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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-13-2013, 01:52 PM
  #101
sactown dude
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Umm thats still does not mean best interest of the league is federally LEGAL as it contains to this situation.
But it does mean I wasn't forgetting anything.

sactown dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 01:52 PM
  #102
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
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?
Al Davis vs NFL essentially took sports league rights to deny relocation to a current owner.

Clippers were relocated from Sad Diego to LA with out the go ahead of the NBA.

This issue is not simply NBA saying yes or no to hansen. Its essentially saying Yes for hansen or yes for Sacramento group. Its also NBA fixing the process and intentionally helping Sacramento to where it does what it needs to keep team under local ownership group at a price the league sets which 525m thus ignoring the latest offer from hansen which the maloofs agreed to.

NBA can not ignore the increased offer by Hansen.

Essentially NBA is non directly saying maloofs no longer have ownership rights of the Kings since they are out going owners and the NBA is free to do what ever they please.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 01:55 PM
  #103
sactown dude
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
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.
Subject to same anti-trust laws? Yes. Businesses just like each other? No.

I didn't say they would lose. I said it's not a ridiculous claim, and that I don't think David Stern is worried about it.

Yes, I suppose a lawsuit CAN bring the Kings to Seattle. But it WON'T.

sactown dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 01:59 PM
  #104
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
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?
In any other case of league's being able to stop teams from moving (including our own Seahawks when Behring tried to bolt to LA) there was a legal, binding lease with specific performance clauses built in that tied the team to that market. There is none of that in this case and it can be viewed as market manipulation by the NBA based on those circumstances.

As far as owners - again, any situation where a sale has gone this far (where the league has PSA they are reviewing and getting ready to vote on) unless there was some major red flag in the finances of the ownership group or criminal activity that wasn't divulged in the vetting process then they have been voted in to the league. Stern himself called Ballmer the "perfect prototype" of an owner.

So, from my POV you have a freely movable team, a perfect prototype of an owner, a record sale price and one that is significantly higher than the backup bid (and an arena deal that is much further along) and the only reason this hasn't been approved at this point is because Stern is delaying the process (or, some would say given the points outlined above, interfering with the process). We'll see what happens ...

BTW - did Sac make that escrow payment yet?

maruk14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:01 PM
  #105
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sactown dude View Post
Subject to same anti-trust laws? Yes. Businesses just like each other? No.

I didn't say they would lose. I said it's not a ridiculous claim, and that I don't think David Stern is worried about it.

Yes, I suppose a lawsuit CAN bring the Kings to Seattle. But it WON'T.
David stern should be worried cause it'll expose to all the illegal things he has done as commissioner to the NBA.


HBN and maloofs can request the courts to enforce the sale transaction based on federal law and judge could then declare it complete and give the kings to Hansen. Its a contract HBN and maloofs have the right to have the contract enforced.

its a prefect example of a past case regards to this is Haywood v. NBA where the courts enforced Hayoods contract with the sonics.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:06 PM
  #106
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
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
this seems pretty dead on, though obligatory IANAL

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:09 PM
  #107
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sactown dude View Post
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.
The only way as i said to where the NBA have a right to use best interest of league clause if said owner is doing something questionable/illegal that is actually harming the league. At that point, the league can remove a team from an owner cause best interest of league in this scenario would be following federal law assuming if owner is guilty of said illegal doing in a court of law.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:15 PM
  #108
sactown dude
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
David stern should be worried cause it'll expose to all the illegal things he has done as commissioner to the NBA.


HBN and maloofs can request the courts to enforce the sale transaction based on federal law and judge could then declare it complete and give the kings to Hansen. Its a contract HBN and maloofs have the right to have the contract enforced.

its a prefect example of a past case regards to this is Haywood v. NBA where the courts enforced Hayoods contract with the sonics.
I think Stern knows the situation a little better than you do.

Why do you keep telling me what CAN happen? Mt. Rainier could blow tomorrow and wipe out Seattle. Hansen could be run over by a bus tomorrow. Aliens might land in Sacramento and kill me on the way to work tomorrow. And courts could enforce a sale to Hansen and a relocation of the Kings to Sacramento. So what? The likelihood of any of them actually happening is small.

sactown dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:22 PM
  #109
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sactown dude View Post
I think Stern knows the situation a little better than you do.

Why do you keep telling me what CAN happen? Mt. Rainier could blow tomorrow and wipe out Seattle. Hansen could be run over by a bus tomorrow. Aliens might land in Sacramento and kill me on the way to work tomorrow. And courts could enforce a sale to Hansen and a relocation of the Kings to Sacramento. So what? The likelihood of any of them actually happening is small.
But a sports league taking the unprecedented step of not only trying to force an owner to sell for a lesser amount by trying to claim eminent domain (essentially) over a business that has nothing tying it legally to that market isn't? Or a league going so far as to try and legally remove an owner using a "best interest of the league" defense (which has never been done, not even for Shinn) is somehow expected and normal?

maruk14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:28 PM
  #110
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14 View Post
But a sports league taking the unprecedented step of not only trying to force an owner to sell for a lesser amount by trying to claim eminent domain (essentially) over a business that has nothing tying it legally to that market isn't? Or a league going so far as to try and legally remove an owner using a "best interest of the league" defense (which has never been done, not even for Shinn) is somehow expected and normal?
One thing worth pointing out is that the rights to the Seattle market belong to all the NBA owners, not the Maloofs/Hansen. The Maloofs own the rights to the Sacramento market.

If the franchise is worth more in Seattle than it is in Sacramento then the NBA as a whole has the rights to that delta $, not the Maloofs.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:30 PM
  #111
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
One thing worth pointing out is that the rights to the Seattle market belong to all the NBA owners, not the Maloofs/Hansen. The Maloofs own the rights to the Sacramento market.

If the franchise is worth more in Seattle than it is in Sacramento then the NBA as a whole has the rights to that delta $, not the Maloofs.

Agreed - which is why the Seattle group is offering $115MM in relocation fee - but that doesn't address the point of my post.

And the Maloofs own the Kings - not the NBA, in case anyone was wondering!

maruk14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:43 PM
  #112
sactown dude
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14 View Post
But a sports league taking the unprecedented step of not only trying to force an owner to sell for a lesser amount by trying to claim eminent domain (essentially) over a business that has nothing tying it legally to that market isn't? Or a league going so far as to try and legally remove an owner using a "best interest of the league" defense (which has never been done, not even for Shinn) is somehow expected and normal?
I don't know how this will play out, I just know what one part of the end result will be: Kings in Sacramento. I guarantee they will not be moving to Seattle.

Everyone keeps acting like this is an A or B scenario, so if I say B isn't happening then I must be saying A will happen instead. But that's not true. I'm saying B won't happen, period.


Last edited by sactown dude: 05-13-2013 at 02:48 PM.
sactown dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:49 PM
  #113
ramstoria
Registered User
 
ramstoria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sacramento
Country: United States
Posts: 903
vCash: 500
Conference call is all wrapped up.

ramstoria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:52 PM
  #114
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sactown dude View Post
I don't know how this will play out, I just know what one part of the end result will be: Kings in Sacramento. I guarantee they will not be moving to Seattle.

Everyone keeps acting like this is an A or B scenario, so if I say B isn't happening then I must be saying A will happen instead. But that's not true. I'm saying B won't happen, period.
Who knows - with all the twist and turns anyone who thinks they have a read on what will happen is delusional.

If they stay in Sac I hope you are ready for another year of the Maloofs owning the team - cause I would say that bridge has not only been burnt - its been left in a smoldering heap of ashes and we all saw how they reacted to the last time someone tried to end around and buy thru the NBA (KJ and Burkle in '11).

Oh - and the Sac group still needs to get the rest of their offer in escrow. Figured that would have happened by now.

maruk14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 03:08 PM
  #115
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,345
vCash: 500
We shouldn't worry about the money, we've been told by bruski that the finances are not the issue

superdeluxe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 03:16 PM
  #116
ramstoria
Registered User
 
ramstoria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sacramento
Country: United States
Posts: 903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
We shouldn't worry about the money, we've been told by bruski that the finances are not the issue
I see you're finally paying attention!


ramstoria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 03:23 PM
  #117
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramstoria View Post
I see you're finally paying attention!

Speaking of Bruski:

Small tidbit. I’m told Chris Hansen’s land use attorney Jack McCullough will speak tomorrow before the relo committee.

— Aaron Bruski (@aaronbruski) May 13, 2013


I take this is a good sign. This time around the relo committee is going to actually discuss the Seattle proposal it appears as opposed to last time when they only discussed Sac.

maruk14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 03:31 PM
  #118
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14 View Post
Speaking of Bruski:

Small tidbit. I’m told Chris Hansen’s land use attorney Jack McCullough will speak tomorrow before the relo committee.

— Aaron Bruski (@aaronbruski) May 13, 2013


I take this is a good sign. This time around the relo committee is going to actually discuss the Seattle proposal it appears as opposed to last time when they only discussed Sac.
This is definitely good news. Why else would Hansen send his lawyer to speak with the committee if #1 wasn't to address any issues #2 or wasn't planning to go after the league if NBA says no and by that i mean show the NBA that he means business.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 03:37 PM
  #119
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
This is definitely good news. Why else would Hansen send his lawyer to speak with the committee if #1 wasn't to address any issues #2 or wasn't planning to go after the league if NBA says no and by that i mean show the NBA that he means business.
I don't think this has anything to do with a potential lawsuit - that is a major stretch. This guy is a land use attorney - he is there to answer questions about the timeline, SEPA review, permitting, etc.

maruk14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 03:37 PM
  #120
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14 View Post
I don't think this has anything to do with a potential lawsuit - that is a major stretch. This guy is a land use attorney - he is there to answer questions about the timeline, SEPA review, permitting, etc.
fair point. Although could help in explaining stuff to the judge if this goes to court. It really depends on for what reasons why NBA is rejecting seattle.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 03:48 PM
  #121
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,151
vCash: 500
The NBA needs to face reality fast and offer Hanson an expansion team. Offer one to the Vancouver people, too, since they're always interested. Move the T-Wolves to the east and call it a night, secure in having the best western coverage of any league in North America.

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 03:51 PM
  #122
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Minor note: An NBA spokesperson says there is NO committee meeting or conference call scheduled for tomorrow. #NBAKings

— Chris Daniels (@ChrisDaniels5) May 13, 2013


Now they are saying no meeting tomorrow.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 03:54 PM
  #123
Acesolid
The Illusive Bettman
 
Acesolid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
The NBA needs to face reality fast and offer Hanson an expansion team. Offer one to the Vancouver people, too, since they're always interested. Move the T-Wolves to the east and call it a night, secure in having the best western coverage of any league in North America.
I'm actually starting to think that might be a good idea to solve the current conflict when it comes to the Kings (and the way it's going it's starting to look like a lose-lose-lose for everyone in the form of a long legal battle):

If Hanson will quit his madness in Sacramento; the NBA will put in place a two team expansion process for the 2015-2016 season.

I think that might calm things down.

Acesolid is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 03:56 PM
  #124
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesolid View Post
I'm actually starting to think that might be a good idea to solve the current conflict when it comes to the Kings (and the way it's going it's starting to look like a lose-lose-lose for everyone in the form of a long legal battle):

If Hanson will quit his madness in Sacramento; the NBA will put in place a two team expansion process for the 2015-2016 season.

I think that might calm things down.
They may have no choice but expand to take care of the lawsuit.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 03:59 PM
  #125
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesolid View Post
I'm actually starting to think that might be a good idea to solve the current conflict when it comes to the Kings (and the way it's going it's starting to look like a lose-lose-lose for everyone in the form of a long legal battle):

If Hanson will quit his madness in Sacramento; the NBA will put in place a two team expansion process for the 2015-2016 season.

I think that might calm things down.
Quit his madness? If someone in QC had purchased a team pending league approval, the league then kept delaying and hand holding and delaying to try and stop that sale from going thru to Quebec, and your guy PKP made a strong play by upping his offer and putting forth a big relo fee would you call that madness still?

maruk14 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 06:13 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.