ProposedKingsArena

Sacramento Kings arena funding plan to be released Sept. 8

Leave a comment

We don’t know the specifics of how the city of Sacramento plans to pay for the proposed $387 million Entertainment and Sports Complex (ESC), but we do know when they plan to announce those plans.

According to Ryan Lillis of the Sacramento Bee, a menu of funding options will be presented to the public on September 8, with a more detailed report being released on September 13 to both the public and City Council.

According to Lillis:

While precise details of the financing plan are still unknown, Chris Lehane, the chair of the task force, said in a new release this morning that it will include “contributions from both the public and private sectors, including the Kings ownership group, arena developers and operators.”

He also added:

It’s also expected that an arena operator – a company such as AEG – will be approached to help with the construction costs.

While the city of Sacramento’s efforts to keep the Kings have appeared at times to be as desperate as a 55-foot game-winner, the framework for the proposed funding options has been a relative constant, and has always been envisioned to be a mix of private and public funds.

Hotel and airport taxes have been discussed, but more recently the pencil has been sharpened to include user fees such as ticket surcharges and parking fees, in addition to the sale of city-owned properties, corporate sponsorships, and revenues originating from cell phone towers and electronic billboards placed on the ESC.

In short, every dollar will count as they tally up the funds, and the inclusion of a company like AEG to both fund the project and operate the arena sounds like a must at this point. That their name continues to come up in on-the-record and off-the-record discussion is a great sign for Kings fans.

And as we posted in June, the Maloofs liquidated most of their interest in the Palms to enhance their financial flexibility. While they could have done that simply to free up money for their continued involvement in the Palms, as George Maloof said was the case at the time, it stands to reason that being relieved on a $400 million note will help them be able to pitch in.

So where does the rubber meet the road here?

First, the Think Big Sacramento coalition, which includes 70-some odd politicians, businesses, community leaders, and the original grassroots leaders such as Carmichael Dave and Here We Stay — they will need to procure support within the Sacramento City Council, and then also have enough public support to marginalize attacks from any opposition groups. Attacks could come in the form of lawsuits seeking injunctive relief, most likely on the grounds that the use of public funds will require a public vote. The Kings arena effort would likely come up short if a vote is needed, so avoiding such a challenge will depend on the exact nature of the public funds being used and the appetite for opposition groups to go through a costly legal and political fight.

A lot of that appetite will be derived from what the folks in the Sacramento region actually think about this public subsidy. Losing the Kings will necessarily be a blow to the area, and most believe they will not be able to get an NBA team back should they lose this one. In the battle to attract businesses and the new-age worker that values a city’s identity, this could be a defining moment for the entire region.

And that is where the battle for public opinion is taking place. The Think Big Sacramento group is doing a commendable public relations job, with interactive campaigns targeting not just Kings fans, but folks that may be more inclined to see Disney on Ice than five shooting guards and one basketball. Between the town hall meetings, the dominant social media work they’re doing, and local events featuring non-basketball types such as world-renowned artist David Garibaldi (seriously, check out his work) – it’s safe to say that they’re not making the mistakes of the ill-fated arena tax campaign from 2006 that was easily rejected by the voters.

But as with anything else, you have to follow the money, as public funds come with questions about tax allocations, economics, and the like. Today, I spoke with leading sports economist Brad Humphreys (and expert witness in the Sonics vs. Seattle case no less), who has been outspoken about the problems with sports stadium subsidies (as are most of his colleagues), and the takeaway is that this isn’t just a Sacramento issue – it’s a United States issue.

Due to the artificial lack of supply (teams) in the major sports leagues, a De facto monopoly, teams have the leverage to demand public subsidies. If the city of Sacramento wants to belabor the point, the Kings will have a new address in Orange County – and that scenario has played itself out a number of times.

I’ll be scratching together another post about my conversation with this economist, which covered everything from sports subsidies to the Kings to the lockout. Interestingly, he said he wasn’t against the Kings’ arena subsidy, and in one (not yet peer-reviewed) white paper he wrote,

A new state of the art facility integrated in a comprehensive urban redevelopment program and located in the heart of a large city might be expected to generate increases in residential property values in the vicinity of hundreds of millions of dollars within a mile of the facility, if the location, planning, construction, and development are carried out carefully.

While most economists are mostly aligned in saying that no empirical evidence has been found to show that the presence of sports teams and so-called big sporting events (i.e. the Super Bowl) actually bring in additional tax revenue, let alone to cover the cost of the subsidy — it doesn’t mean that the proof doesn’t exist.

Sacramento County had a $40 million reduction in budgetary revenue this year due to the drop in property values in the area, which is money that they’re not getting back. That loss of revenue comes from the fact that people aren’t willing to pay as much to live in the Sacramento region.

So assuming, annually, the county gets the 1% property tax revenue on a theoretical ‘hundreds of millions of dollars (of increased property value) within a mile of the facility,’ this unexplored area of sports economics could answer the question as to why cities continue to ignore economists’ clamoring. While people may spend their entertainment dollars elsewhere (the substitution effect) if the Kings are not in town, they won’t necessarily pay as much to live there. The intangible benefits of living by your favorite sports team or having the option to go to an A-list show – those benefits may be being capitalized in ways economists have yet to find (or in this case, may be on the precipice of finding).

Humphreys took great care to point out that the case of Sacramento is unique, and that cities with downtown revitalization projects have had both success and failure. But in the world of data that economists live by, one thing is clear – they’re simply not ready to buy the economic impact reports that teams are selling, but they’re also not ready to rule out that the sports subsidy could be a good thing.

After all, everybody is doing it.

NBA: Spurs got away with two key fouls in crunch time BEFORE final play (videos)

San Antonio Spurs' Danny Green, left, LaMarcus Aldridge, and Manu Ginobili (20) watch Tim Duncan (21) strip the ball from -Oklahoma City Thunder's Steven Adams (12) during the first half in Game 2 of a second-round NBA basketball playoff series, Monday, May 2, 2016, in San Antonio. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)
AP Photo/Eric Gay
1 Comment

The final play of Thunder-Spurs Game 2 was pure mayhem – five missed calls in the final 13.5 seconds.

But what if that high-stakes ending were avoided completely?

If officials had gotten previous crunch-time calls correct, it might have been.

The last play mattered only because San Antonio was charging back from a five-point deficit with a minute and a half left. The Spurs trailed by only one when Dion Waiters inbounded the ball.

San Antonio probably shouldn’t have been that close.

The Last Two Minute Report featured three missed calls before the final play, each favoring the Spurs and two crucial.

LaMarcus Aldridge scored with 1:27 left, but only after getting away with offensively fouling Russell Westbrook. NBA:

Since Westbrook (OKC) is stationary, Aldridge (SAS) can establish himself in his path without giving him room to avoid the screen. However, Aldridge does not maintain his legal position when he pushes Westbrook off balance.

That doesn’t look like a clear offensive foul from the angle TNT showed, but the league reviews these plays from multiple angles. There’s enough obscured to believe an alternate view would show an illegal screen.

A correct call would’ve ended San Antonio’s possession and given the Thunder the ball up five instead of three.

On the ensuing possession, the Spurs forced a miss, but Tim Duncan got away with a loose-ball foul of Steven Adams to get the rebound. NBA:

Duncan (SAS) clamps the arm of Adams (OKC) and affects his ability to retrieve the rebound

A correct call would’ve given Oklahoma City the ball with 1:11 left – another opportunity to run clock and add to its lead.

Duncan also committed a three-second violation with 55 seconds left, but the Spurs missed and Oklahoma City rebounded on that possession, anyway.

Especially considering that Manu Ginobili crossing the sideline should’ve been a violation before Waiters pushed him, the Spurs and their fans can’t reasonably claim officiating cost them this game

NBA official report says refs blew five calls in final 13 seconds of Thunder win

4 Comments

This has to be a record.

Hopefully, this is one never broken.

The NBA’s official review found five missed calls in the final 13.5 seconds of Oklahoma City’s Game 2 win over the Spurs Monday night, and eight total in the final two minutes of play. Lead official Ken Mauer admitted to one after the game — missing Dion Waiters shoving Manu Ginobili back — but this goes into all the details. And this doesn’t cover Steven Adams getting his arm grabbed by a fan.

In short the NBA says: Manu Ginobili stepped on the line, Dion Waiters did foul Ginobili, Patty Mills fouled Steven Adams, Kawhi Leonard fouled Russell Westbrook, and Serge Ibaka fouled LaMarcus Aldridge.

It’s a wash if you want to look at it that way, although it’s hard to look past that many errors. Whether you think it was a fair outcome probably depends on which team you’re rooting for.

Here are the calls from the final 13 seconds — both right and wrong — according to the NBA’s review (the time stamp of the incorrect calls are in bold):

• 13.5 sec: Manu Ginobili did step on the line while trying to guard Waiters inbound pass. The report says that should have been assessed as a delay of game, although the rule book says that in the final two minutes it should be a technical foul.

• 13.5 sec: Waiters did shove Manu Ginobili and should have been called for a foul, with the ball awarded to the Spurs. Here is the league’s comment:

Waiters crosses the (out of bounds) plane during the inbound and makes contact with Ginobili that affects his ability to defend

• 13.5 sec: Waiters did inbound the ball within five seconds, a correct no call.

• 13.5 sec: Waiters was allowed to jump during the inbound pass, a correct no call. Here is the league’s explanation:

Waiters jumps during his inbound attempt, which is permissible under NBA interpretations of the relevant throw-in Rule No. 10, Section III, provided the player doesn’t leave the designated throw-in spot (laterally) or leave the playing surface (e.g., stepping into the stands) to gain an advantage

• 13.5 sec: The Spurs Danny Green did not Kevin Durant while KD was trying to get open for the pass, a correct no call according to the report. The comment:

Green and Durant briefly engage and separate during the inbounds play.

• 13.5 sec: Patty Mills does foul Steven Adams as he tries to get open for the inbounds play, there should have been a foul called.

• 13.5 sec: Kawhi Leonard did foul Russell Westbrook in the backcourt as the Thunder Guard tried to get open by grabbing his jersey, there was no call but it should have been whistled.

• 12.6 sec: Green did not foul Durant in going for the inbounds pass, a correct no call. The league’s comment:

Green and Durant make incidental body contact as they jump for the inbound pass. Green then cleanly strips the ball.

• 5.7 sec: Ibaka does not foul Leonard, this contact was incidental and a correct no call.

• 4.3 sec: Adams does not foul Mills in contesting his corner three. Here is the league’s comment.

Adams legally contests Mills’ jump shot attempt. Any contact that occurs after Mills has landed is initiated by Mills prior to him falling to the floor.

• 2.6 sec: Ibaka did foul LaMarcus Aldridge on his shot attempt off the rebound of Mills’ miss, Aldridge should have been awarded free throws. Here is the league’s comment:

RHH shows that Ibaka grabs and holds Aldridge’s jersey and affects his shot attempt.

• 0.5 sec: There was no foul in the scrum under the basket for the ball once Aldridge and Ibaka were tangled up. This was a correct no call. Here is the comment from the league.

Ibaka and Leonard make incidental contact with one another while diving for the loose ball.

Dwyane Wade ‘honored’ to be Prince’s favorite player

Late Night with Seth Meyers - Season 2
1 Comment

Dwyane Wade says he’s feeling “all kinds of emotions” after hearing that he was Prince’s favorite basketball player.

The Miami Heat star took to Twitter after hearing Prince’s comments in a 2012 Australian radio interview the late pop icon conducted with model Damaris Lewis.

Prince died last month at his Minnesota home at the age of 57.

Referees admit error at end of Thunder/Spurs, will add call to training in future

3 Comments

It’s hard to describe the final play of the Thunder Game 2 win over the Spurs and the officiating during it for a family-friendly publication such as this. The phrase I want to use starts with “cluster” but that’s as far as I can go.

The officiating crew missed a host of calls during those final 13 seconds, but they have at least owned up to the most egregious one — missing Dion Waiters pushing off Manu Ginobili while the Thunder guard tried to inbound the ball. (Yes, Ginobili’s foot was on the line, but sorry Thunder homers that was not close to the most egregious miss at the end.)

After the game, the lead official Kenny Mauer admitted that error.

Now the NBA referee’s union released this statement:

Did that decide the game? No. We like to focus on things we can blame as going wrong, but the Spurs offense started 2-of-15 shooting on the night, was inconsistent, and they still had a chance at the end. This one play is not why the Spurs lost. Manu Ginobili said it well postgame.