Officials at the city would have you believe that the Maloofs waited until last Friday to air their problems with the arena deal for the first time. But a series of emails and documents obtained by ranSACkedmedia raise doubt about those claims.
The following email was dated March 1, 2012: (emails redacted by ranSACkedmedia)
Subject: FW: Sacramento Kings Limited Partnership, LP
Redline enclosed in this email.
From: XXXXX XXXXX
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 11:08 AM
Cc: ‘XXXXX@nba.com’; ‘XXXXX@nba.com’; XXXXX@palms.com’; ‘XXXXX@aol.com’; ‘XXXXX@aol.com’; ‘XXXXX@kings.com’;
Subject: Sacramento Kings Limited Partnership, LP
On behalf of Scott Zolke, please see the enclosed letter and attachment with respect to the above referenced matter.
Please do not hesitate to contact Scott directly with any questions or comments you may have.
Assistant to XXXXXXX, Esq.
This is the original letter and redline term sheet included in that email:
The above email claims that the NBA was made aware of the Maloofs concerns on March 1st; well before the March 6th City Council vote to approve the non-binding term sheet and weeks before the NBA Board of Governors meeting in New York. The NBA has been the negotiation partner with the city on this deal for a while now, and it seems reasonable that they would have shared this with the city in a timely fashion. This slide from the Maloofs Powerpoint presentation last Friday would seem to prove that the city DID receive the above term sheet, AND responded to it:
But another email sent by a consultant working on behalf of the city refutes those claims, saying that they never saw the redline term sheet until March 13th:
Attached are preliminary comments to the “redline” term sheet that you provided to me on April 13, 2012. As we discussed, we were not provided with a copy of this document before our meeting in New York with the Mayor, the Maloof family, and the other members of our respective teams. Any suggestion that we were in receipt of this document and somehow not responsive to it is simply incorrect.
As the City has done throughout this process, we are responding with our comments in a prompt and thoughtful manner. As you review our comments, please note the following:
- Substantially all material issues identified in your redline had been previously and repeatedly discussed and negotiated for several months between the City, AEG and NBA leading up to the final term sheet that was published March 1st and approved by the City Council on March 6th.
- The City had been working under the premise that the NBA represented the Kings in negotiations. As you know, we had countless conversations and had negotiated directly with the NBA for months.
- The City’s positions on many issues had been communicated repeatedly to the NBA (and to the Kings). Of particular surprise to us were changes requested in the redline to provisions that had been clearly communicated as non-starters for the City, most notably, the requirement that the City receive “adequate security or collateral” as part of any refinancing of the Kings loan, a shorter lease term than 30 years, an unwillingness by the Kings to pay for any predevelopment expenses, an unwillingness by the Kings to pay for municipal services, and even an unwillingness by the Kings to pay game day expenses for its own events, among others.
- The redline that you provided was not based on the final version of the term sheet; as a result, it does not reflect certain changes agreed to by the City, AEG and NBA.
We wanted to get you comments in a timely manner. Thank you.
Here is the city’s response to the redline term sheet:
So, who is telling the truth, and when did the city know that the Maloofs wanted to augment the term sheet? The coming days and weeks may shed light on those questions…