Something else that rubs me the wrong way about this Kings business.
The Kings where relocated from Kansas City. They wouldn't be there without a city having its team taken from them. Now its possibly about to happen to them and there is this outcry.
The Sonics were founded in Seattle and were there for 30+ years.
It's totally different situation to me.
Fair point, but in KC they were the 4th biggest sports draw in the city behind the baseball Royals, Chiefs, and Tom Watson.... while raking in around 6k-7k in attendance per season. If Sacramento was like this then I'd agree, sure you can point to the last 4-5 years but the owners had already began alienating fans years ago. KC losing the Royals was textbook in why the NBA chooses to relocate teams.
My biggest thing is, what has Sacramento done to lose the Kings?
Is it wrong for Sacramento to actually want the Kings to stay here indefinitely? Take me as a child for example... I moved to about 8 different cities as a child. Should I be ok with moving almost every year? Or should I hope to have some sort of stability eventually?
One day, I hope that Sacramento can become a Seattle, a Dallas.... and I 100% believe that this will start the revitalization of the city, starting with the birth of an actual urban core in a non-existent downtown. I'm sure you've been here, or at least heard about what Sacramento is like.
If we, as a city, can fund this project while being financially responsible (as I believe we are), then I don't understand what the issue you have with the term sheet we have in place.
Every point you've tried to make about the agree upon terms the city has submitted to the NBA, has been wrong and erroneous, so please point out what you don't like about the deal.
