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 Sacramento looking to finance new arena; UPD NBA rejects relocation to Seattle bid

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-01-2013, 10:07 PM
  #101
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose View Post
Bid from Marstov and Burkle officially submitted.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=march...&client=safari

No financial details are known as of yet.

Next step, IMO is if the group can reach a viable arena deal with the city in the next month and a half. Could they really pull it off?
I have my doubts that they could. It just depends on how negotiations go and how fast they can come up with a deal that somehow has something where if parking doesn't provide enough the difference is covered. After that its city council review and who knows how long that could happen. The minority owner that wants to buy team and build arena 100% private could derail the city's plan.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 10:12 PM
  #102
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
I have my doubts that they could. It just depends on how negotiations go and how fast they can come up with a deal that somehow has something where if parking doesn't provide enough the difference is covered. After that its city council review and who knows how long that could happen. The minority owner that wants to buy team and build arena 100% private could derail the city's plan.
Unless something goes off the rails with the Seattle Plan before April (and no indication has been given) I just don't see it.

Do you really think the NBA would let Hansen and Ballmer get this far in the process just to say no because their heart is in Sacramento ... because that is basically the counter argument.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 10:17 PM
  #103
Undertakerqc
Registered User
 
Undertakerqc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,282
vCash: 500
I hope they pull it off, Sacramento has proven before to be a good NBA market with a solid fanbase. Its never fun when a strong fanbase loses their team. Seattle can get another NBA team or get an expansion team.

Undertakerqc is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 10:21 PM
  #104
Mightygoose
I Am Groot
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14 View Post
Unless something goes off the rails with the Seattle Plan before April (and no indication has been given) I just don't see it.

Do you really think the NBA would let Hansen and Ballmer get this far in the process just to say no because their heart is in Sacramento ... because that is basically the counter argument.
I have a hard time seeing the NBA turning Hansen and co. as well. It doesn't give Sacramento that much time to get the arena deal together. Even if they patch something together with bubble gum and toothpicks at the 11th hour, it wouldn't look too compelling.

Especially as it looks like Stern wants going back to Seattle to be the last part of his legacy.

Mightygoose is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 11:58 PM
  #105
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patofqc View Post
I hope they pull it off, Sacramento has proven before to be a good NBA market with a solid fanbase. Its never fun when a strong fanbase loses their team. Seattle can get another NBA team or get an expansion team.
Seattle has been proven for 41 years with a solid fanbase and yet they still lost the team. Drop the idea of expansion seriously it is not on the table. So when is the next team? And what if there is a local group wanted to keep them there you want NBA to say no to that sale to Seattle as well?

Only option for seattle for the near future is relocating another team.

Sacramento's group is not even matching the offer and offered a slightly lower amount than what hansen is offering.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 12:10 AM
  #106
wunderpanda
Registered User
 
wunderpanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Seattle has been proven for 41 years with a solid fanbase and yet they still lost the team. Drop the idea of expansion seriously it is not on the table. So when is the next team? And what if there is a local group wanted to keep them there you want NBA to say no to that sale to Seattle as well?

Only option for seattle for the near future is relocating another team.

Sacramento's group is not even matching the offer and offered a slightly lower amount than what hansen is offering.
Seattle lost the Sonics because no local ownership group offered to buy the team and because they refused to fund a new arena. They had 4 years to do anything before the team moved and did nothing. Nothing against the fans, they were great. Sac is different situation. Local ownership wasn't given a chance to make an offer and the Maloofs backed out of a Stern negotiated arena deal.

Can't compare the 2 scenarios.

wunderpanda is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 12:33 AM
  #107
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunderpanda View Post
Seattle lost the Sonics because no local ownership group offered to buy the team and because they refused to fund a new arena. They had 4 years to do anything before the team moved and did nothing. Nothing against the fans, they were great. Sac is different situation. Local ownership wasn't given a chance to make an offer and the Maloofs backed out of a Stern negotiated arena deal.

Can't compare the 2 scenarios.
Sacramento had a much longer time to get their arena issue figured out much longer than how long seattle was given.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 12:42 AM
  #108
wunderpanda
Registered User
 
wunderpanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Sacramento had a much longer time to get their arena issue figured out much longer than how long seattle was given.
They had arena issue solved until owner backed out. Kings owners have tried to relocate the team to Anaheim, Vegas and Virginia Beach the last 2 years while refusing to entertain local offers for the team. Then they signed a deal to sell to Seattle days after stating the team wasn't for sale, like I said, different situation than Seattle.

wunderpanda is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 12:54 AM
  #109
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunderpanda View Post
Seattle lost the Sonics because no local ownership group offered to buy the team and because they refused to fund a new arena. They had 4 years to do anything before the team moved and did nothing. Nothing against the fans, they were great. Sac is different situation. Local ownership wasn't given a chance to make an offer and the Maloofs backed out of a Stern negotiated arena deal.

Can't compare the 2 scenarios.
Seattle still had 2 years left on their lease and had just done a remodel of Key Arena less than 10 years before the league started making noise about needing a new building. So spare us your ill-informed opinions about the Sonics situation.

Both cities were saddled with horrible owners. In fact, the league has been saddled with horrible owners for years, the Maloofs aren't exactly the first. And that is where the issue is for Sac ... this is an owners driven league even bad owners have proven time and again they get to do what they want. Sucks to be on that end of things but we can relate.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 12:55 AM
  #110
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunderpanda View Post
They had arena issue solved until owner backed out. Kings owners have tried to relocate the team to Anaheim, Vegas and Virginia Beach the last 2 years while refusing to entertain local offers for the team. Then they signed a deal to sell to Seattle days after stating the team wasn't for sale, like I said, different situation than Seattle.
There were plenty of rumors about them being willing to sell for $500MM back in the fall ... so no one in Sac was blindsided by the team being for sale. No one stepped up to make an offer except Chris Hansen.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 01:22 AM
  #111
Undertakerqc
Registered User
 
Undertakerqc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14 View Post
There were plenty of rumors about them being willing to sell for $500MM back in the fall ... so no one in Sac was blindsided by the team being for sale. No one stepped up to make an offer except Chris Hansen.
Seattle will get a chance at another NBA team, let Sacramento keep their team. NBA should not correct the mistake of leaving Seattle by creating a wrong in Sacramento. They have a solid owner lined up. The mayor seems hell bent on getting a new arena. Do the right thing Stern, save the Kings.

Undertakerqc is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 02:46 AM
  #112
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunderpanda View Post
Seattle lost the Sonics because no local ownership group offered to buy the team and because they refused to fund a new arena. They had 4 years to do anything before the team moved and did nothing. .
False.


Seattle locals never had a chance to buy the team. Schutz sold the team to the Okies late at night without giving other locals or even his minority partners a chance to match the offer. The lying Okies never intended to keep the Sonics in Seattle. While the Okies were stealing the team, a local group led by Steve Ballmer came forward willing to buy the team (okiers wouldn't sell) and put up $150,000,000 towards Key Arena.

Seattle never had a chance to save the Sonics. If we did, we would still have them. Seattle was one of the top NBA cities and is swimming in interested multibillionare owners.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 02:48 AM
  #113
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patofqc View Post
Seattle will get a chance at another NBA team, let Sacramento keep their team. NBA should not correct the mistake of leaving Seattle by creating a wrong in Sacramento. They have a solid owner lined up. The mayor seems hell bent on getting a new arena. Do the right thing Stern, save the Kings.
Sacramento can keep their history and steal another team when they get an arena ironed out.

It's only fair. We in Seattle have suffered enough. If this is how the game is played, so be it. Sacramento can get upset at Oklahoma City and David Stern.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 06:06 AM
  #114
wunderpanda
Registered User
 
wunderpanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14 View Post
There were plenty of rumors about them being willing to sell for $500MM back in the fall ... so no one in Sac was blindsided by the team being for sale. No one stepped up to make an offer except Chris Hansen.
People stepped up, Burkle for one, the Maloofs refused to sell and declared the Kings weren't for sale then signed the deal with Hansen after the Virginia Beach deal fell thru. People were blindsided because the Maloofs kept saying the team wasn't for sale.

I'm not positive on what the story was in Seattle when they sold, but a few things were clear to me. They were sold after the owner tried to negotiate an arena deal for 2 years. There was a vote prohibiting the use use of public funds to build a new arena but they had also just partially funded 2 new stadiums. The team remained in Seattle as the new owner tried (not sure how hard he tried) for a year or two to reach an arena deal. Stern even corrected the revisionist history at the NBA All Star game.

I'm not saying the Kings won't relocate, just that its not the same scenario as when the Sonics left.

wunderpanda is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 06:13 AM
  #115
wunderpanda
Registered User
 
wunderpanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Seattle has been proven for 41 years with a solid fanbase and yet they still lost the team. Drop the idea of expansion seriously it is not on the table. So when is the next team? And what if there is a local group wanted to keep them there you want NBA to say no to that sale to Seattle as well?

Only option for seattle for the near future is relocating another team.

Sacramento's group is not even matching the offer and offered a slightly lower amount than what hansen is offering.
The reason they have a lower offer is because they don't need t pay the 30 million relocation fee or the 77 million loan back to Sac.

wunderpanda is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 10:19 AM
  #116
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 15,039
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 wunderpanda View Post
The reason they have a lower offer is because they don't need t pay the 30 million relocation fee or the 77 million loan back to Sac.
Bottom line:

Seattle's the front runner, to those arguing for the status quo in Sacramento, even NBA TV Business insiders say Seattle's the front runner aka the Hansen bid....

where was Burkle then when the decision was made that Sleep Train Arena is no longer economically feasible to even remodel, and why is Sacramento's focus is on a downtown arena proposal as its replacement? How does that help the Mastrov competitive bid or the Kings staying in Sacramento...

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 11:55 AM
  #117
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunderpanda View Post
People stepped up, Burkle for one, the Maloofs refused to sell and declared the Kings weren't for sale then signed the deal with Hansen after the Virginia Beach deal fell thru. People were blindsided because the Maloofs kept saying the team wasn't for sale.

I'm not positive on what the story was in Seattle when they sold, but a few things were clear to me. They were sold after the owner tried to negotiate an arena deal for 2 years. There was a vote prohibiting the use use of public funds to build a new arena but they had also just partially funded 2 new stadiums. The team remained in Seattle as the new owner tried (not sure how hard he tried) for a year or two to reach an arena deal. Stern even corrected the revisionist history at the NBA All Star game.

I'm not saying the Kings won't relocate, just that its not the same scenario as when the Sonics left.
Didn't Sac also have a public vote on an arena that was voted down overwhelmingly? And Burkle obviously didn't make a high enough offer (if he did at all) but Hansen did. It was not a big secret they would sell for a high enough price, so the idea that Sac didn't know the team was for sale just isn't true. Those are the facts. You are cherry picking information to make your point.

Here is what it will come down to ... owners and their ability to sell their asset for max value. Period. All the stuff about attendance and fan support means nothing. I wish it meant more ... that would mean the Sonics would have never left (we had a big rally too ... thousands showed up. We also had a last minute arena and ownership plan ... and at the end of the day it meant nothing) and Sac would be staying. In a perfect world one of these teams get an expansion team but it isn't a perfect world so I think it means Sac is next in line for a team/leverage for ownership to maximize the value of their own franchise should they decide to sell/move.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 12:00 PM
  #118
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunderpanda View Post
The reason they have a lower offer is because they don't need t pay the 30 million relocation fee or the 77 million loan back to Sac.
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.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 12:06 PM
  #119
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
False.


Seattle locals never had a chance to buy the team. Schutz sold the team to the Okies late at night without giving other locals or even his minority partners a chance to match the offer. The lying Okies never intended to keep the Sonics in Seattle. While the Okies were stealing the team, a local group led by Steve Ballmer came forward willing to buy the team (okiers wouldn't sell) and put up $150,000,000 towards Key Arena.

Seattle never had a chance to save the Sonics. If we did, we would still have them. Seattle was one of the top NBA cities and is swimming in interested multibillionare owners.
Yep - and Howie sold to the group from OKC because he thought an outside group with a threat to move the team would have a higher chance of succeeding in getting a new building in Seattle. What a clown ... which is why I said earlier its not like the Maloofs are the first horrible ownership group in the NBA. Fans in Sac should take a look at what happened to the Hornets and George Shinn, they are not alone and unfortunately these don't end well for the fans (and its well known the Lakers and Clippers had more of a say in blocking the proposed move to Anaheim ... the Maloofs never even officially filed for the move after "exploring" it).


Last edited by maruk14: 03-02-2013 at 02:17 PM.
maruk14 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 03:13 PM
  #120
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunderpanda View Post
I'm not positive on what the story was in Seattle when they sold, but a few things were clear to me. They were sold after the owner tried to negotiate an arena deal for 2 years.
False.

Quote:
There was a vote prohibiting the use use of public funds to build a new arena but they had also just partially funded 2 new stadiums.
A toothless city only initiative that the council could wave, and did for the Storm.

Quote:
The team remained in Seattle as the new owner tried (not sure how hard he tried) for a year or two to reach an arena deal.
False. The Okies never intended to keep team in Seattle.

Quote:

I'm not saying the Kings won't relocate, just that its not the same scenario as when the Sonics left.
Exactly. The Seattle situation was worse. Seattle never had a chance to save the team. Sacramento has known for a few years that their days were numbered. Seattle was sold late at night to the man who vowed to bring the NBA to Sacramento without giving Seattle locals or the minority partners a chance to put together a deal.


Please stop spreading misinformation about the Seattle situation. Seattle was a top 10 NBA city who never had a chance to save their team because of the shortsided greed of Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 03:27 PM
  #121
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,413
vCash: 500
Sac got a deal done! But it took them 14 years. The Kings have needed an Arena since 1998.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 03:57 PM
  #122
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Sac got a deal done! But it took them 14 years. The Kings have needed an Arena since 1998.
First - I know your post is in jest but it brings up a point.

Sac's arena deal last year was at the very beginning stages. They hadn't even auctioned off the parking and there were various ranges of what they could get out of selling those leases. They had a "framework" of a deal that had a ton of details to be filled and a lot of pitfalls along the way.

Now, they are scrapping that plan and starting over again with loosely the same "framework".

maruk14 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 04:00 PM
  #123
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14 View Post
First - I know your post is in jest but it brings up a point.

Sac's arena deal last year was at the very beginning stages. They hadn't even auctioned off the parking and there were various ranges of what they could get out of selling those leases. They had a "framework" of a deal that had a ton of details to be filled and a lot of pitfalls along the way.

Now, they are scrapping that plan and starting over again with loosely the same "framework".
True.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 07:44 PM
  #124
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 33,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
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  
Old
03-02-2013, 07:58 PM
  #125
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
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.
Thats not really true. The NBA would be opening up themselves to an anti-trust suit if they deny the sale this far along in the process. Especially since money changed hands.

Its all moot though, because the NBA knows this. Its why a formal application for relocation has never been rejected except for financial reasons.

maruk14 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 12:33 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.