View Single Post
Old
01-26-2013, 09:13 PM
  #61
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,597
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
They ever went through the process of selling the parking to a private group which is my point.
Because it wasn't time to go through that process. They had to do preliminary work before that and it never got past that because the Maloofs backed out. Your point is meaningless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
Maloofs have been, in essence, begging for a replacement for what is now known as Sleep Train Arena, PF, ever since leaving Kansas City and the now outdated Kemper Arena back in 1985....

Answer this question: how is this any different from what the 3 relocations did in the mid 1990s to XL/Hartford Civic Center when Karmanos elected to quit waiting for the State of Connecticut and its Development Authority to replace said facility (1994); the sale of the original Jets(now the Coyotes), (1995), or Aubut vs. Ottawa over replacement of the Colisee which necessitated the sale of the Nordiques to COMSAT/Stan Kroenke to become the Avalanche (1996); Can we say that no fan, whether you agreed w/ those decisions or not, could blame any of those ownership decisions on those owners.
The Maloofs didn't own the Kings until 1999. They didn't start pushing for a new arena until 2002.

To answer your question...it's different from Karmanos because Karmanos owned the team and relocated the team. This is a sale and relocation. It's different from the Quebec City and Winnipeg because neither market had a plan for a new arena. Sacramento does and a good one for any owner that doesn't have money issues like the Maloofs do right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
So you expect the NBA to turn down money and the owners to deny Hansen the right to raise his offer immediately? Ok, good luck
One, it's not necessarily their choice to turn it down. Two, the NBA will always give priority to the team's local market because that's their customer base right now. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Three, when Stern asked for the city to step up, they did. Stern also probably realizes that he doesn't want to make the same mistake twice to finish his tenure as commissioner. Four, the people involved that could purchase the team every bit as capable of making an equal offer to the Maloofs for their interest, if not more. If the courts hold up the right to match that the minority owners have in their contracts, there isn't anything that the NBA, Hansen, or the Maloofs can do about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Guess what NBA can't force the maloofs to sell locally. So essentially your saying that Sac local owner won't match Hansen's offer and thus have the entire league franchises value at a much lower amount than what Hansen's offer will bring it to.

Selling to Hansen has way more huge pluses. They don't have to pay the team 20m in revenue sharing anymore and each make money from a relocation fee nevermind all teams value go up 30% with the 525m offer.

Guess what the ROFR is a NON ISSUE. You think the owners have 340m dollars that they have to come up on their own with no debt to match hansen i doubt it. Hansen's lawyers looked at it as well as the NBA's lawyers looked at it. Its a non issue. If they want to sue to have the agreement tossed then the NBA will NEVER accept any offers from Sacramento to buy the kings or future franchises. A lawsuit is a guarantee that they WILL lose the kings. If that ROFR was a huge issue there is no way there would been an agreement announcement that the Maloofs are selling the Kings to Hansen's group this soon.

From what i heard via KJR sports radio Host (who has a connection with the our ownership group) that the language in the contract is vague. And legally you can't successfully challenge an agreement on vague language.
The NBA may not and that's up for debate if you talk to them. However, the courts may decide that they can since there is a clause in the minority owner's contracts for a right to match when it comes to the majority shares being sold.

You act as if the right to match the offer isn't a big issue. The courts may disagree with you. It may not be up to the NBA at that point but the NBA has given Sacramento the opportunity to do so anyway. If they thought Seattle was so much better, why even bother doing that? You also think that they wouldn't sell it this soon if it was and my answer to that is it is likely they didn't know or care about it because it was a quick deal that came from it so what makes you think they looked over every detail of every minority ownership's contract? And your thought that if they sued to try to keep the team meaning the NBA would burn their bridges with the market is absolutely laughable. Seattle did a lot of the same things when the Sonics originally left.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote