twisted_steel2 wrote:E.C. Laloosh wrote:Sacbee article on Sac groups arena plan:
So the city says public money will fund 58% of the arena, critics say public money will fund 75%. So realistically its probably somewhere in the middle. 66.5%
So 2/3 of the arena paid by Sac tax payers. It'll be interesting to see if they can push that through, good luck. Sounds like they have a battle ahead of them.
Seattle arena plan? Already approved.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... idies.htmlHere's Why the NBA Is Forcing the Sacramento Kings' Owners to Accept a Low Bid
At first glance this seems perverse.
it seems to all go back to the arena. You see, in addition to offering $365 million for the team, the Seattle bidders were offering to build a brand new arena for the Kings. By contrast, the Sacramento bidders managed to persuade the city of Sacramento to build a brand new arena for the Kings. The Seattle bid, in other words, would have set a good precedent for the future of American public policy. And the owners didn't want that.
Here's the irony, the NBA may be screwing themselves in more ways then one if that is their attitude. Other cities are going to look at the cautionary tale of how the NBA screwed the capital of one of the biggest states in the union with their outlook on things. Other potential owners are going to see the "you can't sell who you want to, you can't take the team where you want to without our position, deal with," and say "screw that." Plus all the forthcoming lawsuits and antitrust cases. Even if we come away with nothing, I am completely fine burning the league at this point.