NBA returning to Seattle?

[AbsolutNET]

As we’ve reported over and over, approval of a franchise sale requires a three-fourths majority vote. That means Hansen, to get his Kings acquisition approved, would need 23 board members to vote in his favor. Indeed, it is a tall order.

Yet relocation merely requires a simple majority. Hansen would need 16 votes from the Board of Governors to move the Kings to Seattle.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/sonics/2013/0 ... acramento/

I thought it only needed 8 "NO" votes to block relocation?

Edit: I see, 8 "no" votes would block the sale. Correct?

 

[Laloosh]

As we’ve reported over and over, approval of a franchise sale requires a three-fourths majority vote. That means Hansen, to get his Kings acquisition approved, would need 23 board members to vote in his favor. Indeed, it is a tall order.

Yet relocation merely requires a simple majority. Hansen would need 16 votes from the Board of Governors to move the Kings to Seattle.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/sonics/2013/0 ... acramento/

I thought it only needed 8 "NO" votes to block relocation?

Edit: I see, 8 "no" votes would block the sale. Correct?

Correct (with regard to your edit).

Which is what makes the no-vote by the finance committee so interesting. Seems as though Stern had only gotten the answer that he wanted to hear from the relocation folks?

 

[seahawk2k]

Haven't studies shown the estimates of the parking revenue to be flimsy and overly optimistic? And then, there's the hotel tax to cover when the revenue falls short from parking? Is this a new tax or is this pulling money from somewhere else? If these taxes don't cover it then they dip into the General Fund, which, given Sacramento's current economic straits, can't be in a great spot as is.

Here's what I don't get economically. The entire state of Cali is suffering, Sacramento especially. Are people going out? Shopping? Attending basketball games? Can they afford this? Isn't the land they want to build on currently a shopping mall that is going under? Doesn't that speak to the situation in itself? The entire NBA revenue structure is based on not just tickets sold, but additional purchases at the arena. Are the people of Sacramento in a good enough economic situation to provide those revenue streams?

 

[salamander]

Here's what I don't get economically. The entire state of Cali is suffering, Sacramento especially. Are people going out? Shopping? Attending basketball games? Can they afford this? Isn't the land they want to build on currently a shopping mall that is going under? Doesn't that speak to the situation in itself? The entire NBA revenue structure is based on not just tickets sold, but additional purchases at the arena. Are the people of Sacramento in a good enough economic situation to provide those revenue streams?

I don't think the situation in California is nearly as dire as you suggest. You make it sound like Detroit or something.

 

[topdog]

Haven't studies shown the estimates of the parking revenue to be flimsy and overly optimistic? And then, there's the hotel tax to cover when the revenue falls short from parking? Is this a new tax or is this pulling money from somewhere else? If these taxes don't cover it then they dip into the General Fund, which, given Sacramento's current economic straits, can't be in a great spot as is.

Here's what I don't get economically. The entire state of Cali is suffering, Sacramento especially. Are people going out? Shopping? Attending basketball games? Can they afford this? Isn't the land they want to build on currently a shopping mall that is going under? Doesn't that speak to the situation in itself? The entire NBA revenue structure is based on not just tickets sold, but additional purchases at the arena. Are the people of Sacramento in a good enough economic situation to provide those revenue streams?

It has worked and hasn't worked. I read in Chicago and Cincinnati it would have worked but they turned the revenue over to a private company that screwed those cities. People are shopping and doing many other things. The area where downtown plaza is really isn't a good location for a mall. Before it was downtown plaza it was K St mall and it never did good then. There are better mall to go to.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

http://blog.seattlepi.com/sonics/20...-no-acceptable-deal-possible-with-sacramento/

This really makes it seem realistically hopefull.

 

[topdog]

The state of California just had a surplus in revenue for the first three months of the year of 4.5 billion which about 40% of that goes back to schools.

 

[topdog]

http://blog.seattlepi.com/sonics/20...-no-acceptable-deal-possible-with-sacramento/

This really makes it seem realistically hopefull.

The NBA can force the magoofs to sell since the NBA has been forking over money every year to keep them afloat.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

As we’ve reported over and over, approval of a franchise sale requires a three-fourths majority vote. That means Hansen, to get his Kings acquisition approved, would need 23 board members to vote in his favor. Indeed, it is a tall order.

Yet relocation merely requires a simple majority. Hansen would need 16 votes from the Board of Governors to move the Kings to Seattle.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/sonics/2013/0 ... acramento/

I thought it only needed 8 "NO" votes to block relocation?

Edit: I see, 8 "no" votes would block the sale. Correct?

Correct (with regard to your edit).

Which is what makes the no-vote by the finance committee so interesting. Seems as though Stern had only gotten the answer that he wanted to hear from the relocation folks?

Stern was trying to get HBN to pull out with the no vote on the relo.

 

[pinksheets]

The Sacramento arena would be paid PARTIALLY with parking revenues, but their projections don't make any sense and don't add up, why? Because the key to the funding is the Transient Occupancy Tax, which will fill any "shortfalls". That's more out of the general fund, and this city is going to have to take out bonds at a relatively high interest rate because the city has such bad credit. It's not a good plan, but if you're willing to do it to keep the Kings, that's Sacramento's prerogative.

 

[topdog]

The Sacramento arena would be paid PARTIALLY with parking revenues, but their projections don't make any sense and don't add up, why? Because the key to the funding is the Transient Occupancy Tax, which will fill any "shortfalls". That's more out of the general fund, and this city is going to have to take out bonds at a relatively high interest rate because the city has such bad credit. It's not a good plan, but if you're willing to do it to keep the Kings, that's Sacramento's prerogative.

212 million would be paid from the parking revenue and the other 38 million would be from the land the City of Sacramento owns and would give go the owners. The rest would be from private funding. The city makes 9 million a year right now with out an arena. I am pretty sure it makes sense. This plan is the same plan that Burkle did with the City of Pittsburgh when they needed a new arena for the Penguins.

 

[pinksheets]

You're taking the rosy, unsourced projections from Think Big and the term sheet at their word? They don't add up, my friend. The Eye on Sacramento piece laid it out better than I can, but the numbers are pulled out of thin air.

Not to mention the huge infrastructure costs that will go into the rumored needed new freeway exits to accommodate such a facility. If you believe in it, have at it, I'm not going to feel sorry for that city when the whole thing collapses like the house of cards it is. You asked for it.

 

[seahawk2k]

The only people that say it makes sense are the people that are pushing for the arena to be built.

If the location isn't a good money spending location? Why is it a good spot for an arena? Location matters.

And I'm not saying that the residents don't have any spending capital. I'm wondering if they are going to spend that money the way the NBA wants them to?

Doesn't the city currently have an arena? That cozy little noise factory that all this hub bub is about anyway still stands right? I don't anticipate a new arena is going to increase parking revenue substantially unless the team wins a lot. It would take 23 years, barring fluctuations, to pay for this arena.

 

[topdog]

We don't want you to feel sorry but I am pretty sure Sacramento will be just fine and I will once again buy season tickets to the kings.

 

[topdog]

The only people that say it makes sense are the people that are pushing for the arena to be built.

If the location isn't a good money spending location? Why is it a good spot for an arena? Location matters.

And I'm not saying that the residents don't have any spending capital. I'm wondering if they are going to spend that money the way the NBA wants them to?

Doesn't the city currently have an arena? That cozy little noise factory that all this hub bub is about anyway still stands right? I don't anticipate a new arena is going to increase parking revenue substantially unless the team wins a lot. It would take 23 years, barring fluctuations, to pay for this arena.

The current arena in about 5 miles north that has residential areas all around it. So the current parking revenue doesn't include the current arena.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

We don't want you to feel sorry but I am pretty sure Sacramento will be just fine and I will once again buy season tickets to the kings.

First you have to have some owners that actually, you know, OWN the Kings.

You don't.

 

[Sac]

We don't want you to feel sorry but I am pretty sure Sacramento will be just fine and I will once again buy season tickets to the kings.

Man, i was at games 5 and 7 against the Lakers in the Western Conference Finals.

 

[dunceface]

You're taking the rosy, unsourced projections from Think Big and the term sheet at their word? They don't add up, my friend. The Eye on Sacramento piece laid it out better than I can, but the numbers are pulled out of thin air.

Not to mention the huge infrastructure costs that will go into the rumored needed new freeway exits to accommodate such a facility. If you believe in it, have at it, I'm not going to feel sorry for that city when the whole thing collapses like the house of cards it is. You asked for it.

Isn't relying on the parking revenues the part that was illegal under a certain CA law? Isn't that part of the lawsuits being started against the Sac arena deal because of murky financial claims and red tape that has been swept under the rug?

 

[pinksheets]

You're taking the rosy, unsourced projections from Think Big and the term sheet at their word? They don't add up, my friend. The Eye on Sacramento piece laid it out better than I can, but the numbers are pulled out of thin air.

Not to mention the huge infrastructure costs that will go into the rumored needed new freeway exits to accommodate such a facility. If you believe in it, have at it, I'm not going to feel sorry for that city when the whole thing collapses like the house of cards it is. You asked for it.

Isn't relying on the parking revenues the part that was illegal under a certain CA law? Isn't that part of the lawsuits being started against the Sac arena deal because of murky financial claims and red tape that has been swept under the rug?

There was something about that, but I think I asked Michael McCann about it on twitter a while back, and he said that there were easy workarounds to bypass that part of the law.

There is going to be plenty of room for litigation on their arena deal, how much of it we see, I don't know. I'm honestly of the opinion that I think when it all comes down to it, the Downtown Plaza Arena never happens. The plan literally makes zero sense and drastically underplays the actual cost of that kind of facility on that kind of site. Stern has basically backed a vaporware plan of wishy washy wishes and pie in the sky plans from a city bordering on insolvency with an ownership group that is already reportedly "tapped out" and will most certainly not be very competitive at any point using their promised "moneyball" approach. Yes, he hates us that much.

 

[topdog]

I also just read in the sac bee that the Sacramento group plans to put half of the 341 million in escrow account by Friday. Seattle's bid is higher but that is also due to the fact that the magoofs owe the City of Sacramento 70 million. If the Sacramento group wins they will then owe the money.