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
03-09-2013, 10:22 PM
  #226
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
They had a non-binding agreement so yes the deal was finalized in regards to what the terms of it were going to be and nobody made an issue about it nor made a public statement against it to the level where they were threatening a lawsuit. It's not going to happen here.
The deal was done guys. I saw it, PF is right. Be honest.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
03-09-2013, 10:41 PM
  #227
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Except the problem is that what you said was not and is not what Stern said. blah blah blah there is essentially no bid from Sacramento. False. You were exaggerating the truth of the matter which my deleted post pointed out in a very simple manner. Yes he won't consider the current offer but that doesn't mean that the bid wasn't there or that there is no Sacramento bid. That's just plain wrong.

And again, saying that it was quite low is false. That is what your assumption is and Stern said nothing that confirms that.

The reality of the matter is that it is not possible for Mastrov to know exactly what Hansen is offering and what the NBA may find competitive for a Sacramento bid because, something you have failed to realize constantly, it is a different standard for the basis of the deal.

Yeah, they have til April 3rd to figure it out but you're lying to yourself if you believe that they aren't close on a lot of the issues and no not everything has to be done...the only thing that needs to be done is the money being close enough to appease the NBA.

One quote you just happened to overlook was that Stern had said exactly what was told to you by me that the Maloofs, as a seller, don't get to decide to move the franchise before getting out. That the NBA will decide who owns this team and where it is played.

It'll still probably be Seattle but not because of the PSA or any of that. It'll be what the NBA finds as the best deal for one of their franchises.
KJR mitch said it was low and he gets his stuff from Steve balmer who is part of our ownership group. And today he tweets saying from various sources its ~about 100m off.

Your wrong about NBA choosing who gets the Kings cause they DO not own the kings. Maloofs still owns them. And there is 1 signed binding PSA that is on the table. There is no binding sales agreement between Mastrov and Maloofs and legally there can't be one. If NBA says no to hansen's offer than there has to be an agreement between maloofs and Mastrov's group. NBA can not LEGALLY take away the franchise from the maloofs and give it to Mastrov's group. That the illegal.

NBA can't tell Maloofs who they can sell to. They can deny though but they can't force Maloofs to sell the kings to Mastrov's group.

Maloofs filed for relocation on behalf of Hansen who is now a business partner thanks to that 30m down-payment. That relocation is pending approval of sale.

Well as off right now there is no offer from sacramento to the point where the NBA will considered it. They have 25 days to make up that rumored ~100m gap.


Last edited by gstommylee: 03-09-2013 at 10:48 PM.
gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 01:01 AM
  #228
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,129
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
KJR mitch said it was low and he gets his stuff from Steve balmer who is part of our ownership group. And today he tweets saying from various sources its ~about 100m off.

Your wrong about NBA choosing who gets the Kings cause they DO not own the kings. Maloofs still owns them. And there is 1 signed binding PSA that is on the table. There is no binding sales agreement between Mastrov and Maloofs and legally there can't be one. If NBA says no to hansen's offer than there has to be an agreement between maloofs and Mastrov's group. NBA can not LEGALLY take away the franchise from the maloofs and give it to Mastrov's group. That the illegal.

NBA can't tell Maloofs who they can sell to. They can deny though but they can't force Maloofs to sell the kings to Mastrov's group.

Maloofs filed for relocation on behalf of Hansen who is now a business partner thanks to that 30m down-payment. That relocation is pending approval of sale.

Well as off right now there is no offer from sacramento to the point where the NBA will considered it. They have 25 days to make up that rumored ~100m gap.
I find it hilarious that you exaggerate what Stern says and then completely dismiss it when it flies against your argument. Stern said it outright that they will have the final say and that the Maloofs as an exiting investor cannot and will not dictate the location of one of their franchises.

Your rumors are just that...rumors. Nothing more and nothing substantiated. You need to stop passing it off as fact.

Pinkfloyd is online now  
Old
03-10-2013, 01:18 AM
  #229
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
I find it hilarious that you exaggerate what Stern says and then completely dismiss it when it flies against your argument. Stern said it outright that they will have the final say and that the Maloofs as an exiting investor cannot and will not dictate the location of one of their franchises.

Your rumors are just that...rumors. Nothing more and nothing substantiated. You need to stop passing it off as fact.
Umm BTW the kings aren't coming here if the maloofs are still owners the teams. Our MOU forbids it. The Relocation of the Kings to Seattle is pending the approval of the sale which will be decided by the BOG.

What KJR Mitch said about Sacramento offer being very very low is the truth and he got that from Steve Balmer (who is involved in our ownership group). Mitch has been very accurate on what he has said lately. Stern would not had called out sacramento publicly if the difference of the two offers wasn't that far off.

If NBA says no to the Hansen's sales agreement the Maloofs can still keep the team.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 09:04 AM
  #230
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
I find it hilarious that you exaggerate what Stern says and then completely dismiss it when it flies against your argument. Stern said it outright that they will have the final say and that the Maloofs as an exiting investor cannot and will not dictate the location of one of their franchises.

Your rumors are just that...rumors. Nothing more and nothing substantiated. You need to stop passing it off as fact.
If the NBA and Stern dictate to the Maloofs by rejecting the Hansen PSA then this thing just becomes a much bigger mess for the NBA IMO. They will still have them as the owners to try to 'convince' to take a deal from the other group. I just think that Stern wants rid of the Maloofs and Seattle with Hansen is the best way to do it. I doubt he really wants to try to force an owner (especially the Maloofs) to sell to a particular group, especially if the deal is not better or at least as good.

nwpensfan is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 09:24 AM
  #231
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,129
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Umm BTW the kings aren't coming here if the maloofs are still owners the teams. Our MOU forbids it. The Relocation of the Kings to Seattle is pending the approval of the sale which will be decided by the BOG.

What KJR Mitch said about Sacramento offer being very very low is the truth and he got that from Steve Balmer (who is involved in our ownership group). Mitch has been very accurate on what he has said lately. Stern would not had called out sacramento publicly if the difference of the two offers wasn't that far off.

If NBA says no to the Hansen's sales agreement the Maloofs can still keep the team.
The sale of the team by the Maloofs to Hansen IS attempting to dictate to the NBA where the team will go. That was the entire point of what Stern said with regards to that. And the NBA will decide whether they want that sale to go through or not.

Again, you don't know if that is the truth or not. That is merely speculation on his part. You can believe it as truth if you like but that doesn't mean it actually is. What Stern did was not 'calling out Sacramento'. It was his opinion of the deal, nothing more. You need to stop making more out of it than what it is. And if Stern believed it was in his best interest to let the team go to Seattle with the PR of giving Sacramento every opportunity, he wouldn't have said anything about it. That should lend enough credibility to the reality that they actually can and will allow the team to stay under the right circumstances.

And yeah, the Maloofs can keep the team if they want but chances of that happening are just about as close to zero as you're going to get. The Maloofs aren't going to continue on their path to financial ruin just because the NBA didn't want them to sell to the Seattle group. They will sell it to a local group very soon after that news theoretically breaks out to them. There is no way the Maloofs keep the team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwpensfan View Post
If the NBA and Stern dictate to the Maloofs by rejecting the Hansen PSA then this thing just becomes a much bigger mess for the NBA IMO. They will still have them as the owners to try to 'convince' to take a deal from the other group. I just think that Stern wants rid of the Maloofs and Seattle with Hansen is the best way to do it. I doubt he really wants to try to force an owner (especially the Maloofs) to sell to a particular group, especially if the deal is not better or at least as good.
This may be true but he doesn't say what he just said if he doesn't believe Sacramento has a legitimate chance of keeping their team. If he just wanted to get rid of the Maloofs and go to Seattle as a lot of people have naturally assumed, he would've kept quiet and let it run their course come April 3rd. Stern is giving Sacramento the opportunity to increase their bid and also the opportunity for a third party from Sacramento a deadline for his bid.

Bottom line is that the NBA will not be dictated to by a group of owners who are leaving where one of their franchises will play. A lot of people tend to forget that while the owners own the franchise, there is an ownership claim that can be made for the NBA as a whole and they have every right to determine where a team plays and who owns them until it is challenged and done away with in court...which I doubt happens ever.

Pinkfloyd is online now  
Old
03-10-2013, 10:23 AM
  #232
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
The sale of the team by the Maloofs to Hansen IS attempting to dictate to the NBA where the team will go. That was the entire point of what Stern said with regards to that. And the NBA will decide whether they want that sale to go through or not.

Again, you don't know if that is the truth or not. That is merely speculation on his part. You can believe it as truth if you like but that doesn't mean it actually is. What Stern did was not 'calling out Sacramento'. It was his opinion of the deal, nothing more. You need to stop making more out of it than what it is. And if Stern believed it was in his best interest to let the team go to Seattle with the PR of giving Sacramento every opportunity, he wouldn't have said anything about it. That should lend enough credibility to the reality that they actually can and will allow the team to stay under the right circumstances.

And yeah, the Maloofs can keep the team if they want but chances of that happening are just about as close to zero as you're going to get. The Maloofs aren't going to continue on their path to financial ruin just because the NBA didn't want them to sell to the Seattle group. They will sell it to a local group very soon after that news theoretically breaks out to them. There is no way the Maloofs keep the team.



This may be true but he doesn't say what he just said if he doesn't believe Sacramento has a legitimate chance of keeping their team. If he just wanted to get rid of the Maloofs and go to Seattle as a lot of people have naturally assumed, he would've kept quiet and let it run their course come April 3rd. Stern is giving Sacramento the opportunity to increase their bid and also the opportunity for a third party from Sacramento a deadline for his bid.

Bottom line is that the NBA will not be dictated to by a group of owners who are leaving where one of their franchises will play. A lot of people tend to forget that while the owners own the franchise, there is an ownership claim that can be made for the NBA as a whole and they have every right to determine where a team plays and who owns them until it is challenged and done away with in court...which I doubt happens ever.
Your passion for this issue is understandable especially to those of us in Seattle. I am sure you have not forgotten that we have seen this act before with Stern. The fact of the matter is when he makes statements like he did this weekend it is very much just for his purposes and his only (covering his ***). He was saying much the same things to us in Seattle right up to the day the Sonics became the Thunder. He knew the end game the day Bennett bought the Sonics.

The truth of the matter is I do not want to see you lose your team. My interest is in only getting an NHL team to Seattle (I doubt I will go to see very many NBA games here except maybe to see Lebron or Kobe). The only way we get an NHL team unfortunately is to get the NBA here first.

It is just I have seen this play before and the ending is predictable.

nwpensfan is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 10:57 AM
  #233
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Here is what we know. Stern said the Sac deal was so low it wouldn't even be considered and for it to be considered alongside the Seattle deal (not approved, just considered) it needs to come way up ... anywhere between $80-$100MM if reports are true.

Now, with very little time left and Sac taking a full 2 months, filled with press conference after press conference and a big pep rally to go public with the whales and declare "the bid is in!" we find out they are basically not even close to being in the game. If Sac had that money they would have made a better bid, period. This is no time for posturing or "process". Problem with Sac is twofold:

1. $80-$100MM is a lot of coin, and that is ignoring the fact that they don't have an arena deal yet with the city council
2. These investors have to make these numbers work in Sacramento and I don't see how they can given all the financial struggles they have had almost their entire existence.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 12:13 PM
  #234
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,421
vCash: 500
At the very least stern is not holding sactown's hand in the process, otherwise they would not have made a bid so low as to not warrant consideration

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 12:38 PM
  #235
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Stern said it outright that they will have the final say and that the Maloofs as an exiting investor cannot and will not dictate the location of one of their franchises.

Your rumors are just that...rumors. Nothing more and nothing substantiated. You need to stop passing it off as fact.
We in Seattle been through this before. We know how it works. If you think the fellow NBA owners (the only people who's opinion matters) block this move, you are living in a fantasy land. They too may want to sell or relocate a franchise in the future. It will be a landlside vote in favor of the Hansen deal.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 12:44 PM
  #236
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post

Bottom line is that the NBA will not be dictated to by a group of owners who are leaving where one of their franchises will play. A lot of people tend to forget that while the owners own the franchise, there is an ownership claim that can be made for the NBA as a whole and they have every right to determine where a team plays and who owns them until it is challenged and done away with in court...which I doubt happens ever.
The NBA has no say, the owners of the franchises do. Because of this reality, there is a ZERO percent chance that this current franchise remains in Sacramento. The Seattle ownership group is rock solid, and so is the Seattle market. There is no red flags here.

We are talking about moving a franchise to a large, wealthy, proven NBA market, not Fresno or Bakersfield. If this were only Seattle vs. Sacramento, Sacramento loses. But it is more than that. There is contract law and anti-trust matters too, which is why there is zero chance the franchise remains. Everything happening right is now is for the future.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 03:50 PM
  #237
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
PCSPounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 884
vCash: 500
This whole discussion literally has me reading through Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission vs National Football League. The obvious question: can the NBA BoG dictate to whom the Maloofs sell?

What I can't seem to find is anything on the organizational structure of the NBA. The NFL "company" is a non-profit and perhaps a bit of a shell organization (the teams, obviously, are not). The NBA is said to be owned by the teams, but it doesn't seem to me that there's enough revenue sharing for the league to be considered a "single entity."

So I tend to think even the BoG vote is moot, or perhaps just a coronation.

PCSPounder is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 04:15 PM
  #238
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,129
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14 View Post
Here is what we know. Stern said the Sac deal was so low it wouldn't even be considered and for it to be considered alongside the Seattle deal (not approved, just considered) it needs to come way up ... anywhere between $80-$100MM if reports are true.

Now, with very little time left and Sac taking a full 2 months, filled with press conference after press conference and a big pep rally to go public with the whales and declare "the bid is in!" we find out they are basically not even close to being in the game. If Sac had that money they would have made a better bid, period. This is no time for posturing or "process". Problem with Sac is twofold:

1. $80-$100MM is a lot of coin, and that is ignoring the fact that they don't have an arena deal yet with the city council
2. These investors have to make these numbers work in Sacramento and I don't see how they can given all the financial struggles they have had almost their entire existence.
1. It isn't as much coin as you think with the people involved. Also, the arena deal is not anywhere near the issue people want to believe. The arena deal is secondary to acquiring the franchise. The arena deal will fall in line when that time comes...with or without the Kings.

2. The numbers work in Sacramento when the owners care about the franchise. The only reason why the Kings have ever financially struggled is when the owners have decided to be cheap at the cost of on-court quality. When they invested into the club, they were successful in this regard. The Maloofs have had to go cheap because their other business ventures went south and they simply couldn't afford to field a competitive team anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
The NBA has no say, the owners of the franchises do. Because of this reality, there is a ZERO percent chance that this current franchise remains in Sacramento. The Seattle ownership group is rock solid, and so is the Seattle market. There is no red flags here.

We are talking about moving a franchise to a large, wealthy, proven NBA market, not Fresno or Bakersfield. If this were only Seattle vs. Sacramento, Sacramento loses. But it is more than that. There is contract law and anti-trust matters too, which is why there is zero chance the franchise remains. Everything happening right is now is for the future.
The owners of the franchises are the NBA. There are also no red flags about the Sacramento group and the market. You keep oversimplifying the matters. The contract law and anti-trust matters aren't even relevant yet. The NBA does retain a right to dictate where their franchises play regardless of who owns them.

And again, you keep saying that this is for the future and it is not. This is for now and there is no future for Sacramento in the NBA. None. If the team goes to Seattle, Sacramento is moving on and will pursue a professional sports franchise to the region. And someone will eventually make their way here and the NHL would be smart to be the one that steps in. We will see but you're 100% incorrect about this being a play for the future. None of the parties involved will even be around by the time an NBA franchise might become available in terms of actually wanting to bring it here. KJ won't be mayor. Mastrov won't care. Burkle will probably bring a hockey team in here as that is more likely to be a league with an available franchise before the NBA.

Pinkfloyd is online now  
Old
03-10-2013, 04:50 PM
  #239
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post

The owners of the franchises are the NBA. There are also no red flags about the Sacramento group and the market. You keep oversimplifying the matters. The contract law and anti-trust matters aren't even relevant yet. The NBA does retain a right to dictate where their franchises play regardless of who owns them.

And again, you keep saying that this is for the future and it is not. This is for now and there is no future for Sacramento in the NBA. None. If the team goes to Seattle, Sacramento is moving on and will pursue a professional sports franchise to the region. And someone will eventually make their way here and the NHL would be smart to be the one that steps in. We will see but you're 100% incorrect about this being a play for the future. None of the parties involved will even be around by the time an NBA franchise might become available in terms of actually wanting to bring it here. KJ won't be mayor. Mastrov won't care. Burkle will probably bring a hockey team in here as that is more likely to be a league with an available franchise before the NBA.
Red flag with sac's group? If there was no red flag then why did Mastrov made a low ball bid for the franchise knowing that Seattle's offer was 525m?

And there is no red flag for Seattle's group. Again the NBA has never denied a sale for something other than financial problems.

Legally the NBA has no power to legally stop a relocation if a current owner wants to move. See Al Davis vs NFL. Regarding Seattle since its change of ownership prior to relocation they can just deny the sale but that goes into larger issue of owners telling other owners who they can or can't sell too. That will not happen. The owners will not tell other owners what to do cause they want to be able to sell their franchises themselves at some point.

Why would NHL want Sacramento where as they could have Seattle and Quebec city. Nevermind Burkle is already a NHL owner.


Last edited by gstommylee: 03-10-2013 at 05:02 PM.
gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 04:59 PM
  #240
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 Pinkfloyd View Post
1. It isn't as much coin as you think with the people involved. Also, the arena deal is not anywhere near the issue people want to believe. The arena deal is secondary to acquiring the franchise. The arena deal will fall in line when that time comes...with or without the Kings.

2. The numbers work in Sacramento when the owners care about the franchise.
$100MM is a ton, period. Yourealize if that number is true the Sac bid was 70% of what Seattle bid? Raising that type of money isn't easy, and if they had it they would have offered it already.

A valuation almost double what the team is worth in Sac does not pencil out, period. Why do you think all this talk of "fair and competitive" was coming from? Or that Sac could write the cost of the loan out of their offer (including that claim in this thread)? Or that Mastrov bid so low?


Last edited by maruk14: 03-10-2013 at 06:46 PM.
maruk14 is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 05:02 PM
  #241
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post

The owners of the franchises are the NBA. There are also no red flags about the Sacramento group and the market. You keep oversimplifying the matters. The contract law and anti-trust matters aren't even relevant yet. The NBA does retain a right to dictate where their franchises play regardless of who owns them.
Seattle is the better market, has the better ownership group, has the signed contract, has a complete arena deal for a state-of-the-art facility, and will have the support of an overwhelming majority if not unanimous support of the 29 NBA owners not involved in this transaction. Even if it didn't, anti-trust legal wranglings would make it happen. But luckily Seattle is a wealth, huge, proven NBA market, so there will be no reason to fight the NBA because the vote for Seattle will be unanimous.

Again, the NBA will not block this deal. The arena in Sac. is just setting themselves up for the next available franchise or if really lucky, get a Charlotte deal for a new team once a new building opens up. The fight for the current franchise is over and has been since a more than credible ownership group with an arena deal signed the papers and their checks cleared.

I hate to give you this grim reality, but I just went through it, I know how it works.

Quote:
And again, you keep saying that this is for the future and it is not. This is for now and there is no future for Sacramento in the NBA. None.

Then the NBA is done in Sacramento. If Sacramento is a good NBA market, it will get a team in a few years. If as you say is true, Sacramento is not the most desirable comparable market for the NBA vs. other open markets.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 05:09 PM
  #242
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14 View Post
$100MM is a ton, period. Your realize if that number is true the Sac bid was less then 2/3 of what Seattle bid? Raising that type of money isn't easy, and if they had it they would have offered it already.

A valuation almost double what the team is worth in Sac does not pencil out, period. Why do you think all this talk of "fair and competitive" was coming from? Or that Sac could write the cost of the loan out of their offer (including that claim in this thread)? Or that Mastrov bid so low?
And would have to find someone else to bring in as an investor (not burkle the maloofs don't want to sell the team to him) to close that gap.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 07:38 PM
  #243
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,129
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Red flag with sac's group? If there was no red flag then why did Mastrov made a low ball bid for the franchise knowing that Seattle's offer was 525m?

And there is no red flag for Seattle's group. Again the NBA has never denied a sale for something other than financial problems.

Legally the NBA has no power to legally stop a relocation if a current owner wants to move. See Al Davis vs NFL. Regarding Seattle since its change of ownership prior to relocation they can just deny the sale but that goes into larger issue of owners telling other owners who they can or can't sell too. That will not happen. The owners will not tell other owners what to do cause they want to be able to sell their franchises themselves at some point.

Why would NHL want Sacramento where as they could have Seattle and Quebec city. Nevermind Burkle is already a NHL owner.
The same reason why any business person bids low to start. First of all, it's not known what the Sacramento offer is. 100 million dollars less doesn't really hold much meaning unless it is known that it is for the exact same percentage that the Hansen group is going for. It could be just for the Maloofs' 53% share which would lower the total number by a good chunk.

And the NBA hasn't had an issue like this where two cities have groups capable of making legitimate offers like this. And the Davis relocation is not applicable to this situation because it is contingent on a sale. There is already precedent with the NHL of leagues deciding who can and cannot be sold to.

There's an easy reason why the NHL would want Sacramento. They're a gate driven league and a potential situation arises where they'd be the only pro game in town in a market of 2.5 million or so. And Burkle co-owns the Pens. I think he'd sell out there to fully own a hockey team in Sacramento, where he considers his home market. Neither Seattle nor Quebec City offers that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14 View Post
$100MM is a ton, period. Yourealize if that number is true the Sac bid was 70% of what Seattle bid? Raising that type of money isn't easy, and if they had it they would have offered it already.

A valuation almost double what the team is worth in Sac does not pencil out, period. Why do you think all this talk of "fair and competitive" was coming from? Or that Sac could write the cost of the loan out of their offer (including that claim in this thread)? Or that Mastrov bid so low?
Again, it only matters if it is accurate and it is for the same percentage, which it doesn't necessarily have to be. As for raising the money, all it would take is asking Burkle to get involved and coming to an agreement there if Mastrov has no interest in increasing his own investment. Both have the net worth to where another 100 million is not a large amount. Businessmen always start low when attempting to acquire something of this size. There is time for some haggling here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
Seattle is the better market, has the better ownership group, has the signed contract, has a complete arena deal for a state-of-the-art facility, and will have the support of an overwhelming majority if not unanimous support of the 29 NBA owners not involved in this transaction. Even if it didn't, anti-trust legal wranglings would make it happen. But luckily Seattle is a wealth, huge, proven NBA market, so there will be no reason to fight the NBA because the vote for Seattle will be unanimous.

Again, the NBA will not block this deal. The arena in Sac. is just setting themselves up for the next available franchise or if really lucky, get a Charlotte deal for a new team once a new building opens up. The fight for the current franchise is over and has been since a more than credible ownership group with an arena deal signed the papers and their checks cleared.

I hate to give you this grim reality, but I just went through it, I know how it works.




Then the NBA is done in Sacramento. If Sacramento is a good NBA market, it will get a team in a few years. If as you say is true, Sacramento is not the most desirable comparable market for the NBA vs. other open markets.
All this is your opinion based off an assumption. The commissioner has already disagreed with much of your assessment of the situation. The whole "it's over" nonsense is just false and it is just tiresome to hear someone like you who has absolutely no idea at all what 29 other entities have to think on the matter say that you know for a fact. This isn't what happened to Seattle a few years ago. This is its own animal with a couple significant differences.

Obviously, you want the Sonics and I don't blame you for that one bit but it is silly of you to make such assumptions. You wanted to talk about getting screwed over royally when the team was there and yet trust the NBA so much to not screw you over now when it's not your team when that is very much a possibility here since the circumstances are not the same.

Pinkfloyd is online now  
Old
03-10-2013, 07:42 PM
  #244
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,129
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
And would have to find someone else to bring in as an investor (not burkle the maloofs don't want to sell the team to him) to close that gap.
The Maloofs didn't want to sell to Burkle because he wouldn't let them maintain any sort of ownership in the deal. And if the Seattle deal doesn't go through, the Maloofs will have very little choice on who to sell the team to.

Pinkfloyd is online now  
Old
03-10-2013, 08:21 PM
  #245
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
The Maloofs didn't want to sell to Burkle because he wouldn't let them maintain any sort of ownership in the deal. And if the Seattle deal doesn't go through, the Maloofs will have very little choice on who to sell the team to.
Not necessary NBA may not want Burkle as a owner.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 08:22 PM
  #246
Kane One
Global Moderator
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,665
vCash: 3075
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Not necessary NBA may not want Burkle as a owner.
What's wrong with Burkle?

__________________
Kane One is online now  
Old
03-10-2013, 10:14 PM
  #247
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
PCSPounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
The owners of the franchises are the NBA.
Patently false, or else there wouldn't have been such a hubbub when the league took control of the New Orleans Hornets and, just before Tom Benson bought the team, traded Chris Paul to the Clippers. The NBA is thus more like the NFL and less like, say, Major League Soccer, LLC.

PCSPounder is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 10:18 PM
  #248
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,129
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Not necessary NBA may not want Burkle as a owner.
There's nothing that suggests this at all. Stern himself has said that the Sacramento group is backed by strong financial people and that is in no small part due to Burkle's involvement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PCSPounder View Post
Patently false, or else there wouldn't have been such a hubbub when the league took control of the New Orleans Hornets and, just before Tom Benson bought the team, traded Chris Paul to the Clippers. The NBA is thus more like the NFL and less like, say, Major League Soccer, LLC.
Those owners were the ones that approved the league taking control of the Hornets.

Pinkfloyd is online now  
Old
03-11-2013, 12:11 PM
  #249
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
All this is your opinion based off an assumption.
No. It is based on precedent and contract law.


Quote:
The whole "it's over" nonsense is just false and it is just tiresome to hear someone like you who has absolutely no idea at all what 29 other entities have to think on the matter say that you know for a fact.
It is over for the current franchise. That's reality. What Sacramento's best potential outcome is a Charlotte like deal. That's what the NBA can give them without pissing off a great Seattle group that the NBA has coveted for years and risking an anti-trust fight in the courts.

Quote:
This isn't what happened to Seattle a few years ago. This is its own animal with a couple significant differences.
Sacramento is in a worse position than Seattle was. For one, Seattle had a lease.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 12:11 AM
  #250
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 17,944
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker McDonald View Post
What's wrong with Burkle?
Nothing.

Some want to write this deal off as a done deal for Seattle, when it is anything but that at this point.

Clowe Me 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 10:51 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.