KJ keeping the Kings in Sacramento

[The Sebastian Express]

San Fran is a hour and a halfs drive away lets face it there is a reason that SAC only has one pro sports and is almost guranteed to lose it as well... Just because the team had support when they were one of the best few in the NBA does not make it a viable city, this isn't even OKC where at least it is the only pro sports team for a good 500 miles, im sure half the people in the area identify as fans of another cali sports team anyways.

Oklahoma City is:
354 miles from Kansas City, Missouri (Chiefs and Royals)
206 miles from Dallas, Texas (Mavericks, Cowboys, Stars)

So no, it isn't at least 500 miles from any other sports team.

[Moonbeam]

What's this guy's deal? Has some huge grudge against Seattle for some reason.

You should change your title to KJ TRYING to keep the Kings in Sacramento.

No he doesn't. He clearly just wants to keep the Kings in the Sac town. It doesn't have to do with Seattle specifically.

He clearly does have a grudge against Seattle.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1225210
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1225179&p=34262692
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1225101&p=34260048
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1225239&p=34267916
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1225616&p=34282930
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1225848&p=34297244

A google search of his post history suggests he may be from Phoenix, although I thought something he said in one of his baiting threads suggested he was from Kansas City: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=wham ... 25&bih=668

[deNIEd]

I don't see how having so many investors can be a good thing. I can only see bad things happening when certain investors want more say or they have different ideas or direction they want to take the team. What happens when a few of them want out? Just to many things can potentially go wrong. They need one person or group (like the Guggenheim group did with the Dodgers) to step up.

Well, I don't for for a fact...

But the "local owners" who have been putting up $1 million dollars a piece, is nothing more than a publicity/image move. It's to show the NBA that the King's are incredibly important to the city of Sacramento and so many local business owners (who are not incredibly wealthy compared to corporate owners...this holds true for any city) are willing to put up their own money for the betterment of the city.

The majority of the funding and ownership will go to a few big "whales" that KJ says he has been in works with (who knows how accurate this is.) But if you suppose there are 2-3 billionaires who will fund $100 million a piece, how would that be any different than Seattle? Hansen is the frontman of the operation, but he is the least wealthy in his investment group. Multiple teams are owned by ownerships, and the ownerships all have a handful of owners.

[OzSonic]

OF COURSE there are reasons to say no. You are blowing up an established fanbase, losing a Top 20 media market, snubbing an NBA mayor, ending the history of one of the most ancient teams in the league, and setting a very dangerous precedent that could have represussions for every other smaller market in the league. I have no idea how the voting will fall out, but I would virtually guarantee you its not going to be unanimous if Sacramento walks in there with Burkle or Ellison.

Sounds very familiar.

[Moonbeam]

I forgot another WhamBamSlamm gem:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1225100&p=34263311

[dc]

There was conflicts of interest in that sale to Ellison. He wanted to move it to a market that would directly compete with a recently sold team, the Golden State Warriors. Further, he was buying the team for under market value, something the NBA did not want to happen. It also never got to the BOG because they were outbid.

Correct. Another reason the BOG didn't see eye to eye with the Maloofs wanting to move to Anaheim last year was because it made no sense. There was no need to put a 3rd team in the LA/Orange County market. It's not a move that would have made sense for the league in terms of increasing its market presence.

To add to that, I believe the Warriors' new owner (Joe Lacob) voted AGAINST the Kings relocation to Anaheim for a simple reason: He didn't want to set a precedent to where a franchise could move to a market that already had a team. Lacob didn't want a precedent set to where someone else (like Larry Ellison) might move another team to the Bay Area and take a chunk out of his marketshare.

[ThEMvP]

I forgot another WhamBamSlamm gem:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1225100&p=34263311

It's kinda funny, cause if you take his post, replace Bennett with Hansen, OKC with the "new Sonics", Seattle with Sacramento, he would probably go irate on this board lol.

[tfmiii]

OF COURSE there are reasons to say no. You are blowing up an established fanbase, losing a Top 20 media market, snubbing an NBA mayor, ending the history of one of the most ancient teams in the league, and setting a very dangerous precedent that could have represussions for every other smaller market in the league. I have no idea how the voting will fall out, but I would virtually guarantee you its not going to be unanimous if Sacramento walks in there with Burkle or Ellison.

but these are not rea$on$$$

[Mykhyn]

OF COURSE there are reasons to say no. You are blowing up an established fanbase, losing a Top 20 media market, snubbing an NBA mayor, ending the history of one of the most ancient teams in the league, and setting a very dangerous precedent that could have represussions for every other smaller market in the league. I have no idea how the voting will fall out, but I would virtually guarantee you its not going to be unanimous if Sacramento walks in there with Burkle or Ellison.

Sac has 25th metro market vs Seattle's 15th.
Media market Sac at 20th vs Seattle at 14th

You might want to find an argument that actually supports your point.

Kings dead last in attendance this year. 27th last year, 29th the year before, 29th the year before that, last the year before that, 27th before that.

King's have such great fan support that they've been in the bottom 3 attendance for the last 6 years. Obviously they care so much. The Sonics on the other hand have never ranked that low, even with their "small" arena.

Seattle is a better market with better fan support and a better ownership group. Sonics are returning, when you accept that you can start to mourn the Kings.

[Froob]

Why do so many people WANT the Kings to move to Seattle? It's like almost the same thing as the sonics moving to OKC. Sacramento deserves a team just as much as Seattle.

[Winsome Gerbil]

OF COURSE there are reasons to say no. You are blowing up an established fanbase, losing a Top 20 media market, snubbing an NBA mayor, ending the history of one of the most ancient teams in the league, and setting a very dangerous precedent that could have represussions for every other smaller market in the league. I have no idea how the voting will fall out, but I would virtually guarantee you its not going to be unanimous if Sacramento walks in there with Burkle or Ellison.

but these are not rea$on$$$

Actually I would argue many/most of them are. These people didn't get to be billionaires by being shortsighted and chasing after every wad of cash that got waved under their noses. They understand bigger issues and long term ramifications better than most.

But remember the premise of my argument is that I think Sacramento is going to match those SSS as you say. I actually think it might have been a mistake for Ballmer to get it down in a signed agreement with the Maloofs filed with the league because it gives Sacramento something to shoot for, a hard number. And Sacramento if people remmeber correctly had Ron Burkle, a multi-billionaire who's already a major league sports owner, in the bag 2 years ago when they defeated the Anaheim maneuver. On top of that they have Ellison, who'd been desperately trying to get his hands on a team for years now, and suddenly has one pop open right in his own backyard. All of this local investor nonsense is just to take the edge off a little. But the big money guys are right there. So my premise is that Sacto has a number to match, and will find a way to get a VERY rich investor, or two, to match. So SSS are not this huge magical thing that favors Seattle in some huge way. Seattle is a bigger media market, but not overwhelmingly so. Its not NY. Its the #14, Sacto is the #20. The Kings actually always had better attendance while both teams were in the league, and has the edge in being the only show in town. If someone in Sacto buys a sports jersey, its a Kings jersey. They are both going to have arena deals. They are both going to have billionaires wanting to own the team. Its not as if the raw net worth of whoever the owner turns out to be gets added to the net worth of the other owners anyway.

I am quite sure the NBA wants Seattle back in the league. But what the Seattle partisans seem to be blithely assuming is that the league doesn't care about losing the Sacto market/Kings in the process. Frankly, Seattle deserved to lose thier team more than the Sacto people do. If they walk in there with a new arena deal which the NBA has already approved and new wealthy owner of their own, then they have done absolutely nothing wrong. The only thing wrong with the Sacto market was the **** owners who are now thankfully gone.

[BeasleyTheBeast]

Sac is like less than an hour away from Oakland/San Fran give the team to Seattle.

[JDizzel3000]

Sac is like less than an hour away from Oakland/San Fran give the team to Seattle.

oakland "is like less than an hour away from san fran" not sacramento

[deNIEd]

Sac is like less than an hour away from Oakland/San Fran give the team to Seattle.

Seattle is only 170 miles away from Portland,

St. Louis is 240 miles away from the next closet NBA city, give the team to St. Louis.

Kansas City is 350 miles away from the next closest NBA city, give the team to Kansas City.

[deNIEd]

OF COURSE there are reasons to say no. You are blowing up an established fanbase, losing a Top 20 media market, snubbing an NBA mayor, ending the history of one of the most ancient teams in the league, and setting a very dangerous precedent that could have represussions for every other smaller market in the league. I have no idea how the voting will fall out, but I would virtually guarantee you its not going to be unanimous if Sacramento walks in there with Burkle or Ellison.

but these are not rea$on$$$

Actually I would argue many/most of them are. These people didn't get to be billionaires by being shortsighted and chasing after every wad of cash that got waved under their noses. they understand bigger issues and long term ramifications better than most.

You are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wrong.

Have you heard of the Maloofs?

[OzSonic]

Frankly, Seattle deserved to lose thier team more than the Sacto people do.

Real classy. Seattle did not deserve to lose their team, neither do Sacramento.

[deNIEd]

OF COURSE there are reasons to say no. You are blowing up an established fanbase, losing a Top 20 media market, snubbing an NBA mayor, ending the history of one of the most ancient teams in the league, and setting a very dangerous precedent that could have represussions for every other smaller market in the league. I have no idea how the voting will fall out, but I would virtually guarantee you its not going to be unanimous if Sacramento walks in there with Burkle or Ellison.

Sac has 25th metro market vs Seattle's 15th.
Media market Sac at 20th vs Seattle at 14th

You might want to find an argument that actually supports your point.

Kings dead last in attendance this year. 27th last year, 29th the year before, 29th the year before that, last the year before that, 27th before that.

King's have such great fan support that they've been in the bottom 3 attendance for the last 6 years. Obviously they care so much. The Sonics on the other hand have never ranked that low, even with their "small" arena.

Seattle is a better market with better fan support and a better ownership group. Sonics are returning, when you accept that you can start to mourn the Kings.

Well this is complete garbage.

There were 23 seasons in which both Sacramento and Seattle had a team.

In those 23 seasons...
Sacramento had 20 seasons in which more seats were sold out than Seattle
Seattle had 3 seasons in which more seats were sold than Sacramento

Sacramento had 19 seasons in which the % of the arena was higher than Seattle
Seattle had 2 seasons in which the % of the arena was higher than Sacramento
(2 seasons were a tie at 100%)


Sacramento's attendance has suffered the past 2-3 seasons for a few reasons.
1) The team has been utter garbage and management and ownership have given up any attempts at putting together an actual basketball team
2) Economy
3) The Maloofs have attempted to leave over and over again. Why would you stay with a girlfriend who has cheated on you and told you that she is leaving you for another guy the moment the other guy returns from his business trip.

[tfmiii]

Frankly, Seattle deserved to lose thier team more than the Sacto people do.

Real classy. Seattle did not deserve to lose their team, neither do Sacramento.

[KF10]

Kings dead last in attendance this year. 27th last year, 29th the year before, 29th the year before that, last the year before that, 27th before that.

King's have such great fan support that they've been in the bottom 3 attendance for the last 6 years. Obviously they care so much. The Sonics on the other hand have never ranked that low, even with their "small" arena.

Seattle is a better market with better fan support and a better ownership group. Sonics are returning, when you accept that you can start to mourn the Kings.

LOL

1985-86 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 48%, Kings 100%
1986-87 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 50%, Kings 100%
1987-88 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 69%, Kings 100%
1988-89 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 74%, Kings 100%
1989-90 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 70%, Kings 100%
1990-91 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 71%, Kings 100%
1991-92 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 82%, Kings 100%
1992-93 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 89%, Kings 100%
1993-94 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 85%, Kings 100%
1994-95 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 90%, Kings 100%
1995-96 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 100%, Kings 100%
1996-97 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 100%, Kings 100%
1997-98 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 100%, Kings 85%
1998-99 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 100%, Kings 96%
1999-00 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 87%, Kings 100%
2000-01 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 91%, Kings 100%
2001-02 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 90%, Kings 100%
2002-03 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 91%, Kings 100%
2003-04 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 89%, Kings 100%
2004-05 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 96%, Kings 100%
2005-06 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 94%, Kings 100%
2006-07 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 93%, Kings 100%
2007-08 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 79%, Kings 81%

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 1UUTlcCisU

[Gilles]

BOG can approve the sale, but not relocation. No chance of a lawsuit...