re-writing bona fide agreements. From what little info I've seen, he now seems to be saying that the bankrupt is able to transfer without triggering a right of first refusal and that the new owner gets one. Why would't the Maloofs get a right of first refusal on whatever is bid for the bankrupt's shares? It seems to favor one minority s/h over the others and over the majority holders.

I wonder if a court would throw-out the trustee's decision.

Any body have more information?

Agree in general, but why pick on the Maloofs? They are hardly making a "quick buck". They have owned the team 14 years and their history of looking for an improved stadium goes back at least a decade. My guess is that Hanson and Ballmer saw that they were not getting a viable deal in Sacramento and approached them, not vice-versa.

They may not be the best managers in history but the real villain here (as you point out) is a market that's too small.

Keep in mind though, they rejected the deal that was approved by city council last year that was surely going to keep the team in Sacramento. I'm not disagreeing with you, but it will be difficult to convince the hardcore fans in that city that feel betrayed by the owners.

Keep in mind though, they rejected the deal that was approved by city council last year that was surely going to keep the team in Sacramento. I'm not disagreeing with you, but it will be difficult to convince the hardcore fans in that city that feel betrayed by the owners.

Oh, for sure, the only way they could get off the sh*t list is to stay in Sactown, trade for LeBron and Durant and offer free tickets.

On a related subject, from what I see of DJ's plan, it's nice but not really comparable to Seattle's in quality of buyer or details of funding among other things. But maybe details will emerge.

Well the Sacramento bid to purchase the team was received by the NBA today. As expected, Mark Mastrov and Ron Burkle are the principle equity guys.

Downtown Plaza is the site for the new arena. Also included is development of an LA Live type project on the site.

Unknown what AEGs role will be since Burkle is still working on that deal. But it's been assumed he would run this similar to his other arena at Consol Energy Center. AEG runs the building and both AEG and Live Nation will book acts.

Interesting legal development. The trustee's job is to get the best deal for the bankrupt's estate consistent with not re-writing bona fide agreements. From what little info I've seen, he now seems to be saying that the bankrupt is able to transfer without triggering a right of first refusal and that the new owner gets one. Why would't the Maloofs get a right of first refusal on whatever is bid for the bankrupt's shares? It seems to favor one minority s/h over the others and over the majority holders.

I wonder if a court would throw-out the trustee's decision.

Any body have more information?

From what I've read, the right of refusal kicks in when more than 40 or 50% of the team is being sold. The bankruptcy owner owns a much smaller percentage. The issue has been a hot one here, and it appears the mayor and new potential owners are going to try and use the rights of refusal, and have been in contact and are working with the bankruptcy lawyer.

So now it's up to the NBA to decide where the team will play in the near future.

.... honestly, I'll be shocked if Sacramento keeps this team.

So now it's up to the NBA to decide where the team will play in the near future.

.... honestly, I'll be shocked if Sacramento keeps this team.

I won't be shocked regardless of which city ultimately wins this duel. I still think its near 50-50. This soap opera is getting very interesting. I think mayor Johnson's case to the NBA is getting easier, and he'll be going in with guns blazing, taking no prisoner (maybe I shouldn't have posted after watching Die Hard :P).

Here in Sac, the populous and media are feeling really good, and everyone is expecting the team to stay. I'm sure they're feeling just as good in Seattle, but this city is buzzing. At times, its almost like people have forgotten the city still has to stop the sale. Regardless of what happens, I'm beyond impressed with Kevin Johnson, and his effort to keep this team here. His leadership has been key for Sac's fight to keep the team.

Still hope Seattle has to wait a bit more, and expansion becomes a reality for them. The way they lost the Sonics was bogus, and they more than deserve re-entry to the NBA. But not at the expense of this team.

From what I've read, the right of refusal kicks in when more than 40 or 50% of the team is being sold. The bankruptcy owner owns a much smaller percentage. The issue has been a hot one here, and it appears the mayor and new potential owners are going to try and use the rights of refusal, and have been in contact and are working with the bankruptcy lawyer.

Thanks; makes sense.

I won't be shocked regardless of which city ultimately wins this duel. I still think its near 50-50. This soap opera is getting very interesting. I think mayor Johnson's case to the NBA is getting easier, and he'll be going in with guns blazing, taking no prisoner (maybe I shouldn't have posted after watching Die Hard :P).

Here in Sac, the populous and media are feeling really good, and everyone is expecting the team to stay. I'm sure they're feeling just as good in Seattle, but this city is buzzing. At times, its almost like people have forgotten the city still has to stop the sale. Regardless of what happens, I'm beyond impressed with Kevin Johnson, and his effort to keep this team here. His leadership has been key for Sac's fight to keep the team.

Still hope Seattle has to wait a bit more, and expansion becomes a reality for them. The way they lost the Sonics was bogus, and they more than deserve re-entry to the NBA. But not at the expense of this team.

No offense, but I think you're only saying that because you're in Sacramento.

Besides, it's not like the Kings have ALWAYS been in Sacramento. I'm sure Kansas City and Cincinnati felt the same.

No offense, but I think you're only saying that because you're in Sacramento.

Besides, it's not like the Kings have ALWAYS been in Sacramento. I'm sure Kansas City and Cincinnati felt the same.

Certainly have a Sacramento bias, as its my adopted city. And I receive all the pro-Sac spin from the media outlets, but when you break down the "what's best for the NBA" argument, I think Sac has a solid chance. Some pundits say Seattle has no chance of loosing out, some say KJ may have the votes. Whatever the case, I think Sac has put up a great fight.

And as for the argument the Kings didn't originate in Sac, how does that make them any less the city's team? The citizens of Sacramento have filled Arco for years, bled their colors, kept up hope and faith, and finally started to buckle when the Maloofs dicked them around for one too many times. The team has resided here for over a quarter century, and been Sacramento's team longer than any of its other homes. For legions of NBA fans born in the 80's, 90's and 2000's (even late 70's), they've only known the Sacramento Kings. For many more, memories of Rochester, Cincy or KC may be hazier than their identity as Sac. It doesn't excuse the loss those who loved the Kings in those markets felt, but Sac doesn't deserve that fate now. With all the city and fan base has done, especially in recent years, Sac deserves to call this team theirs. The Lakers came from Minneapolis, Dodgers and Giants from New York, Colts were Baltimore's, do these cities also not identify and in a way "own" their team as well? If Sac had simply received an expansion in 85, would this situation be any different? I'm sorry, but this team and city have history, passion and a connection.

Certainly have a Sacramento bias, as its my adopted city. And I receive all the pro-Sac spin from the media outlets, but when you break down the "what's best for the NBA" argument, I think Sac has a solid chance. Some pundits say Seattle has no chance of loosing out, some say KJ may have the votes. Whatever the case, I think Sac has put up a great fight.

And as for the argument the Kings didn't originate in Sac, how does that make them any less the city's team? The citizens of Sacramento have filled Arco for years, bled their colors, kept up hope and faith, and finally started to buckle when the Maloofs dicked them around for one too many times. The team has resided here for over a quarter century, and been Sacramento's team longer than any of its other homes. For legions of NBA fans born in the 80's, 90's and 2000's (even late 70's), they've only known the Sacramento Kings. For many more, memories of Rochester, Cincy or KC may be hazier than their identity as Sac. It doesn't excuse the loss those who loved the Kings in those markets felt, but Sac doesn't deserve that fate now. With all the city and fan base has done, especially in recent years, Sac deserves to call this team theirs. The Lakers came from Minneapolis, Dodgers and Giants from New York, Colts were Baltimore's, do these cities also not identify and in a way "own" their team as well? If Sac had simply received an expansion in 85, would this situation be any different? I'm sorry, but this team and city have history, passion and a connection.

Fair enough points, but what I'm trying to say is that unlike what happened with Seattle, I'm pretty sure most of the country wouldn't mind or question the Kings leaving Sacramento.

Then again, I guess if there was a team here in Fort Worth, I'd think the same as you.

Warriors from Oakland to SF; A's from Oakland to SJ; 49ers from SF to SJ; Raiders to SJ or LA; Chargers from SD to LA; Kings from Sacramento to Seattle, Virginia Beach or Anaheim; Rams from STL to LA (Farmer's? Dodger Stadium? Industry? Hollywood Park?).
Some in SF are even talking about stealing the Sharks from SJ.

If you live in California it's just part of the daily scene. Teams move all the time, almost always from a smaller market to a larger one. If they didn't there would still be teams in Ft. Wayne, Syracuse, etc. And no baseball in SF or LA or Atlanta or Dallas; no football in Phoenix; no basketball in LA or SF, etc.

Warriors from Oakland to SF; A's from Oakland to SJ; 49ers from SF to SJ; Raiders to SJ or LA; Chargers from SD to LA; Kings from Sacramento to Seattle, Virginia Beach or Anaheim; Rams from STL to LA (Farmer's? Dodger Stadium? Industry? Hollywood Park?).
Some in SF are even talking about stealing the Sharks from SJ.

If you live in California it's just part of the daily scene. Teams move all the time, almost always from a smaller market to a larger one. If they didn't there would still be teams in Ft. Wayne, Syracuse, etc. And no baseball in SF or LA or Atlanta or Dallas; no football in Phoenix; no basketball in LA or SF, etc.

Re-location is a never-ending part of life in major sports, and it's one of the unfortunate realities fans have to face. There are few "safe" franchises in North America, maybe none, and fans will always have the fear of loosing their team and having their heart ripped out in the back of their mind. City's are at the behest of the owners, and are forced to give up insane resources in order for teams to be kept put. Arenas and stadiums have started developing shorter shelf lives and are costing more and more money. It's crazy. Maybe someday, enough municipalities will say no more to the greed and demand of these owners, but probably not in my lifetime. Probably never.

This is why I'm much more of a college fan than a pro fan. SJSU and Sac State and Cal will never leave and break my heart. The Sac State Hornets will never be the Seattle Hornets, Cal will never threaten to move to Chicago or elsewhere if they don't get a new stadium. The schools aren't owned by greedy owners who only care about themselves (well, maybe somewhat debatable).

SF can talk about the Sharks all they want. I don't see it as anything close to conceivable any time soon. It's mostly fans locked in a hometown/market/recognition pissing contest at this point. Any talk from SF officials will be sour grapes over the 49ers and A's issue. But there has been no talk from or between SF or the ownership, so its a moot point. Owners and city are committed. The hockey played in the new Warriors arena will be ECHL Bulls hockey, if any.

It's funny, and somewhat of a double standard, but as far as the Bay Area, its basically one giant city, and moves within the Bay are pretty non-detrimental. The Warriors moving to SF is equivalent to the Kings moving from Natomas to South Sacramento or Rancho Cordova, probably even closer. The 49ers move is a little weird, but its only 45 mins from SF, 30 on a good day. A's from Oakland to SJ basically the same. You can take city streets from Oakland to San Jose to San Francisco. Most people in the bay live in San Jose and commute to San Francisco, or vise versa. It's all connected on multiple levels.

I agree with almost every word you say.

But in spite of that the virulence of the attacks by Oakland people on Wolff or by SF people on the Yorks is pretty much what you would expect toward Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden. I don't know Rancho Cordova or Natomas but I doubt they feel that way about downtown Sacramento (although there's no doubt that everyone in the area feels that way about the Maloofs).

But it's really the same thing; markets change and a businessman hoping to survive can't ignore economic reality.

I don´t understand one thing, i read that Sacramento had almost lost the team to Seattle but they came back with this new arena project, why is the arena so important in all of this? Why should a city lose their team because of arena issues even if their fans are one of the best in nba? Seattle didn´t lose the Sonics for OKC because of the same problem?

I loved the Sonics but i don´t want Sacramento to lose their team, their fans don´t deserve it.

I don´t understand one thing, i read that Sacramento had almost lost the team to Seattle but they came back with this new arena project, why is the arena so important in all of this? Why should a city lose their team because of arena issues even if their fans are one of the best in nba? Seattle didn´t lose the Sonics for OKC because of the same problem?

I loved the Sonics but i don´t want Sacramento to lose their team, their fans don´t deserve it.

Pretty sure Clay Bennett didn't intend to keep the team in Seattle in the first place.

At least this group trying to buy and move the Kings aren't lying about it.

So now it's up to the NBA to decide where the team will play in the near future.

.... honestly, I'll be shocked if Sacramento keeps this team.

I'm curious as to why you think that the NBA would encourage Sacramento to come up with an arena plan and find investors to buy the team and keep it in Sacramento? It would be bad business for the NBA to waste the time and money of Sacramento, the mayor and a couple of billionaires just to say..."just kidding! You can't really have the team!"

Sacramento has a fair shot at this. To be conservative, would be to say Sac has a 50/50 shot. Common sense says there is almost nothing to gain for the NBA by dragging this out if relocation to Seattle is a foregone conclusion.

Saying that people don't care about Sacramento is not a good reason either. There is not that big a difference in market sizes. For example, Sac has about 1.5 mil tv market size. Seattle has 1.8 mil tv market size. Difference is that Seattle has many more sports franchises to divide the market between. Sacramento just has the one pro team. My point is, when you start breaking down the numbers and using some common sense about the situation as a whole, it's not as clear cut that Seattle is getting the Kings. The NBA BOG has a tough choice.

Pretty sure Clay Bennett didn't intend to keep the team in Seattle in the first place.

At least this group trying to buy and move the Kings aren't lying about it.

http://sportspressnw.com/2012/10/thiel-how-about-an-expansion-team-for-seattle/

All this is speculative, of course, but the virtue of expansion is not. There will be no hijacking of another fan base, which has been, since the day in July 2008 the Sonics left, the most odious consequence of bringing back the NBA — doing dirty unto others as dirty was done unto you.

Hansen reiterated Tuesday that he is not going to be predatory.

“We’re not going to go around saying, ‘Please sell us your team,’ “he said. “We’re not going to pry a team away.”

This is a lie. He contacted the Maloofs and initiated an offer. If he was true to his statement, he would back out of his offer since Sacramento clearly has a comparable offer officially on the table. Don't want to be predatory or anything.

On another note, expect Sacramento to have their arena term sheet approved by 4/2 and delivered to the NBA on 4/3.

http://sportspressnw.com/2012/10/thiel-how-about-an-expansion-team-for-seattle/



This is a lie. He contacted the Maloofs and initiated an offer. If he was true to his statement, he would back out of his offer since Sacramento clearly has a comparable offer officially on the table. Don't want to be predatory or anything.

On another note, expect Sacramento to have their arena term sheet approved by 4/2 and delivered to the NBA on 4/3.

Some of these discussion are interesting but not relevant to the sale of the team. A potential buyer of a team has a perfect right to contact someone and ask to buy the team. That's how business works; there are acquisitions in the corporate world every day and they all start with a buyer contacting a seller or vice-versa.

Then it's the Maloofs decision on whether it's a good offer. If they decide it is, they enter into a contract. Then it's over.

The NBA or the owners DO NOT decide if someone else has made a better offer. That's for the seller to decide. They can't determine what is a better offer because that's in the mind of the seller.

They do check the potential buyer and see if he is financially, managerially and ethically acceptable; and they check facilities to see if they are of NBA standard. That's it. They don't talk about whether Virginia Beach or Louisville or anywhere else is a good place or if Larry Ellison for Ron Burkle would make a better owner or anything else.

Does someone believe that this is not true? I would like to hear what that view is based on since I'm happy to correct my errors.

Some of these discussion are interesting but not relevant to the sale of the team. A potential buyer of a team has a perfect right to contact someone and ask to buy the team. That's how business works; there are acquisitions in the corporate world every day and they all start with a buyer contacting a seller or vice-versa.

Then it's the Maloofs decision on whether it's a good offer. If they decide it is, they enter into a contract. Then it's over.

The NBA or the owners DO NOT decide if someone else has made a better offer. That's for the seller to decide. They can't determine what is a better offer because that's in the mind of the seller.

They do check the potential buyer and see if he is financially, managerially and ethically acceptable; and they check facilities to see if they are of NBA standard. That's it. They don't talk about whether Virginia Beach or Louisville or anywhere else is a good place or if Larry Ellison for Ron Burkle would make a better owner or anything else.

Does someone believe that this is not true? I would like to hear what that view is based on since I'm happy to correct my errors.

Your view doesn't seem lock step with David Stern:

"My guess is it's likely that the mayor of Sacramento will appear before the board with an alternate plan," Stern said. "And that's why we have a board of governors, to make difficult decisions like this one."

"I don't think it's a bidding war," Stern continued. "There's a series of issues that are defined by our constitution that have to be considered. One of the things that our board is mandated to consider is the support for the team in the prior city. So there are real issues for the board to consider, about the buildings, about the likelihood they will be built, about the support from the cities."

It's not just an ownership approval. It's an ownership approval tied to a relocation. This is a flaw in Hansen's approach buying a team to move.

It takes 3/4 vote approval of the owners for approval of the sale. It takes only a majority vote for relocation. But by tying a team purchase and move together, he opened up his relocation as something that has to be considered for his ownership bid. He effectively just made his whole offer subject to 3/4 vote approval and opened up the issues to the constitution mentioned in the quote.

So now the Sacramento group only has to lobby team owners and obtain 8 votes of support to deny the Hansen offer. Much easier task that having to find 16 owners to support.

There isn't really a precedent for this situation. Most cases the NBA has steered a selling owner to accept an offer that will keep the team in the home market if that market is still a good one that has solid fan support, corporate support and public subsidy support. Or in the case of New Orleans, an extenuating circumstance. But the league really tries to avoid a move if it meets the support criteria.

The difference this time is the Maloofs refused to work with the NBA on selling the team. They have had an adversarial relationship with both Sacramento and the NBA. Hansen read the situation and used that to his advantage.

http://m.sacbee.com/sacramento/db_99761/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=OGhGu8I5

The title of the article is a bit more deceptive than the content. Basically went over Stern's comment that the Burkle/Mastrov offer was less than Hansen's, however, Stern revealed that they plan to significantly raise the offer before April to get it closer to, or match. I doubt they will match it dollar for dollar, but will get fairly close, and fight on the market/viability/arena front.

The article also reveals that Mastrov and Sacramento were essentially unnerved by Stern's comments, and almost seemed like they expected it. Hansen was offering an outrageous price for the controlling interest, but I have to believe the offer will have little baring on the final decision. It will be about which city the board feels will best represent the NBA. Sac has partnered with a PR/statistics firm that has put together a presentation of how Sacramento is the better city for a franchise. I heard their rep on the radio the other day, and, these guys have made Sacramento look sterling. I guess they've even had some Seattle officials and counterparts openly agree that Sac is a better NBA city than Seattle.

The other interesting tidbit was that a minority owner (12%) has put his own bid together, and is confident his group and bid will be ready by the deadline. He's also in contact with Stern, who's told him to go for it. I guess he's just working out an arena financing plan. He has the rights of refusal on his side.

The other interesting tidbit was that a minority owner (12%) has put his own bid together, and is confident his group and bid will be ready by the deadline. He's also in contact with Stern, who's told him to go for it. I guess he's just working out an arena financing plan. He has the rights of refusal on his side.
The link below is an interesting little blog about how minority owner John Kehriotis has to put together a group to buy the team, or lose his investment. The last teeny-tiny bit of respect that I had for the Maloofs just vanished. It would be poetic justice if Kehriotis could put together something like 50.000001% of the shares, and then pull the dilution trick on the Maloofs.

http://www.cowbellkingdom.com/2013/02/28/minority-owners-face-unceremonious-demise-if-sacramento-kings-move-to-seattle/

The link below is an interesting little blog about how minority owner John Kehriotis has to put together a group to buy the team, or lose his investment. The last teeny-tiny bit of respect that I had for the Maloofs just vanished. It would be poetic justice if Kehriotis could put together something like 50.000001% of the shares, and then pull the dilution trick on the Maloofs.

http://www.cowbellkingdom.com/2013/02/28/minority-owners-face-unceremonious-demise-if-sacramento-kings-move-to-seattle/

I'm struggling to find the issue here. If I own 10 percent of a partnership which owns a building and the building needs 1M in repairs which the partnership (or corporation or LLC or whatever) doesn't have, then the 90 percent shareholder puts in 90 percent and I put in 10 percent, or my interest gets diluted to reflect the money he put in (for my 10 percent benefit) and I chose to keep to myself instead of contributing. I have never seen a deal that didn't have this sort of "anti-dilution" provision: the minority can put money in if he wants to keep his proportional interest and if he doesn't want to, he is diluted.

If he weren't he would just be stealing from the majority. Or am I confused?

http://www.sonicsarena.com/news/sonics-priority-ticket-waitlist

http://www.sonicsarena.com/news/sonics-priority-ticket-waitlist

Seen that before. Didn't work for the last city trying to take the Kings. But you have a whole forum dedicated to Seattle proposed arena's where you'd get lots of love.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/anaheim-294317-tickets-county.html

Seen that before. Didn't work for the last city trying to take the Kings. But you have a whole forum dedicated to Seattle proposed arena's where you'd get lots of love.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/anaheim-294317-tickets-county.html

It's pretty standard procedure when trying to lure a team. Sac's doing the same thing.

It's pretty standard procedure when trying to lure a team. Sac's doing the same thing.

Yep, Sacramento did that many weeks ago. About 25 million dollars in season tickets on their list.

On the arena plan front, there should be a term sheet between the city and Burkle/Mastrov available to the public by mid-day 3/21. Should be voted on by city council on 3/26.

Term sheet out for public review before the council vote next Tuesday. And a local reporter is indicating that the 2010 concept is the starting point for the arena.

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2013/02/02/20/42/vn0Dp.Xl.4.gif

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iflb32pX7Dw/S1Yg4MwN_mI/AAAAAAAACeE/-6Q5JQzsuSw/s1600/800X532+aerial+day+with+logos+2.JPG

looks great. good luck Sacramento!

Great design can't see the team staying in town tho.

Financing term sheet is expected to be approved later today

Marc J. Spears ‏@SpearsNBAYahoo
Warriors co-owner Vivek Ranadive joining in on group vying to keep Kings in Sacramento, source tells Y! Sports.

http://m.sacbee.com/sacramento/db_99541/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=B5KQ3ay1

The city released the first renderings of the new arena. Was designed by AECOM. City expects to complete term sheet before Tuesday. The new member of the investment team may have delayed it a little bit.

Great design can't see the team staying in town tho.
Right of first refusal. If that group has the money, there is nothing that Seattle can do.

Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson announces arena deal

Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson announced Saturday that he has a deal.

Via his Twitter account, Johnson announced that a deal is in place to build a new arena in Sacramento with the Kings as tenants.

"It's a great day in Sacramento!!!!!" Johnson wrote. "I'm pleased to announce an agreement w/ Burkle-Mastrov-Ranadive group on a public-private partnership to build a new ESC at DT Plaza Mall. Consistent w/our core tenets, the deal avoids new taxes, protects the City on the Kings loan, and ensures no net impact to the general fund. For a comparable investment to the 2012 deal, we've secured more private investment & greater econ development potential at the new site. The new ownership, historic in its reflection of our city's diversity, will invest up to $1B in Sac - a strong sign of confidence in our mkt.

"They will also make a 35-year commitment to keep the Sacramento Kings right here where they belong!" he continued. "Once again, we're proving the strength of our market -- both as host to an NBA team, but as an emerging region with global potential. I'm excited to talk further about the deal with my Council colleagues and the public."

The investment group is led by billionaire Ron Burkle, 24-Hour Fitness owner Mark Mastrov and Vivek Ranadive, who is the chairman of TIBCO as well as a minority owner of the Warriors.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/eye-on-basketball/21938108/sacramento-mayor-kevin-johnson-announces-arena-deal

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/6168/capturekwf.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/594/capturekwf.jpg/)

awesome, great news for Sacramento

http://m.sacbee.com/sacramento/db_99761/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=XLvRARZf

City council approved the arena tonight by a 7-2 vote. In the BoG's hands now.

Sacramento, Calif., OKs NBA Kings arena deal (http://www.statesman.com/ap/ap/labor/sacramento-calif-oks-nba-kings-arena-deal/nW5KX/)


Posted: 2:45 a.m. Wednesday, March 27, 2013

SACRAMENTO, Calif. —


With the clock clicking down, Sacramento city officials took their last shot at keeping the NBA Kings in California's capital by approving a public-private deal to build a new 18,500-seat arena and retail center downtown.

The city council's approval of the arena Tuesday was the last step in what has been a full court press by Mayor Kevin Johnson to keep Sacramento's only major league sports team from bolting to Seattle, where a new ownership group and arena deal awaits. He now must convince NBA owners to block the Maloof family from initiating the move, a deal made public in January.

Since then, the mayor, himself a former NBA All-Star, has scrambled to assemble a group to buy the team, convince Commissioner David Stern to consider a counter offer, and get approval for the financial deal that would build a $448 million arena on the site of a shopping mall — a development many say will revitalize a problem area in its bustling city core.

Next week, Johnson will present the arena plan and purchase offer to an NBA committee. The following week, the NBA Board of Governors will vote on whether the team can be sold, and whether it will stay or move.

"We want the folks of Seattle to get a team, we wish them well, but we want to keep what's ours," Johnson said after the 7-2 vote to approve the arena. "We're going to New York to talk about the viability of this market and the love affair we've had with our team."

[...]

^Does that mean the Kings are certainly staying in Sactown?

I don't see how the Kings would be relocated at this point.

1. New Ownership group with financial wherewithal in place--done.
2. New arena plan, funding and govt. approval--done.

The only reason a team should be allowed to relocate is if these two criteria are not met. Sactown has met them.

I don't see how the Kings would be relocated at this point.

1. New Ownership group with financial wherewithal in place--done.
2. New arena plan, funding and govt. approval--done.

The only reason a team should be allowed to relocate is if these two criteria are not met. Sactown has met them.

They will also have five year commitments from businesses for sponsorship agreements.

On the fan side, Season ticket commitments going forward should be a little over 10,000 by the time they meet on Wednesday. At the pace they are going, I'm guessing about 11,000.

It's a tough decision. On one hand getting back to Seattle is very attractive. On the other, you have a city that has supported their team for 28 years and has stepped up with $260+ million in public support for a new arena.

It's tough for the NBA to turn down Sac and then go ask other cities like Milwaukee and Minneapolis to step up with their public help and not have that situation hurt their position.

They never admit to wanting to expand until the really want to expand. I don't know if there was ever a better case than right now for the league to expand. The only thing better than a team selling for a half billion dollars is two teams for a billion.

A great article by Ken Berger of CBS Sports on the fight for the Kings:

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/ken-berger/21990294/as-final-decision-nears-sac-mayor-johnson-says-city-deserves-kings

I wish SacTown all the best in keeping their NBA team....

Ron Burkle pulls out of the ownership group for both the Kings and the arena. He will focus his funds on "ancillary development". Various people claim this won't hurt the bid and that he is doing it because of his sports agency connections (but does this explain why he is also getting out of the stadium?).

Ron Burkle pulls out of the ownership group for both the Kings and the arena. He will focus his funds on "ancillary development". Various people claim this won't hurt the bid and that he is doing it because of his sports agency connections (but does this explain why he is also getting out of the stadium?).

His ownership stake in the arena would also be considered a conflict of interest. The NBA requires you to pick one facet of the league to operate under. If he owned the arena, he would have a direct interest in the Kings, giving way to the possibility of him pushing his players to choose Sacramento over other markets. Makes the league nervous.

All reports I've herd, his departure from the group was known well before the meetings withy the league, and Sacramento let the league know he wasn't involved in the arena or team before the presentations. The other potential investors are reportedly ready to pick up his financial absence and commit more money. Johnson and others have stated that money is not anything close to an issue.

An interesting tidbit today; a reporter from USA Today was interviewed, and he said the league was simply figuring out financials at this point (as we pretty much already know). He said from what he knows, the Sacramento ownership group (minus Burkle), was financially sound, and was looking at an overall plan that would ultimately add significant equity to the franchise, while Hansen and Balmer had more of a debt-based plan. He thought the league was going to require Seattle to turn that around a bit, and guarantee more money that wasn't tied to further debt.

His ownership stake in the arena would also be considered a conflict of interest. The NBA requires you to pick one facet of the league to operate under. If he owned the arena, he would have a direct interest in the Kings, giving way to the possibility of him pushing his players to choose Sacramento over other markets. Makes the league nervous.

All reports I've herd, his departure from the group was known well before the meetings withy the league, and Sacramento let the league know he wasn't involved in the arena or team before the presentations. The other potential investors are reportedly ready to pick up his financial absence and commit more money. Johnson and others have stated that money is not anything close to an issue.

An interesting tidbit today; a reporter from USA Today was interviewed, and he said the league was simply figuring out financials at this point (as we pretty much already know). He said from what he knows, the Sacramento ownership group (minus Burkle), was financially sound, and was looking at an overall plan that would ultimately add significant equity to the franchise, while Hansen and Balmer had more of a debt-based plan. He thought the league was going to require Seattle to turn that around a bit, and guarantee more money that wasn't tied to further debt.

Well, rather than create spin around this, let's just say that he could have sold his other interests (or tranferred them to his family trusts or nominees) if he was excited by this opportunity.

Well, rather than create spin around this, let's just say that he could have sold his other interests (or tranferred them to his family trusts or nominees) if he was excited by this opportunity.

He's still involved in the negotiations, and is an integral part of the plan, he's just not going to own the team. Its also been quite public that the Maloofs have said they will refuse to sell or do any business with Burkle, period. Many believe he exited the ownership group to make a possible sale easier, or even possible. Many feared even if the Seattle sale was scrapped, the Maloofs wouldn't negotiate if Burkle was still involved.

Well, rather than create spin around this, let's just say that he could have sold his other interests (or tranferred them to his family trusts or nominees) if he was excited by this opportunity.

Something seemed rather odd about this to me too. It's not like Burkle didn't care about being involved with the Kings and the arena. He spent a lot of time and effort working on this over the last few months. And has been interested in this since early 2011. He was the person structuring the arena deal for the investors for the past few months. If he didn't care, he would have checked out on this a lot earlier.

He also was the money man with his contacts to JMA Ventures who purchased Downtown Plaza last August. He's long term invested in this.

And in today's press conference, the mayor stated that at some point Burkle would be back in a fuller capacity. He also evaded a the question about why Burkle wasn't divesting in Relativity to keep his role.

The obvious answer seems to go back the Maloofs and their grudge against Burkle for what happened back in 2011 with their Anaheim move attempt. I've watched the brothers in action since 1998. And they are exactly the type of guys who hold grudges and are extremely emotional in their thought process. So I don't doubt that Burkle is stepping back for now to appease them and resolving his conflict issues after the Maloofs sell the team.

Not that I think any of this means much or changes anything, but it sure is fun.

Funny you should mention Anaheim. I notice that the Jacobs who are coming in to "replace" Burkle say they look forward to "keeping the team in California". Could just be loose language but they are die-hard SD sports fans and could have an eye on SD or Anaheim.

If the Sac group buys the team, they stay in Sacramento - period. 35 year lease with two 5 year extensions.

I can't believe its come to this. Sacramento is doing everything to keep its team while Seattle has everything it needs to get one. Can someone explain to me, why the NBA kept the Hornets in New Orleans? Terrible attendance figures and even with Chris Paul they had trouble selling out. Benson must have gotten a very sweet deal from the NBA. IMO, best option would have been to move the Hornets to OKC and keep the Sonics in Seattle.

I can't believe its come to this. Sacramento is doing everything to keep its team while Seattle has everything it needs to get one. Can someone explain to me, why the NBA kept the Hornets in New Orleans? Terrible attendance figures and even with Chris Paul they had trouble selling out. Benson must have gotten a very sweet deal from the NBA. IMO, best option would have been to move the Hornets to OKC and keep the Sonics in Seattle.

The immediate reason was Katrina and the bad press from abandoning the city. The more fundamental reason is that NO is one of the great American cities and a huge mecca for tourists and conventions. A good place to display your logo. The NFL also recognized this and made concessions.

Not saying this is right or wrong, but you asked why. Personally I would contract about 5-6 teams, which would leave the rest in a position to make some money.

The immediate reason was Katrina and the bad press from abandoning the city.
Agreed

The more fundamental reason is that NO is one of the great American cities
Eh, disagree

and a huge mecca for tourists and conventions. A good place to display your logo.
Tourists and conventions do not support sports teams. A cities' populace does.


The NFL also recognized this and made concessions.
The Saints also had a great run right after Katrina, not only filling the seats but also imbedding passion for the team into the region. The Hornets did not.

Not saying this is right or wrong, but you asked why. Personally I would contract about 5-6 teams, which would leave the rest in a position to make some money.

Biggest problem I see is how NBA GMs lavish huge contracts on players unworthy of them, pushing up average salaries and making it difficult for a good chunk of franchises financially. The NFL, and to a slightly lesser extent MLB rake in enough money that they do not have many financial issues. The NBA and NHL do, the latter of which self-corrected after a protracted lockout. NBA will eventually, it's just a matter of when the owners get fed up with all the red ink.

Agreed


Eh, disagree


Tourists and conventions do not support sports teams. A cities' populace does.



The Saints also had a great run right after Katrina, not only filling the seats but also imbedding passion for the team into the region. The Hornets did not.



Biggest problem I see is how NBA GMs lavish huge contracts on players unworthy of them, pushing up average salaries and making it difficult for a good chunk of franchises financially. The NFL, and to a slightly lesser extent MLB rake in enough money that they do not have many financial issues. The NBA and NHL do, the latter of which self-corrected after a protracted lockout. NBA will eventually, it's just a matter of when the owners get fed up with all the red ink.

A number of problems with this. You seem to have reconstituted what you think should be reality from a fan's point of view rather than what actually is reality from the owners' point of view.

Fans and attendance are nice; but media market is critical, as are intangibles such as national or international name recognition. The Yankees are not supposed to be very good this year but they will be on TV far beyond any other team. Ditto for the Celtics and Lakers. David Stern was openly criticized by the press, owners and networks when SA and Detroit met in the finals, with the attendant ratings disaster.

NO fits this category. It has name recognition across the US, Europe and Latin America. I don't want to overstate this; it's not like LA or NY, but way beyond most NBA cities.

"GM's spend too much on players, pushing up salaries, etc...." This is just economic nonsense. First, it's with the owners' approval. Nobody forces them to pay more; in fact, the NBA is a cartel, which means in general (and by agreement) they have conspired to limit player salaries (with the union's grudging concurrence).

This is done because about 6 teams are nicely profitable; 14 or so do OK; and about 6 are struggling and couldn't compete for quality players without help. In normal industries, these companies would go out of business or bring in new management to develop revenue sources, etc. But cartels tend to protect existing ownership by mutual consent.

A number of problems with this. You seem to have reconstituted what you think should be reality from a fan's point of view rather than what actually is reality from the owners' point of view.

Fans and attendance are nice; but media market is critical, as are intangibles such as national or international name recognition. The Yankees are not supposed to be very good this year but they will be on TV far beyond any other team. Ditto for the Celtics and Lakers. David Stern was openly criticized by the press, owners and networks when SA and Detroit met in the finals, with the attendant ratings disaster.

NO fits this category. It has name recognition across the US, Europe and Latin America. I don't want to overstate this; it's not like LA or NY, but way beyond most NBA cities.

"GM's spend too much on players, pushing up salaries, etc...." This is just economic nonsense. First, it's with the owners' approval. Nobody forces them to pay more; in fact, the NBA is a cartel, which means in general (and by agreement) they have conspired to limit player salaries (with the union's grudging concurrence).

This is done because about 6 teams are nicely profitable; 14 or so do OK; and about 6 are struggling and couldn't compete for quality players without help. In normal industries, these companies would go out of business or bring in new management to develop revenue sources, etc. But cartels tend to protect existing ownership by mutual consent.

New Orleans does have a reputable name, but more as a vacation destination than a premier US city. Its metro area consists of about 1.1 million, modest by most standards. I believe two factors are directly responsible for the team remaining in the city.

The first is Katrina. The events Katrina produced can't be underestimated. New Orleans became a rallying point, and the call to rebuild and bring New Orleans back from the depths was paramount. Before Katrina hit, the Saints were threatening to pack their bags, as it appeared Louisiana was not going to build the new stadium the team demanded. After Katrina, the Saints shelved all talk and rumors of leaving, and re-committed themselves to New Orleans as if they had never threatened to leave. It would have been too big of a black eye for the team, and the league. The Hornets had just moved to New Orleans, but once it was clear they were in trouble, potential owners came out of the wood work to relocate the franchise. I remember San Jose had offered a deal, but Stern and the NBA blocked the talks and said the team was not relocating.

The second was the ownership nightmare. I'm not an expert on the situation, and I've read conflicting stories, but as I understand it, the Hornets were basically given to an owner who had no interest in owning an NBA franchise. The owner who wanted the Hornets to thrive in New Orleans didn't have the funds to operate the franchise properly. The situation, however it went down, was so bad the NBA took over the team. The NBA's m.o. was to find a buyer who would keep the team in town. Whether it was because they felt New Orleans never had a proper chance to build a successful fan base and product, or they felt moving the team under the leagues ownership was a conflict I interest, or whatever the thinking was, the NBA wasn't leaving New Orleans under its guidance. It was much like the NHL-Phoenix situation we see now.

Back to Sacramento news:

The Maloofs have given the Sacramento group till Friday to negotiate an offer for the Kings, should the NBA kill the sale to Seattle. They want an offer dollar for dollar, but will at least listen to their offer. Don't know if its a sign Sacramento's chances are looking better, or the fact Burkle will no longer be in the negotiation room.

http://m.sacbee.com/sacramento/db_99761/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=5iWNK2lQ

A story in how Burkle's exit has possibly bolstered Sacramento's chances

http://m.sacbee.com/sacramento/db_105806/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=hPu1xfRr