HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-12-2013, 04:32 PM
  #26
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sactown dude View Post
You know, you like to cite these cases a lot. Have you done any research? Raiders won because the NFL required a UNANIMOUS vote to allow relocation.
No. When The LA Coliseum Commission first filed their suit in Sept 1978 - before the Raiders were even involved - the NFL required unanimous consent. The case was dismissed, because "no present justiciable controversy existed because no NFL team had committed to moving to Los Angeles".

Because of that initial suit, the NFL amended Article 4.3 of the NFL Constitution in late 1978 to require a 3/4ths majority.

It was after that (in 1979) that the Coliseum began negotiations with Davis - and they re-filed their suit in Jan 1980, after coming to an agreement with Davis to relocate the Raiders.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 05:19 PM
  #27
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 19,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
According to Al Davis vs NFL no they can't. Clippers were moved to LA with out the go ahead of the NBA.
Those circumstances were different and the rules were different.

Stern and the Maloof's hate each other, and the Maloof's owe the league a lot of money. This is going to get ugly either way it ends.

Clowe Me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 05:32 PM
  #28
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
Those circumstances were different and the rules were different.

Stern and the Maloof's hate each other, and the Maloof's owe the league a lot of money. This is going to get ugly either way it ends.
Maloofs though have the right to decide what they want to do with their franchise. NBA could reject 65% 7% and the 20% back up plan of 65% but ultimately it comes down to Maloofs willing to accept a lesser offer.

If they want to accept a lesser offer then its all over for Seattle trying to get the kings.

NBA has little say in what maloofs end up doing with the kings.

The NBA can either make everyone happy Seattle gets kings Sacramento gets expansion with better owners, NBA are rid of the maloofs or possible have to defend their actions in front a judge if there were to be a lawsuit by the maloofs and or HBN.


Last edited by gstommylee: 05-12-2013 at 05:41 PM.
gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 07:19 PM
  #29
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 19,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Maloofs though have the right to decide what they want to do with their franchise. NBA could reject 65% 7% and the 20% back up plan of 65% but ultimately it comes down to Maloofs willing to accept a lesser offer.
Once the deal gets presumably rejected, the Kings would most likely stay next season no matter what and it could force the Maloof's hands and force them to take a deal they wouldn't accept out of spite. The Maloof's owe the league a lot of money and have made a lot of enemies. I don't think the NBA really cares what the Maloof's want, and that they wouldn't mind it going to court just to make their lives more miserable.

I'm sure Stern has consulted with a ton of league and outside lawyers before making his recommendation.

Quote:
If they want to accept a lesser offer then its all over for Seattle trying to get the kings.
Which it seems like the nba wouldn't mind at this time.

Even with the lesser Sac deal the league is still selling the franchise for a lot more than they're worth.


Quote:
NBA has little say in what maloofs end up doing with the kings.
I disagree. I'm pretty sure there are articles within the league bylaws that allow them to vote down sales and relocation's.

Quote:
The NBA can either make everyone happy Seattle gets kings Sacramento gets expansion with better owners, NBA are rid of the maloofs or possible have to defend their actions in front a judge if there were to be a lawsuit by the maloofs and or HBN.
Or, keep the Kings in Sacramento and give Seattle an expansion team at the same price they were willing to buy the Kings. Everyone would truly win.

Clowe Me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 07:29 PM
  #30
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
I disagree. I'm pretty sure there are articles within the league bylaws that allow them to vote down sales and relocation's.

Or, keep the Kings in Sacramento and give Seattle an expansion team at the same price they were willing to buy the Kings. Everyone would truly win.
NBA can not dictate what the sell price is and who maloofs sell to. Maloofs set the price of which they will sell the team who they will set to. Maloofs have right to take the highest bid for the team which is hansen at 406m for 65% of team.

Kings keep kings and seattle expansion will screw the maloofs in that case.

What i suggested is a way that NBA avoids getting sued by either maloofs and/or HBN.


Last edited by gstommylee: 05-12-2013 at 07:36 PM.
gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 07:32 PM
  #31
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 19,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Umm no Maloofs will lose in that case.

What i suggested is a way that NBA avoids getting sued by either maloofs and/or HBN.
I, the NBA and everyone else could not care less if the Maloof's lose here.

I don't think the NBA would really oppose it going to court and potentially forcing their broke ***** to settle.

Clowe Me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 07:37 PM
  #32
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
I, the NBA and everyone else could not care less if the Maloof's lose here.

I don't think the NBA would really oppose it going to court and potentially forcing their broke ***** to settle.
The courts care. If it comes out in a lawsuit that the NBA is intentionally setting a selling price of a team they do not own will hurt them.

gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 07:43 PM
  #33
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 19,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
The courts care. If it comes out in a lawsuit that the NBA is intentionally setting a selling price of a team they do not own will hurt them.
How can they prove that they are setting a sale price?

It says in the bylaws they can approve and decline all sales and relo's.

Clowe Me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 07:48 PM
  #34
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
How can they prove that they are setting a sale price?

It says in the bylaws they can approve and decline all sales and relo's.
The idea that Sacramento group only needs to match the original 341m offer and the NBA will accept it them as owners of team for that price.

Sacramento needs to match the 406m variation of 625m full offer not 341m of the 525m offer. IF Hansen did not increase the offer and stayed at 525m then NBA can reject Hansen and go with local group cause its the same price. The issue is NBA going with local group at a price that is LOWER than what Hansen is offering.


Last edited by gstommylee: 05-12-2013 at 07:53 PM.
gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 07:52 PM
  #35
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 19,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
The idea that Sacramento group only needs to match the original 341m offer and the NBA will accept it them as owners of team for that price.

Sacramento needs to match the 406m variation of 625m full offer not 341m of the 525m offer.
That might be why the rumors of even more investors surfaced...

Clowe Me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 07:56 PM
  #36
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
That might be why the rumors of even more investors surfaced...
The rumors of more investors surfaced came BEFORE Hansen increase the offer by 75m.

Ultimately it still comes down to Maloofs accepting a local offer which they clearly said they WILL NOT.

NBA has asked them for 100% of the original offer at 525m by wednesday it should be 100% of the 625m offer.

gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 08:11 PM
  #37
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 19,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
The rumors of more investors surfaced came BEFORE Hansen increase the offer by 75m.
I doubt Sac and the league were caught off guard by this move...

Quote:
Ultimately it still comes down to Maloofs accepting a local offer which they clearly said they WILL NOT.
The Maloof's have said a lot of things. The league has more than enough time and money to wait the Maloof's out. The Maloof's on the other hand...

Quote:
NBA has asked them for 100% of the original offer at 525m by wednesday it should be 100% of the 625m offer.
We'll see...

Clowe Me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 08:14 PM
  #38
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
I doubt Sac and the league were caught off guard by this move...

The Maloof's have said a lot of things. The league has more than enough time and money to wait the Maloof's out. The Maloof's on the other hand...

We'll see...
Hence the back up offer that puts Hansen as minority owner of 20% of team with ROFR.

The issue is no longer about relocation.

gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 08:17 PM
  #39
sactown dude
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
The idea that Sacramento group only needs to match the original 341m offer and the NBA will accept it them as owners of team for that price.

Sacramento needs to match the 406m variation of 625m full offer not 341m of the 525m offer. IF Hansen did not increase the offer and stayed at 525m then NBA can reject Hansen and go with local group cause its the same price. The issue is NBA going with local group at a price that is LOWER than what Hansen is offering.
The league is considering an offer of $525MM/$341MM from Hansen vs. an offer of $525MM/$341MM from Sacramento group. They are not recognizing the increases. This has been reported multiple times, including by Seattle media.

sactown dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 08:19 PM
  #40
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sactown dude View Post
The league is considering an offer of $525MM/$341MM from Hansen vs. an offer of $525MM/$341MM from Sacramento group. They are not recognizing the increases. This has been reported multiple times, including by Seattle media.
Sorry but NBA CAN NOT DENY hansen the right to increase his offer. If they refuse to recognize the increase offer they will get sued.

gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 08:19 PM
  #41
sactown dude
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
The rumors of more investors surfaced came BEFORE Hansen increase the offer by 75m.

Ultimately it still comes down to Maloofs accepting a local offer which they clearly said they WILL NOT.

NBA has asked them for 100% of the original offer at 525m by wednesday it should be 100% of the 625m offer.
Are you ignoring the reports that the NBA will take the team using Best Interest of the League, if necessary? Because you haven't even mentioned it as a possibility.

sactown dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 08:21 PM
  #42
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sactown dude View Post
Are you ignoring the reports that the NBA will take the team using Best Interest of the League, if necessary? Because you haven't even mentioned it as a possibility.
Best Interest of the league is weak claim and they will get sued in courts.

NBA can not forcefully take away a team from an owner unless the owner does something that actually illegal and is harming the league then they can use best interest of the league clause.

gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 08:22 PM
  #43
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sactown dude View Post
Are you ignoring the reports that the NBA will take the team using Best Interest of the League, if necessary. Because you haven't even mentioned it as a possibility.
Well sac fans have been pretty good about reporting 'positive' sac news.

Another legal challenge will be fun.

Has there been an actual report or story about the best interest or just tweets?

superdeluxe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 09:10 PM
  #44
sactown dude
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
Well sac fans have been pretty good about reporting 'positive' sac news.

Another legal challenge will be fun.

Has there been an actual report or story about the best interest or just tweets?
Tweets are reports.

sactown dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 10:08 PM
  #45
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,176
vCash: 500
How was the Raiders II case so "different"? It seems like a solid precedent on which to at least go to court. The NBA was already powerless to stop the Clippers relocation, which was NOT within their existing territory.

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 11:33 PM
  #46
mvhkyfn14t
Registered User
 
mvhkyfn14t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,849
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Best Interest of the league is weak claim and they will get sued in courts.

NBA can not forcefully take away a team from an owner unless the owner does something that actually illegal and is harming the league then they can use best interest of the league clause.
Playing devils advocate to 'best interest' claim, it sure seems that accepting the Hansen offer of $625M with $115M in relocation fees plus the larger TV market would be in their best interest. Thereby in court that argument by the NBA would not stand up.

mvhkyfn14t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 11:49 PM
  #47
mvhkyfn14t
Registered User
 
mvhkyfn14t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,849
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sactown dude View Post
The league is considering an offer of $525MM/$341MM from Hansen vs. an offer of $525MM/$341MM from Sacramento group. They are not recognizing the increases. This has been reported multiple times, including by Seattle media.
Than why the special teleconference on Monday for the relo/finance committees that has been reported/tweeted about? What could they possibly have to discuss?

edit: reported/tweeted by Chris Daniels

mvhkyfn14t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 12:19 AM
  #48
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 33,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwpensfan View Post
Playing devils advocate to 'best interest' claim, it sure seems that accepting the Hansen offer of $625M with $115M in relocation fees plus the larger TV market would be in their best interest. Thereby in court that argument by the NBA would not stand up.
That depends on what angle you're playing from. There is an argument to be made that what is in the best interest of the league is to accept an offer where they extort a good amount of money from the public and keep its relationships with city officials positive. It would not look too kindly for the NBA to have a list of necessities, get them, and then walk away anyway. That would pretty much kill any chance of them getting public dollars in the future for endeavors like this. That's why best interest of the league very well could stand up.

The whole backup plan thing is so transparent that I think if a judge had to rule on it, would see what was going on and let them reject the deal. Leagues do have the right to decide where their franchises are located to a certain extent whether people want to acknowledge that or not. I don't know if a court will decline to allow a league to determine where a team will play when the current owners are intending on selling to someone else after relocation. That's why this isn't comparable to Raiders II. Al Davis wasn't selling and there's no way the Maloofs can prove that they won't after agreeing to a PSA and potentially later selling for a lesser percentage just to be allowed to move and sell the rest out. That kind of game isn't going to fly in court.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 12:29 AM
  #49
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
That depends on what angle you're playing from. There is an argument to be made that what is in the best interest of the league is to accept an offer where they extort a good amount of money from the public and keep its relationships with city officials positive. It would not look too kindly for the NBA to have a list of necessities, get them, and then walk away anyway. That would pretty much kill any chance of them getting public dollars in the future for endeavors like this. That's why best interest of the league very well could stand up.

The whole backup plan thing is so transparent that I think if a judge had to rule on it, would see what was going on and let them reject the deal. Leagues do have the right to decide where their franchises are located to a certain extent whether people want to acknowledge that or not. I don't know if a court will decline to allow a league to determine where a team will play when the current owners are intending on selling to someone else after relocation. That's why this isn't comparable to Raiders II. Al Davis wasn't selling and there's no way the Maloofs can prove that they won't after agreeing to a PSA and potentially later selling for a lesser percentage just to be allowed to move and sell the rest out. That kind of game isn't going to fly in court.
the whole best interest for league will never hold up in court.

gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 12:41 AM
  #50
mvhkyfn14t
Registered User
 
mvhkyfn14t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,849
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
That depends on what angle you're playing from. There is an argument to be made that what is in the best interest of the league is to accept an offer where they extort a good amount of money from the public and keep its relationships with city officials positive. It would not look too kindly for the NBA to have a list of necessities, get them, and then walk away anyway. That would pretty much kill any chance of them getting public dollars in the future for endeavors like this. That's why best interest of the league very well could stand up.

The whole backup plan thing is so transparent that I think if a judge had to rule on it, would see what was going on and let them reject the deal. Leagues do have the right to decide where their franchises are located to a certain extent whether people want to acknowledge that or not. I don't know if a court will decline to allow a league to determine where a team will play when the current owners are intending on selling to someone else after relocation. That's why this isn't comparable to Raiders II. Al Davis wasn't selling and there's no way the Maloofs can prove that they won't after agreeing to a PSA and potentially later selling for a lesser percentage just to be allowed to move and sell the rest out. That kind of game isn't going to fly in court.
It can pretty easily be 'argued' that the NBA did not afford Seattle in 2008 the same consideration you speak of here. That inconsistent behavior would not help in the argument you propose.

mvhkyfn14t 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 06:00 AM.

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.