Skip to content

NBA owners forced to choose between Maloofs and Sacramento in remake of Major League

Dec 5, 2012, 7:55 AM EDT

George Maloof

Every good story needs a villain, but the NBA probably doesn’t want to remake the movie Major League in order to sell its product.

Indeed, George Maloof and his brothers have done their best Rachel Phelps impression, complete with bottom-four payrolls over the past four seasons and little-to-no improvement to the franchise whatsoever.

In the movie, Phelps is a Las Vegas showgirl that inherits the Cleveland Indians. She purposely set out against her own team to make sure attendance falls low enough to break her lease and move them to sunny Miami.

In this D-list relocation reality show, George is a failed Las Vegas developer that inherited a fortune. He has set out against the city that has done everything possible to keep its beloved Sacramento Kings, all so he can be handed a shiny new arena and keep all of the profits from it, too.

Brothers Joe and Gavin, the ones that cried after an arena deal was reached in Orlando during last year’s NBA All Star game, the same guys that raised mayor Kevin Johnson’s arms at the next home game and told an adoring crowd that it was “all about” Sacramento – they can’t stop brother George now.

He holds all the cards, not by some virtue of leadership or respect from his siblings, but because the family is hemorrhaging money and they can’t afford to be NBA owners without making a last second full-court shot.

They need Sacramento or another city to give them a lopsided deal or they’re out, sooner rather than later. If they do nothing, they will run out of money in a Sacramento market they torched themselves, and if that doesn’t happen first then Sleep Train Arena eventually won’t meet NBA code and the game will be over.

Meanwhile, they’re stuck in a classic Catch-22. The family can’t afford to make the improvements to basketball operations that would in turn bring increased revenues from TV and at the gate.

Fire GM Geoff Petrie or head coach Keith Smart? One needs money to do that and Kings fans probably shouldn’t hold their breath waiting for that to happen anytime soon.

A move to fire one or both of them would be elementary for most franchises given the disastrous state of affairs on the court, where a team of mismatched parts is mismanaged on a nightly basis and looks like the basketball equivalent of the Bad News Bears.  But the Maloofs can’t even afford to remove the signage of sponsors that have long since fled, let alone find replacement leadership, as tarps duct taped over the old signs are allowed to fall onto the basketball court during games.

Of course, nothing says the sky is falling better than when the sky actually falls.

At this rate the Maloofs might appreciate holes in the ceiling of the soon to be dilapidated relic, as it would allow the family to thank their lucky stars that the NBA still deems them fit for the revenue sharing checks that are keeping the operation afloat.

As unsettling as all this sounds, this is all just another year in the life of long-suffering Kings fans, who are forced to swallow story after story about their owners visiting with other cities in hopes of landing a sweetheart deal — a deal that lets them have their red velvet cake and eat it too.

That story chugged along yesterday when the Virginia Beach City Council got an update from arena operator Comcast Spectacor, who has reportedly pledged $35 million toward the cost of a $300 arena that would theoretically draw the Kings out of Sacramento.

George Maloof hasn’t even attempted to hide his interest in the matter, meeting with the governor of Virginia this month to request $150 million in emergency state funds to help move the team east.

Never mind that it was just April when Joe Maloof told Ailene Voisin of the Sacramento Bee point blank that “We’re not selling, and we’re not leaving. Our identity is the Sacramento Kings.”

At this point, we should all know better than to believe a word that comes out of the Maloofs’ mouth, but anybody trying to figure out what is going through their minds is asking the wrong questions.

The only question that should matter to the league, its players, and the fans that make it all possible is how long the NBA and its other 29 owners are going to let the family threaten its billion dollar subsidy industry.

The NBA has received $3 billion in public subsidies for arenas since 1990. In a spectacularly timed story released yesterday, Deadspin provides a visual analysis of the $32.2 BILLION that has been given to pro sports franchises by the public from 1909-2012.

The NBA and other major sports are able to secure this unfathomable amount of money by threatening to leave cities that don’t pay up, and one doesn’t have to look far in this saga to see what happened when Seattle decided to build facilities for the Mariners and Seahawks and not the David Sterns.

In fairness, even the most ardently opposed economist will readily admit that there is a public benefit to having a big league sports franchise around, but the conversation surrounding the use of public funds to fund sports facilities is getting more strained by the day.

Part of it is the lack of data showing that sports subsidies generate jobs and income, but mostly it is good old fashion resentment toward rich folks that drives the opposition. The conversation is much more complex than that, but voters don’t have time to read economic white papers nor do they want to. They’re making less and less money every day, and many of them don’t see the tangible or intangible benefits of having pro sports in town. As a result sports subsidies are being fought with fervor across the United States.

So if you’re an owner of a team in any professional sport, having George Maloof go on television to pitch against a city that is taking money away from cops and firefighters to offer you over $250 million isn’t a good look.

This will be compounded as sports economists, businesspeople and politicians start to do their due diligence on the Sacramento situation. They will all quickly find that Sacramento did everything they could possibly do to fulfill their end of the bargain, and with the NBA readily admitting that, there will only be one story to tell.

That story will be a heartbreaking tale of a city’s long-term partnership with the NBA being discontinued for no other reason besides the fact that the owners were broke.

For Sacramento, if the Kings are allowed to leave 30 years of public investments into the team will have all been for naught. Sure, there were great times and intangible benefits galore. The Kings will have spurred economic activity during that time, and contributions by the Maloofs and prior owners to local charities should not go unnoticed.

But the significant public investment in both dollars and man hours, let alone the emotional investment the citizens have made in the team over time were all predicated on the understanding that as long as the city did what it was supposed to do — the relationship being proposed by the league was to be a marriage and not just a fling.

How will David Stern and Adam Silver reconcile that drama the next time they pitch for public dollars?

‘Give us $300 million, but don’t mind us if one of our owners has two slices of bad pizza and decides to stick a Las Vegas casino one mile off the strip.’

It’s not going to work. If the NBA allows the Kings to be stolen from Sacramento, they’re going to make Sonicsgate look like an NBA Cares spot.

I was present for the Kings’ last game as the Maloofs had two feet out the door on their way to Anaheim, having given their seats to Lakers fans as they left Fan Appreciation Night a few quarters early to beat the traffic. Thousands of fans refused to leave the arena in an organized sit-in after a riveting game, leaving an indelible mark on everybody that witnessed an historic event.

Even after that gut-wrenching sendoff, though, it was more likely that Sacramento and people in general would have been willing to let the issue go. Bad owners force a move – it’s a movie that many of us had seen before and up to that time there was enough ambiguity on all sides of the issue to keep it from escalating in the public consciousness.

But after everything that has gone down in the last year and a half, if this story doesn’t end well it’s going to leave a mark.

There have been multiple team-sponsored celebrations to celebrate keeping the team in Sacramento, which are akin to giving a seven-year old a massive, gift-wrapped empty box for Christmas. There are the mountains that Sacramento moved to get their arena deal done. There are the fans that refuse to give up, that continue to give their hard earned money after all that they have been through simply to show the other 29 owners that the Sacramento market will never go away.

They make documentaries about the ordeal, they go to city council meetings weekly, and they’ve done this under threat of imminent relocation for nearly two years now. They continue to unite their many different groups and they fight for their city. They have nervous breakdowns on Twitter, they get fed up, and then they do it all over again because that’s all they know.

Stealing from the wounded so blatantly on a national stage wouldn’t just be cruel, it would be stupid. The NBA may as well run ads of William Wallace screaming the word ‘freedom’ to sell Kings season tickets.

A slow and eventual execution would be a moment that transcends sports.

Not only will opponents of public sports subsidies cite the curious cases of Sacramento and Seattle in every single negotiation the NBA has going forward, but the NFL and Major League Baseball will quickly move to distance themselves from the business practices of ‘those third-rate NBA owners.’

So while this has become a blood issue for George Maloof, who hates Sacramento, the real blood issue for the other 29 NBA owners is what half or even a quarter of $3 billion looks like tattooed on the wrong side of their balance sheet.

The players, if their leadership even cares to understand the issue, will eventually learn that any percent of $3 billion coming out of the BRI calculation will hit them, too.

If the NBA and its players don’t recognize the risk and they allow the issue of sports subsidies to become more toxic than it already is, politicians are going to have their hands tied by a voting populace that simply won’t budge. Elected leaders will be forced by necessity to ask for less and less until the voters have seen enough documentaries about the NBA fleecing the local underdogs that they simply won’t approve squat.

It’s a compelling reason for David Stern to use the best interests of the league clause to get what he wants in this dilemma. Commissioners in other sports have pulled the trigger, and if explained correctly to the Maloofs’ fellow owners they’ll realize that indeed, it’s in their best interests.

Beyond the best interest clause, the league can also start to stand up to the Maloofs’ implied threats of antitrust litigation.

Antitrust law requires the NBA to provide a very straight-forward relocation request process, and that is why the league appears to be a passive aggressive participant in the drama thus far.

The prevailing legal analysis and prior court decisions have given team owners a strong case to be able to move as they see fit, and courts have found leagues liable for unilaterally blocking relocation without providing some form of due process.

Where the recent court cases haven’t provided guidance, however, is in how leagues can recoup the value of territory that the league itself owns, which is ultimately ‘taken’ by the relocating owner. The same holds true for how other owners within a league are indemnified for a team owner moving into their backyard.

The scope of this relatively untouched area of law has been encompassed by a ‘relocation fee,’ but the courts have provided no guidance on how much a league can charge. Clay Bennett was charged $30 million to move the Sonics to Oklahoma City, and surely the league doesn’t want to go overboard charging an owner a lot of money in any deal that the league itself likes.

But with some legal scholars at Loyola Marymount University believing that relocations fees could range from a small amount like the aforementioned – to the full market value of an NBA franchise or more – the NBA has a leg to stand on in court if they want to price the Maloofs out of the relocation marketplace.

These same scholars have unearthed other strategies that can be used against owners that damage a league because of their relocation aspirations, including the recovery of punitive damages, and with the various missteps the Maloofs have taken it could be a target rich environment.

There are plenty of ways the league can tell ‘the boys’ to shape up or ship out, provided that the league understands and cares that their subsidy dollars are at risk. With this leverage in tow, they can nudge the family to take the original deal that Sacramento offered, or sell the team to one of the local buyers that the city has lined up. From there, if the Maloofs don’t like it they’ll need the money and fortitude to go heads up against the association Al Davis style.

From a league perspective, if the family can’t find duct tape strong enough to keep tarps from falling onto the home floor during basketball games, no owner should be scared of mere millionaires that are threatening to cook the golden subsidy goose live on a social network of your choice.

On Tuesday, as George Maloof preheats the oven, Kings fans tuned into a live video feed of a city council meeting thousands of miles away. Their anxieties and anger played out in the social media world, as Virginia officials scurry to meet the demands of making a full court shot with one second left on the clock.

Virginia Beach mayor Will Sessoms and his arena team have told the Commonwealth of Virginia that they need $150 million in emergency state funds by February or March or “this project cannot move forward.” Sessoms and Maloof are pitching a $300 million arena, which is an incredibly low number that barely passes the sniff test. They are also asking for $42 million to go toward the Maloofs’ claims of lost business revenue in the event of a move, a magically estimated $30 million relocation fee, and $8 million in moving expenses for the team itself.

During the meeting, city council members lobbed criticisms of how the numbers were put together, the lack of public involvement, and the lack of time they had to evaluate the plan.

In just the most recent sign that this plan has been thrown together at the last second, Sessoms backtracked 24 hours earlier when he said that he forgot to include $45.8 million in financing costs in his public pitch a few weeks back.  He also claimed that only the people using the arena would be paying for it through user fees and the like, but his group had to go to the local hotels and get them to agree to a one percent increase in occupancy tax.  As councilman Bill DeSteph expressed, people that stay in hotels aren’t necessarily using the arena so the city’s promises regarding taxation are already being broken.

Clearly there is opposition to the project and there’s nothing like a $45.8 million typo to quell the anxieties of the voting populace, who are led by city and state politicians that appear to have no real interest in the plan. In fact, there aren’t many people in the know that believe that the Virginia Beach plan has teeth, but both the city and the Maloofs benefit from the appearance that a deal could be done.

The family gets imaginary leverage if they can somehow get another city interested in the Maloof experience, and Virginia Beach gets its name on the relocation radar for the next major league sports franchise opportunity. And if these friends with benefits get lucky, and everything breaks their way, they’ll be in bed with one another every night for the next 25 years.

Be careful what you wish for Virginia Beach.  Sincerely, everybody.

Meanwhile, all Sacramento can do is wait. The NBA knows that their No. 20 TV market with no other sports competition is prime real estate for them, and they know that Sacramento has done everything in its power to fulfill their end of the bargain.

A threat for Sacramento ironically looms in Seattle, a threat that is cruel to both sides really, but the Maloofs have shown no willingness to sell and the Emerald City isn’t in the market for tenants – they’re in the market for teams. As I detailed in the past, prospective owner Chris Hansen is going to have to drastically outbid Sacramento owners if the Maloofs finally cry uncle and decide to sell.

These other markets – the Virginia Beaches and the laundry list of fringe cities the Maloofs have approached that are competing with Sacramento – they don’t have the eyeballs, disposable income, or the built-in maniacal fan base that Sacramento or Seattle has.

IF, and this is a pretty big if, the Maloofs can somehow convince one of these cities to part with a revenue split greater than they could get in Sacramento, all while the family contributes nothing toward a new arena – then the NBA still has to decide if it wants to torch a great market for one they can have at any time.

And that’s what this is really about. Is the NBA willing to make a really bad business decision for a family that will be on CBA welfare for the foreseeable future? Will they risk their own good standing with cities across North America just to avoid getting their hands dirty in court, or going against one of their own?

Regardless of the end game here, the NBA will eventually be forced to make a decision about who they value more – Sacramento or the Maloofs.

One of them has a $250 million arena subsidy with well-funded owners ready to pick up the ball and run, and the other is running around North America panhandling with the NBA logo.

It’s your move, NBA. Everybody is watching.

  1. thesixersbench - Dec 5, 2012 at 9:22 AM

    Excellent write up. Well done. Hope to see more coverage of this caliber.

  2. adoombray - Dec 5, 2012 at 10:22 AM

    Wow, I don’t think I’ve ever seen this author on this site before, but I want to see that name alot more. The subject is a little beaten to death, but this was an outstanding analysis and some of the best I’ve seen on the Kings thing. Post here more plz

  3. dustbowltsunami - Dec 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM

    Seems like the perfect spot for the Kings would be Kansas City. One, contrary to the statements above, it’s got more eyeballs and disposable income than Sacramento. It’s one of the top media markets without the NBA. Two, it’s already arena-ready with the Sprint Center which has been ranked as one of the 20 busiest arenas worldwide, reinforcing the fact that there’s disposable income in KC. Third, the Kings already have a history in the city since that’s where they called home before the move to Sacramento in 1985. There’s more corporate support in KC than there was in 1985 with the growth of local employers like Sprint, Garmin, Cerner. So why not KC?

    • captainronmexico - Dec 5, 2012 at 8:06 PM

      2012-2013 DMA Rankings (nielsen.com)

      20 Sacramnto-Stkton-Modesto 1,387,710
      31 Kansas City 931,320

      Dust in your eyes?

      • gls24 - Dec 26, 2012 at 6:03 PM

        Realistically speaking, Stockton and Modesto are not in the area which should be counted for ticket sales or for TV numbers. The greater portion of the ticket sales are in Sacramento County, Southern Placer County, (specifically Roseville) and Yolo County (West Sacramento).

        There will not be a an arena deal in Sacramento using parking revenues as was proposed. That ship has sailed. The voters, and taxpayers, of this city just voted in a 1/2 cent sales tax increase for line items other than propping up a private enterprise. We need infrastucture revitilization, not NBA subsidies.

        The Kings will not get a third try at public funds for an arena.

        Sacramento’s government can barely do what a government should do, let alone delve into a project better left to the private sector.

    • ckenngott18 - Dec 6, 2012 at 5:16 AM

      Plus you have the Chiefs, Royals, and Sporting KC to contend with

  4. helinhater - Dec 5, 2012 at 12:15 PM

    My only complaint about this write up is that for those familiar with Aaron Bruski on twitter or elsewhere understand he’s a Sacramento Kings fan…which sort of calls into question his bias in regard to this situation.

    There are two sides to the story. It’s great for Bruski to defend the Kings fanbase. But on the other hand, he’s not exactly playing the role of fair & balanced. He has a vested interest in the outcome.

    • limonadamas - Dec 5, 2012 at 5:39 PM

      What’s the other side to the story? Are you just saying that on principle? The Maloofs have been exposed over and over again as being disingenuous, at best.

      Unless you have insider information to add, merely stating “there are two sides to a story” doesn’t add anything but noise to the situation.

    • captainronmexico - Dec 5, 2012 at 6:19 PM

      Go get another 20-bag George. You’re a developer. Everything will be OK.

  5. wpayback - Dec 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM

    This really is a good write. However if you listen to Grant Napier (Kings mouthpiece) he would tell you
    that this article is all “BS”. I am not one, but Kings fans have given their hearts and souls to this team
    and they deserve better. Geoege Maloofs hides out like a roach at night and don’t have the guts to clear up any confusion.

  6. terrycummings1982 - Dec 5, 2012 at 2:00 PM

    Bruski’s a Kings fan? I follow him on Twitter as well and have seen him tweet several times in regards to “his” Warriors, so that’s news to me. He tears the Kings organization apart constantly, rips Keith Smart to the point where you’d think he should be coaching 6th grade intramural basketball, and uses the team as the butt of pretty much all his jokes.

    For what it’s worth, I hope Sac gets to keep the Kings. A team in Virginia Beach is about as laughable as a grown man wearing a Pelican jersey…

  7. losinginterestinsportsfan - Dec 5, 2012 at 2:00 PM

    Well written article with clarity regarding the deteriorating situation that is unlikely to end well except for the initial few years after relocation for their new “hometown” fans. While some may cite a bias, experiencing deception and betrayal from the Maloof boys is and has been a poor reflection on the management of the NBA as a whole.

  8. erpskaderp - Dec 5, 2012 at 5:30 PM

    WRONG WRONG WRONG! About the Seattle stadiums situation, this author does not have his facts straight.

    Seattle gave the Sonics a NEW arena YEARS before the M’s or Seahawks. KeyArena was remodeled from the original Seattle Center Coliseum and opened in 1995 to the EXACT specifications of the then-Sonics owner and the NBA. Safeco Field opened in 1999, and Qwest/CenturyLink Field in 2002. The Sonics got their free public money FIRST. To say they didn’t is not correct, and is a fallacy that Sonics haters like to spout, that “Seattle didn’t care” when in fact Seattle’s love for the Sonics was so great they made sure they were taken care of first. When it opened, David Stern at the first game said it was a fantastic facility and one of the best in the league (and we all know how that turned in a short period of time).

    Please fix your article. You even site the documentary “SonicsGate” but you obviously never bothered to watch it. Nice research.

    • terrycummings1982 - Dec 5, 2012 at 8:46 PM

      Seattle contributed around $75 million in 1994 to help renovate KeyArena (a facility which the city owned). CenturyLink and Safeco were funded with STATE $$$. The NBA, Schultz, and later Bennett were trying to get state $$$ as well for a new facility or more renovations to Key. State didn’t want to play ball, which gave Bennett his out. So actually, the state gave $$$ for football and baseball, but said no to giving hoops any $$$.

      • terrycummings1982 - Dec 5, 2012 at 8:51 PM

        Bruski’s also been one of Seattle’s biggest supporters from what I’ve read.

  9. PhilCaldwell - Dec 5, 2012 at 7:23 PM

    The true story to the Sonics arena is at this link:

    http://conliber.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/okc-thunder-oklahoma-fans-enjoy-fruits-of-dirty-deeds-done-while-in-seattle/

    Or this one

    http://conliber.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/seattle-and-the-message-sent-by-the-nba/

  10. PhilCaldwell - Dec 5, 2012 at 9:33 PM

    All this bidding cities against other cities without enough teams to go around, is making the European model look better and better. In those cases, any group with an arena can declare themselves with a team, and the teams then have to qualify for league play. Only when they sign enough quality players, and only when that team demonstrates it can compete at the major league, is that team allowed into the league. Oh and btw – if the team stops performing, other upstarts can come in and take your place, very similar to how the PGA tour insures that the best golfers play the tour. It would be like it’s own NBA-style “Q School.” It would mean that the Cleveland Cavs and Washington Wizards might very well be ousted from the league, by new startup teams in Seattle, Vancouver BC, Virginia Beach, or any of another two dozen markets that could support professional basketball!

    Perhaps our pals from across the pond have had this figured out for decades? Surely they must be scoffing at these nitwits in the colonies, who still haven’t figured out the best way to manage a professional sports league!

  11. michaeljones300 - Dec 5, 2012 at 10:20 PM

    Send the Kings elsewhere! Sacramento does not deserve them. It’s simple math people. Arco Arena seats fewer people than any arena in the league. So if the seats aren’t full then money is not made. If money is not made, then the team needs to go somewhere where money will be made. Back in 2000-2003 there were “fans” when the Kings were winning and business was good, but now in 2012 the Arena is consistently 50% full and that’s because the Kings lose often and the fans are not TRUE FANS. Go to Jacksonville, or Philly, or Seattle where their teams lose ALL THE TIME – the arenas still sell out because those are true fans who stand by their teams through thick n’ thin. Sacramento doesn’t care about the team, does not attend the games and then has the audacity to complain when the Kings get ready to go to a real city. That’s a just pathetic as is Sacramento and the mediocre lifestyles people live there. Sacramento is already a horrible place to be and it will be even more horrible when the only thing they have to be excited about are the RiverCats or Fireside Bowling Lanes on Auburn Blvd. Oh wait no no, they also love getting “bottle service” at the Park. Yeah so high end Sacramento is (sarcasm). Buncha jokers who know nothing about sports. Also notice why 99% of Sacramento now suddenly loves the 49ers? Or why they all started sporting SF Giants gear around the world series? Posers.

    • eashness - Dec 7, 2012 at 7:11 AM

      Because I’ve actually been a Kings fan since the late 80′s I took the time to set this troll straight.

      Kings fan’s are just bandwagoners? Average attendance followed by winning percentage.

      1989-90 17,014 0.280
      1990-91 17,014 0.305
      1991-92 17,014 0.354
      1992-93 17,317 0.305
      1993-94 17,317 0.341
      1994-95 17,317 0.476
      1995-96 17,317 0.476
      1996-97 17,317 0.414
      1997-98 14,767 0.329
      1998-99 16,750 0.540
      1999-00 17,562 0.537
      2000-01 17,317 0.671
      2001-02 17,317 0.744
      2002-03 17,317 0.720
      2003-04 17,317 0.671
      2004-05 17,317 0.610
      2005-06 17,317 0.537
      2006-07 17,317 0.402
      2007-08 14,150 0.463
      2008-09 12,687 0.207
      2009-10 13,254 0.305
      2010-11 13,890 0.293
      2011-12 14,508 0.333

      As for the rest of your ramblings about Sacramento being boring, are you some kind of baby who needs extravagant clubs and events just to have fun? I personally prefer the simpler things in life, like looking up facts to prove idiots wrong on the internet, which by the way took about 10 minutes (including the time to make a wordpress account just to make this post).

    • caliwinsurf - Dec 7, 2012 at 3:47 PM

      Actually, the Sacramento Kings sold out every game from 1985 – 1998. Until recently, it was the 3rd longest streak in NBA history. Oh, and by the way, the Kings only made the playoffs twice during that time.

      • gls24 - Dec 26, 2012 at 6:07 PM

        Those “sold out” games were attended by many masquerading as blue and red seats.

        The only thing phonier than the “sell out” streak is the Maloofs stating they are committed to staying Sacramento.

    • wigglypoff - Dec 7, 2012 at 4:36 PM

      You(Michael) do not know what you are talking about. I’ve seen this play out with multiple requests to vote on each year to ask for money from my pocket(while at the same time charging 80-120$ for a ticket that’s on the second level to watch a team that has become unwatchable). Back when the ownership cared prior to the so called good years the kings lead the league in sell outs every year(that would be every game even prior to the winning years). When Mitch Richmond would carry the whole team and they would lose, but they gave their heart and the ownership wanted the team to win. Now, they trade every good player we get(evens,cousins, salmon are good but will soon be traded I’m sure). We traded Martin, stopped playing Garcia, got rid of Turk, Barnes and any other player that was popular. The idea here is they trade or eliminate anything that is popular. No thanks ill watch on tv instead of forking over way too much money to watch a team that won’t be here in a year or 2. Maybe the team will still be here but it will be a bunch of guys I’ve never heard of because if they become popular they’ll get traded. Fans??? What have you ever done for your team. The fans here have given their time at rallies and fundraisers(not taxes but money freely contributed by their own choice). So just get your facts right.

    • sgeary13 - Dec 7, 2012 at 4:52 PM

      Wow michaeljones300! If you ever spent any significant time in Sacramento, then you would see how die-hard fans we are of the Kings. This city has been one of the hardest hit in the state with the recession. The reason we don’t go to games is 1)we have to be wise with our money 2)why would we pay the Maloofs anything when they invest nothing? 3)we watch games on tv due to the great anouncers we have. As for your interpretation of the city you have a limited scope. We are a proud group who know when to fight and when to move on. We love our team and our city but the NBA has done nothing to help small-market teams. As for your fair-weather fan concept, that happens everywhere…look at miami, boston, even new york. When teams start winning the fan-base grows. It’s a simple fact in sports. No one is forcing you to come to or stay in Sacramento, but you can’t argue against the fact that our city is getting raped by big-market sports. Our city may be small but our voice and pride is big.

  12. lfpmedia - Dec 6, 2012 at 7:44 AM

    Awesome article. You nailed it.

  13. lfpmedia - Dec 6, 2012 at 7:47 AM

    Reblogged this on indiesoulspokenword and commented:
    One of the best articles I have read pertaining to business and sports. Written so that anyone can understand.

  14. Dan M. - Dec 10, 2012 at 3:56 PM

    This is a Per 36 record on PBT: fewest grammatical errors per 36 words.

    Best article I’ve read on the site, both in terms of appearing to have been proofread before posted, and in terms of content.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Warriors vs. Clippers playoff preview
Top 10 NBA Player Searches
  1. D. Wade (3238)
  2. L. James (3136)
  3. C. Anthony (2875)
  4. K. Durant (2866)
  5. S. Curry (2831)
  1. D. Rose (2696)
  2. A. Bogut (2567)
  3. B. Griffin (2479)
  4. R. Westbrook (2409)
  5. C. Paul (2373)