Why would any city want this dysfunctional “business” of the NBA? The Maloofs just said that the arena deal in Sacramento, which they just turned down, would not work for the Kings. That deal was better than the deal Hansen has offered to Seattle and King County. If the Sacramento new arena deal would not work for the NBA team, the Seattle new arena deal sure as hell is not going to work for an NBA team, either.
I just don’t get this. Why would Seattle want to get involved in a venture which is basically guaranteed to be a failure, both for the city and the team(s) in the new arena? What is the point of that? Is is just sheer and utter stupidity on the part of our elected idiots? Or, is there something else going on here?
I agree with Grover. But I’m also fed up with extorting cities for deals. It SHOULD be that, if a city/county/state funds a stadium for 100 million and the team is worth 300 million, the funding governments should get a third of the equity of the team – with the owner having the obligation to buy back that equity over a 20 year period of time. Funding sport stadiums disgusts me, and I’m a huge sports fan who enjoys going to games.
But I’m also not naive enough to think this would ever happen.
But I also think the NBA is the worst run of any of the five major leagues, and am not bothered by their absence. I agree with whoever said that, in any year, only five teams have any real shot of winning it all. Even worse than baseball.
I’m not a fan of taxpayer money being used to build facilities for private businesses to operate from (and earn profits) instead of those businesses paying for it themselves, but I recongnize that I’m a walking anachronism in a time and place where people so easily turn to the government for solutions instead of themselves…you know, like Americans used to. This IS Seattle in 2012 we’re talking about.
In response to Grover’s main question about why anyone would want a dysfuctional business like the NBA back in Seattle, I liken it to that middle-aged guy with a receding hairline and expanding paunch who wants to get a Porsche or a Lamborghini as compensation, only (in this case) everyone else has to pay for the car.
I like Mark’s idea (below) and would like to take it three or four steps further and ask why a city like Seattle doesn’t go into the sports business? If teams bring so much to a city in the way of increased tax revenues, tourism, and status, then why not invest in a team as though it were infrastructure? If all it takes is a bond to build an arena, why not another bond to buy a team? They kinda go together, nes paus? Yet cities and team owners keep butting heads trying to outwit each other? Issues like who is going to spend the money for traffic revisions are resolved. As a citizen, I would be much more inclined to vote for a bond to buy both a team and an arena, even if I had zero interest in sports, then I would for a bond to buy an arena for some private owner. Just as I might support a bond for a new art museum even though I have no interest in art. It’s good for the cities image and has value. But would we support a bond for a new art museum if that museum was privately owned? Since only Green Bay, who kinda bought the Green Bay Packers, has done what I am talking about, I must be missing something?
Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.