HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2821  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2012, 5:28 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Well, if the arena deal was based on the participation (and $75 million investment) of folks who so obviously don't want to be here, I'd say the foundation of the deal was pretty shaky to begin with. Heck, I have been saying it was a lousy deal all along, now apparently one of the parties involved with the deal agrees with me!

Oh yeah, here's the full 11-page letter detailing their attorneys' concerns--even more detail than the 6-page letter to John Dangberg.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/88339725/032012-Maloof-Letter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2822  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2012, 6:25 AM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Parkway Pauper
Posts: 8,064
The deal was never lousy, it's some of the participants who don't understand how to give and take in a development process.
__________________
Riding out the crazy train
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2823  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2012, 7:22 AM
CAGeoNerd CAGeoNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
... the Maloofs have been neither candid nor sincere about their true intentions in this matter. If they really wanted to stay in Sacramento they would have found a way to do so long ago.

The Maloofs have made up their minds to move to Anaheim and are trying to but put the kibosh on any deal that keeps them here- but AEG/Lakers/Clippers and the NBA are all trying to stop them. IMO that's why their lawyers are sifting through the communication records trying to find something where they can say the City acted inappropriately therefore any and all deals off and they have a legit reason to leave.
^^^This.

I can't wait until the NBA forces them to sell.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2824  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2012, 3:50 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
I see only 3 senerios here-

1. The NBA lifts their objections to the Kings relocating and they are out of here.
2. The NBA doubles down on the Maloofs and puts pressure on them to stay and deal with the city.
3. The NBA puts pressure on them to sell the team.

Who knows what will happen but I think that the other owners would be loathe to force a fellow owner to sell their team so I am betting on 1 or 2 but hope for 3. If 2 happens then maybe the Maloofs will decide to sell the team anyway. As was suggested, I am popping my corn.

Last edited by ozone; Apr 7, 2012 at 4:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2825  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2012, 4:58 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
I see only 3 senerios here-

1. The NBA lifts their objections to the Kings relocating and they are out of here.
2. The NBA doubles down on the Maloofs and puts pressure on them to stay and deal with the city.
3. The NBA puts pressure on them to sell the team.

Who knows what will happen but I think that the other owners would be loathe to force a fellow owner to sell their team so I am betting on 1 or 2 but hope for 3. If 2 happens then maybe the Maloofs will decide to sell the team anyway. As was suggested, I am popping my corn.
I agree with your scenarios. If the Kings leave and we are without a new arena nor a team, how will it affect our prospects of ever building a new arena and will we be able to obtain major league sports ever again?

Has a city ever lost all their major league sports teams, and what are the those cities like now?
__________________
C'est le moment ou jamais
C'est facile comme tout
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2826  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2012, 6:35 PM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 632
Kings leave, goodbye professional sports in this city. The River Cats are great but they don't do squat for Sacramento's image. I can see Major League Soccer here but that's it. What league would want to work with Sacramento after this fiasco.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2827  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2012, 6:56 PM
Web Web is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 523
Magoofs. They dont have the 75 million and are looking to bail out early.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2828  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2012, 7:48 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Have to agree with Pistola916.

Unless there is a dramatic change in the City's economic structure with a corresponding sustained economic and population growth I don't see it ever happening. But even size and a good economy doesn't always matter. Look at Austin, Texas -no major teams in any sport and LA is without a NFL team.

BrianSac I can't think of any city that had all four professional sports and then lost them all.

BTW Forbes ranked Sacramento America's #5 Most Miserable City and Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville #2 for Worst City for Jobs this Spring.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2829  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2012, 9:29 PM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pistola916 View Post
Kings leave, goodbye professional sports in this city. The River Cats are great but they don't do squat for Sacramento's image. I can see Major League Soccer here but that's it. What league would want to work with Sacramento after this fiasco.
Unless you make the case it was George Maloof and his lawyers that screwed the City of Sacramento.
__________________
C'est le moment ou jamais
C'est facile comme tout
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2830  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2012, 11:17 PM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 632
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianSac View Post
Unless you make the case it was George Maloof and his lawyers that screwed the City of Sacramento.
True. Still Sacramento needs to build a new arena and the city's track record and failed attempts will work against them. Furthermore, if the current arena deal falls apart, whose to say AEG will partner up. Sacramento is going to have to pony up by themselves.

And with no major tenant, assuming the Kings play elsewhere, it will be awfully difficult to find new partners to invest -- Burkel's name has been mentioned as a possible suitor but the Maloofs refuse to sell and the Hornets are staying in New Orleans.

Yes we can blame the Maloofs all we want but Stern is not going to give us a new team just because he feels sorry for us.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2831  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 2:12 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
I see only 3 senerios here-

1. The NBA lifts their objections to the Kings relocating and they are out of here.
2. The NBA doubles down on the Maloofs and puts pressure on them to stay and deal with the city.
3. The NBA puts pressure on them to sell the team.

Who knows what will happen but I think that the other owners would be loathe to force a fellow owner to sell their team so I am betting on 1 or 2 but hope for 3. If 2 happens then maybe the Maloofs will decide to sell the team anyway. As was suggested, I am popping my corn.
I agree with this. I think option 1 is more difficult than you may realize though. This is the deal that the NBA itself put together with the city of Sacramento. The NBA already said this was a good and fair deal. Why would they change their minds now? The other part is there are other small market teams in need of new arenas. If they allow the Maloofs to leave when Sac did their part, then those other owners could instantly lose trust from their own markets.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2832  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 3:43 AM
Web Web is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 523
maloofs doing damage control.......like someone else "stopped" negotiating. I swear the 73 million contribution in their mind is just transferring the current loan.......

sure would be interesting to open their books!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2833  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2012, 3:11 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Tom Ziller has a pretty clear grasp of the problem here. Basically it's what we know already but still a good read just to keep in mind what's really going on.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2012/4/1...arena-nba-hook

What if the NBA allows the Maloofs to move the Kings to Anaheim or KC or Timbuktu IF they promise Sacramento (along with Seattle) an expansion team by 2014? Provided an arena is built, of course.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2834  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2012, 11:59 PM
kryptos's Avatar
kryptos kryptos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 252
as long as sac keeps the kings name, an expansion team is just fine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2835  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 1:12 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
Tom Ziller has a pretty clear grasp of the problem here. Basically it's what we know already but still a good read just to keep in mind what's really going on.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2012/4/1...arena-nba-hook

What if the NBA allows the Maloofs to move the Kings to Anaheim or KC or Timbuktu IF they promise Sacramento (along with Seattle) an expansion team by 2014? Provided an arena is built, of course.
How about the NBA leave the Kings here and promise to give the Maloofs an expansion team in Timbuktu. I like that better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2836  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 3:43 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Went to a meeting at City Hall about some potential arena/intermodal designs. Here's the latest plan for the arena/intermodal area:

Sorry for the low-res cellphone pic, there will probably be a better looking copy online in a day or two.

In this version the arena is back over on the west side of the lot, with the transit uses on the right, and an open plaza in the middle where transit passengers can move back and forth and arena patrons can enter and exit where the blue arrows are--allowing them to walk into Old Sacramento or to the transit center with equal ease. The red spots are retail pads for joint development--shops or restaurants for use by arena or transit patrons. The depot becomes the main entrance from downtown to the whole complex, once you leave the depot the trains are straight ahead and the Shops provide a backdrop. Due to its location on the west the arena itself provides shade in the afternoons to people walking to and from the tracks. The tracks and the Shops are accessed by the tunnels currently under construction, although additional paths over the tracks wouldn't be ruled out, and the idea of cantilevering the arena over the tracks to the north could be extended even farther here.

There is no access for cars other than drop-off points in front of the depot and on the eastern side--except for trucks/buses servicing the arena, accessed by a service road indicated by the dotted black line.

I still have my concerns about the financing plan (and so do the Maloofs, apparently) but from an urban design standpoint, if you're going to jam an arena and an intermodal depot on this small lot, this looks like a good way to do it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2837  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 4:51 AM
CAGeoNerd CAGeoNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
There is no access for cars other than drop-off points in front of the depot and on the eastern side--except for trucks/buses servicing the arena, accessed by a service road indicated by the dotted black line.

I still have my concerns about the financing plan (and so do the Maloofs, apparently) but from an urban design standpoint, if you're going to jam an arena and an intermodal depot on this small lot, this looks like a good way to do it.
Nice to see you coming around wburg

Obviously very conceptual ideas floating around. They might not fit a parking structure in there, but there will be something there, and/or parking structure(s) adjacent to the site somewhere. Also, the goal is to have lots of people not have to drive to events held there at all. More mass transit in the form of light rail, trains, buses, more people able to simply walk there or ride bikes. People will be parking many blocks away and walking to/from events, etc.

The biggest concern of the financing plan is the Maloofs themselves. I'm hoping the NBA forces them to sell.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2838  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 5:36 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
In this case, the plan's coming around to me, rather than me coming around to it. And the NBA doesn't have the power to force them to sell, apparently.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2839  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 5:56 AM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 632
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2840  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 2:56 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
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.
Then the issue becomes finding the additional $75 million while simultaneously taking on the burden of paying off the Kings' loan debt (I assume if they leave town that calls in their chips--Sacramento gets a share of the Kings and their property on the Arco site, but has to pay off their tab.) Which also complicates borrowing the $255 million we're already putting into the project.
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 7:58 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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