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.

Metro Seattle: NHL, NBA and Arena - Part VI

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-10-2013, 10:11 PM
  #826
Stonewall
Registered User
 
Stonewall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,758
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrix78 View Post
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento...nt?oid=9545687

the arena in Seattle wouldn't be ready before mi-2017.

Any chance the see the Coyotes play in the Key Arena for 4 years ?
It will not happen.
That's not the greatest source...

Stonewall is offline  
Old
04-10-2013, 10:23 PM
  #827
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrix78 View Post
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento...nt?oid=9545687

the arena in Seattle wouldn't be ready before mi-2017.

Any chance the see the Coyotes play in the Key Arena for 4 years ?
It will not happen.
That's bogus. The arena will begin construction as soon as January 2014 once the EIS is done and NBA approves the sale of the Kings to Hansen's group.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
04-10-2013, 10:41 PM
  #828
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,924
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
I'm cheering for Seattle but that sounds like spin to me. I think this is bad news for Seattle.

The Maloofs don't need to remind anyone that they control the team. The NBA can not force them to sell if they reject the Seattle offer. It seems very odd that they're now asking for a binding back-up bid. IMO this is a signal that the Maloofs are willing to sell the team to either party following the outcome of the NBA meeting.

And why would the NBA award the team to Seattle now if there's a matching offer from Sacramento and an arena pledge? Not feeling too good about this right now......
Not spin just my first reaction. If NBA rejects Hansen that puts the Maloofs in a very bad spot and could get lowballed. I think they must have a good idea what the Sacramento offer is which forced their hard stand. Just an opinion.

nwpensfan is online now  
Old
04-10-2013, 10:52 PM
  #829
Shaz
Registered User
 
Shaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Tacoma, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrix78 View Post
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento...nt?oid=9545687

the arena in Seattle wouldn't be ready before mi-2017.

Any chance the see the Coyotes play in the Key Arena for 4 years ?
It will not happen.
Lol that is no where near accurate

Shaz is offline  
Old
04-10-2013, 11:20 PM
  #830
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
I'm cheering for Seattle but that sounds like spin to me. I think this is bad news for Seattle.

The Maloofs don't need to remind anyone that they control the team.
The Maloofs have $30,000,000 reasons not to shop around for a back up bid. This smells of David Stern.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
04-10-2013, 11:22 PM
  #831
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patofqc View Post
I agree with you, sounds like the NBA will do the right thing and keep the team where it belongs.
...in Seattle. If the NBA blocks the Seattle deal, expect anti-trust lawsuits. You can thank the State of Washington for the Toronto Bluejays.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
04-10-2013, 11:25 PM
  #832
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
...in Seattle. If the NBA blocks the Seattle deal, expect anti-trust lawsuits. You can thank the State of Washington for the Toronto Bluejays.

Can you explain?

Fugu is offline  
Old
04-10-2013, 11:30 PM
  #833
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Can you explain?
I think the poster may be referring to the legal action taken after the Seattle lost the team that become the Brewers that ultimately resulted in Seattle and Toronto becoming expansion sister cities a few years later.

That's my guess, anyway.

 
Old
04-10-2013, 11:32 PM
  #834
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
I doubt Hansen will be using the NBA. That is one way to get the city blacklisted by the NBA and other leagues especially the NHL.

I only see the maloofs suing the NBA they have nothing to lose.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
04-10-2013, 11:36 PM
  #835
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
I think the poster may be referring to the legal action taken after the Seattle lost the team that become the Brewers that ultimately resulted in Seattle and Toronto becoming expansion sister cities a few years later.

That's my guess, anyway.

Okay, thanks, D. I'm just trying to figure out why anti-trust is coming up in the context of this discussion. Hansen wants an NBA team in Seattle. I think he is willing to work with the NBA to make that happen, along the lines of Chipman in Winnipeg. My sense is that there's nothing overly contentious about it. In theory, the Maloofs could move the team themselves, and then sell it.

Fugu is offline  
Old
04-10-2013, 11:38 PM
  #836
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
The Maloofs have $30,000,000 reasons not to shop around for a back up bid. This smells of David Stern.
Im not following your reference to $30 million.

silvercanuck is offline  
Old
04-10-2013, 11:39 PM
  #837
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Can you explain?
Pilots were stolen away from WA, state sued the AL, won, and the AL expanded by two teams in 1977, one of which was the Toronto Bluejays. Without that lawsuit, the AL would have likely stayed at the same # teams as the NL had.

If the NBA screws Seattle next week, expect a lawsuit. What more can we do? They never gave us a chance to keep the Sonics. If we can't buy an existing team and they won't expand, what choice do we have but to sue? We dropped the lease lawsuit to appease the NBA, it is time they appease us.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
04-10-2013, 11:40 PM
  #838
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,605
vCash: 500
So everyone is freaking out

Bad for the good guys: stern wants team in cowtown.

Good for the good guys: owners want team in Seattle.

Other good stuff: Hansen would create RSN that would bring nba team 40 mil a year, mOre than 80% more sactown.

Arena would be complete by sept 2015.

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
04-10-2013, 11:40 PM
  #839
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Okay, thanks, D. I'm just trying to figure out why anti-trust is coming up in the context of this discussion. Hansen wants an NBA team in Seattle. I think he is willing to work with the NBA to make that happen, along the lines of Chipman in Winnipeg. My sense is that there's nothing overly contentious about it. In theory, the Maloofs could move the team themselves, and then sell it.
Maloofs can't own the team and move it to seattle. Our MOU doesn't allow it. Too much collateral or something like that. The MOU is specific to a certain either 40 or 60% (i can't recall off hand) of how much the team can be used as collateral. Maloofs are way above that i believe.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
04-10-2013, 11:44 PM
  #840
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
So everyone is freaking out

Bad for the good guys: stern wants team in cowtown.
Link please. I think Stern and the owners heavily prefer Seattle. The Friday deadline is the last nail in the Sacramento coffin. Do you honestly think they can/will match the Seattle bid? I don't. The numbers do not pencil out for that market. I think the Sacramento folks were hoping for a local discount.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
Im not following your reference to $30 million.
It's the price of the exclusive bargaining agreement with Hansen.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
04-10-2013, 11:46 PM
  #841
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
I doubt Hansen will be using the NBA. That is one way to get the city blacklisted by the NBA and other leagues especially the NHL.
State of Washington with the lawsuit. Tax money went towards Key Arena, and that lease was broken 2 years early to appease the NBA. If we can't buy a team to move it and they won't expand, we have no choice but to sue.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
04-10-2013, 11:46 PM
  #842
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
Pilots were stolen away from WA, state sued the AL, won, and the AL expanded by two teams in 1977, one of which was the Toronto Bluejays. Without that lawsuit, the AL would have likely stayed at the same # teams as the NL had.

If the NBA screws Seattle next week, expect a lawsuit. What more can we do? They never gave us a chance to keep the Sonics. If we can't buy an existing team and they won't expand, what choice do we have but to sue? We dropped the lease lawsuit to appease the NBA, it is time they appease us.

Who would sue the NBA? Seattle? On what legal grounds?

Fugu is offline  
Old
04-10-2013, 11:48 PM
  #843
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Who would sue the NBA? Seattle? On what legal grounds?
Would be maloofs. Anti-trust for dictating who the Maloofs can sell or not sell to essentially forcing them to only accept offer by Sacramento group.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
State of Washington with the lawsuit. Tax money went towards Key Arena, and that lease was broken 2 years early to appease the NBA. If we can't buy a team to move it and they won't expand, we have no choice but to sue.
And be backlisted by the NBA not going to help here.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
04-10-2013, 11:51 PM
  #844
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylBee View Post
And be backlisted by the NBA not going to help here.
Just like we were blacklisted by the AL when we sued them.... They blacklist us, *poof* to their monopoly. We have more on the NBA than we did with the AL.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
04-10-2013, 11:53 PM
  #845
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
Just like we were blacklisted by the AL when we sued them.... They blacklist us, *poof* to their monopoly. We have more on the NBA than we did with the AL.
But isn't that the fact there was a settlement allowing the sonics to leave prevent seattle or state from suing regarding those issues.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
04-10-2013, 11:53 PM
  #846
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Would be maloofs. Anti-trust for dictating who the Maloofs can sell or not sell to essentially forcing them to only accept offer by Sacramento group.

The NHL Phoenix case frames this nicely. The NBA retains the right to approve new owners. The Maloofs own the rights to Sacramento, not Seattle. What the Maloofs could do, possibly, assuming they had an arena to go to, would be to move their team themselves, a la Davis.

Since Hansen is working on a deal to build an arena, it's really not possible for the Maloofs to move there and certainly not any time soon.

Fugu is offline  
Old
04-10-2013, 11:59 PM
  #847
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
It's the price of the exclusive bargaining agreement with Hansen.
Ah ok forgot about that. I'm a little confused about the exclusivity clause though now that the Maloofs have asked for a binding bid. Wouldn't asking for a bid break it? Who knows. This one is for the lawyers.

silvercanuck is offline  
Old
04-10-2013, 11:59 PM
  #848
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
But isn't that the fact there was a settlement allowing the sonics to leave prevent seattle or state from suing regarding those issues.
The State of WA was not involved with that settlement.

If the NBA blocks the Hansen deal without the promise of an expansion team, I sure hope the city looks back at that deal and consider any legal action they can as well. We did the NBA a favor, not vice versa, I doubt the city is forbidden to sue.

We the taxpayers built an arena under the expectations of the NBA being played in Seattle until at least 2010; the NBA broke that agreement.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
04-11-2013, 12:00 AM
  #849
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Who would sue the NBA? Seattle? On what legal grounds?
Hansen's group might sue based on Tortious Interference

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
04-11-2013, 12:03 AM
  #850
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
Ah ok forgot about that. I'm a little confused about the exclusivity clause though now that the Maloofs have asked for a binding bid. Wouldn't asking for a bid break it?
Yes, which is why this screams David Stern, not Maloofs.

Both the Sacramento arena situation and potential ownership group situation is in flux, by setting a firm deadline, David Stern can bring real clarity to this situation. I think Stern's primary motivation is a united, almost unanimous vote.

Nuclear SUV 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 04:10 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.