HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Metro Seattle: NHL, NBA and Arena - Part V

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-21-2013, 03:35 PM
  #976
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
The Maloofs have been going under for a while now. So yes, their business acumen at this point is in question.

And if the league doesn't have the right to approve owners, why would they have a vote on it? They don't have the right to force a sale but they have the right to prevent one.

And you're wrong about the figure. Look at ESPN's article on this...



And what I was referring to with Schultz was that he was the guy that the original ownership sold it to to try and get a new arena deal. He didn't do it, obviously. But prior to Schultz, that ownership was trying as well and didn't do it. That was their chance and the attempt to sell it to Schultz was another chance but he failed miserably. The Maloofs are the owners prior to Schultz in this scenario.



They're not forcing an owner to sell. They're preventing a sale for whatever reason. If they don't like an owner for whatever reason, it is within their right to not give him one of their franchises. If they don't, you should probably tell them then that their BoG vote is useless because I'm sure it would be news to them.
They only reject a sale if there is money problems with the buyer. Ultimately its what the maloofs want to do. If they want to sell to Seattle's group, the NBA can't tell them no and that you can only sell to local group is my point. That is exactly what kevin Johnson wants the NBA to do. Reject Seattle's sale and essentially accept the local group offer.

Think about it if NBA says no and Maloofs decide to not sell it to local group, the NBA is still stuck with the maloofs.

Oh there is a 30m guaranteed no-refund down payment that hansen is paying to maloofs and there could be legal ramifications with that if there is any attempt to block the sale.


Last edited by gstommylee: 01-21-2013 at 03:42 PM.
gstommylee is online now  
Old
01-21-2013, 03:48 PM
  #977
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 29,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
They only reject a sale if there is money problems with the buyer. Ultimately its what the maloofs want to do. If they want to sell to Seattle's group, the NBA can't tell them no and that you can only sell to local group is my point. That is exactly what kevin Johnson wants the NBA to do. Reject Seattle's sale and essentially accept the local group offer.

Think about it if NBA says no and Maloofs decide to not sell it to local group, the NBA is still stuck with the maloofs.

Oh there is a 30m guaranteed no-refund down payment that hansen is paying to maloofs and there could be legal ramifications with that if there is any attempt to block the sale.
Except the franchise is not solely up to the Maloofs to sell. It is the league's franchise. They reserve the right to approve new ownership and where teams play. That is within their right. And if the deposit is given to the Maloofs and the deal falls through, they will have to give it back most likely. I wouldn't put much stock in no-refund in a transaction of this magnitude.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 03:51 PM
  #978
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
The Maloofs have been going under for a while now. So yes, their business acumen at this point is in question.

And if the league doesn't have the right to approve owners, why would they have a vote on it? They don't have the right to force a sale but they have the right to prevent one.
They certainy have that right, but the Seatte ownership groups has the money, good people, and good connections. It is not a low money, shiesty, fly-by-night shady investor group.

Quote:
And you're wrong about the figure. Look at ESPN's article on this...
$525,000,000 = 100% value of the team. The actual figure changing hands will be less since the Maloofs share does not equal 100%.



Quote:
And what I was referring to with Schultz was that he was the guy that the original ownership sold it to to try and get a new arena deal. He didn't do it, obviously.
Excactly. Shultz did nothing. He bought the team because he was a Knicks fan growing up, not to save Seattle basketball. He never made any serious attempt to build an arena nor sell to one of the very interested local billionaires (one of which just bought then Kings with Hansen).

Quote:
But prior to Schultz, that ownership was trying as well and didn't do it.
No, the prior ownership group got Key Arena built in 1995. They were happy and content when they sold then Sonics. The young arena was not an issue. Ackerley was getting old and it was time for them to move on. They already were selling off their radio/billboard empire to Clear Channel at the time.

You are factually challenged about the Sonics in Seattle.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 03:57 PM
  #979
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Except the franchise is not solely up to the Maloofs to sell. It is the league's franchise. They reserve the right to approve new ownership and where teams play. That is within their right. And if the deposit is given to the Maloofs and the deal falls through, they will have to give it back most likely. I wouldn't put much stock in no-refund in a transaction of this magnitude.
NBA does not own the Kings though. The 30m is guaranteed non-refund regardless of if the sale is accept/rejected and since Maloofs accepted that 30m, NBA/Sac may be in legal hot water if they attempted to stop the sale.

When was the last time the NBA ever rejected a sale for something other than buyer has money issues.

If they reject Seattle purchase they may be forced to guarantee Seattle expansion. We already know how much of PR nightmare the NBA was in when they allowed the sonics to leave to OKC. It would be just as bad if not worse if they shaft Seattle again.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:00 PM
  #980
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 29,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
They certainy have that right, but the Seatte ownership groups has the money, good people, and good connections. It is not a low money, shiesty, fly-by-night shady investor group.



$525,000,000 = 100% value of the team. The actual figure changing hands will be less since the Maloofs share does not equal 100%.





Excactly. Shultz did nothing. He bought the team because he was a Knicks fan growing up, not to save Seattle basketball. He never made any serious attempt to build an arena nor sell to one of the very interested local billionaires (one of which just bought then Kings with Hansen).



No, the prior ownership group got Key Arena built in 1995. They were happy and content when they sold then Sonics. The young arena was not an issue. Ackerley was getting old and it was time for them to move on. They already were selling off their radio/billboard empire to Clear Channel at the time.

You are factually challenged about the Sonics in Seattle.
Never said the Seattle group was a sheisty group. Only saying that the league reserves the right to approve owners. Some people here seem to believe otherwise and that's not the case.

And your valuation flies right in the face of what has been reported. That figure includes relocation as part of the valuation of the team. Sacramento doesn't have to pay that. You're free to disagree but you're free to be wrong.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:02 PM
  #981
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Never said the Seattle group was a sheisty group. Only saying that the league reserves the right to approve owners. Some people here seem to believe otherwise and that's not the case.

And your valuation flies right in the face of what has been reported. That figure includes relocation as part of the valuation of the team. Sacramento doesn't have to pay that. You're free to disagree but you're free to be wrong.
525m figure is the value of the team. 65% of that is what the amount Hansen will be writing.

The relocation fee IS not part of the sales price. Hansen pays that directly to the NBA not the maloofs.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:03 PM
  #982
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Except the franchise is not solely up to the Maloofs to sell. It is the league's franchise. They reserve the right to approve new ownership and where teams play. That is within their right. And if the deposit is given to the Maloofs and the deal falls through, they will have to give it back most likely. I wouldn't put much stock in no-refund in a transaction of this magnitude.
Correct me if I am wrong, the NBA BofG is includes other owners. Do you really think they will block a sale/relocation when someday they may need the same approval, providing financials make sense for the league. To block a good deal is not good business for them.

nwpensfan is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:05 PM
  #983
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwpensfan View Post
Correct me if I am wrong, the NBA BofG is includrs other owners. Do you really think they will block a sale/relocation when someday they may need the same approval, providing finavials make sense for the league. To block a good deal is not good business for them.
Only way the NBA would block sale to seattle if local group offers a higher price than 525m. The only rumored offers coming out of sac are undermining the value of the team.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:06 PM
  #984
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Never said the Seattle group was a sheisty group. Only saying that the league reserves the right to approve owners. Some people here seem to believe otherwise and that's not the case.
The NBA is not going to reject the big $, community leader laden group with Microsoft's CEO, Nordstrom, and other good, big money people. It's not. They reject potential groups with money or people issues. If Sacramento is thinking the NBA is going to block this deal, it is understandable why the state is in such a mess; the voters are living in a fantasy land.


Quote:
And your valuation flies right in the face of what has been reported. That figure includes relocation as part of the valuation of the team. Sacramento doesn't have to pay that. You're free to disagree but you're free to be wrong.
Multiple things have been reported. Either way it is too much $ for Sacramento to match. The franchise valuation is based on getting a new arena in larger, more corporate laden Seattle.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:07 PM
  #985
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 29,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
NBA does not own the Kings though. The 30m is guaranteed non-refund regardless of if the sale is accept/rejected and since Maloofs accepted that 30m, NBA/Sac may be in legal hot water if they attempted to stop the sale.

When was the last time the NBA ever rejected a sale for something other than buyer has money issues.

If they reject Seattle purchase they may be forced to guarantee Seattle expansion. We already know how much of PR nightmare the NBA was in when they allowed the sonics to leave to OKC. It would be just as bad if not worse if they shaft Seattle again.
Again, the league reserves the right to approve owners. If not, why do they need to have a meeting to vote on the approval of it? That doesn't seem to make any sense or serve any purpose if they're not allowed to do it.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:08 PM
  #986
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Only way the NBA would block sale to seattle if local group offers a higher price than 525m. The only rumored offers coming out of sac are undermining the value of the team.
Exactly! And even then even if they don't like current owners, to dictate who they sell to is not in their best interest all things being equal.

nwpensfan is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:09 PM
  #987
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
The NBA is not going to reject the big $, community leader laden group with Microsoft's CEO, Nordstrom, and other good, big money people. It's not. They reject potential groups with money or people issues. If Sacramento is thinking the NBA is going to block this deal, it is understandable why the state is in such a mess; the voters are living in a fantasy land.
Its been reported by the yahoo guy that the approval process is nothing more than a formality.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:09 PM
  #988
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 29,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
The NBA is not going to reject the big $, community leader laden group with Microsoft's CEO, Nordstrom, and other good, big money people. It's not. They reject potential groups with money or people issues. If Sacramento is thinking the NBA is going to block this deal, it is understandable why the state is in such a mess; the voters are living in a fantasy land.




Multiple things have been reported. Either way it is too much $ for Sacramento to match. The franchise valuation is based on getting a new arena in larger, more corporate laden Seattle.
We will see but they will give it their best shot. And if they don't get the job done, you can bet a new team will take their chance in Sacramento.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:10 PM
  #989
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwpensfan View Post
Correct me if I am wrong, the NBA BofG is includes other owners. Do you really think they will block a sale/relocation when someday they may need the same approval, providing financials make sense for the league. To block a good deal is not good business for them.
The only ones to vote against moving the Sonics were maverick Mark Cuban and the owner of the Seattle Seahawks.

The over/under on the vote for approval of this move is 29.5. I'll take the over.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:11 PM
  #990
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwpensfan View Post
Exactly! And even then even if they don't like current owners, to dictate who they sell to is not in their best interest all things being equal.
Its also illegal. For example when the NBA said no to Anaheim legally the maloofs could have sued the league for anti trust (see Al Davis vs NFL)

gstommylee is online now  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:11 PM
  #991
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,709
vCash: 500
I know this is of topic but according to a seattle blogger Phil Jackson could be involved in Seattle.He'a a strange fellow but a great coach

thom is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:12 PM
  #992
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom View Post
I know this is of topic but according to a seattle blogger Phil Jackson could be involved in Seattle.He'a a strange fellow but a great coach
Its not off topic. Yea that rumor has been floating around cause he lives in montana.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:15 PM
  #993
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
We will see but they will give it their best shot. And if they don't get the job done, you can bet a new team will take their chance in Sacramento.
Sacramento is sowing the seeds for the future. There is nothing that can be done to save the current franchise. I went through this a few years ago, and we had a better legal case with our existing lease and the purchase and sale agreement Schultz had with Bennett and McClendon. If we had Mayor KJ, the Sonics would have remained in Seattle at least another 2 years.

Right now people in Sacramento need to put together a better ownership group and arena plan so they can have a shot at the Bucks in 2015.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:18 PM
  #994
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 29,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Its also illegal. For example when the NBA said no to Anaheim legally the maloofs could have sued the league for anti trust (see Al Davis vs NFL)
Al Davis is not a comparable. He was relocating his franchise that he already owned. This is a sale process.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:21 PM
  #995
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Its also illegal. For example when the NBA said no to Anaheim legally the maloofs could have sued the league for anti trust (see Al Davis vs NFL)
In the end, the NBA couldn't block the move, but they certainly could make it financially impossible. The Lakers would lose millions in TV revenue if a 3rd team is added to the market per the contract. The Clippers too would receive compensation for another team moving into their territory.

Anaheim was always a pipe dream forced to make Sacramento offer up a better arena plan.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:22 PM
  #996
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: South Korea
Posts: 2,146
vCash: 500
I think this whole affair is setting up Sacramento for the next relocation city, I think privately kj knows he can't stop this deal, but by drumming up all of this support, shows how much passion the area has and make it look appealing to another franchise

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:24 PM
  #997
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Al Davis is not a comparable. He was relocating his franchise that he already owned. This is a sale process.
There are two parts:

- the sale

- the relocation

The sale won't be blocked, because it is a first class group with deep pockets. The relocation won't be blocked either because of past precedents. In fact both votes will probably unanimous. The fans and leaders of Sacramento are powerless. All they can do is plan for the future right now. Act fast and Sacramento can be the front runner for the Bucks in 2015.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:25 PM
  #998
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Al Davis is not a comparable. He was relocating his franchise that he already owned. This is a sale process.
But the NBA can not tell Maloofs who to sell to. In that case it still implies. Only ways sales are rejected is #1 money issues #2 A second offer that is much better.

If NBA rejects sale to Seattle and goes with an offer that is less than what Seattle's group is offering. Legally Seattle's group could go after the NBA.

If Maloofs don't want to sell legally than there is nothing much the NBA can do. The worst case scenario is NBA reject sale to Seattle and Maloofs decides to keep team. NBA does not want that to happen.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:28 PM
  #999
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: South Korea
Posts: 2,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
But the NBA can not tell Maloofs who to sell to. In that case it still implies. Only ways sales are rejected is #1 money issues #2 A second offer that is much better.

If NBA rejects sale to Seattle and goes with an offer that is less than what Seattle's group is offering. Legally Seattle's group could go after the NBA.

Honestly if I had a binding sale/agreement with a owner and someone comes in with a better offer, and the nba does not allow the sale, you could bet Hansen will sue AND win

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 04:29 PM
  #1000
JawandaPuck
Moderator
Lost Art of Dynasty
 
JawandaPuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,266
vCash: 500
Part VI: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1329387

__________________
Follow JawandaPuck on Twitter and Blogspot - all revenue from Google Ads is donated to the Canucks for Kids Fund (CFKF) in support of the Canucks Autism Network (CAN).
JawandaPuck is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:20 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.