Ah, but it cannot drag on for years. The Maloofs are in financial distress. They needed this deal to succeed.

I'm thinking March 1, 2011, they file to move. Or, they'll be forced to sell, if it comes down to either the Kings OR the Palms.

They had to sell their beer company in order to meet a revolver about 10 months ago. That's not good.

The Kings have one of the most exciting players in the league in Tyreke Evans who as a rookie put up record numbers that only the top tier of players have put up. The team also has another rookie who can potentially be a star. Basically, I think this means there is no way the Maloofs are going to continue in this arena mess. Arco will not renew the naming rights to the arena and if fans continue to stay away this team will move. Sacramento is tired of Mayor Johnson making the Kings his number one issue and the team will move.

KingsFan, WHERE? Stern won't let a team go to Vegas, KC won't give the Maloofs the deal they want and Seattle won't build an arena.

I say the Kings stay under new ownership.

Where can they go? I think San Jose is becoming a logical destination. Better arena. Larry Ellison is probably feeling a bit bitter that he lost out on the Warriors.

Yes, there is that loan to repay to Sacramento, but now that Friery allowed the City of Sacramento to move into second position on their loan, it means that the new buyer can take his/her time repaying that. Maybe they even operate the arena for a couple years to mitigate that expense.

Relocation fees? Yes, they're expensive, but if the Warriors learn that they'll get a nice chunk of change for that, they won't oppose a move. Plus, this would be Larry Ellison money landing in the Warriors' pockets. Could there be a better irony?

The Kings will not demand the same franchise price as the Warriors, so this doesn't even increase Ellison's payout to get a team. So, he gets a team in a place that he wants to put it, for roughly the same amount that he was willing to pay for the Warriors.

Also, the Maloofs owe so much money to various parties #the bank that financed the original purchase; the City of Sacramento; and the NBA# that this further lowers the price Ellison would pay for the team, I think it's a natural. The Maloofs probably have over $100M in debt on the Kings.

What's not to like?

That all makes sense, but keep in mind that after paying off the Warriors and taking lesser revenues as the tenant of the Sharks, Ellison would be essentially making this as a vanity purchase.

Or, to put it another way: Ellison wouldn't be making a ton of money off the deal, so that wouldn't leave a lot for a purchase price. The Maloofs would need to be pretty desperate to take whatever offer is on the table, and I don't think any of us know whether they've reached that point yet.

But by them playing in an already-existing arena, Ellison's expenses for building a place for the team to play would be minimized.

Lower income, but lower expenses probably mitigate that. I think it'd be very close to a wash.

I can see a scenario where Ellison buys a majority stake in the team, and the Maloofs continue to own a large stake, say, 30%.

As a side-note, I doubt the NBA would be willing to let two cities share the team, like the old KC-O Kings. Yeah, I'm pretty old if I remember the Kings used to play home games in Omaha.

Yes, moving to San Jose makes more financial sense than building a new arena with their own money in Sacramento. But the latter was never on the table. If all you want is to keep expenses low by playing in an existing arena, there's Arco - and you don't have to share it with a hockey team.

The question here is whether the Maloofs and/or Ellison or some other owner are ready to give up on the gold ring of a taxpayer-subsidized arena to settle for whatever else is available. The last time this happened - Seattle - the city had to practically smack the team's owner across the nose with a rolled-up newspaper to convince him that taxpayers wouldn't be coughing up money anytime soon. I could be wrong, but my gut tells me we're not at that stage yet in Sacramento.

Well, we live in a world where local developers thought they could tell the State to move Cal Expo to a smaller piece of land, in a less-desirable location (a flood plain farther from the freeway and downtown -- it really is a sweet piece of land), so the locals could keep the profits from that sale to build an arena.

If that isn't a long-shot, I apparently don't know what "long-shot" means.

My point: They thought a bad deal would be enough to get this done, but the Maloofs are weak enough financially to where they won't be able to afford to contribute to an arena. This means that the end-game is closer than you think.

Add in expiring naming-rights, and I think it's getting desperate. All of a sudden Larry Ellison doesn't seem like a bad idea.

@Neil and Mike M

Good points on both sides.

I must point out that the Kings are losing $25 million a year by staying put in Arco Arena. They have to do something fast or they will go under as a team into bankruptcy.

In San Jose the corporate cash will allow them sell luxury suites and turn a profit of some type..Even in a revenue sharing model with SVSE.

SVSE has already spoken to the Kings in 2009 about a revenue sharing deal where SVSE would put in $50 million or so to renovate the HP Pavilion for basketball and become minority owners.

The Kings told San Jose to wait until 2 years to see what would happen in Sacramento first as the Maloofs prefer their own arena...makes sense.

In a shared situation as 11 teams in the NBA/NHL do now it would allow both teams greater leverage when a new arena is needed down the line to be built in San Jose.

Las Vegas has no arena in place plus the problem of banning NBA games to bet on will put the Casinos in outrage. KC is not a basketball town and despite the fact they have a new arena the NBA knows they are a baseball/football city much like St. Louis. KC had the Kings before and failed badly.

Seattle already failed miserably like KC and will not be getting a team anytime soon. Anaheim would be a good bet but paying off the Lakers/Clippers would be far more than paying off the Warriors alone.

Also keep in mind the NBA does not have an anti-trust exemption therefore the Kings can move to San Jose even if the Warriors object...Which they will for sure.

Donald Sterling against a 22-0 owners vote won a lawsuit against the NBA to move his team from San Diego to Los Angeles. He did not indemnify the Lakers one cent but did pay the league a 6 million dollar fine in 1980s dollars.

I agree with Mike M that the Kings will file for relocation in March 2011 and San Jose is the most logical bet.

They can renovate the arena while the Sharks, Kings, and Warriors share the Oracle Arena for 1 season much like what the LA Lakers/Clippers/LA Kings do now in the Staples Center all the time.

The Warriors would reap quite a bit of money in that one season on top of some sort of one time payment.

Pretty dumb to assume Cal Expo would be OK with moving to a smaller site. Now the Kings are done in Sacramento as taxpayer money will not be used and renovating Arco Arena costs almost as much as building a new arena not including land costs.

Hence why the Maloofs never proposed renovating Arco on top of the fact they want to be in a Downtown location.

San Jose has what Sacramento does not. Wealthy fan base, corporate support, and a downtown location.

This is a no-brainer, the Kings are done in Sacramento much like the A's in Oakland and the 49ers in San Francisco.

Like the 49ers and A's the Kings too will see the logic of moving to San Jose.

It is only a matter of time..

The Maloof's have options if they choose so.

Anaheim, CA
Newark, NJ
San Jose, CA
Pittsburgh, PA
Louisville, KY

All 5 of those arenas are looking for 2nd tenants.

Tulsa, OK has a new arena as well and Las Vegas, NV keeps flirting with the idea of a new arena. Eventually Sacramento won't be able to hold out without the NBA's Board of Governors forcing a relocation or sale for that matter.

As history has shown the last 10 years, the NBA is not afraid to relocate teams. Just ask the cities of Vancouver, Charlotte & Seattle. They'll do it, no matter how great the history and rabid the fan-base. They want modern arenas.

Personally, I think Newark, NJ has the lead on any team like Oklahoma City did once the Hornets played at the Ford Center for 2 seasons. If Newark, NJ can support the Nets, I'm sure the Kings or anything other NBA team looking for a new arena in the near future (example: Milwaukee Bucks) will have to consider Newark a serious option.

The Arena is there, they get to showcase it for 2 NBA seasons and there is a network in the New York/New Jersey media market that has now Fall/Spring sports programming and that's the Mets/Time Warner/Comcast owned SportsNet New York (SNY) that only carries Mets baseball.

Newark will get a serious look once the Nets move to Barclays Center in Brooklyn, NY.

@kombayn- The NBA will not move a 3rd team into the New York/New Jersey market.

It would mess up the division alignment big time to have the Kings move East.

It makes more sense to move somewhere to stay in the same division. San Jose makes the most sense.

Paying off the Nets/Knicks will cost a "ton of money" being in such a lucrative market.

Too bad the Nets are moving to Brooklyn as the new arena in Newark is more than sufficient.

If Anaheim was the running up before the Grizzlies went to Memphis and have been thrown around as a possibility for the Kings to relocate to Honda Center. Newark is more than sufficient and could actually support a 3rd team no problem. The Nets have even told Mayor Brooker and the State of New Jersey they wouldn't stand in Newark's way of getting another NBA franchise. The NBA and the Kings have a ton of arenas to look at if Sacramento doesn't work out. If the Maloofs were willing to sell, then I think the Sprint Center & AEG would be interested in making a deal to get the Kings to Kansas City. It's business, you have to strike at the right time.

The NBA officially bowed out of the "arena chase" in Sacramento in an email yesterday. More here:

www.sacbee.com/2010/09/29/3064331/cal-expo-rejection-sours-nbas.html

Things are going to start moving quickly now. Both the NBA and the Kings have rejected the idea of renovating the current arena.

There simply is no middle-ground here.

@Sid-they can't play hockey in the Oracle as there's not enough room for the ice surface. Even if you removed seats, it would create thousands of obstructed view seats where the fans wouldn't be able to see one of the goals (kind of important in hockey) like was the situation at America West Arena (or whatever it's called now) in Phoenix for the Coyotes.

They could renovate, particularly the lower deck to make it more of a shared facility rather than a hockey-preferred facility that can accomodate basketball, but it would have to be done gradually over a summer or two or three as Madison Square Garden is doing. That's not only going to cost money in construction costs but lost revenue from concerts/circuses/etc. They wouldn't be able to do a complete gutting (a la Oracle in '96-'97) unless the Sharks want to play at the Cow Palace, which ain't gonna happen.

Add Vancouver, BC to the list of relocation cities for the Sacramento Kings to look at.

Howdy I am so excited I found your web site, I really found you by accident, while I was looking on Google for something else, Regardless I am here now and would just like to say many thanks for a tremendous post and a all round exciting blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to go through it all at the moment but I have bookmarked it and also added your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read much more, Please do keep up the awesome work.