New Sacramento Arena loses

[GreenShoe]

Now that the arena vote has failed (no surprise there), will the Maloofs move the Kings (a lot of people think that was their plan all along) to another city (Las Vegas or Anaheim) or work on a new arena deal in Sacramento.

[NJTank]

Viva Las Vegas Time

[Discrim]

heh, does anybody else think the Kings would consider an Elvis logo if they moved to Vegas?

[GreenShoe]

heh, does anybody else think the Kings would consider an Elvis logo if they moved to Vegas?

that's actually a good idea

[CZzyzx41]

There's no way in God's green hell Sacramento will ever vote to build any major league sports stadium or arena with even a single penny of public funds EVER. It just won't happen. Frankly, I don't blame them. If major corporations have to pay for building their headquarters, so should professional sports teams. EVEN in San Diego where the Chargers are still looking for (and might have found) a place to play.

[FiddySicks]

Bye bye Kings. Almost good riddance. Now its time to focus on snagging an MLB team.

[LMU]

Vegas would be the perfect fit, with the Palms casino and all. I don't see Anaheim working, because I don't see how the hell the LA area could support 3 teams. Kansas City or St. Louis could also be options.

[Cyclopsis Joe]

I imagine Anaheim is still a little sour after the Angels fiasco.

No, not you, Joel.

[tp49]

Measures Q and R failed because contrary to popular belief there was no plan except to raise the sales tax by 1/4 percent. When the City was taken to court to be forced to show the arena plan the City Attorney went on local televison and admitted this was the case.

People in Sacramento would vote for an arena but there has to be a plan, and it has to make sense. Also, the Maloof's were seeking far more control over the project than any other team owner had ever tried for. Issues susch as the amount of parking and exactly what restaurants went where were things the Maloof's were after.

As a resident of the City of Sacramento and who lives in Downtown I would have voted "Hell No" if it was an option on the ballot. Instead I just voted no on both Q and R.

[Guest]

Bye bye Kings. Almost good riddance. Now its time to focus on snagging an MLB team.

Not gonna happen. There's a better chance that the Warriors become worth cheering for.

[Ez Street]

Kansas City Kings (Part Deux)

[FiddySicks]

Bye bye Kings. Almost good riddance. Now its time to focus on snagging an MLB team.

Not gonna happen. There's a better chance that the Warriors become worth cheering for.

A man can dream, cant he?

[buzzcut]

Bye bye Kings. Almost good riddance. Now its time to focus on snagging an MLB team.

Not gonna happen. There's a better chance that the Warriors become worth cheering for.

A man can dream, cant he?

Uhhh....sure....until Peter Magowan claims the Sacramento market for the Giants.

[whitedawg22]

After this year's All Star Game, I think David Stern will realize that Vegas is a great place to host an NBA team. I would imagine the Maloofs would love moving to Vegas, and the city could certainly support a team, considering the tourism industry, tax revenue, and the lack of other pro sports.

I don't know what pro sports' problem is with placing a team in Vegas... nowadays, athletes earn too much to be involved in any, er, improprieties. They'll probably come to an arrangement where home games can't be placed on the books, and everybody will be happy.

[Alphabet Man]

I don't get it. Don't they already have a venue? It's been good enough for all this time and now it's not good enough to play in? They asked for a new venue, it got turned down. So does that mean they have to move? I am not up to date on Americanisms but it seems to me too many American sports teams move around. They have a venue that they played in since they moved to Sacremento. How many times does a team have to move to be happy? Doesn't make sense to me. For my liking, too many teams relocate in the USA. Doesn't happen in Europe, and only a couple of times happened over here.

[Phil]

There's no way in God's green hell Sacramento will ever vote to build any major league sports stadium or arena with even a single penny of public funds EVER. It just won't happen. Frankly, I don't blame them. If major corporations have to pay for building their headquarters, so should professional sports teams. EVEN in San Diego where the Chargers are still looking for (and might have found) a place to play.

Yeah, but how many major corporations bring with them the prestige and intangible benefits of having an elite sports team in the city?

If Sacramento loses the Kings, well, the city is off the map as far as the Big 4 sports go (yes, I still consider it the Big 4). And as trivial as that may sound, that can have a significant negative impact on the perception of the locale... never mind the PR nightmare that is a professional sports team moving to another city. ("No, we're not big enough or profitable enough to have a pro sports team. Yes, these other cities are better than us. Etc.")

Believe me, I live in a city that lost its Big 4 participant 10 years ago, and people are still upset about it.

Pro sports teams have leverage, and whether or not, as profit-earning entities, using public funds to keep them around is morally justifiable is one thing, but economically it isn't always that crazy of an idea.

[rams80]

I don't get it. Don't they already have a venue? It's been good enough for all this time and now it's not good enough to play in? They asked for a new venue, it got turned down. So does that mean they have to move? I am not up to date on Americanisms but it seems to me too many American sports teams move around. They have a venue that they played in since they moved to Sacremento. How many times does a team have to move to be happy? Doesn't make sense to me. For my liking, too many teams relocate in the USA. Doesn't happen in Europe, and only a couple of times happened over here.

The economic setup of professional sports in America is such nowadays (and has been since the mid-90s) that you need arenas that have plenty of luxury boxes to sell for your professional sports teams in order to remain competitive. As the luxury box is a fairly recent innovation, you are left with the choice of either building an expensive stadia or spending beaucoup bucks on renovating the old place (or not so old place in the case of the Chicago White Sox and Milwaukee Bucks). This need is (I believe) magnified when you have a small size market like Sacramento.

[tp49]

There's no way in God's green hell Sacramento will ever vote to build any major league sports stadium or arena with even a single penny of public funds EVER. It just won't happen. Frankly, I don't blame them. If major corporations have to pay for building their headquarters, so should professional sports teams. EVEN in San Diego where the Chargers are still looking for (and might have found) a place to play.

Yeah, but how many major corporations bring with them the prestige and intangible benefits of having an elite sports team in the city?

If Sacramento loses the Kings, well, the city is off the map as far as the Big 4 sports go (yes, I still consider it the Big 4). And as trivial as that may sound, that can have a significant negative impact on the perception of the locale... never mind the PR nightmare that is a professional sports team moving to another city. ("No, we're not big enough or profitable enough to have a pro sports team. Yes, these other cities are better than us. Etc.")

Believe me, I live in a city that lost its Big 4 participant 10 years ago, and people are still upset about it.

Pro sports teams have leverage, and whether or not, as profit-earning entities, using public funds to keep them around is morally justifiable is one thing, but economically it isn't always that crazy of an idea.

I disagree that the residents of Sacramento will never vote to have an arena built with public funds. There needs to be a plan in place and the Maloof's need to realize that they will have to chip in for some portion of the cost.

The reality of the measures that failed is that there was no plan save for a sales tax increase. In actuality the revenue generated from the sales tax increase did not even have to be spent on an arena and could go into the City and County's general fund. A taxpayers group went to court to force the City to make public what the plan was. When they won the City immediately ran the few blocks down to the Appellate Court to get a stay which was granted. The City Attorney went on record on live broadcast television and stated there was no plan and that the generated revenue did not have to be spent on an arena.

This is also not to mention the unmitigated PR disaster that the City created with their secrecy and the Maloof's themselves made with their Carl's Jr. commercial.

I also disagree that in the event that the Kings move that it would have a significant negative impact on the locale. The main draws for Sacramento which in itself is merely the outer reaches of the Bay Area suburbs are the affordability of housing (in comparison to other urban locations in California) and it's proximity to both the Bay Area and Lake Tahoe.

There is some validity to your statement of not being profitible enough as Sacramento is a government town but the area is growing by leaps and bounds. The fastest growing city in the US is Elk Grove which is just south of the City of Sacramento and has over 100,000 residents. Sacramento will also eclipse Oakland in population by the next Census and the Central Valley as a whole is still growing.

Can an arena deal get done? Yes, if all of the sides are serious in getting it done. The real question is do the Maloof's really want to stay in Sacramento. The way they are working it appears as though they don't.

[Alphabet Man]

I don't get it. Don't they already have a venue? It's been good enough for all this time and now it's not good enough to play in? They asked for a new venue, it got turned down. So does that mean they have to move? I am not up to date on Americanisms but it seems to me too many American sports teams move around. They have a venue that they played in since they moved to Sacremento. How many times does a team have to move to be happy? Doesn't make sense to me. For my liking, too many teams relocate in the USA. Doesn't happen in Europe, and only a couple of times happened over here.

The economic setup of professional sports in America is such nowadays (and has been since the mid-90s) that you need arenas that have plenty of luxury boxes to sell for your professional sports teams in order to remain competitive. As the luxury box is a fairly recent innovation, you are left with the choice of either building an expensive stadia or spending beaucoup bucks on renovating the old place (or not so old place in the case of the Chicago White Sox and Milwaukee Bucks). This need is (I believe) magnified when you have a small size market like Sacramento.

Doing some research, the ARCO Arena opened in 1988, thats less than 20yrs old. IF thats a problem lets use brainpower here.

What does Sacramento have? NBA team- 6months, WNBA team- 6months okay so they have a stadium that will hopefully give you gate receipts for a full 12months.

Wikipedia tells me that Sacramento has a Oakland affiliates. Okay so thats useless.

Let's think of sports that can be attracted here. Ice Hockey, Indoor Soccer/Soccer, Hockey, Tennis, Gymnastics. They can all fit into a basketball stadium. Now there is a way where the city only needs to approve and we can get a new stadium here. There is a university in Sacramento, surely, maybe they can double up on a new stadium. Funds from the teams themselves, funds from the university, and lastly funds from sponsorship and corporates. Fund it 100% privately, then either keep it privately owned or sell it back to the city. Why do pro teams expect the city to pay everything, seems to me the owners dont want to pay out much.

[tp49]

Let's think of sports that can be attracted here. Ice Hockey, Indoor Soccer/Soccer, Hockey, Tennis, Gymnastics. They can all fit into a basketball stadium. Now there is a way where the city only needs to approve and we can get a new stadium here. There is a university in Sacramento, surely, maybe they can double up on a new stadium. Funds from the teams themselves, funds from the university, and lastly funds from sponsorship and corporates. Fund it 100% privately, then either keep it privately owned or sell it back to the city. Why do pro teams expect the city to pay everything, seems to me the owners dont want to pay out much.

Sac State does not have a large enough sports program to warrant such a large arena. I believe they're 1AA. The area doesn't have a great corporate base unless you count the State of California who is the region's largest employer.

Arco is serviceable and isn't a bad arena. It's just not "modern enough." I wonder if the arena could be reconfigured or expanded to add the "needed amenities." They could also build the arena in the same area as Arco currently is but they better get that set up fast before all of the available land in the area is gone.