Sacramento Kings Sold ? (rich, relocation, deal)

[Curmudgeon]

Enjoying (not hardly) sitting back watching the Kabuki from afar and all the moneyed people and the NBA dancing to the Maloof's tune while the KJ puppet gets its strings pulled too. High comedy! Meanwhile the city's infrastructure goes unattended and languishes.

[u225615]

I think Sacramentans sell themselves short. Dream big. Downtown Sacramento has much potential but there is little drawing power. Infrastructure is important but think about those major metro areas which are considered desirable to live in or visit. The infrastructure seems worse...crappy roads, bursting water and gas lines, perpetual need for more police, etc. More venues are needed to draw more crowds...more crowds...more businesses/restaurants...more crowds and businesses/restaurants...more people start thinking of places to live near the "action."

[wburg]

I think arena supporters sell Sacramento short. Urban neighborhoods start with residents--first a few pioneers, then businesses to serve them, then more residents pile in. Monumental solutions like urban malls and arenas have a dismal track record at actually drawing new residents downtown, they're just playgrounds for visitors. Nobody wants to live in Disneyland.

[u225615]

Originally Posted by wburg

I think arena supporters sell Sacramento short. Urban neighborhoods start with residents--first a few pioneers, then businesses to serve them, then more residents pile in. Monumental solutions like urban malls and arenas have a dismal track record at actually drawing new residents downtown, they're just playgrounds for visitors. Nobody wants to live in Disneyland.

Hmmm... there is a logic to this as well...And this was going through my mind... infill projects have seen more interest as the real estate market stabilizes so there is a desire to live in or near downtown Sac even without any major developments.

However, how much better to have a downtown that visitors would be drawn to as well as locals.

As far as the Disney reference... it's time Cinderella (Sacramento) stopped being shy, quit serving her step sisters, and put on those glass slippers for a night out.

[wburg]

I just imagined David Stern dressed up like a fairy godmother and threw up in my mouth a little bit.

[CeJeH]

Originally Posted by wburg

I think arena supporters sell Sacramento short. Urban neighborhoods start with residents--first a few pioneers, then businesses to serve them, then more residents pile in. Monumental solutions like urban malls and arenas have a dismal track record at actually drawing new residents downtown, they're just playgrounds for visitors. Nobody wants to live in Disneyland.

One could also make the argument that you are selling us short by assuming that anybody who wants to bring their business and 100s of millions in investment to our city is an opportunistic wolf that's looking to feed on the poor residents of little old Sacramento, and not see it for what it is: an Invetment in our city and in the future of our fledgling downtown by big business groups with big $, aka something we haven't seen in a long time .

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by wburg

No, but they are inclined to make a decision based on who can toss the NBA's salad with the most enthusiasm. That is largely based on the size of the pile of money dumped in front of the Commission, and Seattle's money pile looks plenty big at this point.

Per Sam Amick of USA Today:

A quick review of the ground rules, as set by commissioner David Stern and soon-to-be commissioner Adam Silver from the beginning: the incumbent city must produce an ownership group to match the initial offer ($525 million valuation) and have a plan in place for a new arena. It's not Seattle v. Sacramento, in other words, but Sacramento v. Sacramento. And as has been documented here before, the incumbent followed the league's lead at every turn.


Seattle group trying to force sale of Sacramento Kings

[Majin]

Originally Posted by wburg

What Mayor Johnson says and the facts are two things that don't often coincide. The Seattle group has already paid the $30 million non-refundable deposit to the Maloofs, and their arena plan is two years ahead of ours; unless the Seattle buyers do something seriously, seriously wrong, it's a done deal at this point.

Oh really? Even with the non-refundable deposit, Seattle must have done something serious, seriously wrong? Because, despite being a "done deal", they lost.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by wburg

I'm by no means eager to see the kings leave, but the deposit is relevant. The chance of an eleventh-hour massive failure by Seattle is not the same thing as a strong chance to keep the Kings. There were persuasive economic reasons to keep them out of southern California, which is why the Anaheim deal went sour. But there are persuasive economic reasons to bring a team to Seattle.

Hmmm, that's odd, there were persuasive economic reasons to keep them out of Anaheim, but despite what you claim are "persuasive economic reasons" to bring a team to Seattle, they will still be playing in Sacramento next year.

What made the Seattle deal "go sour"?

[Majin]

Originally Posted by wburg

Unfortunately for the Maloofs, it's pretty unlikely that a Sacramento group will be able to put together a coherent bid that will match Seattle's (even accounting for relocation costs etc.) let alone put together an arena plan (the new plan is in a different location that has received almost zero study, the old arena finance plan was two-thirds imaginary and one-third from people who don't have a reason to chip in anymore.)

So yes, of course they are posturing, but the bid from Seattle is real.

Kind of odd that a posturing bid won out over a real bid from Seattle.