The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
OT Sacramento looking to finance new arena; UPD NBA rejects relocation to Seattle bid
The NBA unofficially blocked the Kings' first attempt to relocate to Anaheim. When I said Seattle did the same thing, I'm speaking of filing lawsuit because of the move. Pretending like a lawsuit is going to make the NBA so mad to blacklist a city from a franchise coming back if it works for them is patently absurd.
are you deaf or blind, PF, Anaheim was blocked bc both the Lakers and Clippers blocked that option
The NBA unofficially blocked the Kings' first attempt to relocate to Anaheim. When I said Seattle did the same thing, I'm speaking of filing lawsuit because of the move. Pretending like a lawsuit is going to make the NBA so mad to blacklist a city from a franchise coming back if it works for them is patently absurd.
Do not compare Seattle moving to OKC and Kings attempt to move to Anaheim.
The sonics before they left had a lease with Key Arena and seattle file lawsuit to enforce the lease and Seattle and Bennett settled. The kings had no lease to stay in Sacramento. The relocation of sonics OKC was pending on that lease issue being taken care off.
If the sacramento wants to convince the NBA to say no to Seattle then they need to overpay more than the 525m offer by Seattle by a lot.
There is no NBA deadline on the Kings. That was a self imposed deadline by Kevin Johnson.
The NBA cares cause it would be the courts telling them who they can or can't sell to. The NBA has the right to choose who they have as owners. The NBA has leverage here. If there is a lawsuit here the NBA will defend Maloof's sale to Seattle's group and it won't look good for sacramento. As soon as NBA approves the sale to Hansen's group its over.
The two seattle lawsuits didn't do much in preventing Bennet from moving the team. Seattle's lawsuit over the lease was settled and schultz's lawsuit was dropped.
Only legit reason as too why NBA would say no to Seattle's offer if there was money issues and there is no money issues.
If NBA says no to seattle's offer then they will create an unprecedented issue within the BOG of owners telling other owners who they can or can't sell too when comes up to them wanting to sell the team.
This is a contradiction. The NBA has the right to choose who they have for owners but then you say the BOG, which is all the owners in the first place, will have a problem with themselves telling them who they can or can't sell the team to. Except their constitution absolutely gives them every reason to say no to the Seattle group to support the Sacramento market.
are you deaf or blind, PF, Anaheim was blocked bc both the Lakers and Clippers blocked that option
I'm blind, dude. The mere fact that it was blocked is enough of an argument for what I was responding to with your drivel. The other owners can decide to decline the deal to Seattle if they so choose. Sacramento has made a strong argument for doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee
Do not compare Seattle moving to OKC and Kings attempt to move to Anaheim.
The sonics before they left had a lease with Key Arena and seattle file lawsuit to enforce the lease and Seattle and Bennett settled. The kings had no lease to stay in Sacramento. The relocation of sonics OKC was pending on that lease issue being taken care off.
If the sacramento wants to convince the NBA to say no to Seattle then they need to overpay more than the 525m offer by Seattle by a lot.
It doesn't matter what happened in the lawsuit. The mere fact that they had one and they managed to get over it to contemplate allowing Seattle to have a franchise proves your assertion false when you say that if Sacramento tried to do it that they'd be blacklisted. It's an absolutely ridiculous stance for you to take on the matter. No matter what Sacramento does to try to keep their team, they will not be blacklisted by the league for a new franchise if one becomes available. The NBA is not that stupid.
I'm blind, dude. The mere fact that it was blocked is enough of an argument for what I was responding to with your drivel. The other owners can decide to decline the deal to Seattle if they so choose. Sacramento has made a strong argument for doing so.
It doesn't matter what happened in the lawsuit. The mere fact that they had one and they managed to get over it to contemplate allowing Seattle to have a franchise proves your assertion false when you say that if Sacramento tried to do it that they'd be blacklisted. It's an absolutely ridiculous stance for you to take on the matter. No matter what Sacramento does to try to keep their team, they will not be blacklisted by the league for a new franchise if one becomes available. The NBA is not that stupid.
Sacramento is not anywhere closer to convince the NBA to say no to seattle. The person that is gonna try to buy the kings is only worth 350m and the offer is less than how much Hansen is going to pay for 65% of the team. The NBA will not pick a offer that will make the entire league franchises less than what Seattle's offer would do.
It does matter though. If the courts tell the NBA that they can not approve Sale of the Kings to Seattle's group that essentially takes away the leagues right to decide on who gets to be the owner who doesn't.
Last edited by gstommylee: 02-28-2013 at 11:57 PM.
This is a contradiction. The NBA has the right to choose who they have for owners but then you say the BOG, which is all the owners in the first place, will have a problem with themselves telling them who they can or can't sell the team to. Except their constitution absolutely gives them every reason to say no to the Seattle group to support the Sacramento market.
using your flawed logic, PF, are you also telling us the Warriors cannot build an arena in San Francisco within three years and moving from ORACLE arena in Oakland, as they have proposed?
The NBA unofficially blocked the Kings' first attempt to relocate to Anaheim. When I said Seattle did the same thing, I'm speaking of filing lawsuit because of the move. Pretending like a lawsuit is going to make the NBA so mad to blacklist a city from a franchise coming back if it works for them is patently absurd.
Yeah, but there was a blockage because there was an active interest to block it. Not only from the Lakers and the Clippers, not like you need more than that, but from teams in other markets that didn't necessarily like the idea of territorial infringement, regardless of whether that's a legally protected right or not. They can still pretend.
That's not the case for Seattle. And, as it won't mess up with realignment, other than possibly making a few changes that other teams would actually approve, that same opposition from other owners won't happen.
If you were the NBA commissioner do you want the courts telling you who the league can or can't have as owners?
It won't make a difference to the market no matter how hard you try to make it so. It's really simple. If Sacramento puts up an arena with an interested owner and no other competition for the league to deal with for entertainment dollars on this level, the NBA is going to give the market a team if it's available to them. End of story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
using your flawed logic, PF, are you also telling us the Warriors cannot build an arena in San Francisco within three years and moving from ORACLE arena in Oakland, as they have proposed?
haha, take your straw man somewhere else. San Francisco and Oakland is the same market for the Warriors.
It won't make a difference to the market no matter how hard you try to make it so. It's really simple. If Sacramento puts up an arena with an interested owner and no other competition for the league to deal with for entertainment dollars on this level, the NBA is going to give the market a team if it's available to them. End of story.
haha, take your straw man somewhere else. San Francisco and Oakland is the same market for the Warriors.
not according to you it's not, you lost admit it, you have no clue what you're talking about, PF
using your flawed logic, PF, are you also telling us the Warriors cannot build an arena in San Francisco within three years and moving from ORACLE arena in Oakland, as they have proposed?
Uh.... what? The Warriors own the San Francisco Bay market. If there were two teams there and the Warriors wanted to move east, a la the Athletics, then that might be a valid comparison. Not so much here.
No different from if the Bulls and Hawks wanted to build a new arena on the North Side of Chicago instead of the West Side where they are now, or in one of the burbs even.
Yeah, but there was a blockage because there was an active interest to block it. Not only from the Lakers and the Clippers, not like you need more than that, but from teams in other markets that didn't necessarily like the idea of territorial infringement, regardless of whether that's a legally protected right or not. They can still pretend.
That's not the case for Seattle. And, as it won't mess up with realignment, other than possibly making a few changes that other teams would actually approve, that same opposition from other owners won't happen.
There will be an active interest to keep the team in Sacramento based on the league's own constitution to keep in mind what the current market offers, will be offering, and what has offered in terms of support.
There will be an active interest to keep the team in Sacramento based on the league's own constitution to keep in mind what the current market offers, will be offering, and what has offered in terms of support.
Yes and that still doesn't mean NBA will say no to seattle.
The problem with Sacramento's bid Burkle IS not involved with the attempts to buy the kings. Burkle/Mastrov (jointed effort) making a bid would have a better chance at the NBA to say no to seattle than Mastrov making a bid with an offer that is slightly less than what Hansen's is offer.
There will be an active interest to keep the team in Sacramento based on the league's own constitution to keep in mind what the current market offers, will be offering, and what has offered in terms of support.
In theory, that should be enough to protect them.
In practice, 29 owners are probably going to vote to approve the relocation.
In practice, 29 owners are probably going to vote to approve the relocation.
Those 29 owners are gonna like having their franchise value go up 30% with Hansen's offer than Sacramento's offer which make the other franchises go up 30%.
Yes and that still doesn't mean NBA will say no to seattle.
The problem with Sacramento's bid Burkle IS not involved with the attempts to buy the kings. Burkle/Mastrov (jointed effort) making a bid would have a better chance at the NBA to say no to seattle than Mastrov making a bid with an offer that is slightly less than what Hansen's is offer.
Burkle is involved with building the new arena. So that's not completely accurate. He is involved with making this deal happen.
Burkle is involved with building the new arena. So that's not completely accurate. He is involved with making this deal happen.
Burkle is ONLY involved in the building of the arena key word only. He is not in the ownership group that is going to buy the Kings. He is bidding for AEG which owns 30% of the Lakers. So i am correct so say he isn't involved in buying the kings he's involved in building the arena.
Burkle involvement is only half of the equation. Having a financially viable ownership group is the other half. It doesn't matter what burkle does if the ownership group is not financially viable to where the NBA would like it to be there is no way NBA will say no to Seattle.
Hansen/balmer/nordstroms is a lot stronger group by a large margin than Mastrov's group. This matters to the NBA. A Burkle/Mastrov group would be a lot stronger for Sacramento than just mastrov.
Burkle is ONLY involved in the building of the arena key word only. He is not in the ownership group that is going to buy the Kings. He is bidding for AEG which owns 30% of the Lakers. So i am correct so say he isn't involved in buying the kings he's involved in building the arena.
Burkle involvement is only half of the equation. Having a financially viable ownership group is the other half. It doesn't matter what burkle does if the ownership group is not financially viable to where the NBA would like it to be there is no way NBA will say no to Seattle.
Hansen/balmer/nordstroms is a lot stronger group by a large margin than Mastrov's group. This matters to the NBA.
and Stern and to a lesser extent Silver are behind a return to Seattle.
and Stern and to a lesser extent Silver are behind a return to Seattle.
Where are you guys getting this 'Stern wants the team moved to Seattle' crap? He has said Seattle would be a great place for an nba team. In the same interview, he said Sacramento is a great market and deserves a team.
I likes both markets. I don't see bias towards either.
and Stern and to a lesser extent Silver are behind a return to Seattle.
Indeed what Stern and Silver are saying publicly is one thing but what's going on privately is a whole separate issue. Stern won't say anything that would open the league to a lawsuit.
Where are you guys getting this 'Stern wants the team moved to Seattle' crap? He has said Seattle would be a great place for an nba team. In the same interview, he said Sacramento is a great market and deserves a team.
I likes both markets. I don't see bias towards either.
There was an article from last October stating that Stern was pressuring maloofs to sell to Seattle.
What stern says publicly and what he says privately are two different things. Of course he would say that. He's a lawyer.
Indeed what Stern and Silver are saying publicly is one thing but what's going on privately is a whole separate issue. Stern won't say anything that would open the league to a lawsuit.
You and I and everyone else have no idea what is going on in private. To say what you think is going on is simply speculation and nothing of any merit.
Burkle is ONLY involved in the building of the arena key word only. He is not in the ownership group that is going to buy the Kings. He is bidding for AEG which owns 30% of the Lakers. So i am correct so say he isn't involved in buying the kings he's involved in building the arena.
Burkle involvement is only half of the equation. Having a financially viable ownership group is the other half. It doesn't matter what burkle does if the ownership group is not financially viable to where the NBA would like it to be there is no way NBA will say no to Seattle.
Hansen/balmer/nordstroms is a lot stronger group by a large margin than Mastrov's group. This matters to the NBA.
Mastrov is financially viable as an owner. The Seattle group may be stronger but it doesn't render all the other factors involved moot. A competitive offer by a financially viable ownership group and a new arena will keep the team where it is. Just because Hansen may have a stronger group doesn't entitle them to a team.
