I honestly don't know what if any restrictions are placed on loans from the league. However, I do know that any money a team recieves from revenue sharing is susposed to be used strictly on the team. If the league finds out otherwise, it can stop all revenue funds from going to that team. I would suspect that any money loaned by the league would be loaned with the idea that it be used to improve the team. I doubt that the league is in the business of investing in casinos.
Hansen, Seattle Council reach deal on financing new sports arena
- Thread starter rainmaker
- Start date
I would agree that they should have spent it on the team. I'm just not sure I can account in team spending for the possible 100-150 million line of credit they dipped into. Perhaps back then the Commissioner didn't think any owner would have used that line of credit for non-NBA purposes and didn't place any conditions? They certainly didn't invest that money into facilities or major free agent spending. Yes they had a high salary there for a few years, but they got extra money for the playoffs. They probably only lost maybe 20 million over a 2-3 year period from the various articles I've read.
Let me give you a scenario that I read today... Here is what an insider said today "M.A
The Kings will be playing in the Key Arena November 2013. Back door deal with Stern/Maloofs/Hansen already in place. Bye, Bye California.
Now lets just say this is true. Ok Sacramento Kings going to Seattle. Kings name, logo and history staying in Sacramento. Team becomes Seattle Supersonics.
Hansen has to pay off the Sacramento loan, Relocation fee, team fee from the Maloofs say 450 million and then build a $500 million dollar arena. So your talking about 1 billion to get a NBA franchise. Stern wants Ballmer to be an owner of the Seattle franchise. So I think this deal is pretty close to being done.
So I want to discuss this part of it. We all know this part above. Just for a touch up for the people that didn't know this.
We know that Charlotte is available. should we be looking to Charlotte for the replacement of the Kings? Would Stern feel bad about Sacramento losing the "original" kings that he would be willing to allow the new ownership group to move the Bobcats to Sacramento?
Here is an example If a man comes in and says that he wants to pay for an arena himself and doesnt want it at the railyard (which is city owned) where would you put it so he could make a profit? Is the railyards the best place to put the new arena or is where Arco arena the best place to put it considering that everyone knows where it is? A place people are familiar with. Also does that person who builds the arena, does he have inside track of receiving a franchise to a person who doesnt?
Here are the teams available for ownership
Charlotte-But the team has a prohibitive lease and Michael Jordan seems unlikely to allow the Bobcats to leave on his watch. If the team moves before 2015 it would have to pay the city of Charlotte $150 million.
Atlanta- Even if sold eventually, the Hawks seem unlikely to move due in part to a $75 million penalty that would be owed to the city if the team moves before 2019.
Memphis-The team has a restrictive lease with the city that would include anyone wanting to move the team to pay off bonds that paid for the construction of the FedEx Forum. But the lease is regarded as hugely prohibitive to a move any time before the 2021 season. There are still $206 million worth of bonds to pay down. Earlier this year, the Grizzlies were valued at $269 million.
Milwaukee-Owner wont sell to someone that is going to move them out of state.
Indiana- Slim to none an out of towner gets the team sold to them
The Kings will be playing in the Key Arena November 2013. Back door deal with Stern/Maloofs/Hansen already in place. Bye, Bye California.
Now lets just say this is true. Ok Sacramento Kings going to Seattle. Kings name, logo and history staying in Sacramento. Team becomes Seattle Supersonics.
Hansen has to pay off the Sacramento loan, Relocation fee, team fee from the Maloofs say 450 million and then build a $500 million dollar arena. So your talking about 1 billion to get a NBA franchise. Stern wants Ballmer to be an owner of the Seattle franchise. So I think this deal is pretty close to being done.
So I want to discuss this part of it. We all know this part above. Just for a touch up for the people that didn't know this.
We know that Charlotte is available. should we be looking to Charlotte for the replacement of the Kings? Would Stern feel bad about Sacramento losing the "original" kings that he would be willing to allow the new ownership group to move the Bobcats to Sacramento?
Here is an example If a man comes in and says that he wants to pay for an arena himself and doesnt want it at the railyard (which is city owned) where would you put it so he could make a profit? Is the railyards the best place to put the new arena or is where Arco arena the best place to put it considering that everyone knows where it is? A place people are familiar with. Also does that person who builds the arena, does he have inside track of receiving a franchise to a person who doesnt?
Here are the teams available for ownership
Charlotte-But the team has a prohibitive lease and Michael Jordan seems unlikely to allow the Bobcats to leave on his watch. If the team moves before 2015 it would have to pay the city of Charlotte $150 million.
Atlanta- Even if sold eventually, the Hawks seem unlikely to move due in part to a $75 million penalty that would be owed to the city if the team moves before 2019.
Memphis-The team has a restrictive lease with the city that would include anyone wanting to move the team to pay off bonds that paid for the construction of the FedEx Forum. But the lease is regarded as hugely prohibitive to a move any time before the 2021 season. There are still $206 million worth of bonds to pay down. Earlier this year, the Grizzlies were valued at $269 million.
Milwaukee-Owner wont sell to someone that is going to move them out of state.
Indiana- Slim to none an out of towner gets the team sold to them
Ok, I see what you're saying regarding the arena in the railyards as opposed to somewhere like Natomas. It's unfortunately a moot point because I don't see anyone footing the entire bill. As much as I despise the Maloofs, I think if someone like Burkle made an offer that they couldn't refuse, they would have no problem selling to him. No matter how much George may hate Sacramento, green is what matters most and he could even pretend to play the role of the good guy who never had any "intention of leaving Sacramento but just wanted to add leverage to make sure he got the best deal possible."
I agree for the most part regarding the other franchises. They are long shots although Milwaukee can easily be had if they don't get a new building. Nobody will be willing to pay top dollar for a team that is destined to be at Bradley Center. Kohl is already around 80 years old so he won't live forever either. He wants to get the arena done and sold to someone who'll agree to a 20 year lease while he's still alive. Otherwise, the team is most likely gone.
This is also why Sacramento shouldn't be so quick to tear down Arco in the unfortunate scenario that the Kings relocate elsewhere. With the Maloofs out of the picture, Sacramento could be where Seattle is now meaning with a good arena deal ready to go as soon as a team becomes available. Just play at Arco/PBP while the railyards arena is being constructed. If Arco is gone, the NBA isn't going to have it's games being played at the Stockton arena.
I agree for the most part regarding the other franchises. They are long shots although Milwaukee can easily be had if they don't get a new building. Nobody will be willing to pay top dollar for a team that is destined to be at Bradley Center. Kohl is already around 80 years old so he won't live forever either. He wants to get the arena done and sold to someone who'll agree to a 20 year lease while he's still alive. Otherwise, the team is most likely gone.
This is also why Sacramento shouldn't be so quick to tear down Arco in the unfortunate scenario that the Kings relocate elsewhere. With the Maloofs out of the picture, Sacramento could be where Seattle is now meaning with a good arena deal ready to go as soon as a team becomes available. Just play at Arco/PBP while the railyards arena is being constructed. If Arco is gone, the NBA isn't going to have it's games being played at the Stockton arena.
Don't believe it. Of all the rumored "back-door deals" to move a team Stern has brokered, how many have been true? I'm going to go with zero so far. Now how many of those cities had a $400M deal for an arena (a major boon for the NBA - a city willing to pay big $ to keep the NBA owners from having to do so) on the table?
Dude, without a link, this has no credibility, and therefore I don't put any stock in it. By the way, on occasion I come by inside information. And I don't post it. The reason I don't post it is because if I did, everyone would want the source of the information, which I'm not willing to give for various reasons. I think you see my point!
I understand that. That is why I said "if" it was true. Not saying it was because I don't have 1st hand info on it. But I wouldn't be surprised though because there was talk in Seattle about the Maloofs and the city of Seattle having a meeting before. Also because Hansen lives in SF and the Maloofs were in Sacramento, there could have been a meeting to talk about it.
I don't think the SF to Sacramento distance made a difference but I do get worried every time I think back to the Maloofs meeting with Wally Walker a couple years ago. Walker has been one of the leading figures in Seattle's quest to get a team back. When George told everyone that it was "just to get a feel for the arena process", you just knew that he was lying. He could do that via email or phone. The fact that he met face to face with Walker tells me that the process was getting started long before Hansen. They needed a white knight to facilitate everything from a financial standpoint and that's where Hansen came in.
This is all assuming that there is legit dialogue between the Maloofs and Hansen. For all we know, Seattle is being used to get a better offer out of Burkle....
This is all assuming that there is legit dialogue between the Maloofs and Hansen. For all we know, Seattle is being used to get a better offer out of Burkle....
Yes, I see your point. It was for discussion sake. Most of you guys on here are intelligent and can think out of the box. So I want to step outside of it some. I know that I read that there are many people who want to buy the Kings and keep them in Sacramento. But the biggest part is I believe is that if someone comes along and builds the arena privately, they probably have the first shot of the investors to own the franchise. I support Burkle to buy a team but I want to see action. Example is people leak things all the time. I haven't heard anything yet that Burkle has made any offers lately like Chris Hansen has. That is my point. Maybe he has and I need to read it but if you really want a team like how the guy Peca wants to buy the Grizzlies has, you need to put it out there that he wants it and willing to over pay to have it. I don't see the over aggressiveness to pursue it!
If the tweet is true..
Rob McAllister @Rob_McAllister
As Ive written before George Maloof says Stern said its $150 million to move Kings. That could change of course but that's quite a large sum
plus onto it the price of the team which could be 400-450 million, I notice that Hansen is willing to go there! That is what I want to see from Burkle. Maybe Burkle doesn't want the team as bad as Hansen. Reminds me of The Dodgers sale. Cuban wanted the team. But he said he was waiting for the team to come down in price before he did anything. Now Magic Johnson group wanted the team bad enough and he spent $2 billion for it. If you want something bad enough, you go out and get it.
Even if the Kings do move, we all have hope that the Maloofs will sell to a local buyer. But do you think he will? I don't. I am sorry if that is offensive to many but I think he wants to stuff it in KJ's face. I will just be glad that the "Kings" will play another year in Sacramento. But I am looking to the future and I see another team coming to town with better owners and that is the direction I am headed. Maloofs trying to go to Virginia beach, Anaheim etc and retaining as owners isnt going to happen. Plus the NBA Board of governors are always turning them down every inch of the way. What does that really mean? Does it mean that Maloofs need to work it out with the City of Sacramento (considering they have no cash) or sell the team to Seattle people? Sounds like a dead end road eventually!
I look at moving the Kings as a positive. Don't u get tired of wondering if the Kings are going to stay or go? Some consistency in our lives! I am a supporter of everything West Coast (except Houston of course) and think every big city on the west coast should have a NBA franchise but I know it is unrealistic. Kings fans have proved over and over that if you provide even a decent team, you will sell out! So why move them from Sacramento? If the Maloofs don't want them in Sacramento, then get out so the big boys can come in and bring another team in. I could go 3-4 years knowing I would have a new set of good owners and a team that wouldn't go anywhere. I don't even think it would take that long. I would wish that if there was no teams available to buy (Not true) then he would make an exception for an expansion team. KJ 's friendship should mean something to Stern.
Let's go out of the box a minute.. I just think if you let the Kings go, Do you think that another franchise would be available to be purchased and brought to Sacramento? I do! I think Charlotte or even Memphis is available. Your right, cash money talks! Would you offer 700 million if your a billionaire to pay off the FED Ex forum, the lease and pay Hensley off? I know I would. Think of it! Having Memphis coming to town "a proven winner" instead of a continual rebuilding Maloof team? How about KCRA 3 has breaking announcement that the Memphis Grizzlies have been bought and moved to Sacramento with a new arena in place? That could be a dream world but I don't think we are far off from that. Lose a team and get a better team plus an arena. That sounds like a good trade off.
Plus I don't see what is really wrong with where ARCO is located? When you google map it, http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl
you can easily see you could build a new arena on it. Build it on corner of box office drive and sports parkway. (the training facility is already there) and you can make some of the excess parking lot into a 4-5 level parking garage. Why do you need to build it downtown?? Why doesnt AEG just build their hotel/shopping "Sac-live" complex right there? Hire a huge landscaping crew and just make it attractive for the public. Basketball courts, parks, gardens, walking track/running track etc to attract people there. How bring in Minor league hockey like San Diego Gulls type, arena football and concerts. That could work. I would leave the railyard to someone that wants to come and build a stadium to bring in Football or baseball!
If you had the complex at the railyard, Wouldn't you need an EIS and spend major money on cleanup? Seems that it would take longer to build it.
In reply to your bolded points:
Nobody will build an arena privately in Sacramento. Won't happen. Doesn't make financial sense at all. Name the last fully privately-funded NBA arena in the USA.
Burkle doesn't need to pay that much, as it is a crazy sum for this team. And any sale has to be approved by the league. Hansen could offer $2 trillion, but if Stern won't allow it, it won't take place.
Why the rush to want another team instead of the one we have??? Has everyone gone loco? It is 1,000 times easier to keep a team here than to lose one and then try to get another. Because without a team there will be no arena deal. No arena deal, no team. Look at KC and Seattle, for instance.
Why would someone buy a team somewhere else and move to Sacramento??? The only reason we have a team is that Lukenbill went and "stole" one. Burlke, should he buy a team elsewhere, will not move it to Sacramento. Nobody will without an arena deal in place, and, news flash, we don't have that.
If you are a billionaire spending $700 million for a team, you may not be a billionaire anymore. And you don't need to spend $700 million for a team, just spend $400 million and keep the one we have right here! Or is that too complex to grasp? Rich people don't get rich by overspending by 75% to accomplish the same goal.
With the arena where it is, the City gets NO benefit to the downtown revitalization effort. And they will be the arena owners. They can put it where they want and where it will actually do the surrounding area some good. Where it is now has no public transportation, no synergy with the community and the City, and no feasible way to pay for construction.
Nobody will build an arena privately in Sacramento. Won't happen. Doesn't make financial sense at all. Name the last fully privately-funded NBA arena in the USA.
Burkle doesn't need to pay that much, as it is a crazy sum for this team. And any sale has to be approved by the league. Hansen could offer $2 trillion, but if Stern won't allow it, it won't take place.
Why the rush to want another team instead of the one we have??? Has everyone gone loco? It is 1,000 times easier to keep a team here than to lose one and then try to get another. Because without a team there will be no arena deal. No arena deal, no team. Look at KC and Seattle, for instance.
Why would someone buy a team somewhere else and move to Sacramento??? The only reason we have a team is that Lukenbill went and "stole" one. Burlke, should he buy a team elsewhere, will not move it to Sacramento. Nobody will without an arena deal in place, and, news flash, we don't have that.
If you are a billionaire spending $700 million for a team, you may not be a billionaire anymore. And you don't need to spend $700 million for a team, just spend $400 million and keep the one we have right here! Or is that too complex to grasp? Rich people don't get rich by overspending by 75% to accomplish the same goal.
With the arena where it is, the City gets NO benefit to the downtown revitalization effort. And they will be the arena owners. They can put it where they want and where it will actually do the surrounding area some good. Where it is now has no public transportation, no synergy with the community and the City, and no feasible way to pay for construction.
I thought I read somewhere (ill have to look for the link) that Walker is working with Ballmer's group to bring back a franchise. http://www.insidehoops.com/blog/?p=1341 When I googled it it says June 21st 2012 so that is pretty recent.
Walker did a great job with the Sonics. He made 3 great picks with Sene, Robert Swift and some other guy. He could have drafted better players but of course, it didnt happen. I think he set it up that way.
I would like to see a passionate owner who really cares about the Kings to be the owner. Steve Ballmer and Chris Hansen are very passionate owners but of course we are standing with them as the KINGS owners.
Are you receptive of another owner besides Burkle?
If you buy the Kings, Do you also have to buy ARCO arena? Wonder how much of that land is actually his? Are the parking lots part of the deal too?
Regarding Arco Arena, the Maloofs control the revenue generated at the arena and the parking. That's part of the reason that they don't want to be part of the railyards project. Their selfish line of thinking is that they shouldn't help Sacramento or it's downtown core since it cuts into their finances. Why pay $75 million to be tenants in a new building when you can maintain control of the current building for free? What they fail to realize is that a new building produces enough revenue to override any financial gain they get by staying at Arco/PBP.
As far as a hypothetical new Sacramento owner is concerned, I assume they'd control Arco and the lot as well in the event that the debt to the city is paid off. Then they'd go to the new building as tenants raking in more revenue but not having control of the building as that would be the city and AEG.
I'm fine with anybody that wants to keep the team in Sacramento. Burkle is just the name that gets thrown around a lot but if Spanos or Larry Ellison would be willing to match a Hansen offer than I'm fine with that also.
Back to Walker, he was a pretty lousy GM but I'll reiterate that he's the reason that I've always been worried about Seattle as an option. If Hansen and Ballmer buy the team, it's not because they want to keep it in Sacramento. We are at the mercy of the NBA, the B of G and legalities at that point.
As far as a hypothetical new Sacramento owner is concerned, I assume they'd control Arco and the lot as well in the event that the debt to the city is paid off. Then they'd go to the new building as tenants raking in more revenue but not having control of the building as that would be the city and AEG.
I'm fine with anybody that wants to keep the team in Sacramento. Burkle is just the name that gets thrown around a lot but if Spanos or Larry Ellison would be willing to match a Hansen offer than I'm fine with that also.
Back to Walker, he was a pretty lousy GM but I'll reiterate that he's the reason that I've always been worried about Seattle as an option. If Hansen and Ballmer buy the team, it's not because they want to keep it in Sacramento. We are at the mercy of the NBA, the B of G and legalities at that point.
I suspose that its been mentioned, but if not, no one can build a competing arena as long as the Maloofs own and use ARCO. There's a clause in the agreement they have with the loan. So the bottom line is, that until someone buys the team from the Maloofs, or the Maloofs agree to become the tennants in a new arena, no one can build a competing arena. It sort of puts the city between a rock and a hard place. Even if they could get a potential buyer on board, and he were to contribute to building a new arena, they couldn't.
I suspose they could build an arena, but they wouldn't be able to house any events that would compete with the old arena. So if you did build it, you'd be hoping that once built, the Maloofs would relent and agree to move to the new arena.
I suspose they could build an arena, but they wouldn't be able to house any events that would compete with the old arena. So if you did build it, you'd be hoping that once built, the Maloofs would relent and agree to move to the new arena.
If the Kings are moved, the debt to the city becomes immediately payable in full, with the penalty payment. I don't imagine the Maloofs want to pay off the city and still run PBP, but I could be wrong. I think they want out of Sacramento completely.
I don't see why we would here anything about a buyer who wants to keep the Kings here. The Maloofs have refused every offer and keep saying the team's not for sale. However, if there is, at some point, evidence that they are willing to sell, then I'm sure we'll hear other buyers interested, besides Hansen. And I think the league will be on the side of a deal that keeps the kings in Sacramento.
I don't see why we would here anything about a buyer who wants to keep the Kings here. The Maloofs have refused every offer and keep saying the team's not for sale. However, if there is, at some point, evidence that they are willing to sell, then I'm sure we'll hear other buyers interested, besides Hansen. And I think the league will be on the side of a deal that keeps the kings in Sacramento.
Perhaps, but if an individual or ownership group really wanted the team it would be a savvy move for them to go public. Can you imagine if a local group went public with the message "we are prepared to buy the team now and take the excellent deal as is that the NBA and Mayor Johnson already negotiated to build a new arena downtown and keep the team in Sacramento long term". That would put an insane amount of pressure on the Maloofs to sell locally and limit their options for moving/selling to another city. How could the NBA ever approve a move if that offer was out there? It would be a PR nightmare for the NBA to leave a city with willing owners, willing political support, great fans, and a deal the NBA negotiated. Wonder if KJ is working on this already...
If someone goes public with their desire to buy the team to keep it local, the price goes up accordingly.
I'm beyond positive there is a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes, but I'm just as positive that we mere mortals aren't going to be hearing anything about it until the time is right.
EDIT: And, as Section101 point out, we certainly don't want to see the Maloofs get their feeling hurt.
I'm beyond positive there is a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes, but I'm just as positive that we mere mortals aren't going to be hearing anything about it until the time is right.
EDIT: And, as Section101 point out, we certainly don't want to see the Maloofs get their feeling hurt.
I just dont see what the problem is about not wanting to be part of the rail-yard situation. I am spending millions of dollars on buying the team and keeping them in Sacramento. The salaries are really high. So what is wrong about wanting to keep the team at Natmos? I own Arco Arena and the parking lot. Why would I buy it and then let it sit and then work on a plan with the city and put money into it and then have to pay rent to the city on the new arena?? Why not just build the new arena in Lot K? Why do i have to share with the city when I can do the sharing myself? I haven seen what politicians have done to people.. Why not get the money and give it to others and or other organizations?
Maybe make Arco Arena like an outdoor music venue or even tear it down and build a MLS stadium there. You know 20,000 stadium. I guess the question would be do the people of Sacramento support an MLS team?
Need to find solutions.. Now say you owned the Kings. Someone came along and gave you money to buy the team and the arena. What would you do? Would you build a new arena? Where would put it? Remodel Arco? Would you keep the staff you currently have? Who would you fire: Petrie? Would you fire Keith Smart? Would you fire the radio guy? How about Grant Napier and his side guy on the TV side?
Wally Walker ruined everything for the Sonics. He made Gary Payton leave town. he drafted poorly and I would not be surprised if Clay Bennett made him do it too. Maybe Wally did it on his own but after what he did, why would you hire that guy?
I think about Hugh Weber of the New Orleans Hornets. He is a great President and he kept the Hornets a float during Katrina time. Then after all that, Hornets fired him and brought in Loomis (from the Saints side) I also think Dell Demps is a great GM but got railroaded in the Chris Paul deal. Would you rather keep Petrie or bring in another guy that is your guy that will shake things up?
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=199020&page=25
Post #496
In addition to this new rendering for the proposed arena in the railyards, the city has released the financial term sheet detailing the huge finical commitment the city will be making to lease the city’s parking operations for 50-years.
City Public Commitment: $255.5 million:
· $230 million parking monetization
· $18.5 million from land sales. (Estimated total value of land sales is $30.7million; however, the City has used conservative assumptions. So only $18.5 million is budgeted for the ESC in order to address variability of market conditions and to account for expenses associated with sale of the land.)
· $5 million Sheraton MOPA (for predevelopment costs under a public-private partnership)
· $1.5 million parking infrastructure fund(for predevelopment costs)
Capital Campaign (e.g., bricks, other) $3 million
Sacramento Kings $73.25 million
Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) $58.75 million
TOTAL $390.5million
Post #496
In addition to this new rendering for the proposed arena in the railyards, the city has released the financial term sheet detailing the huge finical commitment the city will be making to lease the city’s parking operations for 50-years.
City Public Commitment: $255.5 million:
· $230 million parking monetization
· $18.5 million from land sales. (Estimated total value of land sales is $30.7million; however, the City has used conservative assumptions. So only $18.5 million is budgeted for the ESC in order to address variability of market conditions and to account for expenses associated with sale of the land.)
· $5 million Sheraton MOPA (for predevelopment costs under a public-private partnership)
· $1.5 million parking infrastructure fund(for predevelopment costs)
Capital Campaign (e.g., bricks, other) $3 million
Sacramento Kings $73.25 million
Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) $58.75 million
TOTAL $390.5million
First, if a new owner wants to build something on their own property then great ! But I doubt the city would invest as much as with the railyards. Second, there is a federal building moratorium on that side of the river. Nothing can be built until the levee's are fixed. And a few weeks ago federal funding for repair was denied due to the levee's not meeting some requirements. So building at the current site would be many years off at this point. The cost to bring up the current building for even an MLS team would be more than it's worth. The Maloofs haven't been putting in whats been needed on maintenance.
But the land is also something a new owner could sell if a new ESC is used in the rail yard so they could get something back on their initial investment.
But the land is also something a new owner could sell if a new ESC is used in the rail yard so they could get something back on their initial investment.
Thank you for the info. I didnt know about the levee. Now I see why they don't want to do anything. Let me ask you this.. I understand the Maloofs don't want to be in the rail-yard because they would just be tenants and have to be renters on the property. So what would get done faster A railyard arena with EIS cleanup or building a new arena at Natmos?
So to build an arena on the rail-yard, How much is it going to cost? How much you "think" for Natmos? I am learning about this
So to build an arena on the rail-yard, How much is it going to cost? How much you "think" for Natmos? I am learning about this
Last edited:
There is no EIS clean up in the railyards. It's already been done. They are in moving the train station now.
Anywhere the Maloofs want to move the team they will be tenants. The cost to build at the current site would only be a few million less than the railyards. But when you add in the destruction of the current arena it about evens out.
Anywhere the Maloofs want to move the team they will be tenants. The cost to build at the current site would only be a few million less than the railyards. But when you add in the destruction of the current arena it about evens out.
Most estimates have the Maloofs just as well off financially as tenants at a brand new building as they are as owners at Arco. A new building brings in more fans at a higher ticket price. But beyond that, there is the issue of being a member of the community and being a partner in something that makes the city a better place overall. A railyards arena does that. Even if it were feasible to build a new arena in Natomas, it just does very little for the betterment of Sacramento. The fact that the Maloofs have no interest at all in helping the community is a big let down.
Good ideas but again, you have the levee situation so it becomes a moot point.
I'd be on board with the railyards plan, no questions asked. Personally, I'm a staunch supporter of downtown arenas and whatever deal there is that puts the Kings downtown is what I would go with. It wouldn't have to be the railyards. I'd be fine with K St. and whatever other ideas there are but since I'm being realistic, the railyards would be the way to go.
As far as personnel is concerned, I'd keep everyone in place for a year just to give them a chance to prove themselves. I've seen what Petrie can do when he's not limited by cheap ownership tactics.
I'd keep Smart but would have no problem giving him the axe if I didn't see favorable results. Stan Van Gundy would be high on my list of potential new coaches. In fact, he would've been the King coach had Billy Donovan followed through on his commitment to be the Magic head coach back in the summer of '07.
Yes, Walker was bad but it was Howard Schultz who ultimately made Payton leave town.
Bennett had yet to buy the team when they draft Saene in '06. The sale happened about a month after the draft and Bennett immediately hired Presti. Presti took Durant with the no brainer as his first pick but getting Westbrook at 4, Ibaka late in the 1st and Harden were all great picks.
If I had to choose between Walker and Petrie, I'd take Petrie.
Like I mentioned in the earlier part of the post, I'd keep Petrie for a year to see if he can re-work the magic of the late 90's and early part of this century.
I feel bad for Hugh Weber. OTOH, he doesn't get the job in the first place if he's not an in law of George Shinn. Not saying he's not qualified since he proved his worth but it's just how things go. Shinn hired him because of familiarity with him personally and now he's getting axed because Benson is comfortable with Loomis.
It's not the end of the road for Weber though. He has a nice addition to his resume and is someone I'd consider bringing in.
I like Demps and he was about as mature an individual as there was during that very overrated and media blown out of proportion CP "debacle". OTOH, if I'm in his shoes, I don't do business with the Lakers in the first place. A deal with the Lakers while the team is being owned by the league just looks horrible after the lockout and the supposed message of creating competitive balance. Making the Lakers a stronger team just defeats the purpose of what the lockout was about.
Piggy backing on that theme, it's why I was hoping for some effort on the part of the Maloofs to be partners with the community. Sometimes a short term step back turns into a long term benefit. I feel the same way about individual NBA teams. Sometimes you have to sacrifice making a deal with a big market, historically strong team for the betterment of the league at large. After all, a less top heavy league gives everyone, your own team included, a better shot at a title. That, in and of itself, is reason to not make the CP trade or for Phoenix to do the Nash sign and trade. Same with the Maloofs. Lose ownership of the building but rake in fans, higher ticket prices and a higher valued team makes things better in the long run.
Good ideas but again, you have the levee situation so it becomes a moot point.
I'd be on board with the railyards plan, no questions asked. Personally, I'm a staunch supporter of downtown arenas and whatever deal there is that puts the Kings downtown is what I would go with. It wouldn't have to be the railyards. I'd be fine with K St. and whatever other ideas there are but since I'm being realistic, the railyards would be the way to go.
As far as personnel is concerned, I'd keep everyone in place for a year just to give them a chance to prove themselves. I've seen what Petrie can do when he's not limited by cheap ownership tactics.
I'd keep Smart but would have no problem giving him the axe if I didn't see favorable results. Stan Van Gundy would be high on my list of potential new coaches. In fact, he would've been the King coach had Billy Donovan followed through on his commitment to be the Magic head coach back in the summer of '07.
Yes, Walker was bad but it was Howard Schultz who ultimately made Payton leave town.
Bennett had yet to buy the team when they draft Saene in '06. The sale happened about a month after the draft and Bennett immediately hired Presti. Presti took Durant with the no brainer as his first pick but getting Westbrook at 4, Ibaka late in the 1st and Harden were all great picks.
If I had to choose between Walker and Petrie, I'd take Petrie.
Like I mentioned in the earlier part of the post, I'd keep Petrie for a year to see if he can re-work the magic of the late 90's and early part of this century.
I feel bad for Hugh Weber. OTOH, he doesn't get the job in the first place if he's not an in law of George Shinn. Not saying he's not qualified since he proved his worth but it's just how things go. Shinn hired him because of familiarity with him personally and now he's getting axed because Benson is comfortable with Loomis.
It's not the end of the road for Weber though. He has a nice addition to his resume and is someone I'd consider bringing in.
I like Demps and he was about as mature an individual as there was during that very overrated and media blown out of proportion CP "debacle". OTOH, if I'm in his shoes, I don't do business with the Lakers in the first place. A deal with the Lakers while the team is being owned by the league just looks horrible after the lockout and the supposed message of creating competitive balance. Making the Lakers a stronger team just defeats the purpose of what the lockout was about.
Piggy backing on that theme, it's why I was hoping for some effort on the part of the Maloofs to be partners with the community. Sometimes a short term step back turns into a long term benefit. I feel the same way about individual NBA teams. Sometimes you have to sacrifice making a deal with a big market, historically strong team for the betterment of the league at large. After all, a less top heavy league gives everyone, your own team included, a better shot at a title. That, in and of itself, is reason to not make the CP trade or for Phoenix to do the Nash sign and trade. Same with the Maloofs. Lose ownership of the building but rake in fans, higher ticket prices and a higher valued team makes things better in the long run.
Last edited:
Anyone see this? the City put in a bid to host the NCAA in 2015. which means the maloofs technically are commited to still being here in 2015?
http://aroyalpain.com/2012/09/17/do...ans&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
http://aroyalpain.com/2012/09/17/do...ans&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter