ive read a few comments from differing unofficial sources who claim that the League stands to gain greater profits from the team relocating to Seattle in terms of TV agreements etc.
I was wondering if anyone knows more about this rumor or if its just mud slinging. I hope its unjustifiable rubbish as unfortunately we all know money rules all these days and i hope the League making a few extra million (if this is the case) doesnt tint the boards glasses when reviewing our fight to keep the team
Remember the past, look to the future.
Do you think OKC is a better TV Market than Seattle? It's not going to come down to TV Market money.Originally Posted by Sac.1989
All in all you're just another brick in the wall. - Pink Floyd
That's why I laughed at a Sonics fan who said Sacramento will lose, because its all about money.
"Oh really? Is that why the Sonics moved to OKC?" *snicker*
Yes, there are advantages financially. It's the 12th biggest media market compared to Sacramento region at 20th. There is certainly far more corporate presence there. I suspect the TV deal that can be struck there would be more lucrative. Actually, Kings have almost always had one of the worst TV deals in the league, although Comcast said something about renegotiating the deal to keep the Kings here last year amidst the arena dealing.
Finally, the other owners get to split the relocation fee. A one-time gain, but maybe at the cost of another black eye for the league.
Still, the fan base here is great, especially if the product is improved. Sacramento is a one pro-team market, not to be split 4 ways like it would be in Seattle. The TV deal could be improved with a commitment to stay in Sacramento. We're not devoid of corporate presence and the business community has stepped up here when called upon. Finally, the league wouldn't be ripping a team away from a city that's done everything the league has asked for, which is not insignificant for the image of the league. They also wouldn't be ending one of the original 8 franchises with a 70 year history.
This isn't going to be an easy decision, though, but its not a slam dunk for either city. The national media has practically called the team in Seattle already. However, its also true that I've read very few national media that have gotten the facts right yet, especially about what has gone on here in Sacramento.
Last edited by kennadog; 02-15-2013 at 02:54 AM.
PROUD OF SACRAMENTO. PROUD TO BE A KINGS FAN.
Maloofs refused to signed long-term TV deal for obvious reasons. It's up for renewal this summer or next, I think, so potential new TV deal should also be negotiated tentatively. Of course, it won't be close to Lakers deal, but it should be solid money if it's a long one. More money from TV deal affects revenue sharing but at the same time there's some predetermined number for expected TV revenue and team "underperforming" in this department automatically gets less revenue sharing money. Since Sacramento is a reciever in revenue sharing system, I don't see, how this affects Sacramento's offer much.
I'm interested in finding out what some realistic estimates are as well regarding the OP's questions. I don't think it will matter that much to each individual owner but its good to have the figures ready.
The Sonics moving to OKC has nothing to do with TV money and we all know that. Clay Bennett lied and cheated his way into moving the team which had nothing to do with making the most money. Go back and read the details about that. He made a lot of lies to various sides in order to move the team to his hometown. The fact that CB is now buddy buddy with Stern always makes me have reasonable doubt about anything Stern says. Bennett lied directly to Stern and this was proven. But somehow they are buddies now with CB in charge of the relocation committee.
Why did the BOG approve the move to OKC in the first place?
It strikes me that if the league was purely interested in just money, it would just give Seattle an expansion team. That would be a huge chunk of change going to the league, and a hell of a lot more than a relocation fee. I know one of the items they look at, is how much of the market will be shared with other teams. In Sacramento that number is zero, and that includes no major college programs. In Seattle you have football, baseball and I believe a pro soccer league, as well a major college programs. Ultimately, it comes down to whether the city can support a team, and does it have an appropiate facility. At the moment, neither city can claim the latter, but both are claiming that they will in the immediate future.
However, it appears there are some pending lawsuits coming in Seattle in regards to the new arena. My opinion, is that if all things are equal, then the team stays in Sacramento. I don't think the league fixes one black eye by creating another one. They've already absorbed the damage from the Sonics leaving town, and to a large extent, they've reflected most of the blame back at the city. It would be hard to do that with Sacramento, especially since Stern himself had a hand in putting together a plan to keep the Kings here. So I firmly believe that if Kevin Johnson dots all his I's and crosses all his T's, the BOG will rule in his favor. Of course my opinion doesn't count for anything, and no one can predict for sure. But I'm extremely hopeful!
Last edited by bajaden; 02-16-2013 at 03:09 PM.
Its hard to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard.
In short, the city of Seattle and the Mayor at that time basicly flipped the bird at Stern and the League. So at that point, the league turned its back on the city of Seattle. So what you have now, is the city coming back, hat in hand, and trying to do everything that the league asked of them in the first place. Compare that against the backdrop of how the city of Sacramento responded.
Its hard to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard.
Regardless of what Bennett did, the blame still rests on the Seattle city council, mayor and voters. They voted against building an arena after building new ones for NFL and MLB. Bennett had 2 years in Seattle and an arena ready to go in OKC. They should have worried more when he wanted to buy the team not afterwards.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall. - Pink Floyd
I don't think Stern has any say in who gets to be the chairman of relocation committee. Bennett got into the club of thirty and he can do anything other owners have a right to do.
Speaking of Seattle, there was some movement to get state money involved as well since they were involved in both football and baseball arenas before, I believe, but exactly because of that there were no state money for basketball, and city participated in renovating Key Arena a few years back, so they felt they've done enough to keep team at Seattle. With no public money for a new arena Bennett argued he had to move from city with crumbling arena to the city that supported Hornets with moderate success.
And that needs to be remembered. The Sonics stayed in Seattle for two years after Bennett purchased them. When he made his relocation request to the BoG, he would not have been approved IF there was any definitive movement towards a new arena with the partnership of the city. Moving the team to OKC was, at that point, very much CLEARLY in the best interests of the league as the OKC crowd had welcomed the Hornets with open arms and shown themselves to be more than willing and able to support an NBA franchise (which they have done since the day the Thunder arrived).
SACRAMENTO KINGS - A Family Tradition - The passion runs deep with fans of this team.
Why is the rum always gone? -- Cap'n Jack Sparrow
THANK YOU KEVIN JOHNSON! #WeAreSacramento - May 17, 2013
Of course its about money, its why the original owners of Sonics were sold, they couldnt make money with out an injection of some public money to renovate the Key and increase revenue!!! therefor they sold.
Wrong by a lot. It wasnt the city, it was the state of Wa, Stern is pissed at Frank Chopp, speaker of the house. He appeared with Shultz for public funding in 06 and was shot down and embarrassed by Chopp. Since Shultz wasnt going to receive funding he sold the team to Bennett. Who obviously was to move them and did. He applied for relocation and was approved with still two years remaining on a lease.NBA basically said screw you Seattle and the lease. That is when the City sued Clay Bennett but ultimately settled for 40 mill and let them leave. So Seattle never ever came back hat in hand, it was all Chris Hansen. In the several initial council meetings, its members very apprehensive in even considering the NBA again,eventually Hansens amazing offer of 290 mill out of pocket and 200 mil in revenue generating taxes by the arena going back to pay the bonds on the city backed bonds(200 mill) they couldn't turn it down. So Hansen went to the NBA hat in hand not the city of Seattle. In fact the city was going to pay 75 million in 08 of 300 milion needed to renovate the arena in a last ditch effort to keep the Sonics after Ballmer gifted 150 million if the state would pay 75 mil and decided not to.
wrong again, there was never any vote of any kind in which the city council ever "voted down an arena". your facts are all wrong, in fact both the stadiums you mention for the M's and Seahawks had absolutely nothing to do with the city of seattle, the mayor, or the council. Both of those were state money, not city. And until the day that team sold there was no and i mean no rumor or article or anything that the Sonics were for sale. The actual fault of the whole thing is the fact Schultz couldnt make money because half of all the suite and club seat revenue went to the city to pay off bonds for the 1995 remodel. When shultz approached the state two years in a row for extension of taxes for Key arena renos , he was declined. Initially he approached the city for funds to renovate to no avail, but there was never any vote.
I suggest we stop discussing why Seattle is stuck where it is. I doubt if anyone in Sacramento or any Kings' follower can know the complete details and in some sense, what difference does it make? If it makes a difference, carry on.
Upwards and onwards.
My point is the mayor and city council didnt step up to build an arena. There was the I 91 vote that basically squashed any arena at the time.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall. - Pink Floyd
Spot on and correct. Standing ovation.
It makes a difference because there are people on the Seattle side of things who keep saying that Stern "owes them" for screwing them over last time. As long as they feel that way, they will justify taking the Kings. By having the actual facts correct on the OKC relocation, we are able to squash those "Stern owes us...screw Sacramento" claims. And this is coming from someone who wants to see Seattle with a new team, as long as it doesn't come from Sac.I suggest we stop discussing why Seattle is stuck where it is. I doubt if anyone in Sacramento or any Kings' follower can know the complete details and in some sense, what difference does it make? If it makes a difference, carry on.
Bold face part is very much true but that's basically what Section 101 was getting at. Regardless of whether or not the rejection was from the city or state level, it was the politicians and the authors of the Key Arena remodel finances that made things tough on Schultz and the lack of effort in getting a replacement building made for an inevitable relocation.
You know your stuff. That's refreshing but I think Bajaden's point was that the NBA is less at fault than the politicians for the OKC relocation. Whether or not they come from the city or the state is irrelevant in the OKC saga.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks