Report: New Kings' Owners Will Accept No Revenue Share Money In New Arena

[RealGM Wiretap]

Vivek Ranadive's ownership group has agreed to accept fewer revenue-sharing dollars while the Sacramento Kings continue to play at Sleep Train Arena and will accept no money once they move into a new downtown arena.

The concessions were made shortly before the NBA's relocation committee voted last Monday.

The NBA created a revenue-sharing model during its most recent collective bargaining agreement negotiations to help small market teams.

The NBA declined comment on the report, and a spokesman for the Ranadive group couldn't be reached comment.

Via Dale Kasler, Tony Bizjak/Sacramento Bee

[UGotThrilled]

So, it sounds like the Sacramento group bribed the rest of the owners to vote for them and against Seattle. So not only is one small market being pitted against the other, it also sounds like they are being asked to bid against each other. Not bidding on the sale price, but bidding on what goodies they will provide for the other owners. This is essentially a partial roll-back of the CBA provisions intended to level the playing field.

[d-train]

The NBA holds no inherent power over small market or big market cities. Cities can allocate their resources inline with their individual priorities. That is what citizens commission government representatives to do. Cities have to decide if having an NBA franchise makes sense just as fans have to decide if the cost of a ticket is a fair value. Fans don’t set the price of a ticket but they have the option not to buy one.

[sonictecture]

New Kings owners volunteered to not accept revenue sharing or were guided by Stern that this would assist in their efforts with an ownership vote?

How do the non-basketball loving taxpayers of Sacramento feel about new ownership being willing not to accept money they would be due through the CBA because the new subsidized arena will enable them to make enough money on it's own?

We follow a bizarre league.

[d-train]

Basketball loving and non-basketball loving Sacramento taxpayers should feel the same about how Kings owners spend their resources. Kings owners are free to make there own decisions just as Sacramento officials are free to make decisions in the interest of their taxpayers. The decision Sacramento officials should be concerned about is representing taxpayers when deciding the cost/benefit of having an NBA franchise in Sacramento. Obviously, the benefit is not the same for every taxpayer, but that is the case for every decision government makes.

[sonictecture]

Basketball loving and non-basketball loving Sacramento taxpayers should feel the same about how Kings owners spend their resources. Kings owners are free to make there own decisions just as Sacramento officials are free to make decisions in the interest of their taxpayers. The decision Sacramento officials should be concerned about is representing taxpayers when deciding the cost/benefit of having an NBA franchise in Sacramento. Obviously, the benefit is not the same for every taxpayer, but that is the case for every decision government makes.

Didn't the decision of new owners to refuse revenue sharing from the NBA come after the elected officials decided to pass the initial arena proposal? It is my understanding that the public money has been projected but not locked in at this point and the new owners have made no public statement to cover cost overruns, correct?

The citizens of Sacramento may decide that any cost is worth keeping the Kings in Sacramento, or they may not. I wonder what will happen if it comes to a public vote?

[d-train]

Didn't the decision of new owners to refuse revenue sharing from the NBA come after the elected officials decided to pass the initial arena proposal?

It's not relevant. The NBA owners can divide their profit how they chose. Sacramento and their taxpayers shouldn't be concerned about that aspect of the NBA's business. The same is true of basketball fans. A fan can decide if they want to buy a ticket but doesn't decide how the team will spend the revenue from the sale of tickets.

It is my understanding that the public money has been projected but not locked in at this point and the new owners have made no public statement to cover cost overruns, correct?

The only thing that is relevant here is the communication and bargaining between Sacramento officials and Kings Ownership. My understanding is Sacramento officials understand what Kings Ownership requires and have confidently stated their willingness to satisfy the requirements. And, apparently, the NBA is satisfied as well.

The citizens of Sacramento may decide that any cost is worth keeping the Kings in Sacramento, or they may not. I wonder what will happen if it comes to a public vote?

The public will vote in the next election.

[Effigy]

So every time a small market team sells will this become the expectation? Soon Revenue Sharing will only be between the New York, LA teams, Chicago and Miami. Gotta love the NBA!

[d-train]

So every time a small market team sells will this become the expectation? Soon Revenue Sharing will only be between the New York, LA teams, Chicago and Miami. Gotta love the NBA!

The breaking news should be that NBA fans in Sacramento are fortunate a wealthy owner wants to invest heavily in a NBA franchise to benefit their community without the normal prospects of return on investment. This isn't the new normal. It's the way it is for small markets competing against big markets.