State Hornet Picks Up the Torch on Arena Bait and Switch

[Green Cookie Monster]

Nowhere have I indicated that I have written off the new Kings ownership. They have committed a lot to the team and are running one hell of a PR campaign that is doing an excellent job of playing off of the emotions of the fan base. Good for them, good for Kings fans, and hopefully good for the city.

I’ve seen this dog and pony show before in SD. This is the same hype John Moores brought to SD when he bought the Padres. He made promises, put together a team that made a WS appearance run which ultimately got him a downtown stadium courtesy of the local tax payers (he then gutted the team until his divorce forced him to sell it). But that wasn’t his best move. His best move was getting a sweetheart deal for his development firm for the exclusive rights for downtown development around the stadium. He made billions more than he ever could from just owning the Padres. I’ll also note that Moores donated a significant amount of money to various local charities/education purposes as well so he didn’t just take (all) the money and run.

My point is Kings fans can blather all they want about how awesome this ownership group is and that is fine, I understand the excitement of going from the worst possible owners ever to a group with vision and drive but there are more things in play. But when I hear things like “they are committed to developing downtown” don’t think for a second that they won’t be on the take for those deals as well. That is where the real money will be made. These are businessmen, and they will ultimately make decisions that benefit their bottom line. Does that make them bad people? Hell no, I’m a capitalist and I respect people that have the will and know-how to make these mega deals. Like I said before, plenty of people will benefit from this arena deal and hopefully Sac State can as well, but let’s hold off on canonizing this ownership group until some results are delivered.

Yes, if this group were really interested in improving Sacramento's image, why not make a good will gesture of $10M to get the Hornets arena started? They pay that for a bench warmer on their team. And you pay it based on their sky high ticket, concession and parking prices. They will also make untold hundreds of millions 'developing' the areas they are suggesting. A pro franchise is nothing more than a tax shelter and grease to get what they really want, more development dollars from cities ceding them land and rights.

 

[Hornet25]

That is ludicrous..

http://www.fresnobee.com/sports/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hummm, what do you see when you click the Fresno Bee sports link? A big hyperlink to everything Fresno State Bulldogs. Guess what? The town doesn't worship teams in other cities or their professional baseball team, they support their local, hometown D1 team and they give it their all.

You can't even find a link for the Hornets in the Sacramento version of the McClatchy paper. Our link is called 'colleges', which puts us in the same camp as CRC, ARC and Sierra. Why? Because Sacramento is too busy trying to be something it is not, worshipping teams in other cities (Giants, 49ers) to cramming what they think will be the cities image savior (Kings) down our throats.

Do you think Memphis, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Houston, Wichita, Boise and other city/college towns would be as prominent if their local media treated them as if they were a JC or D2?

Image is everything and having the Kings in town gives the Bee reason not to support the Hornets in the same way Fresno supports the Bulldogs. If the Kings weren't in town I guess the Bee would still cram other cities teams down our throats though.

I am guessing you didn't take too many media/perception classes while at 6000 J. Street. The media has the ability to influence peoples perception and action items. Look at what they did for Nobama. If the Bee were placing the local D1 school with more prominence more than 600 people in a city of 1.5M would show up to a BBall game.

Yes, part of the fault is having a lame duck president at the school. Another bigger problem is having a local media base that goes out of its way to diminish the D1 status of CSUS. It is cause/effect. Why would the Bee support a school that can't figure out how to build a gym with more than 1100 seats that is over 60yrs. old? Why support a school that still has porta potties as the main restrooms at the stadium that has been 'renovated' since 1992?

So, to end my treatise, it is a culmination of poor school leadership and having the Kings in town only supports the Bee and their refusal to provide enhanced coverage of their D1 school. Without media support you are pissing in the wind. And without leadership, testicles and vision you have what we have now at Sac State.

Sorry GCM, but your argument is non sequitur. Not having the Kings doesn't make Sac State automatically the hottest ticket in town. If Sac State were to do away with their basketball program, you wouldn't necessarily become a Kings fan, no more than a Kings fan would fall in love with the college game if the reverse were to happen.

Also, it is no ones problem to elevate the Sac State brand except Sac State. As I've said before, the newspaper is in it to make a profit. If it were profitable to have a designated section for Sac State, they would do it. It's the administrations job to make the program attractive to the masses. Not the newspaper.

 

[Hornet25]

Nowhere have I indicated that I have written off the new Kings ownership. They have committed a lot to the team and are running one hell of a PR campaign that is doing an excellent job of playing off of the emotions of the fan base. Good for them, good for Kings fans, and hopefully good for the city.

I’ve seen this dog and pony show before in SD. This is the same hype John Moores brought to SD when he bought the Padres. He made promises, put together a team that made a WS appearance run which ultimately got him a downtown stadium courtesy of the local tax payers (he then gutted the team until his divorce forced him to sell it). But that wasn’t his best move. His best move was getting a sweetheart deal for his development firm for the exclusive rights for downtown development around the stadium. He made billions more than he ever could from just owning the Padres. I’ll also note that Moores donated a significant amount of money to various local charities/education purposes as well so he didn’t just take (all) the money and run.

My point is Kings fans can blather all they want about how awesome this ownership group is and that is fine, I understand the excitement of going from the worst possible owners ever to a group with vision and drive but there are more things in play. But when I hear things like “they are committed to developing downtown” don’t think for a second that they won’t be on the take for those deals as well. That is where the real money will be made. These are businessmen, and they will ultimately make decisions that benefit their bottom line. Does that make them bad people? Hell no, I’m a capitalist and I respect people that have the will and know-how to make these mega deals. Like I said before, plenty of people will benefit from this arena deal and hopefully Sac State can as well, but let’s hold off on canonizing this ownership group until some results are delivered.

SD, I'll speak in general terms about your post, because I think we agree about the business behind it, but our feelings about the business practice differs.

Every large project gets some type is tax break, subsidy or incentive for bringing their business to a city. The difference with professional sports is they are in the spotlight and we know the owners by name and sight. In turn, they become a target for anyone who has disdain for big business. I get it.

Reality is, professional sports teams bring a benefit that is not always measured in direct profit. It brings city name recognition. Like it or not, people outside of the area associate the city of Sacramento with the Kings more than anything else. City officials have a job of marketing the city in order to increase tourism and entice business. These things benefit the residents. The city invests in projects to help form an identity for the city and make the city attractive to business owners. Those investments don't always turn a direct profit. Creating public parks is a cost, not a revenue producer. But beautification of the city and its image plays a role in how well our city does. It's why we care where Sacramento ranks in crime, or trees, or why the American River Bike trail matters. The perception of the city matters when it comes to the city growing properly and being able to sustain its residents.

My point is, this is not just a situation where the Kings are taking from the city. There is a symbiotic relationship with government and big business. Sacramento HAS to address their most recognizable big business. Sacramento is doing this by leveraging an asset in parking. Now these parking spaces do not have the same value without an arena built downtown. So you could argue that the city of Sacramento is actually creating an asset to use for the arena, rather than taking away one. This is not a tax payer issue. It's how city government works. Don't like the direction the city government is taking you, then you vote the officials out.

 

[SDHornet]

Sorry GCM, but your argument is non sequitur. Not having the Kings doesn't make Sac State automatically the hottest ticket in town. If Sac State were to do away with their basketball program, you wouldn't necessarily become a Kings fan, no more than a Kings fan would fall in love with the college game if the reverse were to happen.

Also, it is no ones problem to elevate the Sac State brand except Sac State. As I've said before, the newspaper is in it to make a profit. If it were profitable to have a designated section for Sac State, they would do it. It's the administrations job to make the program attractive to the masses. Not the newspaper.

I don’t think droves of people would suddenly care about Hornet athletics if the Kings left, but I think some additional people might as it would be the only thing in town. I think the same would carry over to the media. The media would still pretend to be a suburb of the Bay Area but would probably show a tiny bit more love for the local team. So my guess in this hypothetical would be a marginal bump in attendance and media attention at best.

 

[SDHornet]

SD, I'll speak in general terms about your post, because I think we agree about the business behind it, but our feelings about the business practice differs.

Every large project gets some type is tax break, subsidy or incentive for bringing their business to a city. The difference with professional sports is they are in the spotlight and we know the owners by name and sight. In turn, they become a target for anyone who has disdain for big business. I get it.

Reality is, professional sports teams bring a benefit that is not always measured in direct profit. It brings city name recognition. Like it or not, people outside of the area associate the city of Sacramento with the Kings more than anything else. City officials have a job of marketing the city in order to increase tourism and entice business. These things benefit the residents. The city invests in projects to help form an identity for the city and make the city attractive to business owners. Those investments don't always turn a direct profit. Creating public parks is a cost, not a revenue producer. But beautification of the city and its image plays a role in how well our city does. It's why we care where Sacramento ranks in crime, or trees, or why the American River Bike trail matters. The perception of the city matters when it comes to the city growing properly and being able to sustain its residents.

My point is, this is not just a situation where the Kings are taking from the city. There is a symbiotic relationship with government and big business. Sacramento HAS to address their most recognizable big business. Sacramento is doing this by leveraging an asset in parking. Now these parking spaces do not have the same value without an arena built downtown. So you could argue that the city of Sacramento is actually creating an asset to use for the arena, rather than taking away one. This is not a tax payer issue. It's how city government works. Don't like the direction the city government is taking you, then you vote the officials out.

Some good points but you really just described how professional sports pulls on fans emotions to fleece them. This happens everywhere and that is what happened here. Everyone knows that it’s business, it ain’t personal but that philosophy takes a back seat when dealing with professional franchises so no this is not your typical business – government deal.
A quick Google search pulled up this gem:

Altogether, the city is investing $258 million in the arena project, including a roster of properties, most of them downtown, appraised at $38 million. The Kings owners, in turn, have agreed to spend $189 million on an arena, and they’ve filed plans to redevelop the rest of Downtown Plaza with a 250-room hotel, housing and offices.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.c...onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So dare I ask what other big businesses in Sac have ever gotten $258M in subsidies and $38M worth or real estate? This is the type of “agreement” only seen at the Federal level. Looks like the Kings ownership is poised to top Moores in my example above. Like I said I still think this deal will revitalize the downtown area which is positive, but it will come at a price. We won’t know if it is worth it until years down the line.

And the thought of the Kings being used as a tourism marketing ploy is laughable. Sac is not a destination city, it never will be and the Kings don’t change this. Case and point is the failed downtown convention center expansion that was used to “market the city.” That place has done nothing but bleed red ink.

I’m not trying to be a Kings hater (GCM has that role on lock) but just laying out the realities of the situation. I want this arena to turn this city around, I think it can but we'll have to wait and see.

 

[BuckeyeHornetFan]

But when I hear things like “they are committed to developing downtown” don’t think for a second that they won’t be on the take for those deals as well. That is where the real money will be made. These are businessmen, and they will ultimately make decisions that benefit their bottom line. Does that make them bad people? Hell no, I’m a capitalist and I respect people that have the will and know-how to make these mega deals. Like I said before, plenty of people will benefit from this arena deal and hopefully Sac State can as well, but let’s hold off on canonizing this ownership group until some results are delivered.

Let me again point out, nobody else has wanted to commit to developing anything in Sac. And the previous ownership group wouldn't accept the same deal with the city that the current ownership did less than a year ago. The point is, there is a lot of risk in the deal for them just as there is for the city. If it was such a slam dunk money maker for anybody that accepted the deal, lots of others potential owners would have been throwing their hat into the ring to buy the team and gain exclusive rights to property and development downtown. This group was the only one that stepped up.

In regards to your comments regarding the Padres new owner, all I can say is that I believe, over time, you'll see that there is no comparison. Ranadive isn't a developer. He's the owner of an industry leading software company and an avid basketball fan. He's in it because he loves the NBA, technology and believes he can mesh the two as well as expand interest into India. He's stated several times that one of the reasons he wanted to sell his Warriors shares and buy the Kings was because he felt they belonged here in Sac and it was the right thing to do. Additionally, he is actively trying to market the sport in his native India, having broadcast 20 games there this season, and increase the popularity. The point is, he has a vested interest in ensuring the team is more than competitive. I don't think you'll see what happened in SD. If the Kings continue to not be any good, it won't be because he's satisfied with a new arena being built.

And regarding that new arena, the new ownership group will NOT own it. They will merely be tenants committing to at least 41 dates a year. The city will own the arena and gain all the profits from parking in and around the area and concessions for whatever events they can schedule during the other 300+ nights a year. Even on nights the Kings play, they will see some of the profits - just not as much.

So, the 258M the city is fronting from future parking revenue that will only exist if the arena is built isn't at all lining the pockets of the new ownership group. Again, they will NOT own the arena. So the city is investing that money in itself. At the same time, they are getting the chief tenant to commit nearly 200M toward the project when they won't own any of it at the end of the day. Also, that same tenant is committing to a 30 year lease with at least 41 events per year. If the city can manage to fill enough dates the rest of the year, it should be a pretty good deal for them. With a state of the art arena and all the one of a kind tech gadgets and innovations Ranadive is planning, booking events shouldn't be very hard.

-High profile artists that have been skipping Sacramento on their tours will now be booking it
-The NCAA tourney will return
-Political conventions are likely to be hosted
-Don't be surprised if the SJ Sharks play some games in Sac, as they did in the past
-Sac St. Basketball for a few games?

The city will make out just fine. They are not being fleeced. But they are taking a risk, as are the new owners.

Getting back to the Hornets, they really do need to try to take advantage of the arena/downtown situation any way they can. As some have said, try to schedule some games against big conference teams in the new arena. It may not be easy to get them to come here to play a lesser program, but they should at least try. Also, with all the big companies involved with the Kings ownership group and development downtown, they should be trying to land some sponsors.

 

[Hornet25]

Just about every large project has a subsidy, but how many projects of this size has Sac had. Crocker art museum was subsidized. Sac International Airport was subsidized. Hotels, restaurants. You name it. The cumulative effect is the same. The arena alone just happens to be a very large project.

For what it's worth, the city of Sacramento will own the arena and the land. They will not be responsible for cost overruns or maintence. And the $258 million is only available with the building of an arena. Let me repeat. There is no $258 million available without an arena. That parking value is only realized when this thing is built. So how much did Sac give away? This is not Sacramento writing a check from their general fund. Nor is it taxing it's citizens. It's manipulation and monetizing of assets.

I also don't expect Sacramento to be a destination like New York, SF, SD or LA. But the city still has to attract business, conventions and tourism to be a viable city.

Edit: BHF, you beat me to the point about the city owning the land and arena.

 

[LoveSacState]

I like the points and the accurate statements about the cost and how the Downtown Arena is being put together by the Kings and the City..but again none of it and I'm mean none of it has anything to do and doesn't effect Sac State in any way in regards to the administration committing to take this Athletic program to new heights and building a on campus Arena and/or Stadium improvements.. The Kings new owners aren't required to fork over Ten million dollars to help the Hornets.. That shouldn't even be on anyones mind...Pro sports teams don't normally do that with NCAA teams or programs..How this is in some way keeping Sac State from thriving is non existent.. its a conspiracy theory by a frustrated fan..I get it..its easy to blame other entities when things aren't where we want them.. But its unrealistic..This is a decent sized city with an estimated Metropolitan area 2012 population of 2,527,123.(city limits 477,892)..Its a shame Sac state doesn't have more support with upwards of 150,000 alumni in the area..This isn't because of the Kings or the Rivercats or the A's or the Giants or the 49ers come on...this city is just apathetic towards college sports period.. The administration needs to find a way to tap into the Alumni for support..Find Sponsors that will help out and get the students to become more involved..They owe it to the school and fans who have stuck with this program for years..

 

[BuckeyeHornetFan]

I like the points and the accurate statements about the cost and how the Downtown Arena is being put together by the Kings and the City..but again none of it and I'm mean none of it has anything to do and doesn't effect Sac State in any way in regards to the administration committing to take this Athletic program to new heights and building a on campus Arena and/or Stadium improvements.. The Kings new owners aren't required to fork over Ten million dollars to help the Hornets.. That shouldn't even be on anyones mind...Pro sports teams don't normally do that with NCAA teams or programs..How this is in some way keeping Sac State from thriving is non existent.. its a conspiracy theory by a frustrated fan..I get it..its easy to blame other entities when things aren't where we want them.. But its unrealistic..This is a decent sized city with an estimated Metropolitan area 2012 population of 2,527,123.(city limits 477,892)..Its a shame Sac state doesn't have more support with upwards of 150,000 alumni in the area..This isn't because of the Kings or the Rivercats or the A's or the Giants or the 49ers come on...this city is just apathetic towards college sports period.. The administration needs to find a way to tap into the Alumni for support..Find Sponsors that will help out and get the students to become more involved..They owe it to the school and fans who have stuck with this program for years..

I agree on pretty much every point you made. The breakdown of the arena situation was mentioned just to lend support to the idea that the new ownership group doesn't necessarily fit within the general descriptions given by GCM and SD. You're correct that it has little to nothing to do with Sac State.

I don't agree that the city, in general, is apathetic toward collegiate sports. I think Sac State and UC Davis don't get a ton of support because, first and foremost, they aren't full fledged D1 FBS programs playing games against recognizable programs such as Stanford, UCLA, Washington, etc. Secondly, they aren't winning consistently.

In order for either program to gain significant interest at the FCS level, they'd have to compete for conference/National titles on a consistent basis. To get the same interest while being mediocre, they'd have to be at the FBS level with better facilities.

The ball is in their court. Build a winning program in basketball and/or football, upgrade the facilities, go D1 FBS. The road map is quite clear. Getting there continues to be the hard part.

Until it happens, the interest in collegiate sports in the area will continue to wain, regardless whether the Kings are in town or not.

 

[SDHornet]

This project has no comparison to some of the others mentioned above. We’ll see how it goes. Let’s not forget the city is also on the hook for the financing of the $258M loan for the arena as well. The City thinks they can float the bills so that is all that matters for now.

Here is a link to the term sheet if anyone is inetersted:
http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=3233&meta_id=396799

Some interesting items in there, let’s see if anyone can find them.

 

[Hornet25]

I'm looking at the updated project plans and can't help but imagine the benefit of having Sac State basketball game flashing on the new digital billboards that are being planned. Starts on page 239 I believe. If you have Sac State vs say, UOP or Oregon or Cal posted on all those billboards throughout the city, it is sure to get someone's attention. That advertising alone would be a huge benefit to renting out the arena for a few games every year.

http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=21&event_id=126&meta_id=414697" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;