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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-03-2013, 11:02 PM
  #151
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
The NBA's treatment of Seattle is irrelevant. You have no idea what the NHL is willing to consider so again, stop making assumptions of things. It lets that bias seep through even more. The thought that Mastrov's net worth has some doubt about his ability to own the team is laughable.
350m is mastrov's net worth.

Sacramento has never came up as possible destinations for NHL. I doubt coyotes are going there.

If Sacramento is trying for a NHL team then the arena cost is far more than 400m.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:06 PM
  #152
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
350m is mastrov's net worth.

Sacramento has never came up as possible destinations for NHL. I doubt coyotes are going there.
Sacramento has never pushed for the NHL either because they're a little bit busy trying to keep their team. But it'd be silly for anyone to assume that if the Kings left town that Sacramento would not pursue an NHL franchise when chances are that an NBA one is not going to be in the cards. The city has to build a new arena regardless of the Kings' situation. They will need a tenant for that and whether it's the Coyotes or an expansion team, they will make a push for an NHL team since the NBA is not looking at having a remedy for both cities in this situation.

As for Mastrov, again, you're assuming that he's the only one involved in this...he is not. His net worth doesn't mean much when there are many, many investors involved in this.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:10 PM
  #153
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Sacramento has never pushed for the NHL either because they're a little bit busy trying to keep their team. But it'd be silly for anyone to assume that if the Kings left town that Sacramento would not pursue an NHL franchise when chances are that an NBA one is not going to be in the cards. The city has to build a new arena regardless of the Kings' situation. They will need a tenant for that and whether it's the Coyotes or an expansion team, they will make a push for an NHL team since the NBA is not looking at having a remedy for both cities in this situation.
To take our arena deal as an example for it to pencil out financially you need both NBA and NHL. In the case of sacramento a 500m arena would and only attract the NHL would be very hard to do.

And the NHL probably would want someone with deeper pockets in order to prevent another coyotes situation where the owner filed for bankruptcy.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:12 PM
  #154
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Sacramento has never pushed for the NHL either because they're a little bit busy trying to keep their team. But it'd be silly for anyone to assume that if the Kings left town that Sacramento would not pursue an NHL franchise when chances are that an NBA one is not going to be in the cards. The city has to build a new arena regardless of the Kings' situation. They will need a tenant for that and whether it's the Coyotes or an expansion team, they will make a push for an NHL team since the NBA is not looking at having a remedy for both cities in this situation.

As for Mastrov, again, you're assuming that he's the only one involved in this...he is not. His net worth doesn't mean much when there are many, many investors involved in this.
My impression based on what KJ said is that Mastrov would be majority owner of the kings. There may be other owners but they would be minority owners. The question is there an actually "whale" involved not named burkle with the purchase of the team.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:14 PM
  #155
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
To take our arena deal as an example for it to pencil out financially you need both NBA and NHL. In the case of sacramento a 500m arena would and only attract the NHL would be very hard to do.

And the NHL probably would want someone with deeper pockets in order to prevent another coyotes situation where the owner filed for bankruptcy.
Except the Seattle arena deal and the Sacramento arena deal are apples and oranges so comparing them is futile and meaningless. I didn't hear the NBA making a peep about Joe Lacob's purchase and his net worth is less than Mastrov.

And with Burkle involved with the arena deal, I think it would leave it open for him to buy a franchise and I don't think anyone would have an issue with his pockets.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:18 PM
  #156
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Except the Seattle arena deal and the Sacramento arena deal are apples and oranges so comparing them is futile and meaningless. I didn't hear the NBA making a peep about Joe Lacob's purchase and his net worth is less than Mastrov.

And with Burkle involved with the arena deal, I think it would leave it open for him to buy a franchise and I don't think anyone would have an issue with his pockets.
Unless burkle comes out publicly and announce he is involved in buying of the kings then its not going to happen. To use the price of seattle's arena ~490m arena would probably what it would take for it to beable to host NHL events where city provides 250 and Burkle provides 240m. That is not that far off from what Hansen's plan 200m public 290m private. The issue i have is how can one pencil out a 240m investment on NHL only.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:20 PM
  #157
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Unless burkle comes out publicly and announce he is involved in buying of the kings then its not going to happen.
That doesn't really negate the part where your net worth argument is meaningless when Lacob bought the Warriors two and a half years ago with less net worth than Mastrov. They don't need Burkle to announce that he's part of buying the team because Mastrov is enough to be a majority owner of the team. If Sacramento or the NBA felt the need to have Burkle in there, he would have been.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:25 PM
  #158
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
That doesn't really negate the part where your net worth argument is meaningless when Lacob bought the Warriors two and a half years ago with less net worth than Mastrov. They don't need Burkle to announce that he's part of buying the team because Mastrov is enough to be a majority owner of the team. If Sacramento or the NBA felt the need to have Burkle in there, he would have been.
We'll see what the NBA says. NBA likes what Hansen/ballmer provides.

Reality it'll come down to what each city can provide.

Seattle larger tv market larger tv contract ( RSN covering several states) Larger cooperate support.

Sacramento 100% of the market. 100% of the market may look good but it also is a disadvantage no offense. TV contract brings more $$$ with multiple teams involved.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:29 PM
  #159
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
We'll see what the NBA says. NBA likes what Hansen/ballmer provides.

Reality it'll come down to what each city can provide.

Seattle larger tv market larger tv contract ( RSN covering several states) Larger cooperate support.

Sacramento 100% of the market. 100% of the market may look good but it also is a disadvantage no offense. TV contract brings more $$$ with multiple teams involved.
lol you're acting like Sacramento offers nothing to the NBA.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:33 PM
  #160
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
lol you're acting like Sacramento offers nothing to the NBA.
I was assuming that if both offers were equal.

Sacramento still runs into the issue of maloofs wanting to sell locally.

Its not in the NBA's authority to chose which offer to take cause they do not own the team. NBA can chose yes or no on seattle's offer and that is. If no then its up to sacramento's group to somehow convince the maloofs to sell locally. NBA can't force maloofs to sell locally.

I think we both agree that maloofs should be out as owners but the question remains is it worth the risk that the maloofs will just keep the team if NBA says no to Seattle.

But Maloofs should have the right to decide who they want to sell to. NBA telling maloofs NO on seattle essentially leaving sacramento the only one option "if they still want to sell" which essentially is somewhat forcing the team locally.


Last edited by gstommylee: 03-03-2013 at 11:39 PM.
gstommylee is online now  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:38 PM
  #161
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
I was assuming that if both offers were equal.

Sacramento still runs into the issue of maloofs wanting to sell locally.

I think we both agree that maloofs should be out as owners but the question remains is it worth the risk that the maloofs will just keep the team if NBA says no to Seattle.
Not really. What other options would the Maloofs have? They're not going to keep the team at this point and there is only one offer that will theoretically be approved upon at that point.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:40 PM
  #162
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Not really. What other options would the Maloofs have? They're not going to keep the team at this point and there is only one offer that will theoretically be approved upon at that point.
But its still UP to the maloofs to accept a local offer that's the point. Is it worth that risk that the Maloofs decide to keep the team to the NBA.

I find it very unlikely that there would be enough owners against NBA returning to Seattle.

As Nuclear SUV pointed out owners would not deny other owners a chance to sell when at some point they want to sell.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:44 PM
  #163
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
But its still UP to the maloofs to accept a local offer that's the point.
Their options if Seattle is a no is to sell to the Sacramento group or keep the team and eventually file for bankruptcy. Besides, they won't deal with being here and dealing with this for longer than they have to. They've gone past the point of no return here. The NBA has nudged them before and they'll nudge them again.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:47 PM
  #164
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Their options if Seattle is a no is to sell to the Sacramento group or keep the team and eventually file for bankruptcy. Besides, they won't deal with being here and dealing with this for longer than they have to. They've gone past the point of no return here. The NBA has nudged them before and they'll nudge them again.
If it comes down to NBA taking over the franchise and selling the team.
Sacramento is at a serious disadvantage since now your talking about money directly into 29 owner's pockets on the sale of the team.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:49 PM
  #165
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
If it comes down to NBA taking over the franchise and selling the team.
Sacramento is at a serious disadvantage since now your talking about money directly into 29 owner's pockets on the sale of the team.
If the NBA takes over the franchise and already said no to Seattle, they will sell it to the Sacramento group and get it over with. This is a group that has already said in this scenario that we want you to sell to the Sacramento group and not the Seattle one. It would be pretty cut and dry at that point.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:53 PM
  #166
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
If the NBA takes over the franchise and already said no to Seattle, they will sell it to the Sacramento group and get it over with. This is a group that has already said in this scenario that we want you to sell to the Sacramento group and not the Seattle one. It would be pretty cut and dry at that point.
Its a completely different situation. Seattle will still attempt to buy the team from the NBA anyways. Its not Hansen writing a check for 341m for 65% of the team. It's Hansen writing a check for 525m for the entire team and thats goes directly into NBA's pockets.

A bidding war sacramento does not want.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:56 PM
  #167
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Its a completely different situation. Seattle will still attempt to buy the team from the NBA anyways. Its not Hansen writing a check for 341m for 65% of the team. It's Hansen writing a check for 525m for the entire team and thats goes directly into NBA's pockets.

A bidding war sacramento does not want.
Uh, no. If the Maloofs go bankrupt, it's for their share...not the entire franchise. And I really doubt any court is going to legitimately challenge a pro sports ability to determine its owners and partners.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:57 PM
  #168
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Uh, no. If the Maloofs go bankrupt, it's for their share...not the entire franchise. And I really doubt any court is going to legitimately challenge a pro sports ability to determine its owners and partners.
I stand corrected but still it'll turn into a true bidding war

gstommylee is online now  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:59 PM
  #169
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
I stand corrected but still it'll turn into a true bidding war
Not necessarily. The courts in Arizona passed the buck on this and this would end up in a Sacramento court more than likely and they would likely do the same. And the NBA would react the same as the NHL did to protect their right to pick their owners.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 12:03 AM
  #170
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Not necessarily. The courts in Arizona passed the buck on this and this would end up in a Sacramento court more than likely and they would likely do the same. And the NBA would react the same as the NHL did to protect their right to pick their owners.
It'll come down to HOW BAD does NBA wants Hansen/balmer as owners.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
03-04-2013, 12:16 AM
  #171
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,543
vCash: 500
The Sacramento group offer will need to be a great offer with a reliable ownership that compares to Hansen group, a group that has an agreement in place with current owner that already received a sizeable nonrefundable down payment. For the NBA to nix that deal would be very surprising at this stage IMHO.

nwpensfan is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 08:19 AM
  #172
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
It'll come down to HOW BAD does NBA wants Hansen/balmer as owners.
If it came down to that, they'd tell Kevin Johnson and his group to not even bother.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwpensfan View Post
The Sacramento group offer will need to be a great offer with a reliable ownership that compares to Hansen group, a group that has an agreement in place with current owner that already received a sizeable nonrefundable down payment. For the NBA to nix that deal would be very surprising at this stage IMHO.
I agree it would be surprising if the NBA nixed this deal anyway. However, the city has done everything it could and if not for the Maloofs screwing the city over at every turn, Seattle would've never even entered the discussion. The right thing to do is to sell to the local owners. The easy thing to do is to let this pass and get it over with. The ownership groups involved on both sides don't need to be questioned. They both have what it takes to be good owners in this league.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 08:56 AM
  #173
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
If it came down to that, they'd tell Kevin Johnson and his group to not even bother.



I agree it would be surprising if the NBA nixed this deal anyway. However, the city has done everything it could and if not for the Maloofs screwing the city over at every turn, Seattle would've never even entered the discussion. The right thing to do is to sell to the local owners. The easy thing to do is to let this pass and get it over with. The ownership groups involved on both sides don't need to be questioned. They both have what it takes to be good owners in this league.
I agree that the Maloofs are the real villains in this story. One irony of this whole thing is that one of the villains in Seattle losing the Sonics in the first place (besides local government) is the owner of the OKC Thunder who is now head of NBA relocation committee.

I don't like seeing Sacramento lose the Kings because ultimately all I want to see is an NHL team here. Unfortunately that means getting NBA first.


Last edited by nwpensfan: 03-04-2013 at 09:18 AM.
nwpensfan is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 08:11 PM
  #174
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,853
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 nwpensfan View Post
I agree that the Maloofs are the real villains in this story. One irony of this whole thing is that one of the villains in Seattle losing the Sonics in the first place (besides local government) is the owner of the OKC Thunder who is now head of NBA relocation committee.

I don't like seeing Sacramento lose the Kings because ultimately all I want to see is an NHL team here. Unfortunately that means getting NBA first.
and the Assumption that Bennett alone cannot block the relocation of the Kings, hurts Bennett's own deal, nwpensfan, because part of that deal involves the shared history of the Sonics/Thunder, if another franchise replaced the Thunder in Seattle, the history goes back as well as the sidebar that Bennett agreed to when vacating the NW, which meant the name/logo, etc. what it may also mean is the history of the Kings franchise dating all the way back to Rochester is history.

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 11:40 PM
  #175
knorthern knight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,802
vCash: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
and the Assumption that Bennett alone cannot block the relocation of the Kings, hurts Bennett's own deal, nwpensfan, because part of that deal involves the shared history of the Sonics/Thunder, if another franchise replaced the Thunder in Seattle, the history goes back as well as the sidebar that Bennett agreed to when vacating the NW, which meant the name/logo, etc. what it may also mean is the history of the Kings franchise dating all the way back to Rochester is history.
The City of Seattle negotiated that as part of the compensation (in addition to $$$) for the SuperSonics leaving a couple of years before their lease expired. The City of Sacramento doesn't have that leverage.

knorthern knight 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 11:35 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.