This leaves me with a question, though:

Is it REALLY dead?

I hope so; it was a bad deal for taxpayers. But you just get this feeling the Orlando agreement will somehow live on in some future agreement.

After all, when is it really over, Neil?

Most of the ingredients are still there; a proposed location, a mayor who wants it, a team, and owners who really do want a free arena. It seems to me that if you follow the ant trail, you're going to find a hole.

The Sacramento arena deal may not be dead after all.

I bet you can just imagine my surprise. Well, keep imagining it.

www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/story/2012-04-30/Kings-owners-softening-stance-on-dealing-with-Sacramento/54646046/1

I'm not sure that "We're still willing to talk so long as we don't have to put in a dime of money up-front and the lease is only for 15 years" makes the deal any less dead. It's like "I'm willing to get back together with you the minute you get rich and completely change your personality."

I do understand starting-points in negotiations. It's funny how "15 years, tops" can turn into "30 years with years 16-30 only going into effect under these conditions".

Especially with our star-crossed mayor.

ransackedmedia.com/2012/04/29/kevin-johnson-rubs-elbows-with-the-stars-in-dc/

Look, dead negotiations are born to be revived. (Er, or something. This metaphor is getting extended in creepy directions.) But I don't read Maloof's comment as anything other than "We're happy to talk, the minute KJ drops his silly insistence on us 'spending' any 'money.'"

Right now all public statements need to be read as damage control.

No one on the planet has more hope that you're right than I do. But realistically, as long as the Kings are in town, there is the possibility of an arena plan.

One thing not getting reported far-and-wide: KJ's failed strong-mayor initiative. In the most recent proposal, things like funding arenas are reduced to mere spending decisions, mostly decided by the mayor (with veto power from the rest of the Council). KJ is now supporting candidates who support the SMI, so, very quietly, KJ is working on getting his five votes for SMI, that would turn the arena into his decision (mostly).

He's going under-the-radar. Wouldn't at all be surprised if KJ knows the Maloof amendments brought it way under 5 votes, so, fine, he's trying for a different five votes now -- in favor of the strong mayor initiative.

As soon as he gets that, he's in great shape. And he might have his five as soon as June 5. So, for now, he's willing to tell the Maloofs, "Just wait", and as soon as the arena decision belongs nearly entirely to KJ, they're in.

I think the Maloofs are willing to wait until June to see how this plays out. So I don't think this plan is all the way dead. KJ just makes it want to seem that way.

The Bee has an aftermath article today.

www.sacbee.com/2012/05/01/4455052/kings-mired-in-a-maloofs-vs-sacramento.html

Nothing new, just a summary. But it does note that if KJ builds an arena without the Kings on-board, this violates the no-compete clause in the 1997 loan, and ends the requirement that the team keeps paying that debt.

What an idiotic clause in that deal. Wow.

I would have to think clauses like that are quite common.

The local elections will be interesting. One of the No votes on the Sacto City Council for the Term sheet is leaving the City Council and the Mayor has endorsed a candidate there (a developer, no surpise there). The other No vote is running for reelection but he doesn't have serious opposition. So, MikeM is right- KJ is trying to pack the Council with supporters.

But even with a Council full of supporters, I don't think KJ could get support for an arena if he proposes to increase the public's contribution.

Non-compete clause with Power Balance Pavilion. Interesting. If there's a divorce between the Kings and Sacramento, I wonder what it would look like.

jj0916:

Yeah the non compete clause is also tied in with a most favored nation clause too.

MikeM,

When you said "as soon as he gets that he's in great shape" I finally realized which side of the fence you've been on all along. You've wanted this deal to work but you carefully disguised your true position with some critical comments along the way. But, it's now game over. KJ has spent all of his political capital and the public is in no mood to revisit this issue any time soon. So, you can continue to hold out hope that KJ can somehow muscle this through a reconfigured council but it ain't gonna happen. It's time to move on and forget that shiny bright object downtown. The Maloofs have done the City of Sacramento a great service and in time as more of the backroom details emerge you will see this is true. The projections were "financial puffery" and completely bogus. It doesn't matter what Team KJ does now, the jig is up and they have been exposed.

No, that's not right, Cal. In general, I oppose sports stadium subsidies; and in particular, leasing out our parking to pay $255M towards a $391M project (where the costs will very likely go much higher than that), and dealing with the Maloofs, AEG, Goldman-Sachs, and watching KJ's blind allegiance to the NBA... No, this was an awful deal.

The Maloofs did get that part of their statements right: This would have been a disaster for a city that just sent out 300 layoff notices because of the $15.7M deficit. KJ's going about this all wrong. In order to attract nice things like pro sports teams, you first have to attract corporate presence. We have none (in the City). Oracle isn't in Sac, Intel isn't, HP isn't... They're near, but not in, Sac.

Moreover, the location was terrible.

I hope this deal dies, but we have to be careful with what KJ is doing with this SMI, too. That's what KJ really wants; more power, and less ability for the Council (which would then be a separate entity) to overturn the mayor's decisions.

I'm against the deal they came up with. I'm not trying to work both sides of this issue. I'd favor something like this:

1) $100M City contribution, to be repaid through a parcel tax.
2) A solid lease.
3) The truth about what arena deals have done to budgets.
4) The current location.

This will never happen, so, adios, Kings, is what I'd prefer.

Now the current structural engineer is insisting that the current arena can be fixed for between $100M and $150M.

sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/05/01/group-says-it-can-renovate-power-balance-pavilion/

MikeM:

Okay, I stand corrected. We are both on the same page. I have proposed a way to attract a corporate presence to Sacramento at Cal Expo but so far no one is willing to listen. As far as renovating PBP, that's also a non-starter. How could you logistically do that and continue to run events and Kings games? And, where is that $100-150M going to come from? John Shirey said last night that the arena issue is "on hold". Nope, it's dead, now go fix the budget.

Cal, the current structural engineer at PBP insists it can be done. He may be blowing smoke. Heck, I'll just say right out, he's blowing smoke. He's wrong.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't at least hear what he has to say. We could detect KJ's BS; it wasn't that hard to do. I think our BS detectors are working just fine. So if we detect BS from this guy... Fine. You thank him for his time, tell him what's wrong with his idea, and then consider something else.

It seems completely harmless to me. I just don't see why you wouldn't at least give the guy an hour or a day or a week of your time. Several things about that property make it worth at least hearing.

Council member Angelique Ashby said if the restoration costs more than 50% of total property cost it can't be done do to the city moratorium. Then there is that nagging dilemma of how do you pay for it. Give it up my friend.

Council member Angelique Ashby said if the restoration costs more than 50% of total property cost it can't be done do to the city moratorium. Then there is that nagging dilemma of how do you pay for it. Give it up my friend.

Cal, I wish they would give up on doing an end-run around the voters. The last time they asked for a vote, they lost in a huge landslide. I think that general sentiment still stands; the majority oppose this. They should respect that.

Renovating PBP is simply a relatively easy stone to turn. If a few people spend a few weeks discovering that there's no feasible way to do it, fine. No big deal. But in any case, they also should ask the voters what they want. I'd say that for any plan they can devise that uses public tax money, as the parking concession idea clearly does.

Disrespecting and/or disregarding public opinion is the real enemy here.

True that.If you are able to I hope you can sign the STOP petition. Check out the pics at ransackedmedia. Telling.

Maloofs, how did you manage to sell the family jewels i.e. the beer business? Are you nuts?? What would your grandpa say to that?
It's true, the third generation loses the family wealth every time.

This is an interesting question! The answer is that they are actually nuts. The Grandpa (joe g. maloof) who started the business was married to his first cousin. Being in-bred makes people stupid and nuts!