Home › Forums › Open Discussion › No sonics please
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 3, 2013 at 4:23 pm #607007
mpentoParticipantI’m just posting for two reasons. The first is that I don’t want to see a basketball team come to Seattle. Mainly because I don’t like to see this ownership of Seattle by a few people and it is the equivalent of “McMansion” with a citywide impact. Also when all the propaganda dies down I don’t believe the ticket buyers will be there and then it turns into a citywide damage control agenda.
However the other reason I’m posting is I don’t really hear any voice against this agenda being given much media time. Are there not people in the city making decision system who are able to stand up and say wait a minute this might not be the best idea. I hear a few rumblings but they don’t get any traction and the port of seattle lawsuit to me looked like a token opposition just to make a play for a slice of the pie.
So if you want to reply to this post I’d love to hear if you are for or against the current deal. If I’m in the minority then OK but at least I’m on record so I can come back later and say I told you so because I REALLY like to be able to say that :)
April 3, 2013 at 4:49 pm #787326
JiggersMemberI like sports, but to a certain point. If the Hansen group paid for the new arena with their own money, I’d have no problem with them bringing a team in. But using public money to partially fund a very high risk investment entity to help pay for it, doesn’t go over well with me regardless. Facts are that very few sports franchise owners make money. Remember Howie and the former Sonics? They were in the hole. Stop giving in to the big pockets.
April 3, 2013 at 8:33 pm #787327
wakefloodParticipantSorry, I’m for it. It’s not that I don’t get your point – because I do – it’s just that some of what you’re basing your discomfort about isn’t true.
The Hansen group has put together arguably the LEAST financially impactful arrangement for the city/county ever. Sure, there’s some skin in the game for bond guarantees that COULD be realized if revenues fall short – but the deal is as good as it gets. And the owners are putting almost 3/4 of a Billion dollars together out of their own pockets to do it.
While it is sometimes true that sports owners lose money on an annual basis – even that’s rare as they hide income all sorts of ways – they virtually ALWAYS make a fine profit when they sell. It’s like owning a Picasso more than it is a standard business.
BTW, Howie wasn’t in the hole – he had a bad arena revenue deal and didn’t want to sell to his minority partners who would have gladly bought his share. How bad could they have been doing if there were owners lined up to buy them – including LOCAL owners?
The answer is that the dynamics are changing now in favor of the owners who can put together regional media/broadcast entities. THAT’S where they’ll make their annual nut and still have a ton of profit when they sell. Large markets – like Seattle – will do just that.
This isn’t going to play out like you hope, but I get why you feel like you do.
Go Sonics!
April 4, 2013 at 4:45 am #787328
FionaEnzoParticipantUgh. More traffic in that area. Seriously 3 big sports venues in such a congested area. I do not understand the planners. Seems short-sighted to me. Full Disclosure: not a professional fan. Given way too much importance. I was rooting for the Longshoremen’s protest. Now that was a Team I could back.
April 4, 2013 at 9:37 am #787329
JiggersMemberWakeflood.. Now I’m going to have to dig up that piece where I read that the Sonics weren’t making money when Shultz sold it. Howie wanted the public to pay for a new arena but the public voted no on it. That was the the killer.So now the public is gonna loan a billionaire and his millionaire buddies money to build that arena? Am I missing something?
April 4, 2013 at 11:50 am #787330
wakefloodParticipantYes, well, you can certainly find reports from NBA owners claiming they’re losing their shirts. They wanted to rework their labor agreement with the players for years and they cooked their books. At least the ones who might plausibly “look” like they were losing money. And you should notice that both Howie and even the completely messed up Sacramento ownership – the Maloofs – are going to make a few hundred million dollars on the sale of their franchise.
And as I said before, this arena deal has been looked at by several knowledgeable experts and found to be as good as it gets. The public money is in guaranteeing the bonds as insurance if the revenue stream doesn’t cover the payments. It doesn’t prevent the city from issuing other bonds for whatever they want and it isn’t money out of the general fund. It may not cost the taxpayers a single penny if revenue projections are in line with reality. And the city has an asset after the lease is completed. You can certainly say that you don’t like a penny of public money going to things like this, and I get that. But the deal is sound and it’s going to happen.
April 4, 2013 at 3:38 pm #787331
mpentoParticipantI think the thread so far makes my point. Three against and one for (if I can be so bold to put posters on a side) but the “knowledgeable experts” have spoken and the the deal is sound and its going to happen” I think the discussion on the pros and cons are good. I also think that there are many people who don’t like the deal but take the position of “oh well I don’t want to deny the fans their basketball team” Wakeflood on one paragraph you explain how creative the NBA owners are in cooking their books but still hold on to the idea that the deal is as good as it gets. This is what makes me nervous.
April 4, 2013 at 3:56 pm #787332
HomerParticipantNo public funds for “a game” and I’m *more* okay with it but again, who’s smart idea was it to put 2 now maybe three giant stadiums in one of the most congested areas in the state? Why not have them outside of the downtown area so people going to games won’t interfere very much with people trying to get home from work to lead actual lives!?
April 4, 2013 at 3:56 pm #787333
DBPMembermpento, hi!
First, I’m on your side, so that’s four to one.
I don’t think the City has proven the theorem that this (or ANY) stadium can take in more money through the back door than it loses from the front.
If someone can show me, using solid accounting, how the Dim-dome, Slaveco, or Q-wurst stadiums were a net gain for Seattle, I’ll be happy to reconsider. Until then, two thumbs down on Schmansen Arena.
But pshh! Ya think the City really cares what you and me think?
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
I kinda have to disagree with you that the response you get on a Blog thread proves anything.
Trust me: There are LOTS of sports fans. Here, there and everywhere. But you’re not gonna see ’em pipe to defend the City’s actions now, why would they? It’s a done deal.
‘cepting of course for wakeflood, but that’s just cuz he’s such a stand-up guy!
Good karma, wakes. But your arena still sucketh the salty one. Nothing personal.
April 4, 2013 at 3:59 pm #787334
The Velvet BulldogParticipantmpento: you’re not alone. Though I will say that I’m not so much *against* it as I kinda just don’t care about sports. I get the arguments about revenue, etc. but I’d rather the rich folk put money toward schools, parks, etc. Something that would improve the quality of life for a lot of people and not just entertain a few.
April 4, 2013 at 4:40 pm #787335
DBPMemberNot care about Sports?
Not care about Sports?
What the hell IS there to care about then?
Wait a minute . . . let’s see here . . .
You said brzz-brrzz-brzzz . . . and . . . um-um-um [inaudible] . . .
Â
Never mind
April 4, 2013 at 4:40 pm #787336
wakefloodParticipantLet me see if I have this right, mpento, you start a thread specifically asking for responses from people who don’t like something, and then when a majority of responders don’t like it, you exclaim a wide margin of support for your idea?
Alrighty, then.
And just so you know, I was against Mariners stadium because it had a LOT more public $ involved.
There’s lots of pros and cons that could be discussed about why it’s located where it is and I don’t think it’s anything close to a slam dunk that it should NOT be located in SODO. I know some urban planners and they’re certainly not alarmed about the location per se – urban planners tend to create density because sprawl sucks for everyone. And like anything else, in a situation where there’s some logic to a particular decision to do something, execution is the thing that makes or breaks it.
Regardless, I only chimed in on this thread originally as a way to offer some facts for the non-supporters to take into account. I certainly understand your concerns. I just find them significantly less compelling than you do.
(And they did have over 44,000 people go online in just a few days and suggest they’d buy tickets.)
Additionally, I support being taxed for almost EVERY civil improvement that supports a functioning urban society. Lived here all my life. I don’t have kids but vote for every tax levy I get the chance to. I vote for libraries, transit, swimming pools and baseball fields, parks, clean air, water, police, etc., etc.
This looks like a good deal to me. If it doesn’t to you, I respect that. :-)
April 4, 2013 at 4:42 pm #787337
DBPMemberBy the way, I was at the park yesterday.
Where the hell were all the so-called park fanatics? Heh?
April 4, 2013 at 5:08 pm #787338
DBPMemberGood deal, wake? Yah, maybe. In the total scheme.
But technically, it’s still gonna be a money loser. Just like parks and museums.
And yeah, even some school systems. (Not sayin’ any naaaaaames but . . . starts with “Sea” and ends with “ttle.”)
All I say is let’s get the money-loser thing out there and stop wasting time on financial falderal. Let’s put our chairs in a circle, all say our first names, and admit that we are powerless over sports and that our lives have become unmanageable.
There is no shame in this whatever, people. It’s a disease, remember? Not a sin.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
So Schmansen Arena is going to LOSE MONEY, but that’s OK, because it will STILL going to bring joy to the hearts of Seattle.
I get that now, and I’m good with it.
Just be honest about that, Seattle.
Have I ever asked you for anything more?
Have I ever given you anything less?
Honesty!
April 4, 2013 at 5:24 pm #787339
wakefloodParticipantDyn-o-mite idea, DBP. ;-)
And before you get too carried away, that whole honesty thing about money-losers has lead to the concept of privatizing purdy much ANYTHING. Including, but not limited to: Prisons, Schools, War-making, Roads, Bridges, Fresh Water, Power, Parks, yada yada. And I’m not exactly sure how you want to quantify our record on the success/failure rate of that list, but at first blush, it’s not a sterling record. Enron, anyone? Blackwater? Univ. of Phoenix?
April 4, 2013 at 5:26 pm #787340
OrobMemberGo Sonics!!
I am very hopeful they will return, and I will be there to enjoy this part of culture that speaks to me. If you are deeply concerned about traffic, or the diversion of public funds form more needy causes – please read up. If you just don’t like sports, or it’s not your thing – I totally understand. We all have different tastes.
April 4, 2013 at 5:39 pm #787341
WorldCitizenParticipantResponding to the traffic congestion issue, I think this could potentially help with the future implementation of public transportation projects. It seems pretty obvious that demand is what drives these things going in. Wouldn’t this help increase demand? It seems like one more reason to accelerate non-road grade transportation options to outlying areas (ie: West Seattle, Ballard) to relieve some of the added traffic burden.
What say you…unreasonable assumption?
April 4, 2013 at 5:56 pm #787342
wakefloodParticipantOne can hope, WC, one can hope.
You know one thing that gets overlooked so often with event parking is if you have a well-coordinated and consistently executed plan for mass ingress and egress, you get tons of efficiency out of existing capacity.
By that I mean, buses queued up in appropriate and close by places. Well coordinated traffic police and timed lighting at all major intersections nearby, and you can push tons of folk in and out pretty quickly. Conversely, if you leave it to individuals to do the stupid things they often do, you get mayhem. Laminar flows faster than chaotic.
And it’s a fraction of the cost of adding capacity. Not that extra capacity isn’t helpful too…
April 4, 2013 at 5:59 pm #787343
HomerParticipantUhhhh….last I looked there is a huge demand for buses right now and yet they STILL have to cut routes due to budget shortfalls….not all about demand.
April 4, 2013 at 6:10 pm #787344
wakefloodParticipantYes, that was discussed attached to the WSB blog posting. It wouldn’t be a funding issue if people paid the true cost of the service. We don’t. It’s subsidized to the tune of around 50%. And it probably should be one of those things that IS subsidized.
It reduces SOVs and that’s always a good thing for congestion. Not to mention the C02 reduction.
The question is, what are you willing to pay for as a society? Most of the rest of the industrialized world understands that heavily subsidizing transit is way up the list of making urban life livable.
We want to fly first class but we only want to pay for coach. So, what else is new?
April 4, 2013 at 6:20 pm #787345
JiggersMemberThere’s an article n the Times today that David Stern told Sonic fans “not so fast.”…lol
April 4, 2013 at 6:34 pm #787346
wakefloodParticipantHe’s trying to save face with the Sacramento group. Hansen’s offer is too good for NBA owners to pass up. He didn’t think Sacto would put together anything that meant he had to publicly turn them down for Seattle. They cobbled together a plan that looks functional on the surface but isn’t anywhere near as solid.
Stern has to look like he thinks it’s a close race. And in the end, he’ll use the rest of the ownership group as cover when he announces the move.
I could be wrong…but I’d put money on it. :-)
April 4, 2013 at 9:51 pm #787347
JiggersMemberGot to love the wishful thinkers..
April 4, 2013 at 10:14 pm #787348
wakefloodParticipantWe’ll know in a month or less. I’ll check back in on this thread after the announcement and we’ll see who was wishful…
April 4, 2013 at 10:37 pm #787349
JiggersMemberI know you will check back. And if they do get a team, you’ll stick your chest out and say I told you so. Do yourself a favor and no need to remind if they pull a rabbit out of the hat.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.