What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What if the Kings were to move to Vegas? (1 Viewer)

Yogibear

Footballguy
All right, let's face it.  Sacramento is the one city in America that's least deserving of a major sports franchise.  The four major professional sports rank in this order: NFL football-1st, NBA basketball-2nd, MLB baseball-3rd, NHL hockey-4th.  I've already said that St. Louis is the most boring sports city in America because they took the top two major professional sports for granted (football and basketball) and drove both of them out of town.  Another major U.S. city to do so is what St. Louis did is San Diego.  But, the focus is on Sacramento and how that city doesn't deserve a major professional sports franchise.  I remember going through Sacramento before I started kindergarten and I'll be the first one to say it: there's nothing in Sacramento that's worth seeing.  So how the hell did the Kings end up leaving Kansas City in 1985 for Sacramento?  I'm petitioning the NBA to do something with the Kings to get them out of Sacramento.  They've already tried to move them to Seattle and become the new version of the SuperSonics, but that fell through.  Here's an idea: why not move the Kings to Las Vegas?  I mean, they're already getting the Raiders in 2020.  So why not move the Kings from that hellhole in Sacramento to Vegas?  Not only that, but they've hosted an NBA All-Star Game.  It only makes sense for Adam Silver to move the team to Vegas in the future.  Does moving the Kings from Sacramento to Vegas make sense?

 
Kansas City built the Sprint Center to attract an NBA or NHL franchise. I could become a Kings fan. 

 
I was in Vegas for the All Star game. Vegas probably would pay the return postage if the Kings showed up on the doorstep.  Freaking nightmare.

 
Sacramento just built a new arena for the Kings.  The Kings lease runs for 34 more years.

New buildings are under construction in Milwaukee and SF so the oldest arena in the league (excluding MSG) will be in Minneapolis, Salt Lake City and Phoenix.

 
I remember going through Sacramento before I started kindergarten and I'll be the first one to say it: there's nothing in Sacramento that's worth seeing. 
Just want to be sure here.  You are saying you strolled around Sacramento at age 4 and told yourself the town sucks?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Cities that should get a BB franchise:

  • KC
  • STL
  • Syracuse
  • Seattle
  • Louisville
  • San Diego
San Diego has nowhere to put a basketball team, and unless the arena is fully funded by an ownership group, the laws there make it nearly impossible to use public funds for one (which is a good thing for the people--publicly funded arenas and stadiums are a rip-off).

They also don't really care all that much.   They already lost the Rockets and the Clippers.

 
publicly funded arenas and stadiums are a rip-off).
This is a discussion in itself, but the state built Superdome in NO built in 1975 has seriously been worth it. There have been other issues and all cities are different but that by itself was great.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a discussion in itself, but the state built Superdome in NO built in 1975 has seriously been worth it. There have been other issues and all cities are different but that by itself was great.
Depends what you think "worth it" means.   Since Benson is already trying to leverage the end of his lease in 2025, additional renovations estimated at $200M-$500M are going to be necessary to keep the Saints in the Superdome (and possibly additional subsidies to ownership).   That will mean that taxpayers will have paid about $1.5 billion to renovate it (including the emergency repairs), and pay Benson (nearly $600 million so far from subsidized lease deals in 2001 and 2009) to keep the team there.   That doesn't include the original cost of construction in 1975.   

The Saints generate about $70 million a year to ownership and have a value of about $1.7 billion--almost exactly what the taxpayers have put in if you include original construction.   All of the revenue and the value of the team goes to the ownership.   Essentially, Louisiana taxpayers have paid the cost for one of the richest people in the country to own a football team.   

 
Depends what you think "worth it" means.   Since Benson is already trying to leverage the end of his lease in 2025, additional renovations estimated at $200M-$500M are going to be necessary to keep the Saints in the Superdome (and possibly additional subsidies to ownership).   That will mean that taxpayers will have paid about $1.5 billion to renovate it (including the emergency repairs), and pay Benson (nearly $600 million so far from subsidized lease deals in 2001 and 2009) to keep the team there.   That doesn't include the original cost of construction in 1975.   

The Saints generate about $70 million a year to ownership and have a value of about $1.7 billion--almost exactly what the taxpayers have put in if you include original construction.   All of the revenue and the value of the team goes to the ownership.   Essentially, Louisiana taxpayers have paid the cost for one of the richest people in the country to own a football team.   
Yeah that's what I mean by other issues. However the original cost of the stadium has been worth it vscwhat we have gotten.

I have a big problem with the cash that goes directly into Benson's pocket. However tourism, including sports tourism, is what we do, that is our industry.

 
Nugget said:
Kansas City built the Sprint Center to attract an NBA or NHL franchise. I could become a Kings fan. 
It would be like the Hurricanes moving back to Hartford . Ain't ever gonna happen

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top