HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2781  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 1:59 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Sounds like the Maloofs are already getting cold feet..."Agreement? What agreement?"

If they won't even put in $3 million, how can we expect them to put in $75 million plus $2.5 million a year in rent?

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sports...002,full.story
Quote:
Sacramento Kings' arena concerns put Anaheim back in play

By Lance Pugmire

March 29, 2012, 11:26 a.m.
Building a new arena for the Sacramento Kings by the 2015 NBA season opener is fraught with challenges, the greatest of which may be the increasing skepticism of the team's owners that it can be accomplished.

Documents reviewed by The Times this week show Kings owners Joe, Gavin and George Maloof dispute that they have a firm agreement to participate in a new entertainment and sports complex in the city.

Additionally, in a Wednesday letter delivered to city leaders under the subject “ESC feasibility concerns,” the Maloofs’ attorney writes “unresolved issues regarding the … project remain … .”

A year removed from the Maloofs wanting to move the Kings south to Anaheim’s Honda Center, that notion is back in play, a Maloof spokesman said.

“If an arena project cannot be completed by the timeline set by the city, then the Kings would be forced to explore all of their options,” Maloof family spokesperson Eric Rose said.

Meeting the timeline requires navigating a perilous path of environmental requirements, possible additional expenses and legal challenges.

In a Tuesday letter to the Maloofs’ attorney, Sacramento officials acknowledged they are working to ease “questions and concerns” aired by the owners.

Sacramento Assistant City Manager John Dangberg wrote “there is much work ahead that must be closely coordinated among the partners,” adding, “it is critical for all parties to be pulling in the same direction.”

Dangberg, in the nine-page letter, said completing construction by the 2015 opener is “achievable.”

Public scrutiny of city spending has spawned a civic group to fight arena investment. Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork filed has filed for an initiative to stop public arena funding.

Amid other uncertainty about who’s paying for a slew of pre-development and construction costs, the Maloofs were moved to press for specifics from the city on March 20.

“The leadership in Sacramento is aware of the many challenges in completing the project in the timeframe they set,” Rose said in a prepared statement. “The city has previously committed to having the Kings in a new arena by the start of the 2015 basketball season.”

The Maloofs declined to comment.

Messages left for the spokesman of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson and other city officials were not immediately returned.

The Maloofs were poised to move the team to the Honda Center last year before NBA Commissioner David Stern asked them to wait a year and let Johnson, an ex-NBA All-Star point guard, establish a financing plan for a new arena in the city.

Sacramento officials and the Maloofs emerged from a Feb. 27 meeting during NBA All-Star Weekend in Orlando, Fla., saying they had reached verbal agreement for a new $391-million arena to be funded by the Maloofs ($75 million), arena builder AEG ($59 million) and the city ($255.5 million).

But the Maloofs made a strong point in Wednesday’s letter to underline the preliminary term sheet is non-binding, with their attorney writing, “There was never an agreement reached.”

In addressing questions about the impact of legal challenges and other interference that could complicate efforts to meet California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Environmental Impact Report requirements, Sacramento’s Dangberg wrote in his letter to the Maloofs’ attorney that, “development projects of this magnitude always involve risk.”

Stern’s voice may still enter to calm the Maloofs as a future dealing with traffic, parking planning and measurements of greenhouse gas emissions at the proposed arena site swirl in their heads.

An NBA spokesman did not immediately comment on the Sacramento situation, but Stern has thus far made moves consistent with advocating remaining in the market where his is the only pro sports league.

Yet, the Maloofs’willingness to maintain patience with the risk of arena building weighed against ready-made Anaheim’s interest in becoming an NBA home in a far larger market is compelling.

More about the dynamic could be revealed as soon as Tuesday, when the Sacramento City Council is expected to discuss the status of the arena agreement and seek a more substantial Maloofs’ commitment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2782  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 2:14 AM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 632
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Sounds like the Maloofs are already getting cold feet..."Agreement? What agreement?"

If they won't even put in $3 million, how can we expect them to put in $75 million plus $2.5 million a year in rent?

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sports...002,full.story
The NBA agreed to pay for the $3.5 million pre-construction phase.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2783  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 2:18 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pistola916 View Post
The NBA agreed to pay for the $3.5 million pre-construction phase.
Swell...is the NBA going to pay the other $72 million too? Are the Maloofs going to pay for anything? And, from the sound of the story, the Maloofs don't appear to consider any of the term sheet official, and are still sniffing around at Anaheim. Maybe their piggybank is emptier than they thought?

edit: Actually, the NBA didn't agree to pay the $3.5 million...just $200,000.
Quote:
The NBA today came to the rescue of Sacramento's arena deal, agreeing to advance about $200,000 in pre-development costs after the Kings' owners balked at paying the money.

This money represents the first installment of the Kings' share of pre-development costs totalling $3.26 million.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/29/437...#storylink=cpy

Last edited by wburg; Mar 30, 2012 at 2:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2784  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 4:10 AM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Parkway Pauper
Posts: 8,064
That article posted from the LA Times really doesn't mean anything. It's a paper in the region still hoping to lure the Kings, so of course they want to stir the pot. As was said, the NBA is picking up this pre-development cost so it's not really an issue going forward at this point.
__________________
Riding out the crazy train
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2785  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 4:56 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport View Post
That article posted from the LA Times really doesn't mean anything. It's a paper in the region still hoping to lure the Kings, so of course they want to stir the pot. As was said, the NBA is picking up this pre-development cost so it's not really an issue going forward at this point.
They're picking up $200K of the $3.5 million predevelopment cost--no word on the other $3.3 million yet. And apparently they're just "advancing" it, which means they want it to be paid back by someone else. That wasn't something separate from the money the Maloofs said they would contribute, so it does mean they either aren't willing or aren't able to pay the amount of money they agreed to in the term sheet--and apparently they consider the term sheet non-binding.

It's just not a very confidence-inducing thing when the Maloofs break their agreement with the city within three weeks. Anyone hungry for a $6000 burger combo?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2786  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 6:39 AM
ThatDarnSacramentan ThatDarnSacramentan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,047
I swear, the day that I will no longer have any doubts whatsoever about this new arena is the day I walk through the front door with a Kings ticket in my hand. Maybe a Kings fan will win that $540,000,000 lotto jackpot and decide to invest it all in the arena.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2787  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 7:13 AM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatDarnSacramentan View Post
I swear, the day that I will no longer have any doubts whatsoever about this new arena is the day I walk through the front door with a Kings ticket in my hand. Maybe a Kings fan will win that $540,000,000 lotto jackpot and decide to invest it all in the arena.
People have been saying that all day. Would be nice!

It truly will be miracle if there is a fully functioning arena in late 2015. You know every nasayer in this town will twist and turn, distort and exploit the thousands of hurdles that arena leaders will have to overcome along the way. It will be one for the history books. We can write historical nostalgic books about the adversaries and obstructionists who doubted, feared, and sabotaged until they were red in the face.
__________________
C'est le moment ou jamais
C'est facile comme tout
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2788  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 7:34 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
At this point, it looks like the biggest obstructionists are the Maloofs--they're the ones who always seem hell-bent on pulling defeat from the jaws of victory.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2789  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 4:11 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Well our opinions on this matter are well known and any arguments are unlikely to change them. We shall see how this plays out. As for the Maloofs. Only Gavin really cares to stay in Sacramento. The rest of them would prefer to move the team to Southern California or even Vegas. You could argue that it's only about the money but it's not. It's about ego as well. Why else would you even want to own a team? So why would you want to have your team in a less-than-glamourous town (unless it's your hometown) when you could 'do better'. Say what you will about Anaheim - about it being a Mickey Mouse type of place- it's really part of LA- the largest metropolitan area outside of New York. Why wouldn't they want to move there?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2790  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 4:54 PM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
Well our opinions on this matter are well known and any arguments are unlikely to change them. We shall see how this plays out. As for the Maloofs. Only Gavin really cares to stay in Sacramento. The rest of them would prefer to move the team to Southern California or even Vegas. You could argue that it's only about the money but it's not. It's about ego as well. Why else would you even want to own a team? So why would you want to have your team in a less-than-glamourous town (unless it's your hometown) when you could 'do better'. Say what you will about Anaheim - about it being a Mickey Mouse type of place- it's really part of LA- the largest metropolitan area outside of New York. Why wouldn't they want to move there?
I don't think Stern and the NBA want team owners thinking they can leave cities in the dust every 5yrs or so. He wants to maintain stability, build a national fanbase, and avoid alienating the existing fanbase. An important part of that equation is to keep small market teams alive.

Sacramento is special. It is one of the most challenged metros economically along with lacking a corp base. Our market is completely fan-driven, minimal corp donations and sponsorships. Yet, we've had strong attendance records in the past despite having losing teams. We have the largest population base of the small markets and the NBA is the only major league sport in town.

Because the Maloofs are prevented from moving their team, maybe they will sell them to a new owner. The NBA will require that the new owner keep the team in Sacramento. It would be great if a new owner had their roots in the Sacramento area. Raley, Spanos, Mondavi, Teichert, or a small group of locally grown millionaires headed by .......
__________________
C'est le moment ou jamais
C'est facile comme tout
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2791  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 5:22 PM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by doriankage View Post
I have lived the past four years outside the US. You would be surprised at how many Kings jerseys I have seen, in Spain, Australia, even in East Africa.

For some reason, people like them. And we as the city should embrace them and hope that when Sacramento wins a championship, these people from around the world come to our city and celebrate with you.
Last fall I spent a month in a small town in Europe and would hang out at a pub where the locals watched soccer. None of the guys knew where Sacramento was until I mentioned the Kings. A few days later one of the guys wore his Kings jersey to the pub.
__________________
C'est le moment ou jamais
C'est facile comme tout
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2792  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 5:47 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Brian I agree with most of what you said. Except that the Maloofs are not prevented from moving the team and they haven't yet done so because competing (money) interests are trying to keep them out of certain markets. IMO the NBA/Stern's approach to all this has little to do with wanting to support smaller markets/fan base. It's about money and ego, plain and simple. And since any owner would want their team to be winners I suspect that turning the Kings into a losing team is part of the Maloofs' strategy to move the team to 'greener pastures'.

Yes it would be nice if some locals bought controlling interest in the team.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2793  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 6:26 PM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
Brian I agree with most of what you said. Except that the Maloofs are not prevented from moving the team and they haven't yet done so because competing (money) interests are trying to keep them out of certain markets. IMO the NBA/Stern's approach to all this has little to do with wanting to support smaller markets/fan base. It's about money and ego, plain and simple. And since any owner would want their team to be winners I suspect that turning the Kings into a losing team is part of the Maloofs' strategy to move the team to 'greener pastures'.

Yes it would be nice if some locals bought controlling interest in the team.
How do you explain New Orleans? Why is the NBA keeping them in the Crescent City? Any future owner must keep them in N.O.
__________________
C'est le moment ou jamais
C'est facile comme tout
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2794  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 7:51 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianSac View Post
How do you explain New Orleans? Why is the NBA keeping them in the Crescent City? Any future owner must keep them in N.O.
The "competing money interest" Ozone mentions is AEG, and the "certain market" they want to keep the Kings out of is southern California. AEG would lose about $500 million in media rights if the Kings move south--so now they are being asked to partner with the Maloofs, who not only are trying to skip town, but trying to move to Anaheim, which would cost AEG half a billion dollars! Not exactly the most comfortable partnership for either party, and now they are being asked to go into business together for the next 30 years!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2795  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 11:09 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
exactement

"How do you explain New Orleans? Why is the NBA keeping them in the Crescent City? Any future owner must keep them in N.O."

Of course I no nothing of the back-room dealing re. N.O. but if there was ever a city that would been given special treatment it would be that one. So I would be careful not to make comparisons with Sacramento. Not saying you are wrong in the NBA wanting stability, rather that I doubt this is the reason for Stern's efforts here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2796  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 12:25 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
I'm reading, but I don't understand the all out panic. Direct quote for David Stern.

"I have advised Mayor Johnson that the NBA will advance pre-development expenses on behalf of the Kings pending our report to the NBA Board of Governors at its meeting on April 12-13."

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/29/437...-troubles.html

First off, Stern says the payment is on behalf of the Kings, so we know which side of this the NBA falls. Second, Stern specifically throws in the meeting with the NBA Board of Governors into the conversation. Read between the lines. Everything Stern says has a purpose. The pressure is on the Maloofs.

However, none of the conversation is about how much in total the Maloofs will invest in the project, so I'm not sure how we're making a leap saying the Kings may not pay ANY money or their $73 mil. Pure speculation and desperation to make that leap.

As far as Stern not wanting another team in LA, or AEG not wanting a team there, or the other owners...how is that a bad thing? All of that favors the city of Sacramento. The Maloofs can throw all the tantrums they want, it won't change the fact that league prefers not to have another team in L.A.

Stern is keeping a close eye on this. If the Maloofs act silly and try to kill this deal with unreasonable requests, they will be out of an NBA franchise. How does that benefit them? The league will NOT let the Maloofs move if they agreed to the term sheet and then try to back out of it. Just won't happen. Doesn't matter what the Maloofs want at this point. They're backed into a corner.

This was always going to be a bumpy ride. There was lots of foreshadowing by the city, the Maloofs and the NBA when they said there is still work to be done. No need to panic on every piece of news.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2797  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 5:21 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Apparently the Maloofs didn't sign the term sheet. But if their contention is that they are only tenants and shouldn't have to pay up-front costs, does that or doesn't that include the $73 million? So far, they aren't saying one way or the other--it is an unanswered question, but they claim they haven't agreed to anything.

Looks like the decision has been pushed back for two weeks. The NBA is fronting $200,000, and if you say the NBA expects he Maloofs to pay it back, fine, but they have already said on the record they have no intention of paying that money. I'm not panicking, just keeping my eyes open and noting how often the Maloofs' story changes.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/31/438...-puts-off.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2798  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 8:25 PM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Apparently the Maloofs didn't sign the term sheet. But if their contention is that they are only tenants and shouldn't have to pay up-front costs, does that or doesn't that include the $73 million? So far, they aren't saying one way or the other--it is an unanswered question, but they claim they haven't agreed to anything.

Looks like the decision has been pushed back for two weeks. The NBA is fronting $200,000, and if you say the NBA expects he Maloofs to pay it back, fine, but they have already said on the record they have no intention of paying that money. I'm not panicking, just keeping my eyes open and noting how often the Maloofs' story changes.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/31/438...-puts-off.html
Apparently the contention is over pre-development costs, not the construction costs. Maloofs don't want to be on the hook for money when the deal isn't signed yet.

I hear ya though. I don't really trust the Maloofs either. Nothing is signed yet, but some things are agreed upon in principle, so this is why the NBA jumped so quick to keep it going on behalf of the Kings. Like I said, we're in for a ride.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2799  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 8:56 PM
Web Web is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by NME22 View Post
Apparently the contention is over pre-development costs, not the construction costs. Maloofs don't want to be on the hook for money when the deal isn't signed yet.

I hear ya though. I don't really trust the Maloofs either. Nothing is signed yet, but some things are agreed upon in principle, so this is why the NBA jumped so quick to keep it going on behalf of the Kings. Like I said, we're in for a ride.
maloofs are busted. the 73 million they will probably say is the loan they are still paying back restructured. time for them to sell.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2800  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 9:00 PM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
"Since the reports Thursday, there have been questions on whether the Maloofs are having money issues and if they can come through with the $73 million they are being asked to contribute toward the railyards arena.

“We have a commitment for that money,” George Maloof said. “It’s not a money issue for us.”

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/...ramento-arena/


For what it's worth...
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 4:12 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.