Sacramento - New Arena Plan

[wburg]

Originally Posted by CAGeoNerd

Wow, now you're just grasping at straws, wburg, and writing off facts of economic impact such as hosting the NBA all-star game. Don't net much, if anything? Really?

Really.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/investigate...-95467734.html

Michael Casinelli of San Diego owns Marketing Information Masters. He was paid by the All-Star North Texas Basketball Local Organizing Committee to prepare an economic impact study for the NBA event.

To see who wins, you check the score.

Based on the economic score, the dollars spent, let's look at the economic impact of this year's NBA All-Star Game:

It's not $152 million as predicted.

Tax receipts from the State of Texas show the game brought in zero.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...omy/?mobile=nc

Using this model the average real economic impact (in 1999 dollars) from the [men's Final Four] over the period 1970 through 1999 is estimated at -$44.28 million, or the model indicates that the average host city experienced a reduction in real income of $44.28 million as a consequence of the event. This compares to typical booster estimates predicting gains ranging from $25 million to $110 million. The median estimated economic impact equaled a loss of $6.44 million.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/03/...ke-basketball/

Baade and Matheson offer three reasons the impact suggested by proponents of sports fail to appear:

The Substitution Effect: Sports are just one form of entertainment. If the Kings didn’t play in Sacramento, the people in Sacramento would simply spend the portion of their entertainment budget currently dedicated to the Kings on something else (i.e. dining out, movies, etc…).
The Crowding-Out Effect: Sporting events attract crowds. When people know those crowds are going to appears, those who are not attending the sporting event tend to avoid the general area. For example, Baade and Matheson note that the 2008 Olympics in Beijing failed to increase the number of tourists in Beijing in August of 2008 relative to what the same city saw in August of 2007.
Leakages: The Kings do employ very high-priced labor. But many of those players probably don’t live in Sacramento. This means that the income earned by these players doesn’t stay in the Sacramento economy.

[jbradway]

Originally Posted by wburg

Really.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/investigate...-95467734.html

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...omy/?mobile=nc

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/03/...ke-basketball/

If the Kings didn’t play in Sacramento, the people in Sacramento would simply spend the portion of their entertainment budget currently dedicated to the Kings on something else

This is very correct and makes an argument for building the ESC downtown. Why? It's because of WHERE the money is spent is what matters.

Those people spending on something else would be spending near their home or elsewhere where they can find the sporting or entertainment event. The large percentage of Kings and other ESC events come from Roseville, Rocklin, Granite Bay, Folsom, EDH, Sac County by far. Almost none of that is spent downtown.

Regional dollars spent downtown is the point.

[NME22]

Originally Posted by wburg

Really.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/investigate...-95467734.html

I mentioned Houston in 2013. Not Dallas in 2010. But, the article specifically states that they couldn't track the revenue. So, how did it net to zero without real numbers to track?

"Since this "entertainment" spending is not identified, it is impossible to track whether it occurred.
Nearly as difficult to track are restaurant expenditures, because restaurant sales tax is not separated from other sales tax by the state"

Originally Posted by wburg

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...omy/?mobile=nc

ThinkProgress is a political blog pushing an agenda. The city of New Orleans hosts big sporting events all the time. Think they would have figured it out by now that they are giving away money with all their all star games, NCAA tournaments and Superbowls? They must be fools, but somehow they're still not bankrupt. Oh yeah...that big dome they have downtown....fully subsidized.

Originally Posted by wburg

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/03/...ke-basketball/

Substitution effect argument is weak. I enjoy going to the movies as well as attending sporting events. If I go to the movies, I spend less than if I go to a sporting event. Second, there are no events or activities around the downtown plaza area that bring in 19,000 people over 40 times a year for a 3 hour period in the evening. There are no people there on a consistent basis, so there is no one to "crowd out."

In addition, if the Kings leave and I want to see a pro sporting event and need a substitute, my money is going to the bay area.

Finally, where the Kings players is irrelevant to the whole argument. The Kings organization does business in Sacramento and pays taxes. You'd be losing that if they left.

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by jbradway

This is very correct and makes an argument for building the ESC downtown. Why? It's because of WHERE the money is spent is what matters.

Those people spending on something else would be spending near their home or elsewhere where they can find the sporting or entertainment event. The large percentage of Kings and other ESC events come from Roseville, Rocklin, Granite Bay, Folsom, EDH, Sac County by far. Almost none of that is spent downtown.

Regional dollars spent downtown is the point.

100% correct. It's all about where the money is spent, not some generic substitution formula. Wburg knows this of course. He's hoping you don't... #burgfail

PS - We heard all of these same negative impact/substitution effect arguments in San Diego before Petco Park was built. All of them proved to be false as the explosion of development around Petco and post-Petco so clearly demonstrates.

[CAGeoNerd]

Sorry, the results speak for themselves. Cherry-picking a case that proves your point doesn't mean that's what will happen in Sac. It's about the bottom line, the big picture, the long term. The ESC will make the city of Sacramento money and completely revitalize downtown, just like what happened in San Diego, in San Francisco, in Los Angeles, in San Jose, in Denver, in Seattle, in Portland, in..... Big events like the All-Star game provide huge economic impact from the tens/hundreds of thousands of people who descend on the city for several days. Huge amount of money going to businesses. You add other events like NCAA, political conventions, etc. and the possibilities are huge. It's small time thinking that won't get us anywhere.

[wburg]

Big news from New York today...Yankee Stadium's parking bonds (used to pay for the stadium) just went into default!

Bronx Parking Development LLC will default on the bonds after failing to make the $6.9 million payment, making it one of the biggest New York City-sponsored bond defaults in decades.

City economic development aides have privately acknowledged they were ordered by City Hall back then to “make the numbers work” in order to justify tax-exempt bonds.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...#ixzz2PPmMPMoR

[jbradway]

Originally Posted by wburg

Big news from New York today...Yankee Stadium's parking bonds (used to pay for the stadium) just went into default!

Lets be fair now. It's two entirely different situations. NY built new garages and projected revenues badly. City of Sacramento is not building any new garages and is using existing parking revenue for their base projections as part of the bond payments.

Not the same thing.

[wburg]

No, they're basing their projections on dramatically increased revenue on a much smaller number of parking spaces--and just as vulnerable to having those city owned spaces underpriced by private lots, including lots that will be controlled by the arena operator (that won't contribute a cent to city revenue.) A surcharge on private parking would balance that out and provide an extra revenue stream that would protect the general fund.

[wburg]

One less whale in the pod...

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/09/532...cramentos.html

[Schmoe]

Originally Posted by wburg

One less whale in the pod...

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/09/532...cramentos.html

Only if you refer to "the pod" as the group buying the team and developing the arena. In practical terms, the entire redevelopment project is interwoven with the proposed Kings purchase. So in my mind, he's still very much a part of "the pod."

Facing questions over a conflict of interest, Burkle instead will focus on redeveloping other portions of Downtown Plaza.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/09/532...#storylink=cpy

[NME22]

Originally Posted by Schmoe

Only if you refer to "the pod" as the group buying the team and developing the arena. In practical terms, the entire redevelopment project is interwoven with the proposed Kings purchase. So in my mind, he's still very much a part of "the pod."

So it looks like the "pod" is shifting money around in order to avoid a conflict of interest. No one is actually out of the deal.

KJ also said that Burkle could buy into the team at a later date if the conflict of interest is addressed. I'

[ThatDarnSacramentan]

Perhaps there's another layer to this story. The Maloofs have always said they'd never sell to Burkle. Maybe in addition to removing any worries about conflicting interests, this is also to nudge the NBA more in our direction and to perhaps placate the Maloofs ever so slightly. They've never said anything about refusing to sell to Mastrov or Ranadive; it's always been Burkle they hated.

[jbradway]

Originally Posted by ThatDarnSacramentan

Perhaps there's another layer to this story. The Maloofs have always said they'd never sell to Burkle. Maybe in addition to removing any worries about conflicting interests, this is also to nudge the NBA more in our direction and to perhaps placate the Maloofs ever so slightly. They've never said anything about refusing to sell to Mastrov or Ranadive; it's always been Burkle they hated.

I wouldn't be surprised by the time the new arena opens that Burkle is back in the investor group.

[ThatDarnSacramentan]

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/10/533...-deadline.html

Originally Posted by The Sacramento Bee

The Maloof family has given the Sacramento investors seeking to buy the Kings until 5 p.m. Friday to submit a written, binding "back-up" offer that matches the deal the family has in place to sell the franchise to a group in Seattle, a source close to the deal told The Bee today.

The source told the Bee that if the Maloofs receive a matching offer by Friday, they will consider it as a serious back-up proposal should the NBA nullify their tentative deal with Seattle. If the offer doesn't arrive, or doesn't match the Seattle bid, the Maloofs have said any talks are off with the Sacramento group. The source declined further comment about who issued the ultimatum, when, or why.

This gets more interesting and stressful every damn day.

[innov8]

Originally Posted by wburg

If Sacramento is somehow able to match Seattle's bid, that means Seattle has more reason to raise their own bid. Stern wants this price war to bid up as high as possible, so of course he isn't going to do or say anything to dissuade either team from jacking their bid as high as possible in a bidding war. The higher the bid goes, the more money they get, and what is most important to the NBA is not whether the team goes to Seattle or Sacramento, but how much money goes to the NBA. A higher bid for the Kings raises the potential value of every NBA team--and their perceived value to potential host cities (and potential former host cities.)

Originally Posted by NikeFutbolero

You're very misinformed. The Seattle group's bid is in and has been sent to the NBA and cannot be modified so therefore there isn't any bidding war going on.

What did you say? Bids can’t be modified? How misinformed are you?


Sacramento group seeking to buy Kings discounts Seattle's increased bid

By Ryan Lillis, Dale Kasler and Tony Bizjak
rlillis@sacbee.com

Sunday, Apr. 14, 2013 - 3:08 pm

The Sacramento contingent seeking to buy the Kings held back Saturday from delivering a counter to an increased bid for the franchise from Seattle, instead portraying the new offer as a move of desperation that is unlikely to sway the NBA's decision on which city will get the franchise.

It remained unclear Saturday when the Sacramento group would file its own formal and written offer for the team – or whether that bid would match the new offer on the table from a Seattle contingent led by hedge fund manager Chris Hansen and Microsoft executive Steve Ballmer.

A legal expert told The Bee that the NBA has the right to accept a lower offer.

The NBA said it has scheduled a special meeting of a committee of team owners to review Seattle and Sacramento's offers Wednesday in New York, a day before the league's board of governors convenes. Unlike the meeting the committee held April 3, this time the owners won't entertain presentations from either city.

The committee will eventually recommend to the league's board of governors – consisting of all 30 team owners – whether to accept the Seattle bid or keep the team here. A decision by the board on the matter could come as early as Thursday or Friday.

Hansen announced late Friday that he and the Maloof family, which has owned the Kings since 1999, had agreed on a sale price that valued the team at $25 million above what the parties had agreed upon in January.

Under the new agreement, the team would be valued at $550 million – meaning the Maloof family and partner Robert Hernreich stand to make nearly $360 million for their 65 percent interest in the franchise if the transaction is approved by the NBA.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/14/534...#storylink=cpy

[jbradway]

New concept art released today.

[wburg]

Posted the same day that Marcos Breton throws in the towel on his support for the arena and the effort to keep the Kings...

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/24/536...-drop-the.html

[jbradway]

Originally Posted by wburg

Posted the same day that Marcos Breton throws in the towel on his support for the arena and the effort to keep the Kings...

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/24/536...-drop-the.html

As expected, you either have comprehension issues or just flat hope people won't read the article. He is what Marcos wrote and it doesn't line up with your spin.

Like many of us, I'm ready for the Kings story to be resolved – for it to be decided whether the team is staying in Sacramento or moving to Seattle. Make a choice already. We've had it.

He's sick of the saga and wants the resolution. No where in there does he say he does not support the arena or the team staying.

[innov8]

Yes, more rendering... we all feel better again what’s going on now is some NBA sausage making.

[Rail>Auto]

It looks like Conseco Field House meets the Sprint Center. Overall though, it's much better than the design for the railyards which was nothing but a carbon copy of the Amway Center.