The ILWU won’t just go into the goodnight on this. They are claiming that the judge did not understand the MOU and how it is in violation of the the states environmental protection laws.
The ILWU plans to formally announce their appeal tomorrow afternoon during a press conference.
We’ll let you know if there is anything to be worried about (there isn’t).
Yes, understanding their incompetence is actually challenging. I feel sorry that the original judge even had to read their first complaint.
They shouldn’t even let him speak this time.
“Counselor- your grounds for filing an appeal are that the judge didn’t understand the law involved?”
“Yes, your h-”
“Case dismissed. And cut your stupid hair.”
I guess Steinbrueck is trying to keep his name in the headlines.
They are lucky this made it to a courtroom the first time around
Yep especially he’s running on an anti-arena platform
Also, a special hand for the ILWU. When faced with their counsel telling them, “we only lost because THAT judge doesn’t know law”, they said, “That makes perfect sense! Lets run it again!”
Stupid is as stupid does. Calling one judge ignorant will hardly garner sympathy from another judge.
Seriously, this legal strategy is so bad it makes me wonder if Paul Wulff has a law degree.
I just want it to be April already so all this crap can be finally be put to bed. No more ILWU, no more talking of Bruski/Carmichael Dave, no more whale discussions, and no more politicking from KJ.
Bears knew what they were doing with the whole sleep through Winter thing.
Yes. The judge with extensive land use law experience most likely glossed over the language of the MOU and its SEPA language because he doesn’t understand the law.
This coming from a group that doesn’t understand how to pee standing up.
A jduge doesn’t understand the MOU. Really? LOL!! I sincerely doubt it. First, they shouldn’t be judges if they didn’t understand the MOU. Second, it doesn’t pass the smell test. If the judge doesn’t understand the MOU, thye simply call up the county attorneys for an explanation.
Let the ILWU appeal. They’ll lose. By the time the appeal is heard things will have moved that much further ahead, and the ILWU and their buffoon for hire will be percieved as out-of-touch obstructionists, and rightly so.
The union just conceded their argument about “family wage” jobs (which was always a canard anyways since those clowns make over $100,000 a year). You know what pisses away family wage jobs? Wasting member dues tilting at windmills and then crying and whining about being the smartest people in the room.
Keep on crying ILWU. You can cry all the way to the Port of Tacoma, all the way to the Panama Canal.
This is so disgusting of the ILWU and Steinbruck.
How are you appeal when the case was thrown out? Enough is enough.
You can tell this is irrelevant because Sacramento isn’t excited.
Give it time…
This reminds me of the Des Moines, Sea Tac area residents who were trying to block the construction of a new run way at Sea Tac Airport. Obstructionists and NIMBYs all need to move to Eastern Washington if they don’t like vibrant and growing cities because that’s what Seattle is.
Also, I feel like an idiot but I’ve uploaded an image to gravatar.com… now what?
Nevermind, it works!
As a person who lived in the SeaTac/Des Moines area during the third runway debate, this is nothing like that. Thousands of people lost actual value on their homes, and the noise and pollution is a legitimate issue.
Longshoremen having to spend 10 extra minutes in traffic is not nearly the same as residents of Burien losing 1/3 of their homes value for a surplus runway.
There’s already an airport there and there are already stadiums in SoDo.
2 runways is ok but a 3rd is bad.
2 stadiums is ok but a 3rd is bad.
I have family who lived down there during it too. I’m sorry people weren’t a fan of it and if it did affect people’s home values but I don’t understand how people can stop things like this. It’s the best thing for the good of the city and cities evolve.
Is the ILWU funded entirely on member dues?
Considering the fact that the POS couldn’t survive if it wasn’t slurping ravenously at the teat of the taxpayer, I wouldn’t be surprised if the ILWU is on the same diet in some way or another.
I only bring this up because…good grief…WHAT A HIDEOUS WASTE OF RESOURCES. Seriously. AWFUL. Like felonious…jailable waste of money.
I respect wanting to preserve the value of your home and I’m not trying to start an argument about the airport. I just personally see parallels there.
Uh, I live in Eastern Washington and enjoy it very much, but I do enjoy very much visiting larger cities. I lived in Seattle for over 20 years. And one of the fastest growing areas in the US is in Eastern Washington.
ILWU is stupid and this suit is irrelevant AGAIN I hope it doesnt even see a courtroom. I hope Steinbrueck starts taking some heat for stupidity.
Michael Wallace on a ESPN.com chat said this to a the question; Percentage that the Kings move to Seattle?
Michael Wallace
(2:19 PM)
Considering that the league has already been officially presented the offer from the Seattle group and is reviewing all facets of it, I think it would take a tremendous rally - a grand slam of sorts - for Kevin Johnson’s plan to keep the Kings in Sacramento. My thinking is that it might be a little too late for Sacramento. I also think the only factor that’s allowing the city to even maintain a pulse in this equations is KJ’s credibility with the league as a former star player.
I’m just disagreeing with the impact. The stadium impact (of ?, really- nothing has been demonstrated) won’t have the impact that the third runway had (of devaluing Burien east of First Avenue).
Really, the arena is the opposite of the third runway. In the runway case, a large governing body (the Port) decided where they wanted the runway to go, and the citizens were really helpless to stop it. Here, the citizens would generally prefer to see 250 million in private money invested, but a large governing body (the Port… hey, look at that!) wants to impede it to protect their interest. I’m shocked that they want to have it both ways, just shocked, I say.
That’s fair.
I suppose it’s safe to say you aren’t a fan of the Port Of Seattle… lol.
Not a knock on Eastern Washington. I love Eastern Washington. I just don’t like obstructionist beliefs in large, dense, evolving, growing economically strong cities.
I guess I should watch my words here ;)
scott howard cooper on kjr now.
Scott Howard Cooper will be on KJR Next
Nope. I’ll be thrilled when they’re forced to consolidate their operations to Harbor Island (and Tacoma) so that the Olympic Village can go there for 2024.
This is why we need to have a “Loser Pays” system in place in our legal system. Go ahead. Appeal your case. You lose, you pay everyone’s legal fees including the actual court costs.
Except such a policy would basically restrict the courts to the wealthy and privileged, even more so than the system already is.
The worst part about this is Sac fans thinking it means a damn. Lurking Sac fans; this lawsuit means nothing, the Kings will be the Sonics in 2013-14 playing in Key Arena.
Honestly, it isn’t that they are obstructionist. It is that for just too many years the taxpayers $$$ that was sent to Olympia never made it over the mountains again. The majority of the funds were spent in W WA. E WA got very, very tired of it.
It took almost 30 years to get a freeway going north and south in E WA to help with the traffic that went through the Tri-Cities to meet with I-90 so it could go to Spokane and points east. Lots of accidents and deaths before it finally got built . . . including one of my best friends.
E WA doesn’t care about the money being spent on legitimate items. Just would like to receive their fair portion of the money.
Sometimes that does happen. In fact, if the judge feels like the cause was unwarranted, he/she will order the defendant costs be covered by the plaintiff.
Seattle SuperSonics @BringBackSonics
Scott Howard-Cooper on with @JasonPuckettKJR. Says that Seattle’s deal has everything the BOG/owners is looking for. Corporate $, fans, etc.
Seattle SuperSonics @BringBackSonics
Scott Howard-Cooper said that he believes Seattle still holds the edge. NBA owners don’t go against one another & the Maloofs chose Seattle.
Jason Puckett @JasonPuckettKJR
More from Howard-Cooper from http://NBA.com - Sea still has advantage and owners align themselves w/other owners #SonicsArena
This is exactly it. It is not in an owners best interest to align themselves against other owners, unless the proposition is completely against the other owners best interests. That just doesn’t exist here.
Sac has such great fans though! The owners don’t mind subsidizing the team, because of the great fans!
I think Steinbrueck/Goldman should take their act on the road. They could call it Cirque du so LAME.
Maybe can send KJ some sonics gear as a consolation prize.
If only there was some historical precedent that demonstrated how irrelevant that is… then, maybe I could rest easier.
Well, there WAS this team a few years ago. But they could only fill the Kingdome to 48% capacity. Obviously that means they couldn’t support their team as well.
Lol, didn’t the King Dome have like a 40,000 seating capacity for basketball?
Was a horrible venue too.
Yes. So 40% of 40k so………..19,200 a game. Which by todays standards would make them #6 in the entire league at 40% fill.
And if they really plan on using parking money as funding for their arena………I would think they get sued for that as well. But then again Sac isnt Seattle. They may be willing to bend over like that. Who knows.
M’s going for 10 straight, leading Rockies 12-3 in 5th. Watching on Root Sports.
Pyramid Ale closing its downtown Sactown location. Some in sacbee comments saying they should follow the Kings to Seattle. Hmm..no comment
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/04/5235207/sacramentos-pyramid-alehouse-closes.html
Make that 14-3 after 5 innings.
Looks like Scott Howard-Cooper is taking the brunt of the Sacto Twitter wrath today. Cannot wait for this to be settled.
We do love beer here. But I dont think we need two Pyramids. haha
Of course they don’t mind, they are a warm n fuzzy group. They always go with their hearts in situations like these. They rarely think with their wallets. To them it’s the sentimental value to the city which they play in. If a city told them were not putting up a dime for your new arena, they would simply shrug their shoulders and say I guess we’ve got to open up the checkbook again so we can stay here.
apparently reporting facts make you bias. too bad he isnt impartial like bruski and cmd…..
21,725 / game in 1979-80
Year Total Avg
2007-08 547,556 13,355
2006-07 654,163 15,955
2005-06 664,157 16,198
2004-05 675,490 16,475
2003-04 631,349 15,399
2002-03 637,194 15,541
2001-02 633,516 15,452
2000-01 640,847 15,630
1999-00 615,730 15,018
1998-99 426,800 17,072
1997-98 699,952 17,072
1996-97 699,952 17,072
1995-96 697,301 17,007
1994-95 633,748 15,457
1993-94 601,969 14,682
1992-93 632,205 15,420
1991-92 586,929 14,315
1990-91 510,166 12,443
1989-90 502,014 12,244
1988-89 529,733 12,920
1987-88 492,312 12,008
1986-87 356,362 8,692
1985-86 329,296 8,032
1984-85 303,342 7,399
1983-84 446,970 10,902
1982-83 574,986 14,024
1981-82 750,059 18,294
1980-81 675,097 16,466
1979-80 890,713 21,725
1978-79 747,243 18,225
1977-78 504,668 12,309
1976-77 532,196 12,980
1975-76 557,304 13,593
1974-75 524,692 12,797
1973-74 491,856 11,996
1972-73 387,382 9,448
1971-72 444,302 11,108
1970-71 372,612 9,315
1969-70 278,444 7,735
1968-69 210,232 5,840
1967-68 202,263 6,525
I know not to generalize an entire fanbase by a few idiots online but my favorite part of this saga in regards to public reaction was when that false article came out of Orlando a week or two ago. Even after — AFTER — it got refuted and disproved by Joe Maloof about an hour after it became a real news story, people on STR were commenting how refreshing it was to at least see real journalists reporting real news, not just pro-Seattle hacks like Chris Daniels, Woj, etc.
Stop! We are not doing the attendance argument.
Okay, I am a bit worried about the education in CA. They really have the valuation of the team along with debts completely screwed up. I am reading on a website that the $525M includes the debt that would have to be paid to Sacramento, not what is being paid to the owners. That is like buying a house, but that I am not including that $100K you owe on the house for my proposed purchase price.
The Kings have destroyed us in attendance the last five years. I expect them to start playing that up real heavy in the weeks to come.
Wasnt it also reported that the Maloofs would still own some small part of the franchise?I mean right there is a reason to want to ell to Hansen and Ballmer for the Maloofs on a personal level because they would still be able to say they are owners instead of Mastrov and Burkle buying them out right?
I just thinking the Maloofs will Maloof Hansen and Ballmer
As you should be- that state of the City was pretty stark regarding Sac’s school systems.
LOL…and leave out the pertinent a like we didn’t have the NBA the past 5 years.
@Kevin Nesgoda
“Stop!We are not doing the attendance argument.”
Sorry. Got carried away.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/9015549/longshore-union-appeal-rejection-seattle-arena-lawsuit
Story from espn on the ILWU appeal. No new info, but interesting to see it being reported.
Heard there will be plenty to eat this year, though.
So what happens if ILWU loses again? can they appeal again? If they can, this could be in court for years. I’ve also heard should city/county lose they can appeal.
Yow!!!!
You just smacked the skullet off of Goldman and the pretty off of Steinbrueck.
This lawsuit has more to do with politics than legal precedent. Steinbrueck’s hoping his father’s reputation will win him the Mayor’s office. Problem is most voters either aren’t old enough to remember Victor Steinbrueck or weren’t living here back then.
In other words he’s a sad little man with delusions of grandeur…
Steinbrueck is pimping for the I-heart-taxes-bikes-and-buses Publicola vote. Kinda funny strategy to court a group whose agenda has done nothing but take repeated humiliating public ass-whoopings ever since McGinn took office, but these candidates DO tend to hire the same two or three people to run their campaigns …
Last I checked, we fired the last mayor who messed with the Sonics.
16-5 Ms! Bottom of the eighth
Their appeals shouldn’t be worrying. The first decision was decisive. It’s not as if they barely lost, and maybe a new court would side with them. They got their butts kicked, and the appeals are just a waste of time now.
It’s all good man. Just no OKC tactics here.
uh hyuck uh hyuck 4 + 4 = 5 y’all
I may have grown up in Aberdeen, but that seems off by three.
Sorry, I was practicing my backwater Sacramento math.
Do you think $77M in loan payoff would stop the Hansen group from buying the Kings? I don’t. If they have to pay $525M+$77M (for whatever the loan total is)+relocation fee, I think that will be just fine for them.
Of course not, because it would never come to that. The league would credit them whatever they had to pay for the outstanding loans out of the relocation fee, or waive it altogether.
Been reading comments from Carmichael Dave among others about an alleged $125 mil relocation fee from Sacramento. Two seconds and four mouse clicks research would show him that no team has ever had to pay a relocation fee amount even close to that.
In fact, I would be surprised if they had to pay more than a nominal amount, say $30-$32 mil tops.
Apparently my Mac Worthy comment hit moderation…
does this work?
I don’t thnk that $77M loan to Sacramento can be waived. The league can waive their loan, but not Sacramento’s loan. I have heard so many different numbers for that loan amount, but that will have to be paid if the team is relocated. In fact, from what I have read, it has to be paid at the time the team is moved.
The NBA may ask for $75M relocation fee.
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/nbainseattle/2013/03/04/report-nba-might-ask-for-75-million-or-more-as-a-relocation-fee-if-kings-move-to-seattle/
That is what I have heard as well. Where the Sac fans go off the trail though is by regurgitating that Hansen has to account for the loan in his valuation of the franchise, however Mastrov does not. This is wrong. They both have to account for the loan, only Hansen will end up paying it back upon relocation.
These unnamed reports are getting more and more out there:
Report — NBA might ask for $75 million or more as a relocation fee if Kings move to Seattle
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/nbainseattle/2013/03/04/report-nba-might-ask-for-75-million-or-more-as-a-relocation-fee-if-kings-move-to-seattle/
Im sure the city could waive their loan if they wanted to. But why would they? Seems irresponsible to me.
That $77 million doesn’t get paid until the team is moved, which would be by the Hansen group. I know none of us has seen the terms of the sale but I would be shocked if that $77 million was included in the purchase price. In every large sale I’ve ever heard of the purchaser assumes the debts of the asset being purchased. In Mastrov’s case he would probably refinance with Sacramento while Hansen would pay it in order to leave but, in either case, the Maloofs will be off somewhere spending their new money when that happens.
I do think that if things get sticky at the BOG meeting Hansen could offer to pay a higher than normal relocation fee, let’s say something like $75 million, in order to seal the deal. It’s his final ace in the hole. The relocation fee in general is another reason our offer is higher than the local offer, they aren’t paying a relocation fee so add $30 million (or whatever it ends up being) to the $341 million that the Maloofs get.
Ok, it said it posted my comment but I don’t see it here.
Ahh, it looks like if comments have happened since you started writing it doesn’t work?
Kings fans are sure that the city would waive the loan if someone local purchased the team. For a city that is hurting for money, that would be a really stupid thing to do.
A city that is 63% illiterate it is stupid, although it may be why it happens.
must be why mine didn’t post.
It seems like KJ, the council, and the city manager, etc. have made it clear that the loan will be repaid. I think if the team stays in Sac they’d be open to refinancing it or something, but I’ve seen no indication that they’re willing to just eat that loan.
One thing that should seem somewhat troubling regarding Sac’s proposal is that this is what they consider an effort to revitalize a dead downtown. So Sac’s argument is that they want professional basketball to help fix their local economy and Seattle’s is that we’re already a strong economy? What if downtown development doesn’t cause a resurgence in Sac?
The $77 million will be paid when the team actually moves, at which point the Maloofs won’t be owners anymore. I know none of us have seen the terms of sale here but I would be shocked if that loan is included in the purchase price. In every large sale I’ve ever heard of the purchaser inherits the debt of whatever asset they are purchasing. In Mastrov’s case he would probably refinance the loan with the city of Sacramento, but however it gets paid the Maloofs are gonna be spending their new cash on a beach somewhere when it happens.
The relocation fee could get interesting though. If the BOG meeting isn’t going well I wonder if Hansen would offer to pay a much larger than normal fee (say $75 million) as a way to seal the deal. It could be his ace in the hole. In any event the value of our bid is always going to be higher than theirs for the simple reason that Mastrov isn’t going to pay any relocation fee, so we can automatically add whatever that is (probably $30 million) to the $341 million on the table. And that money goes to all the owners, not just the Maloofs.
Nope, it failed to post that comment again after I rewrote it. WTF?
And now it’s saying it’s a dupe, maybe I’m stuck in moderation?
This all boils down to a very simple question - and everyone will give the same answer. Would you rather have:
Option A - Business worth $525MM and no existing debt
Option B - Business worth $450 + $75MM debt.
Which makes this spin that they can just net the debt out of the cost of the franchise so ludicrous but when that is your play you really know, deep down, you have already lost.
Hmm, looking at the source of the page I see both comments I posted, neither are visible though.
Ahh they just showed up! Sorry for all the spamming.
exactly
Is this supposed to be a real statistic? If so, what’s the source?
That’s what KJ said at the state of the city.
People on StR don’t like David Aldridge.
All of the Sac council docs and the previous deal required the loan to be repaid. It is not going to be forgiven.
$75 million relocation fee? Extortion?
Any specific reason why or do they just lump him in with Woj and Chris Daniels?
I was surprised by the number too. I wonder if he meant 67% don’t read at the appropriate reading level?
Thats the context I took it in because he said something about grade level before the 60% comment. I highly doubt that the city Of Sacramento is even close to that level. In fact that would be absurd lol
He isn’t pro-Sacramento. I don’t think he is pro-any city, but they don’t like anyone who doesn’t sound like Bruzki or Carmichael Dave.
I highly doubt a 100 million dollar (????) relocation would derail a billion dollar plus investment. Maybe the NBA is making that the standard so relocation will be harder from here on out and make investors give pause to the idea to slow down relocations. Plus the fact that we were moved for what 30 million and the increase in a teams value has increased what 70% that number doesnt seem to absurd IMO.
If a high relocation fee is the cost to get a team here and take it from a city who does care then so be it. Maybe the owners are using it as justification for moving the team so they can cite the money made off the sale due to increased franchise valuation, having one less revenue sharing club and most likely adding a luxury tax payer, and getting 3 million plus or each team. Alot of incentive for owners NOT to tell another owner what to do; dont ya think?
Whoa, take it easy there cowboy. The Kingdome was not an *ideal* venue for basketball but it was far from terrible. It did successfully host three Final Fours and years of great Sonics games. Players complained about the background being hard to adjust to for shooting, but from a fan perspective it could have been worse. The Coliseum/Key Arena was much, much better of course. But I would take the Kingdome setup over the Tacoma Dome any day of the week. I liked how when you had tickets in the temporary side of the lower bowl, you got to walk right behind the baskets and courtside seating on the way to your seats. I saw Jordan in his rookie year at the dome. I watched NC State win the national championship on the DiamondVision screen, then watched the Sonics beat the Lakers after that game ended. I saw Magic get the MVP award for Tom Chambers in the All-Star Game (from really bad seats, but still). And packing in 40,000 fans for playoff games made for a pretty awesome atmosphere.
The Dome wasn’t great, but terrible? Nah. It was passable.
60% illiterate is not a stat that any city would like to have. We have a lot of hispanics in my area who cannot read English well. Most can read it somewhat. However, they can read Spanish so I don’t really call that illiterate.
A friend of mine here is from Mexico. He is still a Mexican citizen, but has residency rights. Anyway, he cannot read English, but he still does very well as far as work goes. In fact, he does very well.
I remember him mentioning grade level too. No way any US city has 67% not read good ;)
Kobe agrees with me
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/9016638/kobe-bryant-says-smacked-serge-ibaka-retaliation-groin-punch-blake-griffin
Of course when Rambis went after McHale after the clothesline takedown IN THE 80′s he didn’t have to worry about Stephen A and the Leprechaun discussing it ad naseaum for an hour on ESPN. Things have sure changed.
Ok I understand now
More from the “Capital of the eighth-largest economy in the world”:
Two J.R.’s Texas Bar-B-Que restaurants in Sacramento close http://sacb.ee/XHwq0S
The education system sucks everywhere in America. There’s no need for us to make fun of Sacramento’s school system or economy.
Without investment Sacramento surely has the most to lose. And know I want ribs.
I would agree that it is generally distasteful for us to be gloating about closed businesses in Sacramento. We get the point. Their economy is having a tough time.
What purpose does it serve?
BTW I like the new format.
I don’t see how the Maloofs can back out at the BOG meeting, or how even the NBA can let them. The Maloofs were only allowed to take other offers until 2/1, and after that they were locked in to selling to Hansen. It seems to me reneging would be breach of contract on the Maloofs, and the league would be liable also if they let them breach a contract.
Completely agree. No reason to bash other cities, not pertinent to any relocation.
Businesses close in Seattle too. Can’t take cheap shots like that.
I don’t get the fixation with Kings fans’ hatred of any and all media that aren’t pro-Sacramento. The only media figure from outside Seattle that we didn’t hate was Bill Simmons, and that’s because he banged the drum for Seattle like Bruski and Amick are for Sacramento. We loathed all those jerks from Bennett’s OKC version of Pravda, but guess what? They were right.
“Not picking on OKC or anything like that, but this was a huge turning point in the game. About 45 seconds later Ibaka got Griffin his 6th foul and he should have never been on the court.”
Absolutely that should have been ejected. Unbelievable. The ball was literally behind ibaka and above his fucking head, and he turns 180 and tries the punch the dude’s balls. completely unacceptable. and NEVER BE ASHAMED OF PICKING ON OKC.
F that goddamn city. F that goddamn team. F OKC forever, ALWAYS. NEVER apologize.
Another thing I dont understand is why people assume in Sacramento and a few elsewhere that since the Maloofs asked for relocation because they had too for Hansen as Mr. Hansen is waiting for approval and the NBA and Hansen wouldnt want a full lame duck season next year. WHY WOULD THE MALOOFS have to pay for the relocation because if the team moves they are not the ones actually moving it. Hansen is paying the relocation fee and that fee will be set by the Relocation committee or the NBA if you will.
The relocation fee is not part of the 525 million I can almost guarantee that. Sure people draw the parallel because of the 30 million deposit and the fact that is where the last relocation cost was. In my opinion the 30 million was for exclusive rights and a big enough figure to hld the Maloofs to their word. If it was only a couple million the Maloofs could easily re-neg and pay back or be forced to pay back and have it be a negligble loss to them.
Whatever the relocation fee is, it isnt part of the sales price IMO. Now the 77 million is debatable as to whether or not it will be part of the PSA. It would make sense that it would be because the franchise owes it. Now if it is 77 million overall wouldnt that mean that Hansen would only have to pay 65% of that 77 million or around 50 million?
Now lets say that the loan isnt part of the valuation or what the Maloofs stand to get paid and the relocation fee isnt a part of it either. So if the 75 million figure is correct and then Hansen has to pay the 50 million on the loan that would mean Hansen is roughly paying 650 million dollars. Now who knows if Sleep Train could be used as payment of the loan and take away the 77 million figure. I dont know how much the arena and the land it sits on is worth but Im sure it is close to 77 million so theoretically Hansen may end up owing nothing on the loan right?
Well, if you looked at some of the Sacramento blogs they were certainly happy about Pyramid closing because it is a Seattle company.
Closing in Sacramento.
Would the Maloofs get out of the deal with Hansen because they think they can do better with Sac group? 30 million reasons to stay with the Hansen sale.
If you steal someone’s girlfriend you expect the dude to hate on you, there’s no reason to hate him if you have his girlfriend.
Nah, but ya beat him down once to destroy all his self confidence, right?
If the report about a potential $75 mil relo fee is correct, than the $30 mil payment wasn’t the relocation fee. Fact is, the Maloofs only had til 2/1 to back out and take another deal. They didn’t, and the payment went down. I cant see how the Maloofs aren’t locked in to selling to Hansen. Telling BOG they want the SAC deal in April would open them, and likely the league if they let them, to accusations of breach of contract.
The arena and land owned by MSE (Maloof) I believe is valued at 40 million. It is upside down.
I spoke to soon. Forbes has the arena with a team valued at 90 million. I’m actually quite surprised.
So we are scammin on Sacramento’s squirrel…good way to put it. Though if you get bad mouthed enough by the ex you put him in his place……..not that we are there yet because IMO they are being played for PR purposes by the league and its owners plus its own mayor and whales.
I really think at this point making a offer close to Hansen’s cannot be considered good enough and is more of a play for the future and Mastrov/Burkle aligning themselves for the next franchise IMO. If the team costs around the 525 valuation in Sacramento that is a serious overpay which isnt Burkle’s M.O. Guys like Mastrov and Burkle have patience and will want the best deal possible KJ on the other hand may be playing to win NOW but Burkle may be in it for the long haul as well as Mastrov. So they may be positioning themselves long term.
In fact if John Kehriotis bid is legitimate then Burkle and Mastrov may not even being the ones buying if the team were to stay in Sacramento. You would think the Maloofs will not sell to Burkle because they dont like him or KJ. So if they stand to make the same amount of money with B & M or Kehriotis they probably side with JK since they already have a working relationship.
The point is most likely moot but I just think that Mastrov and Burkle are hedging their bets and if the NBA denies Hansen and pushes the Maloofs to take the smaller offer from M & B they obviously win. If they position themselves to be legitimate buyers and/or front runners to buy another team to relocate then they win as well (at least THEY being Burkle and Mastrov maybe not the fans in the near term).
Kevin , are you able to increase the font size of the name of the poster , or make it green so it stands out a tad more, thanks
Yeah, one thing that is discounted is that SAC has a built-in fan base. It likely wont help them when they are going against our deal, but when going against LV, KC, Anaheim, Vancouver, Columbus, etc, it could be a huge advantage for them in that none of those other cities have a history of supporting a team and SAC does. Just a thing to think about as this is the reason that SAC will get a new team down the line should the Kings move IMO.
Maybe the arena is valued at 40 million w/out a team. If it is closer to the high end or lets say 70 million then well there you go……the city will get the arena and the money owed on the loan is a moot point or a negligible payout which hurts Sacramento’s chances more IMO. Thus if the loan is part of the 341 million then it really isnt costing the Maloofs anything out of their pocket like the Sacramento fans are hoping. I say that because they are trying to justify that a lesser offer from Sacramento’s whales is because of the loan repayment and relocation fee as being part of the PSA. It sounds like the loan may be a negligible amount and the relocation will be paid by Hansen when it is asked for by the BoG. Sounds like all those “issues” that put leverage into Sacramento’s offer is a bunch of smoke and no fire.
No we aren’t. But because we know the terms of the loan much better than you do (seeing as it’s been part of the conversation for us for about 15 years now), we also know better to confuse the difference between renegotiating terms of a loan and forgiving a loan altogether.
You guys do realize that banking on the loan being a big part of why B & M’s offer is better for the Maloofs is backwards right? If the arena can be used then the amount Hansen or the Maloofs (whoever is paying) will be neglible.
Plus I see that the going theme is the relocation fee and the more it is being helpful to Sac. That isnt the case the Maloofs HAD to file for relocation because the NBA would not want a full lame duck season nor would Hansen. Hansen is paying the relocation fee after it is announced to him. Im sure the league already gave him an indication of a ballpark figure on it. The 30 million was for exclusivity and it is that number to make sure it is a decent amount (in owners terms) so the Maloofs dont Maloof after February 1st.
Hey Brian. Curious to hear your thoughts regarding the whale developments from last week.
My understanding of this scenario, which I think is highly unlikely, but it is the Maloofs so I guess you never know, is that they wouldn’t actually “back out” but would just let the BOG know privately that they would prefer the PSA to be denied and that they would be ok with selling to Mastrov.
Like I said, I don’t think that’s going to happen, there are financial, legal, and personal reasons for them to stay the course and I don’t agree with Aldridge’s take that this is entirely in their hands anyway. I think the NBA has too many reasons to say yes to this and very few to say no.
Just when I think I have this thing figured out. My head hurts.
I am certain that I am uncertain.
Surely, the fact that David Aldridge says it’s down to the Maloofs, and the fact that Hansen is going to sue the pants off them if they back out (especially given the financial situation they’re already in) makes this a done deal. No matter what comes out of Sacto.
Idea: Right hand side of this site that you just click on Reference Pages. These would be permanent reference headers called: Known Facts Checker: You could click on it at so you could check all the known facts we know thus far. PSA, $$ Amounts, Important Dates, etc. This would cut down on all the re-checking of actually known facts vs what we think we know. Ex: I thought the $30mil paid by Hansen was a downpayment for exclusivity between Hansen/MaGoof’s. On this site, it was posted that the $30mil was for relocation. These reference headers would cut down on confusion and re-posts. We could also have a permanent header called Speculation where you could quickly click for what’s generally considered part of the deal but not verified. You could have a header called Quotes/Written Comments: This could include links for printed stories from National Sources/Stern, etc. I think this would be incredibly handy and cut-down on alot of “Who said that?, I think he said this. I read this somewhere.” These would be easily accessible reference pages.
I’m pretty technically challenged so I have no idea how hard that would be to do. But, man, that would be handy and cut-down on a whole lot of re-posts of the same info.
BTW - - What was the $30mil payment for ? Does anybody truly know ?
What’s better for the Maloofs is what puts the most amount of money in their pockets. That’s what the NBA BOG is looking at. Period. They care about money; they don’t give a rats ass about fanbases or opinions or anything else.
As far as why it makes a difference, well it’s one thing Burkle/Mastrov do not have to pay immediately that Hansen would. Obviously that would also include the relocation fee (whatever that ends up being if it gets that far) since Burkle/Mastrov are not going to relocate the team.
I’ve said this time and time and time and time and time again: This isn’t about deciding whether or not the NBA wants to be in Seattle. This is about whether or not the NBA wants to continue to stay in Sacramento. Since the NBA owners are in the habit of continually asking municipalities for large sums of money, burning a market willing to offer such a subsidy and being spurned anyway is a tough precedent for owners who have demanded repeatedly that public investment is a mandatory ingredient to have a NBA franchise in your city.
Maybe owners don’t think public subsidy’s matter any longer, but I know they do. The question is whether or not burning Sacramento hurts them down the line. It surely won’t help any of the owners needing that public contribution when they go to their particular municipality to ask for money.
So, as I’ve been saying for awhile, I think what the NBA is really trying to look at is a way to include Seattle and Sacramento in the conversation. On both ends, Seattle and expansion and Sacramento and keeping the Kings make much more sense than the flip of that scenario. For both sides.
The question is then to make the numbers work which is always tricky given how often the NBA has repeatedly maintained expansion is off the table A) and B) just finished with a particularly interesting lockout talking about making profits. If suddenly owners have to dip heavily into their pockets and spend a significant part of their fortune to make another fortune, well, I don’t see that sitting well with the current ownership either. These are not people who have any express desire to see, say, Steve Ballmer spend 5 billion to bring the NBA back to Seattle after demanding a hard cap and profitability before revenue sharing during a lockout. That flies in the face of what the BOG has seemingly been attempting to accomplish on every fundamental level.
No matter what happens by April 19th, there will be an extremely new precedent set here. Either A) the NBA turns a major subsidy or B) turns down a major player ownership group. That is an ugly decision to make. I would rather not have to make it were I the NBA. But that’s me.
The Maloofs always Maloof. It’s one of the priceless (or absolutely ridiculous I’m not sure which) things about them.
You’re absolutely right. Retracted.
2 comments by paragraph.
1. I would say the Maloofs already made their choice given they signed a PSA with Hansen and took a $30MM deposit. And this is speculation on my part but I don’t buy for a second Mastrov, etc found out the team was for sale when it was announced as being sold to Hansen.
2. Not sure why this public subsidy argument keeps getting put out there as a deciding factor when Seattle is putting up $200MM in public money towards this project. Its not like its a choice of Sac with big public subsidy and Seattle with none. Both the City and County are stepping up to help get this building done.
Tomorrow’s commentary is in the can, available at 5am.
Resisting urge to read it now.
There is no expansion and the Kings have been sold to Chris Hansen.
Eastern or Pacific standard time?
Has there been any suggestion from semi-legitimate sources that the city would forgive the $77M loan if the MastroBurkle group were to purchase the team? That seems highly unlikely, if not impossible.
Assuming that loan won’t be forgiven, the $77M is a non-factor. Sure, Hansen will have to pay it “right away” if he buys and relocates the team. But he can just borrow $77M on a long-term basis from someone else (i.e., a bank) to pay off the $77M owed to the city of Sacramento. It then becomes a long-term liability to Hansen, just as it would for the Mastrov group if they were to buy the team. In other words, both potential purchasers will have to account for the $77M — it is not an advantage for Sac. Am I missing something?
1) Is it a deposit for exclusivity ? Does anyone know this for sure ? I was told on this site it was for relocation. These things make my head explode.
2) Yes, good point. City/County are participating in a safe unique financing plan.
That’s why the Easy Click Reference pages I suggested in a couple posts above would be sooooo helpful. Would make fact checking easier for all of us
Bad news, it’s not about James Cotton.
Geez, your good !!
A Sac buyer assumes just as much debt as Hansen would, they’re just shelving it to be paid later. It’s not giving Sac an advantage. The relocation fee is also simply an additional cost for Hansen, irrelevant to the valuation. I also wouldn’t be shocked, if all of the talk of a high relocation fee were true, if Hansen just paid it anyways. Might sting for a minute, but he takes his team free and clear.
And kingsguru, there is more to the precedent of rejecting the Seattle deal than simply “rejecting a strong ownership group”, it’s rejecting a strong ownership group that has a binding PSA, for reasons that have nothing to do with that group or the deal itself. The closest example to something like this happening was in MLB, where an ownership group had a purchase agreement rejected when they had purchased the SF Giants with intent to move. The MLB quickly gave Tampa an expansion team when their chances in court looked dim. The other precedent set is the biggest one for the owners, that they do not have final say over who they sell their team to and for how much. This would essentially take away fundamental rights of ownership. While the BOG approves or rejects sales based on certain criteria, to blow the scope of that discretion that wide open would essentially mean no owner actually owns a team, the NBA owns them all and is licensing out the right to play an owner.
The ILWU knows they can’t win…they just want to drag it out long enough in hopes it can stop a team from coming here and passively kill the project.
We honestly don’t know. Due to the nature of signed and sealed sales agreements in the NBA, we really aren’t privy to any of the details. So while Sac fans are completely guessing about the details, so are we.
NBA is not like MLS where its single entity.
Seattle and King county are putting up a total of 200m
I would assume it was to keep them from going out shopping the deal to other parties. The whole relocation fee talk likely came form the last fee being $30 million, so it matches. Also, early reports indicated it included it, but we really have no idea.
I dont think you get the point that the Maloofs/Hansen are just going to give the arena to the city and will make up the rest. If the arena w/tenant is worth 90 million and lets say 40 million w/out (land included of course) then Hansen really only has to come up with 65% of the 37 million that is left. Now the value of the arena could be higher without a tenant or maybe lower. Either way the NBA is going to assume the debt has to be paid by arena and money or just money by any party involved whether that is this year or over “x” amount of years.
Essentially a smaller bid by Mastrov is still a smaller amount no matter what. Like I have said before this is about hoping for the best and preparing for the worst by KJ/Mastrov/Burkle. The most likely out come is that they have an offer out there for any owner to call upon like in Milwaukee. The NBA knows the Maloofs have the PSA with Hansen and with the very fickle political climate here this arena deal may not be on the table the next time a franchise could be lined up the MOU may have been undermined if Steinbrueck gains power and his cronies. If the NBA could assume that Hansen/Ballmer would be there indefinently then Sacramento would have a much better chance with the league.
The league wants Seattle back and they have a golden opportuinty. Honestly it is speculation at this point what the “subsidy” will be in Sacramento. It will probably exceed 200 million but if it is 255 like before; the subsidy is then only 20% larger than the one in Seattle. That is not really a precedent setting manuever in that respect. Maybe it could be construed as such with a city willing to pay and having investors lined up and the team leaves anyways but still that wont stop the owners. The league couldve made Bennett sell to Ballmer before and an arena wouldve been financed shortly thereafter but they didnt. The only difference is Bennett owned the team and Hansen only block from being owner is the BoG approval. Like Mike Baker said semantics aside Hansen has bought the team for a price that makes all the owners a lot of money, saves them money from revenue sharing, will make them more money if/when Hansen spends over the luxury tax threshold, and the handsome relocation fee (which IS NOT a part of the PSA).
You’re right, they wouldn’t.
The only difference here is that NBA relocation rules dictate that the debt to Sacto must be paid when the team relocation is approved (meaning Hansen is forking out the $77mill automatically to move the team to Seattle). If the team stays in Sacto, Mastrov has as much time to repay it as the city is willing to give him - the team is not relocating, so he doesn’t have to pay it straight up.
So it’s not off the books by any means, but it’s also not a straight up purchase fee for Sacto-based buyers like it is for Hansen.
Dammit! I was waiting for that one!
Sherrell Ford? Please? :-)
An obligation is an obligation.
Yeah - it was easier just to say “Seattle” but talking more specifically about the region.
Its a line of thinking I have seen trotted out on more than one occasion but it completely ignores the fact that the Seattle deal is a public/private partnership with a large “public subsidy” as well.
And Sac right now only has a theory, not telling how much they will be asked to put up and no telling they will even get to a deal. Seattle’s deal is already negotiated … Sac is hoping to put a term sheet in front of the NBA, which is basically a set of principles that will then, hopefully, evolve into a fully negotiated arena deal. So, in the public subsidy argument, Seattle is winning that right now too.
How about Sarunas Marciulionis?
I think the assumption that the 30 million fee was for relocation was preposterous. Bennett paid around that amount but the franchise values werent at the level they are now. Hansen’s purchase raised the franchise values (with a big help from the new CBA) thus the relocation fee is going to raise as well. The relocation fee was always going to be more IMO. Why wouldnt the NBA ask for more. Bennett bought the Sonics for what 300 million plus so a 30 million relocation fee is 10% of the cost to purchase. With that as reference then a 55 million relocation fee would make sense. That is just me drawing a line though to come with 10% and in no way is that probably how they come up with the relocation fee.
Who knows Hansen couldve thrown the 75 million number out there at purchase to enhance the owners’ interest in staying true to move above all else.
It’s not about Jammin James Bailey, part of Rick Barry’s “parachute club”, either.
Troll! Troll! TROLL!…That’s what I’m suppose to say when someone from the “other side” comes and posts here right??? Naw, Just kidding!
Here’s the thing, we can hang onto every fans, bloggers, and sportswriters opinion, “close sources”, or “you don’t get my cities arena plan”. All we can do is speculate. Sacramento fans are going to hang onto every piece of news regarding the kings and try to figure out how it can benefit them. We are going to do the same thing here (and many of us did, myself included, in 2008). I remember Schultz’s lawsuit trying to get the Sonics back on account of the whole “good faith” clause. I believe a ESPN analyst even wrote they believed it had a better than 50% shot. I really thought we had a chance with that. I’m sure anyone outside of Seattle saw right through that PR move by Howard Schultz. It didn’t matter at the time what anyone else tried to tell me. I wasn’t listending to them. Sacramento fans are not listening to anyone outside of sacramento. It’s okay, we don’t have to refute or defend chris hansen or the city. They are big boys capable of defending themselves. There’s a lot of talk now about the valuation that Hansen offered for the Kings, whether it included debts, location fees, and city debt. No one outside of the NBA, Hansen and the Maloofs know how this evaluation worked. Oh yeah, and the Maloofs seemed happy enough about it considering the broke their “we are not going to sell” stance to accepting an offer. Let’s try to stay above the speculation, FWIW’s and IMO’s (come on people, this isn’t twitter, you can type out the whole phrase!!!). Kevin is not worried. Mike isn’t reading any of the Sacramento blogs. Brian is ready to start game threads. They can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe this isn’t because they hang to every news coming out of Seattle or Sacramento, but because they’ve seen what Chris Hansen has done so far, and they believe in him. I think its time we all start putting a little more faith in him
Agreed, I also think it is “fair” that the NBA requires a higher relocation fee when Hansen is buying and moving a team, vs. buying, trying to build an arena, failing then moving the team. We all know Bennett had poor intentions from the start, but from theNBA’s perspective he spent several years “trying” to build an arena, all while sustaining losses playing in Key Arena. Hansen is buying the team and moving it to a market that will be profitable from day 1. Different situations.
Why must you consistently break my heart?
By the way, like the new format Kevin. Your hard work is appreciated!
Your statement -” BOG approves or rejects sales based on certain criteria” Do you or anyone know what that criteria is ? Per all of our statements here, the team has been sold to Hansen. Then why is NBA allowing Sac to present a bid/proposal? I’ve asked this a zillion times. The NBA has created this Circus and mayhem. Just seems so senseless.
Exactly the NBA is going to look at it as an obligation no matter what even if its paid in a day or 100 days per se. Also its highly doubtfull Sacramento forgiving the debt will not be met with huge opposition by the constituents especially if the city is trying to pay 60-70% of the arena bill and giving sweetheart deals to Burkle on other land to make their “Sacramento Live” venue they hope to make. Plus I dont think its too big of an assumption that the NBA may be more intrigued by a 500 million dollar venue than a 400 million one.
Well, the cynic in me thinks they want to prolong the hope as long as they can so they keep people in the seats. If they announced the move now attendance would sink and so would all the ancillary revenues that go along with it.
There last home game is 4/17 … 2 days later the BOG votes.
I have all the faith in the world in Hansen. However, it is now out of his control. It’s now in the NBA’s control.
This maybe a bad question or useless at best, but here I go. Does the Sacramento group have to bid on the whole 63 - 65% bid or just the Maloof shares to gain majority. Excuse me if this has been addressed.
Since the NBA owners are in the habit of continually asking municipalities for large sums of money, burning a market willing to offer such a subsidy and being spurned anyway is a tough precedent for owners who have demanded repeatedly that public investment is a mandatory ingredient to have a NBA franchise in your city.
Maybe owners don’t think public subsidy’s matter any longer, but I know they do. The question is whether or not burning Sacramento hurts them down the line. It surely won’t help any of the owners needing that public contribution when they go to their particular municipality to ask for money.
Well, Seattle spent public money renovating Key Arena in the mid-1990s, and in return they got a 15-year lease (which was already truncated, since the renovation was supposed to be paid off over 20 years) that the team ultimately was able to wriggle out of two years early. So you could argue that is as much a cautionary tale against public subsidies than what might happen to Sacramento.
Also, Kansas City offered the Kings a sweet lease deal to stay there back in 1985, but instead the Sacramento ownership group (which had claimed that they wanted to stay in KC) moved to their hometown and built an arena without and public involvement. So if public subsidies were some kind of standard for having an NBA team, the Kings would have stayed in Kansas City.
Besides, quite a few current arenas were built with all or mostly private money-Portland, Denver, Utah, New York, Brooklyn, Boston, Toronto, Philadelphia, Washington, Detroit, Chicago, L.A, and others (Dallas, Phoenix, Indiana, Cleveland) had heavy private funding as well. So it’s not some rule that an arena has to be mostly subsidized.
and built an arena without and public involvement
make that “without any public involvement”
Don’t know exactly what the criteria are, but one of Hansen’s people made mention to such a set of criteria being listed in the NBA Constitution, which is, of course, private.
I find it extremely unlikely that the NBA would go in any direction that did not leave the Maloofs AND Heinrich, as both are participants in the PSA, whole.
So, as I’ve been saying for awhile, I think what the NBA is really trying to look at is a way to include Seattle and Sacramento in the conversation. On both ends, Seattle and expansion and Sacramento and keeping the Kings make much more sense than the flip of that scenario. For both sides.
I agree. But that seems certain not to happen. That’s why I’m not really looking forward to the outcome. A deserving, long-suffering town and fanbase gets devastated either way.
Yeah I agree Sean, there is no way that they wouldnt have to bid on what Seattle has on the table essentially.
I’ve done it on the old Sonics Central site.
That dude has a documentary about him, he’s a hero at home, and rightly so.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1606829/
For some reason I always liked him - he played like a bull in a china shop.
Assuming that the other owners are willing to continue to lose money in Sacramento for unknown years, they probably only need to purchase the Maloofs 53% and the 7% that is in bankruptcy.
They wouldn’t need to purchase Heinrich’s interest if he wanted to reamin an owner in Sac.
yes that is the major caveat but I think its been documented that he has had that investment handles by the Maloofs for the most part but that is definently conceivable
Why? Heinrich’s portion is in the purchase that will be over if the NBA does not approve the sale. Heinrich still will own his share so he could sell to Mastrov or continue to hold that interest.
I think that it would be in their best interest to say it is fair and competitive to bid off what has been purchased by Hansen. I think it would hurt his efforts unless Heinrich said that he felt he had to sell because the Maloofs were. It sounds like the Maloofs represented Heinrich’s share and he was strictly an investor who allowed them to control it. I dont think that Mastrov/Burkle would bid on 53 as it is something the NBA could use as a major factor to not take them seriously. Just my opinion and could be off base BUT I just doubt the NBA would take a offer that neglects one of the sellers who have agreed to sell already seriously.
Now if the PSA is denied then yes Heinrich could say he doesnt want to sell his portion anymore and Mastrov and Burkle would have to come to an agreement with the Maloofs which I doubt the Maloofs would feel very great about doing.
If Aldridge is correct (even though I think it is more likely spin from putting blame on the BoG) if he correct then this is already over in my opinion. Even if the Maloofs stand to make 5-10 million more with a local buyer with Burkle involved they probably go for the other offer.
Honestly I believe if the Hansen PSA falls apart and Kehriotis and Mastrov both have their bids in and they both pass the NBA vetting the team will end up in Kehriotis hand. Honestly I dont think if the Maloofs have any sort of choice in who they sell to locally (DOUBTUL this happens) it will be with anyone other than Burkle especially with KJ involved.
Here is the big question if you’re the NBA (that I’d love for Sacramento fans to explain) what about the term sheet guarantees that an arena gets built? If Madtrov is “granted” the team what is in place to prevent him, Burkle or the city from saying “never mind…we don’t feel like subsidizing an Arena anymore…the numbers just don’t work”?
At least with the SEA situation the only way an arena is stopped is if it fails EIS…other then that…the City and Ballmer have a binding agreement. Neither party can back out just cause they don’t feel like it.
I Know there is an unofficial Bruski ban but this is his latest PBT post
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/04/future-of-nba-arena-subsidies-market-comparisons-to-decide-kings-fate/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Bet you guys will never guess what side this article is spun towards…….;)
So here’s what I’m curious about:
One of the big appeals that SAC fans hang onto is if a local buyer somehow, miraculously, wound up buying the Kings, that said local ownership could assume the $77 million loan and therefore any “bid” from Mastrov would be worth more; because part of the Hansen $341 million would go toward paying off the loan.
To me, this doesn’t make sense. If Hansen buys the Kings, he would assume 65% of all assets AND debts connected to the team, right?
Wouldn’t this also mean he’d also assume the $77 million loan on top of the money he’s paying the Maloofs? Because unless the loan is a personal loan to the Maloofs, as opposed to a loan MSE, then it should be part of the Kings’ asset/debt sheet, right?
If THAT is the case, then any “bid” that Mastrov would put together would still be less than Hansen’s (since it’s been reported that it’ll be less than $341 million) PSA amount.
Am I completely off base here?
I say we vote to make that the official policy!
Now to be a hypocrite…I just finished reading it. It made for a good laugh. Anybody want to put some money on his “sources” being CMD??? But again, it doesn’t matter how he spins it, or how much we can refute most of his points, it’s up to the BOG to either vote yes or no on Hansen and Maloofs PSA.
So relocation is 2/3 approval right. Im having a brain fart….that would mean that Sacramento would need to sway 11 votes I doubt that happens……but as usual it will either be almost unanimous or not
I’m not entirely sure his “sources” aren’t just the voices in his head making crap up.
In my world, I’ve been trained to follow the money. 99.9% of the time it will lead you to the truth. Hansen Group has bought the Kings with a legal binding sales agreement complete and a $30mil payment. Most here say it’s a done deal for the zillion reasons discussed ad nausiem. Stern/NBA is only stringing this along to keep paying cheeks in the seats for the rest of this season.
If we all agree that the PSA is a done deal - - What’s in it for Mastrov/Burkle? They and many others, including the city of Sac, have spent a boatload of money and time fighting this PSA. They’ve spent alot of money and time putting together a proposal/bid to present to the NBA. We can all assume KJ is doing this for political posturing and re-election. What’s the financial motivation for Burkle/Mastrov to spend their time and money in this sham Sac proposal/bid?
Well, that will give the Sac fans plenty of reason to smile.
Here is the thing . . . the BOG only votes on the Hansen group purchase. IF they say no to them, then the Maloofs get to start over on who to sell the team. The Hansen group loses $30M (and I don’t think they will sue anyone to recover it). The Hansen group will then need to decide if they want to continue to deal with the NBA.
Funny how Bruski pretty much disagrees with everything Aldridge said that couldve been construed as favorable for us
I have read multiple places that they only need 8 votes to say “no”. When the Sonics move was voted on by the BOG there were only 2 “no” votes.
Have Mastrov and Burkle spent a lot of money? I’d say Mastrov wants to own a team and this is a chance (long shot that it is) that seldom comes up. Burkle is a business man. With the right amount of subsidy, a nice little arena with development all around it in downtown location could make some money. He obviously believes in this philosophy of arena profitability if he is in on a bid for AEG.
I thought the relocation vote only needs a majority.
This is off topic slightly, but the Timberwolves have been for sale for a while, and it looks like someone might finally buy them.
http://www.nba.com/2013/news/03/04/saunders-wolves-ownership/
The thing I found interesting is something i have been wondering myself, how much are they worth and how much are they going to sell for? The article mentions this which is why I am bringing this up here.
“There is still no timetable for Taylor making a deal. He may want to see what plays out with the Kings first before making a move. The Maloof brothers have an agreement in place to sell the Kings to a group that would move them to Seattle, but Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson has pulled together a local group to make a bid at keeping the team there. Whoever gets the team, and at what price, could go a long way toward setting a value for the Timberwolves.”
I think purchase needs 75% and relocation needs 2/3rds.
Thought purchase needs 75 and relo 50
In an article full of biased information I find this except the most curious:
I could see it as an issue if all six sports (really? Counting the Sounders and Storm?) played multi-week games all at the same time, but the truth is, there is a void of winter entertainment options when the nights are long, dark and wet here in the Pacific Northwest. The fact remains that TV brings in the majority of the revenue for sports teams, and sports are the last vestige of non-DVR television.
Sorry for confusing everyone. yes sale is 3/4 and relo is 1/2 I believe. CRAP Im sorry guys if I led to you second guessing myself
Yeah, relocation only needs 50%. Sale needs 75%.
One last point to my post above. The fact is, with so many teams in one city, it will boost the revenue generated from an RSA. That way the RSA has content all year round and doesn’t have to resort to replaying junior hockey (I’m looking at you ROOT) during the winter season.
Don’t know about the Storm, but the Sounders do a pretty good job getting poeple in the stadium.
When I lived in Seattle, I had both Seahawks and Mariners season tickets. I had family who had Sonics season tickets.
Not sure, but I would think that Seattle has a pretty good number for disposable income so not sure that it is a real issue to have multiple sports.
Actually, I think they have spent alot of time & money. Supposedly they have been working around the clock to get this done. Can’t even imagine the legal fees & consultants fees they’ve ensued by putting together their proposal. They will spend much more time & dollars between now & mid April. So what’s their payoff ? Political favors? Posturing for the purchase for the next available team? That could be years away and one would assume even more expensive for the next available team. Yes, these are rich businessmen - but, man, they want some sort of return on their time & dollars.
I would imagine so has Hansen, et al, but not sure that the BOG will be considering it.
He wasn’t talking about population to equity ratios, he was talking about TV markets. As much as we would all hate to admit it, game attendance for basketball doesn’t matter much to the NBA (hockey, MLS, and WNBA it matter almost exclusively) business model.
I’d be surprised if they’ve spent anything more than a negligible amount of money. All they’ve done is make an offer, and legal fees are a drop in the bucket for guys with that kind of coin.
Frankly, I don’t trust the NBA so I am not going to invest my emotions into getting the team. They turned on us once. They could do it again. When I hear that the BOG has voted to approve the sale, then I will celebrate. Until then, it is just talk which I enjoy. I do enjoy talking “what ifs”. I am not going start following the NBA. Just can’t do it until the NBA is coming back to Seattle.
Funny how I was thinking the EXACT same thing when I read the article!
Well, I can tell you that E WA would support the team if they show the games over here. Under Bennett, games were no longer shown in E WA. With Pac-12 channel, we get WSU games, not UW games. ROOT shows some basketball games, but not football.
His sources are the exactly what David Aldridge doesnt think. Plus he may believe that if he is the one national network talking head on the Sac side it may gain him more notereity and credibility because he has none. Thus he has nothing to lose credibility wise
Let’s face it . . . neither Aldridge nor Bruski really know what is going on. Nobody does except the principals.
Of course Hansen has. And for his time & money, he has lovely binding PSA complete with a $30mill payment. And of course the BOG won’t be considering it. My question is - - - What’s in it for Burkle/Mastrov ? What’s their payoff? They didn’t just decide to throw away their money on a deal they have no chance of winning. Rich businessmen didn’t get rich by throwing away their money. They’re doing this for a reason.
Wealthy businessmen don’t get rich by throwing away their money on no-chance business deals. There’s a reason why they’re doing this.
Burke and Mastorv can get what Ballmer got for doing what he did in 2008.
Sacramento is Seattle in 2008 and will be like Seattle of 22013 in 20xx.
Rich businessmen also don’t enter into every negotiation knowing they’ll succeed.
try this again
Sacramento is Seattle in 2008 and will be like Seattle of 2013 in 20xx.
Of course nobody is 100% certain what’s going to happen, but there’s a distinction in credibly between Bruski and guys like Aldridge that’s important to consider.
Burkle is doing it because he thinks he can make money. That is how he operates. He buys low and sells high. He is a businessman first and last.
Mastrov is probably doing this because he thinks he can get a deal as well. His bid is supposedly lower than the Hansen group. He is wagering on the BOG wanting to stay in Sacramento. Remember, he really doesn’t have the money to purchase the team. He has investors who may or may not be viable. He is just leveraging his investors money in hopes to make money for himself and that the BOG sentiment will be with him. I doubt Stern would have tried to dissuade him. Stern seems to be staying an arms length on this sale, unlike what he did in Seattle. I am sure that Mastrov knows he has all of KJ’s support.
The thing is . . . I am not sure they can make much money in Sacramento.
Credibility, that is.
I found that article very misleading. We are the largest US market by far with only 2 major pro sports teams. I thought counting the Storm and Sounders were tricks used by the anti-arena people over the summer trying to stop the arena. Doesn’t sound good.
Aldridge does write for a more reputable organization.
By the way, according to the new report by Forbes, Burkle is worth $3.1B. Ballmer is worth over $15B.
Bottom line is, when you count anything, the Storm DO NOT count. Their fanbase is more of a cult one that wont affect any other team here no matter what. Even if you count the Sounders, you’re basically saying we’ll have the same setup as Denver, which is much smaller than us as a market. That article is total BS Even assuming NHL is getting way ahead of yourself. You don’t think they’ll do studies after the new NBA team is here to determine if adding NHL would work?
If you count the Storm, you have to count SAC’s minor league baseball team. Fair is fair. Although they could be referencing the Huskies. But I don’t think that’d change as a lot of their fanbase is already built-in with the students and alumni.
But as most assume here, this is already a done deal for Hansen as discussed on this site ad nauseum. Me included. But why waste their time & money on a no-chance deal? Future team purchase/relocation? One would assume the $$ they would need to purchase/relocate the next available team would certainly be more expensive for them to pursue. Mastrov doesn’t appear, by most accounts, to be able to afford the Kings purchase. Just trying to figure what’s really in it for them. There is a reason behind their actions.
Troy J. Dishman@realDirtyDish
@CarmichaelDave Hypothetically….Stern/NBA has been guiding Hansen for a coupel years….why lead him this far down path to spurn him now?
Carmichael Dave@CarmichaelDave
@realDirtyDish Ask the same question about KJ, who is a mayor and played in the league and currently has a team. Why do the same to him?
Troy J. Dishman@realDirtyDish
@CarmichaelDave For PR purposes for both KJ (not good for NBA mayor to lose team) and NBA. Lining up Sac as the new Sea…
Troy J. Dishman@realDirtyDish
@CarmichaelDave ifSac is as great of NBAmarket as you say they can get another team just like Sea can.Deck wood look stacd KJ gts more luv
Round 2
Troy J. Dishman@realDirtyDish
@CarmichaelDave What if Loan isnt in PSA but is included outside of valuation? Plus Hansen wouldnt owe 77 mil. he would owe 65% of 77 mil…
Troy J. Dishman@realDirtyDish
@CarmichaelDave He then uses arena back to city at about 40 mil as Forbes has it listed at 90 w/tenant. So loan gets paid outside of 525 val
Troy J. Dishman@realDirtyDish
@CarmichaelDave Then Hansen plays his last card with a HUGE relo fee offer (again outside valuation for sure) relo fee of 100 mil. Owners :)
Carmichael Dave@CarmichaelDave
@realDirtyDish lots of what ifs. We shall find out soon enough.
Troy J. Dishman@realDirtyDish
@CarmichaelDave Yes loan is a “if” but relo fee is outside the valuation…guarantee that. Hansen would owe 65% of 77 mil. arena used and $$
Carmichael Dave@CarmichaelDave
@realDirtyDish relo certainly not in purchase, but entire 77 million has to be paid upon team moving. In contract.
Arena for some owed.Valued @ 90 mil. with Kings so lets say 30 w/out. Hansen owes 65% of 77 mil. SO he would owe 52..pays 22
I think I got him thinking bout things in not so certain terms now…..
What was the reason the Balmer group tried the last ditch effort before Seattle moved to OKC?
I’d also add that it looks like Burkle is willing to do this because for whatever reason it seems like Sacramento is willing to write him a blank check in public funding. Im sure he is willing to throw away a couple hundred grade in hopes of getting $225million in public subsidies….if he is a gambler he probably loses $200 grand every time he goes to Vegas
But why spend time and money on a negotiation they have no chance of winning as most here have stated ?
Finally LOL
Carmichael Dave@CarmichaelDave
@realDirtyDish arena is collateral. NBA won’t let owner move team without paying off loan. Non-issue
Troy J. Dishman@realDirtyDish
@CarmichaelDave So Hansen would keep arena? Doesnt make sense. Arena will be given to city for $ value and then Hansen pays rest exactly….
Troy J. Dishman@realDirtyDish
@CarmichaelDave …like Bennett did with Seattle and Seattle acquiring money and Key Arena. You are right non-issue ;)
And now he is aint sayin a thing ;)
Pure speculation here, of course, but to me, Burkle’s actions make sense. He’s bidding for AEG, and partnering with the city to build an arena, and likely looking for a sah-weeeet deal from the city. Plus, he won’t publicly go near the group bidding on the Kings, as AEG already owns 30% of the Lakers. I would think he would consider that much more profitable, and he can avoid getting tangled up in tort court.
As for Mastrov, I’ll leave that speculation to someone smarter than I am.
Sac’s going to write him a blank check for an Arena that doesn’t have the Kings ? I thought we all agreed that Hansen’s PSA is a done deal.
I don’t think either side (Ballmer/Hansen for us, Mastrov/Burkle/KJ for Sac) would be putting in all this time and effort if they thought it wouldn’t matter. They each believe they have a chance.
But I must admit, I worry that this is all some plot by Stern. The Sonics theft has made me paranoid.
Oh, If Hansen purchases the 65% of the Kings, then Hansen owns 65% of the arena, and it seems the arena sits on about 40 acres that Hansen would gain ownership of 65% as well. Sacramento may wish to make some kind of deal with Hansen for the arena; or maybe not.
Then on the literacy; Johnson said that the 67% of third graders did not read at grade level.
I think Burkle, and Mastrov, think that they can make money with the Kings; but I also think that recent events may make them think the Kings are undervalued at 525 million; and they would gain value. I am starting to think that these NBA franchises are probably worth a minimum 1 billion dollars, especially if they can be moved with relative ease. That is 1 billion for a mid-level market team, like the Kings.
No…he is basically making a business calculation. The risk of not succeeding (say 90%) vs the risk of succeeding (10%)… Made him believe that it’s worth a hundred grand to potentially win 200 million. That’s how all decisions are made…what is your chance for success, what is your chance for reward and based on those two…what are you willing to risk up front.
Hansen is doing the same thing…he was willing to risk $10s of millions buying property in SoDo and now $30 million to the Maloofs. That should tell you his feeling about the risk…
Actually no…if suddenly nba franchises are easily moved and many are for sale it’d drive down franchise values a bit. At most, what you’d see is a franchise’s value slowly increase each year as the team got closer to the end of whatever lease they have with their existing city.
Burkle doesn’t think the team is worth 500miillion. If he did…he would have offered it earlier in the process.
“They each believe they have a chance.” That’s the part that has me so perplexed. Two self-made extremely wealthy businessmen are spending their time and money on a bid/proposal we believe has no shot. The NBA allows them to submit this offer. Most here are so confident that Hansen’s deal is a lock. So that’s what makes me wonder - - - Why are they doing this ?
Because unless they win they really have no financial risk involved in the deal other than the behind the scene man hours which may or may not be all that labor intensive. Like someone quantified the risk already. They are betting on #17 on the roulette wheel and Hansen is betting on black. Hansen has a way more likely chance at success thus the deposit and investments already made. He is a hedge fund manager so we understand what he has done. Burkle and Mastrov are throwing down a miniscule amount of capital (in their world) and hoping to land the jackpot.
Thats a really simplified maybe skewed way to say it
Myk, Possibly; but there are still only 31 of these franchises, so the supply does not change (unless Peter’s word happens), and it seems that wealthy interests from around the world are interested in owning these franchises. 31 franchises in the entire world, makes these franchises extremely rare.
Mmmm, makes some sense. I wonder what Mastrov/Burkle $$ cap is on a 10% probability of success. Hansen certainly methodically planned for success.
Look at it like a roulette wheel Hansen is betting alot of dough on black (highly likely he wins). Burkle/Mastrov are betting a miniscule amount (in their world) on #17 hoping to hit the jackpot. Hansen has a lot higher chance of success but if Mastrov and Burkle hit that jackpot they win like bandits.
I know its a skewed way to think about it but Im trying to simplify the essence of what they are doing
31?
Um, that is just untrue. Look at the source of the funds, 90% of it comes from the puget sound, and yet 90% of it is not spent in Puget Sound. E WA gets HUGELY subsidized by W WA, but consistently fails to recognize that fact. Your freeways would not exist if it weren’t for monies levied here in King County. Period.
NICE. This should be part of the byline for this site.. :)