Rumor Denied
Posted on Monday, September 17th, 2007 at 8:43 am by Brian Robinson
While neither intends to go on the record with this matter it appears as if both the team and the Muckleshoots have denied this rumor. They state flatly that no deal has been reached and todays announcement will be in regards to feasibility only.
Fake today does not mean fake tomorrow. There always has been a lot of truth to the Muckleshoots desire to get things done and for all we know they are making their play right now. This could have been floated as a way to determine what kind of “buzz” involvement will generate for the tribe. It could have been floated to force people to address their offer as real. It could have even been put out there to force Seattle politicians to understand that they may be facing a competative venue sometime soon. Lastly it could have been premature but still truthfull in that a deal is getting hammered out even as we speak.
I believe sincerely that there is great pressure being applied to ownership to find a deal that makes decent financial sense. The teams best opportunity to relocate out of the region was to slip quietly out of their lease and make a quick move without heavy scrutiny. Since that is no longer an option there are forces in the media, league, civic leadership, and even within the PBCs own ownership group which are pushing to find a way out before this gets extremely, extremely messy.
Always interesting…
September 17th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Oh well, at least things are moving in a positive direction. I’m guessing that the results of the feasibility study are going to be positive towards having an arena in Auburn.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:02 am
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/sports/articles/0917mercurynb0917.html
Looks like Westhead’s still a candidate for asst. coach.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Whatever happens, when a deal finally does get done, will someone please make the Sonics sign a 40 year lease so I dont have to live through this situation again!
September 17th, 2007 at 9:31 am
I knew that thing last night was too good to be true. No way this thing is ever going to be that easy. Really, did we all for a few moments actually believe that the Okie’s would just agree on an arena here? lol. In our dreams. That was a cruel joke played on all of us, for sure. Oh well. Yeah, I guess the stuff about the feasability study somewhat helps us in this battle. Key word, somewhat. We still have a slimy bunch of Okie scum owning the team, remember?
September 17th, 2007 at 9:43 am
So, is there going to be a press conference today at 10am, or was it cancelled?
September 17th, 2007 at 9:48 am
“So, is there going to be a press conference today at 10am, or was it cancelled?”
From everything I’ve gathered the original press confrence is still on. There doesn’t seem to be anything out of the tribe that would have cancelled that.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:50 am
[...] both parties are vehemently denying the rumors. You can read what Brian had to say right here. Regardless of whether there is an official deal/proposal, most [...]
September 17th, 2007 at 9:53 am
“Really, did we all for a few moments actually believe that the Okie’s would just agree on an arena here?”
While I didn’t think it was a slam dunk, I tought there was a solid chance it was true. There’s too many things going on league wide to have a team and a city go to litigation at this point IMO. Clay and his side have one agenda, get a team to OKC. If getting an arena deal done in this market gets them an expansion team in thiers they’ll sign tomorrow iwthout thinking.
“Yeah, I guess the stuff about the feasability study somewhat helps us in this battle.”
Somewhat? If its shown as a completely viable interest for the tribe, the city and the county as well as being a working solution for hte team that carries a lot of weight especially given Aubrey’s claim that they know they can’t make as much in OKC as they can here.
“We still have a slimy bunch of Okie scum owning the team, remember?”
Calling them that doesn’t help anything. Just so you know.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:54 am
So…if the Muckleshoot do come up with an offer does anyone think that’d spur the City of Seattle from trying to beat that offer and keep them at the Seattle Center?? I still can’t believe the City would just let them walk away
September 17th, 2007 at 9:57 am
OTH…after reading this article in our local newspaper:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003888002_brier17.html
I forget that yes…I still live in Seattle…and many people in Seattle seem to have odd views on popular culture. Seriously… are you kidding me??
September 17th, 2007 at 9:57 am
OTH…after reading this article in our local newspaper:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003888002_brier17.html
I forget that yes…I still live in Seattle…and many people in Seattle seem to have odd views on popular culture. Seriously… are you kidding me??
September 17th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Oh I know it doesn’t help Scott. But I’m not the one doing business with them. What I was getting at is that as long as we have the OKC boys owning the team, who have pretty much admitted that they have been in exit strategy from day one, this thing is going to be an uphill battle. Yes, if they are guaranteed a team in OKC, they’ll leave the Supes here and be fair with the city/region. But until that happens, you are going to have a really tough time getting me to believe that they would truly work with us to keep the Sonics here.
Back to the rumor for a sec. Do you guys think that there was anything at all to it? Or was it just mixed signals? I’m feeling it was the latter. I noticed that the guy who posted it on his blog hasn’t posted anything since. Oh well. Let’s just hope that the old, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” saying holds true.
And one last thing. Not to get too conspiracy theory or anything. But did anybody notice the only blog comment left on that guy’s blog? It was one person posting twice, “This is flat out untrue. How dare you post lies” or something to that effect. Maybe it was just some annoying OKC fan. Or maybe it was somebody in the know, either having ties to the ownership group or the city of OKC itself? Why else would somebody so assuredly chop down that rumor?
Back to the grindstone guys. This would’ve been a dream. But we have to keep at it as if nothing has changed. The tide is seemingly turning on our side with our politicians and leaders seemingly. Let’s hope we can keep the momentum going.
September 17th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Does anyone have a feed for the press conference or know where to get any coverage about it?
September 17th, 2007 at 11:14 am
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2007/09/17/daily4.html?jst=b_ln_hl
here’s an update on the press conference
September 17th, 2007 at 11:25 am
I don’t quite like the tone of the article. 18,500 seats isn’t a whole lot more than the Key. And no additional lux-suites isn’t a good thing either.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:33 am
“I don’t quite like the tone of the article. 18,500 seats isn’t a whole lot more than the Key. And no additional lux-suites isn’t a good thing either.”
Those are the same specs the sonics used for the arena plan in Renton.
What matters to the team would be more space around the concourses for increased amenities and the parking revenue from the garage and the surface parking.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:38 am
I’m wondering how they propose to have it paid for….that’s the big question…would it require corporate investors? Would the tribe be willing to contribute to it? I’m glad it saves $78 million, actually more than that, with the land already owned, but the million dollar question (or $452 Million Question) is how does it get funded, now that we know what it will cost?
Clay is still gonna pitch a hissy fit because his whole goal is to have eveyone else pay for it.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Nothing in this study about who would pay for the arena, or how much revenue the arena might generate. Aren’t those important questions?
It does say that the Seattle area luxury suite market is “saturated.” That is one of the reasons why it might make financial sense for Bennett to move the Sonics to OKC — he might be able to sell a lot more luxury suites in OKC than in the Seattle area.
I would say this report tells us just about nothing. Is that all there is?
September 17th, 2007 at 11:43 am
I believe clay’s proposed arena had fewer suites than the key as well.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
“It does say that the Seattle area luxury suite market is “saturated.” That is one of the reasons why it might make financial sense for Bennett to move the Sonics to OKC — he might be able to sell a lot more luxury suites in OKC than in the Seattle area”
There are far more fortune 500 companies in Seattle than OKC.
“I believe clay’s proposed arena had fewer suites than the key as well.”
I believe the Key currently has 50 suites. Eight of the original 58 suites were converted to the Lexus Lounge and the XO Club.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
“There are far more fortune 500 companies in Seattle than OKC.”
Yes, but Seattle has about 200 luxury suites combined in Safeco and Qwest Fields that need to be rented every season, also. An NBA arena in OKC would not have competition for luxury suite sales from the NFL or MLB. That is the point.
Quite frankly, if Bennett really wants to move the Sonics to OKC, I think this report gives him all the ammunition he needs, if he needed any more. I’m quite sure the NBA will look at this independent report (independent of the Sonics, anyway), that says luxury suites in this area have reached the saturation point, as all the reason Bennett needs to argue that OKC is a better location for the Sonics than the Seattle area. Especially when they see that many of the suites in KeyArena have gone empty the past few years, and attendance has not been great, either.
If this is all there is in the Muckleshoot report, I don’t see much positive in it for keeping the Sonics here. Just depends on whether the Muckleshoots want to pay for a new arena or not. If they will build it with their own money, then I suspect the Sonics will stay. If not, who is going to pay for it?
September 17th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
From the Times:
“Rollin Fatland, a Muckleshoot spokesman, said the tribe is willing to pay for development of a financing plan if there is interest from the Sonics and political leaders.
“Fatland said it is likely taxpayers would be asked to contribute to the arena project.”
Same old, same old. Same deal as Renton — taxpayers would have to pay for it.
Fuggetabout it.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I just read the entire feasibility study that was provided in PDF format in the Seattle Times story. It looked very positive.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
the amount of suites was never what was wrong with key arena. the lack of concourse space, parking revenue etc was. the renton arena had fewer suites proposed than the key.
also, I don’t buy the lack of competition thing as a great argument. my company has a suite a safeco, the key, the gorge and white river amp. wish I was important enough to go! several large businesses have more than just one suite to keep up with their year round businesses.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
There is a clear difference between the Renton proposal and the Auburn proposal if it is made, the Renton proposal was to be entirely financed by taxes. I would imagine the taxpayer cost on this project would be less because of contributions by the Muckleshoots and the Sonics, combined with the lower overall cost of the project.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
It still has to go to a vote, and you can bet the CFMIT will rabble rouse again.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
If that is all there is, then I don’t see it making much of a difference. I was/am thinking the Muckleshoots were/are going to put up much more $ or even buy and build themselves, with the govt paying for infrastructure improvements.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I like this quote from Jason Thompson, a senior associate for Brailsford & Dunlavy, on what needs to happen regarding financing an arena:
“We have to move into consensus building stage. We can do what has been done the past five years, which is in isolation put together a financing plan and run it up the flagpole to see if it works. The other approach is to go out and touch all your bases, find out where everybody is and put together a financing plan that makes sense.”
If all parties can get together and try to hammer something out that is satisfactory enough for everyone then I can see a scenario where passing something through the legislature isn’t nearly as difficult as it has proved to be in the past; as long as political leaders are involved in the process from here on out.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
“If this is all there is in the Muckleshoot report, I don’t see much positive in it for keeping the Sonics here.”
Dipper, whadya mean “here”? If you were from here you wouldn’t be making such sweeping, stupid, uninformed statements about how this team is out the door, and how nothing’s changed when that’s quite the opposite of what appears to be happening.
The people of OKC who’ve gotten themselves invested in this thing enough to troll Seattle boards and act like locals cracks me up. You remind me of the idiot waiting for the bus that stands in the middle of the street to see if it’s coming yet. You may or may not get an NBA team, but have a little f’ng dignity and wait.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
the one positive if it has to come down to taxes is that chopp will likely say “yes” to anything from the Chute
September 17th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
“If that is all there is, then I don’t see it making much of a difference. I was/am thinking the Muckleshoots were/are going to put up much more $ or even buy and build themselves, with the govt paying for infrastructure improvements.”
Are you guessing this based on the biz journal article? Is there anything else written about the report? I think a lot of people are jumping to conclusions about what the Muckleshoots are/aren’t going to do in terms of financing. If they aren’t going to be paying for a huge chunk of it, then why the hell are they paying for a feasibility study on an arena that will never be built?
September 17th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
“It does say that the Seattle area luxury suite market is “saturated.” That is one of the reasons why it might make financial sense for Bennett to move the Sonics to OKC — he might be able to sell a lot more luxury suites in OKC than in the Seattle area.”
It says the market is saturated, thus you don’t add more. Suites and seats aren’t the big things here, its parking and amenities revenue which drives NBA franchises these days.
The parking as listed for the building would allow for 1500 garage spaces (say $20 each), another 2000 surface level parking slots ($10 each) and Emerald Downs parking for the overflow ($5 each). There is no legit parking outside those lots, unlike what you find at the Key. Just using a limited math I came up with 2.5 million extra dollars a year in parking (assuming normal parking costs, if your team starts winning you can raise those prices). Same thing happens with food, instead of going to Queen Anne to find suitable dinner before the game there becomes a larger proportion of the fan base which does its eating at the games too.
The other thing the team will look for is to capitalize on other events which the building could attract.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
“If they aren’t going to be paying for a huge chunk of it, then why the hell are they paying for a feasibility study on an arena that will never be built?”
Furthermore, why would they be willing to pay to come up with different financing structures if they weren’t part of the equation?
September 17th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/331974_arena18.html
Here is the P.I. story on it:
“This is a feasible site,” Thompson said. “That does not necessarily mean that it’s financially feasible and that’s what we need to study next.”
The Muckleshoots have not offered one dollar towards the construction cost of building an arena. They have offered the land for it. Finding land to put it on has never been the problem. The only problem is finding the money to pay for it. The Muckleshoots have not even begun looking into how it would be paid for.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Chopp will be a yes to a package proposed by the Muckleshoots since they are his primary financial supporters. If you look at all the key “leaders” involved in this proposal you will see they all get huge financial benifits from the tribes. It also would explain why he stonewalled the Renton deal.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
“If they aren’t going to be paying for a huge chunk of it, then why the hell are they paying for a feasibility study on an arena that will never be built?”
Because they want someone else to pay for an arena built on their land. Just like Sabey.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
“The Muckleshoots have not even begun looking into how it would be paid for. ”
You know this how?
You don’t do a feasibility study without looking at the financing of a project.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Dipper:
Do you have any other encouraging optimism you would like to share with us about what has been happening with the Sonics in the last 24 hours? I heard Robert Swift had a tummy ache last night. Do you think that might mean he’s out for the season?
P.S. Are you perhaps a sports writer that goes by the name Art Thiel by chance?
September 17th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
“The tribe is also willing to pay for Brailsford & Dunlavy to take the next step and begin studying whether a financial plan can be raised to accommodate the plan.”
Read the P.I. article I put a link to. The next step is to study whether a financial plan can be raised to accomodate the plan. If this is the “next step”, then I would assume it has not been done yet.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
How did you know that I am actually Art Thiel?
September 17th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
“If this is the “next step”, then I would assume it has not been done yet.”
That’s a plan with all parties together. You don’t pay for someone to put that plan together without knowing what you’re willing to put in.
Based on a newspaper article you’re trying to make this a hell of a lot more complicated than it really is. As a project developer I know basically where I can go on a project before I put it out to bid. I’d assume that a group that’s built a casino, an amphitheater a bingo hall and is in the process of building a new hotel might know a thing or two about project management.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
I do have to agree with big dipper a lil bit here though. I don’t see how this is THAT much different than the original proposal. all summer we heard the shoots were looking to build an arena. turns out they may only be giving up the land. I don.t see how this is much different than renton donating $100M to the first proposal.
how does this change anything? all this shows is now we’re back at square 1 with an even less desirable location.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Big Dip,
Are you serious?
Land has never been the problem?
In case you have not noticed dirt in King County is VERY expensive. The reason that the Bellevue proposal was as much as the Renton proposal, even though there were 6,000 parking stalls within walking distance, was because the cost of the dirt.
I guess you must have 26 acres next to a freeway interchange just laying around?
That is a significant investment.
Yes the financials need to be worked out, but they will need to be worked out no matter where the site is.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
“all this shows is now we’re back at square 1 with an even less desirable location.”
Where do you people come from?
Here’s the report:
http://tinyurl.com/2sxlgr
For those who don’t want to do their homework, this report is overwhelmingly positive. Dipper, you should dip back to OKC, because you’re full of shit, seriously. I’d argue with you if you weren’t just trolling, but you are.
For people like Kyle, who actually expected the Muckleshoots to come out and say that they’re going to pay for the whole damn thing, snap out of it. This thing is moving in a very positive direction and a great deal of that is becuase of the efforts of people running this website.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I’ve got a post in moderation:
Basically, for the pessimists, put a sock in it and read this report. If you think that this in any way bolsters OKC’s chance of getting the Sonics you’re delusional.
The report is overwhelmingly positive. Also, in the way that the report attempts to explain why Seattle / Auburn is a great market for the NBA, you can see the more tacit implications that OKC is not an optimal market for the NBA.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
hey Kyle,
Lets at least see what the tribe is willing to put into the project before we cast judgements. I have a feeling they’re more willing to be involved than just land donation, but that’s just speculation.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
The puzzling thing is that Bob Santos said 6 months ago that this had no tax $$ involved. Now mouthpiece Fatland says it probably will. How do you figure?
September 17th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
“The puzzling thing is that Bob Santos said 6 months ago that this had no tax $$ involved. Now mouthpiece Fatland says it probably will. How do you figure?”
Asking the public to shell out $500 million is a little different than asking for infrastrutural improvements. Why don’t you wait to see what sort of figures get thrown around before you start bad-mouthing the people who could be saving your team?
September 17th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Yes, I am serious. Sabey has land. Renton has land. Auburn has land. They could build a new arena at Seattle Center, and would not have to pay for the land. There are many sites where they could build a new arena. The problem is how to pay for the arena. There is no problem finding a site to build on.
September 17th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
no offense, but i’m upset that this site would post ‘we win! sonics saved!’ last night. thats messed up. i know you were just excited. but still, not cool. i never saw the edited title last night and was so upset when i logged on today. i told everybody i knew last night and now i have to call them all back looking like a fool. i hope you’re more careful in the future. keep up the good work. .
September 17th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
and dipper, go back to your okc board. show a little class.
September 17th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
I have a feeling they’re more willing to be involved than just land donation, but that’s just speculation.
From the PI article:
Thompson said no decision is in place over who would own the arena at this point.
“Absolutely not,” he said. “That should be part of the financing plan. Actual ownership of the building is a key deal point in paying for it. The one part of the financing plan that has been incorporated is the tribe’s participation. They are willing to contribute this site at no cost to the project.”
Wouldn’t that statement imply that donating the land would be the total financial participation of the tribe?
September 17th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
It still has to go to a vote, and you can bet the CFMIT will rabble rouse again.
- My question is now with the whole lease law being passed how does the government aruge that the team does not provide an economic impact if/when a vote on taxes comes up again??
September 17th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
“Absolutely not,” he said. “That should be part of the financing plan. Actual ownership of the building is a key deal point in paying for it. The one part of the financing plan that has been incorporated is the tribe’s participation. They are willing to contribute this site at no cost to the project.”
Wouldn’t that statement imply that donating the land would be the total financial participation of the tribe?
To me, that statement implies simply that the only thing set in stone financially is that the land won’t need to be paid for, that’s it.
Fatland was talking about the Muckleshoots paying for a good deal of the arena construction costs before, so I think they’re just being cautious about letting that number out too early.
September 17th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Fatland was talking about the Muckleshoots paying for a good deal of the arena construction costs before, so I think they’re just being cautious about letting that number out too early.
- Well I guess my argument W/R/T the Muckleshoot is if all they are willing to give is the land then it makes no sense to develop a tax package for that area. If the Arena itself is going to be fully funded by tax payers it makes much more sense for it to be built in Renton, Sabeyville, or the Seattle Center.
To me, the ONLY way it makes sense for an Arena to be built in Auburn is if the Muckleshoot are willing to pay a significant chunk of the cost. It is (IMO, and we’ve been over why I think this) clearly the least desirable site.
September 17th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
“Wouldn’t that statement imply that donating the land would be the total financial participation of the tribe?”
Or that that’s the only part of the feasilbility study that’s been performed. And at this point that’s where they stand. Look you can’t tell someone before you sit down and negotiate exactly where you’re looking to be at the end.
One thing that you can take to the bank is that they’re not going to donate the land without getting anything back or they’re not going to donate the land for the arena without there being something in it for them. Once all parties are at the table, then you can have your package sitting there to look over.
One thing that’s very interesting is the wording in there about them being willing to pay for the next part of the study which breaks down costs. From what I’ve seen they were specifically vague on how this thing would be done because they want to make sure they get all parties to come meet with them.
September 17th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
I totally aggree Myk. The only way Auburn is even a consideration is if there’s some financial incentive for the team.
I think people are getting ahead of themselves, maybe due to last night’s rumors, but I wouldn’t imagine the Shoots publishing ANYTHING concrete regarding financing at this point. The report was so overwhelmingly positive, it almost seems like it was intentionally slanted that way. One step at a time.
September 17th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
One thing that you can take to the bank is that they’re not going to donate the land without getting anything back or they’re not going to donate the land for the arena without there being something in it for them.
The clear benefit to the tribe is having an arena next to their casino. That’s a huge incentive for donating the use of the land as well as paying to put together a financial package.
September 17th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
this is what i’m getting at:
santos said lat out this wouldn’t cost taxpayers anything other than infastructure and now it appears taxpayers will be paying the bulk of it. we’ve been waiting this long for…..land? we have land at seattle center. renton was willing to shell 100M for clay’s palace which should’ve offset the land costs. I don’t know why clay would take this seriously. he’s gone looking for taxes before and came back empty.
September 17th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
“The clear benefit to the tribe is having an arena next to their casino. That’s a huge incentive for donating the use of the land as well as paying to put together a financial package.”
Sure, but what’s the incentive to anyone else? No one’s going to change their mind about funding an arena because it’s in Auburn and not Renton. Why would they pay for a feasibility study and financial package on something that’ll will never happen?
If the Muckleshoots aren’t going to make it easy to build a stadium in Auburn, then it’s not going to get built, IMO.
On the other hand, why would the Muckleshoots come out and say how much they’re willing to pay for now? Why put all of your cards on the table before everyone else?
Although the arena would benefit the casino, there’s definitely risks involved for the stakeholders. I think Fatland’s motivated by the potential revenues the arena would bring in, and I also think that he wants to become a local hero.
September 17th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
“and now it appears taxpayers will be paying the bulk of it”
Kyle, I just read the entire report and all of the related articles I could find, and I didn’t see anything about how much tax payers, the team, or the Muckleshoots would be paying. I think you’re drawing conclusions on your own.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
On the other hand, why would the Muckleshoots come out and say how much they’re willing to pay for now? Why put all of your cards on the table before everyone else?
To generate some interest in the study instead of having people speculate, “Oh… is that it?”
I not saying they need to commit a specific dollar amount but implying that the only contributions are the land and funding the financial package study, isn’t going to foster a great deal of excitment for the results of this study, imo.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
[i]and dipper, go back to your okc board. show a little class[/i]
Just a hunch but dipper might be Apostle from the P-I forums. Last night Apostle posted the same link Brian did from the from the history guy’s blog. It appears Apostle lurks here now and then.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
“renton was willing to shell 100M for clay’s palace which should’ve offset the land costs.”
Actually Renton said their bonding limit was $70 million.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Last night Apostle posted the same link Brian did from the from the history guy’s blog. It appears Apostle lurks here now and then.
Apparently, you didn’t compare posting times.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
I posted on History Guys site and called him out for the lie. He deleted my post. What a loser.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
The History Guy UPDATED his site, admitting the inaccuracy, apologizing, and blaming sources.
“Our apologies to all readers and visitors to this website for the partially inaccurate content of the last posting. We were right about the news conference being at Emerald Downs, and that it concerned the Muckleshoots and the Sonics. Obviously, the part everyone really cared about was the possibility that the Sonics would move to Auburn, and thus stay local. Our source on this story is trustworthy, but their inside sources were inaccurate and/or untrustworthy. Hopefully a deal can be made which will bring the Sonics to the south end, rather than letting them go the way of the old Seattle Pilots.”
September 17th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Big Dipper, you are way off. This whole relo isn’t about the economic viability of Seattle. It’s about a venue, plain and simple. Go back to OKC. :rolleyes:
September 18th, 2007 at 12:46 am
big dipshit = chris van dyk
September 18th, 2007 at 8:28 am
The study done for the Muckleshoots was negative for a new arena anywhere in the Seattle area. You should try reading it.
It says that the Seattle area (not just Auburn) will not support any more luxury suites or club seats than are now in KeyArena. That is well below the league average in both. This is a major reason why the Sonics’ revenues are below most other teams. This is a big problem.
The Muckleshoot study also says that businesses in the Seattle area are just not very interested in NBA basketball, which is why very few of them get luxury suites in KeyArena. Big problem.
If I was Bennett, or Stern, I would read this study as very negative for keeping the Sonics in the Seattle area. Why would you want a team in an area where the businesses interviewed in this study say they are not very interested in luxury suites or club seats at an NBA arena?
September 18th, 2007 at 9:02 am
“The study done for the Muckleshoots was negative for a new arena anywhere in the Seattle area. You should try reading it.”
Here’s the Summary. Why don’t you point out how this study is negative about an arena in Auburn.
1.0 Executive Summary
Brailsford & Dunlavey has completed a feasibility study for a potential new events center in Auburn, WA to provide a home for, among other potential tenants and events, an NBA franchise. This study was initiated by the Muckleshoot Indian
Tribe and considers the feasibility of a specific site currently under their control. The scope of work included a demographic and drive-time analysis, a series of corporate interviews, a program and site capacity analysis, and the development of a preliminary project budget. The findings are summarized below according to the goals of the effort and are detailed in the following sections of this study.
1. Market Accessibility
The size of the market accessible from the Auburn site within 30-, 45-, and 60-minute drive time areas is slightly lower yet consistent with that of comparably sized NBA markets.
Compared to Key Arena, the Auburn location is consistently accessible to a larger market within 30-, 45-, and 60-minute drive time areas.
Household incomes in the Key Arena and Auburn site drive time areas are similar with Key Arena having noticeably higher access to higher income households within a 30-minute drive.
The portion of the Auburn location drive time area population fitting the target market is higher than that of Key Arena across all drive time areas. While the differences may be considered negligible, the analysis reveals at a minimum little if any discernible difference between the markets accessible by Key
Arena and the Auburn site.
2. Corporate Market Accessibility
The current premium seating market in the Seattle region is extremely competitive and nearing saturation. The luxury suite inventory in a new events center should not be considerably higher than that at Key Arena and be complemented by a comparably modest number of club seats.
The corporate market expressed support for a new events center in Auburn, but also qualified that support. First and foremost it was clear that the quality of premium spaces and pricing structures must be consistent with that at Qwest Field and Safeco Field. Also, specific perceptions must
be overcome, including an assumed location on the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe reservation and a lack of client demand for professional basketball.
Corporate interest in the Auburn site is restrained with higher preferences given to Seattle, Bellevue, or Renton. Nonetheless, the business community would support the Auburn location if it is the only option that would ensure an NBA presence in the region.
The regional business community is willing to support the development of a new events center in Auburn despite it not being the preferred location. Other locations are considered more attractive, but the business community will back
any solution that ensures an NBA presence in the region. Local corporations are cognizant of the premium seating marketplace, the standards established at Qwest Field and Safeco Field, and will expect similar premium facilities, amenities, and advertising inventory at a new events center.
3. Site Capacity
The proposed site includes 26.4 acres, 23.8 acres of which is assumed available for development.
The 777,000 square foot arena would occupy approximately nine acres. A 1,500-space parking garage would occupy 2.2 acres and 1,821 parking spaces would be provided on 12.5 acres.
The proposed site can support an 18,500-seat arena, a parking garage with 1,500stalls, and surface parking for 1,821 cars. Overflow parking for 3,400 cars can be
accommodated in the adjacent parking lots serving the Emerald DownsRacetrack.
4. Preliminary Project Budget
The project budget for the events center, inclusive of hard costs, soft costs, and specific infrastructure improvements is estimated to total $383,612,000. With ancillary costs associated with the on-site parking, the total preliminary project budget is $415,044,000 in current dollars. The budget does not include land acquisition costs as it is assumed the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe will provide the site at no cost to the project. With the potential start of construction in 2009, the preliminary project budget is predicted to escalate to $451,989,000.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:20 am
“I not saying they need to commit a specific dollar amount but implying that the only contributions are the land and funding the financial package study, isn’t going to foster a great deal of excitment for the results of this study, imo.”
Well, I think you’re right about that. I think what’s exciting to me is that the Muckleshoots, unlike these f’ng bureaucrats who’ll let this thing fester until it’s a legal battle, are actually getting things done and quickly. Hell, this report can be used in a multitude of ways to support the Sonics staying in the Puget Sound region, not just Auburn. What’s Gregoire, Nickles, or Sabey done for me lately?
September 18th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Here’s some more for you Dipper. Dipper, you still there?
…Washington, D.C., firm Brailsford & Dunlavey, a national firm that specializes in facility planning that performed for the study.
Thompson also listed a couple other factors that his company believes confirms the site could successfully house an NBA team.
A market accessibility study and drive-time analysis show no real difference in comparing the proposed location in Auburn with the Sonics current location at KeyArena.
Auburn is predicted to show positive growth in the targeted population for an NBA team, while the area around KeyArena is predicted to lose population from that targeted population growth area.
Seattle has the potential to be a lucrative NBA market because of its relatively small household size compared to other NBA markets, which leaves more disposable income for households to spend on entertainment opportunities.
“With all the talk of (Sonics) relocation (to another city) I think it’s important to understand that this market is a great NBA market,” Thompson said. “Any talk of relocation is related to the facilities. It has nothing to do with the market.”
September 18th, 2007 at 9:30 am
“this report can be used in a multitude of ways to support the Sonics staying in the Puget Sound region, not just Auburn.”
That same thing occurred to me–to some extent, I feel like the Muckleshoot tribe paid $100k to make a good case for using Sabey’s land instead.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:43 am
A market accessibility study and drive-time analysis show no real difference in comparing the proposed location in Auburn with the Sonics current location at KeyArena.
- I still question this assumption…but whatever works I guess…
- Can someone tell me how much money the Sonics were saving by getting the land for free in Auburn?? I still don’t see how this is that much better of a situation than Renton was etc.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:43 am
This study is negative about an arena anywhere in the Seattle area, including Auburn. I’ll just copy a couple of lines from what you posted here:
“The current premium seating market in the Seattle region is extremely competitive and nearing saturation. The luxury suite inventory in a new events center should not be considerably higher than that at Key Arena and be complemented by a comparably modest number of club seats.”
This is very negative, because KeyArena has way-below-average numbers of suites and club seats. And this study says any new arena should have no more than KeyArena. That is negative that the Seattle area will support only a way-below-average number of luxury suites and club seats in an NBA arena.
“Also, specific perceptions must be overcome, including an assumed location on the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe reservation and a lack of client demand for professional basketball.”
I have read the full study, not just the summary. In the study it says that they interviewed about 30 businesses, and that there is a “lack of client demand for professional basketball.” That is not just “perception” — it is reality.
So, there you go. The study says that there is little interest from businesses in the Seattle area or their clients for luxury suites in an NBA arena. And the study says that this, combined with other factors, means that the Seattle area would support a very low number of premium seats (including suites) in an NBA arena compared to other NBA arenas.
Big problem for any NBA arena in the Seattle area.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:46 am
“That same thing occurred to me–to some extent, I feel like the Muckleshoot tribe paid $100k to make a good case for using Sabey’s land instead.”
Yup, I thought about the same thing. And what’s up with Margarita Prentice not supporting the Auburn arena? She’s not a Sonics fan, that old biddy’s a mouth piece for somebody. It seems like Sabey, or someone else is quietly competing with the Muckleshoots to provide the land. Someone may have mentioned that idea on here before.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:02 am
“So, there you go. The study says (HOW ‘BOUT A QUOTE THERE BOSS) that there is little interest from businesses in the Seattle area or their clients for luxury suites in an NBA arena. And the study says that this, combined with other factors, means that the Seattle area would support a very low number of premium seats (including suites) in an NBA arena compared to other NBA arenas.
Big problem for any NBA arena in the Seattle area.”
Yeah, I read the whole report too, where the hell do you think I got the summary. BTW, I don’t think the well-known firm that put this report together was somehow blinded to their own findings as your fallacious and utterly retarded rebuttals seem to imply. That’s why I included the summary, because it’s a brief recap of what the firm found in the report. They don’t exactly leave you guessing as to what they found with their study, you just keep ignoring it.
And what it REALLY says is:
“The regional business community is willing to support the development of a new events center in Auburn despite it not being the preferred location. Other locations are considered more attractive, but the business community will back
any solution that ensures an NBA presence in the region.”
September 18th, 2007 at 10:03 am
“And what’s up with Margarita Prentice not supporting the Auburn arena?”
Santos didn’t support the idea in Renton either. All these guys have thier own priorities.
Now if she were to vote against a solution somewhere other than her own district there might be a problem.
“Can someone tell me how much money the Sonics were saving by getting the land for free in Auburn??”
The land in Renton was going to cost somewhere between 21-24 million dollars. The total cost for the plans in present day cost difference seems to be somewhere around 100 million less.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:14 am
This is very negative, because KeyArena has way-below-average numbers of suites and club seats. And this study says any new arena should have no more than KeyArena. That is negative that the Seattle area will support only a way-below-average number of luxury suites and club seats in an NBA arena.
- I was always under the assumption that one of the biggest reasons the team was losing money was that they don’t get as much of the Arena’s revenue as other teams in the NBA…due to the “worst lease in the NBA”…granted they’d make more money if there was more luxury suites that were purchased, but it hasn’t ever been THAT big of an obstacle.
Since you are so intent on this point then I would ask if you can go out and find similar markets to Seattle that house three teams and give me a total of the number of luxury suites available in the city. I mean if you are going to argue that this is a big issue then it really will be an issue throughout the country because Seattle does not lack corporate sponsers to buy these suites. Therefore, the arugment would basically be that a market of X size cannot support three professional franchises…I’m not sure I buy that argument without a little more data to back that up.
The land in Renton was going to cost somewhere between 21-24 million dollars. The total cost for the plans in present day cost difference seems to be somewhere around 100 million less.
- Could you take the same plan and transfer it to Renton and have the total only cost $24 million dollars more?? I guess I still don’t see the free land as THAT big of a deal. Of course, every single dollar counts so its not something to be laughed at…but I’ve never got the impression that the land was breaking point of the entire situation.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:18 am
“The current premium seating market in the Seattle region is extremely competitive and nearing saturation. The luxury suite inventory in a new events center should not be considerably higher than that at Key Arena and be complemented by a comparably modest number of club seats.”
This sounds defeatist to me–to the point of rendering the terms “competitive” and “nearing saturation” exclusive, at least where the Sonics are concerned. If you’re going to invest in a business have some faith in its becoming successful, or at least make allowances for that eventuality. If there’s an upper-limit to the luxury-seating market that doesn’t mean the current shares of other sports in it are fixed. If the Sonics put out good product (we have reason to be optimistic they will), surely they’d offer the competition some competition … if they didn’t expand the market as well.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:21 am
So the challenge has been laid out…based on media market size the most comparable markets with three teams are:
- Miami
- Cleveland
- Denver
- Phoenix
- Minneapolis
These markets (other than Miami and Minneapolis…for a little longer) have three teams with them each playing in different stadiums…they seem to be OK. I simply don’t buy the luxury suite argument.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:22 am
“- Could you take the same plan and transfer it to Renton and have the total only cost $24 million dollars more??”
I don’t know the answer to that. There is 6 more acres of land.
My guess is most of the savings is in the infrastructure upgrades that would be needed. This site is directly off 167 and basically would need an offramp to be constructed, the renton site had a few more challenges due to some environmental and grading issues in renton as well as the distance off 405 (which was not that great).
“I guess I still don’t see the free land as THAT big of a deal.”
I don’t think it is either.
One interesting thing I read in Eric Williams piece was the talk of lack of amenities around the site. The study saw that as a negative, the Sonics would see it as a positive. The secondary drawback of Key Arena is that there’s simply too many places to park for free and eat before you enter the arena (crappy food doesn’t help inside the Key).
September 18th, 2007 at 10:25 am
If there’s an upper-limit to the luxury-seating market that doesn’t mean the current shares of other sports in it are fixed. If the Sonics put out good product (we have reason to be optimistic they will), surely they’d offer the competition some competition … if they didn’t expand the market as well.
- I would agree with this…and I would say that the Seattle sports landscape is becoming more mature. Despite the Mariners being relatively (being kind here) bad for four years the team still has a decent buzz and seems to have been able to create a loyal fanbase…the Seahawks are the Seahawks…I just sense a shift in the whole fair weather fan thing as more people grow attachments to these teams.
People forget that my generation (25-34 year olds) are the first generation in this Region who grew up supporting these teams and for the first time most of us have entrered the point in our life where season tickets or going to games in general are a reasonable personal expense. As more fans enter this market who grew up supporting the team…you will start to build a stronger fan base in terms of loyalty.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Can someone tell me how much money the Sonics were saving by getting the land for free in Auburn?? I still don’t see how this is that much better of a situation than Renton was etc.
I agree. Today’s TNT article says the Auburn land was purchased in 2005 for $3.9M. According to today’s PI article, the Renton land was valued around $20M. That article also confirms what I was suggesting yesterday that the tribe wouldn’t be contributing any money to the project other than the use of the land. Seeing that the City of Renton was also willing to kick in $100M, it seems that there is no cost advantage to pursuing a deal in Auburn over Renton. Will the Renton plan now be revisited?
It seems it’s now entirely up to the Smith-Sabey-Watt trio to come up with a magic plan… good luck with that. Let’s hope the Oct 31 deadline is completely meaningless, cause ain’t nothing gonna happen before then.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:24 am
“- Miami
- Cleveland
- Denver
- Phoenix
- Minneapolis
These markets (other than Miami and Minneapolis…for a little longer) have three teams with them each playing in different stadiums…they seem to be OK. I simply don’t buy the luxury suite argument. ”
Phoenix and Denver (not sure about Miami) keep hockey in the same arena, which certainly changes the demand for suites as two sports which share suites will up the demand.
I hope it doesn’t come down to Seattle needing NHL to partner with NBA.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:25 am
I just don’t see how Cleveland can successfully handle three franchises and Seattle cannot…the wealth contained in these two areas are not similar
September 18th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Cleveland is actually only slightly behind Seattle on disposable houeshold income. They have a pretty high number of Fortune 500 companies there.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
“I just don’t see how Cleveland can successfully handle three franchises and Seattle cannot…the wealth contained in these two areas are not similar.”
The culture over there is more conducive to spectator sports. The percentage of people who follow at least one of the Cavs, Browns, or Indians is likely higher than what we have here. There is no snowboarding, white water rafting, or trail-hiking that many granola types out here in the NW prefer over going to the games. Not to mention that Cleveland is unique with each of their teams that will provide a draw. The Browns are historical, the Indians have The Jake, and the Cavs have Lebron James.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
This suggestion that Seattle is not a good NBA market is beyond ludicrious. Seattle is a very good NBA market! Are people from OKC trying to make the argument on this blog? I question the motives of anybody who would even try to argue that Seattle is not a good NBA city. A few points:
(1) The Sonics set NBA attendance records at the old Kingdome in the late 1970s/early 1980s. Historically speaking, Seattle is one of the best NBA cities-no ifs, ands, or buts. With a better product on the court, Sonics mania will come again.
(2) According to a 1997 study by Ozanian, Seattle ranks in about the top third of NBA franchises in terms of franchise value. Granted, this study was a decade ago, but this gives some perspective that Seattle is a safe and stable NBA “stock.” OKC is problematic. Geez, the government down there bought a lot of seats over the past two years for Hornets games!
(3) Despite some losing years at the Key Arena during the 2000s, the Key Arena has usually still been fillled at about 85-90% capacity. Other NBA cities with losing NBA records would not obtain such attendance during losing seasons. There is clearly a natural fan base for the NBA in Seattle-the 13th or so biggest market in the USA. The local TV ratings for the Sonics have been pretty good over the years-even during some of the lousy seasons in this decade.
(4) The saturation of luxury suites in the Seattle market must be kept in perspective. As any economist will tell a person, a saturation of a product does not mean that a product will not produce revenues. For example, an obvious saturation of say coffee shops in Seattle does not mean that an individual Tully’s or Starbuck will not make it. I think what this Muckleshoot study states is that the luxury suite sports market will probably meet a peak. A study could come back with the same result if luxury suite markets are studied in Atlanta, Phoenix, even LA or NYC. A peak does not mean no profit for luxury suites. I think certain folks not supportive of keeping the Sonics in the Seattle area are trying to exploit this part of the Muckleshoot study.
(5) As they said in “Field of Dreams” if you build it people will come. Fans go long distances and take long walks to attend sports events in this area. Have any of you ever been to a Husky football game? An area in Auburn would be very unique, it would create some new fans, and all or most of the current fans will go out to Auburn to watch the Sonics at least several times a year. The Emerald downs site and near-by casino would further make an Auburn arena a hit.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
The Browns are historical, the Indians have The Jake, and the Cavs have Lebron James.
- With Kevin Durant I do not see how Cleveland has Seattle beat in any of these categories…besides I’m not sure how much typical fandom and corporate luxury box sales have in common. The whole point is that a market like Cleveland seems to be OK with three teams worth of luxury boxes. To say Seattle is not seems really short sighted.
September 18th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
For those who think the premium seating issue is not a big problem here are some numbers from the KeyArena Subcommittee Final Report and Recommendations (KSFRAR):
KeyArena has 48 luxury suites compared to an average of 81 at NBA arenas;
KeyArena has 136 club seats compared to an average of 1,748 for the other NBA-only arenas;
When this report was dond, KeyArena had the lowest suite occupancy rate of NBA-only arenas at 45%. The next-lowest in the NBA was 60%;
KeyArena’s average suite lease rate is $112,000, compared to the average of $140,000;
In total (suites + club seats) premium seating revenues are an average of $16.9 million in 17 other NBA-only arenas and $3.385 million for KeyArena;
The POTENTIAL total premium seating revenue in KeyArena (if every suite and club seat were sold for every game) is $6 million per year, compared to the average potential of NBA-only arenas of $18.8 million.
End of info from the KAFRAR.
So, you can see that the Sonics are about $13 million per year behind the average NBA-only arenas in premium seating revenue, and potential premium seating revenue. They are WAY behind the arenas with the highest premium seating revenues
And now, the Muckleshoot study says that any new arena should have no more suites or club seats than KeyArena. And it says that Seattle-area businesses feel their clients and employees have little interest in attending NBA games, which is why they don’t rent suites.
It seems that, even with a new arena, the Sonics will remain far below the average NBA team in premium seating revenue.
This is not bad news for Seattle keeping the Sonics?
September 18th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
“The culture over there is more conducive to spectator sports. The percentage of people who follow at least one of the Cavs, Browns, or Indians is likely higher than what we have here.”
The Cleveland Caviliers prior to LeBron James had the worst attendance in the NBA
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/attendance?year=2003
September 18th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Dipper, why are you the only person getting hung up?
on this point?
I won’t pretend to be an authority on market analysis, but why didn’t the firm hired to do the feasibility study think it was such a stock issue?
There are plenty of rational ways to be skeptical about it, see Dick Tate’s posts.
Your argument, on the other hand, is a straw man. You’re intent on framing this report as a negative in any way you can. You’ve focused exclusively on one point, that contradicts the conclusions of the report. What makes you more credible than Brailsford & Dunlavey?
September 18th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
“And now, the Muckleshoot study says that any new arena should have no more suites or club seats than KeyArena. And it says that Seattle-area businesses feel their clients and employees have little interest in attending NBA games, which is why they don’t rent suites.”
Please quote things accurately Big Dipper. From the Muckleshoot feasibility study:
Respondents frequently noted that their patronage of the Supersonics at the Key Arena was limited due to the COMPARITIVE LACK OF BUILDING AMENITIES and a general lack of client demand for professional basketball.
Let’s be truthful about it. Compared to Safeco and Qwest fields amenities are a bit lacking at The Key.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
I took that quote exactly from what Balloholic posted here. I just copied and pasted it right from Balloholic. You can see that it is exactly the same as he posted. How is that quote not “accurate”?
Here is the quote: “Also, specific perceptions must be overcome, including an assumed location on the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe reservation and a lack of client demand for professional basketball.”
From the quote you post, I would say, how much difference does a “comparitive” lack of amenities make to people if there is a “general lack of client demand for professional basketball”? Basically, that says to me that these businesses would continue to choose suites at Safeco Field and Qwest Field even if the suites at a new NBA arena were just as good as the suites in those stadiums, because the businesses say their clients prefer the NFL and MLB to the NBA. To me, your quote, “and a general lack of client demand for professional basketball,” is about the most negative thing a report could possibly have said. What is worse to say about an area than that there is a “general lack of client demand for professional basketball”? “Lack of demand” is about the worst problem you can face when you are trying to sell anything.
Here is another direct quote from the study for you: “Secondly, it is clear that the client and employee demand for professional
basketball is perceived to be low and lagging that of professional baseball and football.”
This makes it clear to me that businesses in the Seattle area would rather get suites at NFL and MLB stadiums than at an NBA arena. You interpret this differently? That quote does not say anything about amenities.
As far as choosing to find the negative points in this study, that is a fair point. However, this is the only thing that I found surprising in this study. The demographics — age, income, etc. — of Sonics fans has been reported before, including in the KAFRAR. I did not find anything new in that.
And the fact that Auburn would work as well as Seattle or Renton, is irrelevant, if they can’t sell enough premium seating anywhere in the Seattle area to make it competitive.
It is the study itself that came to the conclusion that there should be no more luxury suites or club seats in a new arena than there are in KeyArena. That is not just me giving MY opinion. I did not make that up. That is the conclusion of the study. And the number of luxury suites and club seats this study recommends is way below the average NBA arena. It means that, even if they sell all the premium seats, they would still not come close to the revenues from premium seating that the average NBA team gets.
Do you interpret this study differently?
September 18th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
And now, the Muckleshoot study says that any new arena should have no more suites or club seats than KeyArena. And it says that Seattle-area businesses feel their clients and employees have little interest in attending NBA games, which is why they don’t rent suites.
It seems that, even with a new arena, the Sonics will remain far below the average NBA team in premium seating revenue.
- Here is where I guess your whole argument goes down the tubes Dipper. David Stern, Howard Schultz and Clay Bennett have indicated that if an Arena was built in this city it would be the answer to the Sonics’ problems.
If we are to take your argument as face value you are aruging that basically Seattle cannot support a basketball team due to the lack of luxury suites. I guess I am surprised that would be the case considering Clay Bennett’s $500 million dollar palace did not increase the number of these luxury suites. Why would the owner of the team…in a proposal that is widely considered all he wanted and more (in an effort to squash the bill)…not add the luxury suites if it was in his own best interest?? There is absolutely no indication (except in your head) that the luxury suite area is as big of a deal as you claim.
Another part of your arugment:
Here is another direct quote from the study for you: “Secondly, it is clear that the client and employee demand for professional
basketball is perceived to be low and lagging that of professional baseball and football.”
This makes it clear to me that businesses in the Seattle area would rather get suites at NFL and MLB stadiums than at an NBA arena. You interpret this differently? That quote does not say anything about amenities.
- Hmmm lets see…we have what is widely considered a top 5 most beautiful baseball park in the Majors…and a NFL Stadium that has a reputation for being the loudest and most fan friendly. This NFL stadium is also home to presumably (early in the season) one of th best teams of the NFC…the Sonics play in a tiny arena with no amenities…do you honestly find it surprising that there is more interest in attending games at the other stadiums?
On top of that, if a new arena is built do you honestly not think that it would be the new “place to go”…Im not a defender of the fair weather fan argument you see alot about Seattle fans…but you are out right stupid to think that if a new Arena was built it would not suddenly become a popular venue to attend events.
IN FACT, if there is anyone who should be worry about suite sales it would be Qwest and Safeco. They are the only game in town…now they’d have a better alternative that provides events all year round for a wide variety of entertainment needs. Basically, what would happen to them is what happened to the Sonics when the Key was built. They were IT for awhile…the lease was designed somewhat around the sales of these suites and then two MUCH, MUCH nicer places came along and stole its business. It is absolutey silliness that you think that there would be an issue with luxuary suite sales for the new arena…it would probably fall onto Safeco…however, i am also confident that the Ms have built up enough good will with their “family friendly” fare that they could handle this competition.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:32 am
There is absolutely no indication (except in your head) that the luxury suite area is as big of a deal as you claim.
I’m not so sure about that. That market saturation statement combined with the perceived “lack of client demand for professional basketball” statement, cannot be viewed as a positive in any way. I suspect the tribe went into this study with the idea that if all the conditions came back favorable, then they would’ve heavily invested in a new arena. Now that it sounds like they will be withholding further investment, i’m guessing they were less than thrilled with the results of this study.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:44 am
I’m not so sure about that. That market saturation statement combined with the perceived “lack of client demand for professional basketball” statement, cannot be viewed as a positive in any way.
- Doesn’t this point sort of cover why this was guaranteed to show up in the survey:
Hmmm lets see…we have what is widely considered a top 5 most beautiful baseball park in the Majors…and a NFL Stadium that has a reputation for being the loudest and most fan friendly. This NFL stadium is also home to presumably (early in the season) one of th best teams of the NFC…the Sonics play in a tiny arena with no amenities…do you honestly find it surprising that there is more interest in attending games at the other stadiums
- I mean why would there be interest in professional basketball right now when the other two options so greatly out distance the others…I stand by my thought that if anyone would lose in the luxury suite battle it’d be the Mariners.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:47 am
That’s a lot of assumptions Dick.
I’ll be watching closely to see what happens if and when Clay and the Governor get back to the tribe.
Of course I don’t think we’ve seen close to what the tribe will end up putting on the table. None of htat will come out till they’ve all met to discuss whether this is even worth pursueing.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Yes, my last post was nothing but assumptions that I hope are wrong.
Here’s a new article on the issue.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/332231_arena19.html
While Muckleshoot spokesman Rollin Fatland suggested Monday that Gregoire and a three-person panel of advisers would be the ones to respond to the tribe’s efforts, it appears that group is less involved than has been previously characterized.
Scott Merriman, legislative director for the state Office of Financial Management, said business leaders Dave Sabey, Bob Watt and Brad Smith met with Gregoire two months ago in a fact-finding discussion prompted by the governor’s desire to learn more about large projects like an arena.
But the trio is not serving as an advisory board, Merriman said, and no further meetings have been scheduled to date.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Read this article in today’s P.I.:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/332231_arena19.html
Here is one quote, “…the tribe’s initial stance is that it won’t contribute to the arena construction.”
Myk, you are missing the point. The study recommends a very low number of luxury suites and club seats in a new arena. If the people who did the study thought that the reason the suites and club seats have not sold well in KeyArena was because they were not as nice as those in Safeco Field and Qwest Field, they would have recommended a lot more suites and club seats in a new arena? At least as many as in the average NBA arena?
If the people doing the study thought that lack of amenities was the main reason for low sales of premium seating at KeyArena, I think the study would have said something like, “Businesses told us that if the Sonics had a new arena with more amenities they would be more likely to rent suites and buy club seating. Therefore, we recommend a new arena have many more suites and club seats than KeyArena.”
But that is not what the study said.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Though the PI story bolsters Dick Tate’s point about the Shoot’s not financing the construction, that’s about it. It’s not as negative as you’re trying to make it sound.
It basically reads…’we haven’t gotten around to reading the report yet’
September 19th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Myk, you are missing the point. The study recommends a very low number of luxury suites and club seats in a new arena. If the people who did the study thought that the reason the suites and club seats have not sold well in KeyArena was because they were not as nice as those in Safeco Field and Qwest Field, they would have recommended a lot more suites and club seats in a new arena? At least as many as in the average NBA arena?
If the people doing the study thought that lack of amenities was the main reason for low sales of premium seating at KeyArena, I think the study would have said something like, “Businesses told us that if the Sonics had a new arena with more amenities they would be more likely to rent suites and buy club seating. Therefore, we recommend a new arena have many more suites and club seats than KeyArena.”
But that is not what the study said.
- So the fact that three people who care nothing about keeping the team here…and everything about making money:
— David Stern
— Howard Schultz
— Clay Bennett
Have ALL provided Arena proposals without significant increases in Luxury Suites would not seem to prove to you that the luxury suite market is not a big factor in whether the team can survive in the Region?? That sure seems odd…I mean if that was the case why didn’t Clay just come out with an Arena with 200 Luxury Suites in his “good faith proposal”…that would’ve doomed the Arena from the start and made this whole process much less difficult.
W/R/T to the second part of your “opinion”…did you participate in the survey of these businesses? Did you see a list of the questions asked of these business owners?? Based on what I have read it sounds like they asked general questions about the businesses feelings of the NBA in general.
Do you think that in 1993 when the Ms first started talking about needing a new stadium or in 1996 when the Hawks started talking about their stadium that businesses were saying…YES love baseball and football! Absolutely not…
On top of all that I just said…isn’t this statement exactly what you said the businesses would say:
Respondents frequently noted that their patronage of the Supersonics at the Key Arena was limited due to the COMPARITIVE LACK OF BUILDING AMENITIES and a general lack of client demand for professional basketball.
I’m confused…its almost word for word…LOL
Finally, what is even more amusing is that you are arguing that that luxury suites are past saturation. The quote specifically states that the region is nearing saturation…unless we are expecting the Region to not grow in the near future I still do not see how this even an issue for the future of the team in Seattle.
To follow your same “logic”…where you just assume that the study would say something if that was what it meant…if we are to believe your questionable line of thinking wouldn’t the study have said things like:
- Local businesses will not support the NBA…
- There are too many luxury suites in the area…
- There is no reason to keep the NBA in Seattle…
I mean if this is so “negative” of a piece how come it still says the team would be successful in this area? Odd….
September 19th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Though the PI story bolsters Dick Tate’s point about the Shoot’s not financing the construction, that’s about it. It’s not as negative as you’re trying to make it sound.
It basically reads…’we haven’t gotten around to reading the report yet’
- I’d also note that just like Clay Bennett they don’t have any need to provide a number of how much they’d contribute. As lame as it is…the whole negotiating process has not been started yet. Of course the Muckleshoot would be willing to give up land (that lets face it is pretty worthless) to bring 15L people closer to their casino 100 dates a year. If they can get away with looking like princes for offering it up for free then so be it…
September 19th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
On top of all that I just said…isn’t this statement exactly what you said the businesses would say:
“Respondents frequently noted that their patronage of the Supersonics at the Key Arena was limited due to the COMPARITIVE LACK OF BUILDING AMENITIES and a general lack of client demand for professional basketball.
“I’m confused…its almost word for word…LOL”
No at all. The study identified 2 factors in low sales of premium seating in KeyArena: “comparative” lack of amenities, and a general lack of client demand for professional basketball.”
My point, is that if the study had felt the lack of amenities were the MAIN reason, they would have said that would be overcome by more amenities in the new arena, and therefore recommended MORE premium seats in a new arena. But they did not recommend any more premium sets than KeyArena has. This strongly suggests the people doing the study felt that lack of interest in baskektball was the MAIN factor.
The purpose of this study was not to determine if the Seattle area was a good place for the NBA, and the study did not make a finding on that. It primarily compared Auburn to the Seattle Center area, and its primary finding was that Auburn was just as good a location as Seattle Center. That is what the Muckleshoots wanted to find out.
What I have said is that a new arena with far fewer luxury suites and club seats than the average NBA arena would keep the Sonics at a disadvantage with other NBA teams relative to arena revenues. I am not saying the Sonics could not stay in the Seattle area. I’m just saying that, as long as they have a lot fewer suites and club seats than the average NBA team, which is what this study suggests, the Sonics will continue to struggle generating revenue. Having only about 50 luxury suites when the average NBA-only arena has about 80 is a big disadvantage to Seattle, as is the extremely small number of club seats.
Where does the study specifically say the Sonics would be “successful” in this area?
September 19th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
My point, is that if the study had felt the lack of amenities were the MAIN reason, they would have said that would be overcome by more amenities in the new arena, and therefore recommended MORE premium seats in a new arena. But they did not recommend any more premium sets than KeyArena has. This strongly suggests the people doing the study felt that lack of interest in baskektball was the MAIN factor.
- LOL ummm how did that logic leap feel…I know it was a long jump so I hope you hit the landing…
ODD LOGIC LEAP #1:
You are just choosing to ignore the lack of amenities part of their findings. Have you ever been in a suite at Safeco? Have you ever been in a suite at the Key? If you have, I am not sure how you can blame local businesses for prefering to spend their money elsewhere.
ODD LOGIC LEAP #2
So, if you step back and agree with my little statement above then I am sure your next “point” is: Well if they are going to build nicer suites then they should build more of them to make more money. This of course get defeated by a point that you have been pointing out regarding market saturation.
There is simply no way that the study can have a point on market saturation and then argue to build more suites…it would make their report look invalid. However, as I have pointed out many times that does not mean that fan interest is the MAIN reason the Sonics struggle…it is highly, highly likely that they would begin to canibalize businesses from Safeco and Qwest. As I pointed out before, having a suite in a new Arena (if it is comparable in amenities) would most likely be more popular because it provides a much wider array of events and also provides more events in general than either of the other two venues.
Look, you are trying to read in between the lines way too much and make this report out to be much more than it is…of course fan interest is down. The team’s performnace has been middling at best…however, that same argument times 100 could have been made for Safeco and Qwest field before they were built. The Seattle “fan” has shown that they are willing to support a new Arena as long as it is worth supporting…if the team starts winning it will be even more popular.
Its like your main argument is: The Sonics suck…so people don’t follow them as much…so they won’t make as much money.
That’s a pretty NO DUH statement…and also a statement that can be made about any sports team. Therefore, it isn’t negative…its just a fact of life.
Finally, the one point that you still won’t address and I don’t really understand why is: why don’t the owners and the commish seem so worried about luxury suites? Why is this so negative to you…but the people who are money grubbing wh0res seem to care less as long as the other amentities are created? Bennett’s proposal had LESS luxury suites than the Key…
September 19th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Local corporations are cognizant of the premium seating marketplace, the standards established at Qwest Field and Safeco Field, and will expect similar premium facilities, amenities, and advertising inventory at a new events center.
- This quote seems to point out pretty well that the amentities are a pretty darn big deal to them as well. Going to the Safe and the Key are like going from night to day…
September 19th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Also, specific perceptions must
be overcome, including an assumed location on the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe reservation and a lack of client demand for professional basketball.
Corporate interest in the Auburn site is restrained with higher preferences given to Seattle, Bellevue, or Renton. Nonetheless, the business community would support the Auburn location if it is the only option that would ensure an NBA presence in the region.
- Another thing that is funny is that you claim lack of fan interest is the MAIN reason for corporate pause and yet the study only mentions that in one line of the summary. OTH, it goes into tremendous detail why they aren’t using suites in the Key and what would be required for them to begin doing so…
Don’t you think that if the MAIN reason was lack of client demand that the study would’ve just said so…I mean if they believe lack of client demand is the biggest reason for the issue then the the recommendation would be to not build an Arena, correct? Why do they go into all the other reasons if lack of demand (which trumps all…you can have the nicest stuff, but if no one wants it, then whats the point?) is the MAIN reason.
This is just a poor logical leap…sorry man.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
“The purpose of this study was not to determine if the Seattle area was a good place for the NBA, and the study did not make a finding on that. It primarily compared Auburn to the Seattle Center area, and its primary finding was that Auburn was just as good a location as Seattle Center. That is what the Muckleshoots wanted to find out.”/i>
so… you didn’t read the damn report, Dipper. I don’t have it up still, and I didn’t save it, but at least the first 25 pages of the report compared the Sonics to the following teams: Phoenix, Boston, Minniapolis, and a few others I can’t remember, but teams that were comperable markets.
The report on more than one occasion stated explicitly that the Auburn market was a strong market for the NBA, not just among the other markets that were compared (I know, I should be quoting, but I’ll have to do it from work tomorrow). The report also stated that the Auburn area would see considerably more growth, and that that market will be growing at a faster rate than the others that were compared.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
The object of this study was NOT to determine if it was wise to build a new arena or not. Can’t you get that into your head? They did not do any analysis of how many events would be held there, how much revenue would be generated, etc. They did NOT make a recommendation on whether or not to build a new arena! Why can’t you figure this out? That was not the purpose of this study!
I read the entire report, which is much more detailed than the summary. For you to quote only from the summary is ridiculous.
Actually, there was a third factor that argued against building any more suites or club seats than KeyArena has. It is the ratio of large companies in the Seattle area to the number of premium seats available. Here is a direct quote: “The Seattle market currently has less than half of the amount of businesses with over 100 employees supporting the club seat market than the comparables.” Comparables means the other NBA cities that are comparable in size to the Seattle market. The exact numbers are:
comparable cities average 0.29 businesses with over 100 employees per club seat.
Seattle averages only 0.13 businesses with over 100 employees per club seat.
This is why the Seattle market is “exremely competitive” with regards to club seats at pro sports stadiums.
I suppose you are going to say that this is not a negative, either.
So, I will amend my earlier comment to say that, lack of client and employee interest PLUS a saturated market outweigh lack of amenities when explaining the lack of revenue from premium seating at KeyArena. You like that better? Different reason, but same conclusion: the Seattle area will support far less premium seating at an NBA arena than the average NBA city. The reaons why is far less important than that fact itself.
Again, I’m not saying this means nobody should build a new NBA arena in our area. I am saying that the lack of premium seating revenue is a distinct negative for the NBA in our area. If you think it is not a negative, that is your privilege to think so. And this study is the first time I have ever read that businesses in our area prefer NFL and MLB suites to NBA suites, or that analysis of number of large businesses relative to premium seats in this market. These are the things that were new to me, and they are negative. They both surprised me. That is why I brought them up.
“OTH, it goes into tremendous detail why they aren’t using suites in the Key and what would be required for them to begin doing so…”
Where do you see that?
September 19th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Jenn at real GM I think said they were building on the Renton site? Can anyone else confirm that?
Muckleshoot site seems like a longshot given what has been said so far. no tribal contribution to construction, expecting public funds & road improvements, no sign of followup by any other party to work with them.
Gregoire continues to lurk in the shadows, no leadership on this. That group of 3 advisors was a stringalong holding action- they met once and have no plans at this time to do so again.
Sabey was one of the 3 and if he isnt pumping up that group, the Governor and volume in general I am not very encouraged about him either unless he is playing a long waiting game.
I still think Seattle is the option that is most likely to go viable and it is a longshot.
Whatever. See where it stands in Nov./Dec.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
If local politicans aren’t being pro-active and no Seattle billionaire is openly and firmly stepping up, maybe looking for partners in Vancouver B.C. (especially the arena and hockey team owner) could be added as another longshot strategy. As I have suggest before share the home dates, maybe even throw a handful to Asia. Such an approach would give Stern more of what he wants. And he wants more than just a happy Seattle.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
When Bennett files for relocation, Seattle should file a letter with Stern requesting new local ownership.