Sacramento wants new Kings ownership

SacTown Kings · Post #1 » by **SacTown Kings** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:53 am

Well we have talked about this subject on here many times.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/11/440753 ... wners.html

ADoaN17 · Post #2 » by **ADoaN17** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:58 am

Force 'em to sell Stern!!

boogie-reke · Post #3 » by **boogie-reke** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:01 am

DO IT.

DO IT NOW.

Sacballer916 · Post #4 » by **Sacballer916** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:09 am

We all know maloofs are broke. We cant blame petrie if maloofs dont have the money. Ron burkle wud be the best owner for this team

SacKingsPejaFan · Post #5 » by **SacKingsPejaFan** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:30 am

THANK YOU! I'm so glad those "25 business leaders" got together to do this. We need owners whose priority is to win championships, not to enjoy the status symbol of owning an NBA team at the lowest possible cost.

deNIEd · Post #6 » by **deNIEd** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:08 am

Could we start a petition as fans? lol

Little Digger · Post #7 » by **Little Digger** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:53 pm

The owners will never go for this..

Call Me Geoff · Post #8 » by **Call Me Geoff** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:40 pm

You can't force someone to sell something they own. All the NBA can do is make it extremely difficult to leave Sac. As in Dr. Buss will never let the Anaheim dream happen and Seattle still needs to come up with an arena plan of their own. I don't really get the Maloofs and their motives. They clearly don't want to be here but they have nowhere to go. The problem is the Maloofs are using the Kings as a for profit organization. Trying to squeeze every dime out of the team they can. They're the new Donald Sterling.

kevin44 · Post #9 » by **kevin44** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:37 pm

The Maloofs have to go. They have lost almost everything & need The Kings to make them money. They will never turn this team around & I don't think they care. If they won't sell we need to stop going & buying merchandise. This team is a joke.

gamer555 · Post #10 » by **gamer555** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:50 pm

The prospective Seattle arena builder has just purchased the other half of the property he needs this week. He's pretty motivated even without a commitment from the city. He's going to make it very difficult to say no .

Call Me Geoff · Post #11 » by **Call Me Geoff** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:25 am

gamer555 wrote:The prospective Seattle arena builder has just purchased the other half of the property he needs this week. He's pretty motivated even without a commitment from the city. He's going to make it very difficult to say no .

Chris Hansen is going to get an arena built in Seattle but he still has a TON of hurdles to overcome before it happens. The Mariners and logistical concerns are causing major problems in getting his proposed arena built on the site he wants to build it on. Not to mention. Hansen isn't building an arena to simply rent it to another floundering owner (the Maloofs). He wants his own team. He knows a franchises value doesn't significantly appreciate without at least a partial ownership of the teams arena. If you can not whether the storm of operating a team in the red you simply should not own an NBA team. The Maloofs are a prime target for guys like Samueli and Hansen.

Post #12 » by **Wolfay** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:40 am

It's effing bullcrap we have to go through this again.

408Kings · Post #13 » by **408Kings** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 4:42 am

What do you guys speculate the Maloofs have planned?

Do you think they just want to bleed the city a bit more, so they don't have to contribute much, if any, money themselves, yet still stay?

Or are they throwing a wrench into everything to jeopardize the deal so they can up and move?

After all this, I can't support these a**holes as owners of the Kings.

SacTown Kings · Post #14 » by **SacTown Kings** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:34 am

I can understand where the maloofs are coming from. I mean if they are just renting the space and not owning the arena then why would they have to pay for environmental studies and pre planning things. Seems like whoever owns the stadium should pay for that. However with all their trickery in the past it does make one wonder if they are trying to sabotage things. First off, why didn't they bring this issue up way earlier, why wait until the deadline is almost near. Also, I keep reading about other things (but no one ever mentions the specifics) that the Maloofs are in disagreement about. So does that mean if this issue gets solved there is just going to be more bumps and protests from the maloofs about other issues. Lastly if 25 business groups are getting together to appeal to david stern that the maloofs need to go it makes me think they know more than what is being written, and that's not a good sign.

SacTown Kings · Post #15 » by **SacTown Kings** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:40 am

KJ wrote a letter to the maloof family stating the deal is not negotiable. That it was agreed upon back in february and that the ball is in the maloofs court whether they want to honor what they agreed to or not.That the city did their part now the maloofs need to do theirs!

rpa · Post #16 » by **rpa** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:09 am

SacTown Kings wrote:I mean if they are just renting the space and not owning the arena then why would they have to pay for environmental studies and pre planning things. Seems like whoever owns the stadium should pay for that.

The Maloofs are part owners of the stadium and will be in a revenue share with AEG.

408Kings wrote:What do you guys speculate the Maloofs have planned?

Do you think they just want to bleed the city a bit more, so they don't have to contribute much, if any, money themselves, yet still stay?

Or are they throwing a wrench into everything to jeopardize the deal so they can up and move?

Before I answer this question I think the Maloofs' current position needs some explanation:

After selling off their beer distributorship and losing all but 2% of the Palms the Kings are the last business entity that they own (not the last revenue generating entity however--they own nearly $200mil of Wells Fargo stock). So not only are they pretty much broke now (in NBA owner terms), but they have little to no way to amass a fortune again given that the Kings will always be an investment with modest returns at best (a pro team shouldn't even be looked on as an investment for what it's worth).

So what do the Maloofs want? I think it's pretty clear they want 1 of 2 things:
1) They want a revenue generating entity like the Lakers, Clippers, Knicks, etc. that will pull in tens of millions of dollars worth of profit every year. They can then use these future earnings (and the team--whose value would skyrocket) as leverage for other business interests.
2) They want to pump up the value of the team and sell it for a huge gain, and then use that money for other business interests.

My feeling is their primary goal is (1), but (2) is plan B.

So with that said, what do the Maloofs want to do? Well, most likely their advisers have told them that they have little to no chance to move the team this year and possibly not next year either. And if the new stadium gets build they're locked into Sac for 30 some odd years. So what can they do? They can sabotage the arena plan in any way possible. If it falls down then they can go right back to the NBA BOG and say "look, we can't ever get a stadium here ... we can't continue to stay in Sac ... we want to move to Anaheim".

The Maloofs have a big problem here, though. The Sonics moving to OKC taught people that the NBA isn't bluffing. Don't give us a stadium, with at least some public money, and we'll leave. So, if the Kings were to leave with said publicly financed stadium, what exactly does that tell future cities? If you don't build a stadium for us then we'll leave ... but if you do everything you can to build a stadium then, well, we'll still probably leave. It's a really horrible business move, and Stern knows it. Unless the arena deal REALLY isn't a feasible idea then I can see Stern doing pretty much everything he can to keep it afloat (he did so already and that was BEFORE it looked like a deal would actually work). Allowing the Maloofs to leave, while great for THEIR bottom line, would remove any leverage small market teams would have in the future as far as getting a publicly financed stadium.

SacKingZZZ · Post #17 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:40 am

gamer555 wrote:The prospective Seattle arena builder has just purchased the other half of the property he needs this week. He's pretty motivated even without a commitment from the city. He's going to make it very difficult to say no .

Wouldn't get my hopes up about the Kings moving there, even if the Maloofs split with the team. Last year when they tried to leave Sacramento, San Jose, Kansas City, and a few other cities contacted the Maloofs to try and sell them on their town, the Maloofs didn't even let them get their pitch out, they wanted Anaheim the entire time with no real alternative even being considered. They really wanted that butt raping Samueli was offering. I think after all these years of losing they've come to like the taste of a good butt raping.

SacKingZZZ · Post #18 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:45 am

rpa wrote:
SacTown Kings wrote:I mean if they are just renting the space and not owning the arena then why would they have to pay for environmental studies and pre planning things. Seems like whoever owns the stadium should pay for that.

The Maloofs are part owners of the stadium and will be in a revenue share with AEG.

408Kings wrote:What do you guys speculate the Maloofs have planned?

Do you think they just want to bleed the city a bit more, so they don't have to contribute much, if any, money themselves, yet still stay?

Or are they throwing a wrench into everything to jeopardize the deal so they can up and move?

Before I answer this question I think the Maloofs' current position needs some explanation:

After selling off their beer distributorship and losing all but 2% of the Palms the Kings are the last business entity that they own (not the last revenue generating entity however--they own nearly $200mil of Wells Fargo stock). So not only are they pretty much broke now (in NBA owner terms), but they have little to no way to amass a fortune again given that the Kings will always be an investment with modest returns at best (a pro team shouldn't even be looked on as an investment for what it's worth).

So what do the Maloofs want? I think it's pretty clear they want 1 of 2 things:
1) They want a revenue generating entity like the Lakers, Clippers, Knicks, etc. that will pull in tens of millions of dollars worth of profit every year. They can then use these future earnings (and the team--whose value would skyrocket) as leverage for other business interests.
2) They want to pump up the value of the team and sell it for a huge gain, and then use that money for other business interests.

My feeling is their primary goal is (1), but (2) is plan B.

So with that said, what do the Maloofs want to do? Well, most likely their advisers have told them that they have little to no chance to move the team this year and possibly not next year either. And if the new stadium gets build they're locked into Sac for 30 some odd years. So what can they do? They can sabotage the arena plan in any way possible. If it falls down then they can go right back to the NBA BOG and say "look, we can't ever get a stadium here ... we can't continue to stay in Sac ... we want to move to Anaheim".

The Maloofs have a big problem here, though. The Sonics moving to OKC taught people that the NBA isn't bluffing. Don't give us a stadium, with at least some public money, and we'll leave. So, if the Kings were to leave with said publicly financed stadium, what exactly does that tell future cities? If you don't build a stadium for us then we'll leave ... but if you do everything you can to build a stadium then, well, we'll still probably leave. It's a really horrible business move, and Stern knows it. Unless the arena deal REALLY isn't a feasible idea then I can see Stern doing pretty much everything he can to keep it afloat (he did so already and that was BEFORE it looked like a deal would actually work). Allowing the Maloofs to leave, while great for THEIR bottom line, would remove any leverage small market teams would have in the future as far as getting a publicly financed stadium.

Not a monthly earnings machine by any stretch, although the new CBA might have a say in that, but when they do, if they do, eventually sell the team they should make a nice huge chunk of dough. Sports teams appreciate at a fairly high rate.

FINGER · Post #19 » by **FINGER** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 2:55 pm

deNIEd wrote:Could we start a petition as fans? lol

Can I sign it from Brazil? lol

kevin44 · Post #20 » by **kevin44** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 4:02 pm

Listening to Grant yesterday he talked about most teams, even winning teams are not profitable in the NBA. He used The Spurs as an example of being successful & still losing money. To make money you have to go deep into the playoffs several years in a row to have a chance to make any money. They need to sell or cash in their Wells Fargo stock.