STORYLINE Kings

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

1 of 4
close

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

1 of 4
Loading images
Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image

Mayor Kevin Johnson on Thursday sounded resigned to the idea Sacramento may soon lose its professional basketball team.

A day after his first conversation with the Sacramento Kings' owners in more than a month, Johnson said Anaheim and its city-owned arena, the Honda Center, have this city beaten on too many fronts.

Anaheim has a lucrative TV market and the Walt Disney Company’s Disneyland and other Fortune 500 companies that can buy sponsorships and luxury boxes and suites – critical revenue streams for basketball teams, in addition to ticket sales. Sacramento's economy is struggling and its arena is outdated, he said.

"It's a business decision and the economics of Anaheim are better than the economics for them at this state here in Sacramento," Johnson said in a late-afternoon press conference at City Hall. "They are fully exploring their options, which appears to be Anaheim."

Johnson has been trying to meet with the Maloof brothers, who own a majority share of the Sacramento Kings, since Feb. 19 during National Basketball Association All-Star Weekend in Los Angeles, when NBA Commissioner David Stern confirmed rumors the Maloofs have been talking with Anaheim officials about a possible move.

The Maloofs also made it clear during the discussion with Johnson before Wednesday night's game against the Portland Trail Blazers that they will not sell their interests in the Kings.

The Maloofs aren't willing to negotiate a deal for the Kings to stay in Sacramento or share any financial documents about Kings and Arco Arena revenue unless a deal in Anaheim falls through, Johnson said.

"I do not think Sacramento can influence the outcome of their decision," he said. "I'm OK with that. I think we're all OK with that. It's a decision they're going to have to make."

During a phone call with the mayor Wednesday, NBA Commissioner David Stern encouraged Johnson to continue to "fight" for the Kings – but said he'd support the Maloofs when they make a case to move to Anaheim to other team owners during the NBA Board of Governors meeting April 14-15. 

On Tuesday, the NBA board extended the Kings’ deadline to file a relocation request to April 18.

Bracing for the likelihood the Sacramento Kings will be leaving town, business leaders said in a separate press conference Thursday that the time is right for the region to pull together to get a new sports and entertainment center built downtown.

Downtown redevelopment and the region's $2.4 billion convention and tourism industry and other businesses would benefit by having a state-of-the art facility downtown, said Sacramento Convention and Visitor's Bureau President Steve Hammond.

"This is about so much more than the Kings," said Downtown Sacramento Partnership Executive Director Michael Ault at a morning press conference inside the Sacramento Convention Center. "There are too many examples of urban centers .... where these facilities have been catalysts."

In a rare joint press conference, Ault, Hammond and Sacramento Metro Chamber President Matt Mahood threw their support behind an arena effort led by Johnson – who until now has been the lone leader addressing the unfolding situation involving a possible Kings departure.

An arena and events center can be expected to draw 3 million visitors to at least 225 events each year, they said.

Leaders from 14 business chambers throughout the area recently met and agreed to collaborate to determine what type of arena and event center is needed and how to get it built. The community must "prepare itself" that public investment will be needed, Mahood said.

Hammond quickly added that efforts to fund the facility must include "opportunities" for the businesses that would benefit and that business leaders couldn't expect all the funding to come from taxes.

Just what that would mean – whether it might be businesses buying luxury suites at a new arena or some other type of funding – is uncertain. Business leaders are awaiting a list of financing options being put together by a development team, they said.

The Sacramento area has lost several major conventions, primarily religious conventions, that would have brought 10,000 to 15,000 visitors to the area because there isn't a big enough facility near downtown's hotels. Those visitors would stay at hotels, eat at restaurants and spend money in other ways, Hammond said.

The six-county region's 2 million residents would benefit by having a facility that could accommodate much more than just professional basketball, which Arco Arena was built for. A newer and bigger facility could handle the kinds of events and concerts that residents must drive to the Bay Area for, such as hockey games and big concerts, they said.

Leaders of the ICON-Taylor development team told Johnson after Stern confirmed rumors about the Kings' possible move to Anaheim they would use financial data from comparable NBA markets to prepare a financial analysis for building an arena.

The Maloofs agreed to communicate more quickly and openly with Johnson and the city in the future. They'll make sure he's one of the first to know once a decision about a move has been made.

"They told me if they do decide they don't want to be here, they'll let me know immediately," Johnson said.

Kings officials declined to comment Thursday.


Videos by Brandon Darnell. Suzanne Hurt is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Twitter @SuzanneHurt. 

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

March 3, 2011 | 9:11 PM
Damn, damn, damn, damn, and damn!!!! This city won't realize what it had till their gone...... who would have thought while having a former basketball player as a Mayor we would loose our basketball team.
4 6
REPLY
March 3, 2011 | 11:23 PM
This is a very nice article. I want to add it's not that I want the Kings to leave. I wish they could stay. I wish Sacramento was economically able to fight to keep them here. But, it is no surprise Anaheim would be better suited for the team to profit (thereby enabling the city to profit) since the city has more to offer than Sacramento...... But Sacramento does have passionate, involved, insightful people.... I think we are a city that should be proud and could perhaps one day pull our resources together to show just what this city has to offer. Again, this is a very good article.
5 3
REPLY
March 3, 2011 | 11:41 PM
Also, this is the first sense the mayor has made on this subject. Prior to now it's solely been - we need to build them a new arena and we can get them to stay. If it was as simple as the Maloof just wanting a new arena, heck they could have built it themselves or rallied other wealthy folks to assist them in building it. Perhaps they wanted/ needed a new building but most of all they wanted to profit and didn't see that possible in a city in deficit and not many substantial fortune 500 ventures in the making, but a city relying on revenue from an arena... Nevertheless, seems the mayor of our city finally gets it.... Actually I'm surprised it took this long since he too is suppose to be a business man. But I guess that’s what happens when you are running here and there putting your hand in and out of everything all the while eye focused on the prize of a strong mayor proposal…. But better late than never.
4 3
REPLY
March 4, 2011 | 9:17 AM
I agree - glad to see the Mayor finally recognizing the realities of the situation. Now the public just needs to understand that this is the best move for both the city and the Kings and focus on making Sacramento a better, small, city.
4 1
REPLY
P W
Author thumbnail
March 4, 2011 | 6:09 AM
Go. Kings.
4 0
REPLY
March 4, 2011 | 10:02 AM
I enjoy the diversion and amusement of viewing sport as much as the next fellow. But such Circuses should take a back seat to Bread. When our schools are going bankrupt, the idea of creating a venue for grown men to frolic for entertainment is absurd.

Farewell, Kings! We shall not miss your noisome and rapacious owners.
4 2
REPLY
March 4, 2011 | 10:59 AM
The day for Sacramento to pull our resources together should have been sometime in the past 11 years... there's nothing prideful about being late before never in this situation, in my opinion. It is the single largest failure in this whole arena process.

The city is now looking at building an arena without a primary tenant (which previously would have been on the books for $300 Mil), while reeling from the dejection of being considered a substandard metropolitan area. The convention and tourism industry has always been the primary reason this arena needed to be built, but many people have been so busy turning their altruistic noses up towards the Kings and the Maloofs that they never saw that. It has never been solely about the Kings, but even if it somewhat was, it only adds to the need for an arena for the benefit of Sacramento Area fans and visitors.

It's alright for a city to have a professional sports team AND try to improve other aspects at the same time, however most naysayers act like they are in opposition. I don't feel that once the Kings leave, all other problems in the city will suddenly improve as a result of the removed "frivolous" diversion, I think it's a pretty naive thought to think so. Our schools will still be failing, and people will still be unemployed... If that were the case, there would be overwhelming cause in EVERY other large city in the US to abolish their professional sports teams, yet there isn't.

Sacramento will continue to grow and become a larger city, so thinking that losing the Kings, or not building a new arena will cause the city to be a better small city is also something naive to really expect.
6 2
REPLY
March 4, 2011 | 1:32 PM
Reke'd
0 0
REPLY
March 4, 2011 | 3:21 PM
I mostly agree, but I have been here the whole time and I do not blame the city for failed attempts to get an arena.

The first deal was a stinker that the city rolled over for. It was rejected because it was one sided - and that side was in favor of the owners. The second deal was negotiated by the NBA and fell apart because Cal Expo made a reasonable decision.
1 0
REPLY
JOS
Author thumbnail
March 4, 2011 | 11:23 AM
Have to agree with 20something..... Its seems many of the public comments and Bee articles were hell bent on demonizing the Maloofs, and no real effort was spent on the benefits a modern entertainment complex provides the region.

I still think the Cal Expo board has tanked the future of the state fair by turning down the convergence plan. A developer offered them a brand new turn key site and assumed all risk by banking on future real estate value. Go figure....
2 2
REPLY
March 4, 2011 | 10:46 PM
I also think that if the Kings do leave that this town would be a great place for hockey. The New York Islanders, Atlanta Thrashers and several other teams may be ripe for a move (http://goo.gl/4n8Uf). Negotiating now for a move might be a great place to start if it can accompany a parallel track to a new arena.
2 2
REPLY
March 5, 2011 | 7:35 PM
Geoff: I like it! When one door closes another is open. I like to see us looking at the glass as half full verses half empty. I hope the ideas, suggestions.... keep on coming!
1 1
REPLY
March 7, 2011 | 5:48 AM
unfortunately the worst thing for a resume is not being able to keep the franchise that was already in the city. also, the city council has probably developed a reputation for being difficult to work with. owners of professional sports franchises talk. i bet the maloofs say "we love sacramento and the people but we can't stand the city council". i hope i am wrong.
0 1
REPLY
March 7, 2011 | 2:50 PM
Geoff, to lure a team here you have to offer them something... what would Sacramento offer? There is no money or a modern arena, the media market is not vary large and corporate advertising is hardly worth mentioning. No team would move here if the Kings leave because the numbers to make them profitable just aren’t here unless you can show me otherwise.
1 0
REPLY
March 7, 2011 | 8:36 PM
Rich E: I bet the Maloofs say "We can make far greater profit in Anaheim than we can in Sacramento" I bet their move has nothing to do with the council but has everything to do with money. I think they are business men with their eye on the prize- financial gain and certainly not watching our council. They are wealthy I believe they are watching and caring about more than our council. And I bet they don’t dislike any of our council-- I bet it’s business; not personal. In fact, having read many of your previous comments I don’t think you hoped you were wrong. I think you knew you were wrong but for some reason wanted to toss the comment out there. It will be interesting and I’m looking forward to learning why you did…… lol
0 0
REPLY
March 8, 2011 | 5:49 AM
rhonda, if you constantly had the door slammed in your face for a decade over the issue of an arena, i am sure the the personal and business would mix. if it was a purely business decision, the decision would have been made in '97 when they bought the team. they stuck around and had some great times here. the arena was packed, merchandise was flying off the shelf, they were in the playoffs and they were making money. if an arena was going to be built, it was during the good times. but similar to the river cats, the city council is playing chicken with a professional spots franchise and similar to the river cats, the council will lose. except, the river cats only moved across the river; the kings are moving out of the area completely.

anaheim is 26 miles away from L.A., a city that already has two NBA franchises. LA has a hockey team and anaheim has a hockey team. there are four already established franchises in the area. now i am sure the economic reality of the situation is "yes" there will be more profit available, however, they will be the fifth wheel. its not like anaheim doesn't already have supporters of the lakers and the clippers (especially with the emergence of blake griffin as an exciting young talent). but anaheim is still more appealing that beating the head against the wall of sacramento or going to a similarly smaller market like kansas city (who already has an empty arena waiting for a franchise).

but, if an arena was built 5-10 years ago when it should have been, the business side of things would probably not have been affected by the personal side of things. if i sit in my favorite restaurant for a 1/2 hour at the table waiting for my server to even take my drink order, then i am getting up and leaving and taking my business elsewhere. it won't matter how great the steak is, if they treat me like dirt, then i will take my business elsewhere. the city council and former mayor haven't exactly shown they cared about the kings. so the maloofs became tired of waiting at the table and are deciding on another restaurant.

yes it is business, but the maloofs do care about this community (no matter how most feel about them, you don't have a business in a community for over a decade and not grow some attachment to the area). they have given this city every chance to understand the importance of their franchise, both economically and socially. i urge you to check out the sacramento business journal's latest edition. there is a front page article detailing how much the kings mean to this area economically. this city and surrounding areas will take a huge financial hit. all because the city council made it personal and took the business side of tihngs out of the equation.
1 0
REPLY
March 8, 2011 | 9:06 PM
Rich E; I recall a few years ago going to the County of Sacramento with a poster board to address youth violence. I can't remember right now exactly why the Maloffs were their but they were sitting front and center and addressed the County supervisors. I do recall after hearing why the Maloofs were there, I commented to the supervisors and Maloofs during the time I spoke... Heck, perhaps the Maloofs had frustration with the city as well as the county of Sacramento. Nevertheless, you can't drain blood from a turnip, the city can't fold in to all the demands of the Maloofs, heck the Maloofs and their contacts probably have more money in the bank than the city of Sacramento. So their should be no love lost....Recently I watched Mariah Carey at a concert in Anaheim and she continuously spoke of how great the turn out was, how great the people were and the support in Anaheim…. I disagree, I don't think the city council made it personal and took the business side out of things. Heck, and until I seen a substantial return on my 70 million investment I would not have rushed to build them a new arena either. Heck, fools rush in where wise men fear to trade. We may not agree but I do appreciate the comment. I think I know why your comment came when it did; it is a fact many on the council read this site and now plans for a new arena is again going to the council. Lol. Have a good one Rich. I do appreciate reading your opinion and I don‘t always disagree.
0 0
REPLY
March 9, 2011 | 6:31 AM
rhonda, i recommend checking out the sacramento business journal's article on how much the kings mean to the local economy: http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/print-edition/2011/03/04/who-gets-hurt-if-kings-leave-town.html

if you can't access the article, i have made a copy of it and would be happy to scan and email it to you. in a nutshell, the kings mean $100 million to the local economy annually. i'd say that is a pretty good investment on $70 over "x" amount of years. i don't remember the length of the loan, but let's call it 15 years. the city gets back $70 over that time and the local economy gets back $1,500,000,000.00. i'd call that a pretty good return on the investment. for example, when visiting teams come to arco they take up hotel rooms. those teams spend $6K to $8K per night. this equates to approximately "$287,000 directly in room rents and additionally about $34,440 in transit occupany taxes" (sac business journal article, 3/4/2011 "who get's hut if kings leave town").

i highly suggest reading the article. there are other tidbits of info, for instance "The family says it has contributed $19million in cash and in-kind donations over the 11 years it has owned the team". i don't think any of those charitable organizations would say that $19 million isn't enough.

and "Preliminary results indicate that two-thirds of those surveyed patronize other businesses each time they go to a kings game". this has been one of my stances since this issue has come up. the kings bring money from outside the city limits, into the city limits. and those businesses rely on those outside dollars coming in.

there will be many affected if the kings leave. i submit the return on the investment is worth the price.
0 0
REPLY
March 10, 2011 | 10:33 AM
Rich, I will read , with an open mind, the info you recommended. I've learned through the years that all that glitters is not gold and charity donations seldom go to the people in need but get tangled in the politics of giving - big fish swallows little fish and the money goes towards enhancing departments, advancing careers, bigger buildings, salaries for some not in need.... making more aware of the disease and the money is not going to the people affected and to cure the disease.

I read so many reports which appear swayed to deceive or propaganda but I try and keep an open mind hoping that one day I can read something without special interest / hidden agenda.... But the Kings appear to want to leave so I see little point in crying over spilled milk. But reading it can be a lesson towards future endeavors. Perhaps if we know better; we'll do better when and if given another opportunity of a NBA team. But Rich, if the kings loved this city I don't they'd have to be bought. You can't buy love and genuine love is unconditional for better or worse. God is Love Rich. Genuine Love will always be free and not for sale. If they loved the city or genuinely wanted to stay in the city they'd sit with Johnson, council, supervisors and ask how can we make this work for us all. But they'd rather have us hanging in limbo with a if-I-can't-leave-and-I-have-no-choice-but-to-stay-we'll-remain-here attitude. I’ll read the info but I don’t follow the money; I’d rather follow my heart. It may leave me financially broke- lol; but with a rich conscious--lol
0 0
REPLY
P W
Author thumbnail
March 5, 2011 | 7:36 AM
I would highly recommend reading Steven Greenhut's editorial in Friday's (3/4) Bee, "Kings or not, Sacto won't be 'world-class'. "When civic leaders spend so much time explaining how their city can become a top-noth place, it is by definition not one now." This piece really opened my eyes to the fact that we're wasting an incredible amount of time and resources on this arena debate, when both could be spent more wisely on infrastructure, education and transportation. We don't HAVE to be a "world-class" city to be a pretty amazing place to live.
2 0
REPLY
March 5, 2011 | 7:39 PM
P.W, I agree, we don't have to be a world class city to be a pretty amazing place to live!!! And yes it would be wise to spend more time, energy, resources on infrasture, education, transportation, crime prevention..... heck that would make us world class:)
1 1
REPLY
March 7, 2011 | 5:52 AM
i have heard the sacramento business journal has an article that breaks down in monetary terms how much the kings are worth to the city of sacramento/greater sacramento region. unfortunately i am not a member of the journal, but i have heard the number was around $100 million. that's not tax revenue to the city, but rather local businesses, such as hotels, doctors, etc. many of the industries people generally don't think about when talking about the importance of a professional sports franchise to a city. if i can get my hands on the article, i will share it.
0 0
REPLY
March 7, 2011 | 1:54 PM
I saw the mayor's list of agenda of issues to focus for Sacramento on the news a few weeks ago, and was discouraged to see that at the top of his list was to address the redevelopment of downtown Sac, and coming in at a close 2nd, was his plan to build a new Sac King's arena, while coming in late 3rd on the mayor's agenda was adequately dealing w/ or seeking solutions to the complexities of the homeless issue in Sacramento. This turn of events has been a refreshing change in the order of things in my outtake. :)
1 0
REPLY
March 7, 2011 | 8:45 PM
I lived in San Diego when the downtown was a bad location. That Economic development committee really did their homework and created an environment that people want to be in, granted we don't have an ocean. However San Antoio Texas did it without a beach, they have the river walk that brings poeple in from all over the country and generates tax dollars, and booming businesses. Find an idea that people want to be a part of, think out loud folks.
2 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below. Use commas to separate your tags.

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background