View Single Post
03-02-2013, 06:44 PM
Registered User
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 49,197
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by maruk14 View Post
The relocation fee is paid to the NBA and is not part of the overall franchise evaluation. The loan is also not part of the purchase price, it is either assumed or paid to the lender. Think of it this way ... Hansen is not paying $341MM all in. He is paying $341MM for the team, $77MM to retire the debt and another $30MM to move it.

So yeah, any offer needs to be for the team alone and if they have a chance it has to be the same, IMO (and reports are it isn't). Then, they need to demonstrate why Sac is better for the league in terms of corp money, regional TV deals, national TV deal, owernship spending up to or past the luxury tax threshold (vs. taking from rev sharing), etc.

Then, they need to come up with legal justification to unwind a legally binding PSA (to a group Stern himself called strong and well financed). They can't deny relocation ... just because.

its a tall order which is why almost any journalist not tied to Sac has said this is a longshot at best.
I don't know where you get that the valuation from Seattle's offer doesn't include the loan payoff and the relocation fee. That's exactly why Sacramento doesn't have to match those particular parts of the deal because they don't have to pay it.

If the league feels the offer is good enough to keep the team here, they're within their right to do so. It doesn't matter that they have a 'legally binding PSA'. They have to approve it and they don't have to because it's their league and their franchises just as much as it is the person who buys stake in the franchises.

I don't know or particularly care if the Kings stay or go. The city will have to build a new arena one way or the other and eventually there will be a team from the NBA, NHL, or both that will come into said arena. Either way, I'm happy the Maloofs are gone.

Pinkfloyd is online now