NBA back to Seattle? NHL too?

[WSU151]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017426859_arena05m.html?cmpid=2727

Probably not quite a done deal, but....Thoughts?

[GriffinM6]

The Seattle Kings? The arena can be called King Arena to honor the old King Dome. Or they can go with the Sonics, which is also a good option.

[WSU151]

Well if the arena is in King County (who owned the Kingdome) it very well could be named King Arena. However, I believe the NBA has said any team that plays in Seattle will be named the Supersonics. It was part of the deal when the team left for OKC.

[habsfan1]

Yeah, that's the reason why they're not called the Oklahoma City Sonics.

[pmoehrin]

As per my understanding part of the deal with Seattle dropping their lawsuit against the NBA was that if they ever built an arena up to modern NBA standards, the NBA would basically have to award Seattle an expansion team or move another team there. (The Sacramento Kings would be my guess for most likely to move)

That's because if Seattle hasn't been awarded a team within 5 years from the NBA the city is owed $30 million from Clay Bennett and the NBA, which is set to come up in after next year. This is after they already put up $45 million to leave Seattle, not to mention all the legal fees pertaining to the lawsuit from the city of Seattle, so they would be paying over $75 million for a nonexistent franchise if Seattle doesn't have a team coming to them by the end of next season. I think the NBA and Clay Bennett (who's had of the expansion committee) wants to get a team up there in hurry rather then just being out $30 million.

If Seattle doesn't just wanted to be done with the NBA entirely I wouldn't blame them one bit. I thought what happened to them was just flat out disgusting. I will never blame a city for telling a billionaire to go to hell when it comes to forking over a few hundred million in tax dollars for an arena who's profits are going to be captured almost entirely by private enterprise and who's economic impact is virtually nonexistent in the grand scheme of things. (The Sonics made up less then .1% of Seattle's total GDP) If you really want to know how out of proportion the dollars are given to pro sports in this country think of GM. The federal gave General Motors around $20 billion. If General Motors was a sports team and they they got the same deals alot of these pro sports teams have been given in terms of publicaly financed stadiums and arenas going by the ratio of total revenue to stadium costs, the federal would have given GM somewhere in the neighborhood of $250 billion.

[ninersdd]

What is the Hornets situation like? I would imagine that they could also move.

[DarkJourney]

If it is the Kings I would think the Maloofs would have to sell the team to Seattle interests. I just don't see the Maloofs moving to Seattle when they're really based out of SoCal and Las Vegas. Maybe the Hornets. But this Seattle Arena has come to fruition first.

[pmoehrin]

What is the Hornets situation like? I would imagine that they could also move.

They should move I would say. They are still drawing somewhat decent this year, but how many of those people bought season tickets before the Chris Paul trade was made?

They might wind up moving but my guess is that if they haven't moved yet they never will but we'll see. Maybe its been long enough now since Katrina in the eyes of the NBA.

[WSU151]

(The Sonics made up less then .01% of Seattle's total GDP)

That's not quite right. Seattle has a GDP of around $200 billion. The Sonics made up less than one-tenth of 1%, or 0.1%.

[pmoehrin]

(The Sonics made up less then .01% of Seattle's total GDP)

That's not quite right. Seattle has a GDP of around $200 billion. The Sonics made up less than one-tenth of 1%, or 0.1%.

Okay so off by a decimal place. Its still non-factor almost entirely in terms GDP.

[WSU151]

That's like saying NFL isn't big business because its revenues of approx $15 billion are 0.1% of US GDP.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that there's no professional sports team that brings in more than 0.2% of a metro area's GDP.

The Yankees bring in about 0.06% of NYC's GDP, if you assume they have $750M in revenues, which is really, really ambitious.

[pmoehrin]

That's like saying NFL isn't big business because its revenues of approx $15 billion are 0.1% of US GDP.

No its not. What I'm saying is there is no way you can justify giving the kind of money these cities have given pro sports teams to build these publicly financed stadiums and arenas because no other industry of that size gets subsidies like that.

Find me a private industry that's made $10 billion in revenue that's been given at least $5 billion by the government over the last 15 or so years or somewhere even remotely close to that 2:1 ratio that wasn't involved in TARP.

[WSU151]

That's like saying NFL isn't big business because its revenues of approx $15 billion are 0.1% of US GDP.

No its not. What I'm saying is there is no way you can justify giving the kind of money these cities have given pro sports teams to build these publicly financed stadiums and arenas because no other industry of that size gets subsidies like that.

Find me a private industry that's made $10 billion in revenue that's been given at least $5 billion by the government over the last 15 or so years or somewhere even remotely close to that 2:1 ratio that wasn't involved in TARP.

How is it not? It's a completely fair comparison since you want to discuss percentages of GDP.

Your ratios are off...the biggest sports leagues make $8 to 10 billion a year. Over 15 years, that's $120-150 billion per league x 4 leagues = $480-600 billion. Total publicly funded contruction costs over last 15 years over all four leagues is probably $30 billion. That's a 16:1 ratio, maybe 20:1. Adjusting numbers on both sides (reducing revenue and increasing stadium cost) might get you to a 10:1 ratio over the last 15 years.

Agriculture gets huge government subsidies, if you're looking for industries receiving substantial money from the government. And FYI, the government gave $50 billion to GM, not $20 billion. The anticipated loss is supposed to be $20 billion.

[CS85]

So a league that's already stretched too thin is going to expand?

[Funky Bunky]

So a league that's already stretched too thin is going to expand?

I doubt they're serious about expansion. If anything, it will be relocation.

[pmoehrin]

That's like saying NFL isn't big business because its revenues of approx $15 billion are 0.1% of US GDP.

No its not. What I'm saying is there is no way you can justify giving the kind of money these cities have given pro sports teams to build these publicly financed stadiums and arenas because no other industry of that size gets subsidies like that.

Find me a private industry that's made $10 billion in revenue that's been given at least $5 billion by the government over the last 15 or so years or somewhere even remotely close to that 2:1 ratio that wasn't involved in TARP.

Your ratios are off...the biggest sports leagues make $8 to 10 billion a year. Over 15 years, that's $120-150 billion per league x 4 leagues = $480-600 billion. Total publicly funded construction costs over last 15 years is probably $30 billion. That's a 4:1 ratio, maybe 5:1.

$8 to $10 billion a year is just the NFL today. MLB, NBA and NHL don't make that a year. Even if every NBA team made as much as the New York Knicks your still under $7 billion for the league. I can also tell you the revenues these teams bring in have exploded over the past decade. Just to use the Redskins as an example they made around $227 mil in revenue for 2003, and last year pulled in around $352 million. So there is no way the four major sports leagues generated anything close to $480 billion in total revenue over the past 15 years. I'm not going to bother to compile the data but I know its under $480 billion by a quite a bit. Even $400 billion I would say would be gross over estimation. The MLB didn't even crack $4 billion in '04. As far what the actual stadium/arena costs have been over the last 15 years I have no idea. Governments float bond bills alot of times to pay for these things and the final cost to them could be far above what it actually cost to build the stadium. Could be $30 billion, $50 billion, $15 billion. Unless the city is fronting all of the money at the time the stadium is built, the construction cost is not the true cost to the city.

These are also city and in some cases state budgets your looking at, not federal ones. They do not have the same financial resources. $600 million to the federal government is nothing. To a city government its something.

Your obviously for these stadiums and I can't stand them. I see no benefit to be had. All your revenues gets gobbled up by the teams and people's entertainment budgets are fixed. If people don't spend money on going to football games they'll do it on some other form of entertainment. Its not like its money lost. I would argue the number one reason for these revenues are these publicly financed stadiums. You never saw an increase of this magnitude in how much money sports was pulling in until these stadiums and arenas starting going up. This is also an industry that was doing just fine before this stadium/arena building explosion and if they weren't so what your talking about a few athletes, a couple hundred front office employees and a bunch of minimum wage labor suddenly out of work? Who cares? Where is the rational for building these things?

[pmoehrin]

So a league that's already stretched too thin is going to expand?

I doubt they're serious about expansion. If anything, it will be relocation.

I think that's what's going to wind up happening as well.

The Maloofs have been pretty hush hush about their financial status but they had to take a pounding considering how invested they were in the real estate market. They may or may not have the ability to keep the Kings past this season. They obviously don't want to sell but they may not have a choice.

Right now their dead last in the league in terms of total team payroll and I see no urgency to go out and sign any free agents so they are probably going to be dead last next year as well if the Maloofs still own the team.

[WSU151]

$8 to $10 billion a year is just the NFL today. MLB, NBA and NHL don't make that a year. Even if every NBA team made as much as the New York Knicks your still under $7 billion for the league. I can also tell you the revenues these teams bring in have exploded over the past decade. Just to use the Redskins as an example they made around $227 mil in revenue for 2003, and last year pulled in around $352 million. So there is no way the four major sports leagues generated anything close to $480 billion in total revenue over the past 15 years. I'm not going to bother to compile the data but I know its under $480 billion by a quite a bit. Even $400 billion I would say would be gross over estimation. The MLB didn't even crack $4 billion in '04. As far what the actual stadium/arena costs have been over the last 15 years I have no idea. Governments float bond bills alot of times to pay for these things and the final cost to them could be far above what it actually cost to build the stadium. Could be $30 billion, $50 billion, $15 billion. Unless the city is fronting all of the money at the time the stadium is built, the construction cost is not the true cost to the city.

Whatever the revenues are versus the stadium costs over the past 15 years, it's more than a 2:1 ratio. That's my real point. In fact, it's probably more than a 5:1 ratio. If total revenue is a paltry $200 billion from all 4 leagues over the last 15 years, it still heavily weighs the $30-$40 billion in public stadium costs. My original numbers are probably inaccurate - baseball pulls in more than $4 billion a year, and it's done so pretty easily since 1998. Trust me. Hockey probably hasn't pulled in $5 billion a year in total revenue over the last 15 years, but it's probably pretty close. That's my guess.

The total costs of bonds are usually built into total construction cost before the stadium is even built. The only thing that could change the cost would be a change in issuer rating or interest or both while the stadium is built.. Owners usually pay the cost of any budget overruns.

I would argue the number one reason for these revenues are these publicly financed stadiums. You never saw an increase of this magnitude in how much money sports was pulling in until these stadiums and arenas starting going up.

I'd argue the number one reason for increasing revenues are exponential television and radio contracts, not new stadiums. A new stadium will draw people in, but revenue is no longer driven by attendance. It's media.

Your obviously for these stadiums and I can't stand them. I see no benefit to be had.

I agree with you only if you think cities should make a profit off of entertainment. Otherwise, how is there no benefit when a city is throwing $500 million per stadium into the economy? Some stadium deals are a lot better than others. But generally, stadium deals are pretty advantageous to cities. New stadiums often lead to increased property taxes, urban renewal, and other new private construction.

[cmm]

After watching the Sonics-gate movie, if I were a Seattleite (?) I'd want nothing to do with the NBA or David Stern.

[BlueSky]

This discussion got a little deep for me, so I'll just say I always liked the name SuperSonics. The Wiki folks say the proposed Boeing 2707 was the reason they went with it: