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.
NBA Sacramento Kings situation: April 2012 UPD: Deal to stay put crumbles
Unfortunately, the city just couldn't invest what is needed to construct a pro baseball stadium. Thus, they pretty much put all their eggs in the basket of accepting that in regards to baseball, they are at best a high-level minor league town. That won't change until Raley Field becomes too old in about thirty years.
And truth be told, there is nothing wrong with being a AAA town. Raley Field looks like a hell of a place to play a game. If I lived near that area I would certainly go out to those games.
Secondly, pro franchises have to pursue local options before it is opened up to other locations. That is simply how it is. If a local group is willing to pay fair market value for the franchise, it has to be pursued.
That's how the NHL works, but the NBA? They've never operated that way, and I doubt they care that much about Sacramento as a market since, to be blunt, it adds no value to the league. They let Clay Bennett buy the Sonics, do you think they care?
Sacramento had a feasibility study done to determine if building the arena was a good idea. The study was done by ICON Venue Group. The same group that did the study for Glendale on Jobbing.com Arena
That's how the NHL works, but the NBA? They've never operated that way, and I doubt they care that much about Sacramento as a market since, to be blunt, it adds no value to the league. They let Clay Bennett buy the Sonics, do you think they care?
They let Clay Bennett buy the Sonics after a series of different owners tried their hand at making a new arena happen. The only group to attempt an arena deal here has been the Maloofs...that's it. That is not the same situation as it is here and this especially true because the city got it done when it came to an arena and Seattle didn't.
Anyone know what the territorial rights rules are in the NBA? So far AEG has been bending over backwards to keep them out of LA
I haven't seen a copy of the NBA Constitution, but from the 9th Circuit ruling in NBA vs SDC Basketball Club (1987) - the NBA sued the Clippers after they moved SD -> LA without NBA approval, the trial court ruled a summary judgement in favor of the Clippers, the Ninth Circuit overturned and returned it to the district court, and the case was settled out-of-court before trial - it appears that the NBA Constitution has two Articles:
- Article 9 - which granted territorial rights and a single team veto. The NBA acknowledged that this was unenforceable in the wake of Raiders I.
- Article 9A - adopted after the Clippers move, but before the NBA's suit - required a 3/4ths majority vote to approve a move, as well as listing a set of criteria similar to the NHL's By-Law 36.
Since the case was settled out of court - the Clippers agreed to pay a $5.5M territorial indemnification fee to the Lakers and agree that the move was subject to Article 9A and the NBA approved the move and dropped the suit - the restrictions of Article 9A were not examined in court.
They let Clay Bennett buy the Sonics after a series of different owners tried their hand at making a new arena happen. The only group to attempt an arena deal here has been the Maloofs...that's it. That is not the same situation as it is here and this especially true because the city got it done when it came to an arena and Seattle didn't.
One owner (Schultz) made one half-hearted attempt prior to Bennett. The owner prior to Schultz, Ackerley, asked for and received a massive renovation of Key Arena.
One owner (Schultz) made one half-hearted attempt prior to Bennett. The owner prior to Schultz, Ackerley, asked for and received a massive renovation of Key Arena.
Schultz, in a half-hearted attempt, was still a better and more legitimate shot than what the Maloofs have been doing in this whole thing. They won't even follow through on investing money that is mostly coming from selling the arena back to the city, which included retiring a loan of theirs. They aren't negotiating in good faith and everyone knows it.
Schultz, in a half-hearted attempt, was still a better and more legitimate shot than what the Maloofs have been doing in this whole thing. They won't even follow through on investing money that is mostly coming from selling the arena back to the city, which included retiring a loan of theirs. They aren't negotiating in good faith and everyone knows it.
I see no reason why Anaheim would be a good idea for the NBA. If Anaheim was such a good market why in gods name wouldnt the Clippers just move south.
The Clippers used to play a few games there before moving to the Staples Center. It would have made sense for them to move but its Donald Sterling's ego more than anything else that kept them downtown.
Arena deal dead in Sacramento. #Kings looking for a new home after 2013-14 season. Vancouver needs a buyer. Seattle needs a building.
Vancouver has a buyer. David Stern did a podcast with Bill Simmons on ESPN.Com a while back and they were talking about cities that have inquired about getting a team. I also read somewhere a couple of years ago that the owners of the Canucks made a offer to buy the Pacers and move them to Vancouver. So if the NBA wants to go back there they can.
Vancouver has a buyer. David Stern did a podcast with Bill Simmons on ESPN.Com a while back and they were talking about cities that have inquired about getting a team. I also read somewhere a couple of years ago that the owners of the Canucks made a offer to buy the Pacers and move them to Vancouver. So if the NBA wants to go back there they can.
Canucks owner tried to buy the New Orleans Hornets a few months back.
They let Clay Bennett buy the Sonics after a series of different owners tried their hand at making a new arena happen.
....
That is not the same situation as it is here and this especially true because the city got it done when it came to an arena and Seattle didn't.
That's false. Ackerley was responsible for Key Arena, he sold team to Schultz who made half ass effort for arena, nothing serious. Then quickly sold the team in a late night deal over the objection of minority Sonics partners who wanted time to put together a local ownership group.
Seattle never had a chance to save the Sonics. Howard Schultz's greed killed the Sonics and David Stern did nothing to stop the theft of one of the NBA's top franchises in one of their best markets.
No, the Maloofs went significantly further in the process than Schultz. Schultz whined to the media, whined to Olympia, and that was it.
The Maloofs are scum, but they are better human beings and NBA owners than Howard Schultz ever was.
Wrong. The Maloofs weren't further at all. The city of Sacramento was further than the city of Seattle. The Maloofs never had any intention of getting a deal done here.
Wrong. The Maloofs weren't further at all. The city of Sacramento was further than the city of Seattle. The Maloofs never had any intention of getting a deal done here.
And until yesterday afternoon we didn't know that. The city of sacramento was further. But Seattle just remodeled Key 13 years earlier at the point.
