Metro Seattle: NHL, NBA and Arena - Part VII

[Shaz]

This, sadly

To make the NHL work in Milwaukee, you have to market the team as a team that represents the entire state of Wisconsin, not just simply Milwaukee. It's part of the reason the Packers and Brewers are so popular and the Bucks, well, aren't.

Can't ya call it the Wisconsin Winter Warriors or something?

It's a perfect fit for Hockey

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

I'd take that in a micro second

BTW, why the hell is the NHL NOT in Wisconsin?

Seems like a natural fit to me

In all likelihood we would have gotten one if the prospective owners wouldn't have dropped out of the expansion bidding. They built the Bradley Center specifically for an NHL team and paid for it themselves but withdrew their bid.

This is the same building that the Bucks use now that's apparently not good enough for them even though they get 27.5% of concession sales, 13.75% of food and beverage sales, 30% of merchandise sales at Bucks games, 19% of net suite revenue and a suite revenue share of $2.1 million all while paying no rent to play there.

From what I understand, every time the public gets polled in Milwaukee they show no interest in the NHL. Wisconsin may be a hockey state but apparently Milwaukee isn't a hockey town and unfortunately it's the only city in Wisconsin large enough to bother putting a major-league sports team in.

I've never seen any polls where the people get asked about it.

And I'd happily give up the Bucks to Seattle even with no NHL team. That team and owner are just awful and have screwed the fan base for the better part of 25 years.

 

[sactown dude]

The fact that they are a bottom tier revenue generator

Fact? How did you determine that? They certainly have been the past few years, but that is not an indication of the market. The Maloofs took a blowtorch to this market many years ago. When they depart, there will be a significant increase in ticket sales and casual fan interest (TV revenue, etc.), even before the new arena is built. The new ownership group recognizes the potential of the market is much, much higher.

 

[superdeluxe]

The Maloofs are not the victims. They purposely tried to kill the market to collect that subsidy, Vivek refusing it is posturing to reinforce that Sacramento is a profitable market.

Would you call San Antonio a profitable market? They take money from the revenue sharing plan. ALL small markets do. Vivek refusing the money is perhaps one of the main reasons why the relocation committee voted for Sacramento. Once the owners found out that they wouldn't have to pay for Sacramento anymore, they voted for the Kings to stay (And why wouldn't they?)

No offense, but Seattle had it easy by comparison and still lost the Thunder.

Oh we had it easy huh? Please tell us the ways.

 

[wunderpanda]

Oh we had it easy huh? Please tell us the ways.

Not sure if you read the link I posted outlining the Kings with the Maloofs, there was a lot more working against the city keeping the Kings than Seattle had with Schultz.

Not saying Bennet didn't steal the team, just that the previous owner tried to get an arena deal and the local officials were against it. Had Seattle worked to build the arena with Schultz would Bennet even have the opportunity to buy them?

 

[superdeluxe]

Not sure if you read the link I posted outlining the Kings with the Maloofs, there was a lot more working against the city keeping the Kings than Seattle had with Schultz.

Not saying Bennet didn't steal the team, just that the previous owner tried to get an arena deal and the local officials were against it. Had Seattle worked to build the arena with Schultz would Bennet even have the opportunity to buy them?

Maybe the City would have been more willing to build a new arena for Stern if we hadn't just rebuilt Key Arena, just 9 years before.

 

[Melrose Munch]

This, this.....

Can the league negotiate separately from the owner of a franchise in such a way to influence the value of the franchise, the modus operandi basically being to pay the league off for an approval?

This takes money directly out of the Maloofs pockets and puts it into the the rich teams' pockets.

Something is rotten in the NBA.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/06/5398439/sacramento-kings-dallas-ranadive.html#storylink=cpy​

Good! Sports is a privileged and not a right, they are depriving the NBA of a donor market so they don't deserve anything else beyond the team

 

[sactown dude]

Would you call San Antonio a profitable market? They take money from the revenue sharing plan. ALL small markets do. (And why wouldn't they?)

I don't think it's true that ALL small markets take money from the revenue sharing plan. The system is set up so that any payments that would lead to a team having a profit over $10 million are eliminated.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q24

 

[sactown dude]

Seattle is also eligible for revenue sharing, because it is in the same market size range as Sacramento. So are Hansen/Ballmer going to take money if they get a team? Or are they promising the NBA that they won't be a taker? Sounds like a bribe.

 

[Shaz]

Seattle is also eligible for revenue sharing, because it is in the same market size range as Sacramento. So are Hansen/Ballmer going to take money if they get a team? Or are they promising the NBA that they won't be a taker? Sounds like a bribe.

They're not even in the same realm

I get that you're trying to make your point but please use actual facts and not ridiculous claims

 

[Brooklyn Americans]

Who does the NBA add if they expand? Seattle and Vancouver have been mentioned, as have Pittsburgh and KC; are there any other eastern cities in the mix?

One could think Anaheim could be in the mix given the near Maloof move of 2011.

 

[Shaz]

One could think Anaheim could be in the mix given the near Maloof move of 2011.

Both the Lakers and Clippers would destroy that idea in half a second, they won't allow an Anaheim team to ever happen

 

[PCSPounder]

They're not even in the same realm

I get that you're trying to make your point but please use actual facts and not ridiculous claims

Let's just say that Seattle's closer to Sacramento than, say, the Bay Area.

That actually begs a hypothetical question: let's say the Oakland A's move to Sacramento. Could they still retain some TV rights in the Bay Area due to historical position? That would be bigger than Seattle's effective TV market. I don't think the Kings would get the same deal, naturally.

 

[Shaz]

Let's just say that Seattle's closer to Sacramento than, say, the Bay Area.

That actually begs a hypothetical question: let's say the Oakland A's move to Sacramento. Could they still retain some TV rights in the Bay Area due to historical position? That would be bigger than Seattle's effective TV market. I don't think the Kings would get the same deal, naturally.

No Seattle is closer to the Bay Area than Sacramento. Bay area has about 900,000 more than Seattle (Bay Area 4.4 Mil) (Seattle 3.5 Mil) whereas Sacramento has about 2.2Mil (1.3 Mil less than Seattle and 2.2 Mil less than Bay Area)

Also the Seattle area is growing rapidly, especially in King County (Federal Way, Kent) Pierce County (Tacoma, Lakewood due to Fort Lewis expansion)

http://proximityone.com/metros2013.htm

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Both the Lakers and Clippers would destroy that idea in half a second, they won't allow an Anaheim team to ever happen

Pretty much. Anaheim getting an NBA team is DOA as long as the Clippers and especially the Lakers oppose it.

As for other possible markets that could get teams, I know that Louisville's brought up from time to time due to the popularity of the collegiate game and the presence of a large, modern, yet ill-named arena in that market, but I'd expect that to just be a repeat of the Pacers and Bobcats, where the pro team's permanently playing second fiddle to their collegiate counterpart(s). But who knows.... if the NBA relocates a team or expands (which I really, really, really doubt), they could hope that the Louisville/Kentucky Colonels are a smash success like the OKC Thunder, another sole major pro team in a college town.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Oh, and Hampton Roads (i.e. Virginia Beach, Norfolk, etc.) is also mentioned occasionally, but that's going nowhere. All the cities out there are notoriously unorganized at working together on this, so they're very unlikely.

If there was just a single city, Hampton Roads, Virginia, they'd almost assuredly have one or two big league teams by now. As it is though, none of the cities are big enough to go it on their own and yet nobody else wants to help foot the bill on something they won't get taxes from (or willing to share).

 

[Fugu]

Good! Sports is a privilege and not a right, they are depriving the NBA of a donor market so they don't deserve anything else beyond the team

I'm not sure what you mean, MM. I was making the point that the NBA is interfering with the sale of a franchise by stacking the deck against the owner of that team in a way that lines the pockets of the owners who remain. They have the right to select owners, but the law gets murky when the Al Davis scenarios come up, insofar as market selection for relocation. Does the league have the right to disregard its own CBA in order to influence a franchise sale?

Fact? How did you determine that? They certainly have been the past few years, but that is not an indication of the market. The Maloofs took a blowtorch to this market many years ago. When they depart, there will be a significant increase in ticket sales and casual fan interest (TV revenue, etc.), even before the new arena is built. The new ownership group recognizes the potential of the market is much, much higher.

The facts show that only two teams received higher revenue sharing amounts than Sacramento this past year, and that a league high of $18 MM is expected for the next season.

That indicates to most casual observers that they are in the bottom group of the NBA revenue ranking.

Seattle is also eligible for revenue sharing, because it is in the same market size range as Sacramento. So are Hansen/Ballmer going to take money if they get a team? Or are they promising the NBA that they won't be a taker? Sounds like a bribe.

If Seattle falls in the bottom half of league revenue, yes, the CBA would stipulate that they should receive funds. Last time I checked, the CBA wasn't something with sections you choose to ignore, unilaterally.

Secondly, someone already corrected you on the market sizes involved.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Oh, and Hampton Roads (i.e. Virginia Beach, Norfolk, etc.) is also mentioned occasionally, but that's going nowhere. All the cities out there are notoriously unorganized at working together on this, so they're very unlikely.

If there was just a single city, Hampton Roads, Virginia, they'd almost assuredly have one or two big league teams by now. As it is though, none of the cities are big enough to go it on their own and yet nobody else wants to help foot the bill on something they won't get taxes from (or willing to share).

I'm originally from Virginia and I can tell you that Hampton Roads area is a non-starter even if the various cities worked together. The region's population is just too transient to build a fan base for a sports franchise. Think of what the area's economics revolves around: Military personnel, college students, and tourism. The latter two involve people who are there on a seasonal basis and the former with people who are rotated in and out as station assignments change.

 

[sactown dude]

They're not even in the same realm

I get that you're trying to make your point but please use actual facts and not ridiculous claims

They are in the same tier of revenue sharing, so I'm not sure how you can say they're not in the same realm. What were my ridiculous claims?

 

[No Fun Shogun]

I'm originally from Virginia and I can tell you that Hampton Roads area is a non-starter even if the various cities worked together. The region's population is just too transient to build a fan base for a sports franchise. Think of what the area's economics revolves around: Military personnel, college students, and tourism. The latter two involve people who are there on a seasonal basis and the former with people who are rotated in and out as station assignments change.

Those factors might very well make any team put there a sinking ship right off the bat, but it's still a fairly sizable market with no major league teams in town. Had they had everything in place a couple decades ago, the Hampton Roads Rhinos probably would've been a reality, though whether or not they'd still be there is another matter of discussion.

 

[superdeluxe]

Seattle is also eligible for revenue sharing, because it is in the same market size range as Sacramento. So are Hansen/Ballmer going to take money if they get a team? Or are they promising the NBA that they won't be a taker? Sounds like a bribe.

It is not in the same market size as Sacramento. Its TV market/Corporate projections were much higher than Sacramento. Seattle would be feeding into the revenue pool and taking out from it.

Economics/Corporate Support:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20130413/sacramento-kings-sale-david-stern-seattle/

The economies of the two competing cities was another big part of Seattle's presentation to NBA owners. The online retailer Amazon is building a 3.3 million square-foot campus in Seattle that will serve as one of the country's largest corporate headquarters in a city location. As many as 17,000 young college-educated workers are expected to be hired by Amazon in Seattle, which could increase Seattle's annual GDP by more than 15 percent.

Hansen's group told NBA owners that Seattle has 13 companies rated in the Fortune 1000; Sacramento has none. The Seattle economy has been ranked among the top five in the U.S. for the last four years, according to the independent research firm POLICOM, while Sacramento has dropped from No. 19 in 2011 to No. 55 this year. The Seattle group told owners that Sacramento's fall has been structural rather than cyclical, based on Sacramento's emphasis on residential home construction leading up to the recent housing crisis. When the housing bubble burst, the Sacramento economy was hit hard. Seattle's 32,555 season-ticket requests at the time of the meeting last week was more than three times the number of pledges of Sacramento.

TV Media potential and rights:

12th Media market vs 20th media market
40 million dollars a year for TV contract

 

[Fugu]

They are in the same tier of revenue sharing, so I'm not sure how you can say they're not in the same realm. What were my ridiculous claims?

How? What numbers are using to make this claim?

 

[sactown dude]

The facts show that only two teams received higher revenue sharing amounts than Sacramento this past year, and that a league high of $18 MM is expected for the next season.

That indicates to most casual observers that they are in the bottom group of the NBA revenue ranking.



If Seattle falls in the bottom half of league revenue, yes, the CBA would stipulate that they should receive funds. Last time I checked, the CBA wasn't something with sections you choose to ignore, unilaterally.

Secondly, someone already corrected you on the market sizes involved.

Those figures are with the Maloofs as owners, which I already addressed. We are discussing what the market will yield without them as owners. The Maloofs are despised here and people have stayed away just to avoid giving them money. I am a fan and went to a few games this year - I deliberately parked off property and walked in to avoid giving them any parking revenue, and I bought nothing at the concession stands for the same reason. And I am not alone. Casual fans just stayed away altogether.

Being in the bottom half of league revenue is not what leads to receiving funds. If a team is in the bottom half of league revenue but still makes a profit of $10MM, it will receive nothing. BTW, the Maloofs have gamed the system to maximize their payout.

 

[Fugu]

Those figures are with the Maloofs as owners, which I already addressed. We are discussing what the market will yield without them as owners. The Maloofs are despised here and people have stayed away just to avoid giving them money. I am a fan and went to a few games this year - I deliberately parked off property and walked in to avoid giving them any parking revenue, and I bought nothing at the concession stands for the same reason. And I am not alone. Casual fans just stayed away altogether.

Being in the bottom half of league revenue is not what leads to receiving funds. If a team is in the bottom half of league revenue but still makes a profit of $10MM, it will receive nothing. BTW, the Maloofs have gamed the system to maximize their payout.

I understand all that, but Seattle appears to be .... 50% bigger ... in terms of population, trending upwards, strong real estate market, and with some seriously wealthy/large companies and individuals. Sacramento just isn't in the same league, just like say Nashville in the NHL can't compete with Chicago in that sense.

I was asking how you decided that Sacramento's potential, even with the new arena, was as high or higher than Seattle's.

 

[sactown dude]

How? What numbers are using to make this claim?

The link I posted earlier:

Markets < 1MM TV households = do not have to contribute more than 15% of revenues

Markets > 2.5MM are ineligible to receive revenue sharing payments

Markets between 2MM and 2.5MM receive a percentage of a full payment, if eligible

Markets between 1MM and 2MM receive a full payment, if eligible (both Sac and Seattle are in this tier)