Where are the 8 votes?

[HndsmCelt]

Where are the 8 votes?
​

So while we await the decision of the BOG I thought it might be fun, productive and maybe even comforting to look at the teams and try to figure out which ones are most likely vote for or against relocation. The in house attorneys will all be familiar with the practice of predicting jury votes, (although statically attorneys are pretty bad at it) but for the rest of us it is a very imprecise science involving guessing motives, understandings and values.
Admittedly I really am guessing at most of these and I am looking for the informed opinions of other fans. Right out of the gate we should all recognize our own confirmation bias that leads to see what we want and expect to see. I KNOW that this same exercise would look 180 degree different on a Seattle fan board. Also I expect that there may be no real agreement on generalized voting motives. I do NOT automatically assume that small market owners will be sympathetic with Kings fans. On the contrary, I suspect that in general owners of small market teams might vote YES to the move in order to preserve a new “out” by which the would feel free to sell their team to buyers in a larger market for bigger money. On the other hand I suspect big market teams may fear encroachment by smaller teams, after watching the Clippers transformation from JV team to no out selling the Lakers on their home court. Of course most owners will have their own reasons for their vote.
Boston Celtics: NO, maybe: Hard to tell if they even care but I guess the Celts would hate to see the Bucks moved up to Concord.
Brooklyn Nets: YES Just moved into the Knicks back yard so why not?
New York Knicks: NO The connection between Vivek and the NY owners puts this one in the Kings column.
Philadelphia 76ers: YES This is a presumption call. I would argue that KJ has to convince the owners to NOT move the team and in any room of 22 owners some just will not be moved.
Toronto Raptors: YES, come on if you just learned you could double your team’s value by selling it to some clowns in Seattle wouldn’t jump?
Chicago Bulls: NO Only team in a big market and probably want to keep it that way.
Cleveland Cavaliers: YES Rust belt team that may well think every owner deserves a big pay day and an easy out.
Detroit Pistons: YES See Above
Indiana Pacers: NO Now this one is tough. The Pacer fans would die if anyone threated to move their team, on the other hand. Owners are owners and the attendance is low.
Milwaukee Bucks: YES Owners may be considering how a move of their team could benefit them.
Atlanta Hawks: YES maybe? The city of Atlanta is unique and very proud but given attendance problems in the past who knows if they want to keep their options open.
Charlotte Bobcats: This one is anyone’s guess. Jordan does not seem ready to sell or move, so he might sympathize the Sacramento fans. On the other hand he may not feel good about the idea of forcing owners to sell to someone they do not want to sell to.
Miami Heat: NO FL is a small peninsula when you are driving or better yet flying. The two existing teams are likely to be protective lest some other Billionaires decide that Ft. Lauderdale or Tampa are ripe for a 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] team.
Orlando Magic: NO See above.
Washington Wizards: NO, maybe? Will the Wizz owners remember that the Maloofs looked into Virginia Beach?
Dallas Mavericks: YES. Cubes used to be friendly with the Maloofs
Houston Rockets: ? Our favorite trade partner, do they owe the Maloofs anything?
Memphis Grizzlies: YES another team that could be on the move, and would see a much bigger sale price if they could ship It to New York.
New Orleans Hornets: Who Knows, the city should begin every game with a nice rendition of “Should I stay or should I go?”
San Antonio Spurs: NO (Likely) This is the prototype for successful small market teams. A no nonsense approach that has probably had enough of the Maloofs but remember the when ARCO was hell to play in.
Denver Nuggets: YES Quick cheap flights to Seatac could mean a little increase in ticket sales.
Minnesota Timberwolves: NO Could be a spite vote since the BOG would not let them move.
Portland Trail Blazers: YES Portland will benefit from a rival just up the coast.
Oklahoma City Thunder: NO It’s hard to see Clay Benet being open to arguments from Seattle. H knows a smaller market can mean more money.
Utah Jazz: YES No strong reasoning here but they would be pretty close to Seattle so who knows.
Golden State Warriors: NO one of the only sure bets.
Los Angeles Clippers: NO I say both Clippers and Lakers benefit from nearby instate rivals. Attendance is up when the Kings play and their fans enjoy a trip up state to see the teams play. I don’t see the fans going to or coming from Seattle.
Los Angeles Lakers: NO See Clippers above
Phoenix Suns: YES Again no strong vibe here.
Sacramento Kings: These clowns can’t vote right?
OK so I get 14 NO votes. No doubt I may be overly optimistic, but I am curious to see how others see the breakdown.

 

[kennadog]

Ranadivé is friends with the Wizards owner. I do think you are overly optimistic. I want eight noes on the sale, but it's going to be really tough. The one good thing? I think Sacramento did enough to make this a very difficult decision. It will set a precedent which ever choice they make, so which precedent do they want to set? It would not be good to rip a team away from supportive fans in a city that has done everything asked of it. And I doubt the Maloofs have many fans in the BoG.

On the other hand, as owners they don't want to interfere with another owner's decision. Also, Hansen has promised they will be a payer, not taker, in the league's revenue sharing system. I'm not sure they can guarantee that, although I guess they could at least refuse to accept any revenue sharing money.

I just can't guess and I'm probably too biased to make a valid guess. It would depress me too much, too, if I thought about it and couldn't come up with 8.

 

[Bricklayer]

The key here is I think you are wrong on Cuban -- he has openly spoken against the move on his blog. And he is obviously a key guy because he's an outspoken mobilizer. He's the sort of guy who can make the case for you in the backroom.

 

[jalfa]

well, the Grizzlies and the Hornets have just been sold and, although I'm not sure on Pera, Tom Benson is very, very committed to New Orleans and having success in a difficult market. he should definitely be on Sacramento's side.

 

[El Paljasso]

Portland Trail Blazers: YES Portland will benefit from a rival just up the coast.

Through my purple glasses I also see Paul Allen vote against Seattle:

He is owner of the Seattle Seahawks, part owner of the Seattle Sounders, so maybe he doesn't want to share the Seattle market.
Apparantly he also has a beef with Steve Ballmer (http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2011/03/does-allen-have-a-beef-with-ballmer.html?page=all)


NHL Angle? (4 teams) These owners also own an NHL team and therefore know Burkle. I have no idea how that influences them.
Ted Leonsis (Wizards, Capitals)
Dolan (Knicks, Rangers)
Stan and Josh Kroenke (Nuggets, Avalanche)
Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment (Raptors, Maple Leafs)

 

[kupman]

I think that Washington, Golden State and Dallas are 'No's. Nothing is certain, but my confidence is highest for those 3. The other 5? Those would be only guesses.

 

[HndsmCelt]

The key here is I think you are wrong on Cuban -- he has openly spoken against the move on his blog. And he is obviously a key guy because he's an outspoken mobilizer. He's the sort of guy who can make the case for you in the backroom.

Could be, but I think our best friend in the BOG is actually Clay Benet. He knows what Seattle fans are like and he knows that small markets can be richer grounds. I see him playing the hold out juror in 12 Angry Men if necessary
.

 

[Glenn]

I have thought about this for a long time, well, as long as possible, and think it's darn near impossible to predict. The inclination of an owner wanting to support another owners decision is an imponderable. Normally I would think we had no chance but this is a unique situation in the history of the NBA. If the Kings' owner's desires are rejected, they quickly go to another offer that makes as much money so the rejection of the Maloofs doesn't hurt them financially. If I was an owner I don't know where that would put me but it might level the playing field. Other factors may count for more somewhat as a tie breaker.

The arena issue is no small deal. The fact that the Sacramento group negotiated a term sheet that calls for $50 mil or so more public money sets a better precedent for the future building of arenas which other owners will eventually face. I don't know how much $50 mil difference means to these guys but it's not insignificant. At least it's in our favor.

Then there are tons of intangibles. Do crazed fans influence a vote, etc? In the end I think we can find 8 votes but speculating "who" is getting too detailed. Each owner has his/her own feelings about the importance of keeping a team in its city. I could go on and on about the separate issues.

Let me say, though, I hope we can streamline the building of the arena and beat Seattle by a year. It is yet another relatively small thin g that may get us far more votes than 8> SLA is a **** hole by NBA standards. It's an eye sore. That might count for something. And then there is the incredibly vague intangible of what owners think of the NBA's view in the eye's of the main on the street. This Sacramento deal can salvage the interior of the capital of the 8th largest economy in the world. Do any of the owners have that kind of pride? Who knows? Another intangible in the influence of Ranadive. Could anyone be kinder? Could anyone have a visoin of the NBA and basketball in general as broad as he does. He sounds like he is interviewing to be the new commissioner. He enthusiastically sees basketball as becoming the most important sport in the world. It is a sport like soccer that can be played with a ball and a few people to as many as teams. His vision is that basketball will replace soccer as the world's sport. Yikes!!!!

I'll stop with the number of owners. Ranadive and Jacobs came to the aid of a city and not simply their own pocketbooks. Is that inspirational? I don't know.

We have a chance. Now the owners and KJ work the phones and answer questions.

 

[butteredbiscuit]

The Charlotte Bobcats will be voting YES because Jordan will be the next owner to sell and doesnt want to be denied when he wants to sell. Even though he will be selling to the new Seattle group and I mean new Seattle group not the current one. (scoop)

 

[curitibagarrett]

I have thought about this for a long time, well, as long as possible, and think it's darn near impossible to predict. The inclination of an owner wanting to support another owners decision is an imponderable. Normally I would think we had no chance but this is a unique situation in the history of the NBA. If the Kings' owner's desires are rejected, they quickly go to another offer that makes as much money so the rejection of the Maloofs doesn't hurt them financially. If I was an owner I don't know where that would put me but it might level the playing field. Other factors may count for more somewhat as a tie breaker.

The arena issue is no small deal. The fact that the Sacramento group negotiated a term sheet that calls for $50 mil or so more public money sets a better precedent for the future building of arenas which other owners will eventually face. I don't know how much $50 mil difference means to these guys but it's not insignificant. At least it's in our favor.

Then there are tons of intangibles. Do crazed fans influence a vote, etc? In the end I think we can find 8 votes but speculating "who" is getting too detailed. Each owner has his/her own feelings about the importance of keeping a team in its city. I could go on and on about the separate issues.

Let me say, though, I hope we can streamline the building of the arena and beat Seattle by a year. It is yet another relatively small thin g that may get us far more votes than 8> SLA is a **** hole by NBA standards. It's an eye sore. That might count for something. And then there is the incredibly vague intangible of what owners think of the NBA's view in the eye's of the main on the street. This Sacramento deal can salvage the interior of the capital of the 8th largest economy in the world. Do any of the owners have that kind of pride? Who knows? Another intangible in the influence of Ranadive. Could anyone be kinder? Could anyone have a visoin of the NBA and basketball in general as broad as he does. He sounds like he is interviewing to be the new commissioner. He enthusiastically sees basketball as becoming the most important sport in the world. It is a sport like soccer that can be played with a ball and a few people to as many as teams. His vision is that basketball will replace soccer as the world's sport. Yikes!!!!

I'll stop with the number of owners. Ranadive and Jacobs came to the aid of a city and not simply their own pocketbooks. Is that inspirational? I don't know.

We have a chance. Now the owners and KJ work the phones and answer questions.

The public subsidy is actually bigger than 50m difference. SEA/King are only giving a max of 140m for an NBA team and another 60m if NHL comes. Plus it is more of a loan which Hansen will pay back. It actually says that the city can ask at some point for the rest of the loan they give him to be paid back sooner.

Saying no to Hansens deal isn't as big of an issue as a lot take it to be. The vote the owners are really voting on is where the Kings will play and not the ownership groups. The reason why saying no the H is because there is a backup offer that is equal to Hs. Saying no to H will not have any effect on the amount of $ the Ms will be getting in return. Now I guess it could if they were dumb enough to say no to the whales offer but I dont see that happening. Saying no to Hs deal wont effect other owners sales in the future. When someone decides to sale they only really care about getting max $ back for the sale. Ms will be getting same amount from the whale group.

 

[///Mink]

The key here is I think you are wrong on Cuban -- he has openly spoken against the move on his blog. And he is obviously a key guy because he's an outspoken mobilizer. He's the sort of guy who can make the case for you in the backroom.

Can you link to this? I searched, and all I could find from Cuban on the subject was this unfortunate quote:

On the Sacramento Kings being a prime candidate to move to Seattle:
"I don't think the NBA looks at that in terms of, ‘Let's push one team to go here or there.' Every owner that has an NBA team, it's their baby. It's up to them to determine what's best for them. And so - whether Sacramento or any team - it's going to be up to somebody to go in there and acquire the team, and then make an application to move the team to Seattle. What I can tell you is I can't imagine any owner standing in the way of that. … I'd be shocked if any owner stood up and said that was a bad idea."

 

[Glenn]

The public subsidy is actually bigger than 50m difference. SEA/King are only giving a max of 140m for an NBA team and another 60m if NHL comes. Plus it is more of a loan which Hansen will pay back. It actually says that the city can ask at some point for the rest of the loan they give him to be paid back sooner.

Saying no to Hansens deal isn't as big of an issue as a lot take it to be. The vote the owners are really voting on is where the Kings will play and not the ownership groups. The reason why saying no the H is because there is a backup offer that is equal to Hs. Saying no to H will not have any effect on the amount of $ the Ms will be getting in return. Now I guess it could if they were dumb enough to say no to the whales offer but I dont see that happening. Saying no to Hs deal wont effect other owners sales in the future. When someone decides to sale they only really care about getting max $ back for the sale. Ms will be getting same amount from the whale group.

If that public money is just a loan, it is NOT what the NBA wants. I think you are right and I don't know where I got the information that $200 mil or whatever it is was a public subsidy. It's a loan and not a subsidy and the NBA absolutely does not want that. They want the public to pay part of the freight. Of course.

As to Cuban, I'd love to know the dates of his comments. Both Brick's quote and ///Mink's could be accurate depending on when they were made. I would go with the most recent.

Update; The quote ///Mink found was dated 10/01/2012.

 

[kingwin]

to me i think looking for 8 votes is not good...if we win this i think it will be more like the anaheim deal and not even going to vote..if april 18 comes around and its quiet and goes to vote and we are wishing for 8 votes.. we are probably gone..but to me the most intriguing thing so far was the sacto groups press conference, it was almost too relaxed and confident..i really hope they know something already that we dont know.

 

[HereWeStay]

all we need are 8 votes out of 32? id say we got this in the bag

 

[HndsmCelt]

22 not 32

 

[Warhawk]

to me i think looking for 8 votes is not good...if we win this i think it will be more like the anaheim deal and not even going to vote..if april 18 comes around and its quiet and goes to vote and we are wishing for 8 votes.. we are probably gone..but to me the most intriguing thing so far was the sacto groups press conference, it was almost too relaxed and confident..i really hope they know something already that we dont know.

I think their play is that if the vote goes against Sacramento that they then just use the ROFR to buy the Maloof portion and keep the team here. Obviously they would prefer just to win outright, but that is what my guess is on the confidence abut the team staying.

 

[HereWeStay]

kings are staying, mark this post, frame it and tell your grand kids about it

 

[butteredbiscuit]

kings are staying, mark this post, frame it and tell your grand kids about it

Thank you. That is why I have cup half full faith it is already done. We claimed that the Kings were staying. So we just have to keep saying positive things toward the Kings. Why others arent, we will. Power of the air. Kings are staying and Seattle is getting another team. Even when it looks bad, we just continue to believe that at the end, the Kings will be here....

 

[The Hammer]

Couple key points I'd like to re-emphasize here:

1. It's one single vote. So, this is not a vote to approve a sale. It's essentially a vote to move a team. The argument that sales are normally approved quickly, and never have been denied this late, makes no sense.

2. Outgoing owners do not get to decide where franchise is located.

This whole situation is unprecedented, so I think it's not about looking at previous precedents, but much more about what precedent to set. The arguments about owners not wanting to go against owners doesn't hold weight here becuase a) Hansen's not an owner and b) that Maloofs won't be owners, plus nobody respects them.

 

[kingwin]

Thank you. That is why I have cup half full faith it is already done. We claimed that the Kings were staying. So we just have to keep saying positive things toward the Kings. Why others arent, we will. Power of the air. Kings are staying and Seattle is getting another team. Even when it looks bad, we just continue to believe that at the end, the Kings will be here....

i think after the anaheim fiasco..when we stayed it felt so good because we didnt think we were going to stay. we seen everyone especially on the national level say the kings are gone blah blah blah.. and then kj went to the bog and then we ended up staying...i think this is what seattle and other ppl dont get..why we sort of have a blind faith in kj and all of our grassroot stuff...even if none of these grassroots efforts mean nothing in the end, the thought process from our experience last time " hey we did it last time".. and that is why seattle has such a pessimistic attitude because they lost their team..sort of a guy who was in love and got his heart broken and doesnt believe in love anymore...i just hope this time there is not too much confidence and if for some reason it goes the other way..our hearts will be even more shattered...bt this is jus my paranoia until its official lol

 

[Brac-o-matic]

I think their play is that if the vote goes against Sacramento that they then just use the ROFR to buy the Maloof portion and keep the team here. Obviously they would prefer just to win outright, but that is what my guess is on the confidence abut the team staying.

Yep. This is the part that everyone is missing. A vote for Seattle is in no way the end for Sac. It's just time to play another card.

 

[Fear the Putin]

But, aren't they voting on relocation at the same time? So, worst case scenario they approve Hansen and relocation. Isn't there a timeframe for ROFO to be put into play? Both approvals would theoretically give Hansen the keys to the team and the pink slip. Then, it would come down to the courts deciding the ROFO.

 

[HereWeStay]

just think? why would the nba take away a team thats already here? we have a new ownership, new arena too, we werent told the team was for sale because of the magoofs, so the team should stay here, its that simple

 

[Fear the Putin]

just think? why would the nba take away a team thats already here? we have a new ownership, new arena too, we werent told the team was for sale because of the magoofs, so the team should stay here, its that simple

BOG won't operate and make a decision based on that simple formula. They will look at who can build an arena quicker and some would vote with $ in mind.

 

[The Hammer]

BOG won't operate and make a decision based on that simple formula. They will look at who can build an arena quicker and some would vote with $ in mind.

I think they would absolutely look at that simple formula, but that if Sac were unsure of an arena, that formula would be void. And, I don't think it's about speed of build as much as it is assurance of build, and through the hoops and hurdles and complications. We provide by a significant margin the more assured plan. The death knell for Seattle was the report that Mayor McGinn said he "could not provide assurance" that an arena would be built in a certain time frame. You can talk markets all you want, but a major reflection or point of the market is has it created a political environment that will subsidize an arena? Seattle simply has not, and it's clear. In Sac you basically have people electing mayors and city council people on whether or not they'll approve an arena deal.

 

[kupman]

22 not 32

Please explain. Thanks.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Please explain. Thanks.

never mind, was thinking of something completely different.

 

[butteredbiscuit]

i think after the anaheim fiasco..when we stayed it felt so good because we didnt think we were going to stay. we seen everyone especially on the national level say the kings are gone blah blah blah.. and then kj went to the bog and then we ended up staying...i think this is what seattle and other ppl dont get..why we sort of have a blind faith in kj and all of our grassroot stuff...even if none of these grassroots efforts mean nothing in the end, the thought process from our experience last time " hey we did it last time".. and that is why seattle has such a pessimistic attitude because they lost their team..sort of a guy who was in love and got his heart broken and doesnt believe in love anymore...i just hope this time there is not too much confidence and if for some reason it goes the other way..our hearts will be even more shattered...bt this is jus my paranoia until its official lol

I can understand that. I mean to me, I was like the Kings coming to Anaheim? Yeah right. I couldnt see the Kings coming to Anaheim because if you go all the way to San Diego, they are Lakers fans. So I just laughed. Now in Orange County here, they want the team because see here in LA, Orange County doesnt exist. they dont have their own TV channels. we have to add them to our newschannel. Well they have KDOC 56 but that is local public stuff. So I know many people feel isolated from us. So they feel that they arent one of us. They only really use our name to make money aka Los Angeels Angels of Anaheim. But we dont like them and they dont like us. So they felt like if they had a team, they could be equal to us even though they are just pretending.

So I knew that wasnt going to happen because the NBA wouldnt approve 3 teams in the same market within 40 miles of each other.

Here is why I feel the Kings are staying.

First, When Stern says Seattle: just wait! That means he is favoring the Kings. He knows that going through this whole process approving the NBA arena deal with AEG took a lot of effort. When you have an agreement and you shake in front of the whole country and Stern does his whole press conference and then you spit on him the next day making him look like he doesnt know what is going on.That makes people upset. You slapped Stern in the face. He is not happy! So he is going to try to find a way to get him out of town. So you think the Maloofs would slow down and stop! But they just continued so that made Stern and them real mad now. (To me, the only reason the maloofs didnt want the deal done was because the maloofs wouldnt get a real cut. They own the arena in Natamos. So whatever money they get from concerts and other things go to them. With the new arena, they have to share profits and they dont own the arena. In some ways, I understand that! Sort of like your making $35.00 hr and then you only get paid 12.00hr. To me, they should have went back to the table but they just said oh we dont like KJ. He defrauded us. That wasnt true. They just were scared to tell them that they didnt like the deal. Plus being broke doesnt help either.)

Another thing that makes me know the Kings will stay is how the Maloofs are jumping from town to town trying to pretend they want to bring their team to town. then they would do all the paperwork ( city I mean) and then backout at last second.That makes the NBA look bad.

Lastly, when you want to sell the team to seattle and you still want to be part-owners, this is the last straw. In my opinion, NBA is going "Ok we got to get rid of these guys and we cant because they still own the team. So we will allow the Kings to be sold only to deny them just like the Maloofs denied us during the arena deal we had with them last march. Since they showed us up, we are going to show them up." So the Kings will be denied to move. When that happens, the NBA has a right to decide where they go. So the City of Sacramento will keep the team and then they will have a new arena and new owners. You needed new owners just to show the Maloofs that they cant come back in and say ok since you denied us we will show you for making us look bad. This is an NBA vs Maloofs showdown!

So that is just how I see is going to happen. Now Seattle has their own version. Obviously, we sort of know that they lost their team. They want to bring back a team. the thing is that many fans feel that they were robbed. I personally dont think they were robbed. I believe that ownership didnt want the team in town. The starbucks guy realized that it is a business instead of using his personal charm to charm players. Such as the Gary payton hot mess. I saw it as once Gary was traded, Schultz figure out that he couldnt be a players owner. So he sold it to the highest bidder. See Ballmer should have gone out of his way ( this is the reason why I dont believe Hansen and Ballmer deserve a team) and bought the team in 2008. He gave 150 million. That isnt crap for an arena or a team. He should have bought the team and kept it there. Knowing he wants to own the team . That is what makes me mad! When he had the chance to buy it the first time, he should have bought it. Heck, if I was worth billions of dollars and I livedin Seattle and everyone was asking me to buy the team and your going around telling everyone you love basketball and you want to be an owner, heck, I would have been bought the team! So to me, I blame him ( well Schultz first for selling the team to Bennett in the first place.Ii see it as If you didnt sell the team in the first place, then the team wouldnt have left town)

So I already prayed to God that the Kings stay and so everyday I pray to God, I thank him for allowing the Kings to stay in Sacramento. I figure he doesnt need to keep begging him to keep the Kings. I already told him why I think the Kings should stay and now I just thank him nowfor keeping them there. Now I already prayed that hansen shouldnt have the team. So now I thank God that there will be new ownership there that is a new ownership group that wont take the Kings. Maybe that is offensive to people who dont believe in God but I know he listens, so I will continue to do it until the official word comes down that the Kings stay in Sacramento. personally, I would love to see Lenny Wilkens be the owner up there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkJ-ULKQ4tI
That guy is the only guy who I saw was a true Sonics guy. Now I know this is a board for the Kings but I like to see good people own franchises. I like that Vive guy from India. I think he deserves a team.

 

[Gary]

KJ is close friends with Sarver from last I heard and the connection is there with Colangelo and KJ (even though he does not own the Suns anymore).

OP, what's your logic behind the Sarver voting to move the Kings?

 

[kennadog]

If that public money is just a loan, it is NOT what the NBA wants. I think you are right and I don't know where I got the information that $200 mil or whatever it is was a public subsidy. It's a loan and not a subsidy and the NBA absolutely does not want that. They want the public to pay part of the freight. Of course.

As to Cuban, I'd love to know the dates of his comments. Both Brick's quote and ///Mink's could be accurate depending on when they were made. I would go with the most recent.

Update; The quote ///Mink found was dated 10/01/2012.

You do realize that Sacramento's $220 million subsidy" is a loan, too, right? The city is selling lease revenue bonds to raise most of that. Bonds which have to be repaid and Sacramento is the guarantor. Hansen has personally guaranteed payment in Seattle.

Sac is giving the owners group $38 million or so in land, but the owners have to pay for that land, by putting that amount into the construction of the arena (either cash or borrowed money).

Neither city is giving away money that doesn't have to be repaid. The advantage to public money is it is cheaper to borrow that money from a conventional lender. Almost always longer loan terms and lower interest rates. That's where the advantage to the borrowers comes in and why public money is highly sought after. Yes, the government does do grants sometimes, but not for most types of projects.