Shocking as it sounds not coming from me, but from a journalist, it is up to the Mallofs who they sell their franchise to.
I will pick out the points from a story by David Aldridge that would be meaningful to a group of people that made an otherwise pointless trade just to pocket a few million dollars.
The Maloofs — specifically Joe, Gavin, Colleen, George, Phil and Adrienne Maloof-Nassif — still own the Kings. And that still holds significant sway among NBA owners.
Owners do not like to tell other owners to whom they should sell their teams.
Informed sources that know the thinking of league owners still believe the ultimate decision on where the Kings will play next season won’t be made by the owners on the finance or relocation committees. The final call is, and remains, the Maloofs’ to make.
That doesn’t mean the Maloofs couldn’t ultimately decide to change their minds and swing their backing away from the Seattle group, if they are blown away by the Mastrov/Burkle deal. But it won’t come because the league says so, or because David Stern pushes behind the scenes. It will come because they believe it is the best deal financially for them.
Mastrov formally applied to buy the Kings in an electronic communication to the league, and in a letter to the Maloofs expressing his interest, on Friday.
On Sunday, a source involved in the machinations between the team and the two cities put it this way: for the Maloofs to listen to any entreaties to move away from the Hansen group, there would have to be an extremely good reason. And that reason would have to be extremely well articulated.
Understand this, also, though: I believe the league, ultimately, wants to wash its hands of the Maloofs. And I think Stern is genuine in his desire to give Sacramento a legitimate, fair shot at arguing its position to the Board of Governors on April 18. There will be no thumbs on the scale before or during the BOG meeting.
Owners — first on the Finance and Relocation Committees, and then the full Board — will have to choose between two bids (though I’m told the Hansen bid is higher), similar in makeup (the Commish loves bids where one guy writes a big check, something both the Hansen and Mastrov groups have) and in intangibles (larger corporate money and TV market in Seattle; ultra-loyal fanbase and only-game-in-town pull of Sacramento).
Maloofs still hold key in ever-shifting landscape of Kings’ sale, by David Aldridge
David Aldridge goes on and on about how the Sacramento proposal came together. It’s probably interesting reading for people in Sacramento, and people in Seattle that think the Maloofs will leave money on the table. But the reality is that the Maloofs really do own the franchise.
The puzzling part of Aldridge’s report is his notion that the Maloofs could just change their minds. Um,I think $30 million in non-refundable dollars buys you more than the right to make an offer.
See, the Mallofs can receive other offers during league approval of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, but get this straight, the Kings have been sold to Chris Hansen. The Maloofs have already agreed in writing to sell. That $30 million dollars is non-refundable IF the league says no.
The Maloofs will get a $30 million non-refundable down payment by Feb. 1, according to the deal, the person said. They will still be allowed to receive other offers until the league approves the sale.
Maloofs sell Kings to Hansen-led Seattle group, NBA.com
Another fun fact to think about is the potential for the relocation fee to be $75 million dollars. I know that plenty of folks that will somehow mistake the NBA Cares campaign with the league owners being benevolent overlords, well, they’re not. They are in business to make money, and there are $75 million reasons for them to say yes, and thank you.
I was going to write something about the ILUW but i find them unappealing.
good post, mr. baker. i concur w/your point about what $30 mil buys a fella these days. one implication of aldridge’s story rings really true to my ears: by placing all responsibility (blame) on the maloofs, the nba/stern/bog can prepare for the inevitable fallout by shrugging, sighing, and mournfully saying, ‘hey, don’t get mad at us — it was all the maloofs’ fault.’
this still strikes me as positive for seattle, because the maloofs have thrown in with hansen, which is why — i think — chris put up the dough he did. for the magoofs to back off and try to wriggle out would be complicated, which is why i think that it goes beyond sacramento having a bona fide and good offer. instead, it’s a matter of facts on the ground, which chris has now created.
that isn’t nice or fair, but if stern can dangle the possibility of the newkings to sacramento, he can probably mute the anti-league anger there since king fans already, and appropriately, hate the maloofs so much. and he can tell kevin johnson, mastrov/burkle to stay positive and forward-looking, with the whispered assurance that they’ve got next.
admittedly, this is all conjecture on my part, but it hangs together.
it’s not a very warm & fuzzy business, pro sports.
I was going to write something about the ILUW but i find them unappealing.
——————————————————————————————————-
I still like the idea of Steinbrueck/Goldman taking their act on the road. The Cirque du so LAME tour 2013.
I think the point about a $75 million relocation fee would be the icing on the cake. Even if the offers were comparable and the Kings would be revenue neutral or pay the luxury tax (not likely but these are just for hypothetical)…each owner would be making $2.5 million off of the relocation alone. I would think that would be the final piece to the whole puzzle.
It looks like AEG’s Farmer’s Field is probably dead now…another reason to approve the move to a market that has worked out all the kinks.
http://deadspin.com/5988563/robert-swift-finally-left-his-foreclosed-home-but-he-left-plenty-of-memories-and-shell-casings-and-feces-behind
Looks like Swift has left his house now…got to say it was depressing to read this.
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/05/5236377/clocks-running-on-arena-talks.html
Looks like the arena term sheet may be done by early April with some key points coming before (new parking estimates and risk assessment). That leaves about 2 weeks for public comment…talk about cutting it close and leaving the constituents out in the cold. Mind you there would have to be a lot more discussions and votes to approve all the junk in the term sheet. Just another wrinkle.
If the relocation fee is $75 mil, and a franchise costs $525 million, I’m not sure how it makes business sense to relocate a team to Sac in the future.
They played this wrong. They needed to go slightly beyond the valuation and still far below adding another $75 mil in order to retain the franchise at a price less than relocating another franchise there in the future.
The Kings are in a unique situation since they have no lease.
If Sacramento wants to get a team in the future more than likely the people who will buy the team and move the team to Sacramento is going to have to pay to break a lease. I’m not sure how Indiana’s lease shapes up that may be the only team that doesn’t have a prohibitive lease.
Theoretically the Sacramento contingent is going to have to pay 525 + 75 relocation + $$ for breaking the lease.
What I like the most in all of this is that the first thing that KJ/Sacramento frantically asserted when the rumor first hit that the Maloofs had sold the Kings to Hansen was that, “this was the first they had heard the Kings were for sale.” And then tick-tock went the clock for a few weeks, then the announcement that the PSA had been signed, then the $30 million went hard on February 1. And nothing from Sacramento, no counter-offer, nothing. Lots of “talk” and “meetings” nothing substantial until the last week of Feb.
Maloofs own the majority of the team, they sold it to to Hansen, the “binding agreement.” They had the power to begin with — this is supported by KJ’s assertion that they didn’t know the team was for sale. Then, to the detriment of Sacramento, nobody popped up in that period from Jan. 9 to the date the PSA was signed and submitted and then to Feb. 1 to “stop” the sale. That too will NOT play in their favor — they didn’t get their deal together for nearly two months.
I think there is A LOT more that happened behind the scenes that we don’t know about and when it comes out after all is said and done, it’s going to show that Sacramento relied on David Stern to protect the franchise, discounting the fact that the Maloofs held the power all along. And it was this sort of false trump card that made them delusional about the fact that the Maloofs have been making it clear for years and years, they don’t want the Kings in Sacramento.
The $30 million is only non-refundable if the BOG rejects the sale/relocation. They will not unless something seriously goes wrong here in Seattle.
http://qkme.me/3t8uwh I want the Sonics back. fuck me, right?
Nice job on the site updates, Kevin. Just a couple thoughts.
Is there any way to make user names stand out more? Like making them bold, or bigger, or a different color? As of now, when someone quotes another poster, the quoted name is bigger, bolder, and darker. A real small thing, but I think it would look better to have it the other way around or at least equal.
Also, for some reason when I use the site on my android phone, the ‘previous’ and ‘next’ thread navigation buttons do not work for me. And I’m not sure if I prefer the segmented thread pages. Maybe other prefer them. But for me, I just get confused as to what I’ve read, and what I haven’t. I find I end up missing a lot of posts this way.
Everything else looks great though. Keep up the great work!
And to clarify, the user names that don’t stand out enough are the ones of people who do not have a url attached to their account.
Pretty sure a league imposed gag order would prevent what is suggested in these tweets…
R.E. Graswich @REGraswich
Interesting question from KCRA David Bienick: will Sac offer for Kings become public? My sense is no, but Mastrov should strongly consider.
R.E. Graswich @REGraswich
By making offer for Kings public, Mastrov lets community know he means business. That’s why Sea group rushed to publicize their offer.
R.E. Graswich @REGraswich
Sac arena deal is separate and must be made public. Anytime public funds are used, all details & contracts must see sunshine.
R.E. Graswich @REGraswich
This means Burkle arena term sheet will post on Sac city website. Will look more balanced if Mastrov posts details of offer to buy team.
I would agree that Mastrov would have to be gagged as well but maybe not since the “bid” isn’t an actual deal. Assuming he made it public I think that would actually be worse for Sacramento since it seems like pandering and may show the limits compared to the rumored derails of the actual sale
Not sure why Mastrov would make it public, especially when it’s well rumored his offer is no where near what Hansen/Ballmer have already laid out. And I love the perception that Chris Hansen is rushing all this to prevent someone else from buying the team. Ignore the fact that Hansen has made it clear that if he buys a team, he will file asap to relocate that team to Seattle so he can get his arena built sooner rather than later. It makes no sense for Hansen to buy a team, keep them in that city for another year and wait to put shovels in the dirt here in Seattle. And I swear, some of the reporting from Sacramento sounds like a middle school newspaper ran by the students. Everything has this comic book, super hero tone to their reporting. “KJ comes sweeping in, to punish the evil doers of Seattle. KJ’s right-hand man, Mastrov, takes aim using is magic wond of wonder from his utility belt of hope and makes illusions of money green mist fog the eyes of the sinister NBA BoG’s. Meanwhile Darth Hansen and Lord Ballmer continue to silently retreat from the threat of our valiant Sacramento hero’s!”
Maybe the Mastrov offer is enough lower that they don’t want it made public. There has to be multiple other investors who do not want their names in the public. Mastrov is only worth $350M so he is not trying to buy the team with his own money. In fact, he has to be kind of like Chris Hansen with a Ballmer-like person behind him. From what I have read and can glean from the information out there, Chris Hansen has a higher net worth than Mastrov. His company is worth almost double what Mastrov sold his company.
It could very well be that the Mastrov group doesn’t want their names out there and not want their proposal in the light of day.
I am sure details of Mastrov’s application (I’m not calling it a bid because its this isnt eBay) will surface. Curious to see the numbers
Turns out I might acutally be in Sacramento during the BOG vote in April for work. This may get awkward
He lost me when he mentioned that Hansen and Ballmer “rushed to make their offer public”
ok.. testing to see if this works…
http://www.addletters.com/pictures/bart-simpson-generator/bart-simpson-generator.php?line=I+will+stop+reading+SacTown+Royalty
Mitch is going to talk Sonics next.
http://www.addletters.com/pictures/bart-simpson-generator/bart-simpson-generator.php?line=I+will+stop+reading+CarmichaelDave+tweets.
But it is so much fun!!! And maybe they are right. This is the NBA we are dealing with.
Hopefully, this time the NBA lands on the Seattle side.
It also could be a lot of fun.
hmmm… mitch saying there are rumors that the nba will jack up the relo fee to “unprecedented levels” to squeeze more money out of hansen/ballmer. he will elaborate in a minute
Does that really surprise anyone? This is Seattle dealing with NBA.
Yeah I’ll be going the that week or the week before. Be interesting for sure no matter what, kinda nostalgic
Seriously . . . I kind of like these kind of situation. You just have to thicken your skin. If the news is bad for Seattle, just smile and say “Congratulations”. If the news is bad for Sacramento, just keep your mouth shut and smile. Have your own private celebration.
This is good for us. The higher the relocation fee goes, the easier it is for the NBA to ok the sale. More $ in the pockets of the owners.
I got no problems with Sac based reporters, bloggers, and politicians cheerleading KJ and their guys efforts. But I’m getting really sick of seeing guys like Grasswich and Bruski going to insane lengths to try and make Seattle’s efforts or bid look bad. It’s really bush league. Guess that’s what desperate people will do during desperate times.
Mitch is so ADD. “we’ll talk more sonics next…” then talks about players non franchised in nfl.
He does it on purpose. Keeps you listening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVzp4MJRKHc
Maybe they are trying to make it so high, that Hansen/Ballmer says F**k Off and keeps the team in Sacramento? That way the NBA can say ‘we didn’t deny the sale, Hansen/Ballmer walked away’
If they are talking relocation fee, must be a good sign right?
BINGO!!
I know that Bennett only paid 10% of the team purchase price. Not sure how much the Nets had to pay to relocate. So, if the NBA charges more than 10% of purchase price, that is more than what they charged Bennett which would be par for the course.
This is what Mitch is hinting at. He’s saying the NBA is either doing that or taking advantage of a rich ownership group.
what was the relo fee to move new jersey for brooklyn? did they have to pay? the russian dude has similar net worth to ballmer.
Here’s what I know about the relocation fee: Hansen and his group didn’t come this far to let that figure deter them from the goal.
If the sale is approved, the relocation fee will be paid no problem, no matter how outrageous the number might end up. It’s not like the league is going to ask for a billion dollars for the right to move the franchise to Seattle.
Yes…when exactly did the Seattle group try and make a big deal or “rush” to announce this offer?
I doubt by that. that the NBA would intentionally set the relocation so high.
AW come one now. CMD is good for comic relief.
So the other NBA owners want to raise the relocation fee so they themselves would have to pay a higher relocation fee if they ever decide to relocate?
Silly if you ask me.
Mitch is pissed.
I don’t believe there was because it was still within the same metropolitan area.
I don’t agree at all with Aldridge. I don’t think that the Maloofs have any leverage here. They entered into a binding agreement which means they can’t strike a deal with another party. While that doesn’t mean the NBA has to approve the deal, it does mean nothing else can be done by them unless Hansen pulls the plug. If the BOG does deny the move, I have to think they’d have no choice but to sell to the SAC group.
Going just across the Hudson kept the team in the same market. That would be like charging the Warriors for moving across the Bay to San Francisco.
That appears to be what Google is telling me, too.
when i first heard about the jacked up relocation fee i assumed it was to make it harder to say no to seattle an ace in the hole if you will. hope mitch isnt right about it being a way to screw seattle. ugh…..
About?
I agree, if anything I would say its taking advantage of a rich ownership group. The NBA sees a potential pay day and a group of billionaires and says and collectively says in a Mr Burns’ voice “Excellent”
http://bit.ly/WGV1Ai
well. sacramento just threw their best punch with the competing offer. i kind of suspected our team needed to do something to sweeten the pot a bit. i hope that’s what this is. i’m curious to see how it plays out.
He’s pissed that the NBA is gonna set relocation so HIGH that hansen is just gonna walk away.
Another way to look at it is more money in their pocket.
Straight cash homie (Randy Moss voice)
I tend to agree with this line of thinking. Really no reason to go this far in without being willing to pay some relocation fee. I would also think that they were alerted that the range may be higher than years past. Also a high relocation fee almost certainly guarantees a yes vote and allows the owners to say that they made the move a penalty of sorts.
I know that precision is impossible when it comes to rumors, but I haven’t seen rumors that it was significantly lower. I have seen rumors that it was slightly lower. If there are rumors floating around that I haven’t seen, point me to an abscure tweet.
I think this is just a way to drum up some talking points for a week or so since there really is nothing anymore on the Sonics front for a while…the righteous indignation angle is a good one for talk show hosts to get people calling in.
Most are saying the reason the offer is lower is because there’s a $12 million dollar fee for getting out of the city loan early that wouldn’t have to be paid by Mastrov. It’s also unkown if the Maloof’s debt to the city + NBA debt is included in the $525 million valuation or if that’s being assumed by the new ownership group. Since the city loan is tied to the team, I’d have to think:
65% of $525 million - $77 city loan = $270 million in the Maloof’s pockets with Hansen assuming NBA debt. That would mean Mastrov’s offer could be a lower franchise valuation but put more money in the Maloof’s pockets. He could come in at say a $500 million valuation which puts $325 million in the Maloof’s pockets. It’s all speculation at this point since neither the Hansen sale agreement or Mastrov’s offer have been made public.
I think you have to keep in mind that the BOG approving the sale and relocation are two seperate yet related issues. First things first……..sale approval. Then comes the relocation aspect.
All in all the NBA gets to decide…….on both.
I think you’re right about them being alerted that the relocation fee would be at a higher range. After all Stern made it sound like he’s in pretty regular contact with Hansen’s group, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they already knew about this and have planned accordingly.
They need to put something in the NBA constitution that sets the relocation fee at a set price. Like 10% of the team evaluation or something.
I understand it’s more cash upfront for the NBA, but it also sets precedent for any other owner who wants to relocate the their team. So, in essence, they are shooting themselves in the foot in the long run by making it too expensive for them to get out of bad city arena deals and such. I just find Mitch’s rumor as a ratings boost as I’m sure he has a ton of Sacramento folks tuned on the internet in listening.
That isn’t quite correct. He said that a super high relocation fee would either be the NBA taking advantage of a super rich ownership group OR a cowards way to deny the sale and keep the team in town. It’s total conjecture on his part simply based on rumors of a high relocation fee. He mainly sounds pissed that the NBA would charge so much after only aking $30 mill from Clay Bennett. Pointed out how Aubrey McClendon was worth over $3 billion at the time. Mainly, he seems upset about that. He threw the “or maybe it’s a chump way of not denying either city” idea as another possibility.
Mitch is completely off the rails if he thinks this is a possibility.
The Dude abides! love that avatar. lol
I don’t find that to be the case. Sure, Mitch presents things in a fashion to boost ratings. His teases are the prime example. But I think this is simply a matter of him being friends with Balmer (I’m fairly certain that’s been said before, and who Mitch gets a lot of his info from.) So if he’s buds with Balmer or whoever in the ownership group, of course he’d be pissed at this group not being treated fairly by the league.
we need more info before we make judgments. what if they take the relo fee from $30 million to $50 mil, and the “extreme” increase has been overblown.
what if the seattle group says, “okay, we’ll pay it.” that’s gotta be game over for this battle.
Not significantly, rather slightly.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba-sacramento-has-shot-to-keep-kings-after-putting-together-bid-to-challenge-seattle-group-042956900.html
No Chris! Don’t walk away!..Mike McGinn can get 35 local business people bandied together in a “Here We Relocate” campaign. If sactown can get 25 we can surely get 35. We then split the fee w Hansen-Ballmer. Haha.
Seriously, we can relax. It will all work out.
Mitch said all he’s heard is the rumors about the high relocation fee. Suggested the rumored $77 million number we heard the other day. One thing of note is he said that he know that the Hansen group is aware of these rumors as well. So I’m pretty sure that is where he got his info from. Everything else he guessed and projected is all his own opinion.
Stern actually combined the relocation and finance committees so they are now the same issue being decided by the same committee.
Is it just a coincidence that the relocation fee would be the same amount as the Sac loan in that case?
Yes, but I finally had to admit to myself that I have a low tolerance for bullsh*t. And his BS levels are off the charts.
Frankly, I hope that the relocation fee is very high. For one, I don’t think any amount will prevent Hansen/Ballmer going through with this deal after they’ve already invested so much. Second, it will give the NBA some cover by saying “look, we tried as hard we could to prevent them from moving by making it too costly for them, but it didn’t work.” Finally, it will mean more money in the pockets of the NBA owners, and therefore more likely that they’ll approve the deal.
ooh. interesting point!
Would this one work then?
http://www.americanphotomag.com/photo-gallery/2012/10/they-shot-president?page=1
My point is if SAC gets everything together by the end of the month, there’s no reason for the NBA not to grant expansion to Seattle. They’re not going to burn a market that’s offering an almost $1 billion deal to keep the team in SAC when they can have the money from both markets. That’s not a bad thing for SEA’s chances because this process has shown the strength of the ownership group. My gut feeling is 95% that if the SAC arena deal gets done in the next few weeks, Hansen gets privately promised expansion in the next 3-5 years and bows out before this gets to BOG. No info based on anything just speculation. But I’m confident SEA gets a team in the next 5 years no matter what happens.
This is the first rumor I’ve heard of the relocation fee being specially increased. Did Mitch say something like “this is what I’m hearing”? If so, he’s hearing this from Ballmer. Or did he make it clear that this is a rumor that he heard making the rounds? The difference is huge.
Why thank you sir.
If it’s $77 million, I don’t see how that would be a problem. Hansen and Co. have been pot committed for a while now, and it doesn’t seem like any new news that comes out is ever a surprise on their side of the equation. My guess is that they have a much better idea of what the fee may end up being that anyone else.
i believe he said hansen and ballmer have heard the same rumors and are aware of it. idk. i have a feeling this could be our ace in the hole ,other than the fact WE HAVE BOUGHT THE TEAM, that the relocation fee will push the hansen “bid” over the top.
I completely disagree with you. Mitch doesn’t talk about this issue very often, but when he does it is usually for a calculated reason. The Hansen group leaks information through him when they want to communicate something to us. He has been DEAD ON with this issue since Hansen surfaced.
It was in a CBS sports article. That is the only place it has been mentioned.
This is my first blush reaction as well. Mitch was righteously ticked off that the City Council was looking a gift horse in the mouth and trying to extort more money and also expressed concern that Hansen would walk away then. Guess what. He didn’t. He paid a “King’s ransom” to get this far. He has offered a “King’s Ransom” to the Maloofs in this purchase agreement. Will a “King’s Ransom” of a relocation fee stop him now? It depends on how big I suppose because everyone has their breaking point, but I don’t think it would end the deal. I think that would cement it.
Is there a link?
What in the world does cannabis have to do with this?
It’s in here; http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/21805635/could-mayor-kjs-fight-for-kings-set-him-up-as-hunters-replacement
The higher the relocation fee, the more likely the league says yes, and the less likely a team would relocate to Sacramento.
It becomes cost prohibitive to pay the going rate for a team and relocation fee.
Even if the relo fee is higher…….I think its pretty safe to assume that our group has already taken this into consideration. Isnt that going to be a key factor in a transaction like this? Im sure its been talked about behind closed doors. Like the $30 mm deposit……….the land they purchased………these guys arent stupid. I would bet good money that assurances have been made.
Assumption? Absolutely. But it makes sense. These are experiences businessmen with a team of lawyers. I have faith in their decision making.
Why would the owners be so committed to keeping the team in Sac that they would devise a way to deny Seattle by making the relocation fee so high that the Hansen-Balmer group would walk away, so they didn’t look like bad buys? Why would they care? Why wouldn’t they just vote it down? Since when do they care what people think? This has been orchestrated by the NBA, Stern was working to get the Maloof’s to sell to Hansen…and they did. This charade of Sac putting together a counter offer is just politics.
There’s no reason to keep a team in Sac, or to ever bring a team back.
Couldn’t agree more!
It’d make more sense than to keep teams in some of the markets the NBA is currently in.
Let’s be real here, it’s tactics like we’re talking about that make the NBA a rinky dink business that finds itself stuck in rinky dink cities.
Why do people always assume, as this article does, that the relocation fee and the loan from SacTown are included in Hansen’s purchase price?
Have we heard this in stone from someone? Because I assume that the relocation fee would be on top of the purchase price and I lean toward assuming the same about the Sacramento loan.
I didn’t know Big Pussy was a member of the Longshoreman’s Union.
https://twitter.com/lindabrill/status/309003110590844928/photo/1
Also the reflection off of Goldman’s head is blinding.
The ILWU board looks like the cast from the Sopranos.
https://twitter.com/lindabrill/status/309003110590844928/photo/1
Yeah, you can’t have a variable relocation fee yet to be determined and yet somehow have that as a part of Hansen’s purchase price.
????? Why is that? If Burkle and Mastrov had beaten Hansen to the punch this team would be staying.
Why would the NBA piss off the Hansen group and try to get more money out of them? They are the ones that help the deal between the Maloofs and Hansen. If they really want the NBA back in Seattle then I would think they wouldn’t want Hansen to walk. More money to be made in Seattle than Sac. I wish this was over.
C’mon Paul, get on board. We all needed to move on from the “ROFR” rumor. Don’t down the new “Relocation Fee” rumor:-)
That being said, I believe the Kings will be in Seattle next year. Sacramento is not as good of a long term market by a long shot as Seattle IMO.
It was a rumor floated by CMD that he was citing as legit insider information, so journalists have taken the lazy route and regurgitated that misinformation. Now that people are actually thinking about it on both sides, they are starting to question the validity of the rumor.
Two reasons. First, they truly DON’T care about Seattle. Second, they don’t think the Hansen group will walk away.
Because depending on what side you are on……….you want to believe whatever helps your cause the most.
You don’t know that for sure. The Maloofs have been trying to move the team ever since they bought them, well at least have looked into moving the team. Ellison wanted to buy and move to San Jose. I truly think the Sacramento market is overblown being that all we’ve heard is, “move to Las Vegas, Anaheim, Virginia Beach, Henderson, San Jose…..Seattle”. I that is not a knock on their fan base. It’s just weird they have been battling this relocation thing for ten years and even when they were selling out. Something is not desirable for owners down there and I truly think Burkle and Mastrov are far from serious in their offers.
True, but I am sure a significant portion of the Seattle fanbase will walk away from the NBA forever if they BOG plays games and denies Hansen/Ballmer. It is true the NBA doesn’t care about Seattle specifically, but they DO like having the ready-market to use as threat. Many people are just now warming back up to the NBA and if the BOG plays games, they will lose that ready-market as public support of the SODO arena will sour.
http://www.isportstimes.com/articles/6150/20130304/kings-seattle-team-between-two-cities.htm
If it is denied or Hansen does walk away, then yes. Seattle would become radioactive to the NBA again. Perhaps even worse.
Attendance isn’t everything…in fact, attendance really isn’t much. Attendance is valuable in some cases, but only as an indicator of interest of the market. The problem here is, Sac isn’t a great market nor is there a lot of money in that city. So people might show up to games, but perhaps the money isn’t coming in through concessions, merchandise, etc., and it’s certainly not contributing to TV contracts. I mean even the Sonics were a money losing proposition, at least according to owners, just because the Key limited their revenue streams outside of attendance.
The money isn’t in ticket sales. The only league like that now is the NHL, and they are shifting away from that model as much as they can. This is why Sac harping on attendance doesn’t land at all. They really believe in that argument, but nobody really cares.
The worst part is that the NBA also holds our NHL dreams in their sweaty little grasp.
They’re only in this now because Hansen-Balmer bought the team. What prevented them from doing this before? The Maloof’s came out and said the team isn’t for sale…BUT, if it was, it would need to be more than $500mm bid. I don’t buy for a minute KJ or anybody in Sac couldn’t have seen the writing on the wall and tried to negotiate a sale price. The team is not a money maker, it’s a money taker for the league in Sacramento, why would the owners want to preserve that?
i want this month and a half to be over.
The David Aldridge article yesterday said that when the Maloofs were trying to move to Anaheim, Burkle stepped up and said he wanted to help keep the team in Sacramento and then proceeded to lowball the Maloofs on his offer for the team.
They’ve had a legitimate chance for years to make a reasonable offer to the Maloofs but decided to try and buy the team on the cheap because there were no other bidders.
Agreed . I just think with the right owners it IS POSSIBLE in Sactown for it to work out. Is it as desirable as Seattle or San Jose, not in a million years.
chris hansen is not like the hotel manager in ghostbusters: “i had no idea it would be so much. i won’t pay it.”
thus far, chris has put in tons of $ and effort. why stop now? he’s ‘all-in,’ which is good for us.
Agree. This makes a lot of sense.
EVERYTHING.
Now where did I stash that roach?
Completely agree. My point was not is Sacramento as good as Seattle or San Jose. I feel with the right hometown ownership, it could work. It is not preferable but POSSIBLE.
Sigh.
No you won’t. Hansen still has the binding purchase agreement.
After this month and a half is over I’m going to actively enjoy TAKING the Kings from Sac. It’s just entertainment, and I like being right.
Im going to enjoy not talking about Whales, CMD, binding agreements, ILWU, Bruski, etc….
Why would they have taken their offer this far if they weren’t serious or even confident it would get done? No reason to let their names out just to be tied to a failed effort. Burkle has been in contact with the commissioner and I really don’t see how he would’ve let his name be announced if he wasn’t confident it would get done.
Sacramento is in for a crash course in the arena building process. Maximum levels of disappointment and saltiness will ensue.
I’ve seen this episode before.
All “binding” means in this case is that the Maloof’s don’t have the ability to negotiate with another group. That doesn’t mean the NBA has to approve it by any means. I recognize the areas where the SAC deal has flaws and could break down but I don’t think this is one of them. The purchase agreement definitely carries weight but so does everything being done to keep the team here.
Burkle isn’t involved in the team bid. He is only on the arena side. I would analyze that his meetings with Stern is the reason why he wasn’t officially involved in the Kings bid.
I don’t think you understand what a binding purchase agreement is.
Stop freaking out over the relocation fee. It’s a total red herring you guys.
I swear nobody in the media has done a lick of research on this topic.
1. Has the league EVER charged a relocation fee to bilk a new owner not named Larry Ellison out of a team or to keep a team from moving?
2. Has the league EVER cited a relocation fee of more than $30-50 million?
3. Ever considered that the increase in franchise valuations across the board by establishing the purchase price of this franchise raises every owner’s bottom line?
April really can’t come soon enough. The stuff out of Sacramento is getting pitiful and the local media’s eagerness to perpetuate half this BS just to have something new to talk about is in itself getting tiresome.
It’s a very sensitive issue for many people, myself included, in Sacramento, as I’m sure Sonics fans understand. I’m here trying to get more of the Seattle side of the situation but also to hopefully bring a little of the SAC side to the conversation here.
Well, reports are that Sac didn’t offer as much money, and the league pockets the relication fee
The league is not expanding as long as there is a franchise attempting to get a new arena, like Herb Kohl in Milwaukee.
What else would you take it to mean? The Maloofs and Hansen group agreed on deal points to sell the team. That deal is still subject to approval by the NBA. “Binding” doesn’t mean that the NBA has to approve the deal. It means the Maloofs can’t go around shopping the team to other bidders or back out of the deal. If the NBA votes against the sale, the purchase agreement no longer exists. What am I missing?
It is pretty accurate when it comes to how OKC got the Sonics. I think denial by the NBA of the Hansen group will very detrimental to the hopeful Seattle basketball fans.
Another arena design review board meeting scheduled (at least tentatively) for tonight.
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/Design_Review_Program/Project_Reviews/Upcoming/default.asp
Steve Ballmer did the same thing in 08 and he could buy out Burkle and Mastrov 10 times over.
It’s a face saving gesture to set up Sac as a future market. If they let the Kings go without at least showing that they could be a future market for the NBA then they would never again be considered. Everything coming out with Burkle/Mastrov is how they intend to stay on the league’s radar when the next team becomes available.
If the BOG denies this sale and offers nothing else like an expansion team, it signals the NBA is done with Seattle and quite frankly, we’ll be done with them.
However, I don’t think this is going to happen. Stern has stated in the past he wants the NBA here. Clay Clay wants to be rid of the Sonics Zombies, and our group has more money to buy and finance a championship caliber NBA team whereas SacTown can buy it, but does not have the pockets to sustain the same caliber of team we could.
Ya gotta use common sense when these new theories come about. It will answer most questions.
Why would anybody let anyone go this far through the process only to pull out something like a ridiculous relocation fee to put an end to it? Why waste all the time and effort from both ends. Just deny the sale if you dont want it to go through.
Wait, so Burkle wouldn’t have gone this far if it wasn’t going to get done but when we use that argument for Hansen and Ballmer it doesn’t work?
Puhleez.
Rejecting a sound PSA involving a sale to a financially sound ownership group is a huge deal. Only example of it is Tampa Bay ownership group that bought SF Giants, MLB was scared so sh*tless when sued over doing so they quickly gave them an expansion team.
One thought: If they go with a huge relocation fee, they either get 1) a ton of money or 2) to keep the team in Sac without setting a precedent by ruling against a sound PSA, setting forth that owners do not have the basic ownership abilities to sell their team to who they would like.
Hansen has been in “constant contact” (as reported by Yahoo’s Woj) with the League and Stern while the Sacramento soap opera has dragged on. I don’t see why he would be pushing the EIS/design process/Key Arena lease through as quickly as he is if he wasn’t confident it wouldn’t get done.
You are missing the purchase agreement part of the phrase. The league constitution has specific reasons for denying a purchase, dealing with fundamental flaws to financing. “Good Will” is not a legal reason to deny a purchase agreement. Even MLB, with their Antitrust exemption was unable to deny a sale due to good will.
Exactly. Relocation fee is a non-issue, just like most of the minutae that’s been reported over the last month is a non-issue.
How much money have they put down? Its not an apples to apples comparison. Land has been bought. Arena plans have been approved, and a $30 mm payment has been made.
Im sure Burkle still has belief he can get it done. But he has to bank on the NBA not approving. Then he needs the Maloofs to approve his bed. This is a reactive effort.
I don’t think Hansen sues the NBA if this doesn’t go his way. It wouldn’t be smart in terms of setting up Seattle for expansion or another possible relocation. I don’t take Hansen/Balmer to be vindictive people. It seems like what they truly want is a team in Seattle. If they truly want that, they wouldn’t sue the NBA.
Sure worked for the guys in Tampa, because the MLB, who actually has antritrust protection, knew they were going to see the limits of their power defined by the courts if such a suit went forward. I’m not saying Hansen will sue, but the NBA would open itself up to something nasty if they outright denied a sale for reasons that have nothing to do with the sale itself or the ownership groups.
^ And smart businessmen don’t leave themselves open to something like that, not without assurances from the other party that nothing like that would happen.
Stern himself said at All-Star weekend the decision would not come down to economics. Said strength of market, likelihood a building would get done, etc. would play a large role. I don’t discount any of Seattle’s strengths at all either in the ownership group or as a market. All I’m trying to say is the Sacramento offer is the real deal and the BOG will have a tough decision to make. This is an unprecedented situation so of course there are no laws regulating it.
I don’t discount that from the Hansen side at all. I think Stern is playing both sides at this point to try and get the two best possible deals on the table. Since they have Seattle’s deal pretty much 100% out there, I think he’s trying to motivate Burkle to get across the finish line to bring two great options to the BOG.
#1 makes sense. Make more moneys for the owners.
#2 does not. Why set the precedent that the owners do not get to decide who they sell to? Why would any owner ever agree to that?
Stern also said this won’t be a bidding war. So whats the point of Burkle/Mastrov if Hansen and the Maloofs already signed a PSA?
One thing in that isports article, and that I’ve seen elsewhere, is the statement that the rich owners do what they want with their franchises. While generally true, I want to remind everyone that Hansen said he only got involved because he IS a Sonics fan and wants a team back. So he’s less a typical owner and more a financially-able fan.
And the Maloofs already hired antitrust lawyers….
With #2 I’m saying they DON’T set that precedent. They’ll say they’ve set a precedent that the relocation fee will be high if the incumbent city has a strong plan of its own, but it wouldn’t have the same effect as outright turning down a PSA. They’d be saying “hey, we’ll approve the PSA, but here’s what it costs” and those costs might turn out to be prohibitive.
My feeling is, though, that if they go for a high relocation fee as their one off plan to save face, unless it’s just an outright joke, Hansen pays it, game over.
What he meant by that is if the Hansen valuation is $525 Mastrov can’t just come in at $526 and call it a done deal. There are other factors at play here. There is absolutely no reason for the NBA to burn a bridge in Sacramento if they don’t have to. They can be profitable in both markets and I think the owners know that. If a deal is on the table in Sacramento that is solid, I don’t see how they say no to Sacramento instead of promising Hansen an expansion team.
So it goes. Gotta talk about something.
Exactly. He wouldn’t be valuing the franchise this high if he wasn’t motivated by more than finances.
Ahhh, the “E” word. Well, I think we’re done.
Go back to Sactown royalty or whatever other forum you came from. You’ve had 10 years to get it done. You didn’t. Your fate now lies in the hands of owners who do not care about fans, attendance or history. Burkle and Mastrov for whatever reason seem to like being part of failed attempts at buying NBA teams. Their names have been attached to it, they have to back out of the room somehow, what better way to do so than to make an offer lower than what the team has already been agreed to be sold for. The team has been sold, and there’s no reason the BOG disapproves it for less money…also, the Maloof’s already agreed to terms.
Disagree entirely. Hansen is a businessman first, so are the guys behind him, his valuation is going to be based entirely on what their due diligence has told them the team is worth in Seattle, that’s it.
We don’t need to tell people to go away. It’s easier to line by line debunking.
Deal is already made with Seattle. They aren’t approving the Sacramento deal, in fact, they won’t even comment on the Sacramento deal because the Maloofs don’t have to sign an agreement with them. This isn’t an either/or proposition, the only purchase agreement they will be voting on is Hansens. They may not ever see the Mastrov bid again.
There are laws regulating it because there is a binding, signed purchase agreement. The Sacramento bid is just noise, as there is nothing legally the NBA can use without the Maloofs using their antitrust lawyers they have on retainer.
If I never hear or read the word, “expansion” again, it’ll be too soon…
I misread your post. My apologies.
But whats the point in the end to do it that way? Why not just deny the sale? Saves a whole lot of time and effort to do that.
Ignorance is not an excuse though. This guy has no thoughts besides “ermahgawd! Burkle!” when Burkle isn’t even in the bid to purchase the team.
No idea. I’m really just throwing out potential reasoning for why they might go a certain direction to try to put it into some sort of context. Going the relocation fee route only makes sense for the reasons I listed, in my eyes.
Probably because they have no legal footing to deny the sale.
Why would the league ever want to do that …
Look you guys the relocation fee is the way they keep potential owners they don’t want out. Call it the Larry Ellison tax. If your name is Larry Ellison, add $125 million to the purchase price of your team. If your name is not Larry Ellison add $____. This idea that the league would use the relocation fee as a way to keep a franchise in a certain market is just wishful thinking. The sale would never get to that point in the first place.
I may be EXTREMELY late to this news, but I had no idea the Maloof family once owned the Houston Rockets.
http://www.nba.com/kings/maloof-family-biographies-0
Hasn’t that been the Sacto tagline throughout all of this, though? Let ‘em believe whatever they want.
My response? Simple:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsogswrH6ck
I’m not saying the league would want to do that, to be clear, I’m just listing the only potential thought processes that make sense to justify going this route.
Oh man! Jessica (the girl who bought the home) put a picture on facebook of a little girl doll propped against an upstairs railing looking down while holding a knife.
What a disaster. It looks like Swift might have some alcohol dependency issues. I feel bad for him. I hope he can pull himself together.
Not to mention Hansen has been in communication with Clay Bennett for months. I am sure he was informed of the relocation fee by now.
Another ghostbusters reference on SonicsRising?!?!?!? Awesome!
I understand that. That doesn’t mean the BOG will approve the sale. They cannot force the Maloofs to sell to Mastrov, I get it. I understand there is no agreement between the Maloofs and anyone other than Chris Hansen. The reality is the Maloofs cannot afford to keep the team any longer. That’s why they decided to sell. If the league does deny the Seattle sale, it will be with 100% confidence that the Maloofs have no other choice but to accept Mastrov’s offer. The Maloofs themselves actually told the Sacbee they’re vetting “back-up offers” in case the Seattle deal falls through.
Oh it’s ok, we can just put them right back in there. (The Maloofs)
I asked Mitch the following on Twitter. And his response is below (considering his purported connection to Ballmer, I found this reassuring):
MY QUESTION:
@kjrmitch Are you feeling the odds of Kings coming to Seattle are getting worse in recent days? Your voice worried me today…
HIS RESPONSE:
59 secs mitch levy mitch levy @kjrmitch
@GusSeattle that was just the steroids. Still will be surprised if it doesn’t happen.
1. The idea that the Maloofs are selling because they can’t afford to keep the team any longer is narrative written by Sac fans. There’s no confirmation of that. The reason they are selling to Hansen is he made an offer they couldn’t refuse, Burkle lowballed them the last time around.
2. Source the comment that the Maloofs themselves said they were vetting backup offers. I think that’s bunk.
Dang, that is deep! I’m stuck for anymore words here.
You don’t get it. The BoG cannot deny the sale unless there is something fundamentally wrong with the funding based on the NBA constitution. The NBA cannot deny a purchase agreement just because of good will.
No matter how many CMD talking points you bring in, they are still wrong.
Came from CMD. Of course it’s bunk.
I was just hoping to get into the Seattle discussion a little bit. I backed Seattle in 2007 and even wrote to the BOG and Maloofs urging them to vote no on OKC relocation. I just hoped there would be more respect from Sonics fans and that they wouldn’t feel the need to belittle Sacramento’s fans, the market, or potential ownership group.
Seattle didn’t make the rules. We can only play the game by them.
I am pretty sure it was said in the SacBee that they could receive other offers…nowhere has vetting ever been used as far as I know.
CMD tweeted that they were a couple days after the reveal.
I’m fine with Sacramento fans posting here. There’s no need for hostility. They’re not the bad guys (I don’t think we are either).
Comment is actually from the Sacbee:
“….a person familiar with the situation said the Maloofs would accept “back-up offers” to the Hansen agreement.”
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/27/5222389/sacramento-kings-john-kehriotis.html
The only thing that came from the SacBee was a statement saying that it was “believed the Maloofs would listen to backup offers” coming from a source “close to the situation”. That’s not a firm statement and not a source close to the Maloofs most likely (why not say that?).
Basically Sac fans are playing a huge game of telephone where a statement like that is somehow turned into “confirmed: Maloofs state they will listen to backup offers and that they really like 24 Hour Fitness”. It’s insane.
I agree…as long as they are cogent arguments and not flaming people. I think cfox seems pretty reasonable in his arguments. Maybe we disagree but he isn’t being reprehensible like the OKC trolls were back in the day. That being said I don’t think they should get offended though if they read something they don’t like here knowing the inherent bias.
They don’t have to sell to Mastrov, and they probably won’t, even if the deal with Hansen fell through…which it won’t, because you really can’t get a stronger ownership group. If the sale falls through, the Maloof’s will put the team on the market and solicite more offers. They don’t have to sell to anybody, but they did decide to sell to Hansen. So, all of this talk is pretty much pointless…
Thanks, I don’t think SEA fans or even the Hansen group are bad guys at all. I do post a lot on STR but I’d just hoped to get into some discussion with some different folks. I think it can and should be respectful given the sensitive nature of the issue to a lot of people.
It was in the SacBee, but accepting a ‘backup’ offer did not come from the Maloofs mouths. It came from ‘sources close to the situation’.
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/28/5224074/mayor-johnson-may-reveal-kings.html
I hate NBA rhetoric. The NBA goes around saying how so and so city would be great for a NBA team and some are NBA ready. If the NBA hates relocation so much what the hell is the purpose of giving a city and potential fanbase false hope.
They are implying the “E” word and denying it in the next sentence.
I don’t see any hostility in the comments above. I only see an ignorant poster that is unwilling to acknowledge about anything factual. I understand why he is unwilling, but that just means he doesn’t need to post here if he doesn’t wish to participate in a intelligent conversation.
Come on dude we’re not Sactown Royalty where we will call Sac posters here names like they do with Seattle posters.
He has a POV which is different than ours, but it’s the POV of Sacramento. He’s not hurting anyone by posting it.
We don’t need to call him names like they do over on StR
I don’t see any hostility in the comments above. I only see an ignorant poster that is unwilling to acknowledge about anything factual. I understand why he is unwilling, but that just means he doesn’t need to post here if he doesn’t wish to participate in a intelligent conversation.
I don’t things he’s being ignorant. I think he just sees things differently than a lot of us. There’s a lot of gray area in this situation, and nobody really knows what’s going to happen. I think it’s a mistake for either side to feel assured of getting (or keeping) the team.
That’s what I find so puzzling about the Sac argument, I mean what reason, other than sentiment, could the BoG use as a means to deny the sale? The money is there, the arena deal is there (pending two relatively small issues), and I don’t think the owners are dumb enough to pull the rug out from under us again and expect us to welcome the NBA back with open arms.
^^ This…i seriously don’t get the “why would they do it if they weren’t sure they were going to win” argument…
Agreed. These guys arent being rude.
I think you’ll find the majority of Seattle fans are jaded and not very sensitive to any of this seeing as how we’ve lost a team and a once in a lifetime player without anywhere NEAR the support Sacramento has received.
Can someone help me out with the concept that Sacramento is providing an offer that is worth almost a billion dollars? Isn’t it $390 for the stadium and something we know is below $335 for the team? That isn’t very close to a billion dollars…
Expansion is not going to happen, no matter what you read on Sac blogs and other websites.
Maybe we’ll find out when they have their prelim work done on the arena in a month.
I’m still not understanding what is factual that I’m not acknowledging? I understand all of your points. I just don’t think it’s fair for anyone to assume they have a great understanding of the league’s constitution or financial models. I understand there is no precedent for the league denying a move or sale to a financially sound ownership group and there may or may not even be league bylaws to support it. However, I have to assume it’s more complex. If it were as simple as, “The league’s hands are tied and there’s no way the BOG can deny the sale,” why is this still a conversation? Again, Hansen/Balmer and Burkle/Mastrov are not men who waste their time. With Burkle potentially being in control of AEG in the near future, do you think Stern would risk wasting his time like this?
Aside: Many speculate the reason Burkle is taking no ownership in the team at this point is because of the conflict with AEG having an ownership stake in the Lakers.
All the things you listed would seem to favor Seattle so I am assuming you’re hoping for a different set of criteria
Who said they were offering a billion dollars?
This doesn’t have anything to do with this thread, but I don’t care.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Bqx8b_rrE
Awesome.
I’ll admit the Sonics theft has made me bitter, cynical, paranoid, crazy, etc., but that doesn’t mean I don’t feel for Sac fans (and for us, too, for needlessly being put in this position).
cfox, you made the factually incorrect statement that it was confirmed the Maloofs were vetting backup offers.
When that was demonstrated not to be so, you’ve just ignored it and left your statement hanging in the air. It’d be appreciated if, when something you say is demonstrated to not be so, that you acknowledge that.
We get it, you need to maintain hope…
I have been an advocate for the Sacramento fans since there isn’t much they can do. But, just because a group is pointing out pretty objective facts that economically the Seattle market is stronger, the Seattle ownership group is stronger, etc….isn’t belittling Sacramento…it is just the facts;.
It’s amazing how all this has taken a life of its own. People are going crazy here. The Kings have been sold and there is a process in place that’s moving forward. Distractions don’t matter. Remember: aircraft carrier
I quoted the Sacbee story. That’s what I have. If you don’t believe the source is valid, that’s fine but I have no reason to doubt it since that’s the same story confirming the Maloof’s received the $30 million deposit.
CFox said the Sacramento offer is worth “almost a billion dollars”…and I am wondering what I am missing
Which has been confirmed by many other sources including the Maloofs themselves (on the record)
That’s assuming a similar valuation of the franchise ($500-$525 million) + a $400-450 million arena deal.
What we went through in OKC has given us a unique perspective thats its impossible to really have without going through it all. BOG can deny this sale for whatever reason they want. I think we can all accept that.
Why would Stern waste his time like this and make both parties seem like they have a chance? Because he really doesnt care. He really doesnt.
Many of us here knew the Sonics were gone the day they were sold. Stern and the owner let us scramble around to come up with an arena plan and jump through hoops for over a year. He strung us along in a very similar way. Why would he waste all that time? I dont know. Only he does. Is he doing that to Sacramento? Again I dont know. But from our experience it looks that way.
No you didn’t. Link me to the story that says the Maloofs have said they are vetting backup offers. There is a story that says “a source close to the situation” says that the Maloofs would consider backup offers.
You can’t change the meaning of a statement like that and get away with it.
- Hasn’t the Arena already been projected at $390 million?
- They aren’t playing $525 million for the franchise…they are paying for the Maloofs share…
Not close to a billion dollars
Right, but Lillis and Dale Kasler (Sacbee writers) are the source who got the confirmation from Joe Maloof. They are the same source who says they would consider back-up offers if the deal fell through. I’m saying that’s what the story says and I think the source is good from my experience in following their reporting the last few years. If you don’t think the source is legit, that’s fine but don’t say it’s something I just made up when I’ve sourced it multiple times.
Cfox…I’d ask…if the BOG didn’t deny the move from SEA to OKC why do you think they’d deny this deal?
Is it mid April yet?
They got Joe Maloof to confirm the $30m deposit was paid, that doesn’t mean the “source close to the situation” saying the Maloofs would consider backup offers (not saying they are currently vetting them lke you claim) is a Maloof. That’s a huge leap in logic.
I think small market teams will eventually relocate to cities with bigger markets. Sacramento might be the first of those teams… then it will might be Milwaukee. This is why I don’t think the Thunder will exist in 10 years.
I know that I tend to be on the pessimistic side, but what worries me about this morning’s events is that the information came from Mitch, who is generally thought to have sources within H/B/N. If so, there might be some factual basis, not only to the exorbitantly-high relocation fee, but to the possibility of the H/B/N group being ready to walk away from the deal because of it. In which case, the $64,000 question is whether the message is aimed at the NBA (“don’t try to screw us over, or the whole deal collapses”) or to Seattle sports fans (mentally preparing us for H/B/N to back out)?
Cfox…I’d ask…if the BOG didn’t deny the move from SEA to OKC why do you think they’d deny this deal?
He seems more supportive of their attempts to keep the team than he was of ours. Maybe he just likes Sacramento better than he did us.
As with basically all the talk on this subject that goes on here, MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.
I can’t wait for this to all be over.
You’re right, in my first comment I did say the Maloofs said it themselves which was wrong. But that doesn’t mean the source in the Sacbee story is wrong or a bad source just because it’s not directly from them.
The NBA has never denied a sale or relocation for non-financial reasons.
Just like the “source close to the situation” said the $30MM had not been paid, right?
I think the Mitch-Balmer connection is overstated personally. I think it was based on the article from cbssports. But I didn’t listen to the radio show today so who knows
I’d say this: There’s no precedent for a team relocating when they’ve had a viable reason to stay. I understand that Seattle did provide options for the Sonics and I also understand there’s a BIG difference between the Seattle government supporting the team and Seattle fans supporting the team. In Sacramento, however, we have both. We’ve proven to be a profitable market by selling out 22 of 28 seasons. The reason it hasn’t been a profitable market the past few years is because of terrible ownership. I just don’t see how the league lets a team move, regardless of how strong the Seattle market it, when there is a profitable model for the team to stay.
@ChrisDaniels5
RT @kcrabienick: John #Kehriotis tells #kcra his #nbakings offer will be sent to league, Maloofs with days.
But the Sacbee story just sources a “source close to the situation” that says the Maloofs would “consider” backup offers. So there is no vetting going on and that source could very well not be close to the Maloofs, and just using the same speculative thinking you guys use, that the Maloofs can’t keep the team any longer. Thus, they’d certainly consider another offer if this sale was denied. It’s not even cited as a source close to the Maloofs, just to the situation, which I would think means it’s not a source close to them.
It’s really easy to read TOO MUCH into something from a credible article, but I think the safe thing is to lean towards assuming the bare minimum. A reporter would love to say that a source close to the Maloofs if saying something, it’d carry a lot of weight, but since they don’t go that far, it’s likely that it’s not.
Who is “he”…if you mean David Stern…David Stern has no control over how the BOG votes.
Contradiction much?
Hasn’t it already been established that none of us know what’s in the NBA constitution, as it’s not a public document?
Different sources. Some random show host in Florida isn’t the same as Kasler whose been close to this situation for 2 years.
In other news. North Korea wants to destroy South Korea. Rodman!!!!
How do you know they are different sources? They are both unnamed sources giving out information.
What does selling out 22 out of 28 seasons have to do with being a profitable market? That is just not how the league generates profits these days
It’s not a contradiction. I’m saying while the fans did support the Sonics, the government did not. Sacramento has city government 100% behind this effort.
That would seem to help the sonics chances instead of having a back and forth with the different sac proposals
If Kehriotis’s money is sound, I’d say the KJ/Mastrov offer has pretty much zero chance even in the unlikely event that the BOG shuts down the Seattle group.
If Sacramento is really interested in getting an arena built and securing the NBA long-term, why aren’t they pursuing the Coyotes?
That team is available, way more priced to move than fighting the Hansen agreement, and they would have an anchor tenant (plus the Monarchs!) to justify building the arena while Milwaukee goes on the clock. Am I missing something?
I’m saying the guys reporting on the situation are different. Sacbee is different than some random talk show in Florida.
Correct. We don’t know specifically what is in the NBA Constitution, however there are still Federal regulation they have to abide by regarding the sale and transfer of goods and services. NBA, or any other corporation, doesn’t have a free license to do whatever they want.
Selling out a substandard arean means nothing. It’s all about concessions and corporate dollars. This is BUSINESS.
I understand the reporters were different, but can you say the sources they reported from were different?
Kehriotis is a non-starter for most people around here. The city won’t support anything that doesn’t include a downtown arena. It isn’t really gaining any traction down here among city government or fans.
So an anyone bid to te NBA now? This is nuts
If you don’t know about the Seattle situation, please don’t speak platitudes about it.
Do we actually know that they can’t afford to keep the team anymore? My understanding was that they wanted to find a way to move the team and we’re planning on selling unless someone hit an absurd purchase price of $500 MM which Chris Hansen did.
With the $30 MM deposit and the $20 MM or so in revenue sharing they get at the end of the year perhaps they can keep going. Not saying they won’t sell, just that this is yet another item on the list of things we don’t actually know for sure. The only fact I know is that no one knows what the Maloofs will do in any given situation.
That’s not what I was saying. By “sources” in that comment I meant sources as in Sacbee vs. Florida talk show, not the sources included in those stories. Those could very well be the same source or unreliable sources or super reliable sources for all I know. All I’m saying is I’m much more hesitant in trusting Florida talk show host and much more willing to trust Lillis and Kasler.
Why do I keep hearing the Keystone Cops themesong in my head?
It seems odd that the City wouldn’t support an entirely private arena that doesn’t require the City to mortgage their future with the parking lots. Just another red flag with the City’s choice for the options..
Too bad the city doesn’t have a say in the matter.
If he has all of the money to do this privately, he doesn’t need much city support, only a small amount that the city would certainly not refuse if it meant keeping the Kings.
Correct. And my point was you cannot trust uncorrelated unnamed sources because you don’t know who or how close to the situation they are.
So what’s the reality of the situation? Inform me on what the city government did to try to keep the Sonics from moving.
Because the NHL probably has zero interest in Sacramento.
Based on what I saw at your hearing from councilmen Fong, McCarty, and Cohn, I’d say that’s not true at all.
The city council and KJ consider subsidizing a downtown arena an investment that will increase tax revenue. They’re looking for a deal that they can make money on rather than watch from the sidelines.
Can we put in an offer too? Let’s get a kickstarter account going!
I think that point would be after a the sale potentially being blocked. If that happens, you’re right, Kehriotis would not be refused.
Sports leagues tend to be willing to go wherever big money leads them; I just think it would be the best play for Sac to keep the arena moving forward.
They dont care. Its a business. They generally back the owner, their own, and the owner in this case wants to sell the team to an owner in Seattle.
The only thing that keriwhatever would need is approval to build in a flood area and being gifted 100 acres if Natomas land. And probably not that much since that seems like a gigantic area for an arena. If that offer is on the table then it comes down to which interests the council supports or are bought by.
Kehriotis is nothing either sides should be worried about. Looks like he’ll need some public money…..
Chris Daniels @ChrisDaniels5
RT @kcrabienick: #Kehriotis says his preferred #nbakings #arena site is Natomas, project might require some public funding.
Well isn’t that what Sac is going for? To block the sale? The BOG can’t just accept the KJ sponsored bit at that meeting on behalf of the Maloofs. A block would send the team back to the Maloofs to enter negotiations with other buys, and odds are they’d prefer Kehriotis. The Mastrov offer has a great deal working against it.
The city won’t support anything buy a downtown arena? They approved the one by the railroad tracks, no? Why is a minority owner of the team such poison? The city isn’t interested in 100% private funding?
I dont think thats an inaccurate statement that the gov didnt help. The city and the legislature were NOT very active in trying to keep the team here until they were sold and it was too late. I think its fair to say that if we had the support city/legislature of Sac does in Seattle then the team doesnt get sold.
Oh snap!
I guess it would depend on how much. If this thing got sent back to the Maloofs and Kehriotis was asking for a small sum just for say the environmental reviews or whatever, I think it’d hard to stop public support from going his way.
I don’t know that there’s anybody with the money who thinks bringing an NHL team to Sac would be a good idea.
There’s a reason Sac is a one team town.
The city can only hope to make back all the money they’re subsidizing. The idea that previously the arena was going to be funding with parking meters says to me the city really can’t afford to fund any of this.
I think all this talk about Hansen’s PA being more than Mastrov’s bid and the economics behind both is just bloated talk about nothing imo. I think the only reason there is a bid from Mastrov is to show that there is interest from the Sacramento side to make an offer.
All this does is give them ammo to say “The Maloofs didn’t make the sale of the team public first and there was no chance to make an offer.” All it does is make the BOG consider the rules regarding putting the team up for sale. Is it a sticking point? I have no idea, but either way they are not vetting the PA against Mastrov’s bid.
I think it’s just a tactic put in place that the BOG can look at the bid from Mastrov, judge whether or not it’s valid from an economic standpoint. If it is, then they look to the rule book on the sale being public enough to allow bids from other parties.
I find it highly unlikely the city makes their money back. Their general fund will take an annual hit by leasing their parking for the next few decades, and they’re banking on the Kings somehow being the linchpin of a resurgence of a struggling downtown area. They have hopes it would revitalize the city, but that’s what they are, hopes. It’s a big gamble, but more power to them making an effort.
cfox. The city of Seattle did nothing to keep the team here because they were being held ransom by Clay Bennett. he demanded the world because he knew he would not get it and be able to move the team to OKC. It really doesn’t matter though, because when it’s all said and done will have an NBA team back, and an NHL team to boot. So the biggest loss for us will be losing Durant, which is fine, since we end up getting another pro team.
So what’s the reality of the situation? Inform me on what the city government did to try to keep the Sonics from moving.
They had built the Sonics an arena in the mid-1990s. When Schultz and then Bennett came around asking for more, they never flat-out said no. They wanted the owners to pay for some of it, though. They also tried to enforce the lease (which ran until 2010). Stern was not supportive of that, nor their attempts to try and strike a deal to renovate Key Arena a second time (with the Ballmer group).
Like everything else, it is much more complicated than what can be said in a single post.
The city was actually very supportive of a full Key Arena renovation prior to I-91 and Bennett wouldn’t play along. Stern/Bennett didn’t get anywhere at the state level for the Renton site because they were unwilling to commit total dollar amount or contribute to the project. Who knows how far it would have gotten if Bennett would have publicly stated he would have paid for 50-60% like Paul Allen did for the CLink.
There were layers of politics and misdealings.
FYI here is an article from 2007 regarding a Key Arena renovation.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/sonics/2007/08/02/bennett-shoots-down-keyarena-renovation-talk/
Thats not really true. They said NO a number of times to a number of different people. They said NO to Shultz a bunch of times, and this was with Stern backing him. Then they said no to Bennett, again with Stern backing him, but at the same time his building was outrageous. Then they finally said no to Ballmer when all he was asking for was $75 mm of public money.
I’d say this: There’s no precedent for a team relocating when they’ve had a viable reason to stay.
Disagree. The Kansas City, Vancouver, Charlotte, and Seattle situations each had compelling reasons against relocation, but the NBA allowed it in each case. I’m not saying that will happen to Sacramento, but the league has run out on cities before (if they hadn’t the Kings might still be in KC).
Is there a local reservation in te sac area that can put up an arena site? That would make the parallels even better
Kehriotis is a non starter, no way he gets an Ownership Group and a firm Arena Plan done in the next 6 weeks.
Thats not really true. They said NO a number of times to a number of different people. They said NO to Shultz a bunch of times, and this was with Stern backing him. Then they said no to Bennett, again with Stern backing him, but at the same time his building was outrageous. Then they finally said no to Ballmer when all he was asking for was $75 mm of public money.
Schultz wanted the public to pay almost all of the costs, though. And he didn’t try very long or very hard. You’re right about Ballmer, but the city was on board with the plan. The legislature wanted to wait some more, since there were two years left on the lease. Stern was dismissive of the Ballmer group’s effort, though, lying about the viability of a renovated Key Arena. Plus, there were still two years left on the lease, but the NBA chose not to respect that.
Kings fans never seem to realize that the Sonics received an entirely remodeled arena in ’95, basically rebuilt from the ground up, and primarily paid for at taxpayer expense.
Would the Sacramento city council and KJ be this gung ho about heavily subsidizing a new arena if they had already paid for an Arco remodel in 2003? I highly doubt it.
If the NBA Relocation Commitee decides not to accept Hansens offer for whatever reason, this thing will never get to a BOG Vote (There will be some back room deal cut between Sac, Sea and the Maloofs).
If it gets to a vote then Seattle will win, no way will they reject Hansens Deal without some type of settlement
It’s all happening at the same time.
Hmm…mastrov rebuffed keriotis. No rofr for sure then….that was a fun rumor for a while
I’m going to miss the copter.
I’ve been singing the same song.
If the Kings are staying in Sac, it’s because Hansen and the Maloofs agreed to it, and that means that they both got something in exchange.
Kings fans never seem to realize that the Sonics received an entirely remodeled arena in ’95, basically rebuilt from the ground up, and primarily paid for at taxpayer expense.
Would the Sacramento city council and KJ be this gung ho about heavily subsidizing a new arena if they had already paid for an Arco remodel in 2003? I highly doubt it.
Yes, I believe Arco (or whatever it’s called now) was built in the 1980s with private funding. So Sacramento hasn’t been dealing with the stadium fatigue issues that Seattle was back in 2006-2008, yet there still were a lot of false starts on the arena issues before the team tried to move to Anaheim in 2011.
Schultz wanted to put up $16 million on a 225M arena, and be a jackass about it. Bennett wasn’t even dealing with the City of Seattle. The Ballmer Key remodel option had 75M of city money but couldn’t get the other 75 from the state in the compressed time period.
well they remodeled key arena and then built safeco and seahawks stadium and then where told halfway through the key lease we needed another arena. not obsolving the way it was handled and no offense to sacto but you guys will NEVER know the bs ya gotta go through to remodel an arena, build an mlb ballpark and and nfl stadium and then try to build another arena before the first ones paid off to keep an out of town owner committed to move from doing so.. lets see kj pull that one out. and again not making excuses for our politicians. just sayin…..
In addition to partially paying for baseball stadium AND football stadium in the previous 10 years? The public and city were tapped out when it came to subsidizing arena’s, and Schultz was an inept owner who only asked a couple times, and then sold to out of state buyers.
I agree leveraged parking is a mighty big hurtle. But what Sacramento is really banking on is total use of the ESC. Without the Kings there would be no outside investors for a downtown ESC. Therefore no growth for Sacramento.
New thread is up.
The previous railyard site was downtown
This may have been discussed already…but I’m curious: Has Mastrov (or Burkle) made any public statements regarding the team or the arena since the announcement last Thursday? Any press releases? Public appearances? New conferences holding a check book behind the mayor…etc etc?
Or has everything been floated through “sources familiar/close” to the negotiation/situation?
If you are banking on a sports team for city growth, something’s gone terribly wrong.
And the “remodel” of Key Arena cost as much as the arena that Cleveland opened for the Cavs in 94 or that Phoenix opened for the Suns in 92.
I think they each released a statement last Thursday night.
Bingo. Seattle is supposedly a tough market because people don’t know if we can support that many teams, yet Sac is hoping a team can support their city.
Everything you just wrote about Sac was true for Seattle in 2008 and none of it made any difference then, and won’t now. I don’t say that to be harsh… because I was in your shoes 5 years ago and thought the same thing you did. If the league didn’t give a rat’s ass about 41 years of history in a single market they sure couldn’t care less about 22 years in Sacramento by a team that was in three cities before that.
All true. But the point is the state/city/legislature had taken a stand. They werent going to use public money anymore. Right or wrong that is the stance they took and they were not willing to really help in this area.
Did Shultz, Bennett, and Ballmer have the ideal approach? Not at all. But its pretty moot when they had already made it very clear the answer would be “NO” to public funds for any arenas moving forward.
But yet so many cities are salivating at the idea.
It’s actually not true. The fan base in Sacramento has been much stronger since 1985 than Seattle, most often with worse teams.
1985-86 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 48%, Kings 100%
1986-87 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 50%, Kings 100%
1987-88 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 69%, Kings 100%
1988-89 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 74%, Kings 100%
1989-90 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 70%, Kings 100%
1990-91 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 71%, Kings 100%
1991-92 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 82%, Kings 100%
1992-93 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 89%, Kings 100%
1993-94 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 85%, Kings 100%
1994-95 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 90%, Kings 100%
1995-96 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 100%, Kings 100%
1996-97 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 100%, Kings 100%
1997-98 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 100%, Kings 85%
1998-99 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 100%, Kings 96%
1999-00 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 87%, Kings 100%
2000-01 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 91%, Kings 100%
2001-02 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 90%, Kings 100%
2002-03 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 91%, Kings 100%
2003-04 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 89%, Kings 100%
2004-05 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 96%, Kings 100%
2005-06 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 94%, Kings 100%
2006-07 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 93%, Kings 100%
2007-08 Percentage of Seats Sold: Sonics 79%, Kings 81%
Seattle is expensive. Very very expensive.
And SAC’s arena has 300 more seats. Again, fan support was not the main issue behind the Sonic’s relocation but I’m saying it is a strength in favor of SAC.
I’d like to gently encourage you all to migrate your excellent discussion to the new thread please!
One more thing……Seattle Center Coliesum’s capacity was 14,100 before renovation in ’95. BIG difference in fan support.
I haven’t heard many cities use the idea of a sports team to grow their city. To become a “major league city” yes, but openly use it as a growth model, no.
Perhaps I’m mistaken, (and feel free to correct me) but doesn’t Bennett owe Seattle $30Mil. if Seattle’s deal doesn’t go through? And isn’t he the head of the relocation committee that was combined with the sale approval? If this is true, isn’t that the most messed up thing to have Bennett kind of be our ace in the hole? The head of the relocation committee having an actual financial stake in the approval of this deal is weird right?
Nope. That deal expired a couple years ago.
But the fan support does not translate into more economic support. A Seattle team with 90% attendance is going to bring in more money in total than a Sac team selling out. There’s just more money in Seattle.
Except when Ballmer presented the city with a respectable offer which shared the burden, the city couldn’t approve their funding quick enough.
So the idea that Schultz and Bennett were going up against this impenetrable wall of no is BS; they just had no desire to put real effort (or cash) into it.
Nope. He owes us nothing.
Sorry, Percentage of seats sold has NOTHING to do with profitability.
Yeah because the guy was talking to Mitch Richmond. He essentially outed him later in the article about the 30 million B.S.
Attendance really doesn’t mean squat to the NBA. The majority of the team revenue comes from TV deals (league and RSA).
I agree with that. Corporate dollars, money spent on merchandise/consessions, etc. is a strength of Seattle’s. I still think the two biggest things in SAC’s favor are fan support and the $77 million city loan. If all the league wanted was corporate sponsorship dollars, they’d have two teams in Chicago, Miami, and Seattle and none in San Antonio, Memphis, or Charlotte. Again, why would the league only want to be profitable in one market (Seattle) when they can be profitable in two?
While Fan support is important the real money is made with Corp Support (Suites)and TV Revenue which Seattle has plenty of
How in the world is a city loan of $77MM a benefit?
Some of us suggested talking about the Roster/Draft/Free Agency, but many don’t want to talk about that either.
We should just shut down this page until April 18th.
KJ > Nickels
How can you say that? If that were true, games would be played in much smaller buildings to reduce expenses. Without fans in the seats, there is no business for the NBA. The TV money is a large portion of the revenue but so are ticket sales. I’m not saying the NBA will look at SEA’s attendance and say, “Wow, they really haven’t sold as many seats as Sacramento.” But the fact that the interest level is MUCH higher in Sacramento (granted, mostly due to Sonics relocation) than it is in Seattle, there is a broader net to cast.
i love how defensive people get when they lose there argument and they start taking personal stabs. bye bye
KJ > Nickels
You’re right. But had Stern treated Sacramento like he treated Seattle, I’m not sure the Kings would have still been around by the time KJ became mayor.
Hansen’s actions of moving the team out of town trigger the loan payback clause
And he has to pay that 77 million and instruct the Maloofs to pay off the bonds.
It’s factual. How is that a personal stab? I posted 20 years worth of attendance figures. How else would you interpret that data? The Sonics fan support over that period of time was higher than a lot of NBA markets but in no way was it higher than Sacramento’s.
But the relevance of attendance is small, and it sure is nice that you get to use the years where our team was getting gutted by bad ownership and on the verge of relocation in your example. If that counts, why shouldn’t Sac’s awful attendance the past few years count? Don’t think the NBA isn’t wary of that.
cfox When a group from Sacramento presents a cash in hand offer for a team in excess of $525 million and has a building built, they’ll be considered. Right now they have neither of those things. You’re hung up on things that have ZERO relevance to the one question the other owners care about: Can you increase my own franchise’s valuation through keeping this team here? If the answer is no (and it is in Sac) then either pony up $525+ mil for another team, petition the league for expansion. That’s how this game works. Citing attendance is irrelevant. Percentage of seats sold, irrelevant. fan support, irrelevant. Size of arena, irrelevant. We went through all this 5 years ago … trust us on this one.
cfox, that debt will still be owed regardless of who buys the team.
But the city may insist on a full cash payment to get it done. Hansen won’t want this because the moratorium in Natomas will take many years before it’s lifted (or whenever the levies get fixed in reality) which hurts the value of the land because it’s going to be difficult to get a redevelopment there before those levies are fixed to the appropriate level that will allow building where Sleep Train is. The city has a lot of leverage.
It’s an assumed debt on both sides, though. It’s just a matter of Chris and his guys having to pay it off up front, which wouldn’t be prohibitive for them in the slightest.
If it is an advantage at all, it’s minuscule.
Ticket sales are a drop in the bucket compared to TV money. Again, irrelevant.
Yes. The loan is tied to the team, not a personal loan to the Maloofs. It’s assumed by some people that the loan is included in the $525 million valuation. In either case, it’s a headache for Hansen to deal with and potentially a lot of money he could lose if he ends up having to pay back the loan only to own land that’s worth nowhere near $77 million AND isn’t zoned for redevelopment for what is likely another decade.
But Chris knew all of this going in, so clearly he has no problem with the possibilities.
The loan and the land are not a surprise factor springing up.
It won’t be an assumed debt to the Hansen group. The city council and KJ will want blood and will demand a cash payment upon relocation, which according to the loan docs, the city has every right to do. With Mastrov’s group, the city can simply have the new ownership assume the loan or waive the $12 million fee to have him pay it all at once.
I agree with that. I don’t think Hansen jumped in without knowing all the potential risks. That doesn’t mean it isn’t an issue.
Arena sizes/problems are always due to a lack of suites and restaurants, not to get 500 more seats for everyday Joe.
And that is a benefit to Sacramento how exactly?
But the Seattle group likely expected all of this and are prepared for it, don’t see the advantage.
If your argument that Hansen is a businessman first and foremost, there is a point when the dollar amount starts to get out of hand. So either the city’s loan is an extra $77 million on top of $525 OR the $77 million is included in the $525 million valuation. Either case has different advantages for both sides. All I’m saying is don’t be surprised if the debt issue becomes a key down the road for either side.
But assuming debt would be a part of any valuation, that’s how it works.
When you place a value on an organization like the Kings, you look at revenues, the assets owned by the Kings, and debts owed by the Kings. That’s just how it works.
You can make a big deal about costs the Hansen group has known about from the beginning, but it’s not something I’d place any hopes in.
Again, I agree. My assumption is they plan to fight it in court rather than shell out the money for worthless land. Both ownership groups are extremely wealthy. That doesn’t mean an extra $77 million is a drop in the bucket for them, especially if it’s added to the purchase price of the team.
A simpler way to look at it is that Hansen has to pay off $77 million on the arena, but Mastrov would only have a debt of $65 for the same loan.
Which means the SAC offer could be “slightly” ($12 million) lower than SEA’s PSA.
And I just don’t see that as a huge difference maker in this ordeal. I think it’s a mole hill, feel free to treat it as a mountain. I’ll go all David Stern and say that I don’t see it as a defining issue. :)
You could be right. My position as a SAC fan is to find our strengths and try to cover up our weaknesses and I’m seeing this as a potential issue. At the very least, it could provide an explanation for a reported, “slightly lower,” purchase price from Mastrov. Even if his offer is a $515 million valuation, that’s still $2 million more in the Maloofs pockets, assuming the loan debt is included in franchise value. Don’t underestimate the Maloof’s desire to make a few quick bucks.
I’m more convinced than ever that the NBA’s Board of Governors
with Clay Bennett as Chairman of the Relocation Committee will approve the
Sacramento Kings move to Seattle as the new Sonics.
As I was watching the documentary SONIC GATE. Former Mayor Nickles
was reading the settlement deal with Clay Bennett and the professional
basketball group of Oklahoma LLC.
An agreed total payment of $75 million,will be paid to the City, for breaking the lease 2 years early. $45 million will be paid to the City of Seattle immediately.
The rest of the settlement money will come in the form of $ 30 million in
5 years, If the City of Seattle does not get a team in 2013.
OK ! Here we are the year 2013, Isn’t this ironic that we are talking about the
the binding agreement between the Maloofs and the Chris Hansen led group
for the purchase of 65% majority ownership of the Kings franchise, with the
approval pending from the BOG on April 15.
What’s more interesting is that David Stern is combining the BOG Committee,
and the Relocation Committee, as one to speed up the process.
What’s even more interesting is that if the City of Seattle gets a team back in 2013
Clay Bennett will be off the hook for the $30 Million as part of the 2008
settlement .
Another interesting read ?
Audrey McClendon, Who is the main shareholder of the Clay Bennett group
has lost the majority of stocks with Cheasepeake Natural Gas LLC.
The $30 million will be a heavy burden for the Clay Bennett group, As they are
obligated to make a payment to the City of Seattle, if the city does not get a team
in April of 2013.
Think what you may.? I really think this is a well scripted plan by David Stern.
Mr. Stern, Knew all along that Seattle will get a team back in 5 years .
Mr. Stern knows that there are small market teams out there that are struggling more than others.
Supposedly Mr. Stern personally negotiated a deal with the City of Sacramento
in behalf of the Maloofs ownership group ?
But in reality it was not a good financial deal for the Maloofs ? That’s the reason
the Maloofs backed away from the deal.
The move to Anaheim for a better market, bigger profits is just a ploy to drive
up the price tag of the franchise. This move will never happen as long as there is a
Lakers and Clippers in LA.
Virginia Beach is another ploy, to enhance the interest in the Kings Franchise.
I say good business plan by the Maloofs. They drive up the price of their
franchise to $525 million. Selling it to a Sacramento market would make the price
less attractive.
On the other hand, Selling the franchise to a bigger market would drive the price up
to what it is now at $525 million.
I think this all makes sense . If you pay attention to all of the transaction from the
very beginning starting from the Settlement in 2008, I believe there was truly a
5 year plan from David Stern, to bring the NBA back to Seattle.
If you listen closely to the comments made by Mr. Stern, Stern would always hint
about his disappointment in loosing the Sonics franchise, and a black eye in his
career as a Commissioner of the NBA.
Stern was also quoted, that he personally wants to bring a franchise back to Seattle
before his retirement in 2014.
This is the last chance for all of the villain in the 2008 ugly departure of the Sonics
out of Seattle, to re-write a story book with a happy ending , and bring the Sonics
back to where they belong; In Seattle.
Bennett isn’t on the hook for that- Seattle needed a plan in the can by 2010.
The RSN’s dwarf ticket sales in terms of revenue.