I missed this the first time reading about the NBA's new line of credit with Bank of America, but it struck me as odd the second time around. Here's the pertinent quote from Commissioner Stern, courtesy of the AP:
“They told us there’s no chance of any additional funds being raised for any sports league, and indeed, the credit facilities that had come up for other leagues were being termed out rather than renewed."
Here is what I am struggling with as I read that quote: To which league(s) is Mr. Stern referrring? Is he claiming that the NBA is more financially stable than the NFL? That the banks would rather loan money to his league than to Bud Selig's?
I don't pretend to have in-depth financial information on those leagues, but even a cursory look at the figures would tell you that's a bit odd, no? Ask yourself the question - you have unlimited funds and are looking to loan money to a professional sports league, with no emotional attachments to accompany the purchase, what league are you looking at first? Who's more likely to pay you back, the owner of the Kansas City Chiefs, or the owner of the Oklahoma City Thunder? The Tampa Bay Bucs or the Orlando Magic?
Hey, if Stern is referring to the NHL, I've got no quibble with that. Or, if he's talking about the PGA Tour, or the Arena League, fine, I can accept that. NASCAR, sure, I can see it. But to throw out a blanket statement like "no chance of any additional funds being raised for any sports league," then paint yourself as the only league that's worthy of getting those funds, well, I've got to question that kind of a statement.
Maybe there's something I'm not seeing here, but it sure seems as though we're just being fed some more well-seasoned NBA BS by the King of BS himself.
Monday, March 2
Friday, February 27
Sacramento Arena Coming, Well, Sort Of
Actually, not really. Oh, yes, plans were unveiled today at a meeting at the Cal Expo, but that's all, just plans. According to the folks on hand, everything is in place, except:
1. A developer
2. A request for proposal
3. A possible tax "increment"
None of which are available at the moment. "This is not a shovel-in-the-ground project," said John Moag, an NBA consultant.
Now that's an understatement. To quote Moag once again, "This is not a project that's going to begin this year."
The reasoning for that last tidbit is the economy. Which leads this observer to wonder, if this project won't get underway until the economy turns around, and the economy is not expected to turn around for at least another year or two, just how much longer are the Maloofs willing to stick around at Arco?
Also of note, the fact that board members of Cal Expo were kept in the dark about the proposal until the very last minute, which is not altogether unsurprising considering that the NBA had its hand fully around the preparations.
Assemblyman Dave Jones (a board member himself) told KCRA in Sacramento, "I think that in most public bodies I've been a part of, actually all public bodies I've been a part of, board members have an opportunity to see a proposal before the board meeting. So it's a little strange."
Kings fans, we know how you feel. This whole plan sounds suspiciously like the detail-free plan Clay Bennett foisted upon the Washington legislature, then, after watching it fail, pointed to as his excuse for leaving.
For the sake of the good fans of Sacramento, let's hope that's not the case this time.
1. A developer
2. A request for proposal
3. A possible tax "increment"
None of which are available at the moment. "This is not a shovel-in-the-ground project," said John Moag, an NBA consultant.
Now that's an understatement. To quote Moag once again, "This is not a project that's going to begin this year."
The reasoning for that last tidbit is the economy. Which leads this observer to wonder, if this project won't get underway until the economy turns around, and the economy is not expected to turn around for at least another year or two, just how much longer are the Maloofs willing to stick around at Arco?
Also of note, the fact that board members of Cal Expo were kept in the dark about the proposal until the very last minute, which is not altogether unsurprising considering that the NBA had its hand fully around the preparations.
Assemblyman Dave Jones (a board member himself) told KCRA in Sacramento, "I think that in most public bodies I've been a part of, actually all public bodies I've been a part of, board members have an opportunity to see a proposal before the board meeting. So it's a little strange."
Kings fans, we know how you feel. This whole plan sounds suspiciously like the detail-free plan Clay Bennett foisted upon the Washington legislature, then, after watching it fail, pointed to as his excuse for leaving.
For the sake of the good fans of Sacramento, let's hope that's not the case this time.
New Lawsuit for Aubrey McClendon
It's tough to keep up with Aubrey McClendon's legal proceedings and financial undoings, but a new case showed up today, in this case a class action suit from the firm of Izard Nobel LLP directed at whether or not Chesapeake Energy and its directors violated federal securities laws.
Call me crazy, but wouldn't it be interesting to find out how much of that $200 "It's Not a Bailout!" million David Stern has acquired for his teams is going to our friends in Oklahoma City? Of course, we all know how popular the team is there, if by popular, that is, you mean "drawing the same television numbers as MacGyver re-runs."
Call me crazy, but wouldn't it be interesting to find out how much of that $200 "It's Not a Bailout!" million David Stern has acquired for his teams is going to our friends in Oklahoma City? Of course, we all know how popular the team is there, if by popular, that is, you mean "drawing the same television numbers as MacGyver re-runs."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)