Seeing it is time for a new thread, and the fact that Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson continues to hold press conferences to grandstand his efforts, I found myself thinking about the intersection of politics and sports today.
My first thought was, is Kevin Johnson - former NBA player - the only mayor in America who would’ve fought this hard for this long?
I’m inclined to say he is. Yes, he undoubtedly has political reasons for this, as it is believed he has his eyes on a bigger office in the future. But I think those future aspirations only carry KJ just so far, and he has/will reach a point where it is partially a personal crusade as well. While it makes you incredibly popular with a portion of your voting population, my experience is those politicians who stick their necks out too far for sports teams find that it later is used against them just as much as it has done good for them.
The ideal in the sports-politics confluence as a politician is to make your move while your efforts on behalf of the local sports team is real fresh (or current) in people’s minds. The longer you wait, the less leverage you have, and the more people sour to the efforts you made. I suspect very few politicians - especially in places where the franchise was lost - come out ahead significantly in the long term.
Author’s update - I mentioned this in the comments, but will say it here - I have huge respect for what Kevin Johnson is doing on behalf of his community. He’s fighting a good fight. But it seems like he keeps talking about things to just talk about things, not to cover much new ground at this point, like it is his personal agenda now. Will be interesting to see in the long term the impact it has on his electability.
Other things of note today:
Cowbell Kingdom lists 3 “definitive” hurdles that they feel are key to whether and how the Kings may move to Seattle.
NBC Sports ProBasketballTalk covers these hurdles as well, with a bit more depth.
I am inclined to believe that, while KJ does have further political aspirations, he is truly doing this because he cares about his community about as much as he cares about the NBA and doesn’t want to see the two split apart.
Commendable.
People in Sacramento who are not die-hard Kings fans no longer like KJ, from what I’ve read. They think he is mis-allocating his resources into this battle and letting everything else in the city fall to the wayside.
Are you basing this of Sac Bee comenters or other sources?
comenters on a couple sites
off of
I live in Sacramento, and haven’t seen any shift in public opinion. Folks who originally supported him, Kings fans or not, still seem to support him and his efforts. Perhaps his detractors, which have always been there, hate him even more now, but they would never have supported him in a million years no matter what he did.
vocal minority, then, I guess
Regarding the “hurdles” mentioned at the closing… I’m kind of baffled on how the hurdles rest on Seattle’s side of things, granted these hurdles are illustrated by SAC boards and reporters. The Kings have been SOLD, the only hurdle we have is to have the BOG approve the sale and relocation. I guess that at this point reality is a non-issue for SAC fans. Another thing that baffles me is the “Here We Stay” game rally on the 9th…Sure lets keep feeding the so called “monster Maloof’s”money in hopes all our fanaticism will convince them to renege on a binding sales agreement and sell to our local guys…crazy with a capital K!
No different than Sonics fans packing the Key during the final home games as a show of support. It is all they can do. A boycott would reflect negatively on their market. Catch 22
Apples and oranges. In Seattle, there was a perceived opportunity to keep the team in town based on the owner’s untruths. In Sacramento, the team has been on the sales floor for years and was sold for a specific reason.
As much as we want to say that the situations between Seattle and Sacramento are similar, they are actually very, very different.
Not true. For years, up until recently, Maloofs have been vehemently denying the team was for sale.
Sold for a specific reason? What could that be?
lol 525 million reasons. I’m sure the price was never right for the Maloof’s up until Chris worked on them and they team was indeed not for sale. I’m a business owner who would never think about selling my business, I built it and I love it…but if I came to the point that all options were exhausted and revenue was not being generated I would sell to the highest bidder in a heart beat to insure my other interests remained safe.
have you ever watched the show “American Pickers?”..two guys drive around the back country looking to buy others people antiques and rare items. They often show up unannounced. The owners often seem uninterested in selling…WHY?!? The same reason the Lakers said they weren’t interested in trading Shaq. To get more in return OR they really AREN’T interested in selling.
It takes as just as much of a salesman to BUY something as it does to SELL certain items. Some are better at it than others, some have more means, not everyone can be an American Picker like Chris Hansen.
Haha, OK. Well at the risk of rehashing stuff I’ve written on other threads, if you look at the history of these guys, they have made every effort to move out of Sacramento, sabotaged every effort to build a new arena and keep the team here, announced for years that the team was NOT for sale, made no public announcement of team sale before fielding bidders (unlike other NBA team sales), nor apparently did they give their own limited partners given a notice of sale in order to exercise their right of first refusal. So you’ll forgive me if I don’t believe that money is the only reason they have for going through the back door and selling out-of-state.
The tensions are building, the waters are swirling. i think the internet may explode when the final pressers are done
Why do people keep saying that they NEED to have an arena plan? To my knowledge the NBA has never made it a requirement that they get a new arena.
They WANT a new arena. They have WORKED towards a new arena. But from my understanding it has never been a must have. Why do people assume that?
they need it to generate necessary profits
agreed. Everyone likes money. But its not a requirement that they make money or have a new building.
Are you a Kings fan?
Nope. Im just saying its a false assumption to say that they NEED a new arena.
Just because it was a requirement in SEATTLE doesnt make is so everywhere.
Well, we all know what this means then, don’t we:
“Commissioner David Stern reiterated his belief Thursday that a new sports arena is the only way to keep the Kings in Sacramento.”
http://www.kcra.com/sports/NBA-commissioner-says-Sacramento-needs-arena/-/11797474/17136182/-/7vnv0fz/-/index.html
Oct 5 2012. Dont they still play there?
I’m not sure what you are getting at. Oct 12, 2025 was less than a full season ago. Of course they still play there, but they will need a new arena to stay in Sacramento.
October 5*, 2012 Same point still applies.
Taylor Made essentially explains it. We have a new arena. If they go with what they have now how does that help them in getting the NBA to reject the sale to Seattle’s group?
If I offer you a million dollars and a brand new Porsche, and someone else offers you a million dollars and a used 1988 Dart, which one are you going to take?
Of course I’ll take the new porsche
Are you kidding? Those Darts were bad azz!
/idiotictroll
It strengthens their story and “bid”/”offer”. But its not a requirement.
Okay, let them stop worrying about it then. I bet it makes the NBA’s decision a lot easier.
Commish saying that Sacramento needs a new arena makes it a requirement. What part of this are you not getting?
Same reason why Seattle would not get a new team without a new arena, regardless on what the owner wanted.
Well to be fair, you’re right, the NBA hasn’t said its a requirement, nor have they actually said that if they match the sale price they’ll get to keep their team. There is no term sheet laid out, because they aren’t being offered an official right to match here, they’re being politely told they’ll consider what they have to say.
I would not go to the BOG without an arena plan if I were KJ, that’d turn a small chance into a microscopic one.
We have a new arena. How can a 25-year-old building be “fair and competitive” with a brand new, state-of-the-art one?
Because they now have an executable sale in front of the NBA which has a new arena attached. That makes it incumbent on Sacramento to respond in kind.
If someone bought the Kings and said “we will continue to play in Sleep Train” what would happen?
They would lose money. But if its OK with the owner then what can the NBA do about it?
If someone bought the Kings before all this and said that, that would have be fine. But they’re competing with us now, and we have a new arena.
Bingo. Now that an offer is on the table, one without an arena would be laughed off the reservation.
Your argument is based on a faulty premise. How is someone in Sacramento going to have the opportunity to buy the Kings? ROFR issues notwithstanding, the only option they have remaining is to somehow convince the BOG that their offer is better than ours, and they should therefore reject our offer. They won’t be able to do that unless they have a new arena deal in place. The NBA isn’t going to reject the Hansen proposal so the Kings can toil in Sleep Train for the foreseeable future.
I just disagree with the idea that its somehow a requirement just because it was a requirement here. They have been trying to get a new arena for almost a decade now. To say they need an “Arena deal” by March 1 is just a false assumption.
If I offered a billion dollars and wanted the team to play at Sleep Train there isnt much the NBA can do about it.
I don’t think there is a March 1 deadline for an arena deal, but if KJ is going to present an offer to the NBA BOG that is good enough to reject the one they have on the table, he’s going to need an arena deal in place before he makes his pitch.
I think you are arguing semantics. No, an arena deal isn’t “required,” for him to make his pitch, but there’s no way he’ll go to the BOG without one in hand. It is de facto required if he wants any shot at stopping the Hansen deal currently on the table.
You’re not going to get a whale to commit in the first place without an arena plan laid out.
They’ve been saying for more than a decade in Sacramento that a new arena is needed.
When have they ever said its a requirement? What are they going to do? Tell the owner they have to move?
Have they said that Sleep Train is not a “viable” option……..ever? NO
False assumption.
“Commissioner David Stern reiterated his belief Thursday that a new sports arena is the only way to keep the Kings in Sacramento.”
Read more: http://www.kcra.com/sports/NBA-commissioner-says-Sacramento-needs-arena/-/11797474/17136182/-/7vnv0fz/-/index.html#ixzz2K3tVz8I1
http://www.kcra.com/sports/NBA-commissioner-says-Sacramento-needs-arena/-/11797474/17136182/-/7vnv0fz/-/index.html
Thank you. I couldn’t find those quotes.
from October, before Hansen was in the picture (at least publicly).
Thats from Oct of 2012. ……..and they still play there.
When have they ever made it a requirement?
I do not disagree. They do need a new arena. But why do people act like that isnt that up to the owner?
Commissioner says the Kings need a new arena makes it a requirement. Or did you forget the last five years the Sonics were in town?
They said SEATTLE needed a new arena. Key Arena was not viable.
They have never said that in Sacramento. To assume so is false. If it was a requirement then why did they not let them move to Anaheim to return and play in the same arena?
Because Sacramento was (it was thought at the time) on the verge of a plan for a new arena.
I posted Commissioner Stern’s words from October. Stern saying that Sacramento needs a new arena makes it a requirement.
“Commissioner David Stern reiterated his belief Thursday that a new sports arena is the only way to keep the Kings in Sacramento.” = Requirement to keep Kings in Sacramento is new arena.
Please go back to Sactown Royalty troll.
I guess Stern saying just a couple months ago (Oct. 2012), not two years ago, that the only way to keep the Kings in Sacramento was by building a new arena, really means that you don’t need a new arena to keep the Kings in Sacramento.
You’re getting silly now. So when Stern says they need a new arena, the fact that he hasn’t forced them out midseason proves that’s not the case anymore? lol
Yo Blue. Check your history. I’ve been posting here since before you were probably born. Troll. Now thats some funny sh*t
Kings arent going to win this. None of their efforts are logical at all. Including their arena efforts.
They dont need an arena deal by March 1.
Why the hell are you being so stupid then? I’ve answered your question five times, yet you come back with the SAME QUESTION.
“They dont need an arena deal by March 1.”
Good, I hope they don’t have one, then. That’d pretty much guarantee the NBA sides with us.
Maybe not by March 1st, but if they go to the BOG without something on the table they have zero chance.
Jesus. Take it easy. Im on your side.
Just pointing out what I see as a false assumption. You dont have to agree or disagree. Its all good.
We are going to be playing in a non viable arena for at least two years. So obviously it wasn’t a “requirement” here either.
troll is the word many “intelligent” people use online when they get angry or want to jab. We know Menace has been on here longer than most anyone else. “Troll” is a tired cliche.
The NBA hasn’t come out and specifically said they need an arena. HOWEVER, they are now competing with a signed proposal that DOES have a new arena waiting in the wings.
Not sure why every time Johnson gets on a podium, it’s “grandstanding” and his political future aspirations come into question? Today was a weekly scheduled press conference. He has them every week regardless. And understandably all anyone wants to ask (reporters, constituents) is about the Kings situation, so…
How about some commentary on the substance of the press conference?
Have most people hear called out his pressors as “grandstanding”??? I think most intelligent people here commend him on his efforts.
The article specifically used the word “grandstanding” so that’s what I am referring to. And based on comments, I think people here are split. I see some folks commending the efforts. And others ridiculing it.
What part of the definition of grandstanding are your opposed to?
grand·stand
/ˈgran(d)ˌstand/ verb - Seek to attract applause or favorable attention from spectators or the media.
That is what KJ is trying to do.
They very first sentence implies that he is calling press conferences unnecessarily to continue to call attention to the situation. I’ve seen folks here make fun of that.
My point is that this was a regularly scheduled weekly press conference. Not one “held” for the specific purpose of “grandstanding”.
Yes it did. However I didn’t take it as a put down. I was more of a commentary of how politicians must balance the daily duties of their jobs with possible issues with dealing w ancillary issues such as pro sports teams. I don’t know anyone here that has done that to KJ in a way that questions his integrity.
I used the word grandstanding. And I stand by it. It is one thing to talk about it when there is news. As often as not, that hasn’t really been the case. KJ’s been pushing it as his agenda item (rightfully so some would easily argue) on the other times where there’s nothing new, but we’re still going to talk about it anyhow. Pretty sure (at least in my eyes) that fits the bill for grandstanding. Don’t get me wrong, I have HUGE respect for KJ and his efforts. Good to see him doing well in his post NBA life and really making something of his gifts and making a huge difference in society.
While I agree that some of the pressers he has called is grandstanding, my point was that in this case, this was a weekly scheduled press con, not one specifically held to grandstand. And naturally, all reporters want to know about is the Kings situation, so he had to give updates on that.
but did he even discuss ANYTHING else?
A Press Conference, recurring or not, is by definition grandstanding.
Yeah he did for the first few minutes. But all the Q&A from reporters were indeed Kings related, so that was indeed the bulk of the discussion.
here
Many on this board wish we had someone like him as Mayor 6-7 years ago. As far as the substance. It seemed like more re-hashing of his previous news conferences. “We hope to, we are working on it, maybe next week or by MArch 1st at the lastest.” The only new thing I got out of it was the acknowledgement of the ROFR issue and the tongue and cheek reference to lobbying NBA mascots at the ASG.
Mostly true. But to me, picking apart the comments, rehash or not, is of more value than pondering the political motivations.
For example I thought it was interesting what he said about being in daily contact with interested parties at every level, which, if true, counters the fears that the money is not there.
Also I though it was significant that he mentioned the investors themselves are currently doing the due diligence on weighing the two proposed sites. That was something I thought might be behind the delays, and his mentioning that lends credence to that.
We all know the money is there. Money isn’t the issue with the Whales. Getting them to agree to part with it however may be. Of course that is IF and ONLY IF that NBA tells Hansen/Ballmer and Seattle to go take a hike.
Haha, well I know they have money. What I meant is whether the money is there for a competitive counter-offer. And I have seen some speculation that the reason for the delay is that there are having diffculty putting the money together. And today’s Q&A spoke to that.
As much as your side paints Burkle as a white knight (much like we paint Hansen) he has more than one log on the fire so to speak; AEG. I know most of you think that can only help his bid for the Kings, but it complicates it greatly. He will have to decide if he wants to go ahead with the Kings phase or keep the 15% stake in the Lakers. They also own the LA Kings and he has ownership in the Penguins. He’s a businessman 1st and foremost. Just because he expressed interest a little over a year ago doesn’t mean he’s ready to jump in feet 1st with his AEG thing going on. Hence, the “due dilligence on a complicated deal.”
I believe it’s actually 30% of the Lakers.
Right, and to further tangle things up, AEG was a big part of the 2011 arena deal, so if the idea is to revive that deal, what’s AEG part of that?
Unfortunately, these guys have to get past the due diligence part as that isn’t going to help them “buy” the Kings (or bid or whatever non-term is going around). And by saying due diligence it really means we don’t think this pencils out and we need a lot of assurances that we make money off of this investment. Due diligence = no “offer”
I don’t quite see it that way. I think the due diligence it just that.
While the lack of news lends to all sorts of speculation, I hoping that these guys are truly doing their homework. Something that KJ did admirably when he countered the Maloof’s half-baked Anaheim relocation bid.
I would not call what KJ is doing “grandstanding”.
How he could communicate what he knows with the public? Issue press releases? What about taking questions? Need to do more- perhaps a press conference. . .
So while a presser is sometimes grandstanding, I disagree that it always has to be by definition.
One of the big deal Burkle is going to have is making sure that there is local money that will make up for the valuation of the franchise. Essentially is he going to have enough money coming in for sponsorships, luxury suites, etc.
I am suprised that KJ has not announced an equity partner yet at least saying they are in the preliminary stages. It would give the NBA some names and the media which would start spinning it and creating a good amount of momentum for Sacramento. If he has equity partners ready why wait?
Thats the biggest kicker where and who are teh equity partners. Not announcing them as of yet is not a smart move and I bet he knows that. Thus one could easily assume the money men arent all in yet because they have concerns about the viability to stay afloat financially and not have the franchise be a money pit. The sponsors may not be there. They need to find a lot of continous sponsorship money beyond just a groundswell right now. They need something that gives them longterm viability.
I agree with a lot of this, and his comments today tried to answer some of those questions. Successfully or not. Which is why I think it worth discussing over his apparent grandstanding and political motivations.
In fact, we don’t even know if Burkle and Mastrov are on the same page in regards to the ownership structure, what each of them will pay, their expectations on the return on investment, etc. They also have to determine the city’s contribution and what their return on investment will be.
They need to figure all of this out before they even get to whether or not the investment as a whole is financially viable.
And the NBA needs to be able to vet the Sacramento “offer” that has yet to become anything. So essentially the city and equity partners have to figure out how to make a new venue ($$) and the team ($525million) viable with having one tenant for the arena. Thats a big obstacle.
Then the NBA would have to agree that it makes sense financially while comapring it to the viability of Seattle with or without two tenants.
Thats just some of the reasons that this is being considered a hali mary. In the end if the league thinks its more financially viable in Seattle and the Seattle market than Sacramento it may not matter what Sacramento does.
And Im not talking viable for next season because teh groundswell in Sacramento with here we buy and all that is good for the short term.
Unless they are getting 20 year season ticket commitments it doesnt really do much.
Its ten years from now, if the team stays, will they be financially ok, the NBA doesnt want to have to subsidize a team 5-10 years from now because they decided to make them stay in Sacramento.
The NBA knows with Hansen/Ballmer they will not have to subsidize the prospective Seattle team ever. I dont know if they can assume that with the Sacramento market. If the owners can change a team from a laibility in terms of revenue sharing they will do so first chance they get.
Remember I mean Sac. being viable in the long term not short term. In the sort term the fans will support in droves because they want them to stay. What happens if they continue to stink in 5 years, do the fans go apathetic?
Kings investors not revealed but Mayor remains confident
http://blogs.sacbee.com/city-beat/2013/02/kings-investors-still-not-revealed-but-mayor-remains-confident.html
I have no idea what’s going happen. If the end destination was another city, not Seattle, in this deal, I would probably be cheering the efforts of the city of Sacramento and the King’s fans because of the lesson learned in Seattle. And that is what I think all sides are doing — not making the same mistakes that were made when the Sonics left Seattle. Chris Hansen being quiet and respectful of Sacramento and the Maloofs, the League giving Sacramento a chance to come up with their own thorough and well-thought out plan to fight for the Kings, and Sacramento doing everything it can to take advantage of the window the League is giving them (seemingly circumventing a signed deal).
Of course, I am basing the above on the premise that KJ has received some sort of tacit approval that he has a chance of keeping this transaction from going through if he can make this all happen by March 1. And that is questionable because the League hasn’t issued a formal statement telling him this as far as I know.
While I see how it can be seen as “circumventing a signed deal”, you have to realize from the Sacramento side, the Maloofs have circumvented all locals efforts (going back many years) to keep the team here. Not on that, the reports today make it look like they also circumvented their own limited partners’ right of first refusal.
Who’s to argue that they have. The whole ROFR is being spin one direction and is potentially making it into a bigger issue than it really is.
Only one person is making a stink out of the ROFR and that is a bankruptcy trustee. How can Cook since all his assets have been seized by the courts can claim FORF?
The only way it is a major issue if the other minority owners are making a stink about it and they have yet to say a word.
The Maloofs themselves. When first asked, they did not respond by saying that they had already submitted notice of sale they “didn’t believe their partners had right of first refusal”. Which is not the case. So their are either being total idiots in not knowing, or liars. Since they have in the past shown to be both idiots and liars, I am not sure which.
Do you have a link for that?
I’ve only seen things to that effect from ‘unnamed sources close to the situation’ and what not. I haven’t seen an outright response from the Maloofs or Hansen’s group nor an admission that they hadn’t notified the minority owners. I don’t think it’s entirely likely that Hansen and his lawyers would opt not to notify just because the Maloofs don’t think they have to, especially since we haven’t heard a peep from the minority owners who actually still own their share of the team (ie not Cook).
Yup, you’re right, that’s what I saw too. “Unnamed sources close to the Maloofs.” Couldn’t find an official statement.
Well said. Idiots & Liars.
The only minority partner suggesting that is Cook, who most likely does not have ROFR since his share is held by the bankruptcy court. We haven’t heard any confirmation from other minority owners, the last time I heard an existing minority asked about the sale they said that they were not allowed to comment.
On that while issue, no other minirity owner has spoken up. Why has the NBA put a gag order on them (of course, why not on Cook or his trustee)?
The reason Cook is doing it is because he is hoping that the value of the 7% gets to the point that it covers his liabilities. In 2011 he said that he couldnt do anything to stop the Maloofs from moving. The only reason he is making a stink is for himself not for Sacramento.
I don’t agree that this is a “shock” to Sacramento — that Seattle came out of nowhere and swept the Kings away. The Maloofs don’t have to hang a “for sale” sign in front of Sleep Train Arena or pass out “this NBA Team for Sale!” at the games to all the fans. Seriously, everyone who knows BB knows the Maloofs have been trying to keep the Kings and move them to another city for years and years, why? Because Sacramento doesn’t have the economic system in place to make big bucks and the city wanted the Maloofs to put in more money then they wanted to. Of course they are going to try to keep the team and have another city pay for the arena in full, of course they are going to do that.
So this feigned “we NEVER KNEW the Kings were for sale” stuff is just laughable to me — of course that was going to be the end stop — no one stepped up (including Burkle, Mastrov, and Eli Broad) because they were waiting for the Maloofs to be forced to sell and then they would try to swoop in with a bargain basement price.
No, I don’t buy the whole “we never knew” whine because what did Sacramento think? The Maloofs would make a friendly phone call to KJ and ask him to find buyers? The Maloofs did what ANY billionaire would do. I don’t think they are quite as jerky as people make them out. They went into the luxury goods market just prior to the worst market crash in almost 80 years. They tried their best to keep the Kings and not have to shell out $$, they couldn’t get it to work so they sold at a very high price and found a buyer at that price.
And I hate to write this but as soon as I heard “Sonics were sold to Okahoma City businessman Clay Bennett,” I knew they were gone. It just made it worse when he lied and said it was his “intention” to keep the team here — pending a new arena deal with guess what? Limited owner $$ contribution or risk and all built to the League’s standards.
I get that the Maloofs are pieces of crap who didn’t reach out to Sac, but it’s not like they reached out to Seattle. Hansen and his group were proactive and made them a big offer, nobody in Sac did. That’s not the fault of their fans, their mayor, or their investors, it’s just an explanation of why we are where we are.
And if the Maloofs are as spiteful towards Sac as their fans think, imagine how they’ll react if a Sacramento movement derails their sale to Hansen? I don’t think they’ll be feeling very charitable or open to handing the team over for an equivalent Sacramento offer (if one is there).
Yup that is certainly a possibility. I would not put it past the Maloofs to do anything they can to prevent us from keeping the team.
Your take overlooks a lot of the history that took place long before Hansen/Seattle entered the picture. And while I don’t have animosity for Seattle fans for cheering the sale on, it disappoints me that facts are ignored in the process.
- Nobody ever said it was a “shock”. But what is true is that the Maloofs have for years said that the team was “not for sale” and have rebuffed any attempts to purchase the team. In fact, just weeks before the Seattle sale, they were trying to move the team (not sell) to Virginia Beach.
- In almost every previous recent NBA sale (except maybe Seattle) there was an announcement that the team was for sale before bids were entertained, sometimes months before. If you wanted to field as many bids as possible, isn’t this how anyone else would have conducted it?
- I agree that Kevin Johnson and other interested parties were in “wait and see” mode. But not necessarily because they wanted a bargain price. Mainly because the Maloofs have refused to deal with KJ and other locals (they have said as much that they don’t trust him), and because they have, in the past, gotten really pissed by KJ/Burkle going public with their intentions. So this really put them in a position where they could not make any public moves until the Maloofs made theirs first.
- Last, if you don’t think the Maloofs are as “jerky” as they are made out to be, I am not even sure where to begin on this one. Sabotaging arena deals not once but twice? Making insanely ridiculous demands of the city. Negotiating in bad faith. Repeated lies. I can go on and on about them, haha.
But on the flipside, if somehow someway the BOG votes down the sale, you’ve got a way more pissed off, way more spiteful, way more angry Maloofs still owning the team.
Yes. This is true. Can’t pretend to know how that will play out.
What was the other arena deal they sabotaged (besides the one last year)?
Clemente, this is where I wonder if we really do have the whole story on the Maloofs and what happened prior to the Hansen deal being signed and turned over to the NBA for approval. Per David Aldridge, his report was that the Maloofs did in fact negotiate with a local SAC buyer, but they couldn’t agree to a deal:
http://www.nba.com/2013/news/01/21/kings-sale-to-seattle-aldridge/index.html
“The source said the Maloofs, as late as a month ago, were in negotiations with a single, unnamed buyer who was prepared to keep the team in Sacramento for at least two more years. But the deal could not be consummated and the family turned back to Hansen last month.”
“There were other potential investors over the last couple of years as well, according to the source, but they ultimately didn’t have the money or changed their minds. The Maloofs didn’t have a “vendetta” against Sacramento or a desire to move, the source said.”
So, the point about the Maloofs never saying they were for sale may not be true, at least publicly stating it in the media anyway. But there was very little public indication that the Sonics were for sale in 2006, and then suddenly there was a press conference with Clay Bennett. Unless David Aldridge is flat-out lying or his NBA sources are just wrong, period, about all of this, then the Maloofs did try to sell locally…..unless the Maloofs are the source to Aldridge, and they are lying to him?!?!
It’s hard to know what to believe anymore.
Back in 2006 we had a public funding arena measure on the ballot since any tax increases in CA need to be approved by voters. The Maloofs were initially supportive of this measure but then started to quibble with the city over things like who makes the money on parking. A few weeks before it went to a vote they publicly withdrew their support of the measure (for their own Arena!) and it failed resoundingly. This was a real setback for any subsequent arena efforts.
SeaHawker13,
Thanks for pointing that out. I had not seen that specific article before, though I did know though that there was supposedly negotiations with an unnamed buyer that ended up falling though.
I don’t think Aldridge is lying, but what doesn’t make sense to me is that if the Maloofs truly didn’t have a “vendetta” against the city (interesting that Aldridge would even bring that up), they why didn’t they approach Kevin Johnson or Burkle to submit a bid when they have been the most outspoken and likely proponents of keeping the team in Sac? Johnson has inquired in the past about putting investors together. Burkle has publicly stated his interest.
So I can’t say definitely that they have it out for Sac (I just feel they do), they seem to refuse to negotiate with KJ. And since he’s the mayor and any arena plan needs to go through the city, where did that leave us?
Aldridge also wrote this a few weeks ago:
While Burkle, with an estimated worth of $3.1 billion, according to Forbes, certainly has the money to buy the team, the Maloofs remain angry with him over his public declarations in 2011 that he wanted to buy the team, even though the family had said repeatedly the team was not for sale at that time.
There is no such animosity toward Mastrovan, who bid $350 million for the Warriors, losing out to a group led by Joe Lacob and Peter Guber that reportedly spent $450 million. But the Maloofs don’t think Mastrov can get to the Hansen numbers, according to the source.
http://www.nba.com/2013/news/features/david_aldridge/01/14/morning-tip-kings-relocation-to-seattle-john-wall-early-struggles/index.html
There’s also a video with that article of Aldridge discussing the deal on NBA TV, and at one point he says that the Maloofs definitely don’t want to sell to Burkle.
So while they may not be spiteful towards Sacramento, maybe they are towards Burkle. Maybe KJ too.
Grant Napier would disagree. But he is still an employee
+1
Looks like KJ is committed to the downtown site according to his twitter. Or at least it seems that way. Unless the rail yards are downtown (can’t say I know anything about Sacramento except I have driven past it a few times).
“Also joined by our City Manager & City Treasurer. We’re all gearing up for a new dt arena that will protect taxpayers & max economic impact”
I think they consider both potential sites as a “downtown” location.
Right, both are downtown, only a couple miles from each other.
Menace, this place has become False Assumption Central, which is why I intend to just skim these threads until the sale is final.
In Oct 2012, Stern was obviously speaking on behalf of the Maloofs and their conditions for keeping the team in Sac Town. The March 1st deadline assumption is laughable.
But the idea that Sac has just about zero chance if they don’t have an arena deal to bring to the BOG isn’t.
Exactly. We don’t need Stern or the NBA to proclaim that something is a requirement in order to understand the reality of the situation.
Right, and that’s why KJ himself mentioned he wanted to have an arena proposal by then. Just in case, right?
Its just so grey out there. On both sides really. Just trying to keep my head level. I know what I would LIKE to happen. I have ideas of what I THINK make sense. But in all truth I dont think any of us really know that much except for what we WANT. And WANTING doesnt make it true. Trust me on this one.
So when people, on both sides, are throwing things out there I just try to keep that in mind.
I like our chances. Why? The main reason is because I want it so bad.
Completely unrelated to anything, but according to the sportslogos.net forums, the Phoenix Suns will change their color scheme next year. They will go from purple/orange/grey to dark purple/orange/a different shade of orange/grey/a different shade of grey/black.
6 colors? That seems like overload
I would hope that’s just different color combos for home/away/alternate and not all at once.
keep this in mind; http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-L__vNd7hRY8/TVfMEPtYSnI/AAAAAAAAJLo/SFYSrMR8Q98/s1600/Phoenix_Suns_Logo.jpg
keep this in mind; http://goo.gl/29PjQ
I can only assume it means they’re going to have a detailed logo with shading.
Looks like Sacramento has its own Citizens for More Important Things:
David Bienick @kcrabienick
Sac Taxpayers Assn says it’s gearing up to fight #nbakings arena proposal, once it’s released. Group opposes public funding for arena.
Oh, this should be fun
That will definitely be a blow to Sacramento’s chances.
potentially that is.
These groups are pretty much only good at delaying things, which is no good when they’re going to want to fast track (relatively) an arena deal.
sean,
true it’ll delay things but what it could do is put some uncertainty into rather or not its going to happen.
I was wondering when this was going to happen… I wonder if they have taken a look at proposition I-91??? HMMMMM
Reading through the back and forth arguments above in this thread. All I can say is wow.
Yea, I was involved in some of that. I apologize that I lost my cool, just got tired of the same question being asked 20 times.
At this point its like arguing religion. Not religion vs science. Religion vs religion.
You lost your cool? Im the one who got called a Kings fan and a troll. All good bro. Same team.
Is it April 19 yet?
^^^THIS
This is going to come down to which city provides the NBA with the best reason to be there.
-State of the art new arena
-Corporate sponsor opportunities
-Large media market
-Bigger Television deal
-Wealthier ownership group
-Highest valuation of team
Those are the only factors the NBA cares about. The city that “wins” more of those categories will end up with the Kings. Simple as that.
Things like fan support really don’t matter. It’s all about money.
Yep and that fits Seattle’s description!
Ding, Ding, Ding - - - We have a Winner !!
If those were the only things that mattered, would the NBA have left Seattle for a much smaller market? One thing that gets overlooked in all this is Stern sought to make an example of Seattle and send a message to all other cities that if you don’t work with the NBA on arena situations we’ll have no problems abandoning you (which for the record, I feel was wrong). Sacramento has heeded that, and did everything the NBA asked for and more to get a new arena in 2011. One thing he has shown is that Stern will scratch your back if you scratch his.
Difference is, we had no arena when the Sonics left. Now we have one. Even OKC was better than Seattle if Keyarena is all we bring to the table.