View Full Version : Are Sacramento Kings moving to Virginia Beach?



Laramie
08-25-2012, 11:53 AM
Rumor has it that the Maloof family is looking into the possibility of moving the Sacramento Kings from California's capital city to Virginia Beach?

"The owners of the Sacramento Kings are considering moving the team to Virginia Beach, according to a newspaper based in nearby Norfolk. But sources in Sacramento say the report is inaccurate, if not completely incorrect...

...A deal between the Maloofs and the City of Sacramento to build a $391 million sports and entertainment complex in the downtown railyards collapsed three months ago when George Maloof announced the family didn't want to assume the additional debt burden."

http://www.news10.net/news/article/206251/3/Report--Sacramento-Kings-moving-to-Virginia

Fantastic
08-25-2012, 12:19 PM
The strange thing about it is it was the Maloofs who backed out of the deal. Very much unlike what happened in Seattle. I'm not sure if Virginia Beach is THE answer, I think it's just something that's on the table as a possiblity. Remember the Kings were set to relocate to Anaheim and even trademarked the name "Anaheim Royals." Then the area deal was announced. I am somewhat suprised by this. With all the backlash that Bennett got in Seattle, it seemed like Sacramento (the city and the team) was determined to get an arena deal done to avoid that. The arena deal gets done, then the owners back out of it. I'm just finding it strange.

adaniel
08-25-2012, 12:46 PM
Considering the absolutely asinine articles and behavior that came out of Seattle during the Thunder finals run, I would be tickled to death if they went to VA Beach instead.

With that in mind, I agree with Fantastic that this is just another possibility.

I'm somewhat familiar with Hampton Roads, and IMO it would be tough to make an NBA team viable there. Yeah its bigger than OKC, but its a highly transient area (big military area) with no track record of supporting sports.

Bellaboo
08-25-2012, 04:28 PM
That is only about 125 miles from DC, which would be in direct competition with the Wizards. Remember that the Sonics were rumored to be going to Las Vegas just before Clay brought them here. A lot of posturing going on in Sacramento.

Snowman
08-25-2012, 04:35 PM
That is only about 125 miles from DC, which would be in direct competition with the Wizards. Remember that the Sonics were rumored to be going to Las Vegas just before Clay brought them here. A lot of posturing going on in Sacramento.

That is the most credit for being competitive either the Kings or the Wizards have gotten in years.

Bellaboo
08-25-2012, 06:44 PM
That is the most credit for being competitive either the Kings or the Wizards have gotten in years.

Guess I should have said for market share, 'cause on the court they are not...

Stan Silliman
08-25-2012, 10:03 PM
I have the answer, it's overly obvious, but will anyone listen to Silliman?

Sacramento_Memphis_Switch_Team_Names (http://www.sillimanonsports.com/Sacramento_Memphis_Switch_Team_Names.html)

metro
08-26-2012, 09:04 PM
I have the answer, it's overly obvious, but will anyone listen to Silliman?

Sacramento_Memphis_Switch_Team_Names (http://www.sillimanonsports.com/Sacramento_Memphis_Switch_Team_Names.html)

No

Laramie
09-04-2012, 05:22 PM
I believe I recall Memphis wanted a name change when the Grizzlies first moved there; they wanted to call the team the Memphis Express (too close to FedEx Express); I believe it was the Grizzlies, does anyone recall? Correct me if I have tied this to the wrong team.

bluedogok
09-04-2012, 07:29 PM
Yes, the Vancouver Grizzlies was the the team that moved to Memphis. Since FedEx is based in Memphis and I think the (current or former) CEO has a large ownership stake in the team it would make sense for Express to be the name.

ABryant
09-05-2012, 04:54 AM
Interesting article in the Sacramento Bee. Describes the convoluted funding of their failed attempt at an arena deal.


http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/05/4787462/mayor-johnsons-arena-task-force.htmlnteresting

MonkeesFan
09-05-2012, 02:03 PM
Virgina Beach Kings? Virginia Kings? Sounds horrible....

Snowman
09-05-2012, 06:44 PM
If it is moving they may change the name, the Kings brand is only slightly less associated with failure than the clippers have been most of the last few decades

bluedogok
09-05-2012, 07:57 PM
Yep, a long and convoluted path to NBA mediocrity....

1945–1957: Rochester Royals
1957–1972: Cincinnati Royals
1972–1975: Kansas City-Omaha Kings
1975–1985: Kansas City Kings
1985–Present: Sacramento Kings

TheSocialGadfly
01-21-2013, 11:16 PM
"A group led by Chris Hansen will buy the Kings and move the team to Seattle, starting play next season."

Sale of Sacramento Kings to Chris Hansen's group officially announced | Local News | The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020182407_kings22xml.html)

dcsooner
01-22-2013, 04:39 AM
After the initial exuberance of the NBA's return, I do not believe the new Seattle team will consistently become one of the league leaders in attendance on a recurring basis. I believe the team will likely be profitable for the owners but I think the Seattle market is for the most part not a BB town. This entire effort was in my opinion a "pride" thing based on the notion that Seattle was too international a city to lose its team and when they did too cosmopolitian to remain without a team long term. BB and FB have and continue to rule Seattle. Wish them well

Seattle Supersonics Attendance

Year Total Avg
2007-08 547,556 13,355
2006-07 654,163 15,955
2005-06 664,157 16,198
2004-05 675,490 16,475
2003-04 631,349 15,399
2002-03 637,194 15,541
2001-02 633,516 15,452
2000-01 640,847 15,630
1999-00 615,730 15,018
1998-99 426,800 17,072
1997-98 699,952 17,072
1996-97 699,952 17,072
1995-96 697,301 17,007
1994-95 633,748 15,457
1993-94 601,969 14,682
1992-93 632,205 15,420
1991-92 586,929 14,315
1990-91 510,166 12,443
1989-90 502,014 12,244
1988-89 529,733 12,920
1987-88 492,312 12,008
1986-87 356,362 8,692
1985-86 329,296 8,032
1984-85 303,342 7,399
1983-84 446,970 10,902
1982-83 574,986 14,024
1981-82 750,059 18,294
1980-81 675,097 16,466
1979-80 890,713 21,725
1978-79 747,243 18,225
1977-78 504,668 12,309
1976-77 532,196 12,980
1975-76 557,304 13,593
1974-75 524,692 12,797
1973-74 491,856 11,996
1972-73 387,382 9,448
1971-72 444,302 11,108
1970-71 372,612 9,315
1969-70 278,444 7,735
1968-69 210,232 5,840
1967-68 202,263 6,525

Snowman
01-22-2013, 06:21 AM
After the initial exuberance of the NBA's return, I do not believe the new Seattle team will consistently become one of the league leaders in attendance on a recurring basis. I believe the team will likely be profitable for the owners but I think the Seattle market is for the most part not a BB town. This entire effort was in my opinion a "pride" thing based on the notion that Seattle was too international a city to lose its team and when they did too cosmopolitian to remain without a team long term. BB and FB have and continue to rule Seattle. Wish them well

For the owners hopefully they get a lot of pride out of it. Even if it consistently is making money, given how much of a premium they bought their percentage of the team for, not having a very favorable lease and rumors they will be spending a lot to bring in a better management team/players they would have to significantly outperform most teams revenue to even come close to the league average return on investment.

Bellaboo
01-22-2013, 06:57 AM
For the owners hopefully they get a lot of pride out of it. Even if it consistently is making money, given how much of a premium they bought their percentage of the team for, not having a very favorable lease and rumors they will be spending a lot to bring in a better management team/players they would have to significantly outperform most teams revenue to even come close to the league average return on investment.

Not only this, the group led by Chris Hansen is putting a significant amount of cash up for the arena and surrounding road construction. They hope to offset their cost by luring an NHL franchise. Seattle is kind of like Denver and is already 'sports' poor. Adding more teams will not help as a whole.

Just the facts
01-22-2013, 06:59 AM
I just hope the they give the team records back to Seattle. The history should stay with the city, not the franchise.

Snowman
01-22-2013, 07:05 AM
I just hope the they give the team records back to Seattle. The history should stay with the city, not the franchise.

As part of the settlement to get out of the lease a year or two early they do get the old name, the team records, banners and trophy back. The thing I hope is that we expunge the history of Seattle from our record book and unretire the sonic player numbers, which was allowed then to be shared between the two

betts
01-22-2013, 07:08 AM
As with most cities, support for the Sonics will ultimately depend on how well they perform. If you look at Thunder seats during a game with a lesser team, you can tell where the free corporate tickets are: They're the empty seats, and they are more consistently empty than anywhere. People who are given something for free don't value it as much as those who have chosen to spend their own money for something. The Seattle population is essentially getting a team for free, as their contribution to the arena comes out of dollars they don't spend. As a whole, they chose not to spend personal money to keep the original Sonics, and this new team is a gift to them. There will be a flush of enthusiasm for the new team, and then, having many entertainment options on which to spend their dollars, and no sense of ownership of the team, people will come to see them if they're reasonably good and stay away if they're bad. I agree that the new owner will have to get something other than money out of this team, and it may be pride, it may be entertainment. We'll see how much he enjoys it if they have bad years, which all teams have, or if he receives criticism from the public for choices he's made. Weathering those experiences is easier if your populace is invested in the team as well.

Seattle will have 3 professional teams and they have 4 million people. That puts them at about one team per 1.333 million people, which is almost precisely the population per team here in OKC. While annual incomes in Seattle appear much higher, their cost of living gives them no more disposable income (and maybe less) than we have in OKC. The Sonics will have to compete for advertising revenue and ticket sales with the other 2 teams, and at least while they were the original Sonics, their television deal was lower than that of the Utah Jazz. The Knicks, and now the Lakers, are proving fairly admirably that you cannot spend yourself to success consistently. So, Hansen may be like our owners and have to be happy with breaking even. Perhaps he will.

In the end, though, David Stern is getting precisely what he wanted: an expensive (just as expensive as the arena Bennett wanted, or more so) arena is Seattle. It took him 5 more years than he anticipated to do so, but in the long run there will be a Seattle Supersonic team playing in a state of the art arena. I heard one national media person say that bringing the Sonics to OKC is David Stern's biggest regret. I don't know if he was quoting Stern or putting words in his mouth, but no matter what public face he puts on it, moving the Thunder got him more than he had when this mess started. Exchanging the Sacramento market for the OKC market doesn't really cause much of a blip in NBA revenues, and he got what he wanted in Seattle.

Hawk405359
01-22-2013, 07:42 AM
After the initial exuberance of the NBA's return, I do not believe the new Seattle team will consistently become one of the league leaders in attendance on a recurring basis. I believe the team will likely be profitable for the owners but I think the Seattle market is for the most part not a BB town. This entire effort was in my opinion a "pride" thing based on the notion that Seattle was too international a city to lose its team and when they did too cosmopolitian to remain without a team long term. BB and FB have and continue to rule Seattle. Wish them well

Seattle Supersonics Attendance

Year Total Avg
2007-08 547,556 13,355
2006-07 654,163 15,955
2005-06 664,157 16,198
2004-05 675,490 16,475
2003-04 631,349 15,399
2002-03 637,194 15,541
2001-02 633,516 15,452
2000-01 640,847 15,630
1999-00 615,730 15,018
1998-99 426,800 17,072
1997-98 699,952 17,072
1996-97 699,952 17,072
1995-96 697,301 17,007
1994-95 633,748 15,457
1993-94 601,969 14,682
1992-93 632,205 15,420
1991-92 586,929 14,315
1990-91 510,166 12,443
1989-90 502,014 12,244
1988-89 529,733 12,920
1987-88 492,312 12,008
1986-87 356,362 8,692
1985-86 329,296 8,032
1984-85 303,342 7,399
1983-84 446,970 10,902
1982-83 574,986 14,024
1981-82 750,059 18,294
1980-81 675,097 16,466
1979-80 890,713 21,725
1978-79 747,243 18,225
1977-78 504,668 12,309
1976-77 532,196 12,980
1975-76 557,304 13,593
1974-75 524,692 12,797
1973-74 491,856 11,996
1972-73 387,382 9,448
1971-72 444,302 11,108
1970-71 372,612 9,315
1969-70 278,444 7,735
1968-69 210,232 5,840
1967-68 202,263 6,525

Seattle has almost always been good at attending games. They typically rank near the top in capacity.

The problem is that until they build a new arena, it's impossible for them to be at the top of the league in attendance. At maximum capacity, Key Arena seats just over 17,000 people for basketball. In this league, that's good enough for 16th to 18th in attendance, assuming you have 100% capacity. Once they get an arena that isn't among the league's smallest, I think they'll be at least in the top 10 every year.

betts
01-22-2013, 08:21 AM
Seattle has almost always been good at attending games. They typically rank near the top in capacity.

The problem is that until they build a new arena, it's impossible for them to be at the top of the league in attendance. At maximum capacity, Key Arena seats just over 17,000 people for basketball. In this league, that's good enough for 16th to 18th in attendance, assuming you have 100% capacity. Once they get an arena that isn't among the league's smallest, I think they'll be at least in the top 10 every year.

Seattle has always been reasonably good at attending games. If the Key Arena capacity is just above 17,000, there weren't many years when they consistently sold out the arena. My argument remains that after the initial flush of enthusiasm, Seattleites will do precisely what they've done in the past: show up well for good teams. They haven't been without the NBA long enough to really understand what they lost. And, their sense of entitlement has been satisfied by having an owner give them precisely what they wanted: an arena and a team without any additional financial support from the populace. How does that change behavior? For support, I give you the Seattle Mariners, who ranked 26th in attendance in the MLB last year. You might say, "Well they weren't any good." My answer is "Precisely".

Seattle isn't a big enough market to fill stadiums and arenas when the team is doing poorly. While people in Seattle think they're quite the big fish, cities like Chicago, New York and LA look at Seattle like Seattle looks at us.

Of Sound Mind
01-22-2013, 08:47 AM
Seattle isn't a big enough market to fill stadiums and arenas when the team is doing poorly.
In fairness, we have not yet been truly tested with this issue. It's true that the team was bad the first year they came here, but we also were so excited to have the NBA team here that we didn't care. I'm not so sure that if we were to go into a multi-year slump that we wouldn't see a significant decline in attendance here. We like to think we're the best fans in the country, but I'm not so sure given the drop in support for our collegiate programs during drought years.

betts
01-22-2013, 11:41 AM
In fairness, we have not yet been truly tested with this issue. It's true that the team was bad the first year they came here, but we also were so excited to have the NBA team here that we didn't care. I'm not so sure that if we were to go into a multi-year slump that we wouldn't see a significant decline in attendance here. We like to think we're the best fans in the country, but I'm not so sure given the drop in support for our collegiate programs during drought years.

I wasn't trying to be holier than though, nor to imply that Thunder fans will pack the arena when the lean years come. I hope we appreciate what we have, and I'm glad we wanted the team enough to help out the owners. Hopefully that will translate to better attendance when the team does poorly. I just think Seattle has been given too much credit for being a great basketball city when they haven't had many years of capacity arenas. I also found their attitude towards a new arena unreasonable and their thought that an owner who spends a third of a billion dollars for a team shouldn't ask for public funds to help pay for arena irritating. I think any owner who spends that kind of money to bring a team to a city is perfectly within his/her rights to ask for a public subsidy to build a facility to house them. The sense of entitlement demonstrated by a mid-sized market was pretty shocking to me. I'm also annoyed by the hypocrisy demonstrated by people who acted as if Clay Bennett was the embodiment of the devil. Now it's OK to take another city's team. I see no difference between what happened in Seattle and what's happening in Sacramento. Both cities were given a reasonable period of time to build an arena, and both were warned they might lose their team if they didn't.

Bellaboo
01-22-2013, 12:30 PM
I wasn't trying to be holier than though, nor to imply that Thunder fans will pack the arena when the lean years come. I hope we appreciate what we have, and I'm glad we wanted the team enough to help out the owners. Hopefully that will translate to better attendance when the team does poorly. I just think Seattle has been given too much credit for being a great basketball city when they haven't had many years of capacity arenas. I also found their attitude towards a new arena unreasonable and their thought that an owner who spends a third of a billion dollars for a team shouldn't ask for public funds to help pay for arena irritating. I think any owner who spends that kind of money to bring a team to a city is perfectly within his/her rights to ask for a public subsidy to build a facility to house them. The sense of entitlement demonstrated by a mid-sized market was pretty shocking to me. I'm also annoyed by the hypocrisy demonstrated by people who acted as if Clay Bennett was the embodiment of the devil. Now it's OK to take another city's team. I see no difference between what happened in Seattle and what's happening in Sacramento. Both cities were given a reasonable period of time to build an arena, and both were warned they might lose their team if they didn't.


I've read a few boards and comments on ESPN about this and the Seattle fans are claiming this is different. This it's not the same, that they are telling them up front about the move and that makes it all okay.....a bunch of hippos is what they are. Clay gave them 1 year to get an arena deal started and it was voted down within their political leadership, both city and county wide.

The one I have a problem with is how they claim Clay 'stole the franchise'. The last time I read anything about it is that it was bought for $350 million, not stolen. An owner has the right to do anything with his team as long as the league approves. Now the Baltimore Colts were moved in the middle of the night, not the Sonics. It was just sour grapes from a vocal few, as most people up there could care less. They were tired of building facilities for the Seahawks and Mariners and showed very little if any support for basketball.

ljbab728
01-22-2013, 11:04 PM
They may be whistling in the wind but Sacremento hasn't given up yet.

Kevin Johnson, mayor of Sacramento, tells Seattle 'don't celebrate too early' - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8870677/kevin-johnson-mayor-sacramento-tells-seattle-celebrate-too-early)