A couple of interesting reads today on the Sacramento Arena deal that was recently announced.
First - Field of Schemes - Dissecting the term sheet.
And - The Stranger - a step by step comparison (albeit a bit biased toward the home crowd) of the arena situations in both Seattle and Sacramento.
And - Chris Daniel’s recap on KING 5 - Lengthy but good read. Daniel’s always brings the goods.
Posting to the new thread. I hope people listened to Chris Daniels interview because he plainly put it out there how everything stands and alluded to the act that Hansen has not played all his cards. I know that we already knew most of what he alluded too BUT peole wanted to hear something that we could take as good news and I think the fact that he put that out there should give some solace to those who need it.
Hopefully it will be on podcast
Things are going to be really up and down until next Wednesday. Little over a week to go……
Has anyone here watched the movie Snatch? I just noticed Tyrone was wearing GP’s Flight 98 shoes. lol
Like I said it was just a summary of everything and that he doubts Hansen has played all of his cards. He thinks that we may hear something about how the NBA is leaning after April 3rd but probably not any definitive answers as most of everything will be kept behind close doors
Feeling a lot better about this whole situation after people who are smarter than me have had time to go over the document and tell us the finer points of what it does (and doesn’t contain.) As far as I can tell, this is a slapped together document intended to make the NBA think that Sac is super cereal. I don’t exactly buy the notion that the NBA doesn’t care how the arena is financed as long as it gets done, Sac is already on the ropes and adding another $250,000,000+ in debt certainly wouldn’t help the market; and the league by extension.
Hansen and Ballmer has a Ace card, they are holding onto it until they need to play their hand. All this fist pumping from Sacramento has not scared them into action
Even if this called for him to pull it out he wouldnt. Wait until the B.O.G. one thing I found interesting is Chris Daniels alluding to maybe something written into the agreement. I asked Michael McCann, NBA.com attorney guru guy (lol), if there was a way Hansen could have an “escalator” clause written in if someone were to match his offer or certain criteria and that would automatically kick his offer up “X” percent. Now I know the NBA could frown upon that (fat chance of the NBA not wanting more money spent) but we will see. The fact that he, as an attorney, said it is feasible although not likely because he doesnt need too (he said this to me a couple weeks ago). Now maybe something like that is in their.
I dont think he just has an “ace” up his sleeve I think he has multiple cards to be played.
I think people are overthinking this. Why would the BOG deny this sale?
Look at all the reason to approve it. Look at the reasons opposing it. And look at the message it sends, and the can of worms it opens, if denied.
None of this other stuff matters.
True and I agree. Im on the side of this is done and has been since Jan. 20th
I’m back to a pretty calm state now. Feels a lot better.
I was not freaked out by the Sac arena deal proposal. That was always going to come, in some form or fashion. My unease was because of how I felt Stern has been handling things recently. And I would like to know who he met with on his West Coast trip.
That aside, I am completely confident that the Seattle proposal is superior to the Sacramento one. Including whatever reworked version of the purchasing proposal Sacramento will come up with.
Regardless of whatever spin attempts Big Think, Bruski, the City Of Sacramento or anyone else tries to come up with, Seattle is a better market than Sacramento. As the saying goes, you can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig. You can’t completely hide reality.
Could Sacramento still prevail in this matter? Yes. Because sometimes deals are not done based on the bottom line. Other considerations can come into play. This is why I have felt perturbed by Stern’s actions of late, or at least what I have perceived Stern’s actions to be.
I respect Carmichael Dave, Tom Ziller, Aaron Bruski, Kevin Johnson, etc. They are doing what they can do to try to save their team. I have not always agreed with the methods used, and sometimes I have doubted the motivation of the Sacramento mayor, but I understand where he and the Sacramento-leaning side is coming from on this matter.
Brian mentioned in the last article some thoughts about news cycles and how Seattle may have seemed on the back burner recently in that regard. My own guess is that Seattle will remain in that position. The reason why Carmichael Dave is being sent city to city is for public relations. Bruski has already mentioned he will be rolling out ‘facts’ in the weeks to come to shine a positive light on the Sacramento cause.
KJ’s operation — Big Think, Here We Whatever-The-Word-Of-The-Day-Is (Buy, Stay, …), etc — is built on PR. That is the essence of it. I do not think Seattle is likely to beat Sacramento on this aspect, but I also don’t think Seattle needs to beat Sacramento on this aspect of things.
If Seattle is awarded the team in less than one month, then I don’t care (and won’t be rattled by) any Sacramento PR edge in the next several weeks. And do not think the owners don’t know what is going on, either. Of course they do. You don’t become a player on the level of an NBA owner without understanding how PR works. In fact, PR benefits are often a big reason why owners become owners.
I am confident in Seattle’s chances to win this matter. Particularly confident if things are decided on a fairly straight-forward cost/benefit basis.
There is more money to be made in Seattle for the NBA. I know all about the concerns for public financing and such, but all things being roughly equal, the league would do better in Seattle than Sacramento. No cooked data or skewed models could ever convince any rational observer otherwise.
Will the NBA decide along these lines? We will find out shortly.
What do you think the odds of a certain 10 time nba championship coach will accompany Hansen to NY?
*11 time
The biggest thing Sacramento has going for them is the public financing. The city is essentially GIVING $248 million to the Kings & the new ownership group. These are funds that don’t have to be repayed, unlike the $200 million Seattle is putting up.
What you see is a city funding the majority of an arena vs private, very rich, investors funding an arena. Now if you are a current NBA owner who is looking to get an arena in the next 15 years, which plan would you want to follow, the one where someone else pays for your toys, or the one where you’re expected to pay for it yourself.
This is the biggest thing that scares me with Sacramento.
Sounds like Brock upset a Sacramento guy a wee bit. Nothing OH MY GOSH or anything but Brock got a little snarky with a Sacramento reporter
http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=422&sid=2236078&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Click the audio link and enjoy
There’s two sides to that coin, right now the Maloof’s are being offered a TON of money for the floundering franchise. If the NBA denies the sale/relocation to Hansen for what would essentially be sentiment they’re setting a precedent that current owners won’t be able to sell to who they wish even if the prospective ownership group has the $$$ and arena deal all but in the bag.
I think the fact has been overstated by people especially Sacramento. You cant put a blanket over every arena project and expect for them to ve equal. Political environments are different across the country.
OKC can’t expect the same commitment as LA (100% privately financed).
In Minnesota the cost of renovating Target center is split 50/50 public/private.
The situations are handled on a case by case basis and owners are aware of this.
There are a lot of teams that play in privately-financed arenas, though. I don’t know if Sacramento’s willingness to rape their general fund is the be all, end all factor, and I doubt if any other city would use that as a model anyway.
Please anyone that is feeling a little pessimistic this Monday go to the link I posted and watch Brock Huards little video at the bottom. Brock may be a jock but he also has business experience and transaction knowledge. Now obviously not of this level of business but still. He also says take your emotion out of it on both sides and then look at it strictly from a business move. Thats the kicker and I think its worth a listen…
I don’t know why, but I feel better since Sat pout session. Maybe it’s the simple fact they have to turn down Hansen’s offer before voting for sacs offer? I’m not sure what exactly they wouldn’t like about his offer, other than the relocation part.
And that’s another good point. You have a guaranteed sale, right now, money on the counter for the Kings. If the NBA owners reject that, and by some strange event, Sacramento can’t actually go through with their offer or end up offering less (I mean, now that Seattle is out of the way could they not bump their official offer down?), then methinks the Maloofs have a legitimate reason to take action against the NBA
I’m a coug fan, so I don’t listen to propaganda. lol
Yeah, it’s probably over for Sacramento.
The roller coaster ride, on the other hand, is just beginning for folks that sometimes get a bit Chicken Little about things. I understand that viewpoint, and I would have it myself except that I have lived through this before and I know that other than screwing a city for your close buddy, $$$ is what talks when it comes to pro sports.
You would think the moof would have say in what happens here. Being that they own the team, couldn’t they reject selling to sac if there deal isn’t as high as the seattle group, of course, if seattle is turned down before? Couldn’t they just keep the team, until something else better than sacs lowball comes along?
Still baffles me how many people keep saying that is a good thing that politicians and “media” members are outright lying about things because they are “just doing what they need to do”.
Guess the lesson here is that it wasn’t the local politicians, Howard Schultz or Clay Bennett that cost the city the team. It is the fact that the people who wanted the team to stay weren’t willing to get dirty enough to get the respect of the rest of the country.
PS…new narrative today is that the new investor was the lead investor all along. Apparently, these last few weeks before he was announced were all for show…the lowball bid was all for show…etc
The Magoofs are flat broke. They pretty much have to sell. That 30M H/B/N gave ‘em as a down-payment to get them out of the ownership picture altogether? They took that deal because they have no money.
It seems like a catch 22. They can sell to whomever they want to, but then the bog votes if they can move. What’s the point in buying a team, if you soul purpose is to move it, but you can’t? This may get dicey in the court system.
Yeah it really depends on the market. Large markets with a lot of private money in the community can help to justify mostly private financing on arenas like here in Seattle. For example the King/Snohomish county areas has like 70,000 millionaires. That is a lot of people with a lot of money. Then you have markets like Sacramento that are not a corporate based market but government based thus alot less private money in the region and you need to have a public subsidy that is the majority of the investment.
Sacramento’s biggest hurdles coming into the B.O.G will not be their funding it will be the nitty gritty of proving the funding and proving what ticket prices will be and that they will make money by fans attending. They need to prove that the TV market will make A BUNCH of money. It is a stretch to assume all the homework that Hansen has done (as the private investor who does these kind of studies) that they will have all those numbers with studies backing them. Like how much a new RSN deal would bring in. They could assume a number but the NBA will then be seeing a well formulated number, with references, as to why it will be $60/year in Seattle and an assumption of what it will be in Sacramento. The Maloofs may know what one will be worth but you know they arent freely going to give that to Burkle.
They have an outline and some non binding promises v. our investment groups well thought out, deliberate planning that has been in constant contact with the NBA for at least a couple years and maybe since the Sonics left.
I can’t wait for this to be over. Kings fans have probably cost me 300 reddit karma (meaningless internet points) for just pointing out facts.
This is how I feel about the situation.
Well Im sorry that you have to be a Coug fan day in and day out :)
Yes they could. Not to mention, if the NBA declines the Seattle bid (remember they are not “picking” between two bids) the NBA is also essentially saying that Hansen and Ballmer aren’t worthy to be in the “club”…so why would they even attempt to make a future bid on a different team? There is nothing in any other City that would be any different than what happened when Hansen was announced as the purchasaer.
This “new narrative” doesn’t make sense. I’m no business man but I don’t see any benefit to operating in this manner. Anyone?
Well, the B.O.G. could always approve the sale but deny relocation!
(Of course, I put that happening at a lower possibility than the NBA leaving the Kings in Sacramento and giving Seattle an expansion team, but I’m still sayin’ there’s a chance!)
The BOG denying the sale, unless there are financial issues (doubtful), sends the message that “Owners dont get to decide who they get to sell to”. Its a ridicuous precedent to make.
Find me an owner who is going to vote for that. Find one. Much less a third or whatever they would need.
Their arena deal/proposal and everything else really doesnt mean anything to me at this point. Its very simple. They need the BOG to deny the sale and there is not a good reason for them to do that.
They are not flat broke.
Exactly. In the end, the owners will want the right to sell to whomever the hell they want to sell to. This is going to be something like 28-2 with a couple of dissenters for show (maybe Leonsis since he’s buds with the Indian investor that is now part of the Kings bid, maybe Cuban).
Of course, Cuban also said that there is almost no will NOT to move a team to Seattle amongst the owners in his opinion, so who knows if Sacramento even does that well in the vote.
Yep…and like I said…they are also sending the message that Hansen/Ballmer/Nordstrom’s aren’t fit for the club.
That’s not how I understand it. Let me revise my language to say that the Maloofs are over-leveraged and in need of cash. For example:
http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/6/15/2225677/sacramento-kings-maloofs-palms-casino
I would be shocked if Cuban did not vote for the sale. Cuban is a businessman…he didn’t vote for Seattle cause he likes Seattle or he doesn’t like teams moving. He voted for Seattle cause having a team in OKC is worse for the league than having a team in SEA.
Its possible, but it goes back to the “e word” discussion and Hansen being reassured they he will get a team if his deal is somehow voted against. Saying that, if the sale to Hansen to denied then the Maloof’s lose any and all leverage against the Sac group and (I would think) they would present an offer that is significantly lower than the Hansen group’s. I just don’t know if, some a business perspective, the owners want to set that kind of precedent. We know that the only time sale/relocation had to do with money issues, that clearly isn’t a problem here.
When I put my conspiracy theory hat on I think this is all a ploy by Sac to A) buy time that they desperately need B) set themselves up for when the next team becomes available like we have spent the last six years doing. I just don’t see how the NBA turns down all the money that comes with the Seattle market and the Hansen group. To quote Johnnie Cochran, “it doesn’t make sense.”
Dan Morain @DanielMorain 12m
Mayor Johnson says Burkle et al can beat Seattle for #Kings because the city is doing everything it can to keep the Kings by building arena.
Menace: My comment is awaiting moderation, but I did respond to you and note that maybe “in desperate need of a cash infusion” is the more accurate account. They own 2% of the Palms, they lost their beer distributorship, and I thought that the whole point behind their attempted move to Anaheim and their flirting with other cities was to find a market where they could actually make a profit, unlike the market in Sacramento.
Literally have no idea…apparently Ranadive “only went public when he liked his chances”…
So, basically Mastrov was being a fall guy?
Yep…just another odd part of this discussion…since the Sacramento offer isn’t really binding there is LITERALLY nothing that would stop them from saying…ok now that Hansen is out of the picture…we think the team is only worth $350 million…take it or leave it
So should I take that quote to mean, “They don’t want to pay as much for the team as H/B/N, but nevermind that - look over here at this awesome arena deal that we’re holding together with paper clips and used gum!” or what?
This old Mark Cuban Q&A always calms my BOG fears.
http://deadspin.com/5948031/mark-cuban-no-one-in-the-nba-would-stop-a-franchise-from-moving-to-seattle
What a bunch of nonsense
And because OKC is a quick 3 hour drive from Dallas, and probably stole a few Maverick fans.
I think he is saying the the City has given Burkle the ammunition to go kick Hansen and Ballmer’s BUTT.
That’s ammo? Ha!
exactly
I think that goes back to the previously mentioned ‘lipstick on a pig’ argument, I think Sac is a great city (in its own way) and there are some great people down there who love the Kings but at the end of the day there are some very serious concerns about the long term viability of the market even IF this arena deal doesn’t blow up on their faces.
Cuban was against moving from a big market to small. Not the case here.
So basically he admits they are selling out the city for these guys?
I’m still trying to imagine ANY BOG member saying to themselves, “I hate that I have the right to sell my team and make a large profit. I’d rather the league made me sell for less money than I could get myself. I just hate making business decisions based on business logic and solid business cases. I think I’ll vote against this…”
Really - is anyone thinking this is even a REMOTE possibility? Because this is what you’re thinking if you believe the BOG will deny the Maloofs’ sale to Hansen/Ballmer/Nordstrom!
I wonder if anyone here is going to be down again, while sac gets more great news when their council votes in favor for the new arena plan, etc? Like it’s going to be a shock blow or something? I know high fives will be flung around elsewhere, but I hope it doesn’t dampen hopes here too much.
It shouldn’t cause we know it probably will get approved baring any changing of their minds at the last second.
Looking through this guys tweets it looks like its another Think Big Sacramento propaganda meeting
Maybe the Hansen group should do some closet deals with a few million each for the city council members to make it close, but vote no, and derail this thing from the get go. lol Pretty sure this is how politicians work anyways.
I’m sure it will happen, but we’re only nine days away from the meeting on April 3rd which, for all intents and purposes, will decide this matter. I was initially leery (didn’t decide to post anything) but after having time to digest all the info in their term sheet I feel a lot better about our chances. The Hansen group has been preparing for this meeting for months now, Sac is going to have to create something on the fly and hope emotional sentiment prevails.
Hi,from an european point of view move franchise from city to city is uninmaginable but prosports and USA prosports muchmore are business, so in my opinion there isn’t any one reason, any one arena plan, because mr Stern , not exactly Mr Ethics…, should shut the door to a group with Mr Microsoft.
c’mon seattle, this is sonics time
More non-news for the rollercoaster riders.
The BOG still has to vote against the sale for any of this to matter. Not gonna happen.
There is a very small chance of that…but of course if that was a logical conclusion then Paul Allen would not have voted against the move..
Probably, lots of people seem to believe that anything said publicly out of Sacramento about this since the sale was announced has had or will have one iota of influence on the final outcome …
Allen would only be analogous to Cuban in this case if Allen didn’t also own another pro team based in Seattle.
If Cuban owned an NFL team in OKC at the time of the Sonics move, he would have voted for the move, I’m guessing.
Paul Allen technically didn’t vote against the move. He abstained.
Regarding the KJ quotes..for the sake of Sacramento fans you’d really hope he wasn’t trying to say that the Arena deal would somehow make a lower bid for the team more attractive…
Just another small point to those that are going to ride the roller coaster when the Sac city council approved the term sheet. You do know it’s going to be passed, because KJ will be assuring them “just remember this term sheet is non-binding, we just need to give the NBA reason to veto Hansen and approve us, we can figure this all out realistically then”. This term sheet has flaws and they know it. It’s just to show the NBA they have a plan.
This is not something we need to worry about, we should be expecting it and know what this means. It means squat because Hansen is still playing chess, while Sac is playing checkers. Game over for Sac.
Regardless…I highly doubt that NBA owners consider Cities that are 180 miles away and in another state as markets they would like to protect…
There is no bid, no bidding war. The team has been sold pending NBA approval. Sac’s efforts are outside of that. It is an option for the Maloofs should the NBA say no.
Folks need to remember this fact and relax.
You should have added low to your name. I remember awhile back when a sofa business called sofa king had to take down their advertisement from billboards, and buses because it said ” Our prices aren’t just low, they’re sofa king low.” lol.
Mastrov and Burkle met with Sacramento’s city council today probably to assure them to get this to pass
KJ Press Conference @ 4:30 woo hoo another KJ presser I wonder if he spends some time talking smack to the Seattle group. Cant wait until April 3rd and we can begin to get news that we will be enjoying b-ball in the fall @ Key Arena
Maybe hansen and ballmer should visit as well, with a pocket full of money to make sure it doesn’t.
My first beer before we open against OKC next October is going to be dedicated to that guy.
Whoa, Burkle finally visited Sacramento? Finally showing some commitment
I have to think it is interesting that Ticketmaster, owned by one of Paul Allen’s companies, is reaching out to future Sonics ticketholders. Very interesting.
Well, we do know one team that will vote NO on relocation, that being the Warriors. I had previously thought they would want to kick them out and gain a foothold in that market, but with this new exec from the Warriors involved, they are voting NO for sure. 1 down and 7 more to go to flip this thing.
I doubt it happens though. The NBA helped hijack our Sonics from here, by killing this deal they will kill the NBA here for a very long time. We are not going to get played twice…
money,
You don’t really know that. The execute is a minority owner not majority owner. Majority owner has the say of yes or no vote.
Can’t assume that cause a minority owner wants to buy the Kings means the majority owner is a no on the sale. There is more benefits to the warrior’s majority owner to vote yes on sale than no. His franchise is worth more his market gets expanded.
After reading through the comments in the Field of Schemes article and the subsequent articles linked in them pertaining to the funding/land acquisition I feel good about the term sheet being filed under “cool story, bro” on April 3rd. It just seems like a helluva lot to put together in 9 months much less 9 days.
I think the Warriors will vote no, as well, but not in the sense that Sac is lobbying the BOG to try to wrangle enough votes like they’re a majority whip in congress. This will be decided before it ever goes to a vote with the decision appearing to be essentially unanimous. However, I think the Warriors will be the team with that symbolic gesture ‘no’ vote similar to Allen for us. It spreads goodwill to a nearby, newly vacant market already getting rallied by one of their current owners.
But based on the fact that people in Sacramento claim the 49ers…….they should vote yes to gain more market share.
PA voted no because he lives in Seattle, and owns a team here. If he lived in Denver or Dallas he might have voted very differently.
That’s why I’m saying it’ll be a symbolic no vote. This isn’t going to all of the owners coming together and casting their vote how they see fit on that day, it’ll be known to them which way this is going to go. If Seattle is getting approved, it’d make a lot more sense for GSW to vote no, knowing it won’t affect the outcome, vacating the Sacramento market while also endearing them, at least a little, to Sacramento.
A few thoughts from a Sacramento resident perspective.
Don’t care about the Stranger’s opinion of Sacramento’s deal. This is about the same amount I care of a potential SN&R’s view of Seattle’s subsidy’s in Safeco or Century Link. Or the MOU Hansen has with the city/King County. It’s irrelevant to me.
Neil deMausse is a noted public finance of stadium/arena critic. Of course he’s critical of a subsidy. He missed a few details (not surprising) that are important like the city isn’t actually cashing out on the land they are transferring to Kings/ESCco. Also, the city is going to work with the Federal gov’t to get the moratorium in Natomas lifted (IE lobby the shit out of them to get the levee’s fixed), but there isn’t much they can do. Kings/ESC Co (Burkle Mastrov and Ranadive) know this already. The DT land holdings are more important to develop immediately anyway which have no moratorium. Thus, the Natomas land was always about a long term vision as opposed to a short term vision. Plus, the higher DT core real estate is the better deal you can get out in Natomas. Any city the size of Sacramento always benefits by having it’s core real estate being uber valuable. A strong undercurrent of this deal is that very point.
The ticket surchage is for all events at the ESC, not just Kings games. Since the ESC is literally guaranteed to book quite a bit more than just Kings games (at the bare minimum the events will be doubled over what STA does now if I had to guess), the idea that the backfill will work is fair. Whether or not the arena ticket sales is guesstimated high worries me less than the total events they book.
I get why someone would be skeptical. I don’t have a problem with the city taking this risk because I don’t see a better alternative that can help more in this case. Blindly handing the money to the Kings/ESCco is just stupid.
Now that the city has taken care of the arena deal, it’s time they move on to other things. It’s about damn time. Seattle is not the only place that wastes way too much time discussing something before it ultimately gets finished.
Anyway my .02$ as a Sac Kings fan / resident.
Agreed on PA because he lives on Mercer Island and owns the ‘Hawks, that’s why he voted No. Cuban probably didn’t like OKC being taken away from him.
The Maloofs also voted for the OKC move in 2008 but are now using Seattle to artificially inflate the franchise value. Funny how the odds and ends of these things work sometimes. (I knew people here knew that. I just find that so irritating.)
So I take it this meeting wont be online?
RE: Mark Cuban
I’ll say it here, but not with any name dropping intent.
I emailed back and forth with Mark Cuban a handful of times in the weeks leading up to the BOG vote to allow the Sonics to move to OKC. I’ll state unquestionably that having a team near his market played ZERO role in his voting against it. While Cuban sometimes seem a bit nuts because he wears his heart on his sleeve, at other times (like with the Sonics) his vote was very much inspired by the raw deal he saw Seattle getting. He knew he couldn’t stop the freight train, but he wanted to voice his disagreement with how things went down, and that was the only way he is/was allowed to do so. Like him or hate him, Cuban was on our side, and I for one respect him a great deal for that.
Artificially inflate the value of the Kings? That doesn’t really make any sense…the value is what it is for a team in Seattle. If you are admitting that it isn’t worth as much in Sacramento…well then you’re kind of building the BOGs case for approving the move for Seattle aren’t you?
As Big Chris said…Cuban wasn’t worried about the OKC market…Cuban is one of the few owners who really made his money being an innovative businessman. I think he saw the raw deal as well as how much worse off the league was in the long run and was courageous enough to vote with that in mind (as opposed to other owners who just played along with everyone else)