I confess that I have not been much of a fan of the NBA for
many years, at least since the Lakers-Celtics rivalry of the 1980s passed on.
Since the Sonics left town, in the generality it hasn’t been a devastating blow
to the Seattle’s psyche, and even the Seattle Storm winning two WNBA titles
since has done nothing to inspire public rumblings for the “real thing.” This
is not to say that there isn’t a significant fan base that “misses” the NBA
here. It is clear that once Chris Hansen and his group showed that once someone
got off their fundament and put a plan into action, “fans” will react
positively provided someone does the work for them.
The Seattle Times
has been no cheerleader on the side. Maybe Editorial Page Editor Kate Riley
hates basketball or sports generally, and right-winger Bruce Ramsey doesn’t
like “black” sports (football uniforms tend to obscure skin color). After the
NBA relocation committee voted down approval of Sacramento’s move to Seattle—having
given the city an obscene amount of time to put together an owner/arena plan
that ignored past efforts that initially looked good but ultimately failed—the Times plastered a deflated basketball on the front page of the
newspaper.
It is no secret that NBA commissioner David Stern has no
appreciation for the Seattle market, and even if everyone knows that his little
pow-wow with state legislators concerning a publicly-funded arena back in 2007 was
a public relations farce, it was unwise for legislative blowhards to act just as
pompous as he does. The result is that there is no doubt he had a hand in the
relocation committee’s vote. In the meantime, the NBA owners apparently do not
want to tell the Hansen/Ballmer group “no” on their offer, since it is not only
superior to Sacramento’s, but a great deal of hard work was put into it; they
want Hansen to give-up the fight on his own, but Hansen apparently is not ready
to give in just yet.
And why should he? Sacramento is “only” the fourth iteration
of the Kings, so it isn’t as if franchise moving is “new” for this team. In Sacramento
it failed to have a winning team for its first 13 seasons. From
2000-2005 it managed to be competitive, even reaching the Western Conference
finals one season. But it hasn’t made the playoffs the past seven years, all
losing seasons. This is a team in need of a makeover.
Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson’s hot air won the day with
the relocation committee, and the NBA apparently puts great stock into his poor
stepchild publicity stunts. But he and the Sacramento investment group has
offered a “plan” that could fall apart at any time. There is significant
opposition to spending $250 million in public money on a new arena in
Sacramento when there is a significant shortfall of funding for public
education. The idea of increasing parking meter rates to raise revenue for a new
arena has begged the question of why not use that new funding source for other
needed social services; besides, the funds raised from this source likely would
fall well short of the most optimistic projections.
Some have also pointed out that the Sacramento city council
is being asked by Johnson to accept the plan on faith without any study, unlike
the Seattle plan which has been debated for over a year. What happens if the
public funding option falls through? The biggest investor in the current
Sacramento group is worth $500 million, while the rest are relatively small
potatoes. This isn’t the kind of “deep pocket” that multi-billionaire Steve
Ballmer represents. One wonders just how many chances Stern thinks Sacramento deserves
to get its act together, and why NBA owners would think the Sacramento
investment option is even comparable to the Seattle option.
No comments:
Post a Comment