Buccaneers Take Risk Drafting QB Winston 49ers Go With Black For New Alternate Uniform O's Originally Wanted To Swap Rays Series Thunder Give Donovan $30M Over Five Years O's Game With No Fans Described As Eerie Rockets Dismiss Digital Communications Manager Bucks Sparking Basketball Renaissance In Milwaukee Sens' Bryan Murray Returning Next Year MLB Rules No Wrongdoing In Cubs' Tampering Case Rays-Orioles Series Moved To The Trop
Upcoming Conferences and Events
SBD/April 2, 2012/Facilities
Sacramento Delays Payments On Kings Arena Until Dispute With Owners Is Resolved
Published April 2, 2012
IN HIS OWN WORDS: In a Q&A with George Maloof, SI.com’s Sam Amick asked how people should view these recent events. Maloof said, “There's still hope, a lot of hope. I think that we can get it done, but I think people have to realize that it's a process. But when you're dealing with the public and you're dealing with three parties, you don't always agree. That's part of negotiating a deal.” Amick pointed out the non-binding term sheet and said it seemed as if the family “had agreed to pay that portion of the pre-development fees.” Maloof said, “We've stretched ourselves on numerous occasions, but at the end of the day it's part of the process. I know it's a public deal, and I think the public should be informed. We're prepared to move forward and get it done at that site, but it's got to be under the right terms for everybody.” On the notion that the owners want to move the team, Maloof said, “We're not secretly talking to anybody else nor would we do that.” Amick asked, “No discussions in the background with Anaheim or anybody else?” Maloof: “No. Absolutely not. Absolutely not” (SI.com, 3/31).
THE PUBLIC OPINION: A SACRAMENTO BEE editorial stated, “The deal for a new Sacramento arena will only work if all the partners are committed to it and can trust each other.” It is “true that the ‘term sheet’ between the partners … was not legally binding.” But it was “a good-faith agreement.” If the Maloofs “insist on playing hardball over their initial payment, it renews doubts on whether they actually have the cash for their part of the arena deal, or the wherewithal to be NBA owners at all” (SACRAMENTO BEE, 3/31).