Tomorrow night the Kings play the Thunder.
I would guess that many Kings fans will feel about the Thunder the way we always felt about the New Orleans Hornets. That somehow this other franchise had tremendous impact on our own situation despite the fact that the two cities never really interacted. This all would have been resolved if the Hornets had remained in Oklahoma City. Instead they are a terribly performing franchise about to be renamed in a way that will serve only to make them more provincial and completely minimize their global identity. They stayed there, OKC took our Sonics and we take the Kings. Musical chairs is a really fickle game.
I am not certain if people understand this concept of the $30M and litigation clearly enough. Please note that I have not spoken to anyone on the Hansen team in any way about the contract but can only speak from my own personal experience in 2007 and 2008. There is little chance that Hansen would ever sue the NBA. He could however sue the city of Sacramento or the owners it assembles. Both the city and those potential owners need to be aware of the liability they may be incurring if they cross boundaries. It is one thing to try to assemble your own deal. It is another to maliciously try to interfere with somebody else’s deal with the deliberate intent of forcing a breach of contract.
On an individual level this liability will vary depending on the person’s position. If these people have shareholders then they need to consider their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders or primary business. As an example it would have been very poor for the CEO of Microsoft to have been publicly sued for dishonest business practices in a private matter as that could have resulted in diminished confidence and reduced share values.
From a city standpoint they just have to look at the money and compare it realistically to their odds of winning. If this transaction goes through the city will receive a $77M payoff of the franchise loan. If it fails they face paying a minimum of $30M in damages if it is found that they interfered in a contract to which they were not a party. Thats a $107M swing in the general fund this year for a city that announced it is closing 12 schools and all of its public swimming pools.
Yesterday’s press conference was not encouraging for Sacramento. Something clearly went wrong there.
The NBA does not want 30 different minority owners. They are not setting this thing up for success. The situation as we currently understand it is this: 2 major investors are interested in ownership but beginning financial review and due diligence to see whether they are willing to come forward and be publicly named. They of course have to figure out the price they are willing to pay and the terms they will consider. They also have a very limited window to figure out their own working relationship and personal liabilities.
The formerly approved arena concept now appears to be clouded with a new downtown arena site being selected. That site has a preliminary feasibility study but no significant review. The former arena site has more significant review but revenues and contracts have not been confirmed and architectural drawings are not nearly completed to the level they are in Seattle.
Those owners must now negotiate minority ownership stakes with as many as 30 individual shareholders that the mayor has assembled.
I hate to be so cynical. We will see what next week brings them.
http://sports.yahoo.com/video/seattle-good-fit-nba-012000879.html
Carryover from the last one. Greg Anthony on the teams return.
“They’re going to want good character guys”
So long, DeMarcus
Great video. As for Anthony’s character comment. I’m thinking that unless Cousins gets his act together then he’s gone. Last night when I was watching the Kings game I came to the conclusion that Cousins is a mixed bag. On the one hand he has lots of talent, he was always in there fighting for any rebound. Then on the other hand he gets ‘chippy’ with anyone who is guarding him and then kind of goes into pissed off meltdown mode. In a very short period of time he had 2 fouls and Technical foul called on him. All because he seems to get angry then goes into total self destruct mode.
With that said I’m actually in favor of keeping him for the first season back here see if maybe a change in scenery and coaching will help him.
I think you have to keep him. Big men with that much talent do not come around that often. There is a reason we drafted 3 7 footers in a row. Have we forgotten about this already? Look at our franchise history. We didnt have a legitimate big man since 2001-2002 and that was Vin Baker. Look at the overall franchise history……….In my lifetime there were 3 legit big men studs. Sikma, Kemp, and Baker.
He has a Danny Fortson attitude. Me against the world and everyone is against me.
We of all people should know that. He is still a kid. Lots of growing up to do. That will come with time. The chip on his shoulder becomes smaller with age.
Its fun to talk about actual basketball again
I think these realities are settling in on Sacramento. That was a trainwreck of a news conference and a sad scene at Sleep Train Arena last night.
I agree that the potential liability of interfering in an executed transaction is a factor, but I don’t this comes anywhere near that. The NBA and its owners aren’t sitting around wondering what liability they may face when and if a Sacramento ownership group is cobbled together to match an already-done deal. I’m confident that the league took an internal straw poll on the Hansen-Ballmer purchase and relocation to Seattle, and assured Hansen that this wouldn’t turn into a showdown and massive PR clusterf-k. Stern taking phone calls from KJ and letting him present to the BOG is face-saving window dressing for Kings fans, and helps keep them alive as a potential future threat for other NBA cities to leverage off of, just as they did with Seattle.
It can’t be understated just how attractive Seattle is to the NBA under the new ownership. This isn’t a deal that will barely get done. As the reports stated the day the purchase was announced, this deal will be overwhelmingly approved.
A History Lesson For Sacramento: How Kansas City Lost The Kings
http://deadspin.com/5978111/a-history-lesson-for-sacramento-how-kansas-city-lost-the-kings
That was a really good read. Sacramento thinks it is in a unique situation but it isn’t.
Sacramento fans are really down after the press conference yesterday. If the goal was to reset expectations then KJ succeeded in that.
Living outside of both markets, nobody seems to care. Just like with Seattle when the Sonics left the majority of the country just shrugs and worries about the Lakers or their own teams.
Was this guy clays mentor? Certainly makes me feel glad mr Hansen is upfront about his intentions.
Great article. I thought this was an interesting comment:
“So Seattle is stealing the team that Sacramento stole from Kansas city, which is the team that Kansas city stole from Cincinnati, who stole my beloved Rochester Royals.
The team hasn’t won since it left Rochester, and never will. Gimme back my NBA team!”
Paulie on The Dan Patrick Show, is wearing an old school Seattle SuperSonics t-shirt today! :-)
I love this info! It is telling to the market saturation we have as a franchise.. Everyone loves a comeback story!!
Here’s the real deal. Sacramento is not competing with a price or a contract. They are competing with a vision and that is a vision that has been embraced by the NBA leading up to this point.
In Seattle you have a very wealthy ownership group that is committed to running a top notch, high payroll organization. They are going to drop huge money on high profile management. Word is they will be perennial luxury tax payers and never be recipients of revenue sharing. Their very first act as members of the club was to raise franchise values by 30%.
They are going to build the most state of the art, architectural unique and futuristic arena in the world with the thought that it will become a major west coast destination.
All of this is going to be financed by relationships with great global companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks(yes they still exist), and so many others. The strength of that corporate community and the myriad of global brands that exist in Seattle cannot be duplicated in a city that does not have similar corporate presence. That is the single biggest problem that Sacramento faces.
All of this will happen and it presents a once in a lifetime opportunity to turn the leagues biggest public failure into a feel good redemption moment. Of course it will create another public failure but this time the blame will be squarely planted on the Maloof family and their mistakes.
It seems clear that the NBA has embraced this path and decided that this is preferable. So when KJ goes in front of the BOG he better understand that he does not just need two names and a “competative offer.” He needs to present a vision that is significantly enough better than the one I painted above that it gets their attention and convinces them to acknowledge that they were wrong in considering Seattle and need to change their course.
I think Brian has encapsulated the idea quite well. KJ’s bar is higher than just finances, and I truthfully don’t see SacTown being able to meet or exceed the threshold of what the Hansen group has put forth. Especially not within the quickly closing window of time available. I believe the timing of the sale was quite strategic in that respect. I don’t think it was an afterthought. Quite shrewd.
Paulie on The Dan Patrick Show, is wearing an old school Seattle SuperSonics t-shirt today!
this really makes me happy for some strange reason
“Talented teases” such as Cousins never change. The only way he would straighten out his act is either in a better environment on a winning team with more strong, talented, leaders that would keep him straight, or with a stronger, more forceful coach that would have more credibility than Keith Smart seems to have. If/when we get the/a team, they will most likely suck at first, but it seems like over time great ownership and those that they hire will turn things around.
I don’t even think that character is the biggest thing with Cousins.
The biggest thing will be his contract, as he’s in his 3rd year and will look for an extansion this summer.
Therefore you’ll have to decide to A) trade him for the best package or B) extend him.
If you do B then you should be sure about his character and that he’ll get his act together.
What you can’t do would be C) keeping him while not extending him, as that would mean him becoming a RFA and nearly being a lock to receive a max contract offer sheet by some other team.
That would put you in a tough spot as you wouldn’t get much in a sign-and-trade or would have to pay him the max starting with the 2014/15 season.
The only way I trade him now is to get a big expiring deal like Josh Smiths……..and get a team to take a bad contract like Thornton or Salmons.
Zach Randolph is a “talented tease” who got himself under control in Memphis. There is some hope for DeMarcus, but I think he’s a lot crazier than Z-Bo ever was.
Yeah but Z-Bo needed quite some time for it and is one of the few examples for guys with such an attitude/bad rep.
Yeah, but it almost took ten years for Zbo to pull it all together. Not one franchise is going to wait that long.
Fair enough. I was just responding to the point that talented teases “never change.”
Chris Webber as well…
Shawn Kemp was a talented tease. He was also a coke head. Everybody loves Shawn Kemp.
Winning situations seem to take care of all. If Sacramento was a first place team and Cousins acted exactly the same then nobody would talk about it. But they are a bad team. So thats the focus.
Cousins is the only tradeable commodity they have. They have to keep him for that reason alone. Im not against blowing up the entire team and starting over…….but you need Cousins to do that.
Have you guys seen Schultz’ response to Charlie Rose asking him about remorse or regret for selling the sonics?? It’s like a 30 sec video on youtube and all he says is “I’m not here to talk about basketball, I wish the NBA and OKC well and I am here to talk about how 14 million people are unemployed.”
This prick won’t even say a single “sorry” or “I was wrong”. No it wouldn’t make me forgive him but things like this are what make me hate him MORE! I say no Starbucks allowed at Key or SoDo.
That is irellevant, if Starbucks pays the right money to get a sponsorship deal then they will get it. I would advise that you simply not patronize.
Yes most of us have seen it many moons ago. Most of us have moved on.
Completely unrelated but the Braves just traded for Justin Upton…guess he is happy he blocked the trade to Seattle and now gets to play with his brother.
Wonder when Cpt Ahab is going to have his call with Stern? Curious to see his tone after it
I don’t think there’ll be much to tell.
He’ll say that he had a good conversation with him and that he’s still got a shot if he presents a “fair offer”.
Even if Stern would tell him straight forward that he’s got no chance he’s still too deep into it to go from “we’ll fight to till end” to “we’ve got no chance”(he’ll never say this publicly anyways) within a couple of hours.
Since when has “nothing to tell” stopped KJ from having a press conference?
Do you think KJ is going to have a press conference about his call with Stern? ;)
Dale Kasler @dakasler
Breaking: #NBAKings limited partners are being denied right to match Hansen offer, bankruptcy trustee says. More coming online
Didn’t Carmichael Dave say that there is no ‘Right of First Refusal’ clause with the minority owners?
They Maloofs don’t have to give them the opportunity to match.
they have a right of refusal to purchase “only” other minority shares. Not the controlling interest. so I hear.
Where did you hear this?
Not sure if this right is in there contract, but fyi…
Dale Kasler@dakasler
Breaking: #NBAKings limited partners are being denied right to match Hansen offer, bankruptcy trustee says. More coming online
I just came across that too. That’s surprising and may be the final nail in the coffin. All I can guess is one of those partners filed bankruptcy sometime ago and disqualifies them from any involvement in the NBA.
Curious. Anyone else have any idea what that means?
I believe it was based on the hope that someone could buy the 7% share of the team that is involved in one minority partner’s bankruptcy and then use a rumors right to first refusal clause to match Hansen’s offer.
^ I think that’s pretty much it
Chris Hansen acquires two more Sodo parcels near arena site
http://bit.ly/V9Rlqf
MAN POSSESSED!
I wonder if he is addicted to land….just can’t stop buying it. “I need some of that good land bro, I’m fiending”
Isn’t this the same site that Chris Daniels reported like a month ago?
Hard to say. He buys so much land that I lose track.
Yeah no kidding
Meanwhile, Chris keeps on marching…
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/01/24/chris-hansen-acquires-two-more-sodo.html?ana=RSS&s=article_search&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bizj_seattle+%28Puget+Sound+Business+Journal%29
Meanwhile, Chris keeps on marching…
http://alturl.com/3cwy6
More info…
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/24/5138478/limited-partners-have-first-right.html
It’s just like how Howard’s minority owners got the right to match Bennett. Wait…
Spot on Taylor Made
what it is saying this that the minority investors have the right to match Hansen’s offer.
The article says some bankruptcy appointee says the minority owners have the first right of refusal. I don’t actually think it even says that this is really true. Says the Maloofs say they don’t. Either way, it would be for the 7% from what I understand. Guess we will find more out about this.
well it is the sac bee thats spinning it.
Says that if they can’t match it diminishes the value of Cook’s share that is being auctioned. While true in principle, I think the shares just increased about 75% because of the sale.
Do we honestly think Chris didn’t research this?
from March of last year;
“The existing partners, including majority owner the Maloof family “would have first right of refusal to bid ON COOK’S SHARE.”
http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2012/03/13/Franchises/Kings.aspx
so this has nothing to do with the 65% only on Cook’s share?
That’s how it sounds to me.
I wouldn’t go that far just yet. I’m guessing there is a clause in their ownership agreements that allow the remaining owners the right of first refusal if any other owner (majority or otherwise) planned to put their share up for sale.
How do they expect to come up with 340m
Well, the Maloofs did put the team for sale, and they sold to Hansen.
Well then this is all about nothing. i would guarantee that this was looked at prior to the purchase agreement with the Maloofs. They would have an expert on that bankruptcy portion reviewing things.
I would assume that Hansen had his legal team go over Maloofs contract / agreement with the minority owners.
I just tweeted that guy and Chris Daniels the article he wrote previously saying that it was right of first refusal for “Cook’s share”. We will see what they respond.
See my comment above. If there was a right of first refusal for Cook’s sure, I’m pretty sure the right extended to all shares.
That said, I’m not too worried about this.
Yoon but the rest of the share’s of the team isn’t in bankruptcy. Only Cook’s share.
How can they come up with 340m though
I wish the sac bee stops being misleading.
If the Seattle Times won’t, why would they?
That said, they are running a story that is pertinent to the larger story. They are saying “this guy says this”. The guy is an attorney associated with a minority owner. They can’t simply ignore it.
True. But there is a way not to complete ignore it but also not be misleading.
Cause there is question if its only being right of first refusal on the 7% or 65%
They might not be aware of that. Furthermore, we’re not sure it’s true.
As I understand it, if there is such a clause in the ownership agreement, then these guys have to come up with it on their own. They can’t call in outside investors (such as KJ’s 21 guns).
Which i doubt they will be able to 340m is a lot of money.
There is a precedent for this. Stan Kroenke invoked his right of refusal to buy the Rams.
Only if its says in the contract though.
Did Kroenke use his own money though?
I’m curious on one thing in particular. If it exists and the Sacbee is friendly with the other owners, how come they don’t just quote that part of the contract? Instead of all this sources crap?
So in a simple mind like mine, I’m picturing a couple minority owners selling their share to big money guys that can actually pony up a competitive offer. Presto, a minority owner is matching the offer.
Kind of like getting fouled with 1 second on the clock and faking an injury because there’s a 95% free throw shooter on the bench.
NBA has to approve any sale. So I highly doubt the League would look kindly upon such shenanigans. There is also probably some sort of NBA bylaw (this is a guess) that says majority owners have certain powers - amongst them the power to sell the team.
That would be good. I sure hope the minority owners can’t pull some sort of buy/sell transaction with one of the potential whales.
Is that even legal?
I don’t think that’s very likely though because the NBA would still have to vet that person and they would still have to come forward with a better vision as well as a better offer then Hansen’s group.
wow! i just got back from being out of the country for about a week and i’m frantically trying to catch up. lots of exciting stuff! i always expected hansen’s announcement to be bigger than it seems to be. i figured it would be more than a blog post and cause more mass hysteria around town. maybe they’re waiting on league approval over all star break and lease terms with key arena to roll out a big announcement??
the “first right of refusal” argument by the minority owners seems wierd. i guess it’s just based on principle. even if they can purchase the maloof’s shares would they not need to outbid hansen/ballmer? seems like they would’ve snatched up those shares a long time ago if that was the case.
I love how the SacBee is going to bat for the Kings.
If we were in that position, the Times would run the article with this headline:
BULLSH*T CHANCE TO SAVE OUR STUPID BASKETBALL TEAM
I am wondering if this is only a tactic to delay the sale/relocation cause if the agreement is being challenged in court how can the NBA approval it?
NBA approved the sale and relocation of the Sonics before the lawsuit settled here. So they could still approve the sale and relocation to Seattle, but technically if one of the minority owners sued for breach of contract the court would enjoin the team from moving until after the litigation.
Yeah, this coming from a bankruptcy lawyer makes me think they have the right of first refusal should any member declare bankruptcy which the Maloofs aren’t.
Oh good grief. So in other words the lawyer wants to buy the 65% of the team?
He means only for the portion in up for bankruptcy sale.
Well, you may be right. But you have to understand that in this context the bankruptcy “lawyer” is the trustee for Cook’s estate, which includes a 7% share of the Kings. The Trustee has several duties but chief amongst them is making sure the creditors to the bankruptcy estate are given maximum value after the liquidation of assets. The Trustee can step in and stop or reverse transfers of the bankrupt person’s assets if full value is not given.
In this case, it would seem a step too far. All the Trustee has control over is the 7% Cook owns. His obligation is to make sure the sale of the 7% is given maximum value. Whether the other 93% are purchased by Hansen or a local group is only of consequence if one offers MORE money than the other. Theoretically, the two amounts are equal so there would be no difference.
There is one possible caveat to this though IMHO. Selling to the Hansen group invokes the $10 million prepayment penalty on the Sactown loan to the Kings. My guess is that effects the value of all shares including the 7% Cook owns. By selling to a local group for the exact same amount (525 mil), the 10 million bucks never hits and the 7% shares are “worth” a tiny bit more. I think it’s a stretch but if I had an interest in keeping the team home that’s one avenue I would argue. (Assuming the partnership agreement even contains such a clause, assuming the clause is not in conflict with NBA bylaws, which I think control, and assuming there is a limited partner who can afford to match).
* Yes I am a lawyer in case anyone asks and I have dealt with bankruptcy trustees in the past.
So in plan english non lawyer speak? its a non issue?
I think he said its a non issue. But I’m not a lawyer
I think he is suggesting that the value may be higher if there is no penalty to be paid, so therefore there could be a way to hold off on the sale. We still don’t know what the right of first refusal applies to nor the language of it in the contract (assume it is actually there)
Couldn’t hansen just buy that 7% and it comes a non issue?
In non-lawyer speak it is the trustees job to get max value.
The problem is we haven’t seen any of the agreements that are being talked about. All we have is sources and spins. So it depends on any number of agreements we don’t have access to.
Barely and Christoper are correct in my opinion.
We don’t know enough about the actual terms of the various agreements to conclude whether it’s a big issue or not.
I would be HIGHLY surprised if this stopped the sale to Hansen. But I tried to thread the needle on a possible avenue the Sacto folks could take assuming the language in the partnership agreement was perfectly in their favor, which I doubt. And even IF the language is in their favor, and even IF somehow they were allowed to borrow money in order to exercise their rights, the NBA probably rejects THAT sale. Of course, then the NBA is open to an anti-trust suit…
Damn lawyers
But it also opens an NBA anti trust to reject hansen’s sale
Uh oh…
Paul Rogers@RPaulRogers
@sonicsman @ChrisDaniels5 BREAKING: Sonics man reports that Squatch is buying the Kings.
That’s a Kris Brennan report folks. Money.
My next report was going to be “Special report…your mom buys the Kings.”
We don’t have enough sophmoric humor on this board.
A little levity my friend. Perhaps a very little levity, but…
BREAKING NEWS: Trader Bob buys Kings, promptly flips them to LA for two franchises, a draft pick and Britney Spears’ career. :)
That can’t be Wheedle has right of first refusal ;)
You should see carmicheal dave’s tweets regarding this situation. Hes taking it as Sac wins.
He is also tweeted saying
Carmichael Dave @CarmichaelDave
NBA politics: 8 no votes rejects sale, AEG coincidentally owns 9 NBA arenas.
tweet him back;
“AEG owns 0 NBA teams”
I thought AEG owned the lakers?
Nope, they own the hockey team.
Jerry Buss would like a word with you.
Unless AEG is only a minority share of the lakers.
Yeah, it is dumb to think AEG has that kind of sway on how owners vote. If anything it is a great thing for them to have new arenas to manage.
lolololol
wasn’t that clown insisting that there isn’t even a “first of refusal” clause? That guys is a straight up tool bag
Yes same guy.
RE : Right of First Refusal
Just to summarize my thoughts on this. There very will could be a “right of first refusal” clause incorporated in the ownership agreements that would allow any other owner the right to purchase shares that are put up for sale (whether it is a minority or majority amount). If it is included in the agreement currently in bankruptcy, I’m guessing it is available to all other minority owners as well.
If this is true, there are two risks: 1) a current minority owner would have the right to purchase the Maloof’s majority share for the same amount offered by the Hansen group, or 2) an outside buyer could purchase the 7% share at bankruptcy auction and then invoke this right to buy the Maloof share.
However, I don’t think either of these scenarios is likely. If a minority owner was interested and financially capable of invoking this right, they probably would have done so already, or made their intentions known. Most of these guys are minority owners for a reason-they either can’t afford to own a majority share, or simply don’t want to be a majority owner of a team.
In regards to the second scenario, I don’t see anyone outbidding Hansen for that 7% share that will become available through the bankruptcy proceedings. Even if he was outbid, it is highly unlikely that it another buyer would be able to invoke a right of first refusal as a new minority owner after a sale had been agreed to between Hansen and the Maloofs.
Finally, I’m guessing this right of first refusal is a limited right-there are probably a lot of restrictions placed on it that would make this route very difficult on any party to take.
Those are my two cents.
Doesn’t it seem odd the person bringing this up is a bankruptcy trustee and not an actual minority owner? Could it be that the minority owners were already given their right of refusal and refused it?
I thought it was kind of odd too
That bankruptcy trustee owns cook’s share cause cook file for bankruptcy thats the only thing i can think of. But I’m not sure how does the bankruptcy trustee have a minority owner right?
He doesn’t “own” it. He “controls” it until it is auctioned off.
So how can he actually claim right of first refusal?
Most ownership rights that are given to the minority owner would extend to the bankruptcy trustee. It is the fiduciary duty to receive maximum value for the assets in question, and would be able to invoke a right such as this.
Notice that in this case he isn’t actually trying to invoke a right to match the majority share, but to ensure that this right would be available to whomever purchased this share. That would certainly increase the value of the share.
He can’t claim it, he is suggesting the other owners can. We don’t even really know this. To go Sactown on everyone, could the Maloofs be buying this on February 1st with the $30 million “deposit”?
That’s what i am wondering what that 30m was for.
So correct me if I’m wrong, but did Cook’s 7% that is going to auction just become a MUST-BUY for the group that wants to land the Kings?
A couple assumptions (that may or may not even be true):
1)
There are whale-ish types in Sacramento that, if they can find a way around Hansen’s executed purchase agreement, are ready to match an offer.
2)
Minority owners have the legal right to match Hansen’s offer, but probably don’t have the cash to do it.
3)
The whales can’t just gift money to a minority owner, so they need to find a way to BECOME a minority owner so they can get a seat at the offer-matching table.
Enter the big auction. Probably with a big ad in the SacBee that says “WANT TO BECOME A MINORITY OWNER OF THE KINGS?”
I’m rambling a little, but seriously, if that 7% is actually the legal doorway to matching Hansen’s offer, then…well…I can’t even imagine what that bidding war will look like.
7% of $525m is about $37m.
If I’m running that auction, I start the bidding at $80m.
Great news for Mr. Cook, I suppose.
NBA i think would still have to approval any sale minority or majority though.
If that 7% is a legal door way to match hansen’s offer, and someone attempts it then attempts to argue right of first refusal. NBA can still reject it.
I’m no lawyer, but I just can’t see how a new minority owner would be able to invoke right of first refusal if he came in after the agreement between the Maloofs and Hansen. I would think right of first refusal would only apply to existing minority owners, not future ones.
Good write-up by Mike Salk regarding the clown’s within the Seattle Times editorial board.
http://mynorthwest.com/422/2183185/Local-paper-misleading-again-on-arena-deal
This whole thing is odd. What’s next, the ghost of Barry Ackerley is going to appear and annouce a minority share?
So now what?
So what are the odds that the sale gets approved over the All Star break and then announced officially say a week later?
KJ is going to have another press conference sometime after 3pm
not sure if serious
Ryan Lillis @Ryan_Lillis
Senate Pro Tem Steinberg, Mayor Johnson, other elected officials meeting at Steinberg’s office at 3 pm. Press conference to follow
and
Jason Puckett @JasonPuckettKJR
This is where it gets personal. Steinberg fella has threatened some type of action vs. Ballmer/Microsoft b/c of tax breaks they get in CA.
Isn’t that illegal to retaliate like that?
Seems like if they were to take away MS’s tax cuts, they would have to do the same to Google, Apple, etc.
That’s what i thought.
Microsoft vs California episode V
Balmer strikes back :P
Ugh, another one.
Someone donated $30 and a handbag
Jason Puckett @JasonPuckettKJR
The beauty of Steinberg though is that CA chose Microsoft (50.5 mill) over CA-based Google 4 email service 4 200,000 state employees
oh nice. another press conference today… this is getting ridiculous
The Sacramento Kings’ Departure From Hypertaxed California Signals Return Of The Seattle SuperSonics (Forbes)
http://onforb.es/10TqQNo
Hmmm sactownroyalty comment on this brings up an interested port. When is the action for the 7%? Feb 1? Isn’t that the same date that Hansen has to write that 30m check to Maloofs?
I thought Chris Daniels said the auction was later on this year?
beats me i never heard an actually date of the auction.
April 19th… During Board of Gov meeting. Ugh
That’s good news. It would be way too late for anyone to make a bid on the auction and invoke their right of first refusal rights on the majority share.
auctioneers very smart to wait until the sale finalizes… $$ value goes up for 7%
KJ’s strategy is becoming pretty clear. He is trying to consistently keep the Kings-to-Sacramento effort in the news, in a positive light, every single day. Media momentum can be huge, and by having a daily press conference, even if the actual “news” is minor, he can seemingly create headlines every day. Will that do anything to the end result? Probably not but it is his last and only chance.
It can be a good thing or a bad thing.
If he has real tangible information than it’s good. If it’s a presser like yesterday, then it makes him look like a goof.
Silvio said: “I don’t even think that character is the biggest thing with Cousins.
The biggest thing will be his contract, as he’s in his 3rd year and will look for an extansion this summer.
Therefore you’ll have to decide to A) trade him for the best package or B) extend him.
If you do B then you should be sure about his character and that he’ll get his act together.
What you can’t do would be C) keeping him while not extending him, as that would mean him becoming a RFA and nearly being a lock to receive a max contract offer sheet by some other team.
That would put you in a tough spot as you wouldn’t get much in a sign-and-trade or would have to pay him the max starting with the 2014/15 season.”
Can’t they consider a 1 year deal?
Aaron Bruski @aaronbruski
PBT can confirm that the 1991 Kings agreement contains a right of first refusal for minority owners.
So now what? we are screwed?
The Maloofs were originally a minority owner in 1998, then bought the majority in ’99. I would think a new agreement was established at that point.
Keep in mind two things.
1)Bruski hasn’t really been the most reliable or unbiased source recently
2)The Maloofs bought majority ownership of the Kings in 1999, so there may not be a right of first refusal assuming that a new agreement was drawn up.
or maybe 1997, but late 90s for sure.
1998
Let’s look at chronological patterns, all media crap aside:
- We hear about a possible deal in the works between Hansen and Maloofs
- We hear that league has been “briefed” on non-binding deal points (deal not “bound” yet)
- We hear from commish that he’s been in contact with Chris Hansen
- We hear deal done
- We hear $30M non-refundable down payment is part of the deal
Here’s what I find interesting:
- The league had been briefed on the deal points. Why? If you’re just going to submit a P&S agreement anyway, fully-executed, why even brief the league on this, UNLESS, you’re wanting to get some sort of signal from the league as to what the general “temperature” will be in terms of how receptive the league will be to the deal.
- Then, shortly after we hear that the league has been “briefed”, we get a binding agreement. In any other business deal, this binding agreement coming in the wake of briefing the league on deal points would lead to an assumption that the other approval party in this has given a thumbs up on the deal points.
- THEN, a $30M non-refundable deposit, when put up against a backdrop of the league having already been briefed on the deal points and a subsequent binding agreement being executed and submitted quickly, suggesting that Hansen is confident enough, AFTER the aforementioned league interaction, to put down a chunk of money that he’ll never get back.
People continue to say that the league is the big unknown here, and to a degree, this is true. However, I think if people stop and really read the order of things, you can see patterns that should instill confidence in Seattle fans.
Roller coaster just dropped.
if those papers are in fact signed how much can mayor johnson really do? unless his focus has now turned to an expansion franchise in time. any announcement of investors seem irrelevent unless they were already in the kings’ ownership group and excercizing this first right of refusal.
@dalekasler
Auction of Bob Cook’s 7% share of #NBAKings is April 19, during NBA Bd of Governors meeting in NY. Hmm.
This would make it nearly impossible for any new owner to even buy in. Also, if there is right of first refusal couldn’t the shares be sold to minority owners prior to an auction? Seems like an auction negates any right to first refusal. Don’t really know anything about this stuff.
Which means nothing even if one of the suppose whales tries to get that 7% he couldn’t really do anything as a suppose minority owner to revoke right of first refusal since NBA would have to approval it the change of hands in that 7%
I didn’t know 8 no votes from BOG rejects a sale. I always thought it only needed a simple majority (1 more yes than no).
I heard 3/4 of owners to approval sale majority to approval relocation.
This
Looks like there’s another KJ press conference today. This one’s at 3 pm.
Ryan Lillis @Ryan_Lillis
Senate Pro Tem Steinberg, Mayor Johnson, other elected officials meeting at Steinberg’s office at 3 pm. Press conference to follow
So my guess they are gonna go after microsoft’s tax breaks or attempt too.
This one might actually be interesting, since he’ll have the guy who has been threatening Ballmer with him.
Taylor,
He is gonna be in legally hot water if he’s going public when these kind of threats.
Oh can’t wait for this one. Wonder if he ends it with “I gotta roll” again?
FWIW;
“A source close to the Maloofs reportedly said the family doesn’t believe the minority owners have that right.”
http://www.king5.com/news/arena/Trustee-Kings-minority-owners-have-right-to-match-Hansen-offer-188236881.html
So a court session fighting over a right of first refusal.
Doesn’t believe? Does that mean they don’t really know?
Well, it IS the Maloofs.
I would have a hard time believing that the document wasn’t given to Hansen and Balmer as part of the sale negotiation.
Pardon me if the Maloofs fail to instill confidence.
I can’t wait til this is all over.
Because an ROFR is a contract right, the holder’s remedies for breach are typically limited to recovery of damages. In other words, if the owner sells the asset to a third party without offering the holder the opportunity to purchase it first, the holder can then sue the owner for damages but may have a difficult time obtaining a court order to stop or reverse the sale. However, in some cases the option becomes a property right that may be used to invalidate an improper sale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_first_refusal
aaand cue the freakouts.
:) nice, and so true…
Don’t know if this 100% relevant to this situation but it’s interesting.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4882471
this is WAY over my head.
so… how would pricing structure work out for “first right of refusal” folks. i understand that they would have the first crack at buying the team. would the maloofs have to accept market value for those shares? could the minority owners name their own price? (doubtful). if they’re forced to pay “market value” for the team, wasn’t there that article listing the market price for the kings as jum[ing to $525 mil after the hansen offer?
I would think they would have to match the offer. No one provokes first right of refusal unless the team is being sold. So my guess its the 340m that has to be matched.
Does anyone actually know? Feels like red herring to me.
One thing to keep in mind. If today’s Twittersphere existed during our ordeal, you would see tons of tweets saying things like “Clay Bennett caught lying and in breach of contract!” and Seattle fans would rejoice all over the place. Not to mention a million smaller little details being reported and firing up Seattle fans.
true
Question if one of the minority owners provoke right of first refusal and attempts to match hansen’s share wouldn’t he also have to take care of that arena issue as well?
340m for 65% + 200m or so for arena?
What arena issue? Sacramento needs a new arena but there is no ultimatum there. Its not Seattle.
Meance my point was if one of the minority owners claims right of first refusal and tries to buy the team wouldn’t have to come up with some sort of arena plan and show it to the NBA?
No. You keep forgetting the Maloofs have been pushing for a new arena. The NBA has supported that. But it is not a requirement. They can play at Sleep Train as long as they want.
Well technically the Maloofs own Sleep Train so I assume they could leverage that to their advantage multiple ways.
In Seattle they said new arena or no team. They have never ever said that in Sacramento
Why is this just coming out now, if the minority owners had right of first refusal wouldn’t that have been their first battle cry in all of this?
Yes. This seems like a bunch of white noise to me.
Hansen and Ballmer are not dumb, this seems like something they would have checked into. On a side note- did the Sonics have this as well?
No idea such a issue was never brought up.
Other issue is - how long does the minority owner have to match? It can’t go on forever. Contract probably says 30 days or 60 days or some such.
Of course, the triggering of that 30 or 60-day period would have to be in writing. Who knows when/if that occurred.
If you have $340 mm, or whatever the price is, and you want more share……..why are you a minority owner?
It seems to me (not a lawyer) that the 7% of the team at auction might not matter so much. There is 65% that is for sale right now, at that is under contract pending BOG approval. I think that the 7% would be pending league approval as well. If the 7% was not under contract to anyone before the 65% was, how could the purchaser of the 7% have any say over what went on before they bought the 7%. I see how the limited partners could buy the 65% on their own, but it seems unlikely that any new “whales” can enter the picture at this point and partner with the 35% limited partners without being owners themselves. But again, I know nothing of the law. Also, with how meticulous Hansen has been with this whole endeavour, you would think this would have already been examined.
Correct. A ROFR would not be retroactive. They would only have ROFR to any portion for sale after they acquire their minority share. The fact that this bankruptcy proceeding is during the BOG meeting is a good thing. It’s likely it would be far too late to stop the sale of the majority stake.
additionally, the guy bringing up this right of refusal clause is representing the previous owner of the 7%. this is relevant for that transaction because that owner filed for bankruptcy, correct? is the right of first refusal relevant if the maloofs have NOT filed for bankruptcy?
Only if the contract stipulates that the ROFR only exists/does not exist in the case of bankruptcy. I doubt that it does.
My real concern is that a current minority partner could team up with other big-pocketed investors, invoke this right, and match Hansen’s offer. It sounds like that is what Jordan did when he bought the Bobcats.
I think the fear is that the review of the 7% share that is going to bankruptcy court has shown definitively that in the sales agreement it states that any portion of sale goes to the minority owners for FROR. So can we hope that the Maloofs already offered first rights to minority interests, or does the fear that “A source close to the Maloofs reportedly said the family doesn’t believe the minority owners have that right” as reported by King 5, and they never offered.
Quick food for thought… The Kings currently have a point differential that equates to -6.5 points per gamem, good for 2nd worst in the NBA. Many statisticians in all sports view point differential as the best indicator of future performance. If this holds true, the *Kings/Sonics have a fantastic shot at the #1 overall pick. I am admitantly not an expert in college hoops. Do any of you have an idea of whether the top end of the draft has great potential this year? Any Durant-esque picks?