Is it any kind of milestone when you can say “only three days until we have one month left to go?”
I’m ready for this to be over. Sad to see the wind coming out of the sails for a lot of good and reasonable Sacramento posters and feel sorry for the angry voices that are replacing them.
The cumulative news of the last 10 days has been really decidedly been in our favor. We have amazing new pictures of our building and tickets lists, while they found out their offer is low and have been presented with a series of real and difficult issues to overcome - land use and timeline obstacles. Their city manager has stated clearly that he is not certain that he can meet next week’s deadline.
While I would certainly welcome Shirey coming out next week and announcing “We did not complete the package in time. We are going to have to concede this until next year.” I do not think that is likely to happen. Too much is at stake and the fight/rhetoric will to go on to the very end.
If Sacramento were to simply fail to reach a competitive bid and concede, I could envision fans on both sides benefiting from a real transition period. Sacramento would have chance to say goodbye and begin to process the anger and sadness that I expect will come anyway. We could acknowledge that the team was coming, begin to look towards ticket sales, plan schedule and get excited. Surely it would be better one way or another to have a firm answer sooner? All of us could part ways on our message boards and not torment each other further.
If Sacramento’s government were to concede the loss that move would be forever questioned. Their fans would be unlikely to peacefully accept that everybody had done all they could and failed. Instead they would be angry and use the remaining couple months of team coverage and media attention to lash out at the politicians who had disappointed them for not using the remaining time in any way possible. For a solid month the angriest among them seem to be the ones driving commentary and potentially driving a shift in blame towards politicians who had actually done the most for them, simply because they had fought a losing battle. We saw some of that here in Seattle where Greg Nickels got by far the lions share of the blame for being the most visible proponent to concede despite fighting the battle months longer than others in council, legislature or the governors office.
I doubt any of their elected officials want to spend the last month of Kings season enduring a review of the handling, expense and situation that led up to their concession. The media would would be given the perfect opportunity to look much more closely at mistakes made or resources wasted in what turned out to be a losing cause.
Clearly fan resentment and anger towards Seattle are building and it makes sense for the powers that be in Sacramento to encourage that sentiment. They will analyse everything we do to death, highlight every bit of fan activism and do everything they can to burn up the public appetite for this story in the media so that there is no public appetite for the stories after it is done. In doing so they remove the risk that blame that will have an opportunity to turn inward.
I remember it clearly in our case. After the frenzy of the trial and literally dozens of articles with peoples opinions either way the media and the people were just worn out on the story. It felt like it had been extensively covered when in fact all the stories focused on the battle between OKC and Seattle. Nobody really had the energy to look back and review the internal actions and circumstances that had gotten us there.
They will roll something out next week. Carmichael Dave will declare it “competitive” and this whole saga will continue until 4/19 with the anger and the bitterness building until then. By the time it is done everybody will be so burnt out that the elected officials, the media and all the people involved will “need a couple of months to decompress” after which they will move on to other topics.
I would not expect anything less than a fight to the end by the fans or leaders down there.
I hope the April 3rd meeting will have some kind of announcement. The NBA could have stopped this a long time ago but didn’t. They are giving Sac fans false hope and that is the worse kind. It will all come crashing down for them.
There’s a part of me that wishes that all of this was just voted on and decided at the all star break. Regardless right now it seems like we are finding out that Tom Petty was indeed right waiting is the hardest part. ;)
“Waiting game sucks… Lets play Hungry Hungry Hippos!”
Let’s have a kegger in the meantime! Maybe even some recreational whacky tabacky too:-)
Where was this klitorous clown last year? The year before? before that? I think it’s a little too late, but of course they have to bring it up.
I’m confused about the ROFR issue. I was always under the impression that they held all the cards. Meaning that if they were to match Hansen’s $525 million, they would have the right to the team and that the BOG would be powerless to do anything since they would have that legal right.
OTOH, even the Sacramento fans don’t think Kehriotis is a legit threat. Is it because he doesn’t have the money to match the $525 million offer or are there other hurdles that come with ROFR? Meaning does the BOG still have the power to vote for Hansen over any minority owner trying to get the team via ROFR?
Am I the only one who thinks he could be causing a stir to get more money out of Hansen for his shares? While his case does remind me of the Emerald City Center Brian posted about the other day, this also reminds me of when Don Levin started coming out of the woodwork last summer promoting an arena in Bellevue just before the council started voting on the MOU. Levin had no real plan and was all for show. While he caused a slpit-second diversion from Hansen’s plan, I never quite understood the reasoning behind what he did. Nothing ever came out of it.
Khetriotis does not have funding, and he’s claiming it will reqire all private funding. It’s just the beginnings of a plan. He wants to put the arena on land that cannot be built on in Natomas. He also doesn’t have backing from KJ, and as far as I can tell Mastrov and Burkle seem unwilling to work with him since their plan is all about revitalizing downtown Sacramento.
I could be wrong, but I’m not taking Khetriotis as a real threat until I hear KJ say his plan is a viable option.
This is why I think he could be doing this for other reasons. Why have a plan that is so bass-ackwards from what the Mayor is wanting to do?
http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2013/3/16/4111736/kings-vs-sonics-leave-your-scorecard-at-home
I’ll return Tom Zillers respect and admiration of his forum. Good people down there.
I accept the criticism here of the site and think that it is worthwhile to consider whether the direct contrast that Paul made in his article helped the situation or whether ANY of that type of comparison inflames animosity between the fan bases. When I saw it come down the hopper I knew that it was somewhat controversial.
That said I’m not going to put the kabosh on contrasting the two situations and I don’t think Paul was out of line with the article. This is awkward for both of our sites. We both do things that seem offensive based simply on perspective. The truth of the matter is that during this period (and also after) the two markets are connected in a way that is uncomfortable. There are going to be things that they can and should do to engage their reader base that will annoy us and things we should do to engage ours.
I generally don’t like the compare and contrast stuff. I actively discourage people from doing it and join in Zillers request to not make this a scorecard debate. I also know that there are many like Paul who feel that this is part of the inevitable dialogue and need to have the discussion to sort their own feelings out. I respect their ability to use this forum to do so.
There is no playbook for how to do this. We’re doing our best and I believe they are doing their best. I forgive them when they slip up or cross a boundary unintentionally and hope that they return the favor.
Kehriotis was supposedly in negotiations to sell his portion to Hansen a few months back. That’s where he came from. It seems likely those negotiations didn’t go his way and now he’s trying to strong arms his way in round the back door.
I agree Brian. But, I think Sac fans are too angry at the moment to forgive us for anything we do. I’ve stopped going on their message boards for about a month now, and I hear their animosity towards us has more than doubled since then.
While they say what they’re going through is a lot worse than what we had to endure (which BTW I will never agree with them on that), we know how they feel. We have gone through this process before and while part of me would like to put them in their place at times, I know how hurt and angry I felt as the Sonics had one foot out the door. I wouldn’t have wanted some OKC fan telling me how to feel or attack my team’s fan base…which they ended up disgustingly doing.
If they are ever going to forgive us, it will take quite a bit of time. I’ll grant them that time cause I remember how they are feeling now. Just don’t hold your breath waiting for an apology.
Public apologies are not what understanding is all about. I would neither expect or want one. We can move on quickly and not beat each other up over thongs
Agreed. Just going to have to let this play out. Let us be optimistic, let them be optimistic. So on down the line.
We shouldn’t spend the day worrying about anything. There won’t be any news of any sort today. Watch some great college basketball. BBQ (supposed to be awesome weather today… well at least in Wenatchee). Enjoy the Saturday. :)
I’m going to do my best to do so.
First of all, let me make this clear. That article was written by me with no one’s prompting and in no way reflects Brian’s opinions or those of any of the other writers on this board.
This whole situation is unfortunate. I really wish expansion was on the table so that two great fan bases could come out of this happy. My article was not intended to be disrespectful of Sacramento and I don’t think it was. They apparently feel differently.
The article was intended to be a summary of where I feel things are and to remind the people on this board of how close we are, in spite of all the noise that we hear. Some times I think that a simple recounting of facts is necessary and healthy and that is what I was attempting to do. Also to encourage our own.
If that upsets Sacramento fans, I completely respect and understand that. If they disagree with my points, I respect that too.
“No news of any sort coming today” don’t bother checking..me thinks we found Mitch’s source…haha….great advise though. .we can’t worry…the only news so far is watching CD spank his own on StR.
Paul, KJ has been doing what you have done, making the case for your desire for a team. If he can point out why Sactown is in a better market etc, you can do the same for our market. You weren’t being disrespectful. You never have. Don’t worry about it.
That’s what I’m saying. I wouldn’t expect them to give us any type of apology, and vice versa. What is happening is very unfortunate. There really isn’t anything we can do about it. It’s not like we’re the ones putting up the money for the team. We’re just fans who want to have a team return to our city. Can’t fault us for that.
They obviously want to keep their team, can’t fault them for that either. I just don’t know if there is ever going to be a day where both sides can acknowledge one another in a positive way any more. I hope that won’t be the case, but I still feel jaded towards OKC fans so I would completely understand if they held some animosity towards us over the long term.
Just sucks the NBA has created this mess. Seattle and Sacramento fighting for an NBA team, who would have thunk it? I will never forget when the Sonics made their championship run in 1996 and we played the Kings in the first round. There was all the talk about getting the “monkey off our back” in making it out of the first round for once. I will never forget we lost our second game at home and was thinking “here we go again..” We were down big time, just getting creamed by the Kings in Arco Arena and I was so frustrated I ended up going to bed thinking it was a lost cause. My dad wakes me up awhile later, telling me to get out of bed and watch the game cause Frank Brickowski has almost singlehandedly got us back into the game. We went on to win the game and then the series. We all know what happened after that.
Just crazy two great cities are being pinned against each other like this. Can’t wait for it to end.
It seems like the pom pom rah rah brigade is slowly digressing to a more realistic view on the situation on the other side. Unless I read wrong, seems like they might have a mutiny on their hands.
I thought you said porn porn… time to take a nap me thinks.
Me entire family lives in wenatchee/chelan, and Cashmere. Except I. Thinking bout moving there to be closer to fam, even though I was born n raised here.
Wenatchee has really grown on me. I absolutely love the weather. From March to Mid October it’s sunny, warm, ton to do outdoors. Like hiking the Enchantments. Thats a treat and a half. Winter it snows, usually not that overcast, lots of sun, sometimes it gets into subzero temperatures.
And housing prices are great! The house we live in would be a near million dollar home in Seattle. $330k here. Not a bad savings. haha
i really blame the NBA letting this go on. The deal was signed months ago. I still don’t understand because in the end the Kings will still be moving here. I know this is all PR but I really hope something happens on April 3rd. They wouldn’t let Hansen go down this road so long just to tell him forget it, Sac has match your offer. Try again. That won’t happen. I still believe that if Sac does get there stuff together they will be in line to get the next team but as for the Kings they will be the Sonics next year.
I used to take some friends in my lowrider mazda truck back in the early 90s to apple blossom. Havne’t been in 17 years, but it was fun back then. Like a giant car show.
I certainly read your post as a recap and a view of where we are today. As I said in the last thread. I am truly, truly sorry for Sac Fans but I can’t control whether they believe or accept that.
I have 0 guilt. Sac had a broke, irresponsible ownership group who chose to sell to Hansen. The NBA has currently given Hansen no reason to hope or expect expansion. MaGoof’s & the NBA business model puts us & Sac where we are today. From my Seattle seat - - - I have nothing but envy and admiration for what KJ and their politicos are trying to accomplish in such a short period of time. However, they should have been working on this long, long ago. Watch the Sac downtown Arena video that was posted here a few days ago. It was a video report from a Sac news channel. That is their reality. Not Khetoris.
I will never, ever buy the Sac rationale they didn’t know the team was for sale. The facts just do not support it. For me, that’s the biggest BS coming from the Sac side. From my view, that’s where Sac lost this heroic battle. They did not properly prepare. All the signals from the broke MaGoof’s were there. The news reports and speculation were out there for the world to read. Had they started preparing last year when the MaGoof’s backed out of the Arena deal - Sac could have very possibly avoided this saga.
Sac’s lack of preparedness will be will be what haunts them when this saga is reflected upon and written about further down the road.
That’s the only thing I’ve done during Apple Blossom. I’m such a sucker for old cars. I’m currently on the lookout for an abused late 30′s/early 40′s roadster that needs to be rebuilt.
Almost bought a 71 Chevelle a few weeks back. Guy wanted $5000 for it and it was just a rusted out shell. No seats, dash, transmission, engine, nothing. Just a chassis, body and windshield. You could see the ground through the car. I guess I shouldn’t say almost bought, almost punched the guy for being misleading. haha
Agree with everything there.
Sac had a broke, irresponsible ownership group who chose to sell to Hansen. The NBA has currently given Hansen no reason to hope or expect expansion. MaGoof’s & the NBA business model puts us & Sac where we are today.
Well, that and the NBA allowing our old team to be stolen. This is partly a further consequence of Sonicsgate.
Agree 100%. KJ can talk about how Sac is a better market, Think Big can hold press conferences talking about how much better Sac is v Seattle but a Sonics Blog pointing out our advantages somehow becomes a problem?
Sorry, not buying it. What Paul wrote was perfectly acceptable. No unfair shots at Sac. It actually showed more professionalism than anything Bruski has written …
+1000
No team is “stolen”. They are bought & sold. Our politicos said “No”. to Schultz/Stern. We have our own reasons to look in the mirror. Frankly, I think our situation was the result of the “Perfect Storm”.
Quoting myself from the last thread…
Sorry I’m bored as hell. I found out who sings that song that espn has as an x games commercial. Lol, I actually like it. Skrillex Bangarang. You’d know it if you heard it. Not really music, but synthesized noise, more like, but the noise has a nice beat to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qYyoFcquoE
I thought that at first as well. This is how rumors get started.
I have not gone and read what Ziller wrote and I am not sure that I will do so. However, I think I have a sense of what may have been written there based upon Brian’s reaction to it.
I want to say this as nicely as I can but also make sure that the point is clear.
What I have heard from the Sacramento side, for months, is how the deck was seemingly stacked in their favor. How they led on the scorecard reading, in other words.
Now, as it might be starting to become clear such an impression could be faulty, suddenly it is time to stop talking scorecards?
Sorry, I’m not buying that one.
It seems like a friend who was egging you on constantly to go out to a shooting range with him. And then when you get to the range, he finds out he packed a pop gun in his trunk. So now it’s time to leave the range. Sorry about all that bravado before we got to the range. But, really, it is well past time we leave the shooting range. Don’t you think?
I respect Sacramento fans and media figures who are fighting to keep their team. I actually don’t think this matter is done just yet, despite how things seem as this moment.
On the other hand, I have become beyond disgusted with the sloganeering, constant press conference having, endless sports metaphor appropriating (“this is the fourth quarter now and we’re #playingtowin”), outright preening and seemingly stilted reporting of the Sacramento side. As an outside observer, this is one reason I have found myself supporting the Seattle position.
I completely respect what Brian is saying here, or what I think he is saying, anyways. It is never a good look to be a sore winner, as the case might end up being soon.
But, I found nothing wrong with what Paul wrote. Not anything. I’ve read things around the internet recently that were taking shots at Hansen’s ethics, Ballmer’s business acumen and many, many other aspects of the potential Sonics ownership group, the Seattle fans, the city of Seattle and on and on.
Here is a tip to writers and reporters of all cities, teams and stripes: Do not rattle your saber and later protest when a saber is then rattled back in your direction, particularly when the tide of the engagement may be tilting in your opponent’s direction. If you had the courage to saber rattle in the first place, then I think it somewhat pusillanimous, as well as intellectually dishonest, to try and pretend your opponent began the saber rattling or to say saber rattling is now off limits just because the rattling is no longer going in your favor.
This is not an enjoyable situation, for anyone. I don’t think anyone wished that things would go down this path. Nobody would understand that better than Sonics fans.
When people look back at what took place in this decision, though, they will probably want to know why the BOG made the choice that they made. In that respect, not only is creating something like a scorecard justifiable, it would actually seem to serve a purpose for the reader. And the future reader.
It’s unfortunate that the NBA wont resolve this till the offseason. Sacramento could really benefit from at least a few weeks of being able to say goodbye to the team. The NBA for whatever reason really seems to favor ambiguous cliffhanger endings to a season. I suppose it makes for good drama but its definitely a punch in the gut to fan bases.
I actually read it and have no problem with how Ziller responded. I thought he was pretty respectful and disagreed with my methodology. I can respect that, even if I disagree with hit.
Just read zillers piece, their continuing insistence that our arenas are at comparable phases of development is ABSURD. They don’t own the land, they don’t have any sort of preliminary approval, they don’t have a design in place, they don’t have funding. It’s exactly this kind of fantasy world narrative that drives me nuts with these guys. I get being positive but this is bordering on delusion.
*with it (not hit).
Though I also disagree with hitting. Violence isn’t the way. It just isn’t. Give peace a chance.
I feel bad for SAC fans…I genuinely do. However, I hope they felt just as bad for:
1. Rochester
2. Cincinnati
3. Kansas City
4. Omaha
…all the places the Kings (and Royals) played before they came to Sacramento.
A bit brutal? Perhaps. However, many of us had our fill of the shrill and the angry Sactown trolls lurking, quoting KJ’s rhetoric and taking personal shots at Seattle. This is the choice the NBA gave us, the city of Seattle. We would gladly accept expansion, but the NBA is not offering it. We would love to grab a team where only 5,000 fans show up a game, but those teams aren’t for sale.
Really we would have loved to never lost the team we should still own, but Schultz, Stern, Bennett and politicians put us in this spot. I empathize with Sac, but welcome to our world. When the time comes for you to have to relocate a team to become the new Kings…I’ll be curious what you’ll be saying.
Fair enough. I did not read the piece, so I know my response to it could be WAY off. And it sounds like it might have been.
How unAmerican of you! haha
1st, I’m not reading STR unless force to do so.
2nd, I don’t want or need forgiveness in a situation created by the NBA (wrong target).
3rd, not going to wear thongs (you are welcome, in advance).
I think that all the back and forth between the fan bases is exactly what the NBA, the politicians, etc. want. They want to absolve themselves as much of the blame as possible. The efforts of Sacramento at this point needs to be put towards the city. Putting the pressure on the city and the private investors to do what they need to do.
Mastrov and Burkle have all the power right now. They have the power to up their bid or not. They have the power to walk away from the city and spin it as the cities fault. Heck, if that happened, it may be the cities the fault. They are gonna want a “kings ransom” for helping out. That is why Burkle is involved is what he stands to gain. He stands to gain a whole lot of equity longterm in land and valuable land at that. Not just the arena but neighboring city owned infrastructure that he will get on the cheap from all indications. The fact that Burkle isnt even part of the negotiations whatsoever so far and his henchman (I like calling billionaires “yes” men henchman) his henchman are the ones controlling the negotiations for him. That right there tells me that he has little to no emotional investment, meaning he could walk away if he doesnt get exactly what he wants.
The city of Sacramento is desperate. So, desperate that they firmly believe that getting the Kings to stay is going to help turn their downtown economy around. The actual overall economic impact from a team for a city is minimal. Now that is not to say that there is a lot of value to a community as we know all too well. That cannot be undersold-that is why they fight.
The politicians, if they believe, that this will be some huge economic coup by attempting to expedite a multi-year process into a month or two is a bit over the top. At this point I believe this a face saving effort by the city of Sacramento to not end this with egg all over their face. For example, Kevin Johnson, is in a dogfight for his political well-being; if he did anything less than give his all he would be scrutinized to death in whatever office he attempts to take next.
I firmly believe that anything they can muster together is going to be built on a house of cards. Think of the man hours it takes nevertheless the negotiations that it takes to make a deal of this nature and then an arena deal on top of that. They will probably have something put together by next week but how strong will it be. Will the council members approve it especially with this Kehriotis guy mucking up the Mastrov/Burkle deal because the council members who may not like the amount of financial investment being so high want to back the Kehriotis bid of mostly private funding.
In the next week we will get an indication of how much of a fight this may turn out to be. Its time for them to put or shut up. I think they will put up and they are going to RAM it down our throats and spin, spin, spin. Art Thiel will say that we are done. Softy will get nervous. Hell for a minute I’ll probably get nervous. The thing is that they have to catch that proverbial lightning in a bottle and those chances are small. Very small. Roller coaster will really get going this week especially for Sacramento and its fans. We will go for the ride as well Im sure in our own way. Just remember barring a miracle by their side we are going to have NBA basketball this fall. They think because of the Anaheim situation that they have this…..this aint Anaheim and there is no encroachment on other NBA teams’ turf. This is happening boys and girls. Enjoy the ride.
(If we do fail, it will suck and I dont know what happens but Im not crossing that bridge till the doubtful happens).
Enjoy the ride and have some thick skin against the haters from Sacramento. To the Sacramento readers’ I suggest you develop the same skin if you want to read our drivel especially mine ;)
/rant
I wish I knew this before. I could’ve included this as an advantage.
“Greg Nickels got by far the lions share of the blame for being the most visible proponent to concede despite fighting the battle months longer than others in council, legislature or the governors office.”
Thank you Brian, I have been trying to explain to people for 5 years now that Nickels was NOT the problem. He actually did make an effort. The NBA, Bennett and Schultz, the city council and our legislatures were to blame before Nickels was. He was put in a terrible spot and thought he was unfairly blamed for the team leaving.
I have no problem with him saying it isnt about a scorecard that is fine especially when the scorecard contradicts to the narrative they are spinning. The part that I found absurd by Ziller is that he says its not about a scorecard and then starts arguing the points Paul made. If the scorecard doesnt matter fine; but dont try to write one of your own or contradict one, if it doesnt matter. I just find that funny.
Arena, Arena, Arena. We lost our team to that one & only issue. We didn’t have a prospective seat at the table until we solved that issue. We did.
Sac will not have a seat at the table now or in the future until their Arena issue is resolved. They are not even close.
And I will wear thongs !!
I feel bad for the readers and supporters in Sac who were thrown a bunch of BS and believed it by the ‘leaders’ of their grassroots movement. Ziller and Carmichael coupled with their PR arm in Bruski have inflated their situation to the point where they made people in Sac believe that regardless of all of the facts that Sac is in the drivers seat and will win this. Reality sunk in when Stern told the world that Mastrov’s offer is shorter than Gary Colemen playing Shaq at a game of one on one. Then it sunk in even more when the news reporters are reporting the fact that the DTP is more complicated than led to believe and then City Manager Shirey saying that the negotiations with Burkle are through phone and email not face to face.
They’ve been lied to by the people they have been led to believe are in the ‘know’ and have insider info that they cannot release. They’ve been led astray to think that facts aren’t facts and that the national media is against them. I really feel bad for people who think that Carmichael’s #1 priority is to save the Kings. Sure he wants to save the Kings I have no doubt about that, but his #1 priority is to get his name and his radio station out there and to at some point either get back on the radio station he was fired from or turn his station into a lucrative enterprise. He’s leveraged this situation to make him ‘famous’ in Sacramento.
I read the same thing haha!
Alex Len has great size but he needs to learn how to get the rebounds and make sure he is a factor. Maryland needs to rebound the basketball the better. Im sure Kevin is pullin his hair out right now.
This!
I respect Brian for not liking that type of post but it was not cruel or misguided in any way. It was a fairly objective view from Seattle’s perspective of how this ordeal is playing out right now. I’m glad Paul wrote it. I’m not sure why this was perceived negatively by Sacramento. They are aspects the NBA uses to decide on franchise relocations.
I agree with all 3 of these! haha
Off topic (except perhaps for the thong sub-plot)…
http://www.uproxx.com/tv/2013/03/a-los-angeles-weatherman-gave-an-on-air-shoutout-to-a-young-man-named-hugh-janus/
Yup, don’t care if Ziller or Sac Fans like the post. Just doesn’t matter to me. This our site. It was respectful and our assessment of where this deal is today. I would expect Ziller to be doing the same type of post on their site.
:*(
Jay Williams annoys me so much. I bet he’s still bitter about this:
I would quit even thinking about the Sacramento fans, or visiting their websites. I suspect that there is more than a little schadenfreude among many Seattle fans, who do go to the Sacramento fan sites. I am sure the Sacramento fans will have “Kingsgate”, or something like it, in the end. We can watch that to get the Sacramento perspective.
I looked at some of the Sacramento fan sites earlier in all of this; thinking that there might be decent information, or links to information, at the site; and found that not to be the case. So, I quit reading them.
Then, it must be faced that the Seattle fans, for all the talk, do not care about the Sacramento fans. Seattle fans would not be supporting the sale of the Kings to Hansen; if they cared about the Sacramento fans. So, own it, quit wringing your hands about the Sacramento fans.
That does not mean poke a stick at the Sacramento fans; it just means stop worrying about them. They will live, they will survive, the Kings leaving is no real catastrophic event. The car pile ups with over 100 cars they have on I-5 at Sacramento are real catastrophic events, not a basketball team moving.
I would not even bother reading what the Sacramento fans say; unless you enjoy it.
It’s one of Chris Hansen’s silver bullets Mitch was alluding to a while back. I figured I would go ahead and make the admission myself, Chris can still include is in his presentation to the NBA Board of Governors, even though it lacks the power of surprise.
trolltossin is correct: the nba LOVES the city-vs.-city version and that is what most fans are capable of following, but it is never city against city or fans against fans except in terms of hoping that the outcome goes their way. . . we aren’t taking the team, they aren’t fumbling it. we’re hoping it comes here, they’re hoping it stays. the people with power making the decisions look downwards at the peasants in the valley and are glad the peasants are focused on each other. the ones who should be ashamed are the lazy media morons who peddle the ‘we’ve gotta stick together and win this for good ol’ metropolis. . .” they know better, or should.
that said, i won’t be telling sacramento people how to feel or offering to let them learn from my emotional learning curve. that’s disrespectful to the degree of misery they are facing, which we know full well.
anyway, wait-wait-wait-wait interspersed with moments of terror or exhilaration is not unusual in life. we can do this.
Just when it looked like the BOG was about to vote Sacramento’s way, Hansen unveils the ace up his sleeve. Sisqo live! A performance for the ages!
Let me see yo booty go
Traven - I suspect that there is more than a little schadenfreude among many Seattle fans, who do go to the Sacramento fan sites.
Show proof.
People are going way out of their way to not offend them and you are claiming an opposite. This is a sensitive point on this site.
I get your reasoning, but I have to disagree somewhat. As a Sonics fan, I can empathize with Sacramento fans and what they’re going thru any still want what’s best for us here. It’s not that I “worry” about them, but it’s human nature, IMO, to be able to relate to or empathize someone who’s going thru a tough situation that you’ve already experienced. We’ve been there. It sucks. And we know what’s coming.
I stopped going to StR regularly about 2 months ago, when I finally discovered Sonics Rising. Not because they were rude or anything; in fact, I was given nothing but respect from the posters there and I returned that in kind. But after awhile, one needs to be around those who are of like mind. But in that time I spent reading that board, I could see the same hope and optimism that we had in 08 and began to see it slowly start to change as this whole process has progressed. And as you get to “know” some of the regular posters, you do start to feel for them, because again, we know what’s coming and how hard it’s going to be for them.
What Paul wrote was just fine. And I agreed with every part of it. And like others here, I understand Ziller’s response. I do care that the NBA has put these 3 fanbases in this position and that 1 of them is going to be devastated when it’s all over. Do I still want us to come out on top? Of course I do. But it doesn’t mean I can’t empathize. Let’s just leave them alone and let them go thru the process in their own way. We can only try to tell them so much. Sometimes, you have to actually experience something to really understand.
Sorry, “2″ fanbases.
This^ that^
And another thing, the NBA refuses to expand, then there is this, larger markets having an advantage over smaller markets in almost every way.
For the record, I have never beaten someone up over a thong. ;P (did I mention that I’m a wise ass? lol)
Mike Baker, Schadenfreude is human nature.
At least when I read the Sacramento websites their were only a few trolls badmouthing Sacramento, and the Sacramento fans. I don’t know what is happening on them now. I have seen that this website does not antagonize the Sacramento fans, and that the individuals, who post on here, do not antagonize the Sacramento fans.
Schadenfreude is private, the individual feels it, but is not proud of it, and keeps it private. That is proper. I would just avoid the whole thing by not going to the Sacramento fan sites.
I just do not think that the Sacramento fans are going to like Seattle, or Seattle fans, when the Kings are probably moved, no matter what efforts are put in by Seattle fans to smooth over relations between the fan bases.
This is what it is, Seattle fans are supporting the sale of the Kings to Hansen, and a move of the Kings to Seattle. No matter what, the fans in Sacramento will not like Seattle, or the Seattle fans. I guess that this is the small price to pay in order for Seattle fans to have a team.
So, I would pay no more attention to the Sacramento fan sites.
I love that word Schadenfruede. The German language is full of words like this.
I can’t imagine any Seattle hoop fans feeling this way towards Sacramento — they were never our “enemy.” Now if Clay Bennett suddenly lost all his money and I saw reports of him going to the NBA to borrow funds and the arena in OKC falling into disrepair, yes, I would have Schadenfruede towards Clay Bennett in that situation.
No, I do feel for the Sacramento fans, however, after David Stern made this an open competition last Friday night, it’s a game to me now. If Sacramento has what it takes to keep the team there — do it, show it, prove it.
If they can put together a better deal as professionally as Chris Hansen’s great — they win, keep the Kings, good for them. That’s why April 3 is so important. They’ve got to step up and support their talk with the walk and so far, they haven’t delivered according to David Stern. So it’s a competition between two potential owners, NOT two cities, NOT two sets of fans, between two sets of owners and how well they’ve worked with and within their own cities and fans to show the BOG/NBA that they are the better owner for this NBA franchise.
I know what it is, and I know you are assuming what the private feelings of other people are in that situation.
…one more thing to throw in here…old argument, but it bears repeating; One of the things (among many others Stern, the NBA BOG, fans, etc.) learned during the Sonic theft is if you let a fan base know that team is leaving to early; you lose fan support and more importantly money. In other words…the NBA is bleeding SacTown of every last dollar as the their team pulls up stakes and the real crime is their being led to believe they have a shot to keep ‘em.
I want to make sure I am not imagining things…Travern is the same guy that was on the Seattle Times Message boards telling everyone the Arena was going to get voted down, right? The one who complained about not getting to post over at SonicsCentral when the site was broken?
Mike Baker, Saying “I suspect” is letting everyone know it is an assumption. Now, there were supposed Seattle fans (they could have been Sacramento fans being agent-provocateurs) trolling the Sacramento sites, at least when I stopped reading the Sacramento sites about a month ago. There have been many comments on many sites disparaging and trashing any effort that Sacramento has made. You have seen these comments. That indicates to me that individuals are taking pleasure in the failure of Sacramento efforts. I do realize that this website has worked to not put down Sacramento, or to antagonize the Sacramento fans.
Also, I agree that the two fanbases do not have much to do with the outcome of this attempted purchase by Hansen.
As for the Sactown Royalty article…I’ve never been to their site, but just read the article that Brian posted and the Sacramento fans just confuse me…
1) They argue that it is good that Burkle isn’t part of the group cause it could help make it easier for the Maloofs to sell to the local group. Now, when they need more money or want to be comparable to the Seattle group it is “OF COURSE BURKLE is in the group.
2) I have hard time understanding why more Sacramento fans are not down right angry at Mastov’s bid being so short. You’d think they’d be pretty mad that the initial bid was so low that the NBA had to come out and say “Are you nuts?”. I mean, what if the NBA had not said anything? Would they have been cool that their savior’s best effort was $100 million lower than it needed to be?
3) On top of that, why are they so willing to accept that a guy who’s first chance at a bid was $100 million (restate: ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS) short will now just bid what he should have bid in the first place?
4) As someone said earlier…one day, someone from Sacramento will have to explain to me how not having any deal is the same as having a agreed upon deal that can only fail if it fails EIS. Heck, technically, if EIS said that it’d be better to put the Arena in the Rainier Valley and Hansen wanted to spend that extra money the deal would still be valid. It takes a huge logical leap to claim that a deal that only needs to pass EIS is somehow on equal footing to a non-binding term sheet agreement with no $$ in the game. The term sheet is much closer to the ticket sign ups that both sides have done than anything that actually has real $$s behind it.
I will say, Sac fans think REALLY lowly of us that post on this site. Granted, they’re often called delusional on this site, sometimes rightfully so, other times not. And there has certainly been a share of one-sided Seattle centered beliefs (the calls of this being a “done deal” probably were ill-advised and premature, at the very least, if this has been a “done deal” the whole time, we have no evidence to that fact). However, beyond that, there is a lot of reasonable discussion on this site. There is a solid effort here that when we attempt to debunk Sac talking points or proposals, it tends to be done line by line, piece by piece, not just with casual dismissal. I’m certain that Sac fans don’t like to see the things they are saying or promoting picked apart, but it’s far from absurd delusion or the rantings of “10 guys who are still asking why the Sonics left”.
What puzzles me the most about how the readers/posters of StR seem to portray us is that they’ve appeared to otherwise be pretty reasonable people. Sure they may have gotten a little over excited about whales and celebrate any shred of good news or speculation on the Sac side, but that’s all to be expected. There’s still plenty of posts and posters discussing the long odds, Seattle’s advantages, Seattle’s culpability, etc. While there are certainly posts on the far other side of the spectrum in plentiful supply, there is still a strong current of reason…..just not when it comes to this site, apparently. It appears to be consensus that we are just a bunch of nuts, a group so awful that Sac fans are warning themselves not to judge the rest of Seattle by our example. I think that’s a bit much. We’ve, for the most part, treated visiting Sac fans with, at the very least, the level of respect they bring with them to this community. They are allowed to make their points, and we try our best to reasonable respond and explain why we disagree. Obviously there are two very polarized sides here who shout the news they like and dismiss that they don’t to some degree, but it appears the bubble on the Sacramento side is a bit more airtight. There might be a bit too much adherence to the ra ra KJ attitude, the writings of Bruski, and the trollish, almost fundamentalist approach of Carmichael Dave. For that reason, this site must be dismissed wholesale, just as they can dismiss a great journalist like Chris Daniels as a Seattle shill.
There was nothing particularly wrong with what Paul wrote, either. I understand what Ziller is saying, he doesn’t want this to be about fanbase vs fanbase, but there is some virtue in just getting to the cut and dry of things. The problem is, the cut and dry of things favors Seattle greatly. That’s not to say that Sacramento has no chance, but they are banking on things with long odds going on entirely behind closed doors or simply how they interpret specific quotes. Is Burkle Sac’s Ballmer in this case? We’ve heard he isn’t involved on the ownership side of things, perhaps that’s a temporary fib, but if it’s so, he’s not like Ballmer at all. Will Sac be neck and neck with Seattle on the arena if their city council throws caution to the wind and just OK’s whatever is put in front of them with the hopes of actually hammering out details later? Maybe, but even if they make that move, they aren’t where we are, perhaps they are on the same trajectory as we are, but they aren’t on the same point on the map.
We’re never going to be liked by Sac fans, and they’re not going to stop talking about us like we’re trash. I’ve seen that as an excuse as to why we should feel totally fine about stealing their team and an OK on engaging them or rubbing it in. It’s not, none of this is unexpected. When we talked even before we knew Chris was buying the Kings, about how to handle the fans of whatever team we were getting, we always acknowledged that there would never be any point in engaging them. Nothing good comes from trying to say “we’ve been there” or “we know what you’re going through” or trying to act apologetic. We knew they’d attack us in every which way they could, that awful things would be said about our city and us, but at the time, we talked of not getting into the mud with them, not fighting back, because we knew where that hatred was coming from. We don’t need to tell them that we have been where they are, we just need to act like it.
It is totally understandable how someone with a predetermined bias is going to “assume” things that fit their bias. That is probably why they should present facts if they want one of their points to have any weight.
Myk, I never complained about posting at Sonics Central. I never stated that the Seattle City Council would vote down the MOU.
I, in fact, posted at Sonics Central, and left it up to the site whether to put my post up or not. I had no bad feelings toward the Sonics Central site; and find it understandable that they owned the site, and that it was up to them what they wished on the site. As for the Seattle City Council, I never make predictions of what a political body, or a Court will do.
We can’t expect Sac fans to be openly and outwardly down on their efforts at any point. They need the hope that things will come together. It might come off as delusional on their part, it makes perfect sense when you think about it.
Simply put, everything is going to be rosy and full steam ahead for Sacramento until the exact moment that it’s not.
“Bid was an initial offer with knowledge that it was a negotiation. Mastrov knew his bid would have to go up.”
- Regarding the Mastov bid….the above is the type of comment that doesn’t literally make any sense to me. Why is their bid a “negotiation”? Why would anyone in the world think that once a team has already been sold for a price that another group could come in and negotiate a much lower price?
It is INSANE to think this point is true and yet the vast majority of fans who want Sacramento to stay are ok with this rationale.
Myk, I have no bias against Hansen purchasing the Kings. I have no bias against there being an NBA team in Seattle. I like professional basketball. I think it would be great to have an NBA (would prefer ABA) team in Seattle. I went to many Sonics games. I even went to Tacoma Dome games. I have no problem at all with the Kings being purchased, and moved to Seattle.
Yeah, if this can just be written off as ‘something we expected” and “all a part of the negotiating process”, then why didn’t we hear something like this before the bid was summarily dismissed by the NBA? In this case, Sac fans are, to pull out a TV/movie trope term, retconning this whole thing.
Going through the comments section and it is interesting to compare and contrast how the grass roots thing happened in Seattle and how it happened in Sacramento.
Feel free to check good old Carmichael Dave’s post (it is green about 10 comments down)…just shocked this guy couldn’t keep a job and has to work out of his garage…shocked I say…
The reason: denial and desperation. I suspect (yes, I’m assuming) that most of us here were that way up until the day Bennett left with our team. That’s why I can’t fault them too much for all the anger. What else do they have? We’re getting down to the wire and there’s been NOTHING definitively positive for them to put faith in, except these long-shot theories and that firm belief that “Stern likes us better than he likes Seattle!”
Like many I have no problem with pauls post or zillers reply. I think some respectful discussion about what is appropriate is healthy on both sides. Their boards are deterioration as the situation gets more desperate and I still strongly discourage anyone from posting anything at all in any Sacramento forum. There is nothing you can say that is good. The very fact that you post there is wrong and insulting.
This. It’s showing empathy thru actions, not thru words.
No one expects the Seattle inquisition!!!
Ok read through a ton of the quotes…one thing I will give a ton of credit towards Brian and the others that have been working hard on this for the last five years. They have stayed incredibly humble throughout the process.
You read through the people who are heading the grass roots campaign down there and you see CMD call a guy a “P****y” and the worst kind of person. Even the other people that are part of Here We Buy are disappointed…
It seems like for the most part the people who were part of the Seattle plan did it because they wanted to keep Seattle basketball around…down there it feels like some are doing it to get the free pub
The above is why the NBA and Stern are making Sacramento feel there’s a chance. Sacramento’s on their way to Seattle. The NBA’s Method of operation is to leave with all the money it can from Sacramento. It’s sad and messed up. Hopefully the next commish is little less cut throat.
All I have to say for KJ is h better hope his next political opponent is weak and unpopular because with his entire focus on the NBA (and soon no team) he’s given someone plenty of ammo to fire back politically.
Just stay away from the Sacramento sites, they will only get more toxic.
When it comes to this whole situation it is what it is. We’re 2 different groups of people hoping for 2 different outcomes to the same event. I didn’t see Paul’s post as inflammatory I saw it as a pros and cons list. I understand why Sac fans Ziller more specifically didn’t see it that way. I think any critique or analysis of the situation from our perspective is going to make them angry. It also doesn’t help the situation when you have complete head cases like CMD and Bruski trying to make out this is a “war” and really pushing hard for a fan base vs fan base situation and all the subsequent squabbles that are associated with it.
Bottom line is I’m not the one who sold the kings, I’m not the one who bought the kings, and I’m not the one who is seeking to relocate them. I’m just the guy who’s going to cheer for a team called “The Seattle SuperSonics” and if that makes me an evil person in some people’s eyes then so be it. At this point I couldn’t really care less.
Another example of flawed logic…the league won’t move to Seattle because Sacramento is the better market…but there is also this:
“Seattle is fantastic leverage that is best used for a team that CAN’T get their city to fork out a public subsidy. Why waste a move to Seattle in this situation when Sacramento is willing to work with the NBA? If the Kings stay in Sac, every owner that needs a new arena can use Seattle as leverage. Very interesting.”
So…SAC is totally a better deal for the league…but they’d also be way less attractive to the league to relocate later on….
*Diabolical laughter* ;)
http://bit.ly/15TcNq4
Final comment…reading through all of the 150 comments…there was one person from Seattle making a post. Should answer the whole “Seattle fans trolling their site” issue…
Yup…the league let Hansen/Balmer/Nordstrom be played as leverage for the glory of SacTown. If that we’re the case (and we know it’s not) Seattle will just tell the NBA to screw off next time they troll for a team again.
Stern wants Balmer and that money in the fold. They’re not going to screw with the same city twice in 5 years. Sorry SacTown.
I agree. I don’t really even like people talking on this site about what they’re saying on their sites.
hey guys,
i got engaged today…. wearing my Seattle We’re Back Sonics shirt!!
just thought you all should know!
Congrats!
I find both sites have this problem. The only reason I read this is to get a sense of what some in the Sonics community are saying. Same reason I read SuperSonic Soul or what have you.
The only problem I really have with anyone here is talking about a 3rd grader’s literacy (some things should not be commented on) and that there is an echo chamber effect. I’ve said the same thing there. The problem is that almost all sites, regardless of fanbase, often become echo chambers at some point or another. So while echo chambers are to be expected, it doesn’t make them any less annoying.
So that’s my outsider 2 cents. Just as an FYI, this is my SBN profile.
CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!
To be fair…all the people who post on this site are just “10 people who sit around and claim that Clay Bennett shouldn’t have moved the team”…
The problem with that theory is the Arena deal expires in 5 years (more like 4 now), so they would only have a limited time to use us as leverage, even if they wanted to. Not getting a team here soon would kill any leverage they had because it’d be too late to move a team here so the arena deal would expire. we’ve about ran our course as one of those markets.
Not to mention the theory assumes that Chris Hansen would search out another team. But, the biggest problem with the theory is that the ONLY way you can accept the theory is if you also accept that Seattle is the better and more attractive market and I highly doubt the SAC fans would say that…you can’t have both.
If the sale/relo is approved, I’ll be at peace with Bennett’s actions. Like it or not, him moving the team was the catalyst that was needed for us to get our $h!t together. If the team had stayed, we’d be stuck with a redone key that would be out of date again in 10 years or so, and we may have had to go through all of that again. Now we have what will be the third most expensive arena project in N. American history and the most expensive outside of NY, plus the opportunity at the NHL. Assuming BOG decision goes our way in April, losing the team will be in hindsight the right, although painful, thing to do. Sorry if I offend, but my 2 cents.
Yeah, why would Chris Hansen bother to go get another PSA with another owner in another market just to have this whole circus start again? Another 3 month period of a city scrambling last minute to keep their team? These type of things take time and money, and smart, savvy business minded folk aren’t going to want to get involved with the kind of ramshackle organization that wants to run things this way.
Thanks guys!
Let me add that the political structure just wasn’t there to get anything good done back then, as we all know. After the team left, the winds of change gave us much better than we could have imagined. Maybe the only wait to get anything done was to create a void, and let things change enough to fill that void. But I agree, the team leaving In 2008 was the result of a perfect storm, one that only comes around once in a long time.
And this is me telling you that I have not seen indication or expression that would lead somebody, other than you, to that assumption.
Project much?
Congratulations!
Green and gold is always engaging :)
I was planning on explaining what’s going on with the I-91 lawsuit by using the Parrot sketch (I-91 is the parrot).
I’ll write about something else.
It occurred to me that if they do get the case thrown out then it becomes increasingly likely that they do nothing about I-91 (one way or another) it until January of next year when they vote on the final proposal (one way or another).
That made me unhappy, so I made chicken soft tacos.
All better.
Echo chamber’s don’t have chicken soft tacos, pretty sure about that one.
I was watching the Grizz at Jazz. Took the Jazz over 4 minutes at the start of the game to get past their one (1) point so far in that game.
9 to 1, after 4 minutes of play. At that point I committed a dead ball foul with the remote.
I couldn’t take anymore of that mess.
Yep.
Awwwwww…..all grown up.
The bigger problem with this theory is that the current owners are selling to a group in Seattle. The only way Seattle would work as leverage is if a current owner wanted to hang on to his team and force his current city to build an arena.
The reason L.A. works as leverage in the NFL is because nobody in L.A. is willing or able to buy a team to move there (regardless of arena status there). It would take a current owner to move their team to make it even theoretically feasible. So that’s another hole in Sacramento’s leverage theory.
Congratulations!
The NBA is the one to blame for this fiasco.
The situation could have easily been handled
by not giving Sacramento false hope.
From the very beginning David Stern made it clear
to Chris Hansen, or any potential city trying to get a team,
that there wont be any expansion teams in the future,
rather it would be through sale / relocation, is the
only hope of potentially owning an NBA team.
Chris Hansen followed every baby steps provided by the
NBA on how to move forward in getting an NBA
team.
CH, bought the land, partnered with the city, took care of all
the necessary steps to do things the NBA way with the blessings
of David Stern, so we know that there we’re a lot of back and forth conversations
between the two party.
There was the binding sales agreement since then, and now this matching
offer approved by David Stern for Sacramento, to be able to match
Seattle’s offer on the table. Why !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
The only thing I can think of, and these are all just conspiracy theory.
David Stern, is trying to pit the cities, Sacramento, Seattle, against each
other to create fear among other cities with an NBA franchise with no arena
model that this could also happen to them.
Having a team in Seattle makes a lot of sense with the TV market, corporate
sponsorship, fan base, and a possible rivalry with not just one team, but multiple
teams , Portland, OKC, Sacramento.
Yes , I said it. The new Kings franchise in Sactown.
I believe that Sacramento, with all that hard work by KJ and the fans there
in building a new arena, would be rewarded an expansion team in a couple
of years by the NBA.
For now, Seattle has the advantage, and Sacramento still trying to catch up
and will in 2 years.
Imagine the TV ratings on those games by Seattle vs OKC, vs Portland vs Sacramento. In the end NBA always wins.
The whole thing is shouldn’t be one city against another city. This is about a group of people who bought an asset of another group because it was for sale. It is an asset that is a rare asset so it is costly. If I were anyone in the Hansen group and had the money to do what they are doing, I would do it . . . so Sac fans I guess you can blame me as well for your team’s relocation. Sorry, but if this team wasn’t up for sale, it would not have been bought.
Now, can we just quit with the “slealing”, etc. A purchase for something that was for sale with the #1 purpose of the sale was to move the team to Seattle. Nothing under the table. No deception, no lies.
I know that the Maloofs didn’t put a “For Sale” sign on the team, but obviously it was for sale. The NBA is the one who brings the buyers and sellers together. The NBA knew the team was for sale. It has been sold to a very wealthy ownership group who wants to bring a team to their city, Seattle. Nothing against Sacramento nor the Kings fans, but the Hansen group took the opportunity that was given to them.
Watching the Jazz / Grizzlies game. The Jazz’ home uniforms bear an uncanny resemblance to the Sonics’ green & gold.
I need an explanation. Kings fans have been saying for some time that they have the advantage of the government subsidies over Seattle. If the owners do not need a large subsidy for the arena from the government, why should they be punished for it? Just because Burkle needs a larger government subsidy that should not count against the Hansen group.
The whole situation in Sacramento is just really sad. That at this point all they have is a Marat like radical in CM Dave. A totally biased and one-side reporter in Bruski who is really just telling them what they want to hear. While KJ is really putting in a great effort and is clearly passonate. I all does seem a lot like Political Grandstanding and Pandering a this point and seems to be a destraction avoid the big buget and Social problems in the city. That and all of the haterd of all things Seattle goeing on at Sactown Royalty just makes me feel bad for they way things are going down in Sacramento. I guess it also goes back to a point Voltare made a long time ago by rooting for someone/thing to win you are by proxy rooting for eveyone/thing to fail.
So, I did read some of the comments on StR. All I will say is . . . oh, my goodness.
Because owners like Public Subsidies and the fact that we are not giving out and they are they think that it may set a precident in which all arenas will have to start becoming privally financed because when owners go to demand public subsidies civic governments could point to Seattle and say they got it done with out so way sould we pay you. Which does make some sense but I still think some other city would be willing to use public subsidies and then they could just move their teams there but it does make some sense
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/549401_546469028718851_1712048044_n.jpg
That’s awesome!
T
Off topic but where is the SonicsCentral database at? Where can we search for old posts? I tried here and it doesn’t find things I know were posted. I tried SC but its redirecting here now.
Sonicscentral.com/blog
I’m a kings fan. In all honesty, it’s in favor 70-30 for Seattle. Doesn’t look too good for Sacramento. But if anyone read comments on SactownR.. there have been Sacramento fans against each other getting on personal levels. It’s been a mess lately, I just hope this whole saga ends and somehow it ends up good for both sides.
I think we all do at this point
I think ‘a lot’ of us just want a team period, end of story. If the Kings keep the team and we get an expansion one fine. If we get the Kings and they get an expansion fine. If we take the Kings and make them the Sonics fine. We just want a team. It is nothing personal with Sacramento’s fans nor should it be. There are jerks on both sides of the aisle and people should either ignore it or thicken your skin. The only ones I have a problem with is guys like Bruski. Carmichael Dave is a radio guy that is a homer and doesnt bother me too much. If he wants to spin the narrative and set himself to look like a jack ass because of giving false hopes in aspects of this saga that he is wrong about then that is his issue.
Some Sacramento fans are holding out hope but get the point that this is an enormous uphill battle that even if they do everything that is asked then they still lose for now. Honestly, as long as we are not making 1v1 personal attacks that involve things like families and other ethical lines that shouldnt be crossed then it is what it is.
The only way to get a team is take the Kings, as it stands right now . So guess what; “take the Kings.” Does that make me a hypocrite? Yeah I guess so. Dont care. At some point every person on this planet is going to be a hypocrite about something, if this my hypocrisy (or one of the many LOL) then so be it.
This is the NBA’s business model. This is how they run their show. Thats the way it is. Some people dont like it and dont care or the NBA any more and maybe never will again. That is their choice. Sacramento calls us names now as we are “stealing” their team. Well guess what. Once the Kings move and become the Sonics, I guarantee 5 years from now most of their fan base would love to have a chance for Mastrobv/Burkle/Kehriotis to finance an arena and buy another cities team. Then they will be the hypocrites. In this instance, were the hypocrites, someday they may be.
Hey now…don’t forget that they TOTALLY believe this…but then also believe that one reason their Arena plan is on the same track as Seattle’s is because the I91 lawsuit could potentially block the deal.
So again:
Argument 1: Sacramento is giving a public subsidy and Seattle is not…so Sacramento is better
Argument 2: Seattle’s plan might be cancelled because the public subsidy will not fit I91 standards…
I suppose it’s possible that the “bigger public subsidy” argument could be a factor, but there are plenty of current NBA arenas that were all or mostly built with private money. And back in 1985 Sacramento was able to get the Kings without spending any public money, while Kansas City was offering a sweet lease deal if they would stay there.
If any city wants to point to Seattle as to why they should not give public money to an arena, the NBA can just point to Seattle as to what happens when you don’t give up public for an arena.
The NBA will always hold all the cards and make whatever demands they choose.
If any city wants to point to Seattle as to why they should not give public money to an arena, the NBA can just point to Seattle as to what happens when you don’t give up public for an arena.
Don’t you mean “give public money for an arena every ten years”?
That’s what other cities could point to, and ask “how do we know you’ll keep up your end of the bargain and not break a lease in exchange for public financing?”
Or I guess we can just go with a prospective city can point to Seattle for whatever reason, but the NBA can just point right back at Seattle as proof that they’re just going to do whatever the hell they want.
I just finally flipped over and read through the StR piece responding to Paul’s. I think it was fine, though unnecessary. All it did was give us more pub over here.
And then I started to read the comments. First, thank you all for being here commenting on SonicsRising, I wouldn’t trade our folks for theirs. Heck, I’d ban about a 1/3 of their current commenters I suspect. :-) But that comments section needs suicide watch. Mad there’s some sad junk in there.
I do respect the posters who took Carmichael Dave to task for unnecessarily ripping into that guy who was just expressing a bit of pessimism.
I was offended by CMD telling a guy how he SHOULD FEEL and how he SHOULD act. Ridiculous. Then he got on his high horse and said what are you doing to help?
Well the guy didnt have money, time, or connections that CMD might have to help so he felt helpless. I couldnt do what Brian Rob or Jason Reid did for Sonics efforts for many of the same reasons that this guy couldn’t. Does that make me any less of a fan. Does it mean it hurt any less for me when they left. No. Every fan plays a part no matter how big or small and I dont think our “leaders” diminished those who weren’t on the front lines. I respected and admired our leaders then, and still do. I can you this would not be the case if they did anything remotely like CMD did to that poster.
I dont usually get too preachy on here, I post every once in while and try to keep it funny or “ridiculously homery positive” (Mariners AL West CHAMPS this year HAHA). And I lurk HARD at StR bc i am positively addicted to this story and want so bad for an NBA Team to come back and would I not have mentioned CMD’s comments if no one else had because I get people not wanting us to bring SAC convo’s here.
But that was ridiculous. Again, if B-Rob or Reid would have reacted like that to how I FEEL based on MY interpretation of facts I would be calling out their A-holeness to this day. Love you guys. We almost at the finish line.
Yes,I am certainly hoping the best for both Fan bases. There are some combative ugly posts from both fan bases. I know most here who have been on this site for years sincerely don’t wish this nightmare on any fan base.
Curious questions for you and many of your fans:
Do you think that we are callously stealing your team ? Do you think that we would rather “steal” your team than get an expansion team? Do you know that we have nothing but admiration for KJ and your City’s commitment to try and get your Arena financing ready for the BOG meeting ? Did you really have no idea that the MaGoof’s were going to sell?
I’m sincerely curious. With emotions aside - - - I know that our Sonics were not stolen. Teams are not stolen. Teams are bought and sold. I know the reason why the Sonics were sold was because we couldn’t get Arena financing to meet NBA standards.
With sincere respect. . . All the Best to You and Sacramento Kings Fans.
I think it just shows the actual thinking of Carmichael Dave to have to attack that guy. He is trying to keep everybody positive and fighting but deep down inside (cause Im sure he does know more about the situation than most joe’s) he knows that things are not looking as bright and shiny as he represents. You really cant blame the guy for trying to stay positive and keep people upbeat and the groundswell movement going. The things I dont like is when he preaches about things that he spins to fit his own agenda and expects people to treat it as gospel. When someone has an opposite approach and is counter-productive to his ideology.
The bag of emotions that comes from that site is understandable. Like I said earlier today, if you or I are going to read their posts then you need to have some thick skin. I just think alot of us, me included, are far too sensitive to all the nonsense. That is just the fanatic in me; just another month of this garbage and we will be done either way. Maybe even sooner. Hell we may know in the next ten days (highly doubtful) that they dont have enough time to get the term sheet completed. Or that the council has split up because of Kehriotis proposal if it becomes ripe in the next week.
Either way guys only like a month to go. Lets keep building the momentum and maybe some more game threads or FA prospects, draft prospects, etc. I know the main narrative is this situation and will be for the next month. I just cant wait to move onto bigger and better things like preparing for the 2013 draft and 2013-14 season.
We can’t control the rhetoric. I’ll just stick to facts at this point. I just don’t care about CMD,Bruski, and yes, even Ziller’s post in response to his reading our thread about keeping score. I’m not keeping score - I’m not bashing Sac Fans for their hope. Ziller wrote his response post because there is nothing positive coming from Sac. No good news about the Burkle downtown Arena - no good news about the Mastrov bid. He needed to move the conversation elsewhere. And that elsewhere was SonicsRising.
For me - I can’t move on from this “Situation” until the BOG vote is final. I have no desire to become emotionally invested in a team, Coaches, front office, etc. Hopefully, we will have more factual information in the next few weeks regarding Sac’s proposal that will allow both Fan bases to move forward.
Green Beers for Everyone !! For me, I will have a fine sip of Jameson !!
AV, you earn my undying affection, respect — even awe! — for that Marat reference!!!! Will there be a Charlotte Corday equivalent? Yikes!
Excellent point . . . at some point, when does a city not become hostage to the NBA’s desire for more bigger and better? Those threats will just continue until there is no NBA.
Wanted to respond to a few comments here. Didn’t make it all the way through the thread. Appreciate the dialogue. I don’t think anyone here is evil or dumb or a troll. Just … wrong. And I expect y’all to think I’m wrong. But to clarify Sacramento’s POV … (quotes from comments here in italics, my responses follow)
They are giving Sac fans false hope and that is the worse kind. It will all come crashing down for them.
Given that by all reported accounts this thing is still up in the air, why aren’t you concerned with your own potentially false hope? I think most Sacramentans understand its some level of toss-up (90-10 leaving, 50-50, 30-70, whatever). It increasingly seems like most Seattle fans think it’s done. Why aren’t you just a little concerned this could be a huge gut punch for the Emerald City in the end?
OTOH, even the Sacramento fans don’t think Kehriotis is a legit threat.
Most Sacramento fans I’ve talked to think he’s a distraction at best, someone looking out for his own bottom line, or a tool of Hansen at worst. He’s not from Sacramento and was close to the Maloofs. He met with Hansen in January. His plan is emblematic of the stupid old plans folks around town used to trot out. KJ’s Burkle-Mastrov plan is different. It actually makes sense and has real capital behind it.
My article was not intended to be disrespectful of Sacramento and I don’t think it was. They apparently feel differently.
Paul, I wasn’t offended. Just wanted to offer my take. I don’t think it comes down to a scorecard is all I was getting at. And if it does, I offered different views on those points. I’m actually really glad to see multiple reasonable viewpoints. We absolutely didn’t have that with Anaheim; it was like talking to a wall. There was one good O.C.-based commenter, but only a troll blog and awful columnist beyond that. This is different. Lots of smart, engaging people on both sides.
It seems like the pom pom rah rah brigade is slowly digressing to a more realistic view on the situation on the other side.
We’ve always been pretty realistic about our chances. When you’re endeavoring to do something like this, you need to be optimistic. Imagine going to a Mariners game where everyone was totally realistic. Depressing, right? Optimism is the lifeblood of effort.
They wouldn’t let Hansen go down this road so long just to tell him forget it, Sac has match your offer. Try again. That won’t happen.
It will have been 3 months of Hansen work to get the Kings. The NBA has put four years into getting an arena in Sacramento. (The NBA has had staff assigned to Sacramento that entire time, including a number of high-level officials.) There is some perspective about timelines.
I have nothing but envy and admiration for what KJ and their politicos are trying to accomplish in such a short period of time. However, they should have been working on this long, long ago.
In case you missed it, we had a deal in place last year. Before Chris Hansen really had anything going in Seattle. Our sandbagging owners busted it up with hopes of getting a gym funded up to 90% by the public somewhere else. (Hence the immediate Vegas and Va. Beach talks after they killed a plan the NBA had negotiated on their behalf.) Well before that, the city took ballot measures for a tax to voters in 2006. The Maloofs yanked support for the measures weeks before the vote because of a dispute over a freaking parking structure. This is what we’ve been dealing with.
I will never, ever buy the Sac rationale they didn’t know the team was for sale. The facts just do not support it. For me, that’s the biggest BS coming from the Sac side.
This is revisionist history. Bad revisionist history. Further, even if KJ did have a hunch and began planning, the Maloofs would have used that to justify breaking their lease or trying to screw Sacramento when they sold. When the city looked into building an arena without Maloof help to ensure Sacramento was ready if they left, the Maloofs leaked out lawsuit threats.
Just read zillers piece, their continuing insistence that our arenas are at comparable phases of development is ABSURD. They don’t own the land, they don’t have any sort of preliminary approval, they don’t have a design in place, they don’t have funding.
The landowner is JMA Ventures and Darius Anderson. Anderson is a close partner of Burkle. JMA did an arena feasibility study last year when they bought the land. They are working hand in glove with Burkle. So we have the land. The Council will vote on ‘preliminary approval’ and the public funding element on March 26, if all goes according to plan. The feasibility study was done by AECOM, who built Barclays Center. I think we’ll be fine on a design when the time comes. Stern himself has said, in responding to a question about Sacramento’s arena project, that Seattle’s plan is still not done, too.
I firmly believe that anything they can muster together is going to be built on a house of cards.
What they are mustering together is being built on … a vetted agreement the NBA participated in negotiating last year. There are some differences, but the core — financing from city parking, backfilled in the general fund via user fees — is the same. And this time there’s an ownership group who can actually afford to participate, a huge (positive) difference from last year.
Will the council members approve it …
Every vote to this point has been 7-2. Thanks for your concern.
Last point: imagine how you would have felt if OKC fans wrote off Seattle when Brian and the crew were holding rallies and press conferences and pushing Ballmer’s bid to renovate Key. The entire world (with the exceptions of Stern, the BOG, Bennett and OKC) was behind Seattle. Now we’re in that spot (without the universal support) and we get criticized by Seattle for deigning to be optimistic? Just think about that for a second. The next time you rip the Sacramento grassroots for rallying the troops, imagine how you’d felt if OKC had done that in summer 2007. The next time you say it’s a lost case for Sacramento, imagine how you’d felt if OKC had said that in spring 2008. If so, maybe you’ll start to understand why we get a little defensive.
I agree with what some of you said about CMD. What he posted about the one poster was just not necessary. The fellow was venting his frustration and putting voice to his doubts. If I were him, I would not have justified my feelings. I would have just left the site and not returned. Everyone does what he can do with what resources they have. To be made small because he can only do what he can do and feeling frustrated, just not necessary.
I am glad someone got it. I sure hope not but if that were to happen would the funeral by in Sacramento would be huge espically if KJ gave the eulogy. I Could just see it now the Sacramento people turning his home production office into a type like a shrine to him liek Marat’s bathtub.
Mr. Ziller:
Most of your post above is perfectly valid. I especially agree with your point on anyone who denigrates Sacramento fans for being optimistic. From my own perspective it appears like false hope on many levels. But there is zero reason for any “Seattle commenter” to express that opinion on your forums. Whether Sacramento’s hopes are wistful or realistic,I would never expect Sacto to stop trying to keep their team. It’s natural for many of your writers see their role as keeping up morale as part of the fight, and perfectly reasonable to play up the positive aspects of that effort and minimize the faults.
Most of this back-and-forth between the two fanbases is just garden-variety fandom and bashing of “the other side”, like would happen in any rivalry. The stakes are much higher of course, but it boils down to rivals calling our each other’s weaknesses. Nothing personal, it’s just the business of sports, but with huge consequences in this case obviously. Add to that the instinct people have of adding their priceless advice when they encounter that “someone is wrong on the internet”.
The point this will all come down to, as I see it, are the arena plans. This is where many of us see Sacramento’s view as extremely myopic. You view your arena situation as much more fully-formed than it appears to those looking at it from a distance. And Sacremento seems to view Seattle’s plan as tentative and no further along than yours. This is where the argument falls apart, in my view. The BOG vote will boil down to which side has the better and more fully-realized arena plan, and by any objective analysis, Seattle’s is much further down the road. There are no realistic obstacles to Sonics Arena other than the acquisition of a team. Sacramento’s nascent still-pending plan will be a thrown together wishlist at best by the time of the BOG vote. The arena situations are why I see this as quite close to a done deal.
As for being worried about a gut-punch from the NBA: being a Seattle fan is to always expect a gut-punch. We are used to them, and there’s no sense in wasting time worrying about it. We’ve been inching along in this effort for a long time, and in this case, our optimism is on solid ground.
Simply not accurate. If it goes according to plan, it’ll be a term sheet with City Council approval in the next 10 days, with the financing in place. No different than what exists in Seattle: an approved plan to build a gym.
If we were talking about KC instead of Seattle, then yes, the city would be far ahead of Sacramento on an arena. But by the end of March 26, barring collapse of negotiations, Seattle and Sacramento will be in the same boat — they’ll just need a commitment from a team.
If the situations are so different, why then did Stern make a point to assert that Seattle’s arena is as not-done as Sacramento’s?
I disagree and here is why.
Seattle has a signed, binding MOU that is fully vetted financing which is waiting for ultimate approval once EIS is complete. In regards to that EIS, there should be a draft next month and the city has already approved a Master Use Permit. In addition, Hansen has closed on all the land required.
Sac hopes to have a non-binding term sheet (where Seattle was in Feb ’12) in the next couple of weeks (and we’ll see about the outlines of a financing plan then … again this will be a non-binding term sheet which is basically just the beginning of the process), no land purchased at the designated site, no Architectural Plans (do they have a design firm chosen?), no Environmental Review started, etc.
The two situations are not comparable. Stern said Seattle’s arena is not done, that is technically correct, but he made no statements comparing where the two cities are in the process … just that Seattle’s was not done. The 2 arena’s are not even close to being at the same step in the process. Seattle is coming to the end of theirs, Sac is just getting started.
The short answer is that Stern had to say that. Everyone involved must maintain the “not a done deal” line until the formality of the environment/economic studies are complete. It isn’t technically binding, but it is happening.
We in Seattle have been through this stadium/arena thing a few times in the past couple of decades and are well aware of how complex these things can be (we’ve also gone through losing a couple of teams [Pilots/Sonics...and very nearly the Mariners and Seahawks] and can read the writing on the wall). I know, I know “things move so much faster in Sacramento!” and “But we in Sacramento have been working on this for years now!” and “Maloofs!”……but still: There are so many things that can/do pop up and scuttle these plans, especially when they are put together hastily (even more so in a city with massive financial concerns).
The Seattle arena plan and Kings acquisition were designed pretty methodically and Hansen/Balmer have been working on this with the NBA/Stern for a lot longer than January.
^ What Brett said.
I understand the need to see the arena situations as even-steven, but they just aren’t. Stern is being a lawyer when he says Seattle’s plan is not done yet. He’s on the same page with the Hansen-Ballmer group, who make sure not to overstep their words legally while meticulously moving forward through the process.
This is the point where I think you’re being really hopeful rather than logical, but I suspect you will feel the exact same way about us :)
I believe that Stern said the deal in Seattle to build the arena isn’t done because legally it isn’t. And while lawsuits are still pending, any on-the-record comment from Stern could be used to hurt the arena deal in court, and he knows that. They are just about the only thing that could help the arena opponents make their case, given how little merit they have. So he sticks to the letter of the law to help the Seattle deal get done.
But, realistically, the longshoreman suit was thrown out, their appeal has little chance of changing anything. The I-91 suit is a joke, even if it wasn’t they could just exempt the arena, and the city just asked for that to be thrown out anyway. There are no legitimate lawsuits, the money is there, the designs are up for you to see, and have passed the design review board. Chris Hansen is currently getting his master use permit and everything seems to be moving forward. Even the EIS is, at worst, a financial problem not a legal one.
I’m not arguing that the deal in Sacramento for an arena will fall apart, but if we’re being totally honest here, it’s a deal which will be *at best* as far along as Seattle was last September when the MOU was passed. You won’t have any final designs, you won’t have started the CEQA or EIR process, you won’t have a master use permit, you won’t have dealt with any of the almost certain lawsuits or potential challenges. It’s just a matter of timing, this is all coming a lot later in the game and even KJ can only move so fast. I think what Sacramento has done in such a short time is pretty astounding actually, but it’s still behind where Seattle is right now.
Does any of that matter to the BOG? I have no idea. Thus we wait :)
Gary Payton @GaryPayton_20
Happy St Patty’s day Sonics Nation
Thanks for your response to mine and couple of other posts. You comments pointed out a few things that I have never heard before.
1) Agreed. Hope & optimism is what keeps all sports fans engaged.
The arena financing & team for sale: I was aware of what the MaGoof’s did last year to your financing plan. However, I wasn’t aware that NBA high- up officials had been working with Sac the last 4 years. I know the NBA attempts to advise NBA City’s with what they need to meet NBA standards. I didn’t understand the Burkle partnership with JMA resulting with the land already being acquired for the Arena. I also didn’t realize an Arena feasibility study had been completed by AECOM. Do you the results? Are those feasibility reports available for public view?
Was the Arena news video report (Ch 10, I think) on one of your local stations a few days ago inaccurate ?
Revisionist history on the Team for Sale: If KJ/Sac would have started to work without the MaGoof’s, the MaGoof’s would threaten lawsuits and would have used that to break their lease ? Is there a lease to break ? My point was, and certainly not Sac’s fault — - you had broke irresponsible owners that were being widely reported that the team is or would be for sale. At that point, why care about their threats of breaking a lease or lawsuits ? Prepare, prepare, prepare. Plan B, C & D.
“Every vote at this point has been 7-2. Thanks for your concern.” As I previously stated, I have nothing but envy and admiration of what your KJ and your City is doing.
Both fan bases are living this nightmare together. The worst comment Stern made was that one City is not going to happy. Shooting down any hope for expansion as a resolution. As ugly as relocation is, the joy of getting the NBA back in Seattle outweighs the ugly for most of us.
Again, thanks for your post and hope to hear a response from my questions. All factual information and points of view are always welcome. Let’s all keep it civil and respectful.
I posted a response with questions to Ziller’s post as he responded to and quoted some of my posts. However, I don’t see it here? It was respectful - maybe moderation ??
Maybe some here can answer the questions I asked:
1) The Burkle JMA partnership and the land is already acquired for the Arena? The AECOM feasibility study has already been completed ? Are the results known and published for public view?
2) High- ranking NBA officials are and continue to work with Sac on their Arena ? I know the NBA works with all current NBA and prospective cities to ensure Arenas are up to NBA standards. That is nothing new or enlightening.
3) Team for sale: He stated lawsuit threats from the MaGoof’s if the City tried to move ahead without the MaGoof’s. The MaGoof’s would use the City’s attempts tas a reason to break the lease. My questions were: Is there a lease to broken? If nation wide reports and speculations are that the broke ownership is/will sell the team - - At that point, why would the City care about the broke MaGoof’s threats of lawsuits ? Why wouldn’t the City have Plan B, C, etc.? That just seems like good basic business sense.
Any facts that support his comments on those issues ?
Ok wow http://www.nba.com/socialvideo/index.html?s=95659
Kinsesu-
1) I would say most of the land is in control of JMA and a portion, I believe, is in default (Macy’s). JMA has most the land that would be needed. The arena would take up about 2/3 of the DTP existing space. There are a lot of different owners but alot would probably be on board of being bought out for a solid price. The DTP isnt too hot right now in terms of making money so I could see that they would cash out in a reasonable manner. The problem I see is the time frame because they would need to have the parties agreed pretty quickly.
2) Exactly, the NBA is making sure that everything in the term sheet is up to specification. Plus it allows them the ability to “vet” the plan in an expedited manner because the time frame is so short. Its not like they can say “oh look the NBA is helping us so that proves that they want us to stay.” They are doing their due diligence in this manner.
3) In my opinion, KJ and others are using the “we didnt know” rhetoric to their advantage. I think what happened is that everyone balked at the Maloofs asking price to start at 500 million.
To that point of the Maloofs asking price. Did they specify that the team should be valued at 500 million or did they say that is what they would sell for? Im sure it is implied that the team valuation is 500 million to begin with. But is it feasible that they personally wanted to sell the shares that they control or use (Heinrich) at the price that it is sold? Has the 341 million actually been proven? Could it be more?
Last point: imagine how you would have felt if OKC fans wrote off Seattle when Brian and the crew were holding rallies and press conferences and pushing Ballmer’s bid to renovate Key. The entire world (with the exceptions of Stern, the BOG, Bennett and OKC) was behind Seattle. Now we’re in that spot (without the universal support) and we get criticized by Seattle for deigning to be optimistic? Just think about that for a second. The next time you rip the Sacramento grassroots for rallying the troops, imagine how you’d felt if OKC had done that in summer 2007. The next time you say it’s a lost case for Sacramento, imagine how you’d felt if OKC had said that in spring 2008. If so, maybe you’ll start to understand why we get a little defensive.
We had to deal with plenty of Okie trolls back then crapping on us, our support for the team, and our efforts to save it, all the while making excuses or ignoring Bennett’s transgressions. I have urged people on this site to remember how those people were, and not to emulate them.
As long as you’re posting here, Mr. Ziller, I’d like to say that I’d appreciate if you stop taking the David Stern line about why the Sonics left in your SB nation columns. This whole notion of the “the politicians were hostile/unreasonable” has been grossly overstated by some (including you) while the hostile, unreasonable, underhanded dealings by Schultz, Stern, and Bennett isn’t played up enough. Kings fans aren’t the only ones whose team has been endangered by crappy ownership.
Since you’re posting here, Mr. Ziller, I’d like to ask you to please stop spreading misinformation in your SBnation columns about why the Sonics left. This whole “the politicians were mean!” line has been greatly overstated, while the hostility, unreasonable demands, and underhanded dealings of Schultz, Bennett, and Stern don’t get enough play. Kings fans aren’t the only ones who’ve had to deal with crappy owners.
Last point: imagine how you would have felt if OKC fans wrote off Seattle when Brian and the crew were holding rallies and press conferences and pushing Ballmer’s bid to renovate Key. The entire world (with the exceptions of Stern, the BOG, Bennett and OKC) was behind Seattle. Now we’re in that spot (without the universal support) and we get criticized by Seattle for deigning to be optimistic? Just think about that for a second. The next time you rip the Sacramento grassroots for rallying the troops, imagine how you’d felt if OKC had done that in summer 2007. The next time you say it’s a lost case for Sacramento, imagine how you’d felt if OKC had said that in spring 2008. If so, maybe you’ll start to understand why we get a little defensive.
We don’t have to imagine. We had to deal with plenty of Okie trolls who crapped on our efforts, our history, our support for the team, and ignored Bennett’s transgressions or made excuses for them. I’ve urged people on this site to remember those sh*tsacks and not act like them.
Mr. Ziller, I not sure you will see this. However, thank you for taking the time to respond. Unfortunately, when we read how so many in Sacramento just dismiss the status of the arena in Seattle, it is going to be hard for Seattle fans to not respond. Most of us only discuss those things on our websites, not on your websites. I have never seen a lot of what I would call “trolling” on Sacramento websites, and yet, I have read some of the Kings fans are calling people who have never posted on Sacramento websites “trolls”, simply because they make points negative to the potential of the Kings relocation.
Seriously, if you want to see “trolling”, you should have been around when the Okies were taking the Sonics to OKC. Especially on the Seattle Supersonics forum board. I think it was probably around 75% of the people who were eventually posting there were Okies.
I will feel some sympathy for the Kings fans if and when the relocation vote is taken. It hurts. We DO remember it well. Some of us have had difficulty getting involved in the NBA since that time.
Last point: imagine how you would have felt if OKC fans wrote off Seattle when Brian and the crew were holding rallies and press conferences and pushing Ballmer’s bid to renovate Key. The entire world (with the exceptions of Stern, the BOG, Bennett and OKC) was behind Seattle. Now we’re in that spot (without the universal support) and we get criticized by Seattle for deigning to be optimistic? Just think about that for a second. The next time you rip the Sacramento grassroots for rallying the troops, imagine how you’d felt if OKC had done that in summer 2007. The next time you say it’s a lost case for Sacramento, imagine how you’d felt if OKC had said that in spring 2008. If so, maybe you’ll start to understand why we get a little defensive.
Imagine? We don’t have to. We dealt with plenty of sh*tsack Okies. I do my best to act the complete opposite of them.
Last point: imagine how you would have felt if OKC fans wrote off Seattle when Brian and the crew were holding rallies and press conferences and pushing Ballmer’s bid to renovate Key. The entire world (with the exceptions of Stern, the BOG, Bennett and OKC) was behind Seattle. Now we’re in that spot (without the universal support) and we get criticized by Seattle for deigning to be optimistic? Just think about that for a second. The next time you rip the Sacramento grassroots for rallying the troops, imagine how you’d felt if OKC had done that in summer 2007. The next time you say it’s a lost case for Sacramento, imagine how you’d felt if OKC had said that in spring 2008. If so, maybe you’ll start to understand why we get a little defensive.
What makes you think we didn’t have to deal with an army of Okie trolls crapping on our efforts to save the team, our history, and our support for them?
“Especially on the ESPN Seattle Supersonics forum board. I think it was probably around 75% of the people who were eventually posting there were Okies.”
Last point: imagine how you would have felt if OKC fans wrote off Seattle when Brian and the crew were holding rallies and press conferences and pushing Ballmer’s bid to renovate Key. The entire world (with the exceptions of Stern, the BOG, Bennett and OKC) was behind Seattle. Now we’re in that spot (without the universal support) and we get criticized by Seattle for deigning to be optimistic? Just think about that for a second. The next time you rip the Sacramento grassroots for rallying the troops, imagine how you’d felt if OKC had done that in summer 2007. The next time you say it’s a lost case for Sacramento, imagine how you’d felt if OKC had said that in spring 2008. If so, maybe you’ll start to understand why we get a little defensive.
We don’t have to imagine, just remember.
Yes, Mr. Ziller asks us to “imagine” if Oklahoma fans invaded our websites and started ridiculing our efforts to save the team and telling us it was all our fault. Trust us, we don’t have to imagine. We just need to remember.
They just have no idea. I am pretty sure most of the Kings fans didn’t pay any attention to what was happening to us at the time.
you have the land? so youre saying this report is wrong?
http://www.kcra.com/news/Who-owns-Sacramento-arena-site-It-s-complicated/-/11797728/19308444/-/format/rsss_2.0/-/l4een3/-/index.html
also, saying both plans arent done (totally true) is a pretty sly way of making it sound like theyre comparable. anyone looking at these 2 arena plans reasonably without bias would tell you that seattles plan is much further along.
Thanks - I’m always eager to learn facts and not just speculation. I don’t mind speculation, I just like to know when someone posts something they state what are facts and what is assumed and speculation.
Ziller’s comment was the MaGoof’s would threaten lawsuits and a reason to break the lease. I didn’t think there was a lease to break? Ziller stated they already have the land and an Arena feasibility study completed by AECOM. Do we know if his statements regarding, Arena land acquired, MaGoof’s lawsuits and breaking the Lease, and completed Arena feasibilitystudy to be verifiable facts? Per the March 13th Ch 3 KCRA Arena video report - the Downtown Plaza is complicated.
And that was for two years, not two months. Although it’s more intense this time.
+ 1000. Well said.
id like to point out how no one here has told ziller to “drown in piss” shove various objects up his back side, wished him death and/or bodily injury during his time here. STR unfortunately cannot say the same when it comes to visiting sonics fans. good job keeping it classy guys,
Thanks for posting that again.- - I was looking for that report and finally found it again. For me, I found that report to be enlightening and educational. If the report is erroneous with some of its reported facts, I would like to know that as well. I hope Ziller or someone knowledgeable responds to that news report.
Anyone understand what Ziller was saying regarding MaGoof’s threat of lawsuits and breaking the lease if the City tried to proceed with an Arena without the MaGoof’s involvement ? I had never heard that before - - any verifiable validity to those statements ?
I didn’t think that they had a lease. I thought they were year to year since 2006. That might be really bad informaiton that I had.
Chris Hansen has purchased the team pending league approval.
Sacramento doesn’t have that, or an offer that doesn’t deflate the value of the other franchises from the point Chris Hansen’s PSA has elevated it to.
The opportunity for corporate support is greater in Seattle.
Other than that, I’m not sure why I would be so confident.
Thanks. That’s what I thought as well. That’s why I was surprised at Ziller’s statement of the MaGoof’s using “breaking the lease” as a threat. Thought maybe I had misinformation.
Ziller: If you’re reading this - - - Please, Can you help a civil respectful fellow NBA fan and answer some of our questions in regards to your statements ?
I was under the impression that the Kings do not have a lease, but that the loan may need to be paid back before the team can leave.
I so look forward to your complete irreverent, humorous and intelligent posts. A true pleasure. Provides levity for all of us. Keep’m comin’, Baker !!
According to the Maloofs loan on their Arena if Sac Built an Arena with the Maloofs approvel they would not have to payback their loan
With = Without on above post
It’s not breaking the lease. It’s the terms of the loan which work very much like a lease. Essentially the loan = lease.
Ok - - Thanks. Now it makes sense.
Thanks again. Can you also clarify Ziller’s comments regarding already owning the land for the Arena? When & what were the AECOM feasibility study/findings ?
Me again — - Sorry - “When and what were the AECOM feasibility study/findings ?
Gotta say - it’s really nice to have respectful dialogue about the facts. We can all interpret those facts differently, but at least we can all agree on facts. And define the difference between facts and what we think we know to be true. Sure, speculation can be a fun activity, but that’s all it is.
Again, thanks for your posts. If anyone in here gets out of line, most of us will smack’m down for you.
Hi Tom, this is probably where we have big disagreement. Seattle’s funding is ironclad…perhaps the only thing possibly derailing it would be a shocking victory in court for the one I 91 guy.
Contrast that with the Railyards deal, and the one upcoming if it is structured a similar way. The city claiming in the Railyards term sheet that it could get 30 million from the sale of land, and 225 million for the net present value of city parking lots was not ironclad money. To meet or exceed the solidity of our plan, the city of Sacramento actually would have to go and get that money. 30 million for those land parcels? Very doable. 225 million for the NPV of city parking? That’s where it can get really dicey, and the plan had a very good chance of falling apart.
And it would not have just been the money that would’be been up for bid and negotiation, there were other terms the city wanted to fight for. Such as the winning bidder not having full immediate hiring and firing rights, but instead being forced to keep on at least some, if not all, of the city employees that run the lots. What companies who would be bidding 200 million or more would want to agree to these limitations? And how long would the agreement last? The city would want 30 years, at least some bidders would want 50 years.
Can Mayor Johnson get someone to probably give him 200 million or more for the parking, if he and the city council will agree to some pretty onerous terms? Like 50 years, immediate full hire-fire-layoff ability, full rights to raise rates as much as they want? Yeah, someone will likely pay the money for that deal. But it may be such a bad deal that you won’t get five city council votes for it. And there will be some big time resistance to that deal in Sacramento…..pissed off citizens and lawsuits that are likely worse than what we’re dealing with.
And if the city can’t get all the money it said it would for the parking, who or what makes up the difference? That was not at all clear in the Railyards deal. The Maloofs did not want to be stuck paying an extra 30 to 50 million if the parking bids were too low, and there’s definitely people in Sacramento who would not want the difference, or any cost overruns, to come out of the general fund. So, are you sure Ron Burkle would be willing to make up the difference? If so, shouldn’t he say that, or commit to giving more so the city does not have such a burden?
David Stern was fine with the idea of selling off the NPV of the parking lots, but you then actually have to get that money. Perhaps not such an easy task.
Nah, I got no beef with anyone here. Y’all have a pro-Sonics viewpoint. That’s fine with me. This is a Sonics site. I only had a problem with people talking about a 3rd graders literacy rate. That to me is out of bounds, and regardless of where the child lives, there are just some things that are not funny. A childs literacy rate is among those IMO. Since I’m sure virtually everyone here understands that, I only take issue with the few individuals who even mentioned it.
Now, as far as AECOM and the feasibility study/findings, I haven’t seen them. That was between JMA and AECOM. Needless to say, I would be surprised if the NBA isn’t pleased by it. (Not because I’m being hopeful either.)
There was a study done in 2004, but that’s almost worthless now for a lot of reasons. Different economy, different ownership of the main property, the Macy’s property has been foreclosed on. You can see where this is going. If the City/Burkle/Mastrov/NBA didn’t think that site was manageable, there was no way the city wouldn’t be working on figuring out how to squeeze the arena in with the intermodal station that’s going on right next to it at the Railyards. Which is exactly what they were trying to do in 2012. Now, all they gotta do is get a few properties much of which have relatively little value in DTP. Those owners can hold out for more, sure, but it’s not like there’s a likely better offer coming down the pike. Unless you build something of major value, like an arena, those properties aren’t worth much. Hence the DTP selling for 22 million in the 1st place and the Macy’s property being in foreclosure.
How that all gets done? I don’t know yet. But it will get done because there isn’t a whole lot of pushback on this deal from the business community. Most want the Kings to stay down here.
The real problem that I see for Seattle is twofold. One, Hansen created the site of the SODO Flan (sorry that makes me laugh; it’s not meant to be insulting), and Two, the amount of actual skin Seattle and King County is putting into the game is relatively small. As long as what those two municipalities are contributing is a break on interest rates for Hansen and his group, the NBA is not likely going to see that as anything more than a contribution (and a pretty minor one) on Seattle’s part.
Why? Because the SODO Flan is going in the middle of a live industrial area (don’t tell me it’s threatening the Port; the Port has nothing to do with it IMO) that is not in any real need of remodel. The Flan is going into a part of town where there is available land, but other than that, there isn’t any other reason to put it down there. In essence, that makes it a vanity project.
On the flip side, in Sacramento the NBA’s going to claim (whether it’s true or not) that there was a public subsidy given (that is not a break on interest rates in otherwords) for a critical urban revitalization project in the Downtown Urban Core of Sacramento, well that’s a strong talking point to other municipalities. Insert whatever city you want, in this case it’s Sacramento, but the NBA loves that talking point. I’ve seen that point made about Cleveland, for instance.
The NBA loves that stuff, right or wrong, and if you compare a subsidy of a revitalization project to a private citizen wanting to build a private arena, it doesn’t have the same ring to it. Nobody likes paying subsidy’s, and I don’t either. I’m just being pragmatic here: There’s no other way Sacramento can keep the Kings. And, given that there is a desperate need to revitalize DT Sac in particular, and ensure the land value of the core spots of DT does not die, well, there’s an urgent need to get an arena done. The arena itself isn’t that important; it’s the spinoff effect that’s so critical and desperately needed more than anything. The city needs to figure out a way to expand it’s tax base and bring in business. This isn’t necessarily the best way to add businesses in key area’s, but it’s one way to convince local up and coming businesses to not leave. Sacramento’s business community has never been it’s major strong suit, but moving ahead in a diversified economy is definitely a goal of many citizens, the business community, and the city itself. Which, incidentally, includes me.
My point, basically, is that the reasons I’m confident are that if a negotiation takes place, and a term sheet agreed to, and the bid is there, I’d be pretty surprised if the NBA said no to that. I really don’t think, as much people like to claim, that expansion is off the table. Expansion isn’t a talking point in the media; it’s about money and impacting the bottom line in the immediate, mid-term and long-term futures.
At any rate, I know you didn’t quite ask that, but that’s where I stand. Until the term sheet comes out, there’s not a lot of point about talking about where either side stand. They stand at 50-50 by estimation now, and we’ll see from there. On the other hand, I don’t see Seattle not getting a team. It’s just a matter of how the NBA chooses to answer the Sacramento question. If KJ, Mastrov and Burkle, and the other players keep ringing the bell, at some point expansion is about the only solution in which you (you being the NBA) can realistically walk away relatively unscathed. Not bringing the NBA back to Seattle could burn Sonics fans after the perception, although I don’t share it in this particular case, that the NBA has decided against Seattle twice. The NBA HAS decided against Seattle once; keeping the Kings in Sacramento has nothing to do with Seattle at that point. Since the Maloofs never gave any owners a shot to buy the team, they went to outside owners. (Or that’s the narrative anyway. The Maloofs were trying to create a bidding war by all accounts.)
At any rate, that’s all I got. Those reasons are why I’m optimistic. I know you’ll disagree about the 200 million, and if you could shoot me a few easy handy links, I’d love to read that over. But as long as that 200 million has to be repaid by Hansen, I don’t see that being a huge talking point. The RSN is a whole different deal, but that’s a Seattle issue and I’m not worried about Seattle’s issue. There enough people who can suss that out better than I can.
I will say, to finish this completely off, that if I thought Seattle was a 100% slam dunk guarantee, I wouldn’t even be bothering to say so. It would just be a foregone conclusion. But, thankfully for those of us who are Kings fans, it’s not quite yet. It may be in another 10 days or so, but not quite yet. For that, that’s why I fight.
Maybe the NBA loves the idea of being the centerpiece of a revitalization of the downtown of a struggling city, but isn’t it possible that thought isn’t so appealing? What studies have ever shown that pro-sports bring a huge economic boon? The only numbers I’ve seen shown small contribution to negative contribution. That’s why these type of things make sense in cities with strong economies, because it’s strongly supported by the city’s economy and the metro market, but maybe not so advisable when the NBA is being asked to support the city itself. That’s dangerous.
And it’s more than just an industrial area, it’s where all of the other stadiums are. It’s not some random location in the middle of nowhere, it’s in the same area as the other sports locations that support surrounding bars and restaurants, with more to come when the arena is built. Not to mention that the addition of the NBA and NHL, along with entertainment events in the arena, will give the SoDo area year round business, without the lull that comes between Seahawks football and Mariners baseball.
And on the literacy thing, not to make excuses, but it seems most people posting that just had the whole thing wrong. It seemed they were taking whatever number it was (65%?) and attributing that as the straight up rate of illiteracy for Sacramento, which it obviously wasn’t. That’s the rate of 3rd graders reading at a 3rd grade level, and as I pointed out before (not sure if anybody listened), the rate in Seattle is something like 66%. So, I’ll plead ignorance on the behalf of those throwing that number around.
I suppose the issue of Sacramento providing more of a public subsidy than Seattle could come into play, but I wouldn’t count on it considering how many current NBA arenas were built with little or no public money.
It’s a matter of opinion onto whether arena’s provide that benefit. I’m of the opinion that in this case it’s a wise idea to pursue. And not because I’m a Kings fan. A lot of non-Kings fans who are business owners and home owners in DT and Midtown Sac are very supportive of this move too. The reason is, they recognize the need for a catalyst to draw people. As far as I can see, that’s an arena. Why a NBA team? Dates. The more dates you get, the more ability you have to make a profit. Which, when we are talking business, is the goal.
I understand all that. But to me that’s just adding to the pile. That isn’t really a big deal to the NBA. It’s a big deal to Seattleites, but not so much for the NBA. It’s about revenue. I suspect an arena, anywhere, as long as it has the right tools included will provide revenue.
Fair enough. I just don’t think anybody should be talking about anybody’s children for any reason, or at least not on topics of that kind, on a sports website. Children are hard enough without injecting them into a conversation they are not really a part of to begin with. That said, a significant majority of 3rd graders that struggle to read at grade level is a maddening, and sad, statement on the educational system here. (Also of the difficult dynamics of a city that is a minority majority where at least 40% if not 60% of that minority is not a 1st language English speaking home. It’s about a 54-46 Minority to White ration here.) Which, to be fair, sucked long beforehand too. That isn’t exactly news.
Didn’t it come into play when the Sonics got uprooted from Seattle and relocated to OKC? That to me is the penultimate example right there.
It may be a matter of opinion, but the overwhelming majority of studies on the issue show that building a sports arena provides minimal, sometimes negative, economic benefit. I haven’t heard of a peer reviewed study that demonstrates that building an arena is an economic boon in most, even many cases. They aren’t typically huge drags on the economy either, but I’ve always seen the growth of professional sports and the building of those facilities as a side effect of a strong, growing market, never have I seen it be the catalyst to turn around a market.
I’m not saying that Sac building an arena is going to kill their economy or anything of the sort, but I think pitching doing so as the key aspect of revitalizing an economy is a bold claim that is not evidence based. It’s hopeful more than it is rational.
Didn’t it come into play when the Sonics got uprooted from Seattle and relocated to OKC? That to me is the penultimate example right there.
A little bit, I suppose, but Oklahoma City paid a relatively piddling amount to fix up their arena compared to what was demanded of Seattle. There were too many other factors involved that rigged the game against us.
Had there have been a private arena like this one passed and ready to go back then, we probably have had a way better chance of keeping the team. The team didn’t leave because we didn’t give public $, it left because we didn’t have any solution at all for an new arena, nor any hopes for one. I think the league knew redoing the key again would have been a disaster, and taking the team away and hoping for better down the line was what they did. But in the end, how an arena is funded is up to the owner/prospective owner.. They get their way, and nothing else matters. Every market is different, and every owner is different. The league works for owners, not the other way around. I know Hansen was talking to the league when the plan for the arena was being drafted, and if the league told him at any point they didn’t like the funding or wouldn’t support a team moving there based on the funding, he would likely have pulled the plug and tried with another city in the market.
Sorry. “We would have had a way better chance of keeping the team”.
Thank you for taking the time on here. It’s truly nice to read reasonable, thoughtful comments from Sac. The literacy thing is just completely off limits for me. Totally inappropriate. Hopefully, it never rears it ugly head on this site again.
I would think if you took a poll from Sonic Fans, they would choose expansion over relocation every time. Except, of course, OKC. We’d relocate them back home in a heartbeat. You would keep the Kings and then we could have a normal sports rivalry the way it’s suppose to be. I remember alot of good playoff series with the Kings.
No offense taken on the Flan comment, it is pretty funny.
I found your info and rationale regarding the Arena downtown location very reasonable and forward looking for the City of Sac. Many of us here watched the March 13th news video report from KCRA. That’s a part of the reasoning of why we believe our Arena is so far ahead of yours.
Legally, of course anything can happen here. The ILWU lawsuit was already tossed out once in a matter of minutes. The I-91 lawsuit is viewed by many legal experts as compliant and without merit. It’s viewed that the Seattle City Council would exempt it as they did with the Seattle Storm. EIS concerns would be mitigated.
We view your Arena situation as: Yes, we want it. Yes, we will support it. The City Council will support it. Respectfully, we view your situation as not much farther than that. This will be a new financing deal and in a new location. I’m sure using last year’s financing plan will be useful in this deal. But, can it actually get done in this current time frame ? I do not envy that on any City. If Sea had been in that time pressure cooker - It wouldn’t be close to happening. So if KJ is able to pull this off for your City and Fans — - seriously, the guy needs to run for Pres.
I’m of the firm belief that its all about the Arena. Is the Ch 3 KRCA news report completely off base ?
Again, thanks for reasonable and informative dialogue. Happy St. Pat’s Day. If I could buy you a green beer - - I would.
You probably are much more well versed on that subject than I am. I think his point was they are hoping the downtown location to be a catalyst for other business revitalization.
Oh yeah, I understand that, I’m just saying that the studies on the subject indicate that it’s extremely unlikely that a sports facility will have such an effect. I’m not saying Sac should give up all hope, I just find it peculiar that the political talking point seems to be that this project will save their downtown, when that’s really just an optimistic platitude and not at all evidence based.
Got it. Obviously, Sac needs something to help their economy and downtown revitalization so you grasp as what you can.
Yeah and just using common sense would tell you that the direct impact on businesses outside of entertainment and restaraunts/bars is minimal in my opinion. Most if not all Kings games are later in the evening just like Seattle. Thus most of the businesses are already closing up shop when people would be getting downtown.
I mean honestly there has to be traffic feasibility studies for the downtown area. There is A LOT of other things than just the funding mechanism and its feasibility.
In my opinion if this becomes equal; from Hansen and Mastrov the amount of time to get an arena done and the likelihood of it getting it done is the final determining factor. The only thing in the way is the petty lawsuit about I-91 which had far less credibility in legal status that the Ports. Then there is the EIS which will have a draft completed very soon. The Sacramento arena is about 5-6 months behind ours plus the amount of time it will take to build a prospective arena. The demolition and back fill of the underground parking will take time. That was one of the 1st things Bruski had said that irked me was the fact that he thinks that Seattle may not be able to build an arena or 5 years.
With all that it is Sacramento’s deal and if they feel that it can be a boon for their economy then that is their decision. Its just that f their economy continues to flounder or get worse and they do end up building the arena for the Kings it may hurt the council members and KJ politically. I get the risk taking though because losing the team as an ex NBA player being the mayor def. wont be good for KJ. He is in between a rock and a hard place
So if Sacramento approves an arena with Mastrov/Burkle, before the BOG vote, does that mean that the loan on the arena is null and void, as this approval would have to come before the BOG votes, and the before the sale to Hansen is finallized?
A more well-informed person than me would need to answer that question. I would speculate the Mastrov proposal would include how payback or disposition of the loan would be determined.
I highly doubt this is the case as what the city council will be voting on a non-binding term sheet. So basically if the Maloofs tried to say that voids the loan agreement, it’d be like the ILWU lawsuit in that “we don’t have an arena deal yet, wink wink nudge nudge”. If there is some sort of clause that eliminates the loan with Sac getting into an arena deal without the Maloofs, it wouldn’t come into play until the agreement was binding, which wouldn’t happen until there were new owners. Then I guess the question would be if that loan agreement then transfers to the new owners, and building the arena is no longer about the Maloofs and the loan is still owed by the new owners, etc.
So many unanswered questions. The good news - we only have 2-4 weeks to know the answers. Only speculation on my part - - - Sac will need to paid. With a Sac owner, they could structure some sort of payment plan or continue just as the MaGoof’s currently pay. If I was a Sac resident - I want those $$ paid. I would assume if the Hansen Group POS/reloc is approved the full loan payment would be due. Who pays it ? The Hansen group in addition to the purchase price or the MaGoof’s sale proceeds ? That’s a 70+ million dollar question.
Ziller & Sac readers and Posters: I’ve asked for your thoughts on the Mar 13th Ch 3 KCRA news video report on the complications of the downtown Arena. Erroneous reporting ? Your thoughts/insights ? This is an honest request for your boots on the ground knowledge and insights. We’re in Sea and certainly don’t have the first-hand knowledge that all of you do. Please, your thoughts ?
Sean is right. This isn’t an issue. The Maloofs won’t own the team by the time the arena starts being built let alone when a new arena ends up being built. (Assuming this goes through for Sac of course.) There’s a non-compete clause in that loan, but I don’t really think it will matter. That land is worth more without STA on it than with STA on that land. So the arena is gone no matter what eventually anyway. There isn’t really much of a draw to anyone outside of Kings games to STA now as well.
To me, the issue of the non-compete clause is exceptionally moot because the Maloofs have a sale agreement with Hansen. Because the Maloofs are in financial trouble, they are going to sell to whomever the NBA tells them to. So even if the Maloofs tried a lawsuit (and they are not beneath that sort of thing), they don’t have the money or time to really wait it out. Besides, the city won’t make a deal with anyone other than the prospective owner or the actual current ownership. The city tried with the Maloofs, now it is a prospective ownership’s turn.
It’s a a major question for Hansen. If only because he will have to pay breaking the terms of the loan penalty (or whatever it’s called-I forget exactly) which makes it out to be 77 million dollars. (The actual loan is about 65 million dollars now.)
At any rate, the likely transfer of ownership, whether it’s Hansen or Mastrov, will include the land around STA and STA itself. It’s in Hansen’s best interest to own that land and wait it out until the moratorium in Natomas is lifted. That will help him recoup some of the losses he might incur down the road if there were to be any. (I doubt there would be much. The SODO Flan will eliminate every complaint Howard Schultz had about Key Arena.)
There is a lot of unanswered questions about both arena’s. What development is really available in SODO that isn’t already there? You can’t move those rail lines by 4th Ave S easily (or cheaply), and the rail spur is going nowhere unless you think rail is going to willingly remove the one route it has into Canada.
Having spent so much time in that area, I wonder how the development (especially an entertainment district) will work. Restaurants, a few bars? SODO has that, and could add a few more no question. But an entertainment district? I’m not buying that. I’ll have to see it to believe it.
I have no problem seeing that in Sac for one reason: There isn’t any development to lose. We are not talking DT Seattle. With the exception of the hole WAMU left with that massive building (many don’t realize it’s in the center of the iconic photo they see of DT from the Ferry going to/from Bainbridge) that Chase took over, the rest of DT Seattle is already set. Any redevelopment comes at a steep cost. Seattle’s land value is set by the fact it’s 2 peninsula’s knocking heads stuck between two large bodies of water no less. That’s how the land value there is set more or less. (I know it’s more complicated than that but I’m making a reasonable generalization.)
At any rate, Sac does not have that issue even with the West Border being a major river, and the city being cut in two by another fairly large river. (Which, not coincidentally, is where many of the most expensive homes in the area are.)
These people, along with the other people in the high end economic area’s, fear anything that reduces the value of their land. The moment you pass on the opportunity to set a core value for a significant piece of real estate, in the most urban environment for a city that is very country suburban-to put it kindly-is typically a bad precedent to set.
That’s why I’m not paying attention to anyone but 3 people on the City Council. Steve Hansen-District 4-is where the DTP arena will be. Steve Cohn is the resident financial geek on the council, and he’s very vigilant and rigid about what he will accept when it comes to the general fund and what not. The third is Angelique Ashby-most likely the next mayor whenever KJ departs-whose district is in Natomas where STA currently is. If Cohn and Ashby aren’t on board with the term sheet, this deal is too tough for them to stomach even knowing what’s at stake. (They both voted for last year’s term sheet though FWIW. I’d be surprised if that Shirey and Dangberg, the city manager and assistant city manager (rather intelligent men both), are doing the negotiating knowing that Cohn will spend many of his moments in the 5 days leading up to the term sheet vote going over the finer points. Cohn is a backroom worker; he settles up away from the public eye. He’s a public servant who is very dedicated to it. Loves Sacramento, wants the Kings to stay, etc etc, but he won’t take a bad deal. He’ll accept nothing less than a reasonable deal for Sac. Bank on it.
If Cohn approves this deal, that’s not good news for Seattle IMO. The NBA knows about the council politics (just like they do in all potential or actual/former NBA cities), and knows that Cohn-because he’s the resident financial guru-, Ashby because she’s a power player and won’t mess around, and Hansen because the arena will be put in his district, that the aforementioned 3 are the 3 key votes.
My bet is that even if Hansen postures publicly, and he will because he seems to be a Kevin McCarty clone (who I’m not fond of at all-and not because he’s anti-arena), the business interests in his district will never support him again if he does not support an arena down there. The business interests in the city are watching him incredibly close right now, and expect his vote to lean the right way.
I can guarantee whatever “safeguard” on the general fund exists will seem tenuous to an outsider. Last time it was user fee’s on an arena. This time around that’s likely the same mechanism. That, and the overall increase of tax revenue for the city that it’s hoping to generate in the spin-off effect.
While I read what KCRA reports, and I respect Bruski as a neutral outsider (yes he’s more neutral than I know many here think; he’s not a Sacramento guy I can assure you), and even take stock (but not a lot) of what guys like Howard-Cooper, Aldridge, Mannix, etc etc etc report, I don’t pay alot of attention to any of it in all reality.
This won’t come down to a few parcels of owners in the Downtown Plaza. The value of that land is so small that even if they hold out, eventually they will have to cave to the pressure of holding up a landmark deal in a city that needs it. Deals get made etc etc. That will happen near Hansen’s SODO Flan too. It’s the way of the world whether any of us like it or not.
There are some Sac folks who focus on Chris Daniels’ Seattle centric point of view (what do you expect, he’s a working reporter for a Seattle TV affiliate), but to me it’s pointless. I don’t care that they talked about the banners on the same day of the City of Sac address (although I think it’s funny both happened at the same time), or even that Chris Hansen is trying to buy the Kings. Actually, I’m glad Hansen has attempted to buy the franchise if for no other reason the Maloofs can no longer hold up the franchise. One way or the other, better owners, management and certainly a veteran head coach who will be far more palatable with fans as a result of this sale. If you’re a fan of professional, functioning NBA franchises, new ownership in this case is a must. New ownership is happening regardless of where the franchise ends up.
So even if the rhetoric flys around that is anti-Hansen, or anti-Seattle, it means nothing. You guys wanna question the Sac plan? No biggie. It doesn’t change anything from the NBA’s end, or factor into their final decision. It’s just when wrestling with a phantom, sometimes it’s nice to have something to blame even if the object chosen really isn’t the problem. Admittedly, I prefer not to rail against Seattle people UNLESS I sense the holier than thou, we’re entitled to a NBA team that a few idiots have sent across the way. (Which is neither the majority of Sonic or Seattle sports fans.)
The only thing holding up Hansen is not having a NBA team. Everything else is time and money for him. For Sac, the timing is now because there will never be another opportunity, in all likelihood, to get another arena built. Hence the huge push and urgency on this end for an arena. Having a term sheet already negotiated to build off of, actual ownership that has resources, and competent people on all sides of the equation (that matter-the Maloofs no longer count) is what the NBA see’s.
Again, and I know people doubt Stern, but I find that disconcerting too. You can’t claim you don’t trust what Stern says (hell I don’t trust anything Stern says either), but then claim that the NBA has made it clear that expansion is off the table. Yes, that’s been said, but really does it matter if the money makes sense? While it’s clear that there is urgency on the Sac end, there is urgency on Hansen’s end too. This SODO deal has an expiration date that will get harder and harder to pull off as things move ahead without Hansen having a NBA team. Or, as McGinn has stated, outright impossible actually.
Every time I look around, look for new facts on both sides of this deal, I see the NBA setting the stage for expansion in Seattle and the Kings sticking in Sac IF the term sheet and the ownership bid from Mastrov/Burkle is there. There’s just no better way to solve this even if that is not necessarily what the NBA prefers to do at the moment, the real world rarely works in an ideal fashion. If the NBA has to choose between expansion and losing Seattle forever, I’d bet they’d choose expansion. Between passing on a major subsidy for a relocation to another city not offering that, I’d bet the NBA chooses to not relocate the Kings and placate Seattle with expansion.
As complicated as it is to expand, I can’t see how the NBA benefits more by denying one city or the other here either. Part of growth in business is expanding, and at some point you have to take a leap. This idea of playing one city off another is pretty pointless IMO. There aren’t many actual markets in North America that are really open and palatable for the NBA in all reality. KC flamed out badly the last go around with the NBA. 7 expansion teams, and 3 relocations, and KC was never in the mix for any of them. Louisville is mentioned, but I don’t think the NBA is that interested in going there. St Louis is a possibility if they have the arena and ownership the NBA likes to get things done there. Vancouver is a possibility too. I doubt the NBA will ever expand into Montreal just due to the problems the Expos had there. Mexico City is not likely either if for no other reasons that safety concerns will always be a problem. And the NBA and Mexico City have other concerns than security for one city and dealing with one business entity. I don’t see Las Vegas ever seriously being entertained by the NBA. They love Vegas for Team USA functions, and the Summer League get-togethers, but outside of that I don’t think the NBA is happy with Vegas in part due to the All-Star weekend the Maloofs hosted there. It wasn’t about the Maloofs so much as everything else with Vegas. It’s not the gambling; the NBA is just not fond of how the market works. It’s okay for single events or conventions like pre-season games or Team USA, but I don’t think the NBA is convinced of much else there. Outside of a mega wealthy owner like Ballmer dying to bring the NBA to Vegas, I don’t see that in play. Especially when there is a major league grind of getting people to 41 regular season games, a few pre-season games and potentially a few playoff games every year. There are a lot of other things to do in Las Vegas, and that won’t change anytime soon.
In short, that’s why I think the NBA will expand. Even if Seattle is the 31st team, there is a reasonable way to get a 32nd team in a place like St Louis or Vancouver.
Hopefully I’ve already answered it. Again, speculation on my part (or much of it), but the actual plan will be scrutinized this Thursday. You’ll know about the same time we do.