This will largely be between Yolo County, Sacramento County, West Sacramento, and Sacramento. I think the mayor of Yuba pretty much just cut himself out of the loop a bit.

No the Yuba City mayor probably just jumped the gun in announcing it. KJ surprisingly seems to have had a plan this whole time, and it being announced that they're going to form a JPA obviously isn't something he wanted out yet (or he wanted to announce it since he's been the nexus of the efforts to keep the Kings).

Given that the arena probably would be located in Sacramento, it makes complete sense to me that the mayor of Sacramento would announce the formation of a JPA. But this 6 county region is so incredibly large, it's hard for me to see what would be in it for, say, the community of South Lake Tahoe. What are they going to do, hold high school graduations in the new arena?

To my way of thinking, Yuba, Sutter, El Dorado and Placer counties will eliminate themselves from this plan entirely.

Neil, as you know, I spent time in NYC two summers ago. Great city, I loved it, etc, that's not really the point. The point is that NYC, if it was in California, would be about 14 cities (and I'm not trying to exaggerate). Basically, the JPA the mayor in Yuba City "outlined" would have been about like asking Niagara Falls to participate in building the Knicks a new arena.

I can see small parts of Placer participating in this; I really can. Roseville? Granite Bay? Rocklin? Sure. But once you get past Auburn, I think the level of resistance would be overwhelming.

I'm starting to warm up to the idea of moving it to near Thunder Valley Casino and letting Placer County pay for it. I'd be wildly enthusiastic about that plan.

I think I have a legit question here, though: We've been told the Comcast deal in Sac is $11M, and the new TV deal in SoCal would be $20M. Second, I bet the Warriors TV deal would be at least $5M higher than it is now. Put these two together, and this looks like a net gain of $14M.

I'm sure the NBA would rather see a net gain of $20M, but why would they not settle for $14M when they think it probably WILL be $20M within 3 years? That sounds like a "good enough" to me.

MikeM

I do not understand how Placer County, Roseville, Granite Bay, and Rocklin can just sit idle while we are talking about Placer, Yuba, Sutter, and El Dorado County. That's a real head scratcher. I too don't see what those counties could offer unless for some unknown reason they need those counties to get involved in order to get the indian casinos involved (Yeah I know it's a complete shot in the dark).

Mike, you left out the $15 million a year the Lakers say they would lose, plus whatever hit the Clippers would take. If those numbers are accurate, the net gain would actually be a net loss.

John, the counties wouldn't participate, just selected cities that are part of the Sac Metro Area -- like El Dorado Hills -- would.

It doesn't have to be the entire county. If Rocklin decided to participate, I don't think Placer County would care or mind one bit.

The most likely cities and towns to participate from the other counties are those that are part of the metro area. It might make sense for Roseville; it would not make sense for Colfax.

But there is a problem with even this: El Dorado Hills, Granite Bay, Roseville, Rocklin, etc, would not opt in. They're too politically conservative. They're much closer to Dallas than they are to SF.

Neil: I bet the Lakers would be able to reach a compromise decision. The Royals wouldn't take Laker fans away; this wouldn't affect their ratings. They'd just add NBA fans. Really, getting from Costa Mesa to Staples is not easy. That's a very long haul.

I understand that county government and city government are different entities. Just surprised (although yes conservative) that throughout the last 10 years we have not heard much of a peep out of those parts of Placer County.

John, I am not surprised even a little that Granite Bay hasn't stepped forward. People talk about regions of CA that are solidly "blue" (like SF) and solidly "red" (like Bakersfield). That line runs right through Sac Metro; the area where I live is quite "blue." No, it's not SF, but definitely majority Democrat.

I bet Granite Bay is 75% Republican. There's no way they'd voluntarily "save the ball-bouncers."

Interestingly, though, is that I bet there's little difference amongst Dems and Reps on this issue. If you vote, you're probably against it. The margin by which Q&R lost was not a fluke. 80-20 means hardly anyone voted for it.

List of the sponsors totalling $10M was just announced.

blogs.sacbee.com/sports/kings/archives/2011/04/mayor-releases.html

Pretty unimpressive. I'm surprised the local pet store wasn't listed.

Bill Simmons' column on this subject is long #as usual#, funny #as usual#, and spot-on #as usual##

Don't miss it#

sports#espn#go#com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/110425&sportCat=nba

I really do think contraction is a possibility.

I have absolutely no idea where those pound signs came from. Comical!

I swear I didn't type it that way. I'm going to leave them, though, because they look so silly.

Anyway, breaking news... The Maloofs might have just sold the Palms.

Nah contraction isn't a possibility. The league would loose too much money in a contraction. What is possible is the THREAT of contraction being used in the upcoming CBA negotiations.

You have a link to the Palms news or was that just a joke I missed?

John,

Rickrolled was I. Sorry.

The Maloofs, Anaheim officials and NBA reps are meeting today via teleconference.

www.ocregister.com/sports/-298076--.html

What does it mean when the Maloofs won't talk to anyone from Sac, but they're in a teleconference with the NBA and Anaheim officials?

Just thought I'd ask.

It means they're being told what the relocation committee has found and giving the Maloofs and Anaheim one last chance to add their two cents. We should know in 48 hours what the Maloofs will do with the information if they file or not. But it seems apparent the committee has decided against them and will inform the owners of that which will likely spur a vote against the move. Leaving costly litigation the only way the Kings play in Anaheim in 2011-12 (assuming they find a way to make up for the $75 million they lost when the bonds from Anaheim got locked up in an election in the fall of 2012).

Dan, if the Maloofs are "forced" to stay in Sacramento, you simply have no idea how ugly it's going to get.

Now, maybe that meeting this morning was only to make sure all parties where there when Stern ripped them a new one -- he wanted to give all of them the treatment at the same time, but what would you rather have?

1) A meeting with your mayor, NBA officials and business leaders your owners may or may not want to deal with, or

2) A meeting with your mayor, NBA officials and the team owner who desperately wants to leave the town in (1)?

I can see there's a chance they'll stay. It may even be 70-30 at this point. But staying reluctantly is not a good thing. The customer experience and the team will be really awful next year. Look for the Maloofs to spend as little as they can get away with, to the point of actual fan discomfort.

Staying is stupid when we know they're leaving afterwards.

It's very unlikely the team will be awful next year regardless of what the Maloofs do. Their play on the court improved dramatically over the second half of the season, and they won 8 of their last 15. If they bring Dalembert back they should be a .500 team next year. Even if they don't, with a healthy Tyreke, Marcus Thornton and DeMarcus Cousins returning and Beno coming off probably his best season, the Kings have a very talented young core and should win at least 30-35 games.

I'm also not necessarily buying the liberal/conservative split or the 80-20 vote against Q & R as reflective of public opinion. I work in the liberal Sac Metro area and live in ultra-conservative Cameron Park, just up the road from El Dorado Hills. My sense is that the Kings have as much, or more support in the surrounding, conservative foothills than they do in the more liberal Sac metro area, and I'm pretty sure most of the season ticket holders come from the outlying areas. I sense much stronger opposition to public financing for a Kings arenas from my progressive friends in Midtown than from my conservative neighbors. Regarding Q & R, that was a deeply flawed measure (only 1/4 of the money from the tax arena was even going toward an arena) and by the end the Maloofs weren't even supporting it. By the end nobody was supporting Q & R but that's not the same as saying that nobody supports building a new arena. The success of the Here We Purple campaign last week -- which seemed to genuinely impress Clay Bennett -- is more reflective of the passion that greater Sacramento has for the Kings. Another measure is the Here We Build grassroots campaign. They've raised almost $1 million in pledges for a new arena through social media over the last couple weeks, mostly in $20-$50 increments. Although not as well publicized as KJ's corporate campaign, it's probably more impressive and a better measure of community support.

KJ is also proving himself to be more politically savvy than any of us expected. My hunch is that he will put together an arena financing deal that will include public financing but not a public vote, which from his perspective would be too risky.