Let's seriously talk about the Sacramento Kings.
 

This city already has zero entertainment factor compared to most other cities and we're not going to try and make changes to keep them? First we're in negotiations about where to build the new stadium and then we're concerned about financing.

Most other cities implement a hotel tax for funds on these types of public projects. Unfortunately for Sacramento, there isn't a large tourist population which leaves me to believe we should have taken measures 5+ years ago to support the new arena. So how would you fund this project seeing how we don't have enough funds at $175million?

Like it or not, the Kings are the glue of Sacramento... Even if you don't enjoy watching basketball on television you can get a nosebleed ticket at ARCO and have a great time with the locals.

[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=289&ncid=289&e=9&u=/ibsys/20040808/lo_kcra/2320988[/url]

[quote]KCRA 3 learned Friday that the Sacramento Kings organization has made it perfectly clear to the city that all discussions over a new arena in Sacramento are now off. The question the Kings officials are refusing to answer is, does that mean the Kings are now looking for a new city, with a new arena, in which to move the team?[/quote]

So what are your predictions?

How would you handle this situation if you called the shots from both sides (Kings exec. & the city of Sacramento based on it's plan or lack thereof to properly fund the project)?

What effect will it have on Sacramento if they leave?

This really sucks... I dont know why they dont explore the options in Natomas more fully. Plenty of land, parking, not as much traffic, etc...

I will be so bummed if the Kings bail on Sac. Though the City Council is to be partialy blamed, the Maloofs have come off as not really caring about the fans. There need to be some concesssions made IMO

gah.. traffic is bad enough around natomas on game nights, I would hate to think what downtown would be like when a game gets out

I think you should just have Arnold write a check for it, he can afford it.

[QUOTE=psoper]I think you should just have Arnold write a check for it, he can afford it.[/QUOTE]

That brings up a good point...

Why don't we get someone (or a wealthy group of investors) to cover the bill?

Seeing how our City planners procrastinated on developing revenue for a project they knew was bound to bite them in the ass, why should non-Kings fans care and have to pay via tax?

My first thought was, "The hell with the Kings...let 'em walk. ..city wouldn't recoup any $$ invested in a downtown stadium.."

But then I realized Sacramento has a great entertainment opportunity...Post game Rioting!!
Sac can be just like Detroit after the Pistons lose/win...downtown businesses ablaze, tons of $$$ spent on OT for the Police...man, I can hardly wait!

Paul

lmao, oaf :p

Arnold Arena, naw the names no good.

i think downtown would be a horrible location, traffic would kill that entire area during game time.. Natomas would be better suited for that as it is sort of out of the way a bit.

I really hate public funding for sports franchises. As far as I am concerned, if you aren't rich or resourceful enough to build your own stadium, you have no business owning a team.

And I hate the Kings too, as long as they have that buttmunch Webber.

Hmmm the Maloofs own...a casino. Wonder where the Kings might move to?

[QUOTE=FUNKED1]I really hate public funding for sports franchises. As far as I am concerned, if you aren't rich or resourceful enough to build your own stadium, you have no business owning a team.

And I hate the Kings too, as long as they have that buttmunch Webber.[/QUOTE]


so tell me what you now a bout the rangers history......

[QUOTE=FUNKED1]I really hate public funding for sports franchises. As far as I am concerned, if you aren't rich or resourceful enough to build your own stadium, you have no business owning a team.

[/QUOTE]


damn straight