HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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.

OT: NBA Sacramento sale moves along

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-24-2013, 09:52 PM
  #26
wildthing202
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Douglas, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 681
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to wildthing202 Send a message via Yahoo to wildthing202
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
1. Isn't Burkle a reputable owner in our league?
2. If this simply echoes Sonicsgate in terms of fan alienation, then moving the Kings to Seattle is essentially moving the black eye in the other direction. Better to wait (Grizzlies, Pelicans, Bobcats, etc) instead of shift Sacramento to the role of "market to which we need to return one day."
3. Sacramento will become the top market nationally with no major pro sports. That spot could be filled before the NBA gets back at all.

The shuffle already makes Stern and the league look bush, but repeating mistakes would only compound the joke.
We're talking the Penguins Burkle right? Why not just move the NBA team to Pittsburgh? Fairly new arena, had a team back in the day, larger market than Sacramento pending which DMA you take and if it's Milwaukee you don't even need to realign.

wildthing202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 09:52 PM
  #27
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
The arena deal is already done essentially. It's putting together ownership commitments to match enough of the deal to keep them in Sacramento that's the concern. This came out of the blue which was likely the purpose for the Maloofs to keep some ownership of the team and get out of town.
I recall they had the structure set up but didn't close. How much would the owners contribute?

aqib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 09:55 PM
  #28
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
The arena deal is already done essentially. It's putting together ownership commitments to match enough of the deal to keep them in Sacramento that's the concern. This came out of the blue which was likely the purpose for the Maloofs to keep some ownership of the team and get out of town.
There is no finalized Sacramento arena deal.

gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 09:56 PM
  #29
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
I recall they had the structure set up but didn't close. How much would the owners contribute?
There were a lot of other issues before it ever gotten to the point of it being finalized.

gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 10:28 PM
  #30
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
I recall they had the structure set up but didn't close. How much would the owners contribute?
They came to a non-binding agreement between the city, the Maloofs, and AEG. Both the city and AEG has said that they are still behind the deal if the situation arises where new owners come in and get the Kings and want that deal. The deal only had the Kings contributing somewhere between 65-75 million and that was mostly going to come from the loan that the Maloofs owed the city anyway.

It's fairly gravy train for any owner that doesn't have money issues like the Maloofs have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
There is no finalized Sacramento arena deal.
Hence why I said essentially.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
There were a lot of other issues before it ever gotten to the point of it being finalized.
No there wasn't. The deal was ready to go and was in the preliminary stages of getting off the ground when the Maloofs backed out citing that it didn't make sense for them financially. A good look at the deal actually shows that the Kings get a damn good amount of revenue relative to what they have to put in to get the new building.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 10:34 PM
  #31
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
They came to a non-binding agreement between the city, the Maloofs, and AEG. Both the city and AEG has said that they are still behind the deal if the situation arises where new owners come in and get the Kings and want that deal. The deal only had the Kings contributing somewhere between 65-75 million and that was mostly going to come from the loan that the Maloofs owed the city anyway.

It's fairly gravy train for any owner that doesn't have money issues like the Maloofs have.



Hence why I said essentially.



No there wasn't. The deal was ready to go and was in the preliminary stages of getting off the ground when the Maloofs backed out citing that it didn't make sense for them financially. A good look at the deal actually shows that the Kings get a damn good amount of revenue relative to what they have to put in to get the new building.
Who's covering Cost over runs is a big issue, then the actually selling of parking garages to private group and the loss of revenue from that. It takes longer than 2-3 months to get an arena deal done.

gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 10:56 PM
  #32
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,933
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
The arena deal is already done essentially. It's putting together ownership commitments to match enough of the deal to keep them in Sacramento that's the concern. This came out of the blue which was likely the purpose for the Maloofs to keep some ownership of the team and get out of town.
AEG, in essence blocked the transfer to Anaheim, Pink Floyd, that's why the Anaheim deal collapsed because it infringes on the LA Market...

CHRDANHUTCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 11:04 PM
  #33
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Who's covering Cost over runs is a big issue, then the actually selling of parking garages to private group and the loss of revenue from that. It takes longer than 2-3 months to get an arena deal done.
Who was covering the overrun costs is irrelevant to the Maloofs because they weren't going to and it was never in the deal that they would. That was going to be the city's responsibility one way or the other. The deal didn't come together in just two to three months. The city had been working for about a year or so on a deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
AEG, in essence blocked the transfer to Anaheim, Pink Floyd, that's why the Anaheim deal collapsed because it infringes on the LA Market...
Got a source for that? It wasn't AEG that blocked that deal. Nobody really blocked the deal.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 09:34 AM
  #34
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Who was covering the overrun costs is irrelevant to the Maloofs because they weren't going to and it was never in the deal that they would. That was going to be the city's responsibility one way or the other. The deal didn't come together in just two to three months. The city had been working for about a year or so on a deal.
And they have no shovel to group arena deal with funding finalized so its a moot point.

gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 09:52 AM
  #35
Mightygoose
I Am Groot
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,439
vCash: 500
Looks like Larry Ellison's name is being brought up as a potential white knight

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/25/514...o-bid-for.html

After losing out on GS, I understand he wanted to move the hornets to San Jose. Would he even have or take part in the arena plan in Sacramento?

Perhaps, another Hail Mary article on the Sac Bee's part

Mightygoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 10:26 AM
  #36
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Serbia
Posts: 2,482
vCash: 500
How good of publicity would it be to move the team today and have it back 3 years later when new arena is ready ? If the team moves, I doubt the NBA will be welcome back for the next 10 years.

powerstuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 01:15 PM
  #37
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose View Post
Looks like Larry Ellison's name is being brought up as a potential white knight

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/25/514...o-bid-for.html

After losing out on GS, I understand he wanted to move the hornets to San Jose. Would he even have or take part in the arena plan in Sacramento?

Perhaps, another Hail Mary article on the Sac Bee's part
Non issue If the NBA wanted him he would be a owner by now.

gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 01:16 PM
  #38
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerstuck View Post
How good of publicity would it be to move the team today and have it back 3 years later when new arena is ready ? If the team moves, I doubt the NBA will be welcome back for the next 10 years.
Sonics fans disagree. its been 5 years since we lost our sonics and we are potentially getting them back next NBA season.

gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 06:41 PM
  #39
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Got a source for that? It wasn't AEG that blocked that deal. Nobody really blocked the deal.
Actually I think AEG was involved and let me tell you why.

The feasibility study for the City of Sacramento was done by ICON Venue Group. Now consider the following:

1) ICON's biggest regular customer is AEG

2) ICON normally charges $7-10 million for these studies

3) ICON did it for FREE

4) The study came back and said "Yeah build it, its totally worth it"

aqib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 06:43 PM
  #40
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
They came to a non-binding agreement between the city, the Maloofs, and AEG. Both the city and AEG has said that they are still behind the deal if the situation arises where new owners come in and get the Kings and want that deal. The deal only had the Kings contributing somewhere between 65-75 million and that was mostly going to come from the loan that the Maloofs owed the city anyway.
But its not like the city has $300+ million sitting in an account waiting. So they have to go to market and get a commitment from a funding source to do it.

aqib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 07:21 PM
  #41
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
But its not like the city has $300+ million sitting in an account waiting. So they have to go to market and get a commitment from a funding source to do it.
Indeed funding for that arena plan wasn't secured.

gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 07:27 PM
  #42
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,344
vCash: 500
The Lakers blocked them from SoCal.


If burkle is intrested that's great, but the NBA can't force the Maloofs to sell to him.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 09:05 PM
  #43
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,170
vCash: 500
The NBA isn't going to say no if Hansen offers more money, and Hansen's not going to be outbid. There's no way this gets to this point and all falls apart in front of the BOG

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 09:31 PM
  #44
Mike in MN
Registered User
 
Mike in MN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: South St Paul
Country: United States
Posts: 168
vCash: 500
I think Sacramento's gonna have to settle for losing the current team with a guarantee of an expansion team in a few year IF they can work out getting a new arena built

Mike in MN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 09:35 PM
  #45
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,933
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 Mike in MN View Post
I think Sacramento's gonna have to settle for losing the current team with a guarantee of an expansion team in a few year IF they can work out getting a new arena built
the NBA isn't expanding.... Sacramento's currently where Seattle was in '08.... that's just the 'business'

CHRDANHUTCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:11 PM
  #46
TealTownLeaf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19
vCash: 500
I want Seattle to return to the NBA, and after they got screwed, the NBA owes them. However, I have grown fond of my adopted city's team, and want Seattle to gain their re-birth by other means.

I've followed this story fairly closely, and here's my take. While Hansen has made a deal with the Maloofs, its by no means final or a death sentence for Sacramento. The board of governors will only vote on the deal if it gets past the review committee. This is where KJ and the potential buyers will stage their fight, and where the Anaheim deal died. A clause has been exposed in which minority owners are able to veto any such sale if they can meet the offered price. Burkle and Mastrov are actively working with several of these owners, and can claim they have first rights to buy out the Maloofs, and have the cash to do it. It's not clear, but it may be that they only have to match the initial offer, which would take The bottomless pockets of Seattle out of the equation. However, Ellison may have been brought in to counter the Seattle $$$ if it becomes a bidding war.

KJ and Sacramento also will have a lot of ammunition in their corner while arguing their side's case. The actions of the Maloofs during the arena deal, and years of neglect leading up, can lead the NBA to act in favor of Sacramento under the "best interest of the league" clause. KJ having arena deals and deep-poket owners helps the city prove its a viable option for the NBA, and were not given a fair chance under the leadership of the Maloofs. Also, Sacramento having no NFL, MLB, NHL, MLS or major D1 college team to compete with, only helps the NBA. It would be in the NBA's best interest to retain Sacramento if there are pieces in place to make the team work.

The fight will be interesting, and hard fought.

TealTownLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:43 PM
  #47
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
The NBA isn't going to say no if Hansen offers more money, and Hansen's not going to be outbid. There's no way this gets to this point and all falls apart in front of the BOG
BOG says no to seattle the NBA would give themselves a black eye and a huge PR nightmare AGAIN almost to the point of there has to be expansion. Stern doesn't want to head his reign as NBA commissioner as the person that shafted seattle twice. Local group can offer more money but Maloofs don't have to sell it locally. So how bad does the NBA want the maloofs out? Voting no on seattle then Maloofs decided to keep the team and not selling it locally will not be helpful for the NBA.

gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 12:20 AM
  #48
TealTownLeaf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
BOG says no to seattle the NBA would give themselves a black eye and a huge PR nightmare AGAIN almost to the point of there has to be expansion. Stern doesn't want to head his reign as NBA commissioner as the person that shafted seattle twice. Local group can offer more money but Maloofs don't have to sell it locally. So how bad does the NBA want the maloofs out? Voting no on seattle then Maloofs decided to keep the team and not selling it locally will not be helpful for the NBA.
If they sell to Seattle they're trading one blacks eye for another. Expansion is the only way Stern and the NBA come out smelling like roses. Plus, Stern has put years of work into keeping the Kings in Sacramento. Now that there's a serious group, and real arena plan in place, he'd look foolish turning his back at this time.

TealTownLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 01:30 AM
  #49
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,170
vCash: 500
The owners want to protect their right to sell to the highest bidder, they will not accept any backdoor shenanigans aimed at taking money from the Maloofs.

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 09:13 AM
  #50
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
The owners want to protect their right to sell to the highest bidder, they will not accept any backdoor shenanigans aimed at taking money from the Maloofs.
Except a sale to Sacramento's local owners won't take any money from the Maloofs. A good chunk of what Hansen's offering is going to the Maloofs AND the NBA. Sacramento's offer doesn't have to have money go to the NBA. Besides that, there's a clause in the minority ownership's contracts that allows for a right to match.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 05:26 AM.

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.