Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Seattle announces new arena; waiting for a team . . .


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
20 replies to this topic

#1 Infield Infidel


  • teaching korea american


  • 7980 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 08:03 PM

http://espn.go.com/n...ew-sports-arena

SEATTLE -- Christopher Hansen is making a $290 million proposal to his hometown that could be the impetus for a new sports arena that could bring the NBA and NHL to Seattle.
All he needs is city and county approval and the two franchises to make it a reality.
Hansen submitted a proposal to the city on Thursday that calls for $290 million in private investment, plus the cost of acquiring an NBA franchise, to help construct a facility that would cost between $450 million and $500 million.
According to a letter submitted by the Seattle native to the city, the remaining construction and development costs would be financed by the city and King County using taxes and revenues generated by the new facility and rent charged to the teams playing in the arena. City officials are adamant that there will be no new public taxes needed for the building.
The city and county's debt service for the arena would be capped at $200 million.

I'm probably getting ahead of myself, but as a Sonics fan in the wilderness, I'll take what I can get. (Reggie Evans has 16.6 Reb48!)

So who are the candidates (NBA and NHL) to move?

I'm thinking New Orleans, which would let the Bobcats change their name to the Hornets and everything in the world would be right.

Edited by Infield Infidel, 16 February 2012 - 08:07 PM.


#2 Nomar813


  • SoSH Member


  • 6320 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 08:45 PM

I think you're right on the Hornets being the most likely to move. Ideally, the Hornets would have remained in Oklahoma City post-Katrina and the Sonics never would have left town. The Kings would have been the other top moving candidate, but it looks like they're inching closer to a new arena deal in Sacramento.

#3 Beomoose


  • SoSH Member


  • 8625 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 08:57 PM

If the Kings manage to stay in Sacramento I imagine NO moves to the top of the list of teams Stern could move. Toronto is in no great shape either. Of course, it's terrible that Seattle would have to benefit from another city's loss to get a replacement for their stolen franchise.

#4 moly99

  • 395 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 09:34 PM

I really don't think this will work unless Chris Hansen buys a team himself. (Or his ownership group does.) The Vikings won't accept taxes on tickets as part of their stadium deal with Minneapolis. I can't imagine Gary Chuest, the Maloofs or anyone else being particularly happy about that part of the proposal.

Has the NBA made similar commitments to stay in any other city for 30 years? I think that will be a sticking point as well.

If only Bill Gates weren't so selfish and would divert some of that HIV research money to build an arena for millionnaires in luxury boxes to watch millionnaire athletes play basketall this would get done tomorrow.

EDIT: IIRC Steve Balmer sold off 1.3 billion in Microsoft stock last year. He could certainly be in the running for an NBA team.

Edited by moly99, 16 February 2012 - 10:25 PM.


#5 Nick Kaufman


  • protector of human kind from spoilers


  • 8325 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 03:02 AM

0The Sonics relocation is one of the things that for some reason has been seriously bothering me the last couple of years. In fact it's one of the things that bother me when I watch OKC. They should fucking move back to Seattle and everything is going to be great in the world.

#6 SoxFanInPdx

  • 1686 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 12:56 PM

0The Sonics relocation is one of the things that for some reason has been seriously bothering me the last couple of years. In fact it's one of the things that bother me when I watch OKC. They should fucking move back to Seattle and everything is going to be great in the world.


I view it the same way. Stern took what could be a dynasty in a few years away from the city. Yeah, Key Arena sucked as a basketball venue, but Howard Schultz and Clay Bennett had a big part to do with the move and both are big reasons for the move to OKC. Stern stole that team from the city, no question and I never have viewed the NBA the same way. Hell, Blazer fans miss the Sonics and sympathize with the fan base up north and that used to be a heated rivalry. Every time the Thunder play here in Portland there are pockets of fans that are wearing Sonic gear. Stern is crook.

#7 Jeff Van GULLY

  • 2614 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 02:32 PM

The Hornets are being sold within a month to a local owner (either Chouest or Tom Benson owner of the Saints) and will sign a 10 year lease extension for the New Orleans Arena with the state with no out clauses.

The Hornets are not going to Seattle.

Edited by Jeff Van GULLY, 17 February 2012 - 02:33 PM.


#8 eddiew112

  • 1049 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 04:02 PM

The fact that there is no NBA in Seattle is ridiculous. That area is a hotbed for basketball talent. Jamal Crawford, Nate Robinson, Marvin Williams, Jason Terry, Brandon Roy, Martell Webster, Aaron Brooks, Avery Bradley, Rodney Stuckey, Isiah Thomas, Terrence Williams...that's very impressive.

edit: forgot Spencer Hawes and Scal

Edited by eddiew112, 17 February 2012 - 04:04 PM.


#9 stevman17

  • 974 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 05:01 PM

Is there ever going to come a day when local governments will start making corporate sports team pay for their own stadiums?

There is a budget crisis, what can we do?! I know, build a $300,000,000 stadium and cut teacher pensions!

#10 irishtap03

  • 87 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 05:18 PM

Is there ever going to come a day when local governments will start making corporate sports team pay for their own stadiums?

There is a budget crisis, what can we do?! I know, build a $300,000,000 stadium and cut teacher pensions!

So should the city and the local governments then get to profit from the buidling of an arena? There is a lot of money that comes into a city, if done properly, when a team gets a franchise.

That being said I do think owners need to take more of a responsibility in paying for stadiums and arenas. In the end they will profit the most and should bare the greatest responsibility in paying. However to completly remove city and local governments from paying for some of the arena isn't the way to deal with it either. "We won't help you at all build this stadium but when all the extra money comes in from people using the arena we will gladly take that money"

Neither side should be able to have it both ways.

#11 Beomoose


  • SoSH Member


  • 8625 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 05:25 PM

I really don't think this will work unless Chris Hansen buys a team himself.

Hansen IS going to buy a team. The news was about a new building being a public-private partnership, but Hansen (and fellow investors) will buy whichever team Stern lets them move.

Is there ever going to come a day when local governments will start making corporate sports team pay for their own stadiums?

This Seattle arena will be paid for mostly by private money, with the (smaller) public investment being paid back first as a condition for approval.

The Hornets are being sold within a month to a local owner (either Chouest or Tom Benson owner of the Saints) and will sign a 10 year lease extension for the New Orleans Arena with the state with no out clauses.

Have a link? Not heard this myself.

#12 moly99

  • 395 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:25 AM

Hansen IS going to buy a team. The news was about a new building being a public-private partnership, but Hansen (and fellow investors) will buy whichever team Stern lets them move.


Which team, though? Bobcats are the one team that absolutely can't survive where it is, but they aren't for sell AFAIK. The Kings are likely to be sold, but the most likely buyer is Ron Burkle. Chuest is pretty certain to buy the Hornets, and wants to keep the team in New Orleans.

So should the city and the local governments then get to profit from the buidling of an arena? There is a lot of money that comes into a city, if done properly, when a team gets a franchise.


It's actually a net loss for cities as it usually results in money being pumped OUT of the local economy. If cities spend on teachers, those teachers will use the money to buy houses, go to local restaurants, etc.

If cities hire an out of area construction company (governments are usually required legally to put contracts up for bid, allowing larger non-local companies to win) to build the arena that money will not cycle back to the local economy. Same thing for the discretionary income of local taxpayers going to professional athletes and team owners, because those two groups lose more in federal taxes, travel more and usually spend and invest money outside of the area.

It's not as much of a problem in this case, though, since the arena will be privately funded.

Edited by moly99, 18 February 2012 - 11:26 AM.


#13 irishtap03

  • 87 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 12:59 PM

It's actually a net loss for cities as it usually results in money being pumped OUT of the local economy. If cities spend on teachers, those teachers will use the money to buy houses, go to local restaurants, etc.

If cities hire an out of area construction company (governments are usually required legally to put contracts up for bid, allowing larger non-local companies to win) to build the arena that money will not cycle back to the local economy. Same thing for the discretionary income of local taxpayers going to professional athletes and team owners, because those two groups lose more in federal taxes, travel more and usually spend and invest money outside of the area.

It's not as much of a problem in this case, though, since the arena will be privately funded.


That is an extremely narrow view on what an arena can do for a city. Sorry if I didn't make my point clear enough but I wasn't just refering to the buidling of the arena (which I do get your point to an extent). If done right (big key here as many cities don't do it right) a new arena can pump money into the economy well after the arena is built. Especially if this turns into a dual use arena with the NHL/NBA. Now I am all for cities putting up a fight and not financing an entire stadium but a city should put in the money to help develop the area for the the staduim.

#14 PseuFighter


  • Silent scenester


  • 8239 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 01:23 PM

So should the city and the local governments then get to profit from the buidling of an arena? There is a lot of money that comes into a city, if done properly, when a team gets a franchise.

That being said I do think owners need to take more of a responsibility in paying for stadiums and arenas. In the end they will profit the most and should bare the greatest responsibility in paying. However to completly remove city and local governments from paying for some of the arena isn't the way to deal with it either. "We won't help you at all build this stadium but when all the extra money comes in from people using the arena we will gladly take that money"

Neither side should be able to have it both ways.


it's been documented a billion times over that a stadium brings in annually about the same money to taxpayers as that of a new supermarket.

read the field of schemes and the tons of other academic articles on this.

edit: wow; what do you know -- the latest story on here is about the topic in this thread: http://www.fieldofschemes.com/

Edited by PseuFighter, 18 February 2012 - 01:24 PM.


#15 ichirob4ichiro

  • 1631 posts

Posted 19 February 2012 - 09:17 AM

Thank god I'd say that expansion is off the table as an option this time around. Wasn't it not too long ago that there was some chatter on talk radio about dissolving a few of the struggling smaller market teams? The league really needs fewer teams. How can a crappy, smaller market team expect to build a fanbase when they've only been in the community for less than a decade and are a threat to pack up and move in the near future? It's a horrible business model.

#16 Beomoose


  • SoSH Member


  • 8625 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 06:03 AM

Oh I disagree with you entirely. I think the threat of moving has little effect on the team or its fanbase beyond the Arena issue until the very last minute. Players are professionals and fans will show up for a good product no matter the circumstances. Seattle was an expansion in the 60s and it built itself into a powerhouse in fairly short order, for all the (justified) bad-mouthing of the Hornets the same era of expansion also resulted in the Magic and the Heat. Hell,Charlotte got a second chance to expand after the first team left, and moving didn't do the Hornets any long-term good. The problem isn't the concept of expansion, in theory the NBA would expand to a city only after careful consideration of the market, the personnel, and the facilities so as to ensure the team can hit the ground running.

It's owners which are the problem. The Sonics' faceplant in the Schultz area came from being owned by an incompetent boob, who killed the team's competitiveness and poisoned the team's relationship with its local governments; Oklahoma's success comes from being owned by an intelligent scumbag who mostly knows what he's doing or has those who do in place. The Hornets had flashes of brilliance but then bombed in 2 consecutive cities because the same terrible owner was in charge. Those situations could happen to any team in the league, no matter what city the team is in any any given time. Exception for LA and NYC as the sheer size of those markets makes them a special case unto themselves. And by the way, owners are the reason contraction probably won't happen. Small market teams still have rich owners, who still want top dollar if they sell out be it to a new owner or the NBA. there's no way Stern convinces them to spend a $billion on buying 2 teams plus the cost of breaking leases when he could just find rich guys in other cities to try again.

I think if Chris Hansen can make the case to Stern that he's a good potential owner, gets the right personnel in place, and has the Stadium deal ready to go then Seattle should absolutely be granted an expansion franchise. Balance it with a Kansas City expansion (nice stadium, find an owner) or (sigh( Anaheim coupled with moving Minnesota or NO to the Eastern conf. for a 32-team league. Also gives the opportunity to slide back down to 30 in the unlikely event of contraction.

#17 Jeff Van GULLY

  • 2614 posts

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:46 PM

Stern on New Orleans and Sacramento:




Highlights:

Buyer and lease agreement for the Hornets on or around March 1st.
Two finalists for ownership, one clearly in the lead (I believe this is Benson).
Stern doesn't seem that optimistic on Sacramento. Said 'We'll see' if no agreement in place by his deadline.
Sounds more likely that Sacramento moves to Seattle.

Edited by Jeff Van GULLY, 18 June 2012 - 03:34 PM.


#18 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3336 posts

Posted 22 February 2012 - 03:03 PM

This is sort of off topic, but. . .

if the Kings do end up moving to Seattle and become the Sonics, what would become of the rights to the name "Kings"? Given that the Nets have given thought to changing their name, and are soon to be located in Kings County, it seems like a natural fit.

Edited by Grin&MartyBarret, 22 February 2012 - 03:06 PM.


#19 Beomoose


  • SoSH Member


  • 8625 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 10:51 PM

"you gotta have an available team." And if you're rich enough, you can make one become available.

Side note, that NBA video's audio was terrible. I could hear stern's lips smacking together but the interviewer sounded like he was at the bottom of a well under a dead horse.

#20 Brickowski

  • 3615 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:20 PM

I'd rather watch Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson than anyone on the Kings or Bobcats.

Edited by Brickowski, 27 February 2012 - 10:20 PM.


#21 Infield Infidel


  • teaching korea american


  • 7980 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 01:43 AM

There's a good article on Yahoo about Sonics fans today and the impending arena situation
http://sports.yahoo....ng-over-it.html

These have been a bad few days for those who still love Seattle's first professional sports team, the only major one to win a championship. Accepting the Thunder in the Finals has been hard enough, then seeing the team's owner, Clay Bennett, hold the Western Conference championship trophy aloft last week caused even more angst.
Hard too is the thought that Seattle might be close to getting a new arena approved and a team to wear the Sonics gold and green again, because they worry the proposed arena might not get enough support and the best chance might go away. And even if it does get built and a team arrives, it will be a team from somewhere else and Seattle will be doing to another place what Oklahoma City did to it. And how good does that make anyone feel?


In "Sonicsgate," former general manager Wally Walker, who was a part of Schultz's ownership group, revealed that they had been negotiating with potential buyers in Oklahoma City who expressed interest in keeping the team in Seattle. It was only at the very end of the talks, when the deal was all but done that Bennett suddenly appeared.
The emergence of Bennett, who apparently had kept his involvement silent, caused many in the Sonics' group to question the sale. Still, the voting members decided 5-4 to sell to Bennett, much behind the urging of Schultz, who has declined to speak about the time.
"He convinced himself Clay would stay here," a NBA source said.

But at some point Seattle has to let go, even as fans still wonder why Stern barely worked to keep the Sonics here while working relentlessly to lock the Kings in Sacramento. His Seattle efforts always seemed draconian, demanding that taxpayers build a gleaming new arena … or else. Stern has told people privately that he was "insulted" by a Washington state politician and decided it wasn't worth his time to push for a new arena when it became clear that was the solution that would keep the franchise in Seattle.


CNBC is showing "SonicsGate" on Friday at 9pm

Or you could watch it on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9Dp20ydm1E

Edited by Infield Infidel, 15 June 2012 - 01:49 AM.