And so it begins. Numerous reports last night (ESPN/SacBee/FanHouse) have the Maloofs talking with the officials at Anaheim’s Honda Center over a move to Anaheim. NBA commissioner David Stern is feigning ignorance regarding details – but come on, he injected himself into the Kings’ pursuit over a year ago so he must be keeping abreast of everything that’s going on.
Honda Center and Anaheim Ducks owner Henry Samueli is #582 on Forbes’ list of world billionaires with a net worth of $1.7 Billion (funny how that figure keeps coming around). Should the Kings move to the O.C., the deal is supposed to have Samueli take care of any existing debt the Maloofs have, including a loan from the City of Sacramento. Samueli would also cover a $30 million franchise relocation to the NBA and territorial rights fees due to both of the existing LA franchises, the Lakers and Clippers.
The deadline for the Maloofs to apply for a move is March 1, and if it goes through it would mark a dark day in Sacramento sports. The Maloofs would still own the decaying ARCO Arena and would get no more than pennies on the dollar for it because of the extensive cost of required renovations to the venue. Not that they could set foot in Cowtown ever again, mind you.
As for the Honda Center, it could find itself with a ton of basketball action over the next few years. The Kings can move right in as long as the labor situation is settled and the schedule with the Ducks is worked out. This is thanks to the seating bowl configuration, which has the flexibility to properly stage NBA games. Honda Center is also home to the annual Big West tournament and is set to host the NCAA tournament’s West regional a month from now.
Honda Center in NCAA tournament configuration (image courtesy of flickr user SteevzStuff)
One more tenant may be on the way: UCLA men’s basketball. The vaunted program was supposed to play at the old Forum in Inglewood next season while extensive improvements were made to Pauley Pavilion, but the Forum was bought last year by MSG and is ready to undergo its own improvements to make it a very competitive concert venue. Ironically, doing this would allow the Forum to grab dates from the Honda Center, which has been the go-to concert venue in the LA/OC region due to the calendar for the Staples Center being so full. As a prominent UCLA alum, Samueli would love to have his Bruins play a year or two at his arena. Though fans and students may not love the brutal trip from Westwood to Anaheim, at least it’s a place to play. Scheduling UCLA with the hoops Kings and the hockey Ducks is not unprecedented. The Verizon Center in DC has Georgetown men’s basketball, the Caps, and the Wizards all happy under one roof. The Bruins eventually may be forced to have their own sort of regional barnstorming tour with home games played in Ontario, Bakersfield, and even San Diego.
The venue outlook would look like this:
- Staples Center (18-19,000): Lakers, Clippers, LA Kings (NHL), Pac-10/12 tournament, Grammys
- Honda Center (17,500): Ducks, Anaheim Kings (NBA), Big West tournament
- The Forum (17,505): Concerts, filming of the ABC Sitcom “Mr. Sunshine“
If there were ever a situation that calls for a metro to have three top tier arenas, this is it. Without the right number of permanent tenants, at least one venue is taking on an enormous amount of risk. The Forum’s new business model had risk written all over it until the Kings came a-knockin’, now it might make perfect sense. It goes to show that in the Bay Area, there’s no market for a third arena in San Francisco unless they want to ruin themselves and HP Pavilion/Oracle Arena in the process.
Update 11:50 AM – The Maloofs would likely sell their equity share in Comcast Sportsnet California as part of the move. Would the A’s swoop in to pick that up? I sure hope so.
newballpark.org 
They’d rather go to Anaheim and compete with the Lakers dynasty (and the Clippers) than come to San Jose and compete with the sad-sack Warriors? OK. I guess that makes sense.
Pretty idiotic to jam themselves in down there, but I guess that is some sweet part of this deal I am missing.
NT,
Kind of scratching my head on this one also. My SJ biases aside, I thought the Kings might look to HP Pavilion because they’re already established in NorCal and have some semblance of a fan base in the Central Valley over the Altamont. Didn’t think they would look at Anaheim seriously because of the Lakers and Blake Griffin. On the other hand, I guess corporate support isn’t as important to an NBA team as it is to MLB; hence the Thunder of Oklahoma. The Kings should do fine in The OC, at least better than they’re doing in Sac.
RM,
Does this mean that there is a potential for the Bay Area to be a two-team NBA market in the future? Key word being “potential.”
The O.C. is no slouch when it comes to corporate interests or wealth and it is home to 3 million residents by itself. When looking at the South Bay, the Maloofs may be looking at the future. If the South Bay is home to the A’s and the 49ers/Raiders play games there it’s an oversaturated market.
There isn’t much they can do about the Lakers, however the Clippers and Blake Griffin don’t come into play. Griffin could easily leave the Clips in three years as a free agent. Plus the Kings have a built in opening at Fox Sports Prime Ticket now that the Lakers are leaving for their own network. I’d like to know if the A’s will buy that piece as result.
If I were a UCLA student and liked basketball, I’d be pissed at having to drive to Anaheim to see them. Long Beach Arena or the LA Sports Arena (despite its proximity to USC) would seem like better choices logistically.
@Brian – Agreed on the LBC. For some reason UCLA decided against because they felt it wasn’t “big enough.” I can understand why they wouldn’t go to the LA Sports Arena, even though it’s the closest available option.
YES! A’s buy share of CSNCA! Make that happen.
For soothe… This is depressing, if not unexpected. I love Sacramento. It is a very underrated city. I have played shows at Old Ironsides. I have walked up and down Old Sac eating salt water taffy. Arco Arena bites, but the fan base loves the team. I just wish it didn’t get got his… And, grab the ball Vlade!
One thing worth pointing out: ARCO is only 5 years older than The Pond even though it seems like they’re night-and-day. The big difference is that The Pond cost three times as much to build.
If UCLA plays its home games at the Honda Center, would the university need to change its name to the University of California at Los Angeles of Anaheim?
The Pond and SJ Arena opened within days of each other. But ARCO looks much much older than SJ’s or Anaheim’s arena. .
It’s because there was a big shift in arena and stadium design between 88 and 93 not unlike there was in baseball stadiums ala Rodgers Center and Comiskey Park to Camden Yards and Jacobs Field.
where the pistons play in the nba at the palace in auburn hills was also built at the same time arco was built and that place like hp is so more advanced than arco is. read or heard that arco was built essentially on the cheap and that’s why it’s so far behind in terms of expierence both for fans/players than the arenas like in sj and det which were built around the same time.
sucks for the city of sac. it was only a decade ago that you couldn’t buy a free ticket for all their home games and now they barely fill half the arena on most nights. course having a losing team, although didn’t stop them from drawing well in the mid 90s when they did sell out the arco. Doesn’t help but like a’s fans kings fans have known for years now about the possibility of their team leaving due to an inadequate home venue.
Three NBA teams in LA make as much sense as two in the Bay Area. I guess the Maloofs aren’t as impressed at the thought of seeing “San Jose” on a uniform as others here are. Because after all, isn’t that what it’s all about?
As soon as I saw Rob’s name under the comments bar, I knew right away that it would be a not so subtle hit piece on SJ that wouldn’t contribute positively to the Kings to Anaheim thread. After all these years, I know you all to well my friend. Sorry, won’t take the bait today Rob.
Or, as adults can see, SVSE didn’t offer a sweetheart deal like Samueli. I guess San Jose isn’t that desperate to get the name on another jersey, contrary to idiots’ claims.
NT,
I was thinking the same thing brah! I also don’t think SVSE was willing to pay the T-Rights fee to the Warriors on top of the $100 million. FWIW, I’m sure HP Pavilion could accomodate NBA along with the Sharks and other events, much like Staples Center does now with 2 NBA, 1 NHL, and other events.
I think Nam Turk has it right. According to ESPN via Sacto’s KFBK radio, the owner of the Ducks has offered to loan the Maloofs $100 million to pay of debts and fees to move the Kings to Anaheim. That’s probably why Anaheim has an edge over San Jose. I wouldn’t want the Sharks or San Jose to give them 100 cents.
It’s a good point for another reason too. SVSE is also the operator of the HP Pavilion, an arena that really doesn’t have all that much room on it’s schedule for more events. I mean between the SaberCats, Sharks, Strikeforce, and all the other events the Pavilion hosts, it’s one of the most booked arenas in the world. There really wouldn’t be all that much room on the calendar for a basketball team.
San Jose would do whatever it takes to accommodate an NBA team at the arena. But that does not include loaning the team owners $100 million.
Sacto Kings started as the Rochester Royals. Then they became the Cincinnati Royals. Then they moved to KC and Omaha (yes, two homes) and became the KC/Omaha Kings. Then they moved to Sacto. Now to Anaheim. Enough already.
HP would squeeze in an NBA team in a heartbeat. Other events don’t bring in 17k a night, and there’s only so many Clapton’s and Sade concerts coming each year. Speaking of Sade, I’ll be seeing her at the Oracle in August. Hop on Bart and I’m there in 10 minutes. She’s also at the HP, but the acoustics for concerts are worse there than at the Oracle IMHO, so no more HP concerts for me. The old Coliseum Arena’s sound was so sweet before the renovation, and is okay most of the time now.
Samueli is offering to pay off major debt the Maloof’s have and that is why the Kings will end up in Anaheim and not San Jose.
San Jose is being saved for a future Larry Ellison owned team to bail the NBA out of a bad market some where else such as New Orleans, Memphis, Milwaukee, Charlotte, Indiana, and Minnesota on top of Sacramento who is going to the OC.
The NBA after a lengthy lockout is going to move teams all over the place in order to have a decent rev share system.
With only 13 teams making $$ and 17 losing $$ there is no way rev sharing can work. They need to move teams to San Jose, Anaheim, New Jersey (Once the Nets leave), Seattle (New arena needed) and force these big market teams who make $$ without even being good (Knicks, Warriors, Lakers, Clippers) to share their markets that are large enough to support extra teams.
San Jose will get a team but it will not be the Kings..
Not for nothing, but Stern dropped the possibility of the NBA returning to Vancouver in a Bill Simmons podcast as well.
@Ed – That’s true. Like Simmons I was surprised to hear this. Vancouver never really got a fair shot, and the Canadian dollar being on par with the US dollar doesn’t hurt. Seattle should get first crack though, at least Vancouver has the team with the NHL’s best record for winter sports.
@All – About the “17 teams losing money” – if the NBA and NBPA took some of the measures I outlined last month (and none of you regulars commented upon), there would be little need for franchise upheaval. Chances are they’ll get a compromise in place that fixes the system before they start moving teams around like crazy.
57 words and 283 keystrokes isn’t what I would call “not taking the bait.”
I am shocked that the Vancouver/Seattle market has zero teams after at point having 2 teams.
I believe that there should be a team in that location between those two cities and Rogers Place has all the amenities for an NBA team with luxury suites and club seating.
I think the Grizzlies failed because the Sonics were so close (2 hours away) but I do agree there were other reasons as well.
I say if they put a team back in Vancouver now with no team in Seattle that actually works quite well.
@ML- I cannot believe I missed this last post about the NBA.
I agree with what you say around a better rev sharing model with the players and owners as the players get 57% which is too much especially before expenses.
But the big problem is even with a better rev share model with the players/owners the rev share between the owners is big problem in itself that the CBA will not address.
Even with the moves you discussed in your post it does not solve the problem of teams losing money in bad markets.
With a hard cap then teams like the Lakers, Knicks, Warriors will make more $$ while teams who cannot spend luxury tax dollars in the current system such as the Hornets, Grizzlies, Kings are still going to lose money.
It doesn’t make sense for these richer teams to keep subsidizing these poorer teams unless more teams turn a profit then those who do not.
In the end the NBA is going to have to move teams in order to create a rev share model between the owners that works.
Otherwise you will continue to see the current problem of teams bleeding left and right while teams like the Warriors make money hand over fist because they are in a market that is far to big for 1 team.
The Maloof’s are better off in Anaheim even with the Lakers/Clippers in LA because the market can support 3 teams who would all be profitable rather then have the Lakers/Clippers make tons of $$ while the Kings lose money in Sacramento.
@Sid/tony d. – Most of these teams are losing somewhere in the neighborhood of $1-5 million. That money is recoverable by simply managing the business (payroll) better. Cases like New Orleans and Indiana are outliers and are largely due to cash-poor ownership. The NBA as a whole continues to grow from a revenue standpoint. There is no need to shift a bunch of teams around before fixing the league structurally.
Whoa there Sid! I’m a Lakers fan and I think its safe to say they’ve been pretty good as of late.
By the way, that’s a lot of bad markets and lots of teams looking to move. RM, if Sid is correct in his analysis, does Vegas come into play in the future?
If the point is to address the need to put teams where there’s more demand, why not institute something close to a pro/rel system sometime in the future? That way, cities such as Las Vegas, Newark, Anaheim, Kansas City and even Vancouver or Louisville could enter teams into the competition without having to take a team from somewhere else. I would go with a single table of 20 or 22 teams. Top eight advance to playoffs; top-place finisher gets home court advantage for the Finals.
There should be enough demand for at least three divisions. Second division could have 40 teams, split regionally, while the third division could have as many as 80 teams, again split along regions.
Simple reason, because Pro/Rel doesn’t put teams where there’s demand. It puts teams in cities where they happen to do well or poor the year before. In a country as big as the US it would be a disaster with smaller markets like Rochester and Portland having to level teams while New York and LA don’t. It would be a clusterfuck to put it quite simply. Second reason is that pro/rel is proving to be a disaster financially for most clubs overseas in soccer. I mean just look at the EPL and the debt loads most of their teams are carrying, not to mention anyone like Hull for instance who has the audacity to try and actually compete once in the upper level get themselves so underwater that they come tumbling back down through the system in short order. Pro/Rel is a failure but due to history and FIFA they maintain it.
Brazil is almost as big as the continental 48 states and, yet, they’ve managed to institute a pro/rel system there. It wasn’t always that way. It used to be that big clubs never had to go to the second division because of politics. But sporting authorities finally said enough and made the clubs take it seriously. In recent years, there have been stints of clubs of such renown as Vasco da Gama and Gremio in the second division.
There’s going to be haves and have-nots, no matter what system you use. I’d rather have my team in the second division than no team at all. But then, I just don’t agree with your definition of failure. At least there’s a chance that they’d get back at the first division, provided that things turn around and better players get into the roster.
The problem with many Europeans clubs is that they overspent. However, this is mitigated by two things: 1. Not all clubs spent into deep red. Bayern Munich manages to balance the books while winning championships. The Bundesliga isn’t the best league but it’s very stable. They have better financial rules in terms of debt-to-asset ratios. 2. In many countries, clubs own the stadia they play in. In others, cities own municipal stadia and rent them to teams. But those teams want to get into stadia of their own because they can then use them however they wish without the cities getting their cut.
Since you mention the EPL, do realize that clubs like Manchester United and Liverpool at certain times WERE relegated and had to play in the second division. There’s no law that says that they can’t be relegated again. Of course, it seems impossible that they’ll go down today but the future is not written yet. The point is cities have the chance to make it in the big time but must always work to keep themselves there. Unfortunately, certain owners thought that always throwing money is the answer to all things, instead of building teams through the system. The great audiences that watch those teams all over the world, unfortunately, also attracted scoundrels who bought up the clubs with debt money, like the scummy Glazer family or liars like Hicks. Individuals who have no respect for the legacies of those teams but saw only TV $$$$. Then there’s the case of Portsmouth, where another scoundrel lied about his ability to fund the team that, once he was caught, had to unload it but after it had been relegated. Sooner or later, the market would shakes those imbalances out and owners would be forced to balance the books.
Why would I give any emotional investment to a team if, not long after, they leave for another city? For basketball, all you need is ten guys, a basketball and a court to play it. Thousands of cities qualify. Even if a few hundred of them realistically can support a professional team, that’s a few hundred that’s a base where players can rise or fall through the system. None of this mickey mouse about “Hey, we could just trade a few scrubs for a superstar players because, hey, we can do that.”
Remember, clubs have to earn their keep. Franchises can just throw money around like it’s candy.
Well back in reality where pro/rel will never happen, the Maloofs have yet to provide the city of Sacramento with the paperwork they promised the city’s arena development team. Paperwork they were supposed to already have provided. Just another sign they may be serious, well that and rumblings that they’ve already approached their fellow owners during the All Star weekend and supposedly have the support they need for the move. All signs are pointing to this not being another bluff but the real deal. Sac will be sans basketball team after this season.
@ML- The league as a whole lost $700M last season. Therefore if you take the 17 teams who lost money the average is (700/17)= $41.17M per team as a loss.
Now of course if I factored in the 13 teams who make $$ my #s even get more drastic as teams like the Warriors, Lakers, Knicks and their profits subsidizing these other 17 teams then you would see the 17 teams losing money are losing far more than what I am calculating below.
The numbers you state around $1M-5M per team are not even in the “ballpark” when it comes to the league as a whole. Some teams maybe losing $1M-$5M or so but that is the minority by far.
Now with your suggestions on your previous post that would help pare it down to around $250M-$300M in losses or so. Now you have $14M-$17.6M in average losses from the other 17 teams.
Now the players at this point have taken a huge pay cut and the league is still losing money.
If they took the 5 biggest money losers in the league (Minnesota, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Sacramento, and Memphis) and move them to Anaheim, San Jose, Seattle/Vancouver, New Jersey and Chicago you then would have only 12 teams losing money with 18 making $$.
Now you have a rev share model that works and the league is profitable all of a sudden.
http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/news/story?id=6144975
In MLB the Yankees are stating the same thing I am writing about on how MLB is in too many bad markets and they are subsidizing these teams to the tune of $130M a year.
Regardless of pay cuts from the players the league will either have to contract teams like you mentioned in your previous post or move teams into larger markets with fans/corporations who have $$ to spend.
@Sid – It’s amazing what you’ll choose to believe just to prop up your own argument. The NBA didn’t lose $700 million last season. It didn’t lose $400 million as Stern said last summer. All of that is based on paper losses supposedly incurred by teams playing hide the sausage. If you look at Forbes’ latest numbers, the total for all 17 teams who lost money is $134 million, 5 of those teams being contenders last year.
So where does the $700 million figure come from? Stern wants to reduce player salaries $700 million every year. He knows he’s not going to get that but he floats it because it’s an eyepopping number. The players want the status quo but they’re not getting it. That puts the middle ground at around $350 million, which would get the players from 57% to 50% of revenue. That’s what they’re working towards and it sounds fair to me.
I think this is very interesting… I thought the Maloofs would wait around until something was happening in Las Vegas. But even if that didn’t happen coming to the bay area if they could stirke gold and compete quick there are plenty of basketball fans that have been turned off a bit with all the mediocre ball being played in oakland that would come over. I still think LV or SJ are there best options instead of getting lost in shadow of the Lakers and Blake. I really think the Clips should take the Honda center and with a new star establish a home court just for Blake. This will never happen considering there sweet lease deal in staples center but for once the Clips actually could finally take a stance with a star and a (very nice) venue and get out of the Lakers shadow a bit
“We might make a lot of money but, we also spend a lot of money.” – Patrick Ewing, defending players’ financial needs during a previous labor battle between NBA owners and players. So have some sympathy for the players here. Not that the owners are heroes, either.
Problem is, the Clippers will never move to Anaheim as long as they’re under their current ownership. They have a sweetheart deal of a lease at Staples, and it’s physically closer to their owner’s home and all his rich cronies in Malibu. Anaheim might as well be Mars due to it’s actual distance (read 2-3 hour drive times) from both Malibu and downtown LA.
Although I think a second NBA team would do well in San Jose, I can certainly understand why the Kings would choose Anaheim. As ML points out, OC also has plenty of rich folks and corporate base. Plus, in addition to the 3 million people in OC, a team in Anaheim would be the closest geographically to folks in Riverside County (pop 2 million) and San Diego County (pop 3 million). That’s five million more people within around 1-2 hours drive.
@ML- Forbes.com has never been an accurate representation of how any of the leagues since they are in fact private businesses.
I will say though that the NBA is losing 100s of millions of dollars. If the total # of losses was in fact $134M you wouldn’t see the two sides so far apart on this.
As then if players take a 1/3 pay cut then the league is ridiculously making money which all know isn’t true.
I believe the # is closer to 500M as the reports of teams losing money has been known for a while.
I truly believe next season will be lost because the league sees they are losing so much $$ that there is no point to play a season.
This lockout will make the NHL lockout in 2004-2005 look like peanuts…
@Sid – A link would be nice. Most of the numbers be thrown around regarding losses are coming from Stern as part of posturing. If there are independently verifiable numbers I’d love to see them. Put it this way – if the NBA were actually losing a half billion per year Stern’s job would be in serious trouble. There is no sign of that happening – and he’s on a year-to-year deal.
Bartleby, I can tell you you’re spot on as an NBA fan in San Diego. I will never bother to drive up to Clippers games even when the Kings (my team are in town) but I would make the drive to Anaheim as it’s not nearly as bad (though I wouldn’t drive to Anaheim to see the Kings in particular due to my then hating them for moving to the OC). But a fan without my personal qualms due to it being my team specifically moving, would likely be like me and much more likely to drive to see the NBA in Anaheim than they are at Staples.
http://blogs.sacbee.com/sports/kings/archives/2011/02/kings-file-exte.html
Kings filed for an extension to the relocation deadline. And reportedly it’ll be approved, so this one is going into overtime.