The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
NBA Sacramento Kings situation: April 2012 UPD: Deal to stay put crumbles
As a Sacramento resident it hurts to say this, but good riddance. I look forward to a team owned by someone other than the Maloofs. At this point anything with Maloof attached to it cannot be trusted. This isn't the first time they've gone back on their word, and it wont be the last. These guys are scum and have no business owning a professional franchise at any level. They screwed the people and city of Sacramento for the last time. I was amazed, as were many people in and outside of Sacramento, on how the city got the arena deal put together in such short time and without having to raise a penny in new taxes, and the Maloofs decided to take that amazing accomplishment and crap all over it. They never intended on staying in Sac and will move this franchise come hell or high water. Maybe an NHL franchise can try again and be the one to get the arena deal done with the city.
And until yesterday afternoon we didn't know that. The city of sacramento was further. But Seattle just remodeled Key 13 years earlier at the point.
Until yesterday, it wasn't official. Once word got out that they were complaining about their end of the deal with the pre-development costs, people knew what was going to happen.
If the Maloofs move the team to Anaheim, I take it a large sum of their loan would go to pay off their outstanding loans to the City of Sacramento and the NBA correct? Don't they owe the City of Sacramento like $77 million?
If the Maloofs move the team to Anaheim, I take it a large sum of their loan would go to pay off their outstanding loans to the City of Sacramento and the NBA correct? Don't they owe the City of Sacramento like $77 million?
If the Maloofs move the team to Anaheim, I take it a large sum of their loan would go to pay off their outstanding loans to the City of Sacramento and the NBA correct? Don't they owe the City of Sacramento like $77 million?
Who will own it? Aquilini is going through divorce but I know that family has money and has shown interest. It was a poor move to relocate the grizz to memphis.. but that was what heisley wanted...
Who will own it? Aquilini is going through divorce but I know that family has money and has shown interest. It was a poor move to relocate the grizz to memphis.. but that was what heisley wanted...
With the Sacramento Kings out of the city's arena equation, Mayor Kevin Johnson wants the city to spend the next two to three weeks exploring building a new downtown sports arena, "with or without an anchor tenant."
At a morning press briefing at City Hall, the mayor said that facility might be a scaled-down version of the $391 million facility initially proposed for the Sacramento Kings. He said it could be designed to accommodate expansions.
"This is bigger than basketball," he said. "I still believe that."
Johnson said the city would explore "the Kansas City model." City officials and arena operator AEG constructed the Sprint Center in Kansas City without a professional sports tenant.
The mayor said he still considers AEG a partner in its arena effort, even after the collapse of a deal that would have made the firm the operator of a downtown facility.
Johnson acknowledged that without the $73 million the Kings would have contributed to the arena, another facility might have to be smaller than the one originally proposed.
It is likely to be a challenge. David Taylor, the developer signed on to construct the downtown arena, said last year that the project would be a long shot without an anchor tenant, such as the Kings.
"We've overcome the odds before," the mayor said.
The mayor said legal and financial studies need to take place, most notably whether the Kings' outstanding loan with the city could be forgiven should a competing arena be built in the city.
If the Kings do leave town, Johnson said the city might explore trying to lure an NHL franchise.
With the Sacramento Kings out of the city's arena equation, Mayor Kevin Johnson wants the city to spend the next two to three weeks exploring building a new downtown sports arena, "with or without an anchor tenant."
At a morning press briefing at City Hall, the mayor said that facility might be a scaled-down version of the $391 million facility initially proposed for the Sacramento Kings. He said it could be designed to accommodate expansions.
"This is bigger than basketball," he said. "I still believe that."
Johnson said the city would explore "the Kansas City model." City officials and arena operator AEG constructed the Sprint Center in Kansas City without a professional sports tenant.
The mayor said he still considers AEG a partner in its arena effort, even after the collapse of a deal that would have made the firm the operator of a downtown facility.
Johnson acknowledged that without the $73 million the Kings would have contributed to the arena, another facility might have to be smaller than the one originally proposed.
It is likely to be a challenge. David Taylor, the developer signed on to construct the downtown arena, said last year that the project would be a long shot without an anchor tenant, such as the Kings.
"We've overcome the odds before," the mayor said.
The mayor said legal and financial studies need to take place, most notably whether the Kings' outstanding loan with the city could be forgiven should a competing arena be built in the city.
If the Kings do leave town, Johnson said the city might explore trying to lure an NHL franchise.
The only way that a public funded arena goes through Sacramento is if they find a way to avoid a public vote. The city of Sacramento could be guaranteed profit from a measure but would vote it down because it's funded fully by the taxpayers. People here do not even try to understand the entirety of the issue. All they see is taxpayer money out and assume there is nothing coming back.
The only way that a public funded arena goes through Sacramento is if they find a way to avoid a public vote. The city of Sacramento could be guaranteed profit from a measure but would vote it down because it's funded fully by the taxpayers. People here do not even try to understand the entirety of the issue. All they see is taxpayer money out and assume there is nothing coming back.
Because we are in a recession. Budgets are tight right now.
Last edited by Melrose Munch: 04-17-2012 at 06:06 PM.
It would be kind of ironic if Vancouver acquired the Sacramento Kings instead of Seattle, and then the city of Sacramento got a NHL expansion franchise alongside Seattle down the road. Well, I guess that depends if the Phoenix coyotes relocate to Québec city and take away any expansion opportunity there.
Because we are in a recession. Budgets are tight right now.
The recession has nothing to do with it. That's a convenient reason now to say no but this type of attitude has been around for a lot longer than the recession has. And that's part of why certain cities remain in a recession. They pass on a profitable opportunity because it costs money. You can't expect to have an omelette w/o breaking a few eggs.
The recession has nothing to do with it. That's a convenient reason now to say no but this type of attitude has been around for a lot longer than the recession has. And that's part of why certain cities remain in a recession. They pass on a profitable opportunity because it costs money. You can't expect to have an omelette w/o breaking a few eggs.
pro sports is a known money loser for cities. almost every knows that. reg corporations like wal mart are better in that sense because they wont just leave you on a whim. if the majority does not want then you should check out why, there is a reason for it. everyone else vant be wrong.
fieldofschemes.com has a great write up on all this.
The recession has nothing to do with it. That's a convenient reason now to say no but this type of attitude has been around for a lot longer than the recession has. And that's part of why certain cities remain in a recession. They pass on a profitable opportunity because it costs money. You can't expect to have an omelette w/o breaking a few eggs.
Just lurking on the boards for some of the Canadian teams, that mentality seems pretty rampant north of the border, as well; or, at the very least, it's a very vocal minority.
The recession has nothing to do with it. That's a convenient reason now to say no but this type of attitude has been around for a lot longer than the recession has. And that's part of why certain cities remain in a recession. They pass on a profitable opportunity because it costs money. You can't expect to have an omelette w/o breaking a few eggs.
Vancouver getting back a team, that'll be the day. It'd be nice, I might actually watch some basketball again and go to the odd game, but I'd much rather see Seattle get a team back.
pro sports is a known money loser for cities. almost every knows that. reg corporations like wal mart are better in that sense because they wont just leave you on a whim. if the majority does not want then you should check out why, there is a reason for it. everyone else vant be wrong.
fieldofschemes.com has a great write up on all this.
Pro sports is known for that based on the negotiations made between clubs and the city for the arena. Not every stadium deal is a money loser for the city. Kansas City is an example of where an arena is a money maker for the city and now Sacramento will have an opportunity to follow that model. A city that owns and runs the arena can and do profit from the venture if they do things properly. It is not all losses and you should know that by now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rj
are you the City Manager for Glendale, Arizona?
Two vastly different situations that it's not worth wasting the breath trying to explain it to you if that's the direction you want to go in.
