Sacramento was able to keep the Kings by... opting out of revenue sharing

[Spider-Dan]

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/06/5398439/sacramento-kings-dallas-ranadive.html

" In a move that surely strengthens their bid for the Kings, the investors trying to keep the team in Sacramento told the NBA they'd stop taking revenue-sharing dollars earmarked for the league's struggling franchises.

By making the promise, the ownership group led by Vivek Ranadive would forfeit $15 million or more in annual assistance from the NBA's wealthier clubs. Ranadive's pledge, to take effect once the team moves into its proposed new arena, bolsters his argument that the Kings can prosper in Sacramento."

To me, this is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.  Obviously, the prospect of more money in their pockets is an extremely compelling reason for the other owners to choose Sacramento.  However, it's all well and good to permanently give up revenue sharing when you have a brand new arena to play in, but 20 years from now, Sacramento will also have permanently established itself as a second-class citizen.

This is toothpaste that you cannot put back in the tube; once Sacramento agrees to opt-out of revenue sharing, there's no way the rest of the owners would allow a future buyer to opt back in.  And Sacramento is not LA or NY or Boston; their only hopes to be on the "maker" side of revenue sharing is if they have a new arena or a really good team.

Disclaimer: I am both a Sonics fan and a Sacramento area (ish) resident; I hoped for Seattle to get a team, but I would prefer that it not be the Kings.  That being said, this move is long-term suicide... had this kind of a deal been struck when the Kings moved to Sacramento ~30 years ago, the team would have been contracted in the last 5 years.

[Sunstroke]

Can't argue with any of that...it seems like a pretty short-sighted move on Sacto's part.  I also hope Seattle gets a new team sometime soon. While not a fan, I spent 7 years going to Sonics games 5-6 times per season, and the NBA just isn't the same without a franchise in Seattle.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I don't care that a private business is willing to give up money to buy a team it wants to buy, in essence they are just paying more for the team.  If it is a bad business decision for this group of billionars/millionares that is their issue. 

As long as the taxpayers of Sacramento aren't footing the bill. 

[Spider-Dan]

The taxpayers of Sacramento are spending a considerable amount of money on the new stadium; estimates range between $258M and $334M.  That's a lot of money for a team that will likely be competitively handcuffed.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

The taxpayers of Sacramento are spending a considerable amount of money on the new stadium; estimates range between $258M and $334M.  That's a lot of money for a team that will likely be competitively handcuffed.

That part I disagree with. 

[Spider-Dan]

Sacramento has been receiving $15M+ in revenue sharing subsidies under the current CBA, and has been receiving subsidies for several years.  They are scheduled to receive $18M next year.  Their current arena is 25 years old and they've been asking for a new one since at least 2003.

Unless the Kings receive another new arena every ~20 years, why would this situation be any different 20 years from now?  The only difference would be that while the other underperforming teams would be receiving tens of millions in sharing subsidies, the Kings would be receiving nothing.  That's a huge competitive disadvantage.