Better late than never. Lets see what it looks like.
201 thoughts on “Sactown has a deal”
I’ll be watching Tuesday to see if any of the city council members attempt to sandbag this by highlighting the fact that the city has no risk because the term sheet is nonbinding.
Brian Robinson: I’ll be watching Tuesday to see if any of the city council members attempt to sandbag this by highlighting the fact that the city has no risk because the term sheet is nonbinding.
What do you mean?
Eldridge Recasner @erecasner 26m
Seems like Kevin Johnson is playing harder to keep the Kings in Sacramento than he did in the League as a player
Brian Robinson:
I’ll be watching Tuesday to see if any of the city council members attempt to sandbag this by highlighting the fact that the city has no risk because the term sheet is nonbinding.
Isn’t Seattle’s MOU also non-binding? I thought that was why the longshoremen’s lawsuit was thrown out? I’m not sure this is would be an issue to the NBA in either case.
“@ChrisDaniels5: Seattle’s Mayor and KC Exec said in Feb 2012 they had term sheet with Hansen. MOU passed in October. #NBASeattle”
To Sac people that think this means everything is all even.
I know there is no opposition in Sacramento, however, man, that just seems like irresponsible management of a city.
I don’t live there though so maybe when they say the Kings are all they’ve got then truly, they have nothing else — no creativity, no “diversity” in their economy (like that KJ?) and no ability to generate or attract other businesses, just a sort of depressed town with incredibly high unemployment (12% is sad). So hey, let’s build this big entertainment venue for all those working upper income people in Sacramento….
Curious to see how they plant o aquire all of the land.
So this means there arena financing plan is done and presentable to the NBA BOG by April 3?
I know there is no opposition in Sacramento, however, man, that just seems like irresponsible management of a city.
Unless you live there, it’s not your concern.
I assume ( and always have) that the Sacramento City Council will approve this next week pending their version of EIS and SEPA.
Remember, the Seattle City Council and King County Council performed and completed their negotiations and due diligence prior to the Sodo Arena’s first vote. No matter the outcome of the Sacramento vote on Tuesday, the Seattle project is still further along in the process. Seattle’s arena agreement is awaiting final approval based upon environmental mitigation. Sacramento’s will include those factors as well as the mitigation of any Sacramento City Council concerns regarding financing, etc.
Gotta say have been optimistic all along but am really starting to feeling down about this. Feels like the whole media will start jumping on this and spouting off about SacTo being a frontrunner to keep the Kings. It sucks because our side has basically been told to shut up leaving us anxious. Tired of KJ. He’s a pathetic politician who has played harder for this than he did in the NBA.
cfox: Isn’t Seattle’s MOU also non-binding? I thought that was why the longshoremen’s lawsuit was thrown out? I’m not sure this is would be an issue to the NBA in either case.
The terms of the MOU are binding, the only thing that isn’t is the location because of the EIS.
The arguments between February and October were Hansen and the councils attempting to come up with agreeable binding terms.
Jared S.: I know there is no opposition in Sacramento, however, man, that just seems like irresponsible management of a city.
Unless you live there, it’s not your concern.
You are right. None of my business and I am thankful I don’t live in California.
Styopa:
Gotta say have been optimistic all along but am really starting to feeling down about this. Feels like the whole media will start jumping on this and spouting off about SacTo being a frontrunner to keep the Kings. It sucks because our side has basically been told to shut up leaving us anxious. Tired of KJ. He’s a pathetic politician who has played harder for this than he did in the NBA.
I agree to a point I’m not feeling pessimistic about our chances just more irritated about the whole situation.
We have a binding agreement subject to the construction, SEPA and EIS process. That is a big difference from a non-binding term sheet. The Sac one could simply be changed at any time because someone learns new information or changes their opinions. Its going to be a 15 page summary. Our is completely lawyered out with all the fine print and details.
SEPA and EIS are part of ANY process. Consider it like buying a house. You can sign a binding contract subject to appraisal and you have a contract and it is a “done deal” even though it still has ways it can fall apart.
We’ll see when they release it what the level of fine print looks like.
A HREF=”http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/23/5287542/mayor-city-reaches-agreement-on.html”>http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/23/5287542/mayor-city-reaches-agreement-on.html
Gotta say have been optimistic all along but am really starting to feeling down about this. Feels like the whole media will start jumping on this and spouting off about SacTo being a frontrunner to keep the Kings.
Yes, given the different ways Stern has treated Sacramento and Seattle over the years, I’m starting to feel like the Kings will stay.
Gene Hunt: I agree to a point I’m not feeling pessimistic about our chances just more irritated about the whole situation.
agree! The NBA should just end this whole drama, one way or another. It’s getting tiresome. They’ve given Sacramento too many chances! These idiots knew the team was gone a year ago after Maloofs pulled out.
People on a rollercoaster: It’s over. Seattle will get this team. Sacramento, on the other hand, is positioning themselves nicely for the Bucks in three years.
No one really knows what’s going to happen. I’m just naturally pessimistic, based on what I’ve seen out of Stern.
I think it’d be comforting if our side had something to say, but it just feels bad because all we get is Sacramento’s side. We can’t say anything.
I’m happy that they have their arena plan in place for the next time a team is ready for relocation.
Styopa:
I think it’d be comforting if our side had something to say, but it just feels bad because all we get is Sacramento’s side. We can’t say anything.
I think we’ll hear something from Hansen/Ballmer (via Mitch) sometime soon one way or another.
darknessspreads:
People on a rollercoaster: It’s over. Seattle will get this team. Sacramento, on the other hand, is positioning themselves nicely for the Bucks in three years.
I can see that being the case.
PLEASE PEOPLE REMEMBER ONE OF MISSION STATEMENTS OF THIS SITE…… TRUST CHRIS HANSEN AS HE PUT HIS TRUST IN US!!!
Dude…we’ve been muzzled by the NBA. We cannot say anything until the process is underway.
Styopa:
I think it’d be comforting if our side had something to say, but it just feels bad because all we get is Sacramento’s side. We can’t say anything.
Stay patient none of this is really new, we all figured that Sac would get a term sheet, they will also up their offer for the team. We are right where we new we would be. They have vetted Hansens deal for 2 months, it is the details that are going to matter, not the headlines.
Styopa:
I think it’d be comforting if our side had something to say, but it just feels bad because all we get is Sacramento’s side. We can’t say anything.
Unfortunately we’re in the boring environmental review/already bought the team so there’s a gag order part of our plan, not the rah rah PR rally fun stuff anymore.
Chris Hansen is a pawn utilized by David Stern to kick the Maloofs out of the ownership club and get a new arena in Sacramento. Chris will be promised an expansion team. Whether it’s a public promise, and whether expansion will occur in 2013 or 2017 are the real questions. I continue to believe this, despite this site’s ban on the E word. There, I said it.
People have been pessimistic because of the quiet from our side that has been mandated. Remember a key reason we havent heard all that much is the fact that Chris Hansen has done everything he has needed too at this point. He has worked on this for years internally and with the league. DONT doubt ourselves….we have done everything that has been asked and more in a city the league/nation thought would be impossible to deal with.
We are where we are and theoretically their arena is year behind ours and we havr a PSA in hand. Final stretch here we need to be stronger now than ever. HOLD THE LINE!!!
SMK206:
Chris Hansen is a pawn utilized by David Stern to kick the Maloofs out of the ownership club and get a new arena in Sacramento.Chris will be promised an expansion team.Whether it’s a public promise, and whether expansion will occur in 2013 or 2017 are the real questions.I continue to believe this, despite this site’s ban on the E word.There, I said it.
(Yes I’m quoting myself). This scenario allows EVERYONE to come out looking like a hero: the Maloofs bow out gracefully and agree to sell to Burkle/Vivek/Mastrov, KJ is the local savior, Stern’s last act as commissioner is to rescue a small-market team, Silver’s first act as commissioner is to grant an expansion team to Seattle, and Hansen doesn’t have to deal with the stench of relocation. It all makes so much sense that I have a hard time believing it wasn’t concocted by the evil genius, Mr. Stern.
2017 is a slap in the face and could really screw the momentum up based on Seattle politics.
SMK206:
Chris Hansen is a pawn utilized by David Stern to kick the Maloofs out of the ownership club and get a new arena in Sacramento.Chris will be promised an expansion team.Whether it’s a public promise, and whether expansion will occur in 2013 or 2017 are the real questions.I continue to believe this, despite this site’s ban on the E word.There, I said it.
I don’t get why people are starting to worry now that Sacramento has a tentative at best arena deal in place. Did anybody really think they wouldn’t at least get that far?
I just don’t see why this news changes anybody’s feeling on the situation.
I’m fine with people talking about “the E word” as much as they want. There’s just not much reason to see that happening. If it were an option, why would Hansen be trying to relocate a team?
Residual feelings about Stern’s heist of our team in 2008…we have NBA trust issues.
catch-22:
I don’t get why people are starting to worry now that Sacramento has a tentative at best arena deal in place. Did anybody really think they wouldn’t at least get that far?
I just don’t see why this news changes anybody’s feeling on the situation.
Jared S.:
I’m fine with people talking about “the E word” as much as they want. There’s just not much reason to see that happening. If it were an option, why would Hansen be trying to relocate a team?
Because David Stern is using him as a pawn to extort a new arena in Sacramento and get rid of the Maloofs.
catch-22:
I don’t get why people are starting to worry now that Sacramento has a tentative at best arena deal in place. Did anybody really think they wouldn’t at least get that far?
I just don’t see why this news changes anybody’s feeling on the situation.
I think it depends on what Stern’s preference is. If he wants a team in Seattle, he can use the fact that our deal is more solidly in place as an excuse. If he wants the team to stay in Sacramento, this deal, however shaky and tentative, gives him that excuse, too.
SMK206: Because David Stern is using him as a pawn to extort a new arena in Sacramento and get rid of the Maloofs.
He couldn’t have done that without involving Hansen?
catch-22:
I don’t get why people are starting to worry now that Sacramento has a tentative at best arena deal in place. Did anybody really think they wouldn’t at least get that far?
I just don’t see why this news changes anybody’s feeling on the situation.
It’s pretty weird.
We knew this is what we’d be facing. They missed their deadline, so everybody assumed they wouldn’t have an arena deal at all and so when it comes out it’s this huge haymaker surprise blow? Sorry, no.
All along we’ve expected Sac to put forth their pasted together, not as wealthy ownership group with their rushed, potentially legally compromised arena plan. I don’t get why when it actually comes to fruition people worry more. It’d have been nice to have the whole thing tank with no arena deal coming together, it’d have been nice for no ownership to emerge, etc.
We’re still that stronger market with the stronger ownership and the completed arena deal that has been through the rigors of public scrutiny and debate.
I think mainly for me, I just wanted to see Sac fall flat on its face and see this thing end right now! If KJ had played this hard as a player, he’d have been a Michael Jordan or at least something close to it.
SMK206: Because David Stern is using him as a pawn to extort a new arena in Sacramento and get rid of the Maloofs.
Sac was already signed on for a largely subsidized arena deal, so why wouldn’t Stern just go find some Sacramento owners to offer the Maloofs bags of cash?
I doubt expansion was the ploy by the league from get go. In the end, thru Sacramento’s effort, maybe thats what this leads too. Thatd if the NBA isnt leery about viability of the term sheet forming into an arena, any lawsuits, petty or not will have to be scrutinized by the league. Also anything the league may see as cumbersome that will have to be addressed down the line by the council. IF IT IS PERFECT then may e just maybe they keep their team but I for one second am not seeing how we walk away w/out a team.
Jared S.: I think it depends on what Stern’s preference is. If he wants a team in Seattle, he can use the fact that our deal is more solidly in place as an excuse. If he wants the team to stay in Sacramento, this deal, however shaky and tentative, gives him that excuse, too.
I really don’t see Stern having the kind of influence some people think he does.
It’s the owners who are voting and what they think that matters. I just don’t see them setting the precedent of saying no to one of their own and also turning down a better financial market.
SMK206:
Chris Hansen is a pawn utilized by David Stern to kick the Maloofs out of the ownership club and get a new arena in Sacramento.Chris will be promised an expansion team.Whether it’s a public promise, and whether expansion will occur in 2013 or 2017 are the real questions.I continue to believe this, despite this site’s ban on the E word.There, I said it.
I was right about the Jesse Ventura conspiracy theories coming out.
trolltossin:
We are where we are and theoretically their arena isyear behind ours and we havr a PSA in hand. Final stretch here we need to be stronger now than ever. HOLD THE LINE!!!
I thought I would find a really awesome youtube video for “HOLD THE LINE!!!!”. But all I found was an old Pete Seeger song lol. But the song wasn’t too bad at least lol.
catch-22: I really don’t see Stern having the kind of influence some people think he does.
It’s the owners who are voting and what they think that matters. I just don’t see them setting the precedent of saying no to one of their own and also turning down a better financial market.
Yes, and owners don’t want to hamstring themselves by denying things even if there is an equal offer…or at least I think so
Apparently the council members know the details of the deal already so I expect a quick vote of approval. I get this from kasler tweets that have favorable responses from council members
BarelyAble:
Apparently the council members know the details of the deal already so I expect a quick vote of approval. I get this from kasler tweets that have favorable responses from council members
Not really too surprised by that
BarelyAble: I was right about the Jesse Ventura conspiracy theories coming out.
I don’t see why this theory is so far-fetched. I’m far from the first person to espouse the theory, by the way. It makes a lot of sense: Sacto buyers either didn’t think the Maloofs would sell or weren’t willing to offer enough to induce them to sell, so Stern recruits Hansen as a nuclear option to set things in motion. From Stern’s POV, the worst case scenario is relocation to Seattle if no local buyer steps up; best case is a sparkly new arena in Sacto with the Maloofs no longer involved. And, just as he promised Clay Clay some remuneration in exchange for hosting the Hornets, he gives Hansen an expansion team at some point to thank him for solving the Sacramento problem.
Not saying I’d bet on this being the case, but all the puzzle pieces fit together.
Gene Hunt: I thought I would find a really awesome youtube video for “HOLD THE LINE!!!!”. But all I found was an old Pete Seeger song lol. But the song wasn’t too bad at least lol.
Gene Hunt: I thought I would find a really awesome youtube video for “HOLD THE LINE!!!!”. But all I found was an old Pete Seeger song lol. But the song wasn’t too bad at least lol.
SMK206:
Chris Hansen is a pawn utilized by David Stern
If that was the case then Chris Hansen would never make an attempt to bring back the NBA back to Seattle. He knows something more then we do, otherwise he wouldn’t be in the basketball business.
I heard this the other day when I was Kennelly Keys and its been stuck in my head since then. I wondered who did this song and what the title was. I can’t say I ever played much Toto when I was a gigging musician.
SMK206: I don’t see why this theory is so far-fetched.I’m far from the first person to espouse the theory, by the way.It makes a lot of sense: Sacto buyers either didn’t think the Maloofs would sell or weren’t willing to offer enough to induce them to sell, so Stern recruits Hansen as a nuclear option to set things in motion.From Stern’s POV, the worst case scenario is relocation to Seattle if no local buyer steps up; best case is a sparkly new arena in Sacto with the Maloofs no longer involved.And, just as he promised Clay Clay some remuneration in exchange for hosting the Hornets, he gives Hansen an expansion team at some point to thank him for solving the Sacramento problem.
Not saying I’d bet on this being the case, but all the puzzle pieces fit together.
But Stern can’t just “give” away expansion teams. Stern is the puppet of the owners, he’s the man they’ve hired to be the public jerk who lays down the cold hard truth. I mean, I suppose all of the owners could have hatched this scheme, but I doubt it.
Gene Hunt: I heard this the other day when I was Kennelly Keys and its been stuck in my head since then. I wondered who did this song and what the title was. I can’t say I ever played much Toto when I was a gigging musician.
I’m a DJ.. it’s my job to know these things.. lol
Ok so they have a term sheet…is it posted yet?
jetcitywoman2: I’m a DJ.. it’s my job to know these things.. lol
Well thank you for letting me know who did the song and the title. Although now I will probably have something by the Allman Brothers or Stevie Ray Vaughan or The Sonics stuck in my head for the next couple of days lol.
Jared S.: Gotta say have been optimistic all along but am really starting to feeling down about this. Feels like the whole media will start jumping on this and spouting off about SacTo being a frontrunner to keep the Kings.
Yes, given the different ways Stern has treated Sacramento and Seattle over the years, I’m starting to feel like the Kings will stay.
This really doesn’t change anything. It make KJ look good and that is what this process was for, to save face. The NBA still knows that for the long haul Seattle is a better option than Sac. For a city that is broke they are putting up 255 million and there 3 whales only 190 million. Are you kidding me? I am so glad we have Chris Hansen. Remember this was a done deal months ago. Is it April 3rd yet?
SHouldnt the term sheet be posted by now if it has been completed for public consumption or will it not be until Monday? I wouldnt be surprised if it wasnt posted until Monday but the lack of transparency from the City and its investors in California is kind of disturbing. My cousins and uncle that live in Sacramento are not happy about the lack of transparency to say the least. The like the Kings and all that but they are concerned that the city is going to end up screwing itself long term
I’m just not going to run around like my hair is on fire.
Thanks.
Is there a link to the document?
Another thing to remember about the NBA owners they don’t want to be told that they can’t sell when they need to. If they did reject Seattle’s offer it sends a bad presidence in the future when they want to sell their team.
I don’t think precedent matters much. This isn’t a court system. The NBA can do what they want, when they want.
I concur precedence matters not. Plus any outcome from this doesnt have to be a precedence but a individual outcome in an individual situation.
Jared S.:
I don’t think precedent matters much. This isn’t a court system. The NBA can do what they want, when they want.
THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!
My first instinct as a Seattle sports is expect the worst and hope for the best, really trying hard to change that. Gotta believe in what this Hansen group is doing, remember Mitch said that Seattle still has bullets to fire, bring on the 18th or 19th or whatever it is!
Jared S.:
I don’t think precedent matters much. This isn’t a court system. The NBA can do what they want, when they want.
Well, it’s always a big deal to do something “unprecedented”, whether or not it has the same implications of legal precedence. Obviously this type of decision won’t become established case law, but it’ll still be a statement about how much power lies in the NBA as an association vs. an owner of an asset, the NBA team.
Im wondering the same thing Mr. Baker……wondering where its at so I can have some reading material for the evening. I feel that this was purposefully brought out after the town hall meetings to avoid scrutiny and to say they had meetings about it. It will be even more shady if they wait till somepoint on Monday and vote on it the next day. Not my city but I do have family and have lived in Sacramento myself in the past and would hope for a little more transparency on their part.
Mike Baker:
I’m just not going to run around like my hair is on fire.
Thanks.
Is there a link to the document?
For instance, one might have said that the Sonics relocation demonstrated that the NBA doesn’t respect the leases they have with publicly-funded arenas. But when the NBA rescued to Hornets in order to keep them in New Orleans, Stern cited the team’s lease as one of the reasons.
There are no rules. It’s all just pretext.
As far as precedent, Stern said himself the whole situation is unprecedented. Whatever the outcome, it will an unprecedented action by the BOG.
SMK206: I don’t see why this theory is so far-fetched. I’m far from the first person to espouse the theory, by the way. It makes a lot of sense: Sacto buyers either didn’t think the Maloofs would sell or weren’t willing to offer enough to induce them to sell, so Stern recruits Hansen as a nuclear option to set things in motion. From Stern’s POV, the worst case scenario is relocation to Seattle if no local buyer steps up; best case is a sparkly new arena in Sacto with the Maloofs no longer involved. And, just as he promised Clay Clay some remuneration in exchange for hosting the Hornets, he gives Hansen an expansion team at some point to thank him for solving the Sacramento problem.Not saying I’d bet on this being the case, but all the puzzle pieces fit together.
First of all, the BOG and the NBA will habe to say “no” to the Hansen group, including Steve Ballmer. They will have to find that their offer is deficient. Then, whatever Sacramento group forms will have to negotiate with the Maloofs and purchase the team and start the process with the NBA.
Additionally, here is my conspiracy theory . . . Burkle will eventually buy out whoever buys the team from the Maloofs. He is the only person in the whole Sacramento party that can afford to purchase and maintain the team. If the NBA says no to the Hansen group, they may be gone forever. Hansen can sell the real property he purchased. Ballmer can afford to lose the $30M if necessary. Rich people walk away from money when necessary. They make it up elsewhere.
Now, it probably won’t happen and the Hansen group will be approved . . . I just can’t see the NBA saying “no” to Steve Ballmer or the Nordstroms.
Kevin Johnson made the announcement. I thought he was on vacation, or, maybe he is on vacation when there is bad news.
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/23/5287542/mayor-city-reaches-agreement-on.html
My money is on the Kings staying in Sacramento, and Seattle gets an expansion team. That really is the most realistic scenario, given Stern’s propensity to play both sides.
The Hansen MOU is politcally binding but as another commenter pointed out, isn’t a deal per what the judge said in the longshoremans’ case. As much as I want the Sonics back, we can’t have it both ways by saying Sacramento’s deal isn’t binding and our is. I would even argue that thier arena deal is politically more solid because of the polical connection in a state capitol in the 6th largest economy in the world.
Expansion becomes viable, now the the new “bottom” has been set with team valuations, esp. for a team that isn’t so hot these days.
What matters most is that Hansen is in first position to buy the team with a negotiated PSA. To overturn that deal the BOG has to find something wrong with the Seattle ownership group or the arena deal. There is no smoking gun. Sac got there second and a year late. This isn’t a bidding contest. Seattle is in first position to buy the team. That is all that matters. There is too much concern about what Sac is doing.
seafanatic:
My money is on the Kings staying in Sacramento, and Seattle gets an expansion team. That really is the most realistic scenario, given Stern’s propensity to play both sides.
The Hansen MOU is politcally binding but as another commenter pointed out, isn’t a deal per what the judge said in the longshoremans’ case. As much as I want the Sonics back, we can’t have it both ways by saying Sacramento’s deal isn’t binding and our is. I would even argue that thier arena deal is politically more solid because of the polical connection in a state capitol in the 6th largest economy in the world.
Expansion becomes viable, now the the new “bottom” has been set with team valuations, esp. for a team that isn’t so hot these days.
And sorry for the freakin’ typos, long day in front of the computer.
There it is, Brian, non-binding.
The preliminary term sheet, agreed upon this afternoon after weeks of negotiations, is non-binding, however.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/23/5287542/mayor-city-reaches-agreement-on.html#storylink=cpy
The preliminary term sheet, agreed upon this afternoon after weeks of negotiations, is non-binding, however.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/23/5287542/mayor-city-reaches-agreement-on.html#storylink=cpy
Yes, quoting myself, they are a year behind.
That term sheet could lead to an arena, or to somebody blowing their nose with it an walking away.
seafanatic: My money is on the Kings staying in Sacramento, and Seattle gets an expansion team. That really is the most realistic scenario, given Stern’s propensity to play both sides. The Hansen MOU is politcally binding but as another commenter pointed out, isn’t a deal per what the judge said in the longshoremans’ case. As much as I want the Sonics back, we can’t have it both ways by saying Sacramento’s deal isn’t binding and our is. I would even argue that thier arena deal is politically more solid because of the polical connection in a state capitol in the 6th largest economy in the world.Expansion becomes viable, now the the new “bottom” has been set with team valuations, esp. for a team that isn’t so hot these days.
Please tell me why you actually think expansion is a possibility. In fact I think expansion is 1 out of a 100 chance.
If the Hansen deal is squashed there is no way in hell the Maloofs are getting as much as Hansen is buying the franchise for. The Radavine, Mastrov, Burkle threesome will just lower their bid right away if Hansen and Ballmer are denied. Why wouldnt they? Part of the value is the fact the team can be relocated. Once denied everyone then knows the team cannot move. The Maloofs will lose money and they will have to sell for less and then will go after the NBA in court for interference on their private sales agreement and attempt to recoup their losses. BTW they will have a strong case if that happens.
WHat I just pointed out is a one of many reasons why Hansen will not be denied. There is no way Radavine is paying ash as much as Hansen if Hansen is denied. The second the denial would happen is the second the franchise valuation drops a good 100 million dollars. Book it
Sober:
What matters most is that Hansen is in first position to buy the team with a negotiated PSA.To overturn that deal the BOG has to find something wrong with the Seattle ownership group or the arena deal.There is no smoking gun.Sac got there second and a year late.This isn’t a bidding contest.Seattle is infirst position to buy the team.That is all that matters.There is too much concern about what Sac is doing.
I agree! Thank you! They are so many people who are now freaked out and it’s getting annoying to be honest!
Wait, so our deal is binding? I thought it couldn’t be until the EIS was done.
Just like their bid to the Maloofs for the team is NON BINDING meaning it can be altered before agreed upon if Hansen is denied and it will be altered if Hansen is denied. Thats why he wont be because the NBA will not want a lawsuit by the Maloofs looking for the difference from the Hansen offer to a new Radavne offer
Mike Baker: Yes, quoting myself, they are a year behind.
That term sheet could lead to an arena, or to somebody blowing their nose with it an walking away.
trolltossin: If the Hansen deal is squashed there is no way in hell the Maloofs are getting as much as Hansen is buying the franchise for. The Radavine, Mastrov, Burkle threesome will just lower their bid right away if Hansen and Ballmer are denied. Why wouldnt they? Part of the value is the fact the team can be relocated. Once denied everyone then knows the team cannot move. The Maloofs will lose money and they will have to sell for less and then will go after the NBA in court for interference on their private sales agreement and attempt to recoup their losses. BTW they will have a strong case if that happens.WHat I just pointed out is a one of many reasons why Hansen will not be denied. There is no way Radavine is paying ash as much as Hansen if Hansen is denied. The second the denial would happen is the second the franchise valuation drops a good 100 million dollars. Book it
I believe they have to. They don’t have the money to pay what the Hansen group is willing to pay. It will be less . . . and if the Maloofs want to sell the team, they will have to sell it this Sacramento group. Eventually Burkle will probably own the majority interest. It could be that the one thing that the Maloofs didn’t want with Burkle owning the Kings could happen.
It is the same as ever; we will find out if the Kings will move to Seattle after the BOG meeting.
Anyway, No Toto. Please, No Toto. Oh my God, NO Toto. Do not promote Toto. Toto went away for a reason. Toto’s music sucks. It is pablum. Please do not bring up Toto. Bringing up Toto is more objectionable than the E-word.
Can anyone explain to me the difference between a binding and nonbinding agreement?
Jared S.:
Wait, so our deal is binding? I thought it couldn’t be until the EIS was done.
D. This MOU is intended to be a binding and enforceable agreement of the Parties, subject to the fulfillment and occurrence of the conditions precedent set forth herein. It reflects the mutual understandings of the Parties regarding those actions, permits, approvals and/or agreements lawful and necessary to accomplish the location, financing, acquisition, design, development, construction, lease, management, operation, use and occupancy of the Arena (collectively, the “Project”). The Parties intend to actively participate and to work together collaboratively, in good faith and with due diligence, to negotiate the terms of the Transaction Documents (as defined below) and undertake the Project. These undertakings are personal to the Parties and this MOU shall not be assigned to any other person or entity unless all Parties agree.
That’s from the MOU itself. The ILWU lawsuit was dismissed because the MOU isn’t an action as classified by SEPA nor could the ILWU demonstrate that the MOU itself caused them any harm.
I don’t think the NBA would make the Maloofs walk away with less money in their pockets. If they wanted to give the Sacto group a discount to keep the team there, that’d be one thing, but the big payday for NBA owners is when they sell their team. I don’t think the league would make them take less $$. So the Sacramento group would have to match.
traven:
It is the same as ever; we will find out if the Kings will move to Seattle after the BOG meeting.
Anyway, No Toto. Please, No Toto. Oh my God, NO Toto. Do not promote Toto. Toto went away for a reason. Toto’s music sucks. It is pablum. Please do not bring up Toto. Bringing up Toto is more objectionable than the E-word.
Them maybe don’t say the “T” word 8 times in your own post!
Relocating the team to Seattle is much better for each of the NBA owners. Let’s not lose sight of the relocation fee they get to pocket. It could be worth as much as $2.5 million per owner if it is $75 million.
Sean: D. This MOU is intended to be a binding and enforceable agreement of the Parties, subject to the fulfillment and occurrence of the conditions precedent set forth herein. It reflects the mutual understandings of the Parties regarding those actions, permits, approvals and/or agreements lawful and necessary to accomplish the location, financing, acquisition, design, development, construction, lease, management, operation, use and occupancy of the Arena (collectively, the “Project”).The Parties intend to actively participate and to work together collaboratively, in good faith and with due diligence, to negotiate the terms of the Transaction Documents (as defined below) and undertake the Project.These undertakings are personal to the Parties and this MOU shall not be assigned to any other person or entity unless all Parties agree.
That’s from the MOU itself. The ILWU lawsuit was dismissed because the MOU isn’t an action as classified by SEPA nor could the ILWU demonstrate that the MOU itself caused them any harm.
Okay, thanks. My mistake. So I guess that does give us an advantage, although the arena won’t be assured of happening until the EIS is done.
The current Seattle MOU is non-binding as regards building an arena. The current MOU in Seattle is binding only in continuing the process. The MOU can be changed, that means it is still non-binding. The Seattle MOU does mean that the Seattle arena proposal is further along than the Sacramento proposal; but not by much.
traven:
It is the same as ever; we will find out if the Kings will move to Seattle after the BOG meeting.
Anyway, No Toto. Please, No Toto. Oh my God, NO Toto. Do not promote Toto. Toto went away for a reason. Toto’s music sucks. It is pablum. Please do not bring up Toto. Bringing up Toto is more objectionable than the E-word.
Brilliant points Trolltossin and Mike Baker. The Maloof’s are going to expect CASH OUT probably within 24 hours after there is a vote by the BOG. With everything “if/but/perhaps” out of Sacramento, what happens to the value of the Kings IF the BOG votes to reject the Hansen PSA/relocation? It would plummet.
Also, the Maloof’s would have had to be negotiating with either the NBA or a Sacramento investor during all this time and I am quite certain that would have legal ramifications, breach of contract, for the Hansen BINDING PSA (and the $30 million).
I am looking forward to April 3! Go Chris and Go Sonics!
bkup: Them maybe don’t say the “T” word 8 times in your own post!
I know, but it was a catch-22. I could not do the public service of stifling the T-word without saying it. Stopping the t-word from polluting the sonic world with their horrible “music” is important. I do want to go see the Prince show at the Showbox.
bkup: Them maybe don’t say the “T” word 8 times in your own post!
Yeah not by much LOL the EIS draft will be out soon. They havent negotiated the terms of the term sheet in council. Sure it may not happen Tuesday but it will have to happen and be accomodated before they finalize anything. It may not take as long as our council was BUT there will be questions and opposition in a legal sense which will give the NBA pause GUARANTEED. Their funding mechanism, though unknown, sounds a lot like a shiny misleading money laundering scheme.
traven:
The current Seattle MOU is non-binding as regards building an arena. The current MOU in Seattle is binding only in continuing the process. The MOU can be changed, that means it is still non-binding. The Seattle MOU does mean that the Seattle arena proposal is further along than the Sacramento proposal; but not by much.
catdawg:
Brilliant points Trolltossin and Mike Baker. The Maloof’s are going to expect CASH OUT probably within 24 hours after there is a vote by the BOG. With everything “if/but/perhaps” out of Sacramento, what happens to the value of the Kings IF the BOG votes to reject the Hansen PSA/relocation? It would plummet.
Also, the Maloof’s would have had to be negotiating with either the NBA or a Sacramento investor during all this time and I am quite certain that would have legal ramifications, breach of contract, for the Hansen BINDING PSA (and the $30 million).
I am looking forward to April 3! Go Chris and Go Sonics!
If I were the Maloofs and was being pushed by the NBA towards selling to Sac, I would suggest that if they do not want to approve the Hansen sale but that they want me to take a supposedly matching offer from Sac then they should put up the money right now. Not the investors, they can’t be expected to do so since they’d still have to go through the whole process of a PSA and BOG approval, the NBA. The NBA can buy me out for not a penny less than Hansen was going to right then and there and worry about the Sac investors themselves. That’s it.
I don’t think the NBA would reject the deal unless the Sacto group’s offer would put the same amount of money in the Maloofs’ pocket.
Sean: If I were the Maloofs and was being pushed by the NBA towards selling to Sac, I would suggest that if they do not want to approve the Hansen sale but that they want me to take a supposedly matching offer from Sac then they should put up the money right now. Not the investors, they can’t be expected to do so since they’d still have to go through the whole process of a PSA and BOG approval, the NBA. The NBA can buy me out for not a penny less than Hansen was going to right then and there and worry about the Sac investors themselves. That’s it.
Oh man, brilliant, that I know, would give the Maloof’s infinite pleasure too! Love that idea, that is just clever clever clever.
trolltossin, The entire MOU could still be rewritten. The current MOU states that specific contracts would be TBD. So, it is further along; but really not by much. Now, if the Final, Final MOU were passed it would be much further along; but as of right now, it is not.
Jared S.: don’t think the NBA would reject the deal unless the Sacto group’s offer would put the same amount of money in the Maloofs’ pocket.
I don’t think it is just the Maloof’s pocket. The franchise owes the NBA $70 million on a line of credit. We do not know whether the Sac offer pays off the debt or leaves it in place.
traven:
trolltossin, The entire MOU could still be rewritten. The current MOU states that specific contracts would be TBD. So, it is further along; but really not by much. Now, if the Final, Final MOU were passed it would be much further along; but as of right now, it is not.
In terms of how much work has gone into it… how much due dilligence has been done… the transparency… I say it is far superior and further along. My humble opinion.
Sober: I don’t think it is just the Maloof’s pocket.The franchise owes the NBA $70 million on a line of credit.We do not know whether the Sac offer pays off the debt or leaves it in place.
I’m just talking about how much money the Maloofs would walk away with. I don’t think the league would make them take less. Selling the team is when an owner really cashes in.
Jared S.:
I don’t think the NBA would reject the deal unless the Sacto group’s offer would put the same amount of money in the Maloofs’ pocket.
And according to a lot of “sources,” (mostly Bruski sources, but still…) the Sacto bid will match. I just think it’s naive for us to assume that they won’t be able to match the Hansen bid.
Sucks that the middle man plays god when you have a buyer, and a seller already ready to do business, and part ways, then the god himself has to interfere, basically put everything on hold, so the other team has time to come up with something. They’ve had 4 years to come up with something. Sure wish Seattle had 4 years to come up with something.
SMK206: And according to a lot of “sources,” (mostly Bruski sources, but still…) the Sacto bid will match.I just think it’s naive for us to assume that they won’t be able to match the Hansen bid.
I didn’t say they wouldn’t.
Go zags!
I still think there is some sort of poison pill in the Hansen contract that will make it impossible to match. No way he puts up $30 million if he could lose it by Sac only having to match his offer. No one knows the details of the Hansen deal.
KennewickKrunk:
Sucks that the middle man plays god when you have a buyer, and a seller already ready to do business, and part ways, then the god himself has to interfere, basically put everything on hold, so the other team has time to come up with something. They’ve had 4 years to come up with something. Sure wish Seattle had 4 years to come up with something.
It’s been a lot longer than that for them. Of course, dealing with the Maloofs is a huge hassle, but so was dealing with Schultz, and then Bennett. I’m not sure how serious about it they really were until the near move to Anaheim. Plus they haven’t recently funded any stadiums like we had with all our teams, so no stadium fatigue excuses there.
Good lord people, we knew Sac was going to come up with some type of arena plan. The sky isn’t falling as badly as some of you are making it out to be…don’t be surprised if Sac puts in a better offer for the team either.
Can it just be April 19th already?
KennewickKrunk:
Sucks that the middle man plays god when you have a buyer, and a seller already ready to do business, and part ways, then the god himself has to interfere, basically put everything on hold, so the other team has time to come up with something. They’ve had 4 years to come up with something. Sure wish Seattle had 4 years to come up with something.
Yep, and when the middleman looked at the deal between the seller and buyer and then advised another potential what they have to do to match — which buy the way, this middleman has the ultimate authority to reject the binding deal between the original buyer and seller and to “force” the sale to “their” buyer.
This is so messed up. Seriously, how is this fair? Stern, being an attorney, I would think would sniff the duplicity in all his actions.
Here’s the thing though. There has to be a “back-up” plan should something go horribly wrong in Seattle between now and the BOG meeting. So perhaps (thinking positively about why Stern is doing this), Stern wanted a strong back-up plan if anything blew up in Seattle prior to the April 3 date and the April 18/19 BOG meeting. I can then get/understand that — the back-up plan is to keep the team in Sacramento, not risk going through an entire new set of owners and potential relocation should the Hansen and Seattle deal hit a snag as the due diligence is done by the NBA.
jenn_gp: don’t be surprised if Sac puts in a better offer for the
Don’t want people taking this out of context..I meant by better..better than their first bid.
KennewickKrunk:
Sucks that the middle man plays god when you have a buyer, and a seller already ready to do business, and part ways, then the god himself has to interfere, basically put everything on hold, so the other team has time to come up with something. They’ve had 4 years to come up with something. Sure wish Seattle had 4 years to come up with something.
10 years
jetcitywoman2: In terms of how much work has gone into it… how much due dilligence has been done… the transparency…I say it is far superior and further along.My humble opinion.
Oh, there seems to have been a lot more work put into the Seattle proposal, a lot; and the Seattle proposal is further along than this hasty Sacramento proposal; but the effect of the Seattle proposal in approving an arena is not much further along than the Sacramento proposal. There is no way to say that more work, over a longer amount of time, has not been done with the Seattle proposal.
Sac may think they are matching Hansens bid but unfortunately for them they do not understand all the terms since it is sealed it could be in excess of 600m if side deals are In place or the Maloofs Loans etc.
Exactly now people should understand what the down payment is for. It is for exclusivity (I know everyone knows that pretty much). The price will plummet.
Just like the arena term sheet for Sacramento is non binding so is their “bid” it is not bound by anything simply because it cant be. So essentially the second Hansen is out (doubtful but if it did happen) the bid will change because the value of the team being in Sacramento isnt 525 million. Fair Market Value is closer to 385 million up to 400 million.
So the Maloofs would sue the league, and have a VERY STRONG case, and could get up to 3 times the difference. So lets say they get 100 million less selling to Radavine then the Maloofs could sue for 300 million I believe. Isnt it 3 times as much you could go for?
catdawg:
Brilliant points Trolltossin and Mike Baker. The Maloof’s are going to expect CASH OUT probably within 24 hours after there is a vote by the BOG. With everything “if/but/perhaps” out of Sacramento, what happens to the value of the Kings IF the BOG votes to reject the Hansen PSA/relocation? It would plummet.
Also, the Maloof’s would have had to be negotiating with either the NBA or a Sacramento investor during all this time and I am quite certain that would have legal ramifications, breach of contract, for the Hansen BINDING PSA (and the $30 million).
I am looking forward to April 3! Go Chris and Go Sonics!
Don’t drive yourselves crazy with conjecture. What happens will happen. We will find out after the BOG meeting. There is really not much to do but wait. And make sure that the T-words music is never heard again.
I do not think that anyone is going to sue the NBA, or anyone else, over this deal.
Term sheet will be posted at 7:30 so yeah I get some evening reading woo hoo
traven:
I do not think that anyone is going to sue the NBA, or anyone else, over this deal.
Really so the Maloofs hired anti trust lawyers a year ago for no reason? If they stand to lose 100 million hell 50 million why wouldnt they sue? They have nothing to lose except the money they would lose for interference in their private business sales agreement. So why exactly would they not sue? They even made it known that they had the anti trust lawyers….I wonder why?
Seems I’m being quoted and posted “elsewhere”. lolz.
I’m pretty sure I just got banned at StR for saying this, but;
Now Sac just waits and hopes that the NBA denies the sale, and then the Maloofs agree to sell to Mastrov-Burkle? Still seems far out to me. The Maloofs still own the team, and Hansen has an agreement to buy them.
I just don’t think the arena will make too much of a difference, since it was kind of expected this would happen?
KennewickKrunk:
Seems I’m being quoted and posted “elsewhere”. lolz.
Welcome to the club lol
The Maloofs won’t sue because they would not be compelled by the NBA to take a lower offer. Also, the Maloofs won’t sue because they would not win against the NBA.
traven:
The current Seattle MOU is non-binding as regards building an arena. The current MOU in Seattle is binding only in continuing the process. The MOU can be changed, that means it is still non-binding. The Seattle MOU does mean that the Seattle arena proposal is further along than the Sacramento proposal; but not by much.
The MOU can be changed if all parties agree, see, they are bound to follow the MOU, it’s binding.
Sactown city council could agree on Tuesday, and anybody could walk away on Wednesday because the term sheet is non-binding.
traven:
I do not think that anyone is going to sue the NBA, or anyone else, over this deal.
I do think the Maloof’s will sue if they are not made 100% whole (or more) because I don’t think there can be any compelling reason for the NBA to reject the Chris Hansen PSA/relocation. Our arena is almost through Design Review, we have a place for the team to play on a temporary basis, the land for the arena has been purchased, and the owner group is incredibly strong. Good deal for the Maloof’s, good deal for Seattle and King County, good deal for the NBA.
And this whole argument “NBA doesn’t like to relocate” is just b.s. The only thing about this deal which is problematic is Chris Hansen bought the Maloof’s out with the clear intention to relocate the team. His offer is contingent on the relocation being approved. So the NBA would have to come up with some really good reasons to reject SEATTLE as the destination city and I don’t think the City of Sacramento would/could be a reason for rejecting Seattle.
For the other teams, they were relocated by their current owner and I do think the Maloof’s would have been successful in relocating their team IF they were able to find a city in the United States will to pay for the entire cost of a new arena for the Kings.They didn’t want to sell and when it became clear that they wouldn’t get a deal that would work for them financially, they knew they had to sell. Hence the Chris Hansen deal being leaked within days of the Virginia Beach plan falling apart.
Oh man, great games right now: go Marquette, go Zags
If Hansen is denied then what forces the local offers to be up to the Hansen bid? Nothing, the NBA may frown upon it but Hansen will be out and it will be past the rubicon if you will.
traven:
The Maloofs won’t sue because they would not be compelled by the NBA to take a lower offer. Also, the Maloofs won’t sue because they would not win against the NBA.
I’m ready for a pro Seattle media blitz right about now. Sac has had the damn spotlight long enough
KennewickKrunk:
Seems I’m being quoted and posted “elsewhere”. lolz.
Celebrity!
Hansen solved the arena problem in Seattle but he should also be credited with solving the problem in Sacramento. Had he not put Sacramento’s feet to the fire and made an offer on the Kings, KJ would not have sought an alternative ownership group and Sac would not have come together on an arena plan. When the Kings leave, Sacramento can move forward from where they are with the assurances from the NBA that they will get a new team. Keeping the team in Sacramento risks both arena deals coming undone.
SMK206: And according to a lot of “sources,” (mostly Bruski sources, but still…) the Sacto bid will match. I just think it’s naive for us to assume that they won’t be able to match the Hansen bid.
Mastrov is worth $350M and this new guy is worth $315M (from what I have read). That might be fine for a minority owner, but not a majority owner. That is only $665M. They would have to come up with $525M without borrowing money. Burkle can’t be involved in the purchase of the team because the Maloofs will not sell to Burkle. Not sure they can come up with that kind of cash. Even if they only have to come up with the 65% of $341M. Not sure how they can do it.
I would not be surprised if David Stern met with the Maloofs, or their representatives, on Stern’s recent West Coast trip.
I do not feel the “sky is falling.” But I am starting to feel that this decision may not be based on rational factors (market size, TV deals, etc) and instead may be decided on other matters.
That happens in business. Particularly when politics are involved.
I can’t say that I totally agree with what SMK206 is theorizing, but nothing would surprise me in this situation.
BINDING AGREEMENT; means; denotes an agreement that is legally
binding and cannot be broken or violated by either party.
Breaking a binding agreement is prosecutable in a court of law.
A binding agreement is considered valid if both parties have
consented to all the terms of the contract.
This happens after one party presents an offer to the other party and the
agreement is accepted within a timely fashion.
TERMINATION OF BINDING CONTRACT;
is possible before the terms of the contract have been fully carried out
if the meeting of the terms involve illegal activities, if one party is no longer
able, due to physical or mental disability, to carry out the terms.
There is a lot of legal ratification in this sales scenario on all sides if the NBA
disapprove this sale.
Unless Chris Hansen, Steve Ballmer, the Nordstroms, goes broke, between
now and April 1st. ( April fools day.)
This is a done deal.
All I know is these two things:
1. I’m ready for April 19th. (!!!!)
2. I’m staying off Sac sites. It will be nothing but positive spin, I don’t need nor want to put myself in a tizzy. I don’t need to go into labor 3 months early.
DOOM AND GLOOM!
“waves back to my fans on the other side” lolz again. I’m banned on that “other side” or I’d show up with a personal “wave”.
Ok all you finance and legal mambo jumbo friends, please tell me how this deal looks on paper to you…
The Original: Please tell me why you actually think expansion is a possibility.In fact I think expansion is 1 out of a 100 chance.
Okay. It doesn’t really matter how long the respective cities have been working on a deal; what matters is the moment. The question is, does Sactown have a viable plan? If the answer is “yes”, then it makes much more sense from the league standpoint to leave the Kings there, and offer up expansion in Seattle over the next few years.
Why? Because the MOU in Seattle specifically has a five year time frame to find a team for an arena. Sacremento’s deal doesn’t. If the NBA burns Sacramento, even if they could pull off a deal, maybe even one that isn’t as “good” in our eyes, the opportunity for expansion in the next 5 years there is much smaller.
In other words, the NBA would rather have both markets, since they aren’t competitng with one another. And the end result is the the NBA wants to increase overall market sharealways, and this decision will likely take that into consideration foremost. The endgame is that the likelyhood of expansion is more viable if Seattle is waiting for a team, EIS complete, construction ready to go, then it is for a city that is still reeling from having their team moved in spite of all the political support (sound familiar?).
I’m looking at the broader economic picture. It’s not a zero sum game if the Kings stay, but it may be if they move. The NBA wil do what it best for the NBA as a whole. The league will have an opportunity to create a half billion dollars outof thin air, but in everyone’s view here, Seattle is a better market. Bird in the hand applies here.
Development Revenue Sources Amount
City Contribution
Public Parking Finance Model $212.5 million
Parking Infrastructure Fund 1.5 million
Sales Tax Construction Rebate 1 million
Sheraton MOPA Funds 5 million
Land Sales 38 million
Subtotal: $258 million
Investor Group/Sacramento Kings $189 million
TOTAL $447 million
Didn’t Stern say recently that there would be a team in London in like the next 10 years or something?
The NBA doesn’t seem to want to do expansion in the USA (or Canada). But Seattle could be an exception, and London might help balance things out by adding 2 teams rather than just 1.
SMK206:
Chris Hansen is a pawn utilized by David Stern to kick the Maloofs out of the ownership club and get a new arena in Sacramento.Chris will be promised an expansion team.Whether it’s a public promise, and whether expansion will occur in 2013 or 2017 are the real questions.I continue to believe this, despite this site’s ban on the E word.There, I said it.
When I saw this, I thought back to McGinn saying that we should expect a team by 2014-15, and that he hoped SAC keeps the Kings. I do think he is pretty plugged in with CH, and if CH felt he was being screwed and would come up empty handed, he would have nothing to lose and I would expect him to voice concerns, at least through sources like he did with the $30 mil payment. The only logical explanation is he has been promised something else by BOG AND Stern if he is denied. I’m not sure if another owner has agreed to sell at BOG in April if CH is denied, or if E really could happen for 2014-15, but it’s the only explanation that makes sense.
Who is paying for all that land in the downtown plaza? I would think that amount should be paid by Burkle and the ownership group since that is the preferred location.
Hansen paid for his own land around our arena site..
seafanatic: Okay. It doesn’t really matter how long the respective cities have been working on a deal; what matters is the moment. The question is, does Sactown have a viable plan? If the answer is “yes”, then it makes much more sense from the league standpoint to leave the Kings there, and offer up expansion in Seattle over the next few years.
Why? Because the MOU in Seattle specifically has a five year time frame to find a team for an arena. Sacremento’s deal doesn’t. If the NBA burns Sacramento, even if they could pull off a deal, maybe even one that isn’t as “good” in our eyes, the opportunity for expansion in the next 5 years there is much smaller.
In other words, the NBA would rather have both markets, since they aren’t competitng with one another. And the end result is the the NBA wants to increase overall market sharealways, and this decision will likely take that into consideration foremost. The endgame is that the likelyhood of expansion is more viable if Seattle is waiting for a team, EIS complete, construction ready to go, then it is for a city that is still reeling from having their team moved in spite of all the political support (sound familiar?).
I’m looking at the broader economic picture. It’s not a zero sum game if the Kings stay, but it may be if they move. The NBA wil do what it best for the NBA as a whole. The league will have an opportunity to create a half billion dollars outof thin air, but in everyone’s view here, Seattle is a better market. Bird in the hand applies here.
Umm The expansion fee gets negated when the pie gets split 31 ways. So NBA gets nothing out of an expansion fee. That is why NBA isn’t going to do expansions.
soundersfan84: Umm The expansion fee gets negated when the pie gets split 31 ways.So NBA gets nothing out of an expansion fee.That is why NBA isn’t going to do expansions.
It’s not about the expansion fee; that is chump change. There’s a bigger picutre here.
I think all that expansion to Europe talk was hot air leading up to the last CBA. There is NO way teams in Europe would work. Travel would be a nightmare. Now, I could see a “NBA Europe” type league like the old NFL Europe, kinda like a minor league affiliate.
seafanatic: It’s not about the expansion fee; that is chump change. There’s a bigger picutre here.
Doesn’t matter what ever money they would get from expansion chump change or not will still be negated by splitting the pie 31 times
Great for Sacrown. Still don’t have a bid in to buy the team.
Gorgeous day at Lake Chelan though. No jacket need, wineries poppin corks, great cheeses, breads.
Again, still don’t have a bid in and really don’t have the funds to make it work. Not worried or even going to think about it.
Yeah, not losing Seattle and this ownership group may outweigh all the risks of expansion in the NBA’s eyes. If they want both cities, it might be the only way to do it. But I agree 2017 is cutting it too close, especially with our political process. I think 2014-15 or 15-16 at the latest.
seafanatic: It’s not about the expansion fee; that is chump change. There’s a bigger picutre here.
There’s a considerable argument to be made that if Sac is a below average contributing and valued franchise in the NBA, the league is stronger with 30 teams including Seattle sans Sac than 31 with both. Sac might be the 20th ranked media market, but they also rank lower than than in terms of all of the economic indicators when looking at media markets.
zags better wake up. Minute to go.
ouch, looks like zags lost.
Sounds like any shortfall in debt payment will be paid by the city through the ‘Transient Occupancy Tax’ or hotel/motel tax.
I know, but it was a catch-22. I could not do the public service of stifling the T-word without saying it. Stopping the t-word from polluting the sonic world with their horrible “music” is important. I do want to go see the Prince show at the Showbox.
There is a much worse “T” word than Toto that should be banned. Anyone guess what it is?
I think the expansion fee would only be spilt 30 times. I don’t think CH would get part of his own fee he pays. If the expansion fee was $525 mill, the same price he agreed to buy the Kings for, I think it would make quite a bit for each time.
Peter:
I think all that expansion to Europe talk was hot air leading up to the last CBA.
You might be right.
Still, I’m starting to get the feeling that we’ve all been ‘played’ in this situation.
Such a scheme might not need to look exactly like what SMK206 said above, but it could be something similar.
I haven’t said anything here in weeks. Once Stern came out and seemed to be guiding the Sacramento bid along, I took a step back and thought about things a bit more. As I alluded to above, who was Stern meeting with on the West Coast, exactly?
If Seattle ends up with an NBA team soon, then I’m good. I would prefer that to happen next year, but if it happens soon, great.
Something is starting to feel a bit ‘off’ about what is going on in this matter now. I guess we won’t have long to wait to find out how things will resolve themselves.
Sorry “each team”.
I just took a quick read of the 36 page document and it’s pretty good. I think Sacramento did a good job protecting itself, however, I think they could run into issues with structure (the bonds — I didn’t see any mention of the nonprofit that was leaked a few days ago). They are donating all the land they own in the downtown plaza plus the Natomas property to the project. So what I thought was good in the deal is that investor group could do what they wanted with the Natomas property and the City of Sacramento is going to expedite any land-use changes/restrictions/entitlements for that area. That’s nice for that site and a potential windfall for the investor group.
They are definitely a year behind our arena deal. They have to go through CEQA and all the other stuff Chris Hansen had to go through or is almost through and I didn’t see any design plans that gave any glimpse into the end product. More generic “arena” type rendering.
So this seems like a good deal for Sacramento, of course, I don’t live there so it’s really none of my business.
I am still very sure Seattle and Chris Hansen are in the #1 position in all of this because I just can’t see any reason for the NBA to reject his deal — especially since we are now ahead of Sacramento by at least a year in all of this and the NBA has had the deal since end of January.
I’m really getting the feeling that the NBA just used the Seattle group to make Sacramento shit or get off the pot. We’ll see how big their turd is soon
jenn_gp: Who is paying for all that land in the downtown plaza?I would think that amount should be paid by Burkle and the ownership group since that is the preferred location.
Hansen paid for his own land around our arena site..
The land sales is a funding source for the city. This is not the land the ESC would be located on. The city would give this land to the investors instead of cash. It would be up to the investors to make any money by selling or developing the land.
The bottom line is that the NBA has to reject the Hansen group in order for the Sacramento group to purchase the team. If they do, I would find it hard to believe that Hansen/Ballmer/Nordstroms sitting around waiting for the NBA decide to expand the league. I imagine they will go on to greener pastures.
However, I just don’t think that will happen. But then again . . . I did think that the lawsuit stopping the Bennett group from breaking their lease was going to favor the city. I sometimes am a sucker . . . but I don’t think so this time.
Laporbo: There is a much worse “T” word than Toto that should be banned.Anyone guess what it is?
Tesla?
It could be as simple as CH helping Stern, and getting another team sold to him or expansion in return, just like Bennett got the Thunder for hosting the Hornets. I scratch your back, you scratch mine. I do think expansion would have to be 2014-15 or 15-16 at the latest, or our political process could mess things up, and I’ve heard expansion takes 1-2 years to get off the ground, so our expansion team would have to be announced in April or shortly thereafter. Come to think of it, If Hansen is in on it, like I would expect him to be if it has gotten this far and he hasn’t raised concerns or pulled out, I would expect BOG/Stern to announce expansion for us for 14-15 or 15-16 in April or shortly thereafter. IF CH is in on it, it also means something between him/BOG/Stern has already been agreed to in case SAC comes up with an arena deal. And if he wasn’t in on it, either it is all for show or I would have expected him to back out already.
“In a scenario where parking revenues are not sufficient to make the
debt payments of the corporation, the City’s TOT would be used to make those payments.” From the term sheet
The Transcient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is a hotel motel tax that currently goes into the city’s General Fund. It is then used to fund a variety of uses such as the airport, convention center, police and fire services, etc. The is a nice way for Sacto to raid their General Fund indirectly.
QuasiContract: I’m really getting the feeling that the NBA just used the Seattle group to make Sacramento shit or get off the pot. We’ll see how big their turd is soon
Do you think that the NBA would use Steve Ballmer and lose the potential of what he would bring to the NBA? He has poured millions into charitable events in at least the last 5 years. I don’t think you play with Steve Ballmer.
Sean: There’s a considerable argument to be made that if Sac is a below average contributing and valued franchise in the NBA, the league is stronger with 30 teams including Seattle sans Sac than 31 with both. Sac might be the 20th ranked media market, but they also rank lower than than in terms of all of the economic indicators when looking at media markets.
But do they, or will they turn a profit? With a reinvigorated fan base and political machine the answer is yes. “Team gone” turns a zero profit and a negative profit for each year expansion can’t find a place to go. The utility of expansion in Seattle is much stronger than it is for Sacramento. If that Sac deal can be put to bed, Hansen and Ballmer have nothing vis the Kings. We will have to wait and see. But my money is on expansion for Seattle.
Peter: It could be as simple as CH helping Stern, and getting another team sold to him or expansion in return, just like Bennett got the Thunder for hosting the Hornets. I scratch your back, you scratch mine. I do think expansion would have to be 2014-15 or 15-16 at the latest, or our political process could mess things up, and I’ve heard expansion takes 1-2 years to get off the ground, so our expansion team would have to be announced in April or shortly thereafter. Come to think of it, If Hansen is in on it, like I would expect him to be if it has gotten this far and he hasn’t raised concerns or pulled out, I would expect BOG/Stern to announce expansion for us for 14-15 or 15-16 in April or shortly thereafter. IF CH is in on it, it also means something between him/BOG/Stern has already been agreed to in case SAC comes up with an arena deal. And if he wasn’t in on it, either it is all for show or I would have expected him to back out already.
Why put Steve Ballmer’s name on it? That is too big of a name to be used by anyone.
I do think either A) its all for show or B) CH has an agreement with BOG/Stern for something else if SAC comes up with an arena. That’s the only thing that makes sense. You don’t do and take all this if you think you’ll be screwed and come up empty handed.
Can we stop with the WHOLE Seattle is getting used.
Sober:
“In a scenario where parking revenues are not sufficient to make the
debt payments of the corporation, the City’s TOT would be used to make those payments.”From the term sheet
The Transcient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is a hotel motel tax that currently goes into the city’s General Fund.It is then used to fund a variety of uses such as the airport, convention center, police and fire services, etc.The is a nice way for Sacto to raid their General Fund indirectly.
This is the area where I think Sacramento could regret this rush. They are seriously jeopardizing other projects/services for the Kings based on the amount of $$ and the commitment of future revenues to keep this team. I’ve seen a few cities the size of Sacramento get screwed by these “pet projects” where all the City $$ and efforts go into a project and the funds are dried for years and years and the city and its services suffer. That I think is a very very real risk for Sacramento since it is already in a precarious financial situation with unemployment and the lack of a vibrant and diverse business economy.
Of course, I don’t live there, so it’s really not my concern.
If there is some kind of ‘silent deal’ going on here, and I’m not saying that there is, then I would be very surprised if the Seattle group were not in on it, so to speak.
Hansen, Ballmer, etc are too smart to get taken for a ride, I think.
Yeah I don’t think Seattle is getting used at all. SuperSonics will be playing in Seattle again 2013-2014.
I think the league knows as long as we get a team soon this will all be forgotten soon. So I wouldn’t put it past them to have a deal with Hansen to save the Kings, and give him something else, whether it is expansion within the next 2 years or another team sold to him. I floated that a while back that Hansen may already have a deal for another team In case Kings stay and this is a favor to the league by CH.
Do we have Sacramento fans here in Sonics clothing??? Some of you sound just like Sacramento fans regarding an expansion team going to Seattle. In fact, if you read on some of Sacramento websites you will read that they think they have won, and now they are hoping that Seattle will get an expansion team in the future. Give me a break. It is not going to happen until maybe years in the future. By that time Hansen/Ballmer/Nordstroms may be elsewhere . . . maybe like owning the Mariners. Would be a lot less than buying the Sonics and funding a new arena.
Calm down kiddos.
I seriously do not get why everyone is talking about these mysterious backroom handshake deals that must be the case or that the Sac effort is all a charade now taht EXACTLY WHAT WE KNEW WAS GOING TO HAPPEN HAPPENED.
Here is a crazy theory I have:
Chris Hansen bought the Kings with the intention of moving them to Seattle to be rebranded the Supersonics. He has an arena deal struck with the city and has all the financial backing needed to win over the NBA BOG. In response to this, a passionate fanbase and motivated mayor make a strong effort to keep their team, they put together some investors, throw together an arena deal as quickly and as best as they can, and in turn present that to the NBA to try to persuade them to not allow the sale to the Seattle group. The NBA decides whether or not to approve Hansen after considering all variables.
I just don’t understand why Sacramento doing exactly what we’ve been saying they were going to do has spurned so much panicky, wild speculation.
The Original:
Do we have Sacramento fans here in Sonics clothing???Some of you sound just like Sacramento fans regarding an expansion team going to Seattle.In fact, if you read on some of Sacramento websites you will read that they think they have won, and now they are hoping that Seattle will get an expansion team in the future.Give me a break.It is not going to happen until maybe years in the future.By that time Hansen/Ballmer/Nordstroms may be elsewhere . . . maybe like owning the Mariners.Would be a lot less than buying the Sonics and funding a new arena.
seafanatic posts on StR, promising a “black swan moment” for Seattle recently. He was also posting on here cheerleading the ILWU lawsuit when that hearing was going on.
Peter: I do think either A) its all for show or B) CH has an agreement with BOG/Stern for something else if SAC comes up with an arena. That’s the only thing that makes sense. You don’t do and take all this if you think you’ll be screwed and come up empty handed.
You do if you think that they are playing on a level field with any opposition from the local city and team fans. I am sure they have thought of all contingencies. If all is fair and above board, the Hansen group wins. PERIOD!
The only way it is a “Silent Deal” is if Hansen is in on it. If you get all this pulled on you, a smart businessman would back out or at least voice concerns, even it is through sources, much less not waste $30 mil. The ONLY way H/B/N takes all this without backing out is if A) it is all for show or B) They are in on the silent deal Anything else and I hate to say it but I wouldn’t fall for it, much less people with billions and billions.
I’m 100% behind the Sonics being in Seattle. Next year. But I don’t like how Stern seems to have played this thing and I’m double-checking the road before I cross.
I’m not spooked by today’s “arena deal” thing. That’s not it. I am just rethinking this entire process.
If it starts to leak around April 3rd that the BOG is going to approve the sale and relocation to Seattle, I will be extremely happy.
Field of Schemes @fieldofschemes 36m
New #SacKings owners would pay off old arena debt via means “to be determined.” Not a good start here.
Field of Schemes @fieldofschemes 34m
Sorry, that’s collateral on loan that’s “TBD.” Loan payments are from old arena land sale plus “other sources.” Much more specific.
Field of Schemes @fieldofschemes 23m
#SacKings term sheet asserts parking $$ to pay off $212.5m in arena debt, plus $3m+/yr in “surplus net revenues.” Doesn’t show math, tho
Field of Schemes @fieldofschemes 22m
If parking $$ isn’t enough, Sacramento would use hotel-motel taxes to fill in the gap.
Field of Schemes @fieldofschemes 20m
How lost parking revenues be paid back? By counting anything city gets from new arena – ticket tax, rent, sales tax, parking – towards that.
Field of Schemes @fieldofschemes 18m
Also, projects parking $$ to rise over time, but only replaces the $9m the city gets now, not what it would get in future.
#SacKings term sheet could be solid enough for NBA. But only if Sacto agrees to write $258m check, say “we’ll find $ to cover it somehow”
With this news, and the zags just losing, I’m fixing to go kick the neighbors dog.
catdawg: I do think the Maloof’s will sue if they are not made 100% whole (or more) because I don’t think there can be any compelling reason for the NBA to reject the Chris Hansen PSA/relocation. Our arena is almost through Design Review, we have a place for the team to play on a temporary basis, the land for the arena has been purchased, and the owner group is incredibly strong. Good deal for the Maloof’s, good deal for Seattle and King County, good deal for the NBA.
I’m sorry, unless the Seattle group goes broke between now and April fools,
This is a done deal.
The BOG will base this sales and relocation on who will be the better steward
of the franchise in the future. ( It favors Seattle.) wealthier owners vs Sacramento’s.
Market size (# 12 ), corporate size, size of TV contract up to $60 million per season, in Seattle
vs Sacramento’s TV deal $14 million per season, (it favors Seattle)
This stats alone should be a good enough reason for the BOG to favor
Seattle.
By the end of the day this decision boils down to who can bring more monetary
gains to strengthen the ownership group of the NBA.
Can you imagine the rivalries this is going to create in the NBA ?
This is no longer Seattle vs Portland. This will also be about the Sonics vs
OKC thunders as well. Can you imagine the TV ratings on those games ?
I’m sure that the NBA knew about this possible scenario, and is excited about
how those games can be billed nationally.
Keeping the team in Sacramento will be boring with no real rivalry teams to get
excited about, unless the NBA bring the KIngs as an expansion team in 2 years,
which brings to the topic of expansion ?
I believe that with all of the Sacramento’s efforts in trying to get a new ownership
group, Sacramento is going to get an expansion team in 2 years.
I said it because they have no time to catch up with the Seattle group at this time
and also with the binding agreement between the Seattle group, and the Maloofs
makes this a done deal.
It’s very exciting to even think about all of those rivalries in the future.
SEATTLE vs OKC , Portland, Sacramento.
And this whole argument “NBA doesn’t like to relocate” is just b.s. The only thing about this deal which is problematic is Chris Hansen bought the Maloof’s out with the clear intention to relocate the team. His offer is contingent on the relocation being approved. So the NBA would have to come up with some really good reasons to reject SEATTLE as the destination city and I don’t think the City of Sacramento would/could be a reason for rejecting Seattle.
For the other teams, they were relocated by their current owner and I do think the Maloof’s would have been successful in relocating their team IF they were able to find a city in the United States will to pay for the entire cost of a new arena for the Kings.They didn’t want to sell and when it became clear that they wouldn’t get a deal that would work for them financially, they knew they had to sell. Hence the Chris Hansen deal being leaked within days of the Virginia Beach plan falling apart.
Oh man, great games right now: go Marquette, go Zags
The Original: Do you think that the NBA would use Steve Ballmer and lose the potential of what he would bring to the NBA?He has poured millions into charitable events in at least the last 5 years.I don’t think you play with Steve Ballmer.
I don’t think they play with Ballmer/CH but if they were in on it it wouldn’t be playing. For all we know our guys have been planning for a few years down the road all along and this diversion with Sact (while horribly disrespectful and evil to us fans - and potentially bridge burning) is just to get things done in Sact. By going along with it they are still on THEIR schedule, get Sact’s crap together for them, and buy brownie points with the league.
The City shall transfer and convey the following City-owned parcels of land to
the Investor Group, free and clear of any liens.
Natomas – City Parcel
3
rd Street and Capitol Mall (Lot X)
2
nd Street and O Street (Lot Y)
Haggin Oaks/Business 80
800 K Street
1121 8th Street
4
th and J Street
The value of the above-referenced City-owned land is $37,980,000 (estimated
Natomas land value assumes flood moratorium lifted prior to sale).
Nice gift to the investors :) sure the citizens will love that
Peter:
I floated that a while back that Hansen may already have a deal for another team In case Kings stay and this is a favor to the league by CH.
Sean: seafanatic posts on StR, promising a “black swan moment” for Seattle recently. He was also posting on here cheerleading the ILWU lawsuit when that hearing was going on.
yup, just ignore him
Headline on msn sports. “seattle an nba loser again?” Well that didn’t take long.
KennewickKrunk:
Headline on msn sports.“seattle an nba loser again?”Well that didn’t take long.
Really Microsofts own network (MSN) not sure if they are directly affiliated would have a headline like that?
Field of Schemes @fieldofschemes 14m
.@Golfbybryan But if Seattle MOU assumptions are bad, city might lose $50m. If Sacto term sheet #s bad, California falls into ocean.
Pretty funny tweet by Neil Demause from Field of Schemes relating the MOU in Seattle and Sac Term Sheet if both went bad
Isn’t he the guy who said he’s studying law at UW?
Sean: seafanatic posts on StR, promising a “black swan moment” for Seattle recently. He was also posting on here cheerleading the ILWU lawsuit when that hearing was going on.
Amen. It’s crazy how when Sac finally announces things that they were supposed to days before that there are people on here who get insecure and act like Hansen / Ballmer lost this deal and hope for expansion.
If Hansen wasn’t sure of the kings moving he would not negotiate a lease agreement with the city to use the key next year and also have us sign up for priority ticketing
The Original:
Do we have Sacramento fans here in Sonics clothing???Some of you sound just like Sacramento fans regarding an expansion team going to Seattle.In fact, if you read on some of Sacramento websites you will read that they think they have won, and now they are hoping that Seattle will get an expansion team in the future.Give me a break.It is not going to happen until maybe years in the future.By that time Hansen/Ballmer/Nordstroms may be elsewhere . . . maybe like owning the Mariners.Would be a lot less than buying the Sonics and funding a new arena.
trolltossin: Really Microsofts own network (MSN) not sure if they are directly affiliated would have a headline like that?
Where? I didn’t find it.
trolltossin:
The City shall transfer and convey the following City-owned parcels of land to
the Investor Group, free and clear of any liens.
Natomas – City Parcel
3
rd Street and Capitol Mall (Lot X)
2
nd Street and O Street (Lot Y)
Haggin Oaks/Business 80
800 K Street
1121 8th Street
4
th and J Street
The value of the above-referenced City-owned land is $37,980,000 (estimated
Natomas land value assumes flood moratorium lifted prior to sale).
Nice gift to the investors :) sure the citizens will love that
This land isn’t worth much unless investment goes into it. How else can the city entice someone to develop that land even if they don’t give them an incentive to do so?
Do I wish the city didn’t have to do that? Of course. But if that land wasn’t valuable they wouldn’t have that many parcels to give away to begin with.
Kingsguru21: But if that land wasn’t valuable they wouldn’t have that many parcels to give away to begin with.
Sigh. If the land was valuable, they wouldn’t have that many parcels to give away to begin with.
Kingsguru21: Sigh. If the land was valuable, they wouldn’t have that many parcels to give away to begin with.
It is now. It’s required for a plan with a significant amount of public and private funding behind it and with a ton of political reputations on the line. Name your price, boys and girls!
Sean: It is now. It’s required for a plan with a significant amount of public and private funding behind it and with a ton of political reputations on the line. Name your price, boys and girls!
How is it valuable? Explain that to me.
Kingsguru21: How is it valuable? Explain that to me.
Whoops, thought we were talking about the parcels of land that still need to be bought for there to even be one owner of the arena site in Sac.
Sean: Whoops, thought we were talking about the parcels of land that still need to be bought for there to even be one owner of the arena site in Sac.
Nope. That’s JMA’s and Burkle’s doing. But they’ll get everybody in line. The general problem with land value is that it’s not worth much. Which, for a key and vital part of downtown, as you can imagine, that’s a bit of a problem. That includes the DTP, K St, and all that. Just the way it is here.
I’ll be watching Tuesday to see if any of the city council members attempt to sandbag this by highlighting the fact that the city has no risk because the term sheet is nonbinding.
What do you mean?
Eldridge Recasner @erecasner 26m
Seems like Kevin Johnson is playing harder to keep the Kings in Sacramento than he did in the League as a player
Isn’t Seattle’s MOU also non-binding? I thought that was why the longshoremen’s lawsuit was thrown out? I’m not sure this is would be an issue to the NBA in either case.
“@ChrisDaniels5: Seattle’s Mayor and KC Exec said in Feb 2012 they had term sheet with Hansen. MOU passed in October. #NBASeattle”
To Sac people that think this means everything is all even.
I know there is no opposition in Sacramento, however, man, that just seems like irresponsible management of a city.
I don’t live there though so maybe when they say the Kings are all they’ve got then truly, they have nothing else — no creativity, no “diversity” in their economy (like that KJ?) and no ability to generate or attract other businesses, just a sort of depressed town with incredibly high unemployment (12% is sad). So hey, let’s build this big entertainment venue for all those working upper income people in Sacramento….
Curious to see how they plant o aquire all of the land.
So this means there arena financing plan is done and presentable to the NBA BOG by April 3?
I know there is no opposition in Sacramento, however, man, that just seems like irresponsible management of a city.
Unless you live there, it’s not your concern.
I assume ( and always have) that the Sacramento City Council will approve this next week pending their version of EIS and SEPA.
Remember, the Seattle City Council and King County Council performed and completed their negotiations and due diligence prior to the Sodo Arena’s first vote. No matter the outcome of the Sacramento vote on Tuesday, the Seattle project is still further along in the process. Seattle’s arena agreement is awaiting final approval based upon environmental mitigation. Sacramento’s will include those factors as well as the mitigation of any Sacramento City Council concerns regarding financing, etc.
Gotta say have been optimistic all along but am really starting to feeling down about this. Feels like the whole media will start jumping on this and spouting off about SacTo being a frontrunner to keep the Kings. It sucks because our side has basically been told to shut up leaving us anxious. Tired of KJ. He’s a pathetic politician who has played harder for this than he did in the NBA.
The terms of the MOU are binding, the only thing that isn’t is the location because of the EIS.
The arguments between February and October were Hansen and the councils attempting to come up with agreeable binding terms.
You are right. None of my business and I am thankful I don’t live in California.
I agree to a point I’m not feeling pessimistic about our chances just more irritated about the whole situation.
We have a binding agreement subject to the construction, SEPA and EIS process. That is a big difference from a non-binding term sheet. The Sac one could simply be changed at any time because someone learns new information or changes their opinions. Its going to be a 15 page summary. Our is completely lawyered out with all the fine print and details.
SEPA and EIS are part of ANY process. Consider it like buying a house. You can sign a binding contract subject to appraisal and you have a contract and it is a “done deal” even though it still has ways it can fall apart.
We’ll see when they release it what the level of fine print looks like.
A HREF=”http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/23/5287542/mayor-city-reaches-agreement-on.html”>http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/23/5287542/mayor-city-reaches-agreement-on.html
Gotta say have been optimistic all along but am really starting to feeling down about this. Feels like the whole media will start jumping on this and spouting off about SacTo being a frontrunner to keep the Kings.
Yes, given the different ways Stern has treated Sacramento and Seattle over the years, I’m starting to feel like the Kings will stay.
agree! The NBA should just end this whole drama, one way or another. It’s getting tiresome. They’ve given Sacramento too many chances! These idiots knew the team was gone a year ago after Maloofs pulled out.
People on a rollercoaster: It’s over. Seattle will get this team. Sacramento, on the other hand, is positioning themselves nicely for the Bucks in three years.
No one really knows what’s going to happen. I’m just naturally pessimistic, based on what I’ve seen out of Stern.
I think it’d be comforting if our side had something to say, but it just feels bad because all we get is Sacramento’s side. We can’t say anything.
I’m happy that they have their arena plan in place for the next time a team is ready for relocation.
I think we’ll hear something from Hansen/Ballmer (via Mitch) sometime soon one way or another.
I can see that being the case.
PLEASE PEOPLE REMEMBER ONE OF MISSION STATEMENTS OF THIS SITE…… TRUST CHRIS HANSEN AS HE PUT HIS TRUST IN US!!!
Dude…we’ve been muzzled by the NBA. We cannot say anything until the process is underway.
Stay patient none of this is really new, we all figured that Sac would get a term sheet, they will also up their offer for the team. We are right where we new we would be. They have vetted Hansens deal for 2 months, it is the details that are going to matter, not the headlines.
Unfortunately we’re in the boring environmental review/already bought the team so there’s a gag order part of our plan, not the rah rah PR rally fun stuff anymore.
Chris Hansen is a pawn utilized by David Stern to kick the Maloofs out of the ownership club and get a new arena in Sacramento. Chris will be promised an expansion team. Whether it’s a public promise, and whether expansion will occur in 2013 or 2017 are the real questions. I continue to believe this, despite this site’s ban on the E word. There, I said it.
People have been pessimistic because of the quiet from our side that has been mandated. Remember a key reason we havent heard all that much is the fact that Chris Hansen has done everything he has needed too at this point. He has worked on this for years internally and with the league. DONT doubt ourselves….we have done everything that has been asked and more in a city the league/nation thought would be impossible to deal with.
We are where we are and theoretically their arena is year behind ours and we havr a PSA in hand. Final stretch here we need to be stronger now than ever. HOLD THE LINE!!!
(Yes I’m quoting myself). This scenario allows EVERYONE to come out looking like a hero: the Maloofs bow out gracefully and agree to sell to Burkle/Vivek/Mastrov, KJ is the local savior, Stern’s last act as commissioner is to rescue a small-market team, Silver’s first act as commissioner is to grant an expansion team to Seattle, and Hansen doesn’t have to deal with the stench of relocation. It all makes so much sense that I have a hard time believing it wasn’t concocted by the evil genius, Mr. Stern.
2017 is a slap in the face and could really screw the momentum up based on Seattle politics.
I don’t get why people are starting to worry now that Sacramento has a tentative at best arena deal in place. Did anybody really think they wouldn’t at least get that far?
I just don’t see why this news changes anybody’s feeling on the situation.
I’m fine with people talking about “the E word” as much as they want. There’s just not much reason to see that happening. If it were an option, why would Hansen be trying to relocate a team?
Residual feelings about Stern’s heist of our team in 2008…we have NBA trust issues.
Because David Stern is using him as a pawn to extort a new arena in Sacramento and get rid of the Maloofs.
I think it depends on what Stern’s preference is. If he wants a team in Seattle, he can use the fact that our deal is more solidly in place as an excuse. If he wants the team to stay in Sacramento, this deal, however shaky and tentative, gives him that excuse, too.
He couldn’t have done that without involving Hansen?
It’s pretty weird.
We knew this is what we’d be facing. They missed their deadline, so everybody assumed they wouldn’t have an arena deal at all and so when it comes out it’s this huge haymaker surprise blow? Sorry, no.
All along we’ve expected Sac to put forth their pasted together, not as wealthy ownership group with their rushed, potentially legally compromised arena plan. I don’t get why when it actually comes to fruition people worry more. It’d have been nice to have the whole thing tank with no arena deal coming together, it’d have been nice for no ownership to emerge, etc.
We’re still that stronger market with the stronger ownership and the completed arena deal that has been through the rigors of public scrutiny and debate.
I think mainly for me, I just wanted to see Sac fall flat on its face and see this thing end right now! If KJ had played this hard as a player, he’d have been a Michael Jordan or at least something close to it.
Sac was already signed on for a largely subsidized arena deal, so why wouldn’t Stern just go find some Sacramento owners to offer the Maloofs bags of cash?
I doubt expansion was the ploy by the league from get go. In the end, thru Sacramento’s effort, maybe thats what this leads too. Thatd if the NBA isnt leery about viability of the term sheet forming into an arena, any lawsuits, petty or not will have to be scrutinized by the league. Also anything the league may see as cumbersome that will have to be addressed down the line by the council. IF IT IS PERFECT then may e just maybe they keep their team but I for one second am not seeing how we walk away w/out a team.
I really don’t see Stern having the kind of influence some people think he does.
It’s the owners who are voting and what they think that matters. I just don’t see them setting the precedent of saying no to one of their own and also turning down a better financial market.
I was right about the Jesse Ventura conspiracy theories coming out.
I thought I would find a really awesome youtube video for “HOLD THE LINE!!!!”. But all I found was an old Pete Seeger song lol. But the song wasn’t too bad at least lol.
Yes, and owners don’t want to hamstring themselves by denying things even if there is an equal offer…or at least I think so
Apparently the council members know the details of the deal already so I expect a quick vote of approval. I get this from kasler tweets that have favorable responses from council members
Not really too surprised by that
I don’t see why this theory is so far-fetched. I’m far from the first person to espouse the theory, by the way. It makes a lot of sense: Sacto buyers either didn’t think the Maloofs would sell or weren’t willing to offer enough to induce them to sell, so Stern recruits Hansen as a nuclear option to set things in motion. From Stern’s POV, the worst case scenario is relocation to Seattle if no local buyer steps up; best case is a sparkly new arena in Sacto with the Maloofs no longer involved. And, just as he promised Clay Clay some remuneration in exchange for hosting the Hornets, he gives Hansen an expansion team at some point to thank him for solving the Sacramento problem.
Not saying I’d bet on this being the case, but all the puzzle pieces fit together.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcVEOc7ZYgk
This one is from Toto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcVEOc7ZYgk
If that was the case then Chris Hansen would never make an attempt to bring back the NBA back to Seattle. He knows something more then we do, otherwise he wouldn’t be in the basketball business.
I heard this the other day when I was Kennelly Keys and its been stuck in my head since then. I wondered who did this song and what the title was. I can’t say I ever played much Toto when I was a gigging musician.
But Stern can’t just “give” away expansion teams. Stern is the puppet of the owners, he’s the man they’ve hired to be the public jerk who lays down the cold hard truth. I mean, I suppose all of the owners could have hatched this scheme, but I doubt it.
I’m a DJ.. it’s my job to know these things.. lol
Ok so they have a term sheet…is it posted yet?
Well thank you for letting me know who did the song and the title. Although now I will probably have something by the Allman Brothers or Stevie Ray Vaughan or The Sonics stuck in my head for the next couple of days lol.
This really doesn’t change anything. It make KJ look good and that is what this process was for, to save face. The NBA still knows that for the long haul Seattle is a better option than Sac. For a city that is broke they are putting up 255 million and there 3 whales only 190 million. Are you kidding me? I am so glad we have Chris Hansen. Remember this was a done deal months ago. Is it April 3rd yet?
SHouldnt the term sheet be posted by now if it has been completed for public consumption or will it not be until Monday? I wouldnt be surprised if it wasnt posted until Monday but the lack of transparency from the City and its investors in California is kind of disturbing. My cousins and uncle that live in Sacramento are not happy about the lack of transparency to say the least. The like the Kings and all that but they are concerned that the city is going to end up screwing itself long term
I’m just not going to run around like my hair is on fire.
Thanks.
Is there a link to the document?
Another thing to remember about the NBA owners they don’t want to be told that they can’t sell when they need to. If they did reject Seattle’s offer it sends a bad presidence in the future when they want to sell their team.
I don’t think precedent matters much. This isn’t a court system. The NBA can do what they want, when they want.
I concur precedence matters not. Plus any outcome from this doesnt have to be a precedence but a individual outcome in an individual situation.
THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!
My first instinct as a Seattle sports is expect the worst and hope for the best, really trying hard to change that. Gotta believe in what this Hansen group is doing, remember Mitch said that Seattle still has bullets to fire, bring on the 18th or 19th or whatever it is!
Well, it’s always a big deal to do something “unprecedented”, whether or not it has the same implications of legal precedence. Obviously this type of decision won’t become established case law, but it’ll still be a statement about how much power lies in the NBA as an association vs. an owner of an asset, the NBA team.
Im wondering the same thing Mr. Baker……wondering where its at so I can have some reading material for the evening. I feel that this was purposefully brought out after the town hall meetings to avoid scrutiny and to say they had meetings about it. It will be even more shady if they wait till somepoint on Monday and vote on it the next day. Not my city but I do have family and have lived in Sacramento myself in the past and would hope for a little more transparency on their part.
For instance, one might have said that the Sonics relocation demonstrated that the NBA doesn’t respect the leases they have with publicly-funded arenas. But when the NBA rescued to Hornets in order to keep them in New Orleans, Stern cited the team’s lease as one of the reasons.
There are no rules. It’s all just pretext.
As far as precedent, Stern said himself the whole situation is unprecedented. Whatever the outcome, it will an unprecedented action by the BOG.
First of all, the BOG and the NBA will habe to say “no” to the Hansen group, including Steve Ballmer. They will have to find that their offer is deficient. Then, whatever Sacramento group forms will have to negotiate with the Maloofs and purchase the team and start the process with the NBA.
Additionally, here is my conspiracy theory . . . Burkle will eventually buy out whoever buys the team from the Maloofs. He is the only person in the whole Sacramento party that can afford to purchase and maintain the team. If the NBA says no to the Hansen group, they may be gone forever. Hansen can sell the real property he purchased. Ballmer can afford to lose the $30M if necessary. Rich people walk away from money when necessary. They make it up elsewhere.
Now, it probably won’t happen and the Hansen group will be approved . . . I just can’t see the NBA saying “no” to Steve Ballmer or the Nordstroms.
Kevin Johnson made the announcement. I thought he was on vacation, or, maybe he is on vacation when there is bad news.
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/23/5287542/mayor-city-reaches-agreement-on.html
My money is on the Kings staying in Sacramento, and Seattle gets an expansion team. That really is the most realistic scenario, given Stern’s propensity to play both sides.
The Hansen MOU is politcally binding but as another commenter pointed out, isn’t a deal per what the judge said in the longshoremans’ case. As much as I want the Sonics back, we can’t have it both ways by saying Sacramento’s deal isn’t binding and our is. I would even argue that thier arena deal is politically more solid because of the polical connection in a state capitol in the 6th largest economy in the world.
Expansion becomes viable, now the the new “bottom” has been set with team valuations, esp. for a team that isn’t so hot these days.
What matters most is that Hansen is in first position to buy the team with a negotiated PSA. To overturn that deal the BOG has to find something wrong with the Seattle ownership group or the arena deal. There is no smoking gun. Sac got there second and a year late. This isn’t a bidding contest. Seattle is in first position to buy the team. That is all that matters. There is too much concern about what Sac is doing.
And sorry for the freakin’ typos, long day in front of the computer.
There it is, Brian, non-binding.
The preliminary term sheet, agreed upon this afternoon after weeks of negotiations, is non-binding, however.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/23/5287542/mayor-city-reaches-agreement-on.html#storylink=cpy
Yes, quoting myself, they are a year behind.
That term sheet could lead to an arena, or to somebody blowing their nose with it an walking away.
Please tell me why you actually think expansion is a possibility. In fact I think expansion is 1 out of a 100 chance.
If the Hansen deal is squashed there is no way in hell the Maloofs are getting as much as Hansen is buying the franchise for. The Radavine, Mastrov, Burkle threesome will just lower their bid right away if Hansen and Ballmer are denied. Why wouldnt they? Part of the value is the fact the team can be relocated. Once denied everyone then knows the team cannot move. The Maloofs will lose money and they will have to sell for less and then will go after the NBA in court for interference on their private sales agreement and attempt to recoup their losses. BTW they will have a strong case if that happens.
WHat I just pointed out is a one of many reasons why Hansen will not be denied. There is no way Radavine is paying ash as much as Hansen if Hansen is denied. The second the denial would happen is the second the franchise valuation drops a good 100 million dollars. Book it
I agree! Thank you! They are so many people who are now freaked out and it’s getting annoying to be honest!
Wait, so our deal is binding? I thought it couldn’t be until the EIS was done.
Just like their bid to the Maloofs for the team is NON BINDING meaning it can be altered before agreed upon if Hansen is denied and it will be altered if Hansen is denied. Thats why he wont be because the NBA will not want a lawsuit by the Maloofs looking for the difference from the Hansen offer to a new Radavne offer
I believe they have to. They don’t have the money to pay what the Hansen group is willing to pay. It will be less . . . and if the Maloofs want to sell the team, they will have to sell it this Sacramento group. Eventually Burkle will probably own the majority interest. It could be that the one thing that the Maloofs didn’t want with Burkle owning the Kings could happen.
It is the same as ever; we will find out if the Kings will move to Seattle after the BOG meeting.
Anyway, No Toto. Please, No Toto. Oh my God, NO Toto. Do not promote Toto. Toto went away for a reason. Toto’s music sucks. It is pablum. Please do not bring up Toto. Bringing up Toto is more objectionable than the E-word.
Can anyone explain to me the difference between a binding and nonbinding agreement?
D. This MOU is intended to be a binding and enforceable agreement of the Parties, subject to the fulfillment and occurrence of the conditions precedent set forth herein. It reflects the mutual understandings of the Parties regarding those actions, permits, approvals and/or agreements lawful and necessary to accomplish the location, financing, acquisition, design, development, construction, lease, management, operation, use and occupancy of the Arena (collectively, the “Project”). The Parties intend to actively participate and to work together collaboratively, in good faith and with due diligence, to negotiate the terms of the Transaction Documents (as defined below) and undertake the Project. These undertakings are personal to the Parties and this MOU shall not be assigned to any other person or entity unless all Parties agree.
That’s from the MOU itself. The ILWU lawsuit was dismissed because the MOU isn’t an action as classified by SEPA nor could the ILWU demonstrate that the MOU itself caused them any harm.
I don’t think the NBA would make the Maloofs walk away with less money in their pockets. If they wanted to give the Sacto group a discount to keep the team there, that’d be one thing, but the big payday for NBA owners is when they sell their team. I don’t think the league would make them take less $$. So the Sacramento group would have to match.
Them maybe don’t say the “T” word 8 times in your own post!
Relocating the team to Seattle is much better for each of the NBA owners. Let’s not lose sight of the relocation fee they get to pocket. It could be worth as much as $2.5 million per owner if it is $75 million.
Okay, thanks. My mistake. So I guess that does give us an advantage, although the arena won’t be assured of happening until the EIS is done.
The current Seattle MOU is non-binding as regards building an arena. The current MOU in Seattle is binding only in continuing the process. The MOU can be changed, that means it is still non-binding. The Seattle MOU does mean that the Seattle arena proposal is further along than the Sacramento proposal; but not by much.
http://youtu.be/C1ZpBPYFDXI
Non-binding means that no party has to stand by the agreement. Binding means that all parties have to stand by the agreement.
I see what you did there. Nicely played
Brilliant points Trolltossin and Mike Baker. The Maloof’s are going to expect CASH OUT probably within 24 hours after there is a vote by the BOG. With everything “if/but/perhaps” out of Sacramento, what happens to the value of the Kings IF the BOG votes to reject the Hansen PSA/relocation? It would plummet.
Also, the Maloof’s would have had to be negotiating with either the NBA or a Sacramento investor during all this time and I am quite certain that would have legal ramifications, breach of contract, for the Hansen BINDING PSA (and the $30 million).
I am looking forward to April 3! Go Chris and Go Sonics!
I know, but it was a catch-22. I could not do the public service of stifling the T-word without saying it. Stopping the t-word from polluting the sonic world with their horrible “music” is important. I do want to go see the Prince show at the Showbox.
Yeah not by much LOL the EIS draft will be out soon. They havent negotiated the terms of the term sheet in council. Sure it may not happen Tuesday but it will have to happen and be accomodated before they finalize anything. It may not take as long as our council was BUT there will be questions and opposition in a legal sense which will give the NBA pause GUARANTEED. Their funding mechanism, though unknown, sounds a lot like a shiny misleading money laundering scheme.
If I were the Maloofs and was being pushed by the NBA towards selling to Sac, I would suggest that if they do not want to approve the Hansen sale but that they want me to take a supposedly matching offer from Sac then they should put up the money right now. Not the investors, they can’t be expected to do so since they’d still have to go through the whole process of a PSA and BOG approval, the NBA. The NBA can buy me out for not a penny less than Hansen was going to right then and there and worry about the Sac investors themselves. That’s it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I don’t think the NBA would reject the deal unless the Sacto group’s offer would put the same amount of money in the Maloofs’ pocket.
Oh man, brilliant, that I know, would give the Maloof’s infinite pleasure too! Love that idea, that is just clever clever clever.
trolltossin, The entire MOU could still be rewritten. The current MOU states that specific contracts would be TBD. So, it is further along; but really not by much. Now, if the Final, Final MOU were passed it would be much further along; but as of right now, it is not.
I don’t think it is just the Maloof’s pocket. The franchise owes the NBA $70 million on a line of credit. We do not know whether the Sac offer pays off the debt or leaves it in place.
In terms of how much work has gone into it… how much due dilligence has been done… the transparency… I say it is far superior and further along. My humble opinion.
I’m just talking about how much money the Maloofs would walk away with. I don’t think the league would make them take less. Selling the team is when an owner really cashes in.
And according to a lot of “sources,” (mostly Bruski sources, but still…) the Sacto bid will match. I just think it’s naive for us to assume that they won’t be able to match the Hansen bid.
Sucks that the middle man plays god when you have a buyer, and a seller already ready to do business, and part ways, then the god himself has to interfere, basically put everything on hold, so the other team has time to come up with something. They’ve had 4 years to come up with something. Sure wish Seattle had 4 years to come up with something.
I didn’t say they wouldn’t.
Go zags!
I still think there is some sort of poison pill in the Hansen contract that will make it impossible to match. No way he puts up $30 million if he could lose it by Sac only having to match his offer. No one knows the details of the Hansen deal.
It’s been a lot longer than that for them. Of course, dealing with the Maloofs is a huge hassle, but so was dealing with Schultz, and then Bennett. I’m not sure how serious about it they really were until the near move to Anaheim. Plus they haven’t recently funded any stadiums like we had with all our teams, so no stadium fatigue excuses there.
Good lord people, we knew Sac was going to come up with some type of arena plan. The sky isn’t falling as badly as some of you are making it out to be…don’t be surprised if Sac puts in a better offer for the team either.
Can it just be April 19th already?
Yep, and when the middleman looked at the deal between the seller and buyer and then advised another potential what they have to do to match — which buy the way, this middleman has the ultimate authority to reject the binding deal between the original buyer and seller and to “force” the sale to “their” buyer.
This is so messed up. Seriously, how is this fair? Stern, being an attorney, I would think would sniff the duplicity in all his actions.
Here’s the thing though. There has to be a “back-up” plan should something go horribly wrong in Seattle between now and the BOG meeting. So perhaps (thinking positively about why Stern is doing this), Stern wanted a strong back-up plan if anything blew up in Seattle prior to the April 3 date and the April 18/19 BOG meeting. I can then get/understand that — the back-up plan is to keep the team in Sacramento, not risk going through an entire new set of owners and potential relocation should the Hansen and Seattle deal hit a snag as the due diligence is done by the NBA.
Don’t want people taking this out of context..I meant by better..better than their first bid.
10 years
Oh, there seems to have been a lot more work put into the Seattle proposal, a lot; and the Seattle proposal is further along than this hasty Sacramento proposal; but the effect of the Seattle proposal in approving an arena is not much further along than the Sacramento proposal. There is no way to say that more work, over a longer amount of time, has not been done with the Seattle proposal.
Sac may think they are matching Hansens bid but unfortunately for them they do not understand all the terms since it is sealed it could be in excess of 600m if side deals are In place or the Maloofs Loans etc.
Exactly now people should understand what the down payment is for. It is for exclusivity (I know everyone knows that pretty much). The price will plummet.
Just like the arena term sheet for Sacramento is non binding so is their “bid” it is not bound by anything simply because it cant be. So essentially the second Hansen is out (doubtful but if it did happen) the bid will change because the value of the team being in Sacramento isnt 525 million. Fair Market Value is closer to 385 million up to 400 million.
So the Maloofs would sue the league, and have a VERY STRONG case, and could get up to 3 times the difference. So lets say they get 100 million less selling to Radavine then the Maloofs could sue for 300 million I believe. Isnt it 3 times as much you could go for?
Don’t drive yourselves crazy with conjecture. What happens will happen. We will find out after the BOG meeting. There is really not much to do but wait. And make sure that the T-words music is never heard again.
I do not think that anyone is going to sue the NBA, or anyone else, over this deal.
Term sheet will be posted at 7:30 so yeah I get some evening reading woo hoo
Really so the Maloofs hired anti trust lawyers a year ago for no reason? If they stand to lose 100 million hell 50 million why wouldnt they sue? They have nothing to lose except the money they would lose for interference in their private business sales agreement. So why exactly would they not sue? They even made it known that they had the anti trust lawyers….I wonder why?
Seems I’m being quoted and posted “elsewhere”. lolz.
I’m pretty sure I just got banned at StR for saying this, but;
Now Sac just waits and hopes that the NBA denies the sale, and then the Maloofs agree to sell to Mastrov-Burkle? Still seems far out to me. The Maloofs still own the team, and Hansen has an agreement to buy them.
I just don’t think the arena will make too much of a difference, since it was kind of expected this would happen?
Welcome to the club lol
The Maloofs won’t sue because they would not be compelled by the NBA to take a lower offer. Also, the Maloofs won’t sue because they would not win against the NBA.
The MOU can be changed if all parties agree, see, they are bound to follow the MOU, it’s binding.
Sactown city council could agree on Tuesday, and anybody could walk away on Wednesday because the term sheet is non-binding.
I do think the Maloof’s will sue if they are not made 100% whole (or more) because I don’t think there can be any compelling reason for the NBA to reject the Chris Hansen PSA/relocation. Our arena is almost through Design Review, we have a place for the team to play on a temporary basis, the land for the arena has been purchased, and the owner group is incredibly strong. Good deal for the Maloof’s, good deal for Seattle and King County, good deal for the NBA.
And this whole argument “NBA doesn’t like to relocate” is just b.s. The only thing about this deal which is problematic is Chris Hansen bought the Maloof’s out with the clear intention to relocate the team. His offer is contingent on the relocation being approved. So the NBA would have to come up with some really good reasons to reject SEATTLE as the destination city and I don’t think the City of Sacramento would/could be a reason for rejecting Seattle.
For the other teams, they were relocated by their current owner and I do think the Maloof’s would have been successful in relocating their team IF they were able to find a city in the United States will to pay for the entire cost of a new arena for the Kings.They didn’t want to sell and when it became clear that they wouldn’t get a deal that would work for them financially, they knew they had to sell. Hence the Chris Hansen deal being leaked within days of the Virginia Beach plan falling apart.
Oh man, great games right now: go Marquette, go Zags
If Hansen is denied then what forces the local offers to be up to the Hansen bid? Nothing, the NBA may frown upon it but Hansen will be out and it will be past the rubicon if you will.
I’m ready for a pro Seattle media blitz right about now. Sac has had the damn spotlight long enough
Celebrity!
Hansen solved the arena problem in Seattle but he should also be credited with solving the problem in Sacramento. Had he not put Sacramento’s feet to the fire and made an offer on the Kings, KJ would not have sought an alternative ownership group and Sac would not have come together on an arena plan. When the Kings leave, Sacramento can move forward from where they are with the assurances from the NBA that they will get a new team. Keeping the team in Sacramento risks both arena deals coming undone.
Mastrov is worth $350M and this new guy is worth $315M (from what I have read). That might be fine for a minority owner, but not a majority owner. That is only $665M. They would have to come up with $525M without borrowing money. Burkle can’t be involved in the purchase of the team because the Maloofs will not sell to Burkle. Not sure they can come up with that kind of cash. Even if they only have to come up with the 65% of $341M. Not sure how they can do it.
I would not be surprised if David Stern met with the Maloofs, or their representatives, on Stern’s recent West Coast trip.
I do not feel the “sky is falling.” But I am starting to feel that this decision may not be based on rational factors (market size, TV deals, etc) and instead may be decided on other matters.
That happens in business. Particularly when politics are involved.
I can’t say that I totally agree with what SMK206 is theorizing, but nothing would surprise me in this situation.
BINDING AGREEMENT; means; denotes an agreement that is legally
binding and cannot be broken or violated by either party.
Breaking a binding agreement is prosecutable in a court of law.
A binding agreement is considered valid if both parties have
consented to all the terms of the contract.
This happens after one party presents an offer to the other party and the
agreement is accepted within a timely fashion.
TERMINATION OF BINDING CONTRACT;
is possible before the terms of the contract have been fully carried out
if the meeting of the terms involve illegal activities, if one party is no longer
able, due to physical or mental disability, to carry out the terms.
There is a lot of legal ratification in this sales scenario on all sides if the NBA
disapprove this sale.
Unless Chris Hansen, Steve Ballmer, the Nordstroms, goes broke, between
now and April 1st. ( April fools day.)
This is a done deal.
All I know is these two things:
1. I’m ready for April 19th. (!!!!)
2. I’m staying off Sac sites. It will be nothing but positive spin, I don’t need nor want to put myself in a tizzy. I don’t need to go into labor 3 months early.
DOOM AND GLOOM!
“waves back to my fans on the other side” lolz again. I’m banned on that “other side” or I’d show up with a personal “wave”.
Here is the Term Sheet boys and girls
http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=396718&view=&showpdf=1
Ok all you finance and legal mambo jumbo friends, please tell me how this deal looks on paper to you…
Okay. It doesn’t really matter how long the respective cities have been working on a deal; what matters is the moment. The question is, does Sactown have a viable plan? If the answer is “yes”, then it makes much more sense from the league standpoint to leave the Kings there, and offer up expansion in Seattle over the next few years.
Why? Because the MOU in Seattle specifically has a five year time frame to find a team for an arena. Sacremento’s deal doesn’t. If the NBA burns Sacramento, even if they could pull off a deal, maybe even one that isn’t as “good” in our eyes, the opportunity for expansion in the next 5 years there is much smaller.
In other words, the NBA would rather have both markets, since they aren’t competitng with one another. And the end result is the the NBA wants to increase overall market sharealways, and this decision will likely take that into consideration foremost. The endgame is that the likelyhood of expansion is more viable if Seattle is waiting for a team, EIS complete, construction ready to go, then it is for a city that is still reeling from having their team moved in spite of all the political support (sound familiar?).
I’m looking at the broader economic picture. It’s not a zero sum game if the Kings stay, but it may be if they move. The NBA wil do what it best for the NBA as a whole. The league will have an opportunity to create a half billion dollars outof thin air, but in everyone’s view here, Seattle is a better market. Bird in the hand applies here.
Development Revenue Sources Amount
City Contribution
Public Parking Finance Model $212.5 million
Parking Infrastructure Fund 1.5 million
Sales Tax Construction Rebate 1 million
Sheraton MOPA Funds 5 million
Land Sales 38 million
Subtotal: $258 million
Investor Group/Sacramento Kings $189 million
TOTAL $447 million
Didn’t Stern say recently that there would be a team in London in like the next 10 years or something?
The NBA doesn’t seem to want to do expansion in the USA (or Canada). But Seattle could be an exception, and London might help balance things out by adding 2 teams rather than just 1.
When I saw this, I thought back to McGinn saying that we should expect a team by 2014-15, and that he hoped SAC keeps the Kings. I do think he is pretty plugged in with CH, and if CH felt he was being screwed and would come up empty handed, he would have nothing to lose and I would expect him to voice concerns, at least through sources like he did with the $30 mil payment. The only logical explanation is he has been promised something else by BOG AND Stern if he is denied. I’m not sure if another owner has agreed to sell at BOG in April if CH is denied, or if E really could happen for 2014-15, but it’s the only explanation that makes sense.
Who is paying for all that land in the downtown plaza? I would think that amount should be paid by Burkle and the ownership group since that is the preferred location.
Hansen paid for his own land around our arena site..
Umm The expansion fee gets negated when the pie gets split 31 ways. So NBA gets nothing out of an expansion fee. That is why NBA isn’t going to do expansions.
It’s not about the expansion fee; that is chump change. There’s a bigger picutre here.
I think all that expansion to Europe talk was hot air leading up to the last CBA. There is NO way teams in Europe would work. Travel would be a nightmare. Now, I could see a “NBA Europe” type league like the old NFL Europe, kinda like a minor league affiliate.
Doesn’t matter what ever money they would get from expansion chump change or not will still be negated by splitting the pie 31 times
Great for Sacrown. Still don’t have a bid in to buy the team.
Gorgeous day at Lake Chelan though. No jacket need, wineries poppin corks, great cheeses, breads.
Again, still don’t have a bid in and really don’t have the funds to make it work. Not worried or even going to think about it.
Yeah, not losing Seattle and this ownership group may outweigh all the risks of expansion in the NBA’s eyes. If they want both cities, it might be the only way to do it. But I agree 2017 is cutting it too close, especially with our political process. I think 2014-15 or 15-16 at the latest.
There’s a considerable argument to be made that if Sac is a below average contributing and valued franchise in the NBA, the league is stronger with 30 teams including Seattle sans Sac than 31 with both. Sac might be the 20th ranked media market, but they also rank lower than than in terms of all of the economic indicators when looking at media markets.
zags better wake up. Minute to go.
ouch, looks like zags lost.
Sounds like any shortfall in debt payment will be paid by the city through the ‘Transient Occupancy Tax’ or hotel/motel tax.
There is a much worse “T” word than Toto that should be banned. Anyone guess what it is?
I think the expansion fee would only be spilt 30 times. I don’t think CH would get part of his own fee he pays. If the expansion fee was $525 mill, the same price he agreed to buy the Kings for, I think it would make quite a bit for each time.
You might be right.
Still, I’m starting to get the feeling that we’ve all been ‘played’ in this situation.
Such a scheme might not need to look exactly like what SMK206 said above, but it could be something similar.
I haven’t said anything here in weeks. Once Stern came out and seemed to be guiding the Sacramento bid along, I took a step back and thought about things a bit more. As I alluded to above, who was Stern meeting with on the West Coast, exactly?
If Seattle ends up with an NBA team soon, then I’m good. I would prefer that to happen next year, but if it happens soon, great.
Something is starting to feel a bit ‘off’ about what is going on in this matter now. I guess we won’t have long to wait to find out how things will resolve themselves.
Sorry “each team”.
I just took a quick read of the 36 page document and it’s pretty good. I think Sacramento did a good job protecting itself, however, I think they could run into issues with structure (the bonds — I didn’t see any mention of the nonprofit that was leaked a few days ago). They are donating all the land they own in the downtown plaza plus the Natomas property to the project. So what I thought was good in the deal is that investor group could do what they wanted with the Natomas property and the City of Sacramento is going to expedite any land-use changes/restrictions/entitlements for that area. That’s nice for that site and a potential windfall for the investor group.
They are definitely a year behind our arena deal. They have to go through CEQA and all the other stuff Chris Hansen had to go through or is almost through and I didn’t see any design plans that gave any glimpse into the end product. More generic “arena” type rendering.
So this seems like a good deal for Sacramento, of course, I don’t live there so it’s really none of my business.
I am still very sure Seattle and Chris Hansen are in the #1 position in all of this because I just can’t see any reason for the NBA to reject his deal — especially since we are now ahead of Sacramento by at least a year in all of this and the NBA has had the deal since end of January.
I’m really getting the feeling that the NBA just used the Seattle group to make Sacramento shit or get off the pot. We’ll see how big their turd is soon
The land sales is a funding source for the city. This is not the land the ESC would be located on. The city would give this land to the investors instead of cash. It would be up to the investors to make any money by selling or developing the land.
The bottom line is that the NBA has to reject the Hansen group in order for the Sacramento group to purchase the team. If they do, I would find it hard to believe that Hansen/Ballmer/Nordstroms sitting around waiting for the NBA decide to expand the league. I imagine they will go on to greener pastures.
However, I just don’t think that will happen. But then again . . . I did think that the lawsuit stopping the Bennett group from breaking their lease was going to favor the city. I sometimes am a sucker . . . but I don’t think so this time.
Tesla?
It could be as simple as CH helping Stern, and getting another team sold to him or expansion in return, just like Bennett got the Thunder for hosting the Hornets. I scratch your back, you scratch mine. I do think expansion would have to be 2014-15 or 15-16 at the latest, or our political process could mess things up, and I’ve heard expansion takes 1-2 years to get off the ground, so our expansion team would have to be announced in April or shortly thereafter. Come to think of it, If Hansen is in on it, like I would expect him to be if it has gotten this far and he hasn’t raised concerns or pulled out, I would expect BOG/Stern to announce expansion for us for 14-15 or 15-16 in April or shortly thereafter. IF CH is in on it, it also means something between him/BOG/Stern has already been agreed to in case SAC comes up with an arena deal. And if he wasn’t in on it, either it is all for show or I would have expected him to back out already.
“In a scenario where parking revenues are not sufficient to make the
debt payments of the corporation, the City’s TOT would be used to make those payments.” From the term sheet
The Transcient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is a hotel motel tax that currently goes into the city’s General Fund. It is then used to fund a variety of uses such as the airport, convention center, police and fire services, etc. The is a nice way for Sacto to raid their General Fund indirectly.
Do you think that the NBA would use Steve Ballmer and lose the potential of what he would bring to the NBA? He has poured millions into charitable events in at least the last 5 years. I don’t think you play with Steve Ballmer.
But do they, or will they turn a profit? With a reinvigorated fan base and political machine the answer is yes. “Team gone” turns a zero profit and a negative profit for each year expansion can’t find a place to go. The utility of expansion in Seattle is much stronger than it is for Sacramento. If that Sac deal can be put to bed, Hansen and Ballmer have nothing vis the Kings. We will have to wait and see. But my money is on expansion for Seattle.
Why put Steve Ballmer’s name on it? That is too big of a name to be used by anyone.
I do think either A) its all for show or B) CH has an agreement with BOG/Stern for something else if SAC comes up with an arena. That’s the only thing that makes sense. You don’t do and take all this if you think you’ll be screwed and come up empty handed.
Can we stop with the WHOLE Seattle is getting used.
This is the area where I think Sacramento could regret this rush. They are seriously jeopardizing other projects/services for the Kings based on the amount of $$ and the commitment of future revenues to keep this team. I’ve seen a few cities the size of Sacramento get screwed by these “pet projects” where all the City $$ and efforts go into a project and the funds are dried for years and years and the city and its services suffer. That I think is a very very real risk for Sacramento since it is already in a precarious financial situation with unemployment and the lack of a vibrant and diverse business economy.
Of course, I don’t live there, so it’s really not my concern.
If there is some kind of ‘silent deal’ going on here, and I’m not saying that there is, then I would be very surprised if the Seattle group were not in on it, so to speak.
Hansen, Ballmer, etc are too smart to get taken for a ride, I think.
Yeah I don’t think Seattle is getting used at all. SuperSonics will be playing in Seattle again 2013-2014.
I think the league knows as long as we get a team soon this will all be forgotten soon. So I wouldn’t put it past them to have a deal with Hansen to save the Kings, and give him something else, whether it is expansion within the next 2 years or another team sold to him. I floated that a while back that Hansen may already have a deal for another team In case Kings stay and this is a favor to the league by CH.
Do we have Sacramento fans here in Sonics clothing??? Some of you sound just like Sacramento fans regarding an expansion team going to Seattle. In fact, if you read on some of Sacramento websites you will read that they think they have won, and now they are hoping that Seattle will get an expansion team in the future. Give me a break. It is not going to happen until maybe years in the future. By that time Hansen/Ballmer/Nordstroms may be elsewhere . . . maybe like owning the Mariners. Would be a lot less than buying the Sonics and funding a new arena.
Calm down kiddos.
I seriously do not get why everyone is talking about these mysterious backroom handshake deals that must be the case or that the Sac effort is all a charade now taht EXACTLY WHAT WE KNEW WAS GOING TO HAPPEN HAPPENED.
Here is a crazy theory I have:
Chris Hansen bought the Kings with the intention of moving them to Seattle to be rebranded the Supersonics. He has an arena deal struck with the city and has all the financial backing needed to win over the NBA BOG. In response to this, a passionate fanbase and motivated mayor make a strong effort to keep their team, they put together some investors, throw together an arena deal as quickly and as best as they can, and in turn present that to the NBA to try to persuade them to not allow the sale to the Seattle group. The NBA decides whether or not to approve Hansen after considering all variables.
I just don’t understand why Sacramento doing exactly what we’ve been saying they were going to do has spurned so much panicky, wild speculation.
seafanatic posts on StR, promising a “black swan moment” for Seattle recently. He was also posting on here cheerleading the ILWU lawsuit when that hearing was going on.
You do if you think that they are playing on a level field with any opposition from the local city and team fans. I am sure they have thought of all contingencies. If all is fair and above board, the Hansen group wins. PERIOD!
The only way it is a “Silent Deal” is if Hansen is in on it. If you get all this pulled on you, a smart businessman would back out or at least voice concerns, even it is through sources, much less not waste $30 mil. The ONLY way H/B/N takes all this without backing out is if A) it is all for show or B) They are in on the silent deal Anything else and I hate to say it but I wouldn’t fall for it, much less people with billions and billions.
I’m 100% behind the Sonics being in Seattle. Next year. But I don’t like how Stern seems to have played this thing and I’m double-checking the road before I cross.
I’m not spooked by today’s “arena deal” thing. That’s not it. I am just rethinking this entire process.
If it starts to leak around April 3rd that the BOG is going to approve the sale and relocation to Seattle, I will be extremely happy.
Field of Schemes @fieldofschemes 36m
New #SacKings owners would pay off old arena debt via means “to be determined.” Not a good start here.
Field of Schemes @fieldofschemes 34m
Sorry, that’s collateral on loan that’s “TBD.” Loan payments are from old arena land sale plus “other sources.” Much more specific.
Field of Schemes @fieldofschemes 23m
#SacKings term sheet asserts parking $$ to pay off $212.5m in arena debt, plus $3m+/yr in “surplus net revenues.” Doesn’t show math, tho
Field of Schemes @fieldofschemes 22m
If parking $$ isn’t enough, Sacramento would use hotel-motel taxes to fill in the gap.
Field of Schemes @fieldofschemes 20m
How lost parking revenues be paid back? By counting anything city gets from new arena – ticket tax, rent, sales tax, parking – towards that.
Field of Schemes @fieldofschemes 18m
Also, projects parking $$ to rise over time, but only replaces the $9m the city gets now, not what it would get in future.
#SacKings term sheet could be solid enough for NBA. But only if Sacto agrees to write $258m check, say “we’ll find $ to cover it somehow”
With this news, and the zags just losing, I’m fixing to go kick the neighbors dog.
I don’t think they play with Ballmer/CH but if they were in on it it wouldn’t be playing. For all we know our guys have been planning for a few years down the road all along and this diversion with Sact (while horribly disrespectful and evil to us fans - and potentially bridge burning) is just to get things done in Sact. By going along with it they are still on THEIR schedule, get Sact’s crap together for them, and buy brownie points with the league.
The City shall transfer and convey the following City-owned parcels of land to
the Investor Group, free and clear of any liens.
Natomas – City Parcel
3
rd Street and Capitol Mall (Lot X)
2
nd Street and O Street (Lot Y)
Haggin Oaks/Business 80
800 K Street
1121 8th Street
4
th and J Street
The value of the above-referenced City-owned land is $37,980,000 (estimated
Natomas land value assumes flood moratorium lifted prior to sale).
Nice gift to the investors :) sure the citizens will love that
Who didn’t? :)
Nice. http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/sacramento-kings-mayor-kevin-johnson-preliminary-arena-deal-keep-team-from-moving-to-seattle-032313
yup, just ignore him
Headline on msn sports. “seattle an nba loser again?” Well that didn’t take long.
Really Microsofts own network (MSN) not sure if they are directly affiliated would have a headline like that?
Field of Schemes @fieldofschemes 14m
.@Golfbybryan But if Seattle MOU assumptions are bad, city might lose $50m. If Sacto term sheet #s bad, California falls into ocean.
Pretty funny tweet by Neil Demause from Field of Schemes relating the MOU in Seattle and Sac Term Sheet if both went bad
Just thought I’d say to any of you stragglers…
new thread.
Tesla rocks!
Isn’t he the guy who said he’s studying law at UW?
Amen. It’s crazy how when Sac finally announces things that they were supposed to days before that there are people on here who get insecure and act like Hansen / Ballmer lost this deal and hope for expansion.
If Hansen wasn’t sure of the kings moving he would not negotiate a lease agreement with the city to use the key next year and also have us sign up for priority ticketing
Where? I didn’t find it.
This land isn’t worth much unless investment goes into it. How else can the city entice someone to develop that land even if they don’t give them an incentive to do so?
Do I wish the city didn’t have to do that? Of course. But if that land wasn’t valuable they wouldn’t have that many parcels to give away to begin with.
Sigh. If the land was valuable, they wouldn’t have that many parcels to give away to begin with.
It is now. It’s required for a plan with a significant amount of public and private funding behind it and with a ton of political reputations on the line. Name your price, boys and girls!
How is it valuable? Explain that to me.
Whoops, thought we were talking about the parcels of land that still need to be bought for there to even be one owner of the arena site in Sac.
Nope. That’s JMA’s and Burkle’s doing. But they’ll get everybody in line. The general problem with land value is that it’s not worth much. Which, for a key and vital part of downtown, as you can imagine, that’s a bit of a problem. That includes the DTP, K St, and all that. Just the way it is here.