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
04-03-2013, 07:36 PM
  #551
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetsfan79 View Post
^^^Even so the fact Stern has gone from the "offer needs get better" to "the offer is not an issue" can only be seen as positive news for Kings supporters. Not saying it's enough to stop the relocation but today cannot be viewed as a step backwards for the people trying to save the kings
Not necessary. It could also mean a bad thing. Again no one from Sacramento said they have matched Hansen's offer.

They are moving on from this issue to another issues like the arena. Which seattle is clearly closer to being shove meets ground than Sacramento is.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
04-03-2013, 07:47 PM
  #552
Jetsfan79
Registered User
 
Jetsfan79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Not necessary. It could also mean a bad thing. Again no one from Sacramento said they have matched Hansen's offer.

They are moving on from this issue to another issues like the arena. Which seattle is clearly closer to being shove meets ground than Sacramento is.
I don't think it's a bad thing. IMO Sacramento not saying wether they matched could simply be they're not wanting to negotiate $ figures with the media. I haven't seen anything from the Seattle saying "We have a higher offer" either. It's possible that all parties have agreed to withhold financial details from the media. Furthermore, Stern said both sides gave "very very strong presentations" which to me means they were pleased with the overall quality of Sac's bid (not just the monetary aspect)


Last edited by Jetsfan79: 04-03-2013 at 10:41 PM.
Jetsfan79 is offline  
Old
04-03-2013, 10:26 PM
  #553
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
PCSPounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 836
vCash: 500
There's another option: the NBA takes lawsuits in both cities more seriously than you've been led to believe.

PCSPounder is offline  
Old
04-03-2013, 11:02 PM
  #554
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCSPounder View Post
There's another option: the NBA takes lawsuits in both cities more seriously than you've been led to believe.

Trouble in that regard ILWU lawsuit was tossed they (ILWU union) are appealing to a higher court and essentially claiming the same thing. King County superior court judge North declare quickly that the MOU does not equal an action (2nd vote by both seattle/King county) and per SEPA law only agreements that contain an action triggers a SEPA review.

IWLU lawsuit is all political. They are trying to get political points so they can try to kill it when it comes to the 2nd vote.

I-91 lawsuit has less merits than the ILWU suit for two reasons #1 its poor vaguely written law written and approved by the seattle voters that doesn't cover anything on public bonds #2 it can be easily exempt by Seattle if necessary.


Last edited by gstommylee: 04-03-2013 at 11:09 PM.
gstommylee is online now  
Old
04-04-2013, 11:47 AM
  #555
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,351
vCash: 500
http://www.scpr.org/blogs/environmen...k-law-on-ceqa/

Quote:
Alameda Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch has ruled that a provision of AB 900 is unconstitutional, meaning environmental challenges to certain large-scale development projects must start in the lower courts.


Last edited by superdeluxe: 04-04-2013 at 01:16 PM.
superdeluxe is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 05:39 PM
  #556
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
PCSPounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 836
vCash: 500
I don't take stock in the union lawsuit. I sort of take stock in the I-91 issue... not so much that the people bringing the suit would win as much as they'd just tie up the process long enough to put the NBA and your potential season-ticket-selling organization in scramble mode. There's getting this shunted aside... and there's getting this shunted aside by the time the schedule comes out.

Same with Sacramento.

It's kind of hard to sell season tickets when the arena situation is in limbo. Besides, I think the I-91 issue is something that sort of offended the NBA (after MLB and NFL got theirs) and I wonder if bringing the league into the fold during this whole process has been an ongoing encouragement of something like a high maintenance spouse.

PCSPounder is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 06:48 PM
  #557
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 17,369
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
Response to that:


"We're not concerned," said spokesman Rhys Williams.

.....Steinberg was asked about California's environmental laws by NBA owners during the presentation in New York. "We were able to explain very clearly that Sacramento and California (are) prepared to do whatever it takes to avoid any unnecessary delay," he told reporters afterward.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/04/531...struction.html

So, we'll see...

Clowe Me is online now  
Old
04-05-2013, 12:45 PM
  #558
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
PCSPounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 836
vCash: 500
This is the west coast (and it might even be worthy of mention that it's all the 9th circuit IIRC, should that come into play). Anyone claiming a judge or suit in their pocket soon finds out that the public has their say. All y'all's speeches about how the courts are projected to act will get none but chuckles from this angle.

PCSPounder is offline  
Old
04-08-2013, 03:56 PM
  #559
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,233
vCash: 500
Burkle will not be part of ownership group to keep kings in sac.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/08/532...ing-arena.html

Now i am hearing that Burkle is completely out of both ownership group and arena.


Last edited by gstommylee: 04-08-2013 at 04:22 PM.
gstommylee is online now  
Old
04-08-2013, 10:14 PM
  #560
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 17,369
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Burkle will not be part of ownership group to keep kings in sac.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/08/532...ing-arena.html

Now i am hearing that Burkle is completely out of both ownership group and arena.
Word around here is the Maloof's won't deal with Burkle whatsoever so Ranadive and Jacobs will take over the arena part. Maloof's apparently have no beef with Ranadive and Jacobs, so this doesn't really change anything.

Clowe Me is online now  
Old
04-08-2013, 10:39 PM
  #561
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
Word around here is the Maloof's won't deal with Burkle whatsoever so Ranadive and Jacobs will take over the arena part. Maloof's apparently have no beef with Ranadive and Jacobs, so this doesn't really change anything.

Just cause burkle is out doesn't mean Maloofs are willing to sell locally.

Its still a huge blow though.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
04-08-2013, 10:43 PM
  #562
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 17,369
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Just cause burkle is out doesn't mean Maloofs are willing to sell locally.

Its still a huge blow though.
If the original deal with Seattle gets voted down, their hands will be tied. They'll have to sale because of their bad financial state, and it will be locally.

Clowe Me is online now  
Old
04-08-2013, 10:47 PM
  #563
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
If the original deal with Seattle gets voted down, their hands will be tied. They'll have to sale because of their bad financial state, and it will be locally.
Umm NBA can NOT force Maloofs to go locally they can still keep the team. If deal to seattle gets voted down the maloofs can go after them for anti-trust.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
04-08-2013, 10:51 PM
  #564
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 17,369
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Umm NBA can NOT force Maloofs to go locally they can still keep the team. If deal to seattle gets voted down the maloofs can go after them for anti-trust.
Umm, if the NBA blocks this deal with Seattle, how do you not think they will block another deal, if the Maloof's choose to negotiate outside? The Seattle group is better than anyone else out there, who else do you see them dealing with?

Clowe Me is online now  
Old
04-08-2013, 10:54 PM
  #565
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
Umm, if the NBA blocks this deal with Seattle, how do you not think they will block another deal, if the Maloof's choose to negotiate outside? The Seattle group is better than anyone else out there, who else do you see them dealing with?
The owners would rather keep their ability to sell their franchises to who ever they want and not dicate who another owner can sell or not sell to. That what Sacramento wants though to get the NBA to dictate who the maloofs sell too. NBA has no legal ramifications to reject the PSA unless for financial reasons.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
04-08-2013, 10:58 PM
  #566
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 17,369
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
The owners would rather keep their ability to sell their franchises to who ever they want and not dicate who another owner can sell or not sell to. That what Sacramento wants though to get the NBA to dictate who the maloofs sell too. NBA has no legal ramifications to reject the PSA unless for financial reasons.
Or something like the Sacramento offer being better and having much less debt. Or the fact that the Maloof's never willfully negotiated with any minority owners. There are a lot more issues here than many up north aren't willing to concede.


Last edited by Clowe Me: 04-08-2013 at 11:17 PM.
Clowe Me is online now  
Old
04-09-2013, 12:45 AM
  #567
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
Or something like the Sacramento offer being better and having much less debt. Or the fact that the Maloof's never willfully negotiated with any minority owners. There are a lot more issues here than many up north aren't willing to concede.
THAT'S WHY Phoenix won the right to remain right where it is, Clowe..... remember and always keep in mind Balstupid, when talking arena issues..... there's no offer that you falsely believe Sacramento will get to keep their franchise, when they've essentially had 28 years TO UPGRADE AND/OR REPLACE THE CURRENT ARENA.

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
04-09-2013, 12:49 AM
  #568
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
Or something like the Sacramento offer being better and having much less debt. Or the fact that the Maloof's never willfully negotiated with any minority owners. There are a lot more issues here than many up north aren't willing to concede.
I can argue the same regarding Sacramento's group and their arena plan that there are more issues than what they are saying.

I doubt there are that many issues. ROFR is a non issue. Its going on 3 months since the sale has been announced. you don't need litigation to come out and state I'm invoking my right to match. Only two reasons why they haven't claimed ROFR on the 65% one they actually don't have it or two they don't have the funds to actually match it. Last i am aware of ROFR you can't use outside funds or have most of it be debt.

The minority owners are get a pay day when hansen buys the remaining shares of the team perhaps that could be why they haven't claimed ROFR. JK the one minority one that tried to have a 100% private plan that dropped out in trying to bid could have claimed ROFR but he wasn't going to. Question i have is why not?

I'll be honest i'll be glad when this issue is over regardless of what happens. I don't mind having the conversation and debate of the issue. I'm at the point of getting extremely annoyed of kevin Johnson and his playing to win campaign.


Last edited by gstommylee: 04-09-2013 at 01:05 AM.
gstommylee is online now  
Old
04-09-2013, 10:29 AM
  #569
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
Umm, if the NBA blocks this deal with Seattle, how do you not think they will block another deal, if the Maloof's choose to negotiate outside? The Seattle group is better than anyone else out there, who else do you see them dealing with?
A). their anti-trust lawyers they have hired for the last few years.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
04-09-2013, 10:32 AM
  #570
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
Or something like the Sacramento offer being better and having much less debt.
We already know there is little chance of that. The debt is less of an issue than where the revenue to service that debt comes from. Most wealthy NBA owners aren't totally stupid when it comes to debt and business.

This whole Seattle debt talk is desperate Sacramento spin. I see their chances of getting a promise of an expansion team slipping away...

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
04-09-2013, 11:10 AM
  #571
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
This new debt argument

Couple of things.

- it came frm Mastrov apparently so take it with a massive grain of salt
- Hansen went into detail on sonicsarena site about how this project would be funded on the private side ... yes, they are borrowing money but the figure is nowhere near what is being put out by the Sac side and how would Mastrov know those details? The answer is he doesnt.

Last minute mud slinging by Sac in a desperate attempt to get NBA BOG to geto Seattle deal. Its not going to work. Pretty eaay to see thru this. Try and leak this out the same day the lead investor and tuy the Sac side has been pushing as a franchise savior for more than 2 years gets yanked by the NBA. If this deal was so important to Burkle why didnt he agree to sell his interest in the company causing the conflict?

maruk14 is offline  
Old
04-09-2013, 02:12 PM
  #572
DaveTheHockeyFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 193
vCash: 500
A new investor has entered the fray

http://fox40.com/2013/04/09/report-l...-arena-effort/

DaveTheHockeyFan is offline  
Old
04-09-2013, 03:31 PM
  #573
Shaz
Registered User
 
Shaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Tacoma, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 122
vCash: 500
Sacramento's looking way too flimsy from the looks of it

Shaz is offline  
Old
04-09-2013, 04:21 PM
  #574
Mightygoose
I Am Groot
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,328
vCash: 514
The Sacramento group is sadly looking less viable every day.

For a proposed transaction for over 500 million, having the cast members coming in and out like a WWE Royal Rumble doesn't speak much to the long term stabiklity and may end up making the BOGs decision in about 10 days allot easier.

Mightygoose is offline  
Old
04-09-2013, 05:25 PM
  #575
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 17,369
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
I can argue the same regarding Sacramento's group and their arena plan that there are more issues than what they are saying.

I doubt there are that many issues. ROFR is a non issue. Its going on 3 months since the sale has been announced. you don't need litigation to come out and state I'm invoking my right to match. Only two reasons why they haven't claimed ROFR on the 65% one they actually don't have it or two they don't have the funds to actually match it. Last i am aware of ROFR you can't use outside funds or have most of it be debt.

The minority owners are get a pay day when hansen buys the remaining shares of the team perhaps that could be why they haven't claimed ROFR. JK the one minority one that tried to have a 100% private plan that dropped out in trying to bid could have claimed ROFR but he wasn't going to. Question i have is why not?

I'll be honest i'll be glad when this issue is over regardless of what happens. I don't mind having the conversation and debate of the issue. I'm at the point of getting extremely annoyed of kevin Johnson and his playing to win campaign.
I'll be glad when this is all settled, too. I like Seattle, I have family all over the state, but I also like going to 8-10 Kings games a year. Tomorrow may be the last game I ever see live. It's too bad that both cities deserve a team but only one will have one come October.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
We already know there is little chance of that. The debt is less of an issue than where the revenue to service that debt comes from. Most wealthy NBA owners aren't totally stupid when it comes to debt and business.

This whole Seattle debt talk is desperate Sacramento spin. I see their chances of getting a promise of an expansion team slipping away...
I don't see the debt as too big of an issue, to be honest. But, how does this at all affect the team getting a team in the future? If anything, they've shown the NBA that they are willing to not only talk, but they are willing to put the money down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14 View Post
Couple of things.

- it came frm Mastrov apparently so take it with a massive grain of salt
- Hansen went into detail on sonicsarena site about how this project would be funded on the private side ... yes, they are borrowing money but the figure is nowhere near what is being put out by the Sac side and how would Mastrov know those details? The answer is he doesnt.

Last minute mud slinging by Sac in a desperate attempt to get NBA BOG to geto Seattle deal. Its not going to work. Pretty eaay to see thru this. Try and leak this out the same day the lead investor and tuy the Sac side has been pushing as a franchise savior for more than 2 years gets yanked by the NBA. If this deal was so important to Burkle why didnt he agree to sell his interest in the company causing the conflict?
I don't think anyone outside of Stern and his partners know all the details.

As for the Burkle situation, no one saw him as a savior or anything of the sort. In the deal agreed upon prior, he was simply investing in the arena, not the team. He is pulling himself out of this deal and being replaced by Friedman in large part due to his bad relationship with the Maloof's and his desire to spend money on the development of the area around the arena. This new arena deal would do a lot for downtown Sacramento, and Burkle wants to be a big part of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose View Post
The Sacramento group is sadly looking less viable every day.

For a proposed transaction for over 500 million, having the cast members coming in and out like a WWE Royal Rumble doesn't speak much to the long term stabiklity and may end up making the BOGs decision in about 10 days allot easier.
Ranadive and Jacobs coming in did nothing but stabilize the Sacramento deal. Both have cash and are respected by Stern and co. Removing Burkle and amending Friedman in shouldn't change their offer or effect the proposed arena deal.

Clowe Me is online now  
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 05:30 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.