HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

OT Sacramento looking to finance new arena; UPD NBA rejects relocation to Seattle bid

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-05-2013, 01:09 AM
  #176
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
and the Assumption that Bennett alone cannot block the relocation of the Kings, hurts Bennett's own deal, nwpensfan, because part of that deal involves the shared history of the Sonics/Thunder, if another franchise replaced the Thunder in Seattle, the history goes back as well as the sidebar that Bennett agreed to when vacating the NW, which meant the name/logo, etc. what it may also mean is the history of the Kings franchise dating all the way back to Rochester is history.
Seattle will retain/get back Sonics history and I am sure Hansen group will not take Kings history which should and will stay with Sacramento. So that will still be Sacramento history not Seattle's as it should be.

nwpensfan is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 01:22 AM
  #177
achdumeingute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
If it came down to that, they'd tell Kevin Johnson and his group to not even bother.
I'm not so sure of that. I think its just going through the motions, and Stern not wanting to "look" like the bad guy.

KJ can say we tried, the NBA mitigates the small PR hit, Maloofs still make some money before the end of the season.

Really just blows for sacramento that those tools (Maloofs) had to buy the team. Major team pro sports is likely gone forever (40 years minimum).

achdumeingute is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 05:27 PM
  #178
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by achdumeingute View Post

Really just blows for sacramento that those tools (Maloofs) had to buy the team. Major team pro sports is likely gone forever (40 years minimum).
I disagree. Everything KJ is doing now is setting the stage for the next available franchise. They are getting the ownership groups in place and working forwards towards an arena plan. Sacramento will likely be competing with Vancouver, Virginia Beach, and a few mid sized markets for the next available franchise. The key is to be ready when one becomes available and it looks like that is what is currently happening.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 09:07 PM
  #179
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Sacramento trying to ramrod an arena vote through their city Council by 3/26

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 09:41 PM
  #180
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
Sacramento trying to ramrod an arena vote through their city Council by 3/26
That's asking for a possible lawsuit over how rushed the process went if they are aiming for a vote on the 26th.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 09:50 PM
  #181
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
I disagree. Everything KJ is doing now is setting the stage for the next available franchise. They are getting the ownership groups in place and working forwards towards an arena plan. Sacramento will likely be competing with Vancouver, Virginia Beach, and a few mid sized markets for the next available franchise. The key is to be ready when one becomes available and it looks like that is what is currently happening.
That may end up being what happens but that's not what they're trying to do and they are not going to limit themselves to just an NBA team. They will be open to an NHL franchise as well and, quite frankly, they have a better chance at the NHL than they do an NBA team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
That's asking for a possible lawsuit over how rushed the process went if they are aiming for a vote on the 26th.
A lawsuit that has no hope of going anywhere. I think they'll be fine.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 10:13 PM
  #182
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
That may end up being what happens but that's not what they're trying to do and they are not going to limit themselves to just an NBA team. They will be open to an NHL franchise as well and, quite frankly, they have a better chance at the NHL than they do an NBA team.



A lawsuit that has no hope of going anywhere. I think they'll be fine.
Regarding the NHL is the sac arena is it being built to accommodate both leagues? Building it for both and only costing 400m i tend to question how it's going to look for hockey.

Regarding the lawsuit it really depends on what they are suing for. If they are challenging how the political process took place they could have a case.

Vote on the 26th thats in 3 weeks and no one has actually seen the term sheet yet. So yes thats really extremely rushing it and there will be folks that aren't too happy about it.

Not sure how the NBA would like it either that Sacramento would get something done in 3 weeks time.

The longer the process takes to approval the arena plan the less likely there would be challenges nevermind successful ones.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 10:32 PM
  #183
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Regarding the NHL is the sac arena is it being built to accommodate both leagues? Building it for both and only costing 400m i tend to question how it's going to look for hockey.

Regarding the lawsuit it really depends on what they are suing for. If they are challenging how the political process took place they could have a case.

Vote on the 26th thats in 3 weeks and no one has actually seen the term sheet yet. So yes thats really extremely rushing it and there will be folks that aren't too happy about it.

Not sure how the NBA would like it either that Sacramento would get something done in 3 weeks time.

The longer the process takes to approval the arena plan the less likely there would be challenges nevermind successful ones.
Every arena deal that has been proposed has been made with the ability to legitimately hold hockey in the building. There is actually quite the budding rec hockey atmosphere in the Sacramento area because of many different transplants and the Sharks' minor spread to this region.

You question a 400 million dollar investment with regards to hockey accommodation? Quebec's new arena is projected to cost 400 million. Consol Energy Center, the newest NHL arena, cost 321 million dollars in 2010. The only arena that cost more since the last round of expansion was Dallas' arena. I think it'll be fine.

As for the lawsuit, everyone understands the time frame involved with this situation. I doubt anyone is going to care and I doubt anyone is going to take any potential lawsuit seriously in the courts of Sacramento.

I doubt the NBA will care either. Either they already have their minds made up ready to go to Seattle or they want to make it work in Sacramento and will worry about the details later when a decision is finally made to make it work. The term sheet is likely not going to be much different than what was accepted before, if at all.

There is no way anyone will successfully overturn a decision to keep the team in Sacramento. The city has already symbolically voted in favor of an arena deal as well as a legitimate deal earlier involving the Maloofs. I doubt terms would be drastically different than that just so it would be easier to process this potential transaction.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 10:36 PM
  #184
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Every arena deal that has been proposed has been made with the ability to legitimately hold hockey in the building. There is actually quite the budding rec hockey atmosphere in the Sacramento area because of many different transplants and the Sharks' minor spread to this region.

You question a 400 million dollar investment with regards to hockey accommodation? Quebec's new arena is projected to cost 400 million. Consol Energy Center, the newest NHL arena, cost 321 million dollars in 2010. The only arena that cost more since the last round of expansion was Dallas' arena. I think it'll be fine.

As for the lawsuit, everyone understands the time frame involved with this situation. I doubt anyone is going to care and I doubt anyone is going to take any potential lawsuit seriously in the courts of Sacramento.

I doubt the NBA will care either. Either they already have their minds made up ready to go to Seattle or they want to make it work in Sacramento and will worry about the details later when a decision is finally made to make it work. The term sheet is likely not going to be much different than what was accepted before, if at all.

There is no way anyone will successfully overturn a decision to keep the team in Sacramento. The city has already symbolically voted in favor of an arena deal as well as a legitimate deal earlier involving the Maloofs. I doubt terms would be drastically different than that just so it would be easier to process this potential transaction.

400m dollar arena in canada is completely different than 400m dollar arena in the US.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 10:43 PM
  #185
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
400m dollar arena in canada is completely different than 400m dollar arena in the US.
The difference is 11 million dollars. I'm sorry but that difference is not likely to be the difference between suitable and not suitable for hockey.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 10:48 PM
  #186
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
The difference is 11 million dollars. I'm sorry but that difference is not likely to be the difference between suitable and not suitable for hockey.
You missing the point. I'll clear it up it matters on what you can do with that money in terms of designing of the arena. It may be cheaper in canada to build that arena where in the US it may cost more to build that same arena with same design. The cost of what they need to build that arena will vary from location to location and country to country.


Last edited by gstommylee: 03-05-2013 at 10:53 PM.
gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 10:53 PM
  #187
Jetsfan79
Registered User
 
Jetsfan79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Interesting quote I found in this article:

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/nbains...-to-buy-kings/

Quote:
A Sacramento TV station, KCRA, is reporting today that a current minority owner of the NBA Kings, John Kehriotis, still plans to make a bid to buy the team as well as build an arena. Here is that report, which quotes Kehriotis saying that he has been “encouraged” by the NBA to make the bid.

Jetsfan79 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 10:54 PM
  #188
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetsfan79 View Post
Interesting quote I found in this article: http://http://blogs.seattletimes.com...-to-buy-kings/

[/B]
Ouch for KJ's plans.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 11:04 PM
  #189
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
You missing the point. I'll clear it up it matters on what you can do with that money in terms of designing of the arena. It may be cheaper in canada to build that arena where in the US it may cost more to build that same arena with same design. The cost of what they need to build that arena will vary from location to location and country to country.
You're still talking about a very minimal difference and not nearly enough to justify questioning whether or not an arena specifically made to accommodate hockey is good enough for you. Either way, there are other arenas made not too long ago in America that were multipurpose and didn't cost as much as what is being invested here. Pittsburgh being the most recent one.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 11:06 PM
  #190
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Ouch for KJ's plans.
That doesn't really make a difference to KJ's plans.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 11:46 PM
  #191
knorthern knight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,802
vCash: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
You missing the point. I'll clear it up it matters on what you can do with that money in terms of designing of the arena. It may be cheaper in canada to build that arena where in the US it may cost more to build that same arena with same design. The cost of what they need to build that arena will vary from location to location and country to country.
The unions in California probably have nothing on the unions in Quebec. Furthermore, the ground doesn't freeze solid during Sacramento winters, and the arena won't have to be built to withstand the major freeze-thaw cycles that a Quebec City arena will.

knorthern knight is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 11:47 PM
  #192
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by knorthern knight View Post
The unions in California probably have nothing on the unions in Quebec. Furthermore, the ground doesn't freeze solid during Sacramento winters, and the arena won't have to be built to withstand the major freeze-thaw cycles that a Quebec City arena will.
fair point.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:31 AM
  #193
achdumeingute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
I disagree. Everything KJ is doing now is setting the stage for the next available franchise. They are getting the ownership groups in place and working forwards towards an arena plan. Sacramento will likely be competing with Vancouver, Virginia Beach, and a few mid sized markets for the next available franchise. The key is to be ready when one becomes available and it looks like that is what is currently happening.
honestly, the nba is one of the last leagues that needs expansion....I really don't see it.

And I think that it would go much better for sac to keep the kings and Seattle to get an expansion in 2 yrs. I don't see sac as having a realistic shot at a team.

achdumeingute is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:44 AM
  #194
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
400m dollar arena in canada is completely different than 400m dollar arena in the US.
Like he said the CEC in Pittsburgh was under $400M.

nwpensfan is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:48 AM
  #195
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 7,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwpensfan View Post
Like he said the CEC in Pittsburgh was under $400M.
Isn't Pittsburgh still a center of the steel industry? That would probably help lower costs. And that was right before the recession.

bluesfan94 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:56 AM
  #196
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesfan94 View Post
Isn't Pittsburgh still a center of the steel industry? That would probably help lower costs. And that was right before the recession.
Probably helped a little but still only cost around $330M or something like that. Makes the $400M still seem reasonable.

nwpensfan is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 02:32 PM
  #197
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwpensfan View Post
Probably helped a little but still only cost around $330M or something like that. Makes the $400M still seem reasonable.
CEC was mitigated by the statewide casino plan, nwpens, part of that was Penn National.

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 02:55 PM
  #198
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
CEC was mitigated by the statewide casino plan, nwpens, part of that was Penn National.
Total construction costs for CEC were $321M up from original estimate of $290M. That is what I was referring to not where funds came from.

nwpensfan is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 03:05 PM
  #199
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
That's asking for a possible lawsuit over how rushed the process went if they are aiming for a vote on the 26th.
Are there any local groups with enough power to challenge or oppose a new arena in Sacramento?

silvercanuck is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:53 AM
  #200
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
Are there any local groups with enough power to challenge or oppose a new arena in Sacramento?
I am sure there is some government watchdog or enviromental group that will get all up in arms about government subsidies.

superdeluxe is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:40 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.