David Stern said the Seattle ownership group is strong, calling the Seattle ownership group the “Hansen/Ballmer” ownership group. Stern’s statement can be read here - Stern: Addressing Sacramento Kings Future
And there is this exciting news:
“I think it’s fair to say that we have an application in house, as you know, from Seattle to both transfer ownership to what I’ll call the Hansen/Ballmer group and an application to move the team to Seattle to play in KeyArena while the process goes on just to get permission to build a new building in Seattle,” Stern said.
NBA commisioner talks about Sacramento Kings future | KING5.com Seattle
The NBA vote is April 18th.
I hope you were not expecting the owners to break their gag order and speak to the Sacramento Mayor.
I hope you know that David Stern has talked with Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn more than once.
The process is moving forward.
I think key words from the comment is “while the process goes on just to get permission to build a new building in Seattle”.
That makes me think the whole issue regarding the EIS not a problem.
April 18? I thought it was the 19th. so one less day.
Stern is using the ambiguity to put pressure on us for the arena to actually go through IMO. It will get much more done here between now and the BOG vote than if there was no pressure and we thought it was a done deal.
Three facts:
1) The NBA wants the Maloofs out of the ownership pool.
2) The Maloofs have agreed to sell their team to a Seattle ownership group.
3) The ONLY way to GUARANTEE to end of the Maloofs ownership is to approve the aforementioned agreement.
I’m sorry. This is done. It’s not overconfidence, it’s not guessing. It’s the most practical option, and the only one that doesn’t allow for something squirrelly to happen and the other owners having themselves to blame.
Peter,
the EIS isn’t due out until after the vote.
Stern has to respect the process.
Chris Daniels@ChrisDaniels5
RT @Ryan_Lillis: Some #Sacramento Council members have expressed reluctance to support #NBAKings arena plan until they know details
@MarkS,
That doesn’t make it as much as a guarantee that it’ll get approved.
It may take longer than the time Sac has to get that deal the necessary votes to approve it.
I didn’t watch the presser because I had to work today, but yeah, everyone here on sonicsrising is interpreting everything Stern said as a postive for Seattle, and the Sacramento fans have interpreted everything he said as being good news for Sacramento.
A Friendly Minnesotan,
Seattle has the advantage right now. Approved arena deal with final approval pending results of the EIS.
Sacramento hasn’t even gotten as far as approve of a complete financed package for an arena and who knows how long negotiations will take for the arena deal to get the necessary votes.
nevermind there is already an PSA and relocation application filed.
Yeah, I have been following this pretty closely for the most part and know how much furhter Seattle is, it’s just funny seeing how each side is taking something completely different away from Stern’s comments.
A Friendly Minnesotan,
With out seeing what the finance package for sac’s arena no one can assume it’ll be an automatic approval. If Sac city council RUSH to approve it with out due diligence at least like how Seattle city council did it could fall apart due to possible lawsuit.
If the finance package is 300m public 200m private is it a guarantee it will get approved? That the point of why i don’t get the assumptions. Like its been mention before the devil is in the details.
to play in KeyArena while the process goes on
just to get permission to build a new building in Seattle,”
Stern said.
That bugs me “just to get permission to build” so basically Stern is throwing out there, “Seattle doesn’t even have approval to build a new arena yet…” that’s how I read it. I don’t think it’s positive or negative, just neutral, slighted towards, “hey Sacramento, give the NBA a really sweeeeeet deal and you guys get to stay.”
Stern doesn’t vote, isn’t on the BOG, though so that’s where I think advantage Seattle. Who knows who the owner group is that Kevin Johnson is going to present. I’m sort of fried on all this stuff. Stern disturbs me greatly.
Congratulations to Terence Ross on winning the slam dunk contest! Before Stern spoke I was seriously thinking about going to the ASG weekend next year now I’m just back in that weird funk on all of this. Don’t want to be all Art Thiel/Eeyore so just slam me, throw cold water on me and tell me to get a grip!
“Things just happen in the right way, at the right time. At least when you let them, when you work with circumstances instead of saying, ‘This isn’t supposed to be happening this way,’ and trying harder to make it happen some other way.”
― Benjamin Hoff, The Tao of Pooh
catdawg,
He has to respect the process. It doesn’t mean oh Sac give us a great deal and they stay. Stern is a lawyer. Cause Seattle and King county have not given final approval and as well as the ILWU lawsuit. He is not gonna stay its a done deal for Seattle.
He knows the deal is subject to environmental review. He could also be aware of the status of the EIS.
Just my take. But some of you guys need to chill the heck out over David Stern. Whether he’s making snide remarks or “rewriting history”, WHO CARES?! He’s just a man who when all is said and done matters zero once we have our team back. Give me a break. Nobody in Seattle is groveling at his feet. He can say whatever the hell he wants. HE’S A POLITICIAN. What part of that do you guys not get by this point. We as Seattle fans have heard him talk out both sides of his mouth on numerous occasions. And what does it matter? Nothing. He speaks in the league and owner’s best interests. PERIOD. Not for or against Seattle. Last go around the owners best interests was letting Clay take our team. This time, it’s likely letting Chris takes Sac’s. There’s no room for pettiness, pride, or ego. All that crap is a waste of time and pointless. There’s no rule that we have to be best friends with Stern. But let’s get past the complaining about his lawyer speak. We should know better.
Right now it could be 29-0 on sale 29-0 on relocation given that KJ has yet to come out with whales and a complete finalized financed package for an arena. The vote could remain like that.
EJ
Agreed. I can careless what Stern says and how he says its. All i care is that the BOGs approve the sale.
Thanks soundersfan and EJ. Sometimes it seems like Stern is kryptonite to me and you guys just got it away from me. Peace and thanks!
NOTHING said by Stern or anyone from the NBA today swings anything whatsoever at all. It was all defensive lawyer speak. Do not even attempt to parse anything from those comments.
The only thing said today that I take anything from was KJ’s comments about Sac’s arena plan. To me, this was actually quite notable. KJ made a comment saying something along the lines of “Our arena plan isn’t caught up in lawsuits.” If I were a Sac fan and fully aware of what’s going on in Seattle with it’s arena, this would scare the living crap outta me. KJ is pretty much copying internet troll/”reporter” Aaron Bruski in choosing to poke holes in Seattle’s arena, as they have nothing of their own to truly champion. Bruski, as we’ve all witnessed, has lost it, hunting down anything he can on I-91, CVD, Goldman, ILWU, etc. He’s doing everything possible to try and make Seattle’s plan going through routine steps to instead look like a disasterous minefield. I expect this from a glorified internet blogger. But to hear a similar plan of attack from Sac’s main man? YIKES. KJ’s looking more desperate than ever.
Oh, and big up to TRoss!!! UW!!!
Not to mention that KJ’s arena plan never got far enough to attract lawsuits. Pretty soft claim to be making.
Sean,
agreed and wouldn’t surprise me if there is a couple once if it gets approved.
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/nbainseattle/2013/02/16/david-stern-q-and-a-on-seattlesacramentokings/
Parse that text!
Parse that text!
Parse that text!
@EJ,
I guess I just care a lot more about the truth of what happened here than I do about us taking another city’s team. Stern wasn’t using “lawyer speak.” He was lying. And sadly, Chris Daniels went along with it. Which just reinforces some of the distortions that are already too prevalent about why the team left (some of which Sacramento is employing in order to block the move-so at the very least those of you who want this deal to happen should be concerned that Stern just gave the other side more propaganda).
Jared, there is a gag order, and they are in the middle of two committees evaluating the Seattle site and the financial package.
What the did you expect him to commit to in anything he could possibly have said today.
Seriously, some of you folks think Stern is all powerful Oz. He is paid by and works for the owners, that’s all.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
Of course Stern is being non-committal, but that has nothing to do with him lying about the past.
I think we’re at the point now that when it comes to our hurt pride and our anger over losing the Sonics needs to be dealt with in two ways: get over it or get it out of the way of what we’re doing. It has no place in this and starting a debate with Stern over it at the press conference would have been as stupid of a move as can be.
Judging from what the Sacramento business journal has said and other things I have seen there may be a lawsuit or two that Sacramento would have to overcome if it came to that.
I still dont understand why no one asks Stern if the NBA were to nullify the Hansen deal what makes them believe that the Maloofs at that point would sell the team to the men that essentially undermined the deal that they agreed to originally. Furthermore why would they like to take which may end up being a better deal from the city this time around and maybe at a new site
I don’t know if you guys heard that Sacramento has its own form of “Citizens for More Important Things” and have already made it known that they will fight any new arena plan. I read about it in the last couple of weeks. I read it, I think, on Sactown Royalty. They have fought other arena plans.
We aren’t the only city that has to face lawsuits when it comes to arenas/satdiums. And we have had to face it with both Safeco and CenturyLink. Both of them got built.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/blog/kelly-johnson/2013/02/taxpayers-group-arena-public-funds.html?page=all
I wonder how much influence Jerry Colangelo has on the other owners? http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/02/15/mayor-johnson-arrives-in-houston-to-lobby-for-keeping-kings-in-sacramento/
I made the mistake of reading comments at Kingsfans.com and STR about Stern’s press conference. I would say their expectations of keeping the team are much higher and they felt Stern was on their side. I don’t understand how they could feel that way. Stern said nothing to lean from one side to the other.
Some of us here felt the tone was more in our favor, but some were also realistic enough to say Stern’s comments made no impact on the progress of the situation.
And they completely hate Chris Daniels. They find him to be 110% biased in our favor, which couldn’t be any further from the truth. Instead they choose to trust complete hacks like Bruski. Daniels reports the facts…more than any other reporter I’ve seen. He doesn’t twist or spin words unlike a certain Sac reporter has has every step of the way. Don’t hate on a guy for reporting the fact, sorry if you don’t wanna hear it. Sheesh.
I feel I wasted 50 IQ points trying to sort through the Sac drivel. Blame a boring Saturday night for that!
Original- Exactly we arent so special of a city that we get to be the only ones that have lawsuits when arena subsidies get brought up. In addition from what I read from the Sac Business Journal las night; that group would love to have an I-91 of their own.
In my estimation I think that Hansen’s plan is lightyears ahead of the Sacramento one (basing it off last years) for the citizens. The Sacramento deal would tie up the parking revenues for decades. Plus Sacramento is not even doing close to good financially. They will have a big fight and like Mr. Lillis tweeted earlier the council will have to re-vote and there is no indication that they will agree especially when the heat is on with the debt announcement the other day.
NBA arena’s these days need two tenants unless they are based in Chicago, NY, LA, etc. to be viable. The Sacramento area will lose their bacon especially if they fail to put out a winner in the next few years (if they stay). The groundswell movement is nice and all but just because you get new owners doesnt mean you will win right away. That movement with the fans and the money they are willing to fork out may change. The Here We Buy pledges are nice and all but I bet that more than a few of those pledges will back out if asked to fork out the dough.
Also depending on what you read or here there are a lot of fans that are jaded because of the Maloofs and have already pretty much given up. Granted there are many more that havent and they have fight in them.
All in all we will know what is up in the next month and how competitive the offer from Sacramento is and how long it takes to get the councils approval. It also sounds like they may need to get help from neighboring communities (from Sterns answer) and they may need to vote in their councils. It just seems really like a sticky situation down there for arena especially with the time frame they have. Theoretically from what KJ has said about March 1st is that they will have a deal like ours and I just dont see the councils expediting a vote that fast (granted they dont have too).
ALOT of this is KJ doing everything he can in an almost impossible situation. This may have a big influence in his political career and he knows that so he has to fight as hard as possible.
jenn, I haven’t read kingsfan, but I do read Sactown. I like to read how they perceive statements made by people. It is so interesting how different we see things. I do find it interesting how many place the chance of the Kings staying in Sacramento at 95%. Our situation is much farther along, and I would never predict 95%. But this is their first time through all of this. We have already been through 2 major stadiums and lost our longest held team. Maybe we can be a little more realistic. We have been where they are and found a way to make it through the mess with both joy and tears.
jenn-gp yes that was a huge mistake going there. Actually at first I read their stuff but now I dont barely go on there and soon Im sure I will be not going at all. They’re doing their grasping at straws routine that we know all to well. Try to throw crap at a wall and hope it sticks and then turns into gold.
Word, EJ!
Original,
I don’t know why I read their comments, I guess part of me just wants to know what they think too. I’ve noticed for the most part, Sac fans are in that denial stage. They don’t want to believe they are going to lose their team. They cling to every shred of hope in sight. As you said, we’ve been through this, so it easy to pinpoint their feelings.
I feel pretty good about our situation. This is the closest we’ve come in the last 5 years to bringing the Sonics back. Nothing is 100% but it seems to me as if a majority of Sac fans feel the Kings are staying in Sac 100% even though the Maloofs have a signed deal with Hansen and have already exchanged some money. Go figure.
I warned ya, avert your eyes.
We have an arena plan, funding plan, ownership plan, purchase and sale agreement, relocation application filed, all in process.
All that was a hope a year ago.
Btw, busted out my GP bobble head.
^had mine out for years, right next to my Ray Allen bobblehead and Luke in the Box! :-)
Yep and though the NBA says they are still vetting the deal from everything I have heard about the “vetting” process that should be done very soon. I wonder if KJ doesnt come through on his March 1st self imposed deadline if they would just go ahead and finish it (at least privately) before the April 18th-19th meetings.
With that said I fully expect KJ to come through by the 1st and would be extremelt suprised if he doesnt at least get it out there. Now that doesnt mean I believe that it will be perfect and without reproach from citizen watchdog groups or the NBA will think the world of it
Anyone know when Glove’s flight 98 shoes are coming next month?
Every time I visit Sactown Royalty, I am so tempted to point out the glaring hole in their optimism: if the NBA denies the sale to Hansen, the Maloofs still own the team! The NBA can’t force a sale to Burkle. Let’s indulge their fantasy for a moment and assume that the NBA blocks the sale and relocation. What is to stop Hansen from increasing his offer to $700 million? The NBA wants no part of this messy situation; approving the sale/relocation is the only clean way to end the Maloof debacle.
If you’re curious, here’s how’d they respond:
1. Most will say that the Maloofs are so broke that they will be forced to just give in and sell to Burkle if that’s their only option.
2. Some will say the NBA will call in its loans to force them out, don’t know if that’s really something they can do, though. Or the even crazier ones will say that the NBA will actually force a sale, claiming that now that the Maloofs have agreed to sell the team, it’s entirely out of their hands and for the NBA to determine to whom they are sold to. That last one I actually saw on the kingsfans site, and is one of the few things that steps outside of optimism into delusion.
Re: point #1 - that argument presumes that selling to Burkle is “their only option.” If Hansen increases his bid to some ridiculous number, say $700 million, why isn’t that an option? In other words, if by some miracle (for Sac fans) the NBA denies the Hansen sale, they’ve only denied THIS PARTICULAR PURCHASE AGREEMENT; there would be no impediment to Hansen making a higher bid.
Re: point #2: does the NBA’s loan agreement give the NBA the option to foreclose on the team if the Maloofs are in default? I highly doubt it. The NBA could call in its loans, which would put pressure on the Maloofs to sell ASAP, but again there would be nothing stopping them from selling to Hansen at an increased offer price.
My point is that the NBA cannot force the Maloofs to accept the Burkle offer, and the league faces the possibility of a multi-year extension of the Maloof debacle if they don’t approve the sale to Hansen.
Stern is such a cheerful chap.
I agree, SMK, but those are the things I’ve seen spread around whenever Sac fans attempt to reconcile that denying Hansen means the team is still with the Maloofs.
I tweeted at both Daniels and Condotta to question what exactly there is to consider by the NBA in terms of a realistic path if they elect to go with KJ’s proposal but got no responses. Do they have word from the Maloofs that they’d just go with the NBA’s decision here so long as they come out with the exact same amount of money? Anything other than that would mean that denying the Hansen group would plunge this situation into confusion and chaos on a level we haven’t seen before.
i’m just as big of a chris daniels fan as anyone but i really didn’t get his questions for stern today. just brought up a bunch of old crap from the sonics leaving 5 years ago. look to the future man! that said, i think stern’s comments reaffirmed that the wheels are in motion.
@Jared Which part did Stern lie about?
When Schultz was the owner of the team and was looking to the state legislature to for permission to use the hotel motel tax to fund an upgrade of the Key, Stern made a visit to the legislature on the Sonics behalf and was basically belittled by Chopp. What Stern said about that in the presser was true and at that point he absolved himself from trying to work for an upgrade of the Key.
Maybe the NBA knows that even if Sacramento comes up with a competitive offer that the Maloof’s have no intention of taking it should the NBA deny the Hansen-Ballmer group. Maybe that’s the NBA’s way out of being the cause of Sacramento losing their team. They simply say we had to approve the sale to the Seattle group as we were informed the Maloof’s simply refuse to sell to anybody else. Then they can say its all the Maloof’s fault the Kings moved to Seattle.
Just so everyone is clear, Stern can’t declare the Seattle Arena deal done because Chris Hansen has said in his response to lawsuit that Seattle does not have an approved Arena Deal until EIS is complete. Stern in his mind believes it is a done deal but does not want his words dragged into court. The lawsuit claims that the city and county and Hansen have already agreed on the site and are not interested in other sites before the EIS is done. The last thing you want right now is the Commissioner saying that the Arena deal is done because the Anti-Arena folks that are suing will go to the judge and say “See, look even the NBA Commish is declaring the Arena deal done without proper EIS.” Stern told Chris Daniels on Thurdsday that he believed their would be a much clearer picture on the Seattle Arena situation by the time the BOG votes on the deal in April. To many folks reading to much into Stern saying Seattle Arena deal not done. I would finish my remark by saying that the Same Commish who is saying that the Seattle Arena is “Not Done” also said that Seattle does “Not” need to do anything more to show the NBA it is ready for a team. Get my point? Arena deal is DONE in Stern’s mind, he just can’t say it.
One question keeps coming to mind when I think about this whole mess….
What standing does the NBA have to solicit offers for the Kings? Do they own the team?
To me it seems that Hansen-Ballmer have a signed PSA. It seems wonky to me to have the league out soliciting offers for a team they do not own and then using that as a basis to approve/disapprove of the Hansen-Ballmer ownership group.
John, I think that the thing that got lost in Stern’s remark is that neither Schultz nor Bennett were willing to contribute any appreciable amount of money toward the new demanded arena. Both the Mariners and Seahawks paid large chunks of money for their new stadiums. Bennett wasn’t paying one red cent toward a demanded $500M arena. And there was still 5 more years on the lease in Schultz’s case. And there was more than 2 years left when Bennett made his very unreasonable demand. Two years left when the team left the city.
I think that had either Schultz or Bennett come to the table with the same kind of financing plan as Hansen they would have gotten their new arena. Schultz needed to make some additional arrangements to cover the 5 years still on the Key. He didn’t do any of that.
The Original, not to defend public enemy #1 Bennett, but actually he would have contributed to new Renton Arena, it was said he would contribute $100 million but he never got to a point of saying how much he would contribute. He would have had a contribution though.
Honestly, Sonicsman, I NEVER read or heard that he was willing to contribute anything. I did know that he was targetting Boeing owned land that would have had to be taken by eminent domain. I did know that Bennett’s plan gave ZERO of the money garnered by the arena from other events and advertising back to the taxpayers who paid for the arena. All of that income would go into Bennett’s pockets. And unlike both the Seahawks and Mariners stadiums, the Sonics would not be liable for all improvements, renovation and maintenance. That would be on the taxpayers dime. Which means that the taxpayers would continually have to be pouring money into that $500M arena.
Sorry, but no matter what . . . Bennett’s plan stunk to high heaven.
Were replies disabled in this comment thread? I want to reinforce Sonicsman’s point on Stern’s comments. Among other things, I thought Stern mentioning a “third and possibly fourth team” in Sonics Arena was telling. There is genuine excitement in the NBA for returning to Seattle and the new facility that may also attract the NHL. The owners know very well there is a floundering league-owned team in Phoenix that could be had if this opportunity is seized.
The more Kevin Johnson holds press conferences with a big nothingburger in his hands the more I wonder if ANY bid will be forthcoming from Sacramento. If Burkle/Mastrov really are working on a counter, their due diligence has to be showing that a $525m valuation on the Kings in Sacto doesn’t pencil out. Add the cost of a new arena with vaporware parking-revenue financing, with no prospects of a big Regional Sports Network deal, and the big counter-bid may ultimately be a whimper.
^ Stern’s “third and fourth team” comment was in reference to the Seahawks, Mariners, Sonics and the NHL.
206er
I don’t think CD was trying to bring up a history lesson. Just wanted to know if Stern had regrets. So he dropped it when Stern got defensive.
And he wasn’t wrong. Not providing all the facts doesn’t mean it was a lie. Frank Chopp and I-91 poisoned efforts to keep the team. Obviously there is more to eat but we have Sonicsgate to tell our side. It doesn’t matter how it is spinned by the NBA because it doesn’t matter in the current deal. Same as KJ’s efforts don’t really matter to the NBA until they are more than just hypotheticals
So, how much is the Sacramento arena going to cost? Or at least that last proposal? I haven’t heard anything except that AEG has said that they would be willing to contribute $60M.
KJ says they still have an arena deal approved by the NBA. Is it still approved by the NBA? Did Stern ever address the previous deal and say its still standing? I would believe since that deal was for a distressed ownership group and the new deal would be for a richer ownership group that there would be some things that would want to be shifted to the new owners. So KJ harping in a deal that they still have is a bit misleading since we’ve never heard the NBA come out and say the exact same deal is still on the table and binding.
Zeppe, Ryan Lillis said…
“@Ryan_Lillis: Some #Sacramento Council members have expressed reluctance to support #NBAKings arena plan until they know details”
So they haven’t any arena plan. First, because they still don’t know who’s going to put the money, and second because they still need the votes of the Council. They are at the beginning of the road.
From what I can understand the AEG and NBA portions of the arena deal probably would need to be reexamined. Additionally, if they move sites I am sure they would need to look at the parking stuff again, not to mention reports of the city wanting more private money on public land. Additionally, if they do the rail yard plan they lose $150 million in federal transit money because of the footprint (or so I have heard), so there are lots of things that need to be done. Again, everything out of KJ’s office is positively spun and propaganda, but remember we have an arena plan going through the process and a PSA and likely better market forces on our side. I would just wait for everything to play out
Anyway, KJ can’t promise a new arena with a big subsidy from Sacramento because he can take this decision unilaterally.
Anybody else really like Adam Silver? I think he’s going to be a great commissioner.
Why is everyone acting like we couldn’t get an arena deal done back when we had the Sonics? We had 3 years left of a lease.
The amount of mollycoddling given to Sacramento is disgusting. Just another example of how bad we got hosed.
Mollycoddlers! I think all the nicey-nice from the NBA about considering a competitive bid from Sacto is just that: talk. They don’t let teams file sale agreements and apply for relocation just as an exercise. The league is letting the Sacramento efforts play out so they can say they gave them every opportunity, but at the end of the day, the Hansen-Ballmer group simply had the real money and real arena plan to Sacto’s vaporware.
Camp Jones,
Just my opinion, but I don’t think Clay was willing to contribute enough on his end to get a new arena deal. Looking back now, all the signs of him trying to stall on his one year good faith effort were there…go and demand $500m from the state legislature for an arena you’re not even interested in building, and know they won’t front (check)… “look at” or recommend sites such as Renton or at one point land on the Muckleshoot Tribe (check), trade fan favorites and deny any access to players so interest in the team dwindles (check).
It really would have been interesting if any of the legal cases against Bennett actually made it to a decision. That’s where the white flag was drawn..who knows what we could have put together with two more years. Would Bennett even been willing to work with someone like Ballmer, or to even sell the team to someone local for that matter?
His bags were packed for OKC the minute he bought the team IMO, there is nothing we could do to stop it.
I’ll agree with you about Sac, they have been given 10+ years to get something done and haven’t..time to move on.
@Jared Which part did Stern lie about?
Lots of them, some of which were covered above. But there’s one in particular that stands out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV4QLK0HnOc
Clay never really planned on contributing a cent. He was negotiating entirely in bad faith by presenting an arena deal that had so many problems and demanded so much of a public that had been drained and abused by professional sports that he knew it’d never go anywhere. That’s why he’s a lot more intelligent and cunning than the Maloofs, rather than back out of an arena deal when it was completed, he just made sure to go through the motions and talk about an arena deal that’d never get off the ground.
Chris Daniel’s gave Stern a softball pitch question, “Do you regret the way the League left Seattle?”
Stern could have used the opportunity to mend some fences by saying something nice like, “Yes, of course! Seattle has always been a great city”. Then left it at that. Instead, he stayed true to form by reacting as if he is butt hurt. He went into a tirade about how the M’s and Seahawks got $300 million in subsidies and Chopp told him to take it from the players. For Stern, this will always be personal. It will tarnish his legacy because he is not a big enough man to overcome his own feelings. He now pretends this is the owners decision and “It is a good time to be only the Commissioner.” If these decisions are not his, why is he butt hurt?
David Stern said that Seattle Arena supporters have done everything they can to be in position to have the NBA return to Seattle, I think there is at least one thing left to do. Make sure the Lawsuit by the Longshoreman gets dropped, we cant have that lawsuit looming by voting time.
Not to worry folks.
Why would the EIS not pass?
Isn’t the 2 stadium in the same
parameter as the proposed Sonics
arena.
The SODO area is also called the
stadium district for all of those
reasons. Close to the transportation
hub, and major freeways.
I don’t see any reasons for the EIS not
to pass.
Unless the EIS found out that the arena
location is an old Indian burial grounds, it
would put a stop on that plan, otherwise,
it would pass.
I would also point out that the arena design
is very environmentally friendly design in
every aspect of the environmental footprint.
This NBA arena in Seattle will be the greenest
designed in all sports.
As far as the Unions lawsuit is concerned ?
It would be drop, because it has no basis to
it. Anyone of us can file a lawsuit, it’s rather
easy, getting a court date is also just a process,
Heck , I can sue my neighbor tomorrow because
i slipped in his driveway. It does not mean anything.
Sacramento, in the other hand is really catching up, and
is running out of time.
Even if they have a buyer, ready and willing to match the
offer of Hansen/Ballmer, which i don’t believe they’ll be
able to do.
kevin Johnson still has to go through the city council for
approval , The EIS, for environmental studies, which takes
about a year in the making, and more, etc, etc,etc.
Good Luck.