Do We Care if the Maloofs are Losing Money?

[10B10]

You're right, it did do fairly well financially during that time. However, at that point, Arco Arena was still considered a marginally new venue where ticket prices/concession prices were not completely ridiculous. And, the economy was a little better...

You're point is key though - Sacramento CAN house the NBA! I think it has been shown that Sacramento is fully capable of being a great place for an NBA team (for the reasons you stated), but right now we have literally EVERYTHING going against us as far as trying to get fans in the stands.

And I think blame goes directly on the owners.

[_SRV_]

The Maloofs are "billionaires" but they don't have a billion dollars in the bank. The King's represent 350 million, Palms represents say another 400 million, they have property that add up to X amount, and so forth. When income isn't really coming in, it is hard for them to pay for everything while still owning everything.

I've really been saying this for a long time, but the general consensus on this board and other boards that, if it doesn't hurt the cap why should I care? Which is really short sighted.
When the team was going backwards and the we were clearly headed into rebuilding time, we still spent money on marginal players rather than clearing the books to "save" money for an upswing and they are paying the price now, with chokingly high interest. We have been a middle of the pack and then a bottom feeder team with 65 million $ payroll, that in my eyes is inexcusable, and as the decision makers of budget constraints it is the Maloofs' fault, it's Petrie's mistake signing the wrong players, it's the Mallofs mistake allowing him to sign players.
I care a lot about the balance of the Maloofs, because rich Maloofs means more resources for the Kings, which was the case in early 2000s, that's why I believe everyone should care, do I sympathize with them losing money? I'm not even a millionare, they are billionares, they'll manage w/o my sympathy.