View Single Post
Old
01-26-2013, 09:25 PM
  #62
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 15,916
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
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.



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.



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.



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.
you aren't a Seattle resident, PF, BUT would you be in favor of having Don Levin relocate his franchise to Seattle from Rosemont, IL, if that was the only way Seattle gets a hockey franchise, cause that's essentially what it boils down to... how is it Schultz's fault he sold the Sonics then, when he heard that Bennett was relocating them to OKC, he desparately tried to sue Bennett to no avail, that's business...

CHRDANHUTCH is offline   Reply With Quote