<p>A year after the NBA gave Sacramento another chance to find a way to keep the Kings, a year in which the business community stepped up in a big way, the league contributed to costs, the mayor did a masterful job of convincing city leaders; a year of luring the always-untrustworthy Maloofs; six weeks after a very public tentative agreement and celebratory event at the existing decrepit arena, six weeks in which Kings fans dared to hope that at long last, their team was safe – Friday, it all came crashing down.</p>
<p>The only thing is, you need to find someone to buy the team and then move it, someone who’s not a weasel. Trust us, you don’t want anything to do with the lying, flaky Maloof family. </p>
<p>The angle in the Seattle news outlets (and the commentary from regular citizens) is that the Maloofs are the problem in Sacramento. The possible Kings-to-the-Northwest scenario has the Maloof brothers selling the team to a new Seattle-based ownership group. Personally, I don’t think either the Kings nor the New Orleans Hornets are headed for the Pacific Northwest.</p>
<p>Seattleites are dead-on; the Maloofs are the problem. No scenario is any good – here, there, or Anaheim – as long as they own the team.</p>
<p>Community anger is so intense that there’s been talk that they wouldn’t dare show their faces at the remaining home games. But in an interview in this morning’s paper, Joe Maloof insisted they absolutely would be at this afternoon’s game. And sure enough, they were:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just one more small example of Maloofian deception (and cowardice – they snuck out of the meeting in New York as well). Meanwhile, Mayor Kevin Johnson was given a hero’s welcome at the airport. Sacramentans know who’s fighting for them and who isn’t.</p>
<p>So if neither the Kings nor the Hornets are coming to Seattle, do you think you’re destined to be an NBA-less city? Or is there another team on the horizon?</p>
<p>I used to love basketball, but all of this has given me a sour taste. I love the idea of rebuilding the railyard and actually making Sacramento an interesting town, and was willing to live with the idea of having an arena monstrosity there to make it happen. I wish we could move ahead with revitalizing our city with or without an arena.</p>
<p>Agree that Maloofs are the problem. I don’t know why they won’t sell. Isn’t there another buyer in Sacramento waiting in the wings?</p>
<p>If I had to choose between Anaheim or Seattle, it would seem more likely to head north, as Anaheim is already crowded with NBA teams.</p>
<p>I live in Seattle & think we already have a great basketball team.
[Storm</a> have No. 2 pick in today’s WNBA draft | HeraldNet.com - Sports](<a href=“http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120416/SPORTS/704169923]Storm”>Sports agent denies charges | HeraldNet.com)
There is some hedge fund manager that is trying to push the deal through in Sodo.
I think I would rather see the NHL.
& McGinn better be building me some light rail if this new sports complex is gonna shut down the Showbox.</p>
<p>I’ll venture a guess that there’ll be no NBA team in Seattle for the forseeable future, despite the apparent earnestness of the potential new owner and arena developer currently in the news. The Hornets and the Kings were Seattle’s best shot to reclaim the SuperSonics and both options seem headed for a dead end as far as Seattle fans are concerned. I mean if billionaire Steve Ballmer of Evil Empire Microsoft couldn’t get the NBA to give the city a second chance, who can? What a shame that ethically challenged team owners in New Orleans and Sacramento make demands and get attention while one of the strongest NBA members, Seattle, was allowed to croak. I don’t like giveways from the public coffers to sports teams, but lack of support was never the problem in Seattle, nor in Sacramento for that matter. In any event, NBA leadership has poisoned the well in Seattle. Remember, Seattle area residents voted down the orginal plan for a new football stadium years ago, only to be rescued by the state legislature.</p>
<p>Yes, there’s a billionaire, Ron Burkle, who’s interested, but one of the few things the Maloofs have been consistent about over the years is that they’re not selling. And yet they’re also unwilling to spend the money to field a decent team or pony up their share of an arena. It’s mystifying. But that’s how they’ve kept the region in turmoil for a decade, and made themselves the laughingstock of the NBA.</p>
<p>And now they want to re-start negotiations – because apparently, a year of talking wasn’t enough – but this time without Kevin Johnson at the table. They don’t “trust” him. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>No it’s not, nor should it be “mystifying”. The fact is that there are literally dozens of cities who will pony up for a NBA squad; most of them just happen to be outside of California. If you are the owner, why spend your own money when a city like Ok City will pay you to relocate?</p>
<p>Bluebayou, that is less and less true. The leverage that teams have over communities that want to be thought of as “big league” cities is greatly diminished. Especially in the present economic downturn. Big municipal give-a-ways to millionaire sports owners is a public relations headache these days, in that mayors get standing ovations for saying no, or “here and no further” to sports owners nowadays. Plus, the available open markets are fewer, too. Sure, the Maloofs can threaten to sell to a group from Seattle, but the pool remains small. There are too many teams in trouble, particularly in the NBA. The business model doesn’t work anymore in Memphis, Toronto, Minneapolis, New Jersey and barely works in Atlanta, Washington DC, San Antonio etc. Heck, even baseball’s NY Yankees had to reduce the asking price for corporate suites in the new Yankee Stadium because of the recession.</p>
<p>If the SuperSonics were attempting to spirit away to Oklahoma City today from Seattle in the current economy, I doubt that the pot would be so sweet in OC, especially with other NBA teams for sale at the same time.</p>
<p>But if you’re the owner and you want to relocate, why negotiate with Sacramento for a year, only to pull the plug literally days before your first payment is due? Southern California is the Maloof home base, and Anaheim is apparently waiting with open arms and a lucrative contract – why not just leave once and for all? </p>
<p>In addition to the general problems for relocating teams which LakeWashington mentioned, I think there’s an additional, specific problem with this one: This ownership is now radioactive. If I’m a mayor of a mid-market city and I see how unreliable these guys are and the embarassment that they’ve become – I’m not so sure I want them yanking my city around like they have Sacramento.</p>
<p>Politics, pure politics. Sacto is the state capital, and even David Stern gave it its due. Why? Again, politics. If the Kings move anywhere else in the state that requires any public funding the powers-that-be in Sacto will be screaming (Legislative flunkies get free tix)…and the way to diffuse any such screaming is to give Sacto all the time it needs to see if it can fabricate a deal. If not, then the owner can say, ‘we tried as hard as we could, but…’</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps it is, but no matter. The fact is that the pool exists at all. An owner can always find a mayor willing to pony with public expenditures. What was it that Barnum said? :D</p>
<p>Sports owners are rich for a reason – they learned how to leverage other people’s money. </p>
<p>And yes, Anaheim is eagerly awaiting. Stadium has already been upgraded with more boxes. Kansas City has a relatively new, but empty stadium awaiting; great fan support there. How about Pittsburgh, San Jose (also has stadium), or even Vegas?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Speaking of the NYY, do you rememer that some of the bailout/TARP money went to naming rights to that stadium? (Citibank was ‘encouraged’ by the feds to not reneg on their $$$$ previous deal. So to use your word, ‘heck’, the federal taxpayers helped build that stadium in addition to local monies.)</p>
<p>True enough, the Yankees have been on the public teat for years. At one point in the 1990s they paid no rent for the MUNICIPALLY OWNED Yankee Stadium.</p>
<p>The Kings’ Princeton-style offense in that era was a thing of beauty. And thrilling doesn’t begin to describe the Western Conference Finals. One unbelievable game after another.</p>
<p>Only sorry that they ended up one game short of going to the finals…you just knew that the season was like Cinderella’s trip to the ball–the clock would strike 12 and the coach would turn into a pumpkin once again…</p>
<p>Yep, ellemenope, the Kings did turn into pumpkins at the end of overtime in Game 7. The take around here was that there never would have been a Game 7 if Game 6 hadn’t been so blatantly officiated in the Lakers’ favor. But then, Laker fans say that champions rise above and get it done anyway, and I guess I can now see that. The Kings were the better (best) team that year, but they just couldn’t get it done.</p>
The take around here was that there never would have been a Game 7 if Game 6 hadn’t been so blatantly officiated in the Lakers’ favor. But then, Laker fans say that champions rise above and get it done anyway, and I guess I can now see that. The Kings were the better (best) team that year, but they just couldn’t get it done.</p>