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
03-14-2013, 04:19 PM
  #301
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaz View Post
Is that a good thing or bad thing for Seattle?
Would be good for Seattle. However it's hard to say if its nothing more than just talk. But if they are able to put it to a public vote it brings questions to the NBA if it will actually happen.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 04:20 PM
  #302
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 16,498
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaz View Post
Is that a good thing or bad thing for Seattle?
Means nothing to Seattle.

This won't stop the city of Sacramento from getting an arena.

Clowe Me is online now  
Old
03-14-2013, 04:21 PM
  #303
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: South Korea
Posts: 2,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaz View Post
Is that a good thing or bad thing for Seattle?
It is good. KJ stated in sactown that they don't have lawsuits there. Well there you go. I wonder if Aaron Bruski is going to cover these lawsuits as much as he has covered the Seattle Lawsuits.

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 04:21 PM
  #304
Shaz
Registered User
 
Shaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Tacoma, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
Do't have the time for your first statements right now, but even though Sacramento is northern California and located within 90 miles of SF/Oak, it's its own entity. There are lots of Canucks fans in Seattle/Northern Wasdhington, but I wouldn't consider the Canucks a part of Seattle.
I have never seen a Canucks fan in Seattle or any other city in Northern Washington (Maybe except Bellingham) for that matter

Shaz is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 04:22 PM
  #305
gernb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 70
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Would be good for Seattle. However it's hard to say if its nothing more than just talk. But if they are able to put it to a public vote it brings questions to the NBA if it will actually happen.
I would imaging taking the time for a public vote hardly fits into the NBA's timeline of deciding by the April BOG meeting.

gernb is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 04:22 PM
  #306
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
Means nothing to Seattle.

This won't stop the city of Sacramento from getting an arena.
Potentially it can stop the city from building the arena if it goes to a public vote and people vote it down.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 04:25 PM
  #307
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: South Korea
Posts: 2,291
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
I am sure there is some government watchdog or enviromental group that will get all up in arms about government subsidies.

Oh Hey. Looks like Seattle not the only city that has to deal with lawsuits.

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 04:32 PM
  #308
cascar86
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 81
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaz View Post
I have never seen a Canucks fan in Seattle or any other city in Northern Washington (Maybe except Bellingham) for that matter
I've definitely seen Canucks fans in downtown Seattle sports bars on game nights.

cascar86 is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 04:39 PM
  #309
Shaz
Registered User
 
Shaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Tacoma, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascar86 View Post
I've definitely seen Canucks fans in downtown Seattle sports bars on game nights.
Well you have better eyes than I lol

Shaz is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 05:05 PM
  #310
bosshogg18
Registered User
 
bosshogg18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lyle, WA, Tacoma, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaz View Post
I have never seen a Canucks fan in Seattle or any other city in Northern Washington (Maybe except Bellingham) for that matter
What are you talking about. There are a lot of Canucks fans here. We don't have NHL currently, so they are sort of our hometown team. Also KJR plays some Canuck games. Also many people get CBC where they can view many Canuck games on CBC.
I go to a Canuck game or two per season. Although that will change if we get our own team. Then I will be cheering for the Seattle Metropolitans.

bosshogg18 is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 08:21 PM
  #311
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,268
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Potentially it can stop the city from building the arena if it goes to a public vote and people vote it down.
It can't. It's an administrative act and not a legislative act. As that article showed, the 49ers' loan in Santa Clara was trying the same referendum tactic and it was brushed aside. They can try all they want but it's not going to stop the deal and it will get thrown out in court.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 08:43 PM
  #312
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 16,498
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Potentially it can stop the city from building the arena if it goes to a public vote and people vote it down.
All other similar referendums have never stopped a single team from building their arena/stadium. All this will possibly do is slow down the process and require a public vote (which will be approved).

Clowe Me is online now  
Old
03-14-2013, 09:05 PM
  #313
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
All other similar referendums have never stopped a single team from building their arena/stadium. All this will possibly do is slow down the process and require a public vote (which will be approved).
Don't assume it'll be necessary approved.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 09:28 PM
  #314
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 16,498
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Don't assume it'll be necessary approved.
Well, then don't assume the owners will vote in favor of Seattle next month, because they're both pretty much likely going to get done. Public approved the tax on parking last year when the Maloof's had a deal with Sacramento and Burkle.

Clowe Me is online now  
Old
03-14-2013, 10:00 PM
  #315
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
Well, then don't assume the owners will vote in favor of Seattle next month, because they're both pretty much likely going to get done. Public approved the tax on parking last year when the Maloof's had a deal with Sacramento and Burkle.
I'm going based on fact which is the NBA has never voted down a sale based on non financial reasons. Right now everything points to Seattle getting the kings. Hansen acquire the necessary land for the sodo arena before both city and county goverments approved the MOU.

Sacramento is so much behind on all fronts and from what i heard out of Sacramento the other day, there is a lot of red tape dealing with the land they don't own yet and need to acquire. The rest of the land are owned by a lot of people ~30-40 or so. That will take much longer than the month for Sacramento to acquire that land.

How can they claim they have an done deal on the arena when they have yet to acquire the necessary land in which to build it on?


Last edited by gstommylee: 03-14-2013 at 10:06 PM.
gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 10:01 PM
  #316
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
It can't. It's an administrative act and not a legislative act. As that article showed, the 49ers' loan in Santa Clara was trying the same referendum tactic and it was brushed aside. They can try all they want but it's not going to stop the deal and it will get thrown out in court.
Not a valid comparison.

That challenge against Santa Clara was thrown out because it was an administrative action - implementing policy already approved by Santa Clara voters in 2010.

http://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/...al-2860203.php

Quote:
A group called Santa Clara Plays Fair has submitted 5,500 signatures on each of two referendum petitions challenging the City Council's development and financing plans for the stadium, apparently more than enough to qualify for the ballot. Last week, however, the council voted 5-2 to discard the petitions on the grounds that its actions were immune from referendum.

The legal rationale, outlined in a series of previous court cases unrelated to the stadium, is that only "legislative" acts, those that make new policies for a state or local government, can be enacted by voter initiatives or undone by referendums. "Administrative" acts, which tell government officials how to implement their policy, cannot be overturned by referendum or approved by voter initiative.

"Actions that follow the legislative act, that carry it out, are administrative, and we believe those are not subject to referendum," said City Attorney Richard Nosky, a City Council appointee who advised the council to keep the two referendums off the ballot.

In this case, Nosky said, the legislative act was Measure J, an initiative passed by Santa Clara's voters in June 2010 to approve the proposed stadium as a joint project of the city and the football team. He said the $850 million loan, approved by the council in November, would merely implement that policy decision.
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_20107165

Quote:
The issue stems from the Santa Clara Stadium Authority's approval of $850 million in bank loans to fund the $1 billion stadium in December. Opponents then gathered more than 4,500 signatures to put the loan on the June ballot, but the city threw out the petitions.

In arguing their position, the city and 49ers cited past cases, saying voters only have one shot at deciding "legislative" policy issues, such as stadium construction. Any subsequent issues -- like the loan -- are only "administrative" acts needed to carry out the wishes of voters who approved the project in June 2010, they maintain.

Opposition group Santa Clara Plays Fair, however, asserted that voters deserved another crack at the stadium because the bank loan was never part of the original
Advertisement
plan.

Before a brief hearing in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Judge Peter Kirwan sided with the 49ers and the city. "The court finds the (bank loans) at issue here are administrative acts not subject to referendum," Kirwan wrote.
There is no similar approved council vote or referendum on public financing of an arena in Sacramento.

The Sacramento City Attorney admits that any public funding when approved could be subject to referendum.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/14/526...own-arena.html

Quote:
Sacramento City Attorney Jim Sanchez acknowledged that a council "final" action on an arena deal could be subject to a referendum, but he said the expected upcoming council vote on a preliminary arena financing term sheet is not a final council action, and would not be subject to a referendum.

If, down the road, the council approves a final deal, and finishes an environmental assessment, opponents of that deal could initiate a petition drive to put a measure on the ballot, Sanchez said. In that case, they would need to gather legal signatures equivalent to 10 percent of the voter turnout in the previous general election. In Sacramento, officials have put that number at about 20,000 signatures.

kdb209 is online now  
Old
03-14-2013, 10:07 PM
  #317
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Not a valid comparison.

That challenge against Santa Clara was thrown out because it was an administrative action - implementing policy already approved by Santa Clara voters in 2010.

http://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/...al-2860203.php



http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_20107165



There is no similar approved council vote or referendum on public financing of an arena in Sacramento.

The Sacramento City Attorney admits that any public funding when approved could be subject to referendum.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/14/526...own-arena.html
Right and rather or not there will be a referendum or not yet to remain seen.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 10:08 PM
  #318
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,848
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 Clowe Me View Post
Well, then don't assume the owners will vote in favor of Seattle next month, because they're both pretty much likely going to get done. Public approved the tax on parking last year when the Maloof's had a deal with Sacramento and Burkle.
then answer this question: WHY Did the Maloofs back out of the deal that had been originally proposed for Sacramento, WHICH IS WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS, as owners, Clowe.... Who's going to block the PSA that Stern himself said back in 2008, that Seattle gets right of 1st refusal, the approval is all but a done deal, which impacts the original Sonics deal that allowed Bennett to go to OKC, back then, the caveats being that the Sonics color schematic, logo, AND HISTORY went w/ the Thunder and has been since '08, and the history reverts as soon as another franchise, whether it's the current Kings or someone else takes over the franchise and reestablishes the Sonics franchise... Burkle wasn't involved in Sacramento until recently when the proposed downtown arena surfaced, hence why Mastrov is the bidder for the Kings if they stay... Precedence and an Al Davis type lawsuit will definitely follow if the Hansen deal is blocked.

CHRDANHUTCH is online now  
Old
03-14-2013, 10:10 PM
  #319
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
then answer this question: WHY Did the Maloofs back out of the deal that had been originally proposed for Sacramento, WHICH IS WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS, as owners, Clowe.... Who's going to block the PSA that Stern himself said back in 2008, that Seattle gets right of 1st refusal, the approval is all but a done deal, which impacts the original Sonics deal that allowed Bennett to go to OKC, back then, the caveats being that the Sonics color schematic, logo, AND HISTORY went w/ the Thunder and has been since '08, and the history reverts as soon as another franchise, whether it's the current Kings or someone else takes over the franchise and reestablishes the Sonics franchise... Burkle wasn't involved in Sacramento until recently when the proposed downtown arena surfaced, hence why Mastrov is the bidder for the Kings if they stay... Precedence and an Al Davis type lawsuit will definitely follow if the Hansen deal is blocked.
The Al Davis type lawsuit will only work if Hansen is approved as new owner of the Kings and the NBA block relocation.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 10:23 PM
  #320
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,848
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 gstommylee View Post
The Al Davis type lawsuit will only work if Hansen is approved as new owner of the Kings and the NBA block relocation.
no, tommy, there has never been a block of any franchise that is either for sale or sold and relocated as this franchise is, Stern's said as much, since it's his last act before retirement by this point next year.

what I think they're forgetting is Bennett also had to sell the current tenants of KASC, the Storm, to Force X, LLC as part of the same exit from SEA.

CHRDANHUTCH is online now  
Old
03-14-2013, 10:32 PM
  #321
aemoreira1981
Registered User
 
aemoreira1981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 3,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
All other similar referendums have never stopped a single team from building their arena/stadium. All this will possibly do is slow down the process and require a public vote (which will be approved).
If there are groups like the Goldwater Group in the process, I could see public funding being rejected. After all, why should an arena be publicly funded? (The Sleep Train Arena is privately-owned.)

aemoreira1981 is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 11:21 PM
  #322
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 16,498
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by aemoreira1981 View Post
If there are groups like the Goldwater Group in the process, I could see public funding being rejected. After all, why should an arena be publicly funded? (The Sleep Train Arena is privately-owned.)
It's owned by the Maloof's. City has already said they can do whatever the hell they want with it.

The public and council voted and approved to use public funds to aid the new downtown arena with Burkle/Maloof's last year. I really doubt these same people would change their vote when getting a new arena is the only possible way to lure another franchise from another sport to town.

Clowe Me is online now  
Old
03-14-2013, 11:23 PM
  #323
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 16,498
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
then answer this question: WHY Did the Maloofs back out of the deal that had been originally proposed for Sacramento, WHICH IS WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS, as owners, Clowe.... Who's going to block the PSA that Stern himself said back in 2008, that Seattle gets right of 1st refusal, the approval is all but a done deal, which impacts the original Sonics deal that allowed Bennett to go to OKC, back then, the caveats being that the Sonics color schematic, logo, AND HISTORY went w/ the Thunder and has been since '08, and the history reverts as soon as another franchise, whether it's the current Kings or someone else takes over the franchise and reestablishes the Sonics franchise... Burkle wasn't involved in Sacramento until recently when the proposed downtown arena surfaced, hence why Mastrov is the bidder for the Kings if they stay... Precedence and an Al Davis type lawsuit will definitely follow if the Hansen deal is blocked.
They backed out because it was time for them to pay their agreed amount of the arena deal money and the cheapskates balked.

Public and city won't vote down a potential moneymaking, entertainment/sporting arena, because of past precidence (last year) and the fact the people here know that jobs will be created and downtown businesses will thrive with the frequent sporting events, concerts, disney stuff etc...

Clowe Me is online now  
Old
03-14-2013, 11:26 PM
  #324
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
They backed out because it was time for them to pay their agreed amount of the arena deal money and the cheapskates balked.

Public and city won't vote down a potential moneymaking, entertainment/sporting arena, because of past precidence (last year) and the fact the people here know that jobs will be created and downtown businesses will thrive with the frequent sporting events, concerts, disney stuff etc...
That wouldn't stop people from trying.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 11:28 PM
  #325
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 16,498
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
That wouldn't stop people from trying.
Those number of people are the minority.

An arena deal is getting done here regardless of how next months vote turns out.

Clowe Me is online now  
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 10:29 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.