Blog Entry

Sacramento official issues letter to Anaheim

Posted on: March 28, 2011 8:10 pm
Edited on: March 28, 2011 8:21 pm
  •  
 
City manager for Sacramento sends a letter to his counterpart in Anaheim, discussing money that would be owed to Sacramento if the city of Anaheim does not "cease negotiating" with the Kings
Posted by Matt Moore

Enter the lawyers. 

The Sacramento Bee reports that officials for the city of Sacramento have sent a letter to officials in Anaheim ordering them to "cease negotiating with the Kings", and repeatedly brings up the $77 million the Kings owe the city of Sacramento:
Sacramento city officials have sent a letter to Anaheim telling that city to cease its negotiations with the Sacramento Kings, and asking the Anaheim City Council not to vote on issuing $75 million in bonds Tuesday or take any other actions to induce the Kings to move to Anaheim.
The letter, issued minutes ago by assistant city manager John Dangberg, says if Anaheim insists on continuing negotiations with the Kings, Sacramento "must contractually require" the Kings to pay off the estimated $77 million the team owes the city of Sacramento.
via Kings Blog and Q&A: City of Sacramento directs Anaheim to stop negotiations with Kings.

Kaboom. 

The letter has three requests for Anaheim. One, to not authorize issuance of Bonds for the renovation of the Honda Center. Two, to cease negotiations with the Kings. And if they choose to continue such discussions, to make any move dependent on the Kings repaying the $77 million to Sacramento. That of course dwarfs the money the Kings would owe in relocation fees and the $50 million loan Samueli has discussed loaning the Maloofs. 

This letter is of course the precursor to suit in the event that negotiations continue and the Kings do file for relocation. The city's latest proposal fell flat on its face, but this letter makes it apparent they have little intention of going down completely quietly. What, if any, merit this course of action will garner in court isn't known at this time, but it's definitely a scare tactic to try and get the crows away from the soon-to-be carcass of professional basketball in Sacramento. 
  •  
Comments

Since: Nov 16, 2010
Posted on: March 29, 2011 1:14 pm
 

Sacramento official issues letter to Anaheim




Since: Dec 6, 2006
Posted on: March 29, 2011 12:11 pm
 

Sacramento official issues letter to Anaheim

KEEP YOUR CRAPPY TEAM IN SAC, WE ALREADY GOT A CRAPPY TEAM IN L.A.  THANKS THOUGH.




Since: Aug 5, 2008
Posted on: March 29, 2011 11:52 am
 

Sacramento official issues letter to Anaheim

truwarier90:

The differences between Honda Center and the former ARCO Arena are many. The arena in Sacramento was built at a cost of $40 million in 1988. Honda Center, on the other hand, cost $123 million to be built just 5 years later. It really is a case of getting what you paid for. ARCO was a dump the day it opened, but at least it was new. It has never really been maintained...the seats are dirty (and are still original to the building, sporting the old Kings colors of blue and red), half of them are broken, the floor (wooden floors in the lower bowl) are stained and disgusting. It is also a very unwieldy arena...does not convert to other events in the usual way (adding seats on the ends of the floor for basketball, removing them for hockey). To accomodate hockey or arena football, both sections of the lower bowl the length of the baselines are retracted, making the distance from the seats to the ice 20 feet in some cases. In other words, the arena was outdated when it opened.

It was a case of doing as little as possible.

Honda Center, while being 18 years old, has been well-maintained, updated and renovated. It would still be a very viable arena for a several years to come...though it too will need to be replaced ultimately.

When are cities going to learn...if you don't want you teams to leave, public funds will have to be used to at least help pay for new facilities.



Since: May 7, 2009
Posted on: March 29, 2011 11:05 am
 

Sacramento official issues letter to Anaheim

lol.  This is correct.  But there is one purpose: it shows the electorate that you are on their side and are unhappy about developments.  This is also seen in SF, Oakland and other cities across the country that are potentially losing teams.


dsavcx1vcx4444
Since: Mar 29, 2011
Posted on: March 29, 2011 9:59 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Oct 26, 2007
Posted on: March 29, 2011 4:56 am
 

Sacramento official issues letter to Anaheim

When you have no hand and refuse to fold, I guess bluffing is the only thing left...



Since: Nov 9, 2008
Posted on: March 29, 2011 2:53 am
 

Sacramento official issues letter to Anaheim

Once the Kings are gone, there will be fewer distractions for Governor Moonbeam and his cronies to turn California into more of a national joke than it already is.



Since: Sep 15, 2006
Posted on: March 29, 2011 1:30 am
 

Tell Sacramento to Stuff It!

Financial dealings between the City of Sacramento and the Kings has absolutely nothing to do with the City of Anaheim.  I'd laugh at them and tell them to go frack themselves.  Sacramento can't do a damned thing to Anaheim if they continue to pursue the Kings.  Calling their loan on the Kings however, could definitely put a stake in the heart of the move, unless the Maloofs happen to have a spare $50 million sitting around to repay the loan.  This must be Sacramento's version of the Joke of the Day, to give a good laugh to the people who run Anaheim.



Since: May 7, 2009
Posted on: March 29, 2011 12:09 am
 

Sacramento official issues letter to Anaheim

This is a cash flow issue not a "cost"; paying off debt is not a cost.  The Royals knew they were going to have to repay the money and will presumably arrange funding to do so.  The real issue is the certainty of losing money (expenses greater than costs) in Sacramento vs. the possibility of making money in SoCal.

It should be a good learning exercise to see how the Royals attempt to build revenues in Orange and SD Counties so as to compete in a very competitive market.  This may be as interesting as the on-court strategy.  For example, does the name "Anaheim" hurt them more in San Diego County or the Inland Empire than the name "Los Angeles"? 



Since: Dec 24, 2006
Posted on: March 28, 2011 11:42 pm
 

Nice try, Sacto, but no.

What Sacramento is demanding in that letter to Anaheim is silly.  It's as if I was going to buy a house and the seller got a letter from the bank that holds the mortgage on my old house, demanding that the seller stop negotiating with me or at least "contractually require" that I pay off the loan on my old house before I move.  The seller doesn't have to do that.  And Anaheim doesn't have to do that, either.

If Sacramento has a written contract with the Maloofs that requires the Maloofs to pay money to the city, then that contract is enough to obligate the Maloofs to pay Sacto back.  If Sacramento doesn't have a written contract with the Maloofs, then Sacto is SOL no matter how many letters they write to the city of Anaheim.



The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com