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: Source: Maloofs make backup plan with Hansen, relocation fee at 116$ million

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-13-2013, 01:06 PM
  #76
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sactown dude View Post
No, it's not. Microsoft is a publicly traded company that sells product to consumers and has competitors, the NBA is not. That difference is very important.
It's ridiculous to argue that the NBA is exempt from anti-trust laws. It's not. You are clearly biased on this issue.

The NBA could be sued for anti-trust and the league would likely lose based on precedent. The only realistic question in all of this is whether or not a lawsuit would succeed in bringing a team to Seattle or burn bridges for Hansen.

silvercanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 01:07 PM
  #77
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunderpanda View Post
I think the loophole is that the NBA votes on allowing new owners. The league isn't obligating to accept any offers for a team, otherwise the Twolves would have moved, the Hornets wouldn't have been under league control and Ellison would own the Warriors.

Maloofs might have anti trust, but not Hansen because he doesn't own a team.
Umm Ellison wouldn't own the warriors cause the former owner of wariors accepted a lesser offer that is protected under federal.

Hansen doesn't need to own a team to make a anti-trust claim against the NBA. He has a legal signed binding sales agreement to buy the kings from maloofs.

If he feels that the NBA has been illegally undermining the agreement to where the process if fixed to keep team in Sacramento under local ownership he can legally sue the NBA for that.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 01:12 PM
  #78
wunderpanda
Registered User
 
wunderpanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Umm Ellison wouldn't own the warriors cause the former owner of wariors accepted a lesser offer.

Hansen doesn't need to own a team to make a anti-trust claim against the NBA. He has a legal signed binding sales agreement to buy the kings from maloofs.

If he feels that the NBA has been illegally undermining the agreement to where the process if fixed to keep team in Sacramento under local ownership he can legally sue the NBA for that.
but the league votes on owners, the Maloofs can't guarantee that the NBA allows the sale.

wunderpanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 01:18 PM
  #79
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunderpanda View Post
but the league votes on owners, the Maloofs can't guarantee that the NBA allows the sale.
True however there are still things they CAN or CAN NOT in regards to voting on owners.

Example intentionally siding with one group that has no sales agreement with owner wanting to sell and fixing the process to where that group wins (essentially forcing owners of team to sell to group) no matter what the other group that has sales agreement does.

If this is true and HBN/maloofs can prove it in courts that the NBA is intentionally interfering to where Hansen loses automatically, the courts could bypass the league ability to vote who enters and doesn't enter the league and arrowed the kings to HBN based on federal law.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 01:26 PM
  #80
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sactown dude View Post
No, it doesn't seem that way. It's not in the best interest of the LEAGUE to move a team that has the municipal and market support the Kings have. It's in Hansen's and Seattle's best interest, not the league's.
You are forgetting the the league is made up of 29 other owners who stand to gain (quite a bit) from the Hansen offer. That is the best interest to which I refer.

The others that have responded to you have pretty much covered that 'best interest' is a non issue IMO.

nwpensfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 01:27 PM
  #81
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwpensfan View Post
You are forgetting the the league is made up of 29 other owners who stand to gain (quite a bit) from the Hansen offer. That is the best interest to which I refer.

The others that have responded to you have pretty much covered that 'best interest' is a non issue IMO.
thanks for proving my point of best interest is vague.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 01:34 PM
  #82
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunderpanda View Post
but the league votes on owners, the Maloofs can't guarantee that the NBA allows the sale.
If something in the league by-laws contrivene other laws, clearly they wouldn't be permissible. That's the area this may cover if it goes far enough.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 01:37 PM
  #83
wunderpanda
Registered User
 
wunderpanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
True however there are still things they CAN or CAN NOT in regards to voting on owners.

Example intentionally siding with one group that has no sales agreement with owner wanting to sell and fixing the process to where that group wins (essentially forcing owners of team to sell to group) no matter what the other group that has sales agreement does.

If this is true and HBN/maloofs can prove it in courts that the NBA is intentionally interfering to where Hansen loses automatically, the courts could bypass the league ability to vote who enters and doesn't enter the league and arrowed the kings to HBN based on federal law.
That might depend on sale / relocation guidelines. League could show that the Maloofs never tried to find local ownership to buy and actively worked against an arena deal.

wunderpanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 01:39 PM
  #84
gernb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 70
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunderpanda View Post
That might depend on sale / relocation guidelines. League could show that the Maloofs never tried to find local ownership to buy and actively worked against an arena deal.
This is the exact formula the NBA used itself with the Sonics. It would seem a little disingenuous to now content this the wrong tactic.

gernb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 01:47 PM
  #85
wunderpanda
Registered User
 
wunderpanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gernb View Post
This is the exact formula the NBA used itself with the Sonics. It would seem a little disingenuous to now content this the wrong tactic.
Except Sac has an arena deal, and Seattle refused to build an arena years before they were eventually sold to Bennet. Yes, I understand about the lease and the public funds, and how that was manipulated into a lack of support by Seattle.

The Maloofs walked away from a NBA negotiated arena deal that Sac accepted, so in that regard, the NBA would be consistent by keeping the Kings in Sac. They can't move a team citing no arena deal, and then move another team that has an arena deal.

wunderpanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 01:51 PM
  #86
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sactown dude View Post
Leagues have learned from these, and changed their bylaws and procedures accordingly. David Stern did not just fall off the turnip truck. He knows anti-trust law like the back of his hand.
There's a reason the NFL hasn't been able to stop a relocation in 30 years and therefore had to allow teams to leave LA and Houston for St. Louis, Oakland and Nashville and there's a reason the Clippers are in LA in spite of never receiving full NBA approval, leading to a lawsuit on this very issue that Stern lost.

All a court has to do is find that the NBA's attempts to keep the Maloofs from moving the team is restricting commerce. I'd say they have a great case.

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 01:57 PM
  #87
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sactown dude View Post
No, it's not. Microsoft is a publicly traded company that sells product to consumers and has competitors, the NBA is not. That difference is very important.
The NBA is an association of 30 individual businesses and therefore subject to the Sherman Act. That's Raiders I.

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:02 PM
  #88
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sactown dude View Post
I'm pretty sure we're saying best interest of the league CONFORMS with Federal law. You're the one making up this "trumps" argument.
If the best interest of the league (forcing maloofs to sell to lower sac bid), violates anti-trust policy, then it is violating federal law.

superdeluxe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:05 PM
  #89
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunderpanda View Post
That might depend on sale / relocation guidelines. League could show that the Maloofs never tried to find local ownership to buy and actively worked against an arena deal.
Umm owners are NOT requires to sell locally.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:05 PM
  #90
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunderpanda View Post

Maloofs might have anti trust, but not Hansen because he doesn't own a team.
and all indications are that the maloofs and hbnw are working together on this.

superdeluxe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:08 PM
  #91
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sactown dude View Post
I'm pretty sure we're saying best interest of the league CONFORMS with Federal law. You're the one making up this "trumps" argument.
So best interest of league is too forcing maloofs to accept sale to local group for a lesser price? How is that conforms with federal law. it DOES NOT.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:08 PM
  #92
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
The NBA is an association of 30 individual businesses and therefore subject to the Sherman Act. That's Raiders I.
Yeah the courts have already ruled on that regards, it's an association of 30 individual businesses

superdeluxe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:11 PM
  #93
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
The NBA is an association of 30 individual businesses and therefore subject to the Sherman Act. That's Raiders I.
Yep all sports leagues that don't have some protection against anti-trust are subject to anti-trust.

Single entity and exemption (granted by congress) are only ways to avoid being challenged in court on anti-trust issues.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:14 PM
  #94
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 500
http://www.sonicsrising.com/2013/5/9...-of-sacramento

Anti-trust and how it relates to this case, if anyone is on the fence if this a possible anti trust violation.

Yes it is hosted at sonics rising, but specific case law is used to illustrate
The reasons of violation

superdeluxe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:40 PM
  #95
sactown dude
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
It's ridiculous to argue that the NBA is exempt from anti-trust laws. It's not. You are clearly biased on this issue.

The NBA could be sued for anti-trust and the league would likely lose based on precedent. The only realistic question in all of this is whether or not a lawsuit would succeed in bringing a team to Seattle or burn bridges for Hansen.
Yes, it is ridiculous to argue that. But I didn't do that. I was addressing the claim that Microsoft is a business just like the NBA. It's not. There are significantly different types of businesses.

However, it is not ridiculous to suggest that the Maloofs would lose an anti-trust case. I don't think David Stern is worried about it.

If a lawsuit brings a team to Seattle it won't be the Kings, which is my only concern in this. It will surely burn bridges for Hansen, though.

sactown dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:42 PM
  #96
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,885
vCash: 500
a question for the seattle crowd ...

what rights does the NBA actually have? y'all seem to be arguing that the league cannot prevent an existing owner from selling their team to anyone they wish, and moreover that the league cannot prevent that new owner from relocating that team to anywhere they want?

but surely, the league could prevent that team from competing in the private professional basketball league called the NBA, non? or are y'all suggesting that anyone with enough money could pay some huge amount to any existing owner and then simply muscle their way into the NBA schedule whether the league wanted them or not?

GuelphStormer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:44 PM
  #97
sactown dude
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwpensfan View Post
You are forgetting the the league is made up of 29 other owners who stand to gain (quite a bit) from the Hansen offer. That is the best interest to which I refer.

The others that have responded to you have pretty much covered that 'best interest' is a non issue IMO.
What am I forgetting? I believe the best interest of the league (or the league's 29 other owners, or however you want to describe it) would be served by keeping the Kings in Sacramento. And I believe the league (or the league's 29 other owners, or however you want to describe it) agree with me.

sactown dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:45 PM
  #98
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sactown dude View Post
Yes, it is ridiculous to argue that. But I didn't do that. I was addressing the claim that Microsoft is a business just like the NBA. It's not. There are significantly different types of businesses.

However, it is not ridiculous to suggest that the Maloofs would lose an anti-trust case. I don't think David Stern is worried about it.

If a lawsuit brings a team to Seattle it won't be the Kings, which is my only concern in this. It will surely burn bridges for Hansen, though.
Umm as its been noted a sports league like NBA is 30 individual bussiness that compete against each other thus subject to the same anti-trust laws that Microsoft has to follow.

Maloofs being forced #1 to sell locally #2 to take a lesser offer and you say they'll lose. Give me a break.

A lawsuit CAN bring the kings to seattle. Its called judge declaring that the transaction can go forward and awarding the NBA kings to HBN.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:46 PM
  #99
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sactown dude View Post
What am I forgetting? I believe the best interest of the league (or the league's 29 other owners, or however you want to describe it) would be served by keeping the Kings in Sacramento. And I believe the league (or the league's 29 other owners, or however you want to describe it) agree with me.
Umm thats still does not mean best interest of the league is federally LEGAL as it contains to this situation.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:48 PM
  #100
sactown dude
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
If the best interest of the league (forcing maloofs to sell to lower sac bid), violates anti-trust policy, then it is violating federal law.
That's like saying "if I shoot someone unprovoked, it violates the law". No kidding!

But what if I shoot someone in self defense? Then is it against the law? Can't say, need to know all the circumstances.

sactown dude 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 10:38 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.