You missed the part about AEG's contribution to this arena: About $50M. It's in the last paragraph.

For that, I assume they'll want 100% control of the arena and the same profit-"sharing" arrangement Kansas City received.

To recap, the plan Think Big proposed said 1/3 of the money would be from the City, 1/3 from private sources, and 1/3 from users. Never mind that the 1/3 from users actually IS taxpayer money.

But wouldn't this imply that if the City contributed $150M, that'd be more than 1/3 of the money towards the arena? Sounds like the City's job is done here.

How is charging the users "taxpayer money"?

Dan, it's taxpayer money because it has to assume that money is being used to repay some sort of debt. The builder will not want their money over a period of 30 years; they'll want their money when the building has passed final inspection.

By far the most common way to pay off the construction is through general obligation bonds. Now, maybe someone will come along and suggest selling bonds privately -- there is that.

But that's not the way this is usually done. User fees usually go to pay off general obligation bonds that paid for the construction. That is taxpayer money.

There are some exceptions to this -- but not many.

You can put all kinds of things into term sheets that the prime tenant will pay off the bonds through ticket surcharges, but, you know, 10 years into the deal, things aren't going so well... The taxpayers end up paying the bonds instead of the prime tenant. Happens over and over again. I would say it's the number one problem with these deals.

May not happen in this case, but I'd bet on it happening. Hamilton County is a perfect example of this tendency.

On top of that "user fees" have a public cost because typically "user fees" can be politician speak for a whole suite of taxes and fees which may or may not actually be born entirely by stadium users.

Increased parking fees around the stadium and hotel and restaurant taxes increases have been repeatedly been described as "user fees" when actually much of the money comes from activities that have nothing to do with the stadium.

Hamilton County was always paying off Cincinnati's stadiums with tax money. If the Kings use a ticket surcharge that solely applies at their own arena, that wouldn't be public money.

Neil, when the money is raised that way and it goes toward paying off a bond issue backed by a general fund, it really is taxpayer money... At least, it is when the revenues don't roll in as anticipated, which is something that happens way too frequently.

I still think they're putting the cart before the horse here anyway. We know the debts ($473M) and now we have a guess at the amount the lease-out of the garages will raise (at most, $193M) and how much AEG will pay ($50M); can we get some sort of indication as to where the remaining $230M will come from? We are certain we'll have that bridge to cross; I don't think it's too soon to think about our approach to it. We sure can't wait for the actual bids to come in (in June of 2012).

If that $230M turns out to be grant from Intel, then I guess all my criticisms go away. But I don't expect that's how it will work out.

There's also the $9m/year in parking revenues that has to be made up. I agree, I don't think they're close. Clearly the Maloofs think they're close enough to keep negotiating, though.

I wonder if MSG's troubles with TimeWarner are playing any role. The whole gambit here is that the Maloofs could get a heckuva lot from FoxSports West because the Lakers are moving off the network next season (or maybe it's the season after).

The Honda Center being renovated is a canard because even after renos it has too small a lower level, too few seats on the sidelines and a lower bowl that loses too many prime seating areas for basketball. In short, if you put the renovated Honda Center in Sacramento, the Kings would still probably be threatening to move.

It is also a possibility that the fact that the Clippers are showing signs of life is affecting the Maloofs attitude (or, vice versa I suppose). With two competent franchises in LA it makes Anaheim less attractive, I'd think.

The only thing that Anaheim offers to a team relocating there is strong tourist dollars. From my experience, getting out to Staples Center seemed either daunting (I don't know the city that well) or too expensive (I was quoted a 125$ cab ride to get there from Disneyland). So yes, the Honda Center offers up some close proximity.

But, I can't imagine that there are hordes of people going to Anaheim on a vacation who have never had the opportunity to see an NBA game in their life that they'll want to drop everything and go see the Kings. Some? Yes. Enough to pack a building 41 nights a year - probably not.

I think the Ducks get tourist dollars based on the fact their tickets can be had pretty cheap. And selling cheap tickets seems to defeat the purpose of moving in the first place.

230M is about right of a shortfall. Bank of America stated the parking #s were inflated big time and need to re-adjusted.

If I am the Maloofs, a 230M gap is a close as they have ever gotten to a new arena is Sacramento. If it takes another season then so be it.

As for Anaheim, the Honda Center is far superior to Power Balance Pavilion in every way. Beautiful suites, concourses and sight lines.

For basketball only a few modifications would be needed and those are minor and most would not even notice them.

The problem I see with the Kings staying in Sacramento is even with an new arena they are small market and will suffer long run the way Indiana, Charlotte, New Orleans are right now even with nice arenas.

Even Memphis with a great arena is struggling to make $$ and their owner has wanted out for years but cannot find someone to buy and keep the team in Memphis.

In Anaheim, regardless they would make money with a better TV deal, richer fans, and luxury suite sales.

The NBA never ceases to amaze me on how they favor big market teams over small market ones....Stern is an idiot.

SJSB (or anyone else who cares to answer), I've read this parking document numerous times, and it sure seems to me that the meters cannot be included in the $170M-$245M range the Bee keeps saying. The document cites the state law that specifies revenues raised from parking meters must go to parking and/or right-of-way expenses. So the real range is $129M-$185M -- and then they must pay off existing bonds ($52M) when they agree to the lease-out, since they'd no longer be tax-exempt.

So the real range is $79M-$133M for their parking, and then they lose a $9M revenue stream.

$133M for a $9M revenue stream seems awfully cheap to me.

Here's the document for my figures:

sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=2856&meta_id=377142

The NBA never ceases to amaze me on how they favor big market teams over small market ones....Stern is an idiot.

*************************************

You are an idiot. Why would anyone choose Sacramento over OC?

Sacramento is nothing but a bunch of overweight bread gobblers with an iq of a earmite.

Anaheim Royals is far greater than the Sacramento(Oklahoma of Northern Cal)- warm weather and beautiful beaches with real women awaits the Maloofs as opposed to a land locked meth adoring waste land.......

Get real.

The Maloofs should be bending the knee to even having a chance to play in Orange County....

Newport Beach or Rancho Cordova?