Jump to content






Photo

City Release Arena Docs


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#16 benning

benning

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,141 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 08:14 AM

Is that Monty Burns or Gavin Maloof in 40 years?

Yes, I would like the sun, moon and stars, please...oh and an extra helping of stars.

http://www.sacbee.co...tory/69234.html


"L'essential est invisible pour les yeux."

#17 lastexit78

lastexit78

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 09:29 AM

This thing is dead, done, finished! Even if the Maloofs were on board this thing would still probably fail. Without them on board it doesn't have a chance. As of last week it was trailing 65-35 in most polls. Even Grant Napier recently said he can't endorse this thing anymore. I'm all for a new arena and a downtown to be proud of. But this deal promises neither and costs tax payers over a billion dollars. What a great deal! If it's such a great deal for everyone involved then why haven't the Maloofs invested in it? The city is trying to hand them a brand new arena and they won't even accept it? If the Maloofs would have paid for 25% of the thing I would have voted yes. But to stick us with 100% is a joke. A really bad joke that's going to fail by a wide margin. Naming rights, rental car tax, hotel tax, ticket surcharges and seat licenses. That's how you build arenas in the 21st century. The Dallas Mavericks built their arena with a hotel tax and a rental car tax. Those two combined to pay for half and the Mavs and Stars paid for the rest, including cost overuns. Like I said before, if the Maloofs were on board and actually paid for 25% of this thing I would vote yes. That's not asking a lot.

#18 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 31 October 2006 - 09:32 AM

QUOTE(lastexit78 @ Oct 31 2006, 09:29 AM) View Post
... this deal promises neither and costs tax payers over a billion dollars.

... if the Maloofs were on board and actually paid for 25% of this thing I would vote yes. That's not asking a lot.

You don't consider $250M "a lot" .. dang
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#19 lastexit78

lastexit78

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 09:45 AM

QUOTE(mylo @ Oct 31 2006, 09:32 AM) View Post

You don't consider $250M "a lot" .. dang



The arena itself will not cost 1 billion dollars. It will probably run around $600 million. If the Maloofs would have paid for $150 million and asked for a proper 2/3 vote I would have voted yes. $150 million is not that much of an investment for the Maloofs. Look at the money they're spending on salaries. If they could afford to give Chris Webber a $120 million dollar contract on 2001 then I know they can afford to spend $150 million to get an arena built in 2006. These guys have billions of dollars at their disposal.

#20 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 31 October 2006 - 09:49 AM

QUOTE(lastexit78 @ Oct 31 2006, 09:45 AM) View Post

These guys have billions of dollars at their disposal.


There's no way you can back that up

#21 lastexit78

lastexit78

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 10:03 AM

QUOTE(c_vanderveen @ Oct 31 2006, 09:49 AM) View Post

There's no way you can back that up



Your right I don't have the exact amount. But the Palms is said to be worth 1 billion dollars and the Kings somewhere around $450 million. So right there they're already well over a billion and that's just counting two assets. This is one of the wealthiest families in the world.

Here's a little info from Wikipedia.

In addition to their gaming business, the Maloofs have exclusive proprietorship rights to the distribution of Coors, Miller, Corona, Heineken, Tecate, InBev, Boston Beer, and Guinness products throughout New Mexico. The Maloof Companies also is one of the largest single shareholders in Wells Fargo Bank, which operates banks and branches in 23 states throughout the Western United States with over $200 billion in assets and 15 million customers.



#22 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 31 October 2006 - 10:27 AM

QUOTE(lastexit78 @ Oct 31 2006, 10:03 AM) View Post

Your right I don't have the exact amount. But the Palms is said to be worth 1 billion dollars and the Kings somewhere around $450 million. So right there they're already well over a billion and that's just counting two assets. This is one of the wealthiest families in the world.

Here's a little info from Wikipedia.

In addition to their gaming business, the Maloofs have exclusive proprietorship rights to the distribution of Coors, Miller, Corona, Heineken, Tecate, InBev, Boston Beer, and Guinness products throughout New Mexico. The Maloof Companies also is one of the largest single shareholders in Wells Fargo Bank, which operates banks and branches in 23 states throughout the Western United States with over $200 billion in assets and 15 million customers.


That may be their value, but assuming those assets are liquid and readily available to be spent is ludicrous. The Kings LOSE money, Arco LOSES money, if the Maloofs make any profit at all, it's slim and comes exclusively from parking and concessions.

#23 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 31 October 2006 - 10:40 AM

QUOTE(c_vanderveen @ Oct 31 2006, 10:27 AM) View Post

That may be their value, but assuming those assets are liquid and readily available to be spent is ludicrous. The Kings LOSE money, Arco LOSES money, if the Maloofs make any profit at all, it's slim and comes exclusively from parking and concessions.

And tax breaks smile.gif Losing money is good business!
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#24 lastexit78

lastexit78

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 10:50 AM

QUOTE(c_vanderveen @ Oct 31 2006, 10:27 AM) View Post

That may be their value, but assuming those assets are liquid and readily available to be spent is ludicrous. The Kings LOSE money, Arco LOSES money, if the Maloofs make any profit at all, it's slim and comes exclusively from parking and concessions.


Yes they make little or no money from the Kings but the franchise has more than doubled in value since they purchased it. The Kings are essentially a hobby for these guys. If they really wanted to build an arena they could. If that arena was a good investment I'm sure they would. The current expansion on the Palms is costing them $650 million. But the Palms generates between $300 & $400 million annually so that's the better investment. I don't fault them for being smart and I'm not saying they should pay for the entire price of an arena. But they should at least show the tax payers of Sacramento that they have confidence in the deal. So far they haven't done that. Hopefully in the next proposal that will occur.

#25 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 31 October 2006 - 10:54 AM

QUOTE(lastexit78 @ Oct 31 2006, 10:50 AM) View Post

Yes they make little or no money from the Kings but the franchise has more than doubled in value since they purchased it. The Kings are essentially a hobby for these guys. If they really wanted to build an arena they could. If that arena was a good investment I'm sure they would. The current expansion on the Palms is costing them $650 million. But the Palms generates between $300 & $400 million annually so that's the better investment. I don't fault them for being smart and I'm not saying they should pay for the entire price of an arena. But they should at least show the tax payers of Sacramento that they have confidence in the deal. So far they haven't done that. Hopefully in the next proposal that will occur.


That's why I say vote Yes, and if the Maloofs don't like the deal, let `em leave, we'll get a new team to fill our new arena.

What we WILL NOT GET is a new team to fill Arco.

#26 benning

benning

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,141 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 11:28 AM

QUOTE(c_vanderveen @ Oct 31 2006, 10:27 AM) View Post

That may be their value, but assuming those assets are liquid and readily available to be spent is ludicrous. The Kings LOSE money, Arco LOSES money, if the Maloofs make any profit at all, it's slim and comes exclusively from parking and concessions.


It's all spin that they lose money. Of course, if you eliminate income from parking, consessions, fees from other events, naming rights, etc. they lose money. The profit model includes all that stuff. Pretty safe that people will park and they'll eat and drink. The gate receipts don't keep up with the payroll and they play that 'unprofitable' card when they need to. But gate receipts PLUS all the other associated income puts them well in the black.

Would you consider home ownership a losing proposition? No, because you've built up equity. Sure you're cash flow is negative, but it's a wise MONEY MAKING investment. Same with Kings. The franchise is now $189 Million dollars more valuable then when they bought it in 98. That's 23 mil per year. That pretty much eliminates their compelling need to huge public subsidy in my book.
"L'essential est invisible pour les yeux."

#27 lastexit78

lastexit78

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 11:40 AM

QUOTE(c_vanderveen @ Oct 31 2006, 10:54 AM) View Post

That's why I say vote Yes, and if the Maloofs don't like the deal, let `em leave, we'll get a new team to fill our new arena.

What we WILL NOT GET is a new team to fill Arco.



I like the reverse psychology. Maybe the Q & R campaign should have tried this angle. I can just see the ads now "Vote for Q & R and we'll show the Maloofs who runs this town" "Vote for Q & R and in a few years we'll have a new team that won't choke in game 7's. " "Vote for Q & R and send the Maloofs packing"

Maybe in the next proposal the city can use this logic. Make it a war against the Maloofs since for some reason everybody seems to hate these guys for being succesful.

Unfortunately getting a new team isn't that easy. There's only been 2 teams that have moved in the last 15 years. The Hornets from Charlotte and the Grizzlies from Vancouver. The league won't expand anymore either because they already have an even 30 teams. The wait for a new team could be a long one. The last thing any city needs is a $600 million dollar building that sits empty most of the year.

#28 benning

benning

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,141 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 11:44 AM

QUOTE(lastexit78 @ Oct 31 2006, 11:40 AM) View Post

The last thing any city needs is a $600 million dollar building that sits empty most of the year.


That's exactly right and I suspect why the Maloofs are playing hardball.
"L'essential est invisible pour les yeux."

#29 ngilbert

ngilbert

    Rainbow Bridge Troll

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,368 posts
  • Location:Folsom (duh)
  • Interests:filling out questionaires

Posted 31 October 2006 - 12:27 PM

QUOTE(lastexit78 @ Oct 31 2006, 11:40 AM) View Post

Unfortunately getting a new team isn't that easy. There's only been 2 teams that have moved in the last 15 years. The Hornets from Charlotte and the Grizzlies from Vancouver.


And don't forget the Hornets from New Orleans to Oklahoma City... but maybe the sorry state of our levee system is a discussion for another day. whistle.gif


"Here's the last toast of the evening: Here's to those who still believe. All the losers will be winners, all the givers will receive. Here's to trouble-free tomorrows, may your sorrows all be small. Here's to the losers: bless them all
Sinatra "Here's to the Losers"

#30 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 31 October 2006 - 12:41 PM

QUOTE(benning @ Oct 31 2006, 11:28 AM) View Post

Would you consider home ownership a losing proposition? No, because you've built up equity. Sure you're cash flow is negative, but it's a wise MONEY MAKING investment. Same with Kings. The franchise is now $189 Million dollars more valuable then when they bought it in 98. That's 23 mil per year. That pretty much eliminates their compelling need to huge public subsidy in my book.

Maybe Steve could get them a loan on that $189,000,000 equity and they could finance contributing a bigger share smile.gif C'mon Steve, let's hear it for the Maloofs!
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users