HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2861  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2012, 4:56 AM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 4,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pistola916 View Post
But the NBA does have the power to force them and the Kings to stay. I think its best to let the Kings go and make Stern promise us an expansion team in 2015-16 when we get the arena built.
If the Kings go, don’t think the city will just pick-up an expansion team to fill
the void. … that would be an additional cost of $100 to $300 million someone
would have to pay to the NBA and its owners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TWAK View Post
Demanding a new arena for how long? Then when it's real crunch-time they suggest renovating Arco and don't want to pay pre-development fees...... Even if you are pro/anti new arena, everybody can see the Maloofs are real jackasses
Why as a renter of a new building (Maloof’s) would they also pay for the
pre-development costs? Those costs are traditionally picked up by the
owners which in this case would be the city. This is not for tenant
improvements to an existing structure, this is to build a new structure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2862  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2012, 7:18 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,104
Because if they were just tenants they wouldn't get parking revenue or a share of naming rights?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2863  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2012, 4:03 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,104
Cute...very cute.
Quote:
Leading Off: Five ways the Maloofs can attract more fans
Share
By Tom Couzens
tcouzens@sacbee.com
Published: Sunday, Apr. 15, 2012 - 12:00 am | Page 1C
Last Modified: Sunday, Apr. 15, 2012 - 8:55 am

After the deal for a new downtown arena collapsed Friday, many fans blamed Kings owners Gavin, Joe and George Maloof and vowed never to go to another game.

Some fans, such as Sean Wolf of Roseville, even tore up their tickets to today's game against Portland because they were so disgusted with Friday's stunning turn of events.

The Kings already are 28th in the NBA in attendance (14,228 per game), so how will the Maloofs persuade fans to still come to Power Balance Pavilion?

Here are suggestions for the final four home games and beyond:

• Start selling po' boy sandwiches for $6.50 each and send the full amount to the city. All the Maloofs would need to do is sell 10 million of them before they either move or sell the franchise and their loan to the city would be paid off.

• Pluck a lucky (?) fan from one of those $10 nosebleed seats to watch the game courtside with Gavin Maloof – and see how the well-heeled have it at Power Balance.

• Select another fan to watch the game in the owners' suite with Joe Maloof – and share a $6,000 Carl's Jr. combo meal (burger, fries and a 24-year-old French Bordeaux).

• Give one free small beer or soda to each fan, to help wash down the bad taste left from Friday's about-face by the Maloofs – and some of the Kings' performances during their seven-game losing streak.

• Solicit volunteers to help spruce up Power Balance in exchange for a free ticket to a game. There's plenty to do, from pulling weeds from the cracks in the parking lots to giving the old building a fresh coat of paint.

And if you do decide to go to today's game, remember what happened Friday in New York isn't the players' fault. Heck, these guys have to play for them.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/15/441...#storylink=cpy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2864  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2012, 8:29 PM
Web Web is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post

Why as a renter of a new building (Maloof’s) would they also pay for the
pre-development costs? Those costs are traditionally picked up by the
owners which in this case would be the city. This is not for tenant
improvements to an existing structure, this is to build a new structure.
why then demand the outrageous demands mentioned in their news conference. As Stern said The nba is not going to help them anymore....passing on another loan and 7 million up front. These dudes are bust. Just wait and see how they dump players and become even less competitive. As I said last year, The Magoofs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2865  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2012, 9:20 PM
CAGeoNerd CAGeoNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Web View Post
why then demand the outrageous demands mentioned in their news conference.
Because they really want to move.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Web View Post
Just wait and see how they dump players and become even less competitive.
The minimum payroll in the NBA is around $46 million. Kings payroll is barely above the minimum, the lowest in the league. They can't cut players/payroll because they're already at the bottom of the barrel. Anyone who saw the spending of the team over the past few years could see the writing on the wall. They're deliberately tanking the team, and saving money in the process. The Maloofs are indeed in financial trouble. Reading Ailene Voisin's article in the Bee today where she interviewed Joe Maloof was hilarious. In it he claimed the Maloofs had no debt at all (), that they weren't going to sell the team, and that he "swears" they aren't going to move the team.

These guys are dirt bags.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2866  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2012, 12:25 AM
Web Web is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 484
This one is priceless......

"The Maloofs were not in their normal court-side seats at tipoff. Joe Maloof on Saturday told The Bee's Ailene Voisin that the Maloofs would be at today's game.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/sports/kings...#storylink=cpy

did they show???

the team wins on last second shot though......wow look at the amount of wins.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2867  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2012, 2:45 AM
Pistola916's Avatar
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Sacramento-CA's portland
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Web View Post
This one is priceless......

"The Maloofs were not in their normal court-side seats at tipoff. Joe Maloof on Saturday told The Bee's Ailene Voisin that the Maloofs would be at today's game.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/sports/kings...#storylink=cpy

did they show???

the team wins on last second shot though......wow look at the amount of wins.

Actually they did. They were at their suite.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2868  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2012, 4:19 AM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is online now
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The grid of course
Posts: 7,791
The real goofs in all of this (except for ownership of course) are all of use who thought the Maloofs wanted to 'play ball' as it were. How these people continue to hold on to the Kings after all their other terrible business decisions is beyond me. They simply need to stop holding Sacramento hostage.
__________________
Yeah, I'm like an even less classy version of Tucker Max. - Snodrifter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2869  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2012, 7:10 AM
Pistola916's Avatar
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Sacramento-CA's portland
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 380
It's hard to take Grant Napear's word on anything since he works for the Maloofs but he gave an interesting prediction to the arena ordeal:

"My prediction is we're still going to get a new building, but it's not going to be in 2015," Napear said in an interview before the game. "I know that right now everybody's upset, and everybody's frustrated, and everybody's pointing fingers. But I think everyone, including the city and the NBA and the ownership, have put too much work into it just to say, 'We're at a roadblock, so we're just not going to do anything.' I honestly think they're going to get it done, somehow, someway."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2870  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2012, 5:39 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Top Retributor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Golden Capitol
Posts: 1,736
Sacbee headline:
Quote:
Sacramento Kings fans confused at first home game since arena deal's collapse
It's interesting that none of the people interviewed for the article was a Sacramento resident. Confused..really? I think most Sacramentans got the memo long ago. I can just imagine all these chowderheads invading Old Sacramento after a game. No thanks. BTW Grant Napear is insane.

Also from the Bee :
Quote:
At a press conference to celebrate the success of the fundraising campaign to keep city pools open, Johnson said, "This is not over, we're going to figure out something."

He said he's not sure whether the Kings owners, the Maloofs, want to stay in Sacramento, despite the Maloofs' insistence over the weekend that they're committed to the city. "They told me in New York that they can change their mind," the mayor said.
Of course, the Mayor is going to put the best face on it. That's what he is expected to do. He knows full well that as he speaks the Maloofs are planning their move to Anaheim. They've been talking to officials in Anaheim and have taken out domain/reg/copyright names out on the "Anaheim Kings" and "Anaheim Royals", etc. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

Last edited by ozone; Apr 16, 2012 at 6:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2871  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2012, 12:33 AM
Web Web is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 484
hmmmm maloofs hiding at game?

sit in front and take the heat.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2872  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2012, 5:11 PM
What is a Rivercat? What is a Rivercat? is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 371
Collecting Maloof LIES quotes on Facebook. Check it out and add to it
http://www.facebook.com/MaloofLies
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2873  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2012, 9:34 AM
TWAK's Avatar
TWAK TWAK is online now
I left my heart in Tikrit
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 1,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
Why as a renter of a new building (Maloof’s) would they also pay for the
pre-development costs? Those costs are traditionally picked up by the
owners which in this case would be the city. This is not for tenant
improvements to an existing structure, this is to build a new structure.
They were a meeting and rubber stamp away from moving because of not getting a new arena. I see it quite simply as if they are that close to moving because of not obtaining a new arena, then they will be on the hook for the costs associated with what they are demanding-the new arena.
It was on the term sheet that the parties involved negotiated-till they decided that they didn't like it. Not that it's a great deal for them, but they don't deserve a sweet deal with the shit they have been pulling the past few years.
__________________
nobody cares about your city
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2874  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2012, 6:49 PM
Pistola916's Avatar
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Sacramento-CA's portland
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 380
Sacramento Is Fresh Victim of Bad Stadium Deals
By Steven Greenhut Apr 16, 2012 4:30 PM PT

Bloomberg News

Officials in Sacramento, California, are furious that the owners of the Kings basketball franchise, the Maloof family, said they are backing out of a handshake deal in February to invest $73 million in a project to build a new arena downtown.

This publicly funded stadium issue has raged in cities across the U.S., including Indianapolis, where the highly subsidized Lucas Oil Stadium was host to this year’s Super Bowl, and Minneapolis, as Minnesota legislators ponder a deal to build a new football stadium for the Vikings.

But the story in California’s capital, a city of 2 million with a perennial inferiority complex borne of being overshadowed by the Los Angeles and Bay Area media markets, is not about the details of the deal or the wiles of mercurial owners of National Basketball Association teams. It’s about the foolishness of city officials who pin urban renewal hopes and taxpayer dollars on sports complexes despite the public’s declining willingness to pony up the cash.

News articles over the weekend quoted fans who feel betrayed by the Maloofs, but these feelings are hard to quantify. Some residents are no doubt upset, but others openly question whether this is the best use of public resources, especially at this time. Although the economy isn’t as bad in Sacramento as in some other California locales, it’s still depressed, and city finances are stressed.
Overblown Estimates

At the news conference last week in New York announcing their decision to abandon the plan, the Maloofs deferred to an economist, Christopher Thornberg, who argued that the city- backed deal was based on a “wildly overblown estimate of the kind of revenue value this arena will bring to the city.” He said the project “would really put the city right on the edge of potential fiscal disaster.” The Maloofs’ lawyer said revenue projections were based on boom years when the now- lowly Kings were in the championship hunt.

Economists have long understood that new arenas and sports stadiums rarely bring new economic activity into a city, but merely move entertainment money around the region.

“Economic growth takes place when a community’s resources -- people, capital investments and natural resources like land -- become more productive,” wrote the economists Roger Noll and Andrew Zimbalist in a still-quoted 1997 Brookings Institution study. “Building a stadium is good for the local economy only if a stadium is the most productive way to make capital investments and use its workers.”

That situation almost never is the case. These deals are not about economic growth, but civic pride. Last year, after the Maloofs announced their planned move to Anaheim, in Southern California, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson talked about the need to keep the franchise to help Sacramento become a “world-class city.” But as I wrote in a column in the Sacramento Bee at the time, “Second-tier cities believe that professional sports put them on the map, although all they do is provide some unexceptional entertainment and enrich team owners, who cleverly manipulate the local inferiority complex to gain arena subsidies.”

Sacramento officials spent their time and squandered taxpayer money on such dreams, while neglecting the nitty- gritty of municipal government -- a negligence that shows throughout city neighborhoods.

The response to the column was overwhelmingly positive, from people who understood that Sacramento is a perfectly nice place to live, but that keeping a sports team in town will never help it become a destination city.
Maloofs’ Strategy

Residents, apparently, are savvier than their leaders. “If the Maloofs had wanted to embarrass Sacramento on a national stage, they brilliantly succeeded with the televised Manhattan press conference they orchestrated Friday,” the Bee editorialized Saturday. “But along with anger, Sacramento should show a little humility. We’ve seen this switcheroo from the Maloofs before. As the idiom goes, ‘Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.’”

Yet Sacramento civic boosters will continue to be played as fools until they realize that the Kings are no more important to the local psyche than any other business franchise. Sacramento, a government town where state workers flee the city center at 4:30 p.m. every day, has myriad obstacles to the creation of a vibrant downtown nightlife scene. Blocks from the planned arena, the main shopping plaza is practically a ghost town.

Despite decades of subsidies, the main drag through downtown, the K Street corridor, is known mostly for vacant storefronts and vagrants. An arena won’t fix these problems. Last week, the California Redevelopment Association -- the group that had championed a subsidy-driven economic development model throughout the state -- announced it would be shutting its doors after those agencies were shut down by the Legislature and governor.

Yet in the same week its former leader, John Shirey, now Sacramento city manager, criticized the Maloofs’ economic analysis. Maybe the redevelopment administration’s shuttering is a reminder that it’s time for cities to embrace economic- revitalization models based more on market incentives than on City Hall subsidies and directives.

Officials in California’s first-tier coastal metropolises need to learn these lessons, too. Los Angeles civic leaders are pushing a downtown stadium proposal despite the obvious traffic issues, while a competing group is offering a plan on the eastern edge of the San Gabriel Valley.

In San Diego, officials continue to promote an atrocious taxpayer-funded stadium deal to keep its football team, the Chargers, from heading to Los Angeles or elsewhere, but they don’t seem to be getting much traction either.

Perhaps city officials everywhere will always be lured by the promises of big-league sports franchises. In that case, public skepticism is the best way to keep taxpayer dollars safe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2875  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2012, 7:49 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,104
Looks like now "Plan B" is build a new arena without the Kings:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/18/442...ill-wants.html

The real red flag here is that, if the city of Sacramento builds a sports facility without the Kings, they can walk away from their debt on Power Balance and stick the city with the bill. Add that to the extra $75 million we'd have to come up with to backfill the Maloofs' portion, and the very unlikely proposition of AEG sticking around if the deal doesn't ensure the Kings stay out of Southern California for 30 years, and this looks even less probable than the Maloofs' cartoonish list of demands...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2876  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2013, 9:47 PM
TWAK's Avatar
TWAK TWAK is online now
I left my heart in Tikrit
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 1,708
nowhere to talk about the new arena stuff? come on guys post the articles!!
__________________
nobody cares about your city
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2877  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2013, 6:10 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,104
So far there aren't even any renderings, and generally it takes renderings to get this crowd talking. All the ones posted in the articles are retreads from the last few arena plans--stock footage of failure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2878  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2013, 8:40 PM
ElDuderino's Avatar
ElDuderino ElDuderino is offline
Droppin' Loads
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Ventura, California
Posts: 244
From jbradway at SSC

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbradway View Post
Back from the dead?

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/23/521...orization.html

City is going into formal negotiations with the equity investors this week and KJ is going to be presenting a team purchase bid to the NBA on Friday 3/1. They are hoping to finalize a new term sheet for the NBA in April.

FYI, the new arena site is moving from the railyards to the Downtown Plaza Mall site. It's a site that has been looked at for a long time but given up because the mall owners, Westfield, wanted 400-500 million for the site. They ended up selling it to JMA Ventures for 22 million last August. JMA and Ron Burkle are teaming up on the project for the arena and surrounding development.

Here are a few of the old concepts for that site. It will be changing since AECOM has been involved with JMA. So even the old Populous concepts will likely be outdated.



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2879  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2013, 2:36 AM
v.o.r.t.e.x's Avatar
v.o.r.t.e.x v.o.r.t.e.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 29
Very nice rendering. I think this location is much better than railyards
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2880  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2013, 5:06 AM
CAGeoNerd CAGeoNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 186
You better believe that if Sacramento keeps the Kings and this new arena downtown plan moves ahead, we're going to see high rises start going up again! Namely, the handful of blatantly vacant lots begging to be used. I'm trying to keep myself from getting to excited only to be let down. Completely have no idea what our chances are, and odds are we won't know for well over a month what the future of our downtown will look like. I'm not much of a Kings fan but I'm a strong proponent of having them here as the anchor tenant in a new venue downtown. Will be an incredible catalyst to revitalize downtown. Was a stupid idea to put the arena way out in the suburbs in the first place, this will finally be something done right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:29 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.