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.

OT: NBA Sacramento sale moves along

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-26-2013, 09:34 AM
  #51
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 29,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
And they have no shovel to group arena deal with funding finalized so its a moot point.
They were in the beginning stages of starting to act on the non-binding agreement. It's also an agreement that the city and AEG are still supporting if new ownership wants to go that route. So regardless of finalized funding, it would go through if new ownership wants. Chances are that new owners may want to do something different but a huge part of the foundation of the deal in terms of who is contributing what is there. Burkle has always been interested in redoing Downtown Plaza for a new arena as opposed to the railyards. We will see. The arena deal will happen with or without the Kings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
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"
AEG certainly has their own angle but they didn't actually do anything to block the potential move to Anaheim. Nobody did. I'm sure Stern talked to the Maloofs and strongly suggested to them that we would prefer you not to move there but he can't really block a move either. Only the Maloofs could tell you why it didn't happen since it was their choice.

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.
They don't need 300+ million sitting in an account. They worked out a deal where that money would be generated. Maybe the numbers are ambitious but if they fall short, the city still has to cover it anyway. The city IS the funding source and the city IS the source for generating the revenue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Indeed funding for that arena plan wasn't secured.
They didn't have to secure funding. It came from their own plan and their own assets in which to use to sell or as revenue. They don't have to find someone to give them the money. Once they come to an agreement on what they're going to do for the money, most of it dealing with parking, they go with it and unless it specifically says someone else is covering any shortfalls, the city will cover it.

It wouldn't have gotten past Sacramento city council if it was a poor deal or completely outlandish in terms of funding for it. This city has rejected numerous arena deals in numerous locations based on silly projections for revenues and little recourse for overruns or shortfalls.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 12:13 PM
  #52
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
They were in the beginning stages of starting to act on the non-binding agreement. It's also an agreement that the city and AEG are still supporting if new ownership wants to go that route. So regardless of finalized funding, it would go through if new ownership wants. Chances are that new owners may want to do something different but a huge part of the foundation of the deal in terms of who is contributing what is there. Burkle has always been interested in redoing Downtown Plaza for a new arena as opposed to the railyards. We will see. The arena deal will happen with or without the Kings.



AEG certainly has their own angle but they didn't actually do anything to block the potential move to Anaheim. Nobody did. I'm sure Stern talked to the Maloofs and strongly suggested to them that we would prefer you not to move there but he can't really block a move either. Only the Maloofs could tell you why it didn't happen since it was their choice.



They don't need 300+ million sitting in an account. They worked out a deal where that money would be generated. Maybe the numbers are ambitious but if they fall short, the city still has to cover it anyway. The city IS the funding source and the city IS the source for generating the revenue.



They didn't have to secure funding. It came from their own plan and their own assets in which to use to sell or as revenue. They don't have to find someone to give them the money. Once they come to an agreement on what they're going to do for the money, most of it dealing with parking, they go with it and unless it specifically says someone else is covering any shortfalls, the city will cover it.

It wouldn't have gotten past Sacramento city council if it was a poor deal or completely outlandish in terms of funding for it. This city has rejected numerous arena deals in numerous locations based on silly projections for revenues and little recourse for overruns or shortfalls.
They ever went through the process of selling the parking to a private group which is my point.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 12:15 PM
  #53
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,458
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
They were in the beginning stages of starting to act on the non-binding agreement. It's also an agreement that the city and AEG are still supporting if new ownership wants to go that route. So regardless of finalized funding, it would go through if new ownership wants. Chances are that new owners may want to do something different but a huge part of the foundation of the deal in terms of who is contributing what is there. Burkle has always been interested in redoing Downtown Plaza for a new arena as opposed to the railyards. We will see. The arena deal will happen with or without the Kings.



AEG certainly has their own angle but they didn't actually do anything to block the potential move to Anaheim. Nobody did. I'm sure Stern talked to the Maloofs and strongly suggested to them that we would prefer you not to move there but he can't really block a move either. Only the Maloofs could tell you why it didn't happen since it was their choice.



They don't need 300+ million sitting in an account. They worked out a deal where that money would be generated. Maybe the numbers are ambitious but if they fall short, the city still has to cover it anyway. The city IS the funding source and the city IS the source for generating the revenue.



They didn't have to secure funding. It came from their own plan and their own assets in which to use to sell or as revenue. They don't have to find someone to give them the money. Once they come to an agreement on what they're going to do for the money, most of it dealing with parking, they go with it and unless it specifically says someone else is covering any shortfalls, the city will cover it.

It wouldn't have gotten past Sacramento city council if it was a poor deal or completely outlandish in terms of funding for it. This city has rejected numerous arena deals in numerous locations based on silly projections for revenues and little recourse for overruns or shortfalls.
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.

CHRDANHUTCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 01:24 PM
  #54
Brodie
Moderator
King at the Wall
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 11,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
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.
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

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 02:08 PM
  #55
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
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.
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.


Last edited by gstommylee: 01-26-2013 at 02:17 PM.
gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 03:40 PM
  #56
NHL Hartford
Registered User
 
NHL Hartford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hartford, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 300
vCash: 500
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.
We actually could considering in the Whalers case Rowland and the state came to an agreement for a new arena, but Karmanos kept moving the goalpost because he NEVER had the intention of staying. He wanted all concessions, parking and the state to pay him $50 mil for owning the team while the arena would be built. On top of that he broke the lease a year early and ended up playing out the Hurricanes first 2 years in Greensboro in front of some of the most sparse crowds seen in NHL history.

NHL Hartford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 04:41 PM
  #57
TealTownLeaf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19
vCash: 500
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 minority owners aren't matching by themselves. They are bidding with Burkle and Mastrov, and potentially Ellison. Their billions will counter Hansen's group. And Seattle's benifits are worthy, but Sacramento has a laundry list of benifits, many of which outweigh Seattle's. most naotably, no major contenders in the market, and strong local government support with an arena deal coupled with years of NBA support for the city.

TealTownLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 04:56 PM
  #58
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TealTownLeaf View Post
The minority owners aren't matching by themselves. They are bidding with Burkle and Mastrov, and potentially Ellison. Their billions will counter Hansen's group. And Seattle's benifits are worthy, but Sacramento has a laundry list of benifits, many of which outweigh Seattle's. most naotably, no major contenders in the market, and strong local government support with an arena deal coupled with years of NBA support for the city.
No it doesn't. Seattle has the advantage right now. They have city and county support, an complete arena deal, ownership group that the NBA wants and Seattle is #14 in the tv market. Years of NBA support for city doesn't matter. We had 41 years of NBA support and we still lost our team.

Also there is no bidding. NBA doesn't own the team.

I don't think the minority owners can use outside funds and claim a RORF. And as i said Maloofs don't have to sell locally so its a moot point. There is 1 binding sales agreement on the table and that is Maloofs + 1 other monority owner selling 65% of the team to seattle's group. NBA BOGs will vote yes or not on that agreement.

So far no "whale" as they call it has come out and announce they are getting involved in the efforts in trying to keep the team in Sacramento. Just cause some newspaper article is claiming it doesn't mean its 100% accurate.

only thing Burkle has done is talk to stern and its been reported that they talked about future position for Sacramento as a NBA city.

Sacramento is running out of time. They have 3 months to get a ownership group going get an arena plan going with the site secured and funding secured before the Apirl BOG meeting. It look Seattle 8 months to get their arena plan approved once it was announced.

It might be already too late if the BOG votes as soon as the vetting is done.


Last edited by gstommylee: 01-26-2013 at 05:15 PM.
gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 05:21 PM
  #59
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 TealTownLeaf View Post
The minority owners aren't matching by themselves. They are bidding with Burkle and Mastrov, and potentially Ellison. Their billions will counter Hansen's group. And Seattle's benifits are worthy, but Sacramento has a laundry list of benifits, many of which outweigh Seattle's. most naotably, no major contenders in the market, and strong local government support with an arena deal coupled with years of NBA support for the city.
Do sactown fans really believe that Ellison can Somehow make a bid along with minority investors claiming ROFR?

superdeluxe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 06:39 PM
  #60
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 21,315
vCash: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
Do sactown fans really believe that Ellison can Somehow make a bid along with minority investors claiming ROFR?
I think it's more last minute desperation that the team can be salvaged at the eleventh hour.

No Fun Shogun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 09:13 PM
  #61
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 29,054
vCash: 500
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 09:25 PM
  #62
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,458
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
Old
01-26-2013, 09:29 PM
  #63
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,652
vCash: 50
so, regarding the sale:
1. When can the new arena be ready?
2. Will they play temporarily somewhere (keyarena?)

__________________
RIP Kev.
danishh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 09:33 PM
  #64
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
so, regarding the sale:
1. When can the new arena be ready?
2. Will they play temporarily somewhere (keyarena?)
1. No delay 15-16
2. Key arena will be temporary home.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 09:39 PM
  #65
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 29,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
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...
I don't see how this is relevant.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 09:41 PM
  #66
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
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.
Stern has zero control over what the BOG does and he wants seattle to have a team back before he retires.

contract agreements everything has to be clearly written. If the ROFR is written so vague it won't stand up in court and if this goes to litigation Sacramento will lose their team. You have no idea how much the NBA hates being told what to do. It is essentially guarantee they will not approve local ownership and a guarantee that Sacramento will never get a team again.

NBA has the right to decide who ends up being owners or not.

Tick off the NBA and they will vote against you no matter what if you try claiming RORF to match the offer or not.

If Sacramento has any shot at keeping their team litigation isn't the solution.

They have 3 months to get a ownership group going and an arena plan unless the BOG decides to vote on it next month.

This wasn't a quick deal. This has been going on for at least a couple months. It was only just reported that there was a deal working on that the maloofs are going to sell the team to Hansen's group a couple weeks ago. Hansen and his lawyers are aware of the ROFR and so were the NBA lawyers if it was such a huge issue the agreement would not been announced last Monday.


Last edited by gstommylee: 01-26-2013 at 10:05 PM.
gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 10:15 PM
  #67
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 29,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Stern has zero control over what the BOG does and he wants seattle to have a team back before he retires.

contract agreements everything has to be clearly written. If the ROFR is written so vague it won't stand up in court and if this goes to litigation Sacramento will lose their team. You have no idea how much the NBA hates being told what to do. It is essentially guarantee they will not approve local ownership and a guarantee that Sacramento will never get a team again.

NBA has the right to decide who ends up being owners or not.

Tick off the NBA and they will vote against you no matter what if you try claiming RORF to match the offer or not.

If Sacramento has any shot at keeping their team litigation isn't the solution.

They have 3 months to get a ownership group going and an arena plan unless the BOG decides to vote on it next month.

This wasn't a quick deal. This has been going on for at least a couple months. It was only just reported that there was a deal working on that the maloofs are going to sell the team to Hansen's group a couple weeks ago. Hansen and his lawyers are aware of the ROFR and so were the NBA lawyers if it was such a huge issue the agreement would not been announced last Monday.
Stern wants Seattle to get a team back but he's not going to make the same mistake twice doing it. If this goes through, all he's doing is making up the Seattle mistake by making Sacramento the mistake.

You also completely falsify the league's stances towards litigation like this. If any of that crap were true, Seattle wouldn't even be in the discussion for a team because they did this when they lost their team.

And yes, this was a quick deal. Even if you believe your story, two months is a short time for a sale process of this size. And just because Hansen, the NBA, and their lawyers don't believe it is a huge issue doesn't mean much of anything. The courts will decide and it wouldn't impact announcing it in the slightest because they'd have to go through with it one way or the other.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 10:23 PM
  #68
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Stern wants Seattle to get a team back but he's not going to make the same mistake twice doing it. If this goes through, all he's doing is making up the Seattle mistake by making Sacramento the mistake.

You also completely falsify the league's stances towards litigation like this. If any of that crap were true, Seattle wouldn't even be in the discussion for a team because they did this when they lost their team.

And yes, this was a quick deal. Even if you believe your story, two months is a short time for a sale process of this size. And just because Hansen, the NBA, and their lawyers don't believe it is a huge issue doesn't mean much of anything. The courts will decide and it wouldn't impact announcing it in the slightest because they'd have to go through with it one way or the other.
If you noticed seattle's breach of contract lawsuit was settled and schultz lawsuit against Bennett was dropped and guess what the NBA wasn't happy about either of those lawsuit.

Umm NBA is not expanding anytime soon if NBA wants a team in seattle guess what they have to relocate a team from another city.

And if BOG votes this down stern will retire as the person that shafted seattle twice thus giving the NBA another black eye and a HUGE PR nightmare.

And i am moving on. No point in arguing anymore.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 10:41 PM
  #69
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 29,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
If you noticed seattle's breach of contract lawsuit was settled and schultz lawsuit against Bennett was dropped and guess what the NBA wasn't happy about either of those lawsuit.

Umm NBA is not expanding anytime soon if NBA wants a team in seattle guess what they have to relocate a team from another city.

And if BOG votes this down stern will retire as the person that shafted seattle twice thus giving the NBA another black eye and a HUGE PR nightmare.

And i am moving on. No point in arguing anymore.
lol the NBA wasn't happy about it yet are looking to get them a team back anyway. Maybe you just overplayed that angle a little too much. It's not nearly as big of a deal as you have made it out to be so maybe you should just pick your words a little more carefully.

There are other teams that are potentially in the relocation camp like Milwaukee and Memphis. And whether people want to disagree with it, expansion is an option for the NBA.

Again, you exaggerate what would happen if Seattle doesn't get the Kings but there will be backlash against the NBA for another shady relocation occurrence.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 10:44 PM
  #70
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
lol the NBA wasn't happy about it yet are looking to get them a team back anyway. Maybe you just overplayed that angle a little too much. It's not nearly as big of a deal as you have made it out to be so maybe you should just pick your words a little more carefully.

There are other teams that are potentially in the relocation camp like Milwaukee and Memphis. And whether people want to disagree with it, expansion is an option for the NBA.

Again, you exaggerate what would happen if Seattle doesn't get the Kings but there will be backlash against the NBA for another shady relocation occurrence.
Mempis team has already been sold and Milwaukee extended their lease for 5 years. Look i feel for Sacramento. If there is a way we can get a team and Kings not lose theirs I'm all for it but expansion is not going to happen anytime soon.


Last edited by gstommylee: 01-26-2013 at 10:51 PM.
gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 10:48 PM
  #71
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 danishh View Post
so, regarding the sale:
1. When can the new arena be ready?
2. Will they play temporarily somewhere (keyarena?)
1) - 2015/2016 season

2). 2 years at key arena. As have been reported, work has begun to get it ready for nba/NHL

superdeluxe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 10:54 PM
  #72
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Again, you exaggerate what would happen if Seattle doesn't get the Kings but there will be backlash against the NBA for another shady relocation occurrence.
Fair point. Can we agree that there will be blacklash regardless of what happens.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2013, 12:28 AM
  #73
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 29,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Mempis team has already been sold and Milwaukee extended their lease for 5 years. Look i feel for Sacramento. If there is a way we can get a team and Kings not lose theirs I'm all for it but expansion is not going to happen anytime soon.
Memphis was sold to a Northern Californian. Nothing has really changed with their potential to be relocated except who may initiate it. Them and the Bucks have short-term lease agreements and those normally have some out clause. The Grizzlies one can be bought out at any time.

And if all teams are in a good place, expansion may be used. With Stern, I really doubt he will leave as commissioner without something in place to give Seattle a team and expansion is likely a last resort for him but I don't doubt he'll use it if necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Fair point. Can we agree that there will be blacklash regardless of what happens.
Maybe but going back to Seattle at the expense of Sacramento doesn't do Stern any favors and make his legacy any better.

But I gotta say that's an awesome typo. lol

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2013, 12:52 AM
  #74
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Memphis was sold to a Northern Californian. Nothing has really changed with their potential to be relocated except who may initiate it. Them and the Bucks have short-term lease agreements and those normally have some out clause. The Grizzlies one can be bought out at any time.

And if all teams are in a good place, expansion may be used. With Stern, I really doubt he will leave as commissioner without something in place to give Seattle a team and expansion is likely a last resort for him but I don't doubt he'll use it if necessary.


Maybe but going back to Seattle at the expense of Sacramento doesn't do Stern any favors and make his legacy any better.

But I gotta say that's an awesome typo. lol
It wouldn't be good for his legacy regardless of which team ends up being relocated to Seattle that the issue where the only option to get a team is relocation.

In a perfect world sonics would have stayed and the OKC would have gotten the hornets. I just don't see expansion happening anytime soon. Problem is what money the owners may get via expansion fee is negated by how much they would lose by spitting the pie 31 times.

The league is in a tough position here. They would like to see the maloofs out as NBA owners but also would like to have hansen/balmer as owners and have the seattle market back in the NBA.

If NBA rejects Hansen's sale and the kings stay, the leagues only hope is that the maloofs change their mind and sell locally. Kings fans deserve better owners imo.

If the maloofs decide to keep the team then what after NBA rejects the sale. Do we hope they decide to be reasonable and work for a new arena locally or are they gonna try again to relocate.

Like i said Kings fans deserve better owners so question is would it be better in the long term for the city that the kings leave for Seattle so Sacramento gets a future team with better owners?

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2013, 12:58 AM
  #75
n00bxQb
Registered User
 
n00bxQb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,015
vCash: 500
The NBA is such a joke.

n00bxQb 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 01:32 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.