I’m a little confused by people’s panic yesterday.
Nothing happened that was not expected. The general media has reported for months that a term sheet would happen on the 21st and after missing their date they release one on the 23rd. That sounds like worse execution than expected, not a major change in the game.
I don’t know that I want to get into belittling the document or the really admirable fan enthusiasm that is surrounding it. A term sheet was expected, one was delivered and very little in the game has changed. April 3 will come and April 19 will come. Until then just remember not to get worked up over everything that happens in the press and social media. Twitter is a nice tool but it has very marginal impact on anything that matters.
I guess what worries me is not the date, but how good the deal was. Everyone was banking on something just thrown together, and under 10 pages, basically a garbage plea, but from what I understand, it’s pretty solid. That’s what worries me.
This is a preliminary, non-binding term sheet … where we were over a year ago. Remember when Sac was cheering the “deal” they had with the Maloofs and how the team was there to stay and then a month later it fell apart? This is in the same spot.
And remember, the vetting of this deal starts now - this isn’t the end.
And on top of that, they still need to match the Hansen offer to purchase the team and then hope the NBA rejects the sale … that is their only chance.
One last thing, also starting to see reports pop up that the Seattle group will have the ability to counter if their deal does in fact, get matched (which would only be fair).
Still not worried, at all.
I tend to agree,just ready for the up and down rollercoaster ride to be over.
I haven’t been riding … been confident all along, really since the sale and relocation application was submitted.
Sac has put up a good fight, I just think it is too little, too late and when the arena deal and purchase of the team at the figures being thrown around are put under a microscope its obvious the long term viability of the team in Sac is in serious doubt. The team has struggled its entire existence … now this ownership group is going to pay close to double what its truly worth in Sac and get it to pencil out? The BOG is gonna see thru it and vote for the Seattle deal, unanimously, IMO.
One last thing, also starting to see reports pop up that the Seattle group will have the ability to counter if their deal does in fact, get matched (which would only be fair).
I don’t know how to quote a section, so I copied and pasted.
I don’t think that would happen, as I thought this wasn’t a bidding war? Would be nice if they could. Allowing sac another bid, with a wink wink seems a bit unfair if this isn’t a bidding war. It would only be fair if we now had another shot to match, thus being a bidding war. Sacs last bid should have been it. They should have thrown up their best deal, and if it wasn’t good enough, the end.
Have you read the details of the plan? It’s not a good plan - financially irresponsible and filled with holes (for example, their estimates of the $$$ they receive from parking and the estimates of how much they will need to buy all the parcels of land that they still don’t have acquired in order to build their arena).
Calm down, man. This term sheet is essentially going to work as a starting plan for their arena when they have a shot at the Bucks in three years.
Not sure if you’ve seen this but this is Neil Demause’s take for the time being:
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2013/03/22/4772/new-sacramento-arena-plan-based-on-bizarro-math-failed-yankees-parking-garages/
Point of clarification: this is not accurate. The March 21 target didn’t exist more than two weeks ago. In fact, after the City Council approved negotiations in late February, I wrote that everyone expected the term sheet to come to a vote on April 2. The city accelerated the timeframe to allow more public consideration (hence March 21 target reveal when it could legally be released at 6 p.m. Tuesday and go to a vote at 7 p.m.) and wiggle room before the committee meeting (hence March 26 vote instead of April 2).
Citations:
http://blogs.sacbee.com/city-beat/2013/03/sacramento-city-manager-wants-council-vote-on-arena-deal-march-26.html
http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2013/3/13/4098366/sacramento-kings-arena-nba-downtown-plaza
lol, kind of sucks to “stay the course” of no real news in almost 2 months, while the other side seems to get great news almost weekly. Stay the course of waiting.
What happened to their IIlw like pending lawsuit or whatever it is that was in the news about 2 weeks ago pledging to put a wrench in plans?
this is a funny back-of-the-napkin drawing, kind of exemplifies how impetuous this deal is:
https://twitter.com/kcrabienick/status/315197298772697088/photo/1
And so is our MOU, per the judge’s ruling on the ILWU case. He tossed it saying there was no case because there was no deal. I tried to point this out several weeks ago. It doesn’t matter how much the ILWU sucks, the ruling is what it is. As a result, we are on par with the term sheet at the moment, unless it unravels.
Being in the news because you have an awful arena term sheet, a new lead investor because your last whale was too broke to front the buying of the team, and because you have an unemployed Twitter troll RV’ing around the country for your cause is not a good thing, dude.
No need for Seattle to win some PR campaign. Let Carmichael Dave and Kevin Johnson make clowns out of themselves getting in front of the camera every day. I’ll just take what matters - the team itself.
yay, the troll has awoken.
LOL Twitter is overloaded, with a pic of a whale…. oh the irony.
http://s299.photobucket.com/user/Speedcat2003/media/Kings/twitter-whale.png.html
Actually, our financing is binding. Per the MOU, the final site being in SODO is not approved yet and is pending environmental reviee and that is why the judge tosses the suit. Take your lies and half truths back to the Times comments sections.
Sac’s preliminary, non binding term sheet is where Seattle was in Feb ’12. They have a ton of details to be filled in and hurdles to cross to get to where we stand today. Arguing otherwise is nothing but spin.
“Review” and “Tossed”. This site sure could use and edit button.
And this guy from the Bay Area REALLY doesn’t like Sacramento:
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2013/03/22/4772/new-sacramento-arena-plan-based-on-bizarro-math-failed-yankees-parking-garages/#comment-15248
LOL…. I’m sure it’s not as bad as he makes it seem… ;)
It was mention in the other tread that Seattle has the ability to increase the offer. It was the latest seattle times article from Bob Condotta but it also mentions that KJ could make an substantially increase to their low ball offer. I’ll believe it when i see it. I still don’t see it penciling out even with the 3rd investor.
Nothing pissed me off more than Clay Bennett’s willingness to use an anti-arena mouthpiece to testify during the Sonics departure. That said I’m enjoying Neil DeMause. I have no problem with people who have a differing opinion and are willing to have a rational discussion about it. Neil is a critic but his willingess to look at our deal impartially impressed me.
My favorite line from his article is this…
“Anybody spot the problem here? (Other than that the rendering in the video is pretty horrible.) In order to help fund a basketball arena, the city will divert $9 million a year in future parking revenues to a non-profit, which will use the money to pay for the arena, then take whatever’s left over and repay the city for its $9 million in — wait just a cotton-pickin’ second here…”
Its really true. So you take the existing revenues ($9M) that the city gets from parking and you sell the future revenues to bondholders who ostensibly are going to want some part of that future profit in exchange for fronting $250 million dollars. However your new nonprofit is going to do such a great job managing them that they will be able to make payments for the original $9M plus whatever margin those bondholders want for fronting the cash AND have another $3 million left over. Where does that extra money come from?
The answer is that it comes from the Hotel taxes that are pledged as security and as such they come from the general fund. KJ is not being honest when he says that his plan won’t effect city services and if it blows up in his face it is going to look bad for everybody.
Ticket prices go up 5% immediately and forever. Does that not have any effect on demand? Do they have a study to show that the market can sustain that price hike? They had better.
These kinds of questions are going to be glaring. Remember our friend Brent Barry the day he was traded from the Bulls to the Sonics who looked at the camera deadpan and said “You can’t make chicken soup out of chicken sh!t” when describing his time with the Bulls.
This. Add to this the fact that the MOU was vetted and approved by 2 separate political bodies who wanted due diligence done on the initial off to protect the public and not just support our Mayor and County Exec blindly without considering the long term consequences. It took them several months to go thru our deal, point by point, to make sure it was on the up-n-up. And even THEY consider that being somewhat fast-tracked.
As others have stated, Sac is where we were when Hansen FIRST presented the deal to the city and county. Their process has just begun and cannot be RESPONSIBLY completed in less than a month. I just don’t see it.
Sigh. “offer.”
An edit button would be nice.
I was confused by how many people hit the panic button yesterday too. Kinda bizarre, we knew Sacramento was going to come up with a plan. Honestly, you guys need to stop worrying so much about the Sac side and focus on the merits of our plan.
Stop visiting sites like STR. It does a body good. All that used to do was raise my blood pressure. Of course they are excited they have a plan, let them be. Doesn’t discourage the fact that the BoG have been vetting our ownership group’s financials and plan for the past several months.
Calm yourselves down. /rant
As a real estate guy I would ask the question “how do you refinance a $70M loan against a building that you list in the same documents as worth $19M AFTER a controversial rezone that you can’t guarantee will happen?
In the same vein I thought that flood plain protection was designed as a safety measure to protect the general public and the economy. Is it something that can just be waived if the city “really, really, really wants” the project. Can they do the same thing with seismic requirements?
If the city waives flood plain requirements and their levees ever fail i would suspect that they will be liable. In order to do it everybody is going to have to insure themselves substantially to get any bank to participate in that development. Again if this were a fully fleshed out plan there would be significant reporting on the cost and feasibility of that move.
I said I wasn’t going to have this debate. Here I go…
It’s something I can add.
LOVE that quote! :)
Vetted by 2 political bodies after the Arena Task forth looked at it and put forth their reco’s as well. To try and say these 2 deals are at the same point just isn’t true and deep down everyone knows that.
Doh, Force!
I want to call attention to Tom Ziller’s great article on STR. The premise of this article really related to what we are going through also. I encourage you to read the article (or just this highlights), switch around the words “Sacramento” and “Seattle” and then skip the comments to come back here. It is hard to reassure you guys without commenting or criticizing their situation but really we should try. Our situation is just moving along methodically. We seem to be getting updates like once a week and hopefully we can focus on our stuff.
http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2013/3/24/4141424/sacramento-kings-sale-seattle-fans
But a lot of effort is being spent watching how Seattle fans respond to every piece of news. It’s natural to an extent. But it’s also distracting and, frankly, making our threads less fun.
As usual, section214 says it best:
Maybe it’s just me, but I sure can’t figure out why so many people worry about what the folks in Seattle are saying. Who gives a shit? And I’m not sure how our calling out of their situation is somehow more noble than them calling out ours.
I’m firmly with KJ on this one: I hope that Seattle gets a team - just not our team. Anything else is just douchebaggery, in my opinion. And yes, there are Seattle trolls. I just don’t see why we have to stoop to their level.
But maybe that’s just me.
They are not at the same maturity level. Saying they are doesn’t make it so.
Hansen can not back out without all sides agreeing. Hansen, and all parties in Seattle are bound by agreement to follow the MOU. At the end the city and county councils get to say yes or no (that’s when there is a commitment to action, to execute the ILA. What happens when they say yes has already been spelled out in the Inter-Local Agreement. There isn’t a mystery here.
Any party could back out of the term sheet on Wednesday in Sacramento, or any date after that until the “TBD” elements have been determined.
They say they can reuse some of the elements of the old deal, but those have not been formally committed to in writing between all parties. Lots of head shaking, but no actual ILA, no executable language.
In Seattle, there are no TBD elements to the financial exchange, roles and responsibility.
Plans have resources committed to them and dates, that’s what separates a “plan” form a wish, or elaborate idea.
The Seattle plan has resources and planned dates.
The Sacramento term sheet is missing some resources and many dates. They all commit to having an arena done by 2016.
Try to remember this.
Difference is this time the Maloofs aren’t involved. Remember Sac’s last deal was mainly crafted by the city (not as partnership as it appears this Mastrov/Burkle one was). So the odds of Burkle backing out like the Maloofs did are very low.
Completely off topic, but this is the greatest retirement in the history of the NFL.
Seattle related how? Macklemore is playing in the background at one point.
Maybe we need a CD to cruise around in TWO painted up rvs pleading our case? lol
Doesn’t matter … my point was that deal fell apart before it could be vetted. It was basically at the starting gate, just like it is now while Seattle is crossing the finish line.
This Sac deal is far from a slam dunk and tons of details still need to be worked out and then after all that and paying way too much for a team in Sac it needs to be financially viable. I don’t see it
I’ll give Neil credit, at least he’s consistent. He ripped Sacramento’s first plan, he’s ripped Seattle’s plan, he’s ripping Sacramento’s second plan. He essentially rips every stadium plan known to man. I’ve yet to see him come out in favor of any stadium/arena plan, even 100% private ones. He’s the ultimate stadium/arena curmudgeon.
Heard his kid once made an arena out of Popsicle sticks for school. Made his kid tear it down because it didn’t meet house environmental issues and there was something potentially wrong within the internal structure.
I wouldn’t say he ripped Seattle’s plan at all, in fact, quite the opposite. I agree he is not impartial though - he has his biases just like the rest of us.
Sacramento has put together a nice arena plan and an ownership group. They are to be commended for their efforts. Sadly, it took 10 years for them to do it. The plan puts them in second position should the Hansen bid fall apart for some reason. After the team is sold to Hansen, they should clearly be in first position for the next available team.
Hansen has spent over $100 million putting this deal together. His actions provided the incentive for Sacto to develop their plan. His actions drove the cost of NBA franchises to new highs. He will raise the bar for NBA ownership and provide relocation cash in hand for each owner.
What remains to be determined is whether the NBA has any credibility and common sense. Failure to approve the Hansen bid would undercut the price of franchises in the future. Prospective owners and cities would be unwilling to invest their money and time based on the assurances of the Commissioner that a deal can be done. Lawsuits like the one over Key Arena would no longer be solved thru the threat that a city would be first in line for a new team. Those NBA promises would all be hollow in the future if the Hansen bid is denied and Sacto is allowed to cut in line. In fact, the Commissioner would be rendered impotent if the owners do not follow thru with the commitments Stern has made privately to Hansen on their behalf.
I don’t see anything to worry about. The team will be sold to Hansen and Sacto will be first in line for the next franchise. The alternative is not in the best interests of the NBA.
I’ll speak for those of us who hit the panic button yesterday. Our glass half empty view of events yesterday in in SacTown stems from our NBA trust issues when it comes to Stern and his aiding and abetting in the theft of our Sonics with his special friend Clay Clay in 2008. We canbe a little conspiratorial when it comes to Seattle and our fears of the NBA
There is no significant opposition to the arena in Sacramento anyway…correct Tom? So the timeline doesn’t really matter. It got done. Congrats to KJ AND everyone involved. Now on to the BOG.
I thought he like Seattle’s plan. One of the few.
I think it’s just hard for us to trust after being burned so badly by the NBA! However, I do trust Chris Hansen, he didn’t make billions in hedge fund portfolios by sitting around like us and worrying : ) ! I think what is hard is that KJ and the Sac media get all the attention. I guess it’s just my ADD like nature to want to hear our side counter, even though I know they are privately and quietly rebutting
I just hope it’s true what some are hearing lately about being able to match sacs new bid, even though, that would be a bidding war.
One week basically….that is all I care about at this point. No need to freak since we have no control
At this point, does anyone actually care about the numbers for priority tickets?
I think its really easy to get caught up in this perception of there being a bidding war whereby there will be a winner based on who presents the best deal. When you really stop and think about it though, it actually goes a lot deeper than that. The BOG would have to reject an existing, binding sale agreement and then bank on the Maloofs playing nice with a new proposed ownership group. Thus, This Sacramento deal would seemingly have to be way, and I mean way better than the Seattle deal. If it was as simple as choosing one of two, “All else being equal” bids, then we might be talking about a different story. But it’s not. It’s about rejecting a very strong one, and thus setting a precedent that owners can’t do what they want in this league, And then banking on the very unpredictable Maloofs to then turn their attention toward an ownership group and team of financiers that features a guy that they clearly are not a fan of in Burkle, and hoping they actually come to some amicable agreement, without the Maloofs Suddenly switching up their demands, and raising the price tag, Or even deciding to keep a team and then demanding the same deal from the city that the new prospective ownership group has recently agreed to. So many bad things that could come out of Seattle being denied on this. And unless the deal is just that much much better, I personally don’t see it happening.
Sac won’t overbid so Hansen won’t have to match.
As long as we’re bringing up adding a possible edit button, would it be possible to add a scroll down button as well? I scroll down more than I scroll up, and on the phone or Ipad it can be a pain getting to the most recent comments.
Just a suggestion, not trying to complain :-)
The deal was negotiated by the NBA. How they couldn’t have vetted it at the same time by being part of the negotiations is beyond me. The difference is that unlike Hansen or Burkle, the Maloofs have no negotiating acumen whatsoever. Other entities grownup’s, IE the NBA’s, had to do their negotiations because they were too ineffectual to do anything but pout, whine, etc etc how the world wasn’t kissing their ass due to owning the Kings.
You can argue that the NBA hadn’t vetted the deal in 2012, but if the NBA hadn’t been involved in negotiations, I would agree with this point. I just can’t see how the NBA can’t vet a deal it was negotiating to begin with.
I guess I get the feeling that since sac has home court advantage, that helps out a bit in not “exactly” matching, or having a higher bid. What I mean is, the Nba doesn’t like to move teams if they don’t have to, so I wonder how much that plays into sacs deal, even if they don’t match our plan. Is 475 million enough to stay vs 525? What kind of numbers define “competing”? Is there a baseline number where it’s no longer competing? We’ve found out that 100 million less is not competing so far.
I understand that’s just the money part, and not all the other bs they have to figure in, with parking, etc.
I think what you say is true. But we have to give some validity to the fact that the Sacto side probably gets SOME credit from the BOG for the possession is 90% rule. And for the fact that the NBA would love to find a way to not step on another city and it’s fine fans. So it’s not exactly a “all other things being equal” situation here.
The main point 3 points I think will sway here:
1) No ownership group is going to offer $525 mil for a team that stays in Sacto. Such a high valuation simply doesn’t pencil out in that smaller market.
2) Sacto’s arena funding looks really sketchy. If you compare the two funding mechanisms, Seattle wins easily.
3) NBA owners get more $$ in their pockets if team goes to Seattle, both immediately and probably every year thereafter.
So aside from all of the other issues like what will the Maloofs do, I think Seattle still has the vastly stronger position here.
This. They won’t even match the bid. The details of which are not available to anyone, probably including them, but WILL be available to the BOG. Devil in the details; what is the relo fee, how to handle loans to city, what is included in team valuation, etc etc etc.
Haven’t the terms changed? The NBA was in negotiations because they were fronting some of the money to get the 2012 deal done. That’s not the case anymore. Same can be said for AEG. While this deal has some of the elements for funding as the 2012 proposal, the players involved has changed, as hasthe location.
Saying this current deal is vetted because some of the financial structures are the same just isn’t going to work. There are too many new elemnents involved. Which is why I agree with Brett…this new proposal is basically at it’s starting point.
Perhaps more importantly, I really can’t see Maloofs accepting a deal less than what Hansen has offered.
Exactly. Different owners, different structure, completely different deal.
And even more importantly, do the Maloofs even have to listen to another offer when they already have a signed agreement with Hansen?
Me too! Esp on a tablet or phone… plus at the bottom typically there is a link to get back at least to the home page, if not top of thread, whereas at top of thread there is no method to get to bottom of thread. Scrolling is a pain in the ass on some devices! :)
I feel bad for the people of Sac. There council wants this so bad that they are willing to put the city in debt to do this. They are not really for the people. That would never happen up here. It took months to get an approval from our councils. They are desperate and they don’t care and are willing to do anything because they know they don’t have the time and this is there last chance to have NBA now and in the future. If this fails all the whales will run and do something else. I hope the NBA sees there desperation and doesn’t fall for it. Some many questions. Are they going to have money left over to run the team? Who is going to pay for cost overruns? Is it April 3rd yet?
Well, if the NBA denies relocation, then they will be looking for some way to get the $525 sale value. This is where things get really dicey for all parties.
I’m curious if hansen could own a team he couldn’t move? Yes vote on the sale, no vote on the relocation.
I don’t know, it just seems the nba “middle man” makes an otherwise simple transaction complicated.
Sometimes I wonder if this entire exercise is just Stern’s little plaything game to show the world how 100% diametrically opposed the two cities are.
Which is why I can’t see the sale being denied. But hey, that’s just me..
I’m sure the PSA includes that the team moves to Seattle or no go. But, then the Maloofs are $30mil richer. Boo.
Nah he spend most of early and mid 2012 being critical of it. Particularly Hansen’s event projections and it’s reported tax impacts in relation to KeyArena and its fate. Hell he dedicated an entire article to doubting whether the Hansen arena can actually pay for itself. But it doesn’t really matter, Neil is highly critical of ALL stadium/arena plans. I’ve yet to see him write about one he really likes.
Not the sale, the relocation. Blah edit button is needed! haha
Remember this is the Board of Governors, not the Board of Regional Interests.
If the league even considers declining the noncontingent Hansen offer they are going to have to see the Burkle offer be equally noncontingent. Is Burkle going to be willing to go 100% noncontingent on a deal that is anchored by 19 pages of rough draft but requires him to commit nearly a billion $ and 35 years? The city would have him by the balls on all the details and a bad deal would become much worse.
You can buy a new condo on 19 pages. You can’t do a complex public/private partnership.
Yep, we’ll know how this works out long before the 18th. If it’s not going to happen Hansen will bow out sometime shortly after the 3rd. If it is going to happen for Seattle, Hansen will be in it to the BOG.
No the NBA was not in negotiations because they were kicking in money. They were negotiating because the Maloofs had asked them to do so on their behalf. The part where Stern admitted the NBA had loaned/gifted the Maloofs the money to do this deal didn’t come out until George Maloof attempted to burn Sacramento in New York with his sorry asshead presser that he is wont to do.
AEG was in negotiations because they were going to operate the facility and because the Maloofs simply didn’t have the money to kick in the full 35% share at that time. (Even though the investor share is 43% this time around.) Burkle/Mastrov/Ranadive don’t need no stinkin’ AEG to operate a facility they can operate themselves. We’re talking about real businessman here; not a phony stupid family that built a fortune off their father’s genius than pissed it away by not understanding basic economics or finance. To be fair, AEG was always brought in the deal in part because the Maloofs finances were so bad that there was no other way to get a deal done.
AEG could still end up operating the deal for Burkle and what not. We’ll see on that. Not enough details and not enough is known yet for all the fully fleshed nitty gritty to be known.
I never said the current deal has been vetted. I never claimed it had been vetted. I said last year’s deal was vetted by the NBA because they negotiated the deal. That’s what I said. No more, no less. Will the NBA approve the deal? Most likely yes. I don’t see anything the NBA will take issue with from their end. The general fund is not their problem among other things.
If the move is denied, and the 525 is out the window, I wonder if the moofs could spite stern, felling they got fked, and just hold onto the team another year, and sell of any remaining talent, and pocket what they can in order to throw up a huge bird in stern’s face? lol. Pretty sure that would hurt everyone’s bottom line, knowing the next year is going to be worse than this year, and attendance would drop considerably.
I don’t see Hansen “bowing” out unless Sac’s offer is more than his AND their arena proposal has been more fleshed out other than being on a peice of paper (that nifty little flow chart floating around on Twitter) and then a 19 page term sheet. Oh yeah, and don’t forget the fact that their EIS hasn’t started yet and all the land involved in the deal needs to be acquired.
The fact is when it came down to it, you admitted the NBA and AEG were financing parts of the old plan. Who cares about the why?
And you are assuming the NBA will approve this current deal because they were part of negotiations in the 2012 plan. Am I missing something here?
There’s too much distraction in Sacramento’s financing. It’s just like a magician performing a trick - they’ll have you fixate on one hand while the actual trick is happening in the other. This is a deceptive deal.
Saying that, Sacramento “got this done” only after it was announced that Hansen had a PSA and during the regular process for these sort of transactions. While this is unprecedented (according to Stern) with these two cities, the bottom line is still the Seattle plan and PSA. Period. Like I’ve said, the NBA is going to have to figure out how to satisfy Sacramento. Things are stale down there right now (except for the hard core), and that market will need a wake up call much like Seattle got five years ago. You can’t miss what you already have.
Sacramento is lining themselves up very nicely for the next team, something Seattle didn’t really work on back in 2007/08 - things just sort of fizzled. There’s no value in keeping the team in Sacramento, except emotionally and we all know how much emotions count in these deals.
The NBA and the individual team’s values will benefit the most with the Kings moving to Seattle - and values will continue to go up in a couple of years when some current team that’s in trouble moving to basketball starved, whale ready, arena ready, Sacramento.
I expect them to not only not play nice, but sue for the loss of income. The Maloofs filed for relocation.
Yeah he won’t bow out at all.
Furthermore, I don’t think the NBA wants to do business that is going to put a city into bankruptcy…that does make it their problem since they have a team playing in the city. Ya know, the whole “NBA Cares” thing? Not that I believe in it anyway.
My point is, I would like to believe the NBA doesn’t do deals that will jeopardize the financial state of the city. Not saying this current deal does it, but you said the “general fund isn’t their problem among other things.”
I doubt the whales stay in past this point. If it is denied they are gone unless the city just sits on the land. I expect this to be much like NYC Olympic bid years ago. They have the land and money for now but if not they will do something else with it. Could be wrong though but I don’t see Burkle just holding out money for all the other development and not moving on to other things.
Hansen is not going to bow out. He would not willingly give up $30 million dollars from his non-refundable payment to the Maloofs. There is zero upside to bowing out for either side, none.
He, and everybody else, will wait for the league to actually vote on the 18th and 19th.
I’m not assuming the NBA will approve a plan that has similarities but is not entirely the same to a plan it had vetted. I’m assuming the NBA will agree to the plan because of the public money behind it, the fact that taxes weren’t raised which means the voters don’t have to vote on it and the fact that strong ownership is behind the plan to begin with.
Same reason I think Hansen’s plan would get approved by the NBA. For different reasons of course, but essentially the same principles. Strong ownership, strong revenue source the NBA covets, histories the NBA is comfortable with, etc etc.
Key word is you like to believe the NBA wouldn’t do that. The NBA doesn’t give a rats ass about the citizens of Sacramento and never will. They don’t care about holes in the general fund. That’s entirely a political deal to cover the politicians butt. Always would have been under any scenario.
Has there ever been a binding PSA in place that the NBA denied?
I think we are naive to think that the NBA wouldn’t favor sacramento’s proposal. The Seattle market and ownership group aren’t going anywhere. The MOU specify the 5 years for a reason. The NBA has a chance to keep basketball in Sacramento for the next 35 years. Would I like the deal to be passed in Seattle’s favor? Of course but if the nba sees that they can solve the issues in Sacramento and an ownership group is here in the waiting, I feel they will side with Sacramento.
Yeah I understand not putting down the incredible effort put forth to get a term sheet completed. Should be commended to get the outline of a deal done.
The problem is, as Brian and other, have alluded too is that they dont have the nitty gritty details. The fine print that outlines exactly how things will go if the worst case scenarios play out. The outline is based off a rosy outlook for the city. A rosy outlook for a city with a 12% unemployment rate who job sector is based largely off of government. The same government that the United States is making an effort to down size in many areas.
For example Brian brought up the moratorium in Natomas on the land that they are gifting to Burkle. Is that just going to be lifted all of sudden? Isnt that a federal moratorium, yes it is. Now it seems that they are close to lifting it but this article outlines the time frame. 6 more years until levee’s are done. Plus to continue the levee’s congress needs to fund the project and who knows when that will happen. Adding expenditures is not on the priority list for the Fedderal Government.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/print-edition/2012/05/25/end-of-natomas-building-ban-waiting-ok.html?page=all
Lets move along to parking. So last year the parking was estimated at 230 million dollars for 2,700 parking spots. Now most thought that was a rosy projection and that bids would come in much lower. Now they wont be taking bids but you better believe that lenders will be looking into actual conservative value. Plus the fact that you are taking away 1000 parking spots from demolition for a proposed arena. My math might not be great but they are valuing 1700 spots at 213 million this year. So you lose 35% of your parking spots but only 8% of your revenue projections. Now their are ways to make that happen like enormous rate hikes or building more parking garages (which costs money).
What I am getting at (there is more but this post is long enough and Field of Schemes will get more into it tomorrow) I am saying that their city council will pass this with these concerns in mind (Hotel Tax, Parking, Land Gifting, etc. etc.) They will pass this because this is entirely NON BINDING. The council can ask questions later and get those answers. Good thing for them I guess…..
HERE IS THE KICKER…..the NBA will want all those answers and more from both sides on the 3rd of April. Guaranteed. FROM BOTH SIDES. Chris Hansen has constructed this deal for some time. He will be able to answer every single question for the council and give them more. He will give them revenue projections from a RSN, from his priority ticket waitlist which will run circles around here we buy. So pretty much Sacramento will have some outlines on scratch paper in comparison to what Mr. Hansen will have. He will have clear cut answers with citations and studies completed not hypothetical answers and promised studies. THAT IS WHY I TRUST CHRIS HANSEN.
You should too…….
Totally can’t wait for this to end one way or the other.
Land acquisition pegged at $26 million. Anyone seen figures on how much the parcels in question might be worth at current values?
I imagine all the existing parcel owners have been drooling for some time now about the prospect of their values doubling or more under this plan…
I care.
If they were offered to be introduced to another owner willing to sell or if E is promised I could see them backing out after the third, I think they would. But I agree, with no guarantees you hold out til the 18th. But I’ve said the Hansen may never get the leverage he has now again, so I truly believe he gets at least some sort of promise for a future team out of this or he’ll be the NBA’s punching bag for years.
Why am I in moderation? It seems to happen to me and EJ alot
Yeah, would be a nice feature. I do like to read thru the posts before posting so I don’t ask/re-post something that’s already been asked or addressed. I like to think I’m doing my due diligence. :)
I just don’t like the national media’s take on SAC arena plan now. That MSN headline was very discouraging.
If it was about fan’s feelings, emotions, and team longevity/history; the Sonics would would still be here in Seattle. Trust me, if 41 years and an NBA championship could be flushed down the toilet then the NBA’s most nomadic team; the Kings/Royals do not stand a chance staying in Sacramento.
Headlines are designed to get readers. Authors don’t even make them. Don’t worry too much about that.
Great opening post Brian.
I’m not sure why so many paniced yesterday because of what happened in Sacramento.
I mean, everyone expected a term sheet to be presented at some point before the April 3rd deadline and that’s exactly what happened.
They now got a term sheet with questionable financing to go along with a new potential owner that somehow threw his name out there.
That’s nice and all, but I don’t know how that should compare to what Hansen/Ballmer are offering, especially with no one knowing what exactly they’re going to offer for the team.
You would think so, but Stern has always treated Sacramento better than he treated Seattle. Even now he’s giving them more of a chance to keep the Kings than he gave us to keep the Sonics.
Just caught up on today’s posts. Really tired of having to read Seafantics garbage. I’m fine with allowing the arena hating crowd to post here. As long as they are open about it. The guy is a waste of our time and adds nothing constructive to this site.
Maybe Kevin has allotted all posters a certain number of keystrokes within a certain time frame. HA HA - - - - Perhaps your name : TROLLtossin puts you on the TSA SonicsRising no fly list. EJ - - well, what can I say, he just has a very suspicious profile. SonicsRising TSA will always check EJ’s bag, documents against the no fly (posting) list.
When we get this deal approved, we better see something similar derogatory about sac on msn. “Kings kingdom crumbles”
But it isn’t about what came up to the point where the deal fell apart … its what was supposed to come after and never happened, which is alot. That is my point. Sac is at the starting gate, whether you like it or not. A preliminary, non-binding term sheet is just that. To get a a fully flushed out arena plan that is financed a shovel ready there is a ton of vetting that needs to happen, Seattle is just about done with that process. Sac still needs to vet … that was my point.
I agree Sac is to be commended as others have pointed out and if it was up to us they would keep the Kings and Seattle would be granted expansion. We would all prefer that. Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to be an option.
Well, if we get screwed stern can also be the reason we’re done as an NBA bargaining chip
I just hate it because its usually after I write out a post usually with at least one reference link and spend a little bit of time to have it moderated and people move on down the list and its never seen. Especially when Im trying to calm some nerves of people that flipping a lid off a term sheet that is a skeleton of an actual deal
Shouldn’t have given him animation rights…
I think they’d be tossing bouquets our way, rather than eulogizing the losing party; hopefully that will suffice
Kidding - - -I was just kidding !! I was just trying to lighten things up a bit. TSA posting management will have to answer your questions.
I wasn’t serious, but still, kind of a dickish headline on msn, the company involved with Ballmer.
I personally read every post in a thread. I don’t want to re-post or ask something that’s already been asked or addressed. So I do read your posts.
Oh I know I wasnt trying to come off pissy. I know you were kidding no worries
Don’t know if you mean the Seattle land parcels, but there’s no way they are valued at 26 mill with the way land value is up there.
As far as Sac goes, that value was determined by CB Richard Ellis.
No it isnt that its just if it happens to me then Im sure it happens to others so essentially you have to go back to make sure you read everything when doing your due diligence like you described. I dont mind moderation….moderation is a good things in life…..I just wish they could find a way instead of having it go back in the timeline when it was originally posted. When that happens its buried 20 posts back sometimes so I think if there was a way to treat it like a new post, once moderated, would solve the MINOR problem. Sorry if it came off as I was giving attitude thats my bad
You say that, but much as people were assigning value to the 7% minority share of the Kings in bankruptcy under the pretense that its real value lies in what can be done with it, wouldn’t those same people now see value in the foreclosed Macy’s site which seems to be the largest acquisition needing to be made?
Try including only 1 reference link. At least in past settings, more than 1 link = automatic moderation.
link?
Yeah, because they were playing with borrowed money. Has there ever been a binding PSA involving multiple billionaires that the NBA denied?
I have to disagree a little bit with this premise. The NBA has to care to a point; because bankrupting a city, if it ever went that far, is simply bad for business. Let’s say that they go with Sac’s plan and it runs the city deep into the red. What incentive do other cities have to work with them then? “Oh we really want our NBA team to stay, so let’s destroy our cities financial future to keep it!” Not gonna happen.
NBA has to appear willing to maintain a balance. If they took the outright give-us-all-your-money attitude, more local governments would be showing them the door the way the WA state legislature did in 2008.
Your statement could also be flipped around very easily. It’s naive to think that they WON’T go with H/B/N because the MOU is ONLY 5 years long and who knows if the political climate there will last long enough to maintain the support? Sacramento politicos have just proven that they’ll go to any lengths, whether practical or rushed, to keep/have an NBA franchise, with no time limits on that support. They have the opportunity now to get a team in Seattle for 35 years and still have plenty of time to get a team back to Sacramento for that same amount of time. Screwing over a city once makes them angry and resentful, but screwing a city over twice could jeoparize ever returning to that city. So which risk would the league take for the maximum return? And yes, it’s possible they believe the issues in Sacramento CAN be resolved, but then why reject an offer where the issues have ALREADY been resolved?
See, the argument can work both ways. And a strong case can be made both ways. The fact remains, we can only sit back and wait.
The Title of this post is Stay the Course
Well this is semi- off topic but Im sure any golfer will appreciate this shot and even if your not its pretty sweet.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/golf-devil-ball-golf/sergio-garcia-hits-one-craziest-recovery-shots-ever-190904511-golf.html
Oh thats good to know but I did this time but still good to know thanks ;)
Yes this is about what didn’t happen after the term sheet agreed to. The City didn’t back out. The NBA didn’t back out. AEG didn’t back out. The Maloofs backed out.
You can claim that hurts the city in getting an arena deal, but in reality that has nothing to do with the city’s standing in regards to the NBA. It has nothing to do with it. Has a lot to do with the Maloofs standing with the NBA though. The Maloofs are nothing if nothing else not in good standing with a whole bunch of people and entities right now. What they want will essentially get squished because no-one wants them part of “whatever it is they are” essentially. If you have had extensive dealings with them at any time in the past, you would feel the same way I’m sure.
Right now expansion isn’t an option. As in, on March 25th 2013 it’s not an option. Whether it’s an option moving ahead we shall see. My bet it is, your bet it’s not.
One thing that i think people have underestimated here is that this is David Stern’s last real fire to be put out. He can be called out as a hypocrite for putting expansion in Seattle as a way to solve this problem. What does he care? He’s going to be retired in 10 months anyway.
Yes please add a button to get to the bottom. When the thread count gets over 200, it can be painful to get down to the bottom on my iPhone/iPad
It’s in the term sheet.
You are correct in the Maloofs backed out. The question is did the NBA have a problem with them back out? Because if they did why would they instruct Hansen to go purchase the Kings? Maybe the NBA did have concerns once they looked into it more who knows? I know you wil probably say why would the NBA help make a deal then not want it? Probably because things changed even a small change could upset Kaiser Stern. I wouldnt put it past Stern to tell the Maloofs to back out since the Maloofs were already bad guys in the region. Stern saves his image. Put it this way if Stern is involved it better be to his EXACT liking and any going against the plan could upset him. Maybe the Maloofs did do it on their own but it doesnt fix the point of why would Stern/League bring the Maloofs and Hansen together?
I agree with most of what you said but the fact is that Sacrameto never did anything to lose their team. The maloof family made it impossible to create a long term commitment sacramento. The maloofs have been doing backhanded things since they backed out of their arena deal last year. The nba knows very well considering they negotiated the old arena deal on behalf of the maloofs only to see them walk away from it. Considering a lot of the terms in the current term sheet are very close to those in the one the nba had negotiated last year, I feel the nba will be confident in the sacramento proposal. I’d love for the sonics to come back but for you to say they won’t screw over Seattle twice, that means they also wont screw Sacramento the way they did to us the first time, just to resolve our issue.
How can you say the NBA didn’t want to nix the deal and have the Maloofs take the fall? The parking projections were rather high from most economists (who looked into it) P.O.V. Maybe the NBA didnt want to get the black eye if a deal went bad for the city. Think about this day in age where government spending is under an all time high of scrutiny. If an NBA arena went terribly wrong for a city it could be very detrimental for future negotiations with cities. Do they really want to be considered the springboard for a local economy? Maybe in a best case scenario of course they would BUT what if it went south and the cities economy went in the toilet? Guess who is the Scapegoat?
The NBA will certainly be able to vet and determine shortfalls of the Sac term sheet. The owners are wealthy, astute businessmen with armies of attorney’s who specialize in these deals. Any shortfalls, financing concerns and unanswered questions will need to be addressed and resolved. That’s where Hansen is so far ahead of this process. Hansen Group patiently and meticulously completed this process before they even presented their PSA to the NBA and filed for relocation. As posted here and nationally reported, the NBA even guided Hansen to where the Sea deal is today. Done.
Don’t bring that “the Maloofs wouldn’t work with Sac” business in here. If they’d tried to work with Sac the way Bennett worked with Seattle, you’d be voting on a 600 million arena in Williams.
Why would the nba spend almost a year negotiating a deal that they thought was fair if they expected it to fail and have the maloofs to blame. The nba is getting a nice investment from the city of sacramento that they can’t afford to turn down when it comes future arena negotiations in other cities.
Perused the term sheet. One quick fallacy: Sacramento expects to get every penny of value out of land a prospective buyer would know they HAVE to sell, to make their plan viable. But none of the current property holders would see no reason to up the value on property the city HAS TO HAVE to make their arena plan feasible.
Am I taking crazy pills?
The failed deal means nothing either pro or con for the deal in my opinion. It is about Seattle yes or no and then whatever happens from there will. We don’t need to argue over that. And for Pete’s sake no city failed the NBA. Seattle did what it had to do years earlier and the owners wanted more. Now sac did what it needed to and the owners said no thanks and wanted to screw the city over or whatever. The NBA works for the owners so it doesn’t really matter what each city did. Either way, arenas weren’t built and owners wanted out.
Because the NBA works for the owners, not the other way around.
Why would the NBA turn down a deal in a major market with a public subsidy that they had trouble even getting the last time? Do you even think before you post? The NBA is getting a subsidy either way. So stop with this StR talking point that doesn’t hold water.
No, that is why it is non binding first attempt. Someone could hold out and train wreck the deal (from a timeline perspective) and they probably should if they want to leverage their asset.
The fact is the maloofs do not like the city of sacramento and the political leaders. They agreed to an arena plan even though they knew they didn’t have the money to pay for it and then brought in an “economist” to prove why the deal was bad for sacramento, calling sacramento out saying they were poor. It was the maloofs who couldnt even make the first payments for predevelopment. If that’s not burning bridges idk what is. And if you think the maloofs aren’t broke, there’s a reason they negotiated to have the 30 million paid immediately because they needed the money. No other franchise has been sold that’s had a down payment transfered before the nba can even approve it
One of the biggest problems people here make is they assume land acquisition in Sacramento is hard. This is not Seattle, SF or LA. Land is only as valuable as the association and emotional investment tied to it. That’s one of the problems cities like Sacramento have unless there is another way to build inherent value. Because there’s not a shortage of available land in Sacramento (even in the best of times), finding ways to make it valuable is a tricky deal at times. This has been one of those times.
Macy’s has no real value to even Macy’s if they have closed up shop. The women’s store is going nowhere (and no-one in fairness is talking about making them relocate) but the men’s store/furniture store wasn’t worth much to the overall aesthetic or business of the DTP. If it was worth anything, Macy’s would still have it open and it would not have been in foreclosure in the first place.
I thought the 7% bankruptcy share would be valuable because it would give a prospective owner a chance to possibly use the ROFR. I still think that share being in bankruptcy court was one of the reasons the Maloofs wanted to sell when they did. There’s also a reason that both Hansen and Burkle inquired about it. They probably (rightfully so in retrospect) saw that like any other ownership group, using ROFR doesn’t eliminate the NBA’s right to scrutinize you as a future owner. (I knew that to be the case however.) Therefore, figuring out a deal with the Maloofs was what was actually important. Since Burkle was never going to buy the team outright, it was pretty unlikely he would be willing to pay the price the Maloofs were looking for.
The differences between the two is that the NBA has had consistently had it’s value as a collective and individual franchises go up. Land goes up and down everywhere in terms of value and always has. It’s nature of the beast. There have been times where NBA franchises have lost value (the Kings are one of those), but they have a lot to do with ownership and fanbases. The fanbase here is worn out on the Maloofs, and well, it is the Maloofs. We’re not talking about astute avant-garde business people here.
The NBA brought Hansen and the Maloofs together for a multitude of reasons. The league knows that the viability in Sacramento long term with the deal they have in mind is questionable. There would be no reason for the NBA to bring Hansen and the Maloofs together if they didnt think that Hansen didnt have the strongest plan. This could all be for show….Sacramento HOPES it isnt…..they dont believe it is and you know I dont believe it is BUT it certainly could be.
In the end like I said earlier Chris Hansen will have all the answers to the NBA’s questions backed with facts and studies. Sacramento, for the most part, will have older studies, hypothetical answers, and promised answers at a later date. There in lies the HUGE difference when it comes to the B.O.G. In the court of public opinion those arent focused on as much. Guess what though in the Boardroom they will be center stage
The owner of the land is JMA and they have been in close contact with Burkle since before the arena plan was put together. Why would they try and derail it now. Darius Anderson who has been involve with JMA is also friends with Burkle and connects him to the mayor 2 years ago when the team was trying to move to Anaheim. So why would property costs go up?
And for Pete’s sake no city failed the NBA. Seattle did what it had to do years earlier and the owners wanted more.
Yep. KeyArena’s shortcomings are painfully obvious now, but at the time everybody was pretty happy with it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV4QLK0HnOc&feature=player_embedded
The NBA needed to take some responsibility for it not working out instead of, well, pretty much the exact opposite.
Everything I’m seeing from the Sac business journals specifies that while JMA holds the mall property, the Macy’s building was held by a different entity. Can you source JMA holding the Macy’s property?
Yeah I do think before I post I’m just saying that sacramento has the advantage because the team is already there. If our elected leaders had done in 2008 what the sacramento people have done, we would still have the sonics. And if you think that the nba just cares about potential future revenue and stronger markets, why would they have moved the sonics to okc, the smallest market in the entire nba
What bothers me is that Sacramento has been given ten years or at least a year to get together a new arena. It’s total bulls!t that the NBA has given them so many chances. Really could use some good news from our side….
From what I’ve seen the Macy’s building is on the furthest southwest location of the property and it will be retained while the rest of the mall is demolished. In the term sheet PDF it shows an overhead view of the mall highlighted yellow. The Macy’s building is the large square on the left that is not part of the highlighted location.
The Macy’s property is in default is it not? There is a lot of different owners. JMA may own the land but there is still negotiations that can be done in a week and a half
Sorry if I sounded like a dick. I just get irritated with the subsidy line f thinking. I think the okc move shows the NBA does what the owners want more than anything.
No offense taken. I just don’t understand that if the owners are keeping in mind future earnings why would they have wanted the okc move in the first place
If our elected leaders had done in 2008 what the sacramento people have done, we would still have the sonics.
Sigh. Some fallacies just never die…
i wouldn’t mind seeing one of those reported “silver bullets” fired off this coming week.
From everything I’ve seen, plus the diagram in the term sheet it seems as though the Macy’s building will be retained while the rest of the mall is leveled.
You’re right, Brian. My nerves were just a bit rattled yesterday. Not from the new arena deal proposal, but just from what I have rethought regarding Stern’s role over the last several weeks.
In reality, all still looks very good for Seattle. If this manner is decided in a rational way, then I think the Sonics will be playing again next season.
It would’ve had to be the summer of 2006 when Schultz sold the team. Get a matching ownership bid and a new arena deal in place as quickly as Sacramento did and there’s no way the Sonics would leave. The problem is that Ballmer didn’t come around ’til over a year later, long after the BOG voted in favor of the sale and there was still no arena deal in place.
The big mistake was letting Clay run the arena thing. Of course he was going to come up with a bogus Renton plan. Had the city leaders put something together similar to what KJ did, with new ownership kicking in around $200 million, the Sonics would still be here.
The difference is Clay was pretending to try and keep the team here.
That is what Brian is saying, it’s not a up and down roller coaster.
I suppose people here could have tried to put together a deal independent of him. But then Bennett would have acted outraged that people were trying to work around him instead of with him. Didn’t he feign offense at the introductory press conference over how people here just assumed he was going to move the team?
The focus needs to be what will happen in that board room. Hansen will have every detail pinted out with references and studies and all that. Sacramento’s side will be based on hypothetical things, anyone can back out of the deal at anytime on Sac’s side. Like the building moratorium that I referenced earlier is a federal mandate. The levies are years away from being finished once the federal government finances it. The throusand little things will be scrutinized. Hansen has those prepared Sacramento doesnt. They have questions that will need to answered efficiently. Hansen will be ready and has been ready and has done all of his homework and the NBA knows that. The question is will Sacramento be able to have all those answers clear cut when they cant possibly have them answered off what they have now.
I read somewhere that one of his main investors lost all his money a year later and seeing that if the sonics were for sale one year later that the okc people wouldn’t have even been able to buy them. Talk about bad luck
I get your stance, GM, but it’s the reasoning behind my statement is what I think you’re missing. I say they won’t “screw over” Seattle twice purely from a business perspective, not because of any sense of right and wrong. The NBA has a 5 year window to re-enter a strong market many thought they’d never get back. The market they have now in Sacramento, will welcome them back with open arms, even if they vote against them now. So, what makes more sense, if there’s no emotion or moral compass to consider? An great financial opportunity that you’d thought lost (Seattle), and still keeping what you have (Sac), even if that goes on a temporary hiatus? Or play it safe with the status quo, but losing that opportunity altogether?
If what we all think is true, the NBA doesn’t care about fanbases or tradition or history. They care about the financial bottom line. And really, by approving the only PA they have in front of them, they have their cake and eat it too. Not saying that’s what will eventually happen, but it’s the most profitable course of action, IMO.
Unless the NBA says “no” to Ballmer, the Sacramento plan is not worth anything more than the paper on which it is printed. If the committees agree to the sale to the Hansen group, it is over for Sacramento. The Sacramento plan will only be considered if and when the Hansen group is out of the picture. The Hansen group has no reason to back out since their purchases has to first be the one considered.
Yes that would be great, takes me 2-3 minutes to scroll to the bottom on iPhone
I think I read that the moratorium is lifted as soon as levy funds are released. They don’t have to wait for levy completion before they can build they just need the federal money to be released.
OMG the RORFcopter wont die! I blame Bruski
If they cared about the financial bottom line try would not have moved the sonics to okc, the smallest nba market. You can look now and say wow the thunder are doing really well but no one knew how successful they were going to be until they moved there. Wait for Durant and Westbrook to leave and see what kind of FA they can attract. That’s why I think this decision isn’t all financially based
Ok I shouldnt have pointed out the levee because I was using it as an example the NBA can use as to why someone can walk away. Still doesnt answer anything else I said about all the answers to all the details and not having hypotheticals
I concur. I find it works a bit better on the iphone to zoom out as far as possible, scroll down, then zoom back in. Saves a little bit of time for me.
I feel bad for my fellow Seattle sports fans. They are always waiting to get the rug pulled out from under them.
Remember: Seattle has a far superior arena deal that is farther along AND deeper pockets in terms of making an offer for this team. If you step back and don’t get emotional about this situation, you can see that things are just fine for us. If you were not you, former Sonics fan, but you, some dude from Grand Forks, North Dakota or Birmingham, Alabama, I am guessing that presented the facts, you would feel at least 99% sure that Seattle was going to end up with the kings.
“Twitter is a nice tool but it has very marginal impact on anything that matters.”
BR: still want to know what your #gameover tweet was about on twitter?????
Well, I think we’ll have agree to disagree on that. If they truly did care about more than money and new arenas, then the 41-year history, the loyal fanbase, etc. that Seattle had would’ve factored much more in that process. It didn’t. OKC showed their loyalty with strong support during the temporary Hornets move and the willingness to pay for a new arena. Seattle didn’t at that time. That’s all. And while this situation isn’t exactly the same, the same motivation is there. And the biggest return on investment, both short term and long term, happens if the PS is approved. Again, this is my take on the situation. No law says we have to agree.
All this term sheet does is allow Sac fans to think the NBA is leaving them when they did everything they were asked. As if this isn’t a business. They’re ignorant fools who think this isn’t driven by money. They’ll at least be able to claim they were robbed, even though they were not, when the BoG approves the sale and relocation.
That was awesome. LOL tree iron and speaking of golf i almost split a golf ball in half yesterday.
Wonder that too. My Guess, It is over for Sac and the team is moving here. I thought this for a long time. The NBA will not turn there back on Hansen.
Spencer Hawes! I hope he goes for 40 tonight.
At least he is honest. Not playing politics like some others
That would be epic. What is his contract situation like? The reason I ask is because if we do end up getting Phil Jackson and having a coach who runs the triangle offense it may be nice to get a post player with his passing prowess. Plus I think if you could get Cousins to buy in too playing around the basket you could use Hawes as the high post. Plus it would be a nice rotation with Thompson, Hawes, and Cousins in the short term
I think he may have 1year left with Philly. I was shocked to see that he’s still only 24(nearly 25). I remember seeing him at the Mariners’ Sonic night, can’t help but love his support of all things Supersonic.
Yes, we learned the hard way to expect to have the rug pulled out from under us. I remember my own blissful naivete - - - No, the NBA would never let the Sonics leave Seattle.
Hell, we survived the Behring moving vans trying to move the Seahawks. That confidence that the good guys would win, right from wrong would prevail. Then, of course, the dramas & save of the Mariners with Slade Gorton. Again, right from wrong prevailed. Just as it should be.
Then the NBA — - - — The Perfect Storm developed for many reasons and even after they unbelievably left, I still believed right from wrong would prevail. And we were unjustly wronged. And then, of course we had the Law on our side. Oh yeah, that’s right Bennet & Co. We’ll take your lyin’ thievin’ cheatin’ asses to Court. Our judicial system will not let us down. The judge will set this thing right. I mean, We had a lease, we had the Schultz lawsuit - - Hell, we had the incriminating emails !!
Of course, Wrong had prevailed - The Good Guys lost.
So, yeah, no matter how strong the facts are, it doesn’t mean you always win. We will never forget what happened. We certainly lost some innocence. We learned first hand that right from wrong sometimes doesn’t matter.
We earned our paranoia.
And this is why sometimes some of us really let any good news from Sacramento affect us. Paranoia paranoia paranoia
Lets not get ahead of ourselves. We need to secure the team before I even think about gm, coach, and any roster moves
As Brian said, we can’t really take anything from tweets. But I found this pretty amusing….
Sactown Royalty @sactownroyalty 2h
@spencerhawes00 was interviewed pre game and was asked “This could be your last game in this arena right?”
Check out his answer…
Sactown Royalty @sactownroyalty 2h
Spencer- “Uh…yeah”
Media - “And that wouldn’t break your heart?”
Spencer -“Uh no. As a Seattleite that would not break my heart.”
I don’t understand this or any of the other Sacramento hate and skepticism I see here.
In 2008 we would have killed for a politician on our side like KJ who would be willing to throw investment into an arena like Sacramento appears to be willing to do. Why crap on their efforts? They’re doing everything they can do to keep their team, exactly like they should and exactly like we tried to do when we lost our team. You know what? Good for them. And calling people who are fighting to keep their team “ignorant fools” spreading false hope just seems unnecessarily insulting. What did you want them, to do? Shrug their shoulders and just let their team leave town?
I think there are still more details for the Sacramento people to get in place (upping their price, answering some of the unanswered questions in the term sheet), but if they do get ownership, a competitive bid, and an arena plan in place, I wouldn’t be shocked if the BoG rules in their favor. And you know what? I’d be happy for them. If all of those other factors are equal, I think keeping a team in its current hometown is the right thing for the league and the fans.
I also wouldn’t be shocked if the BoG rules for us - we have a lot going for us too, and we deserve a team. But let’s remember where we were in 2008 and not a) be arrogant about this b) belittle Sacrament’s efforts.
Well my opinion on the situation is a tad bit different than yours.
Oh, I agree that the paranoia is well-earned, not just from off-the-field issues, but from the fact that in my three decades on this earth, any Seattle pro team of importance that has come close to winning a championship has had the proverbial football yanked away faster than Lucy Van Pelt could ever do it to Charlie Brown.
One more thing:
This is a something of a broad statement that doesn’t really fit in many ways, in no offense to you.
I could be speaking only for myself, but when I look at what Sacramento is going through, I see it through the harsh light of truth. All this that they are doing probably does not matter at all, at least in terms of the current Kings. It’s not a pooh-pooh of their efforts so much as a realization that the B.O.G. *does not care*. They just don’t.
They DO care that H/B/N is about to overpay for an NBA team and drive up the valuation of all of their teams. They also DO care about being able to sell whenever they want to and to whomever they want to at these new, higher values.
and as a Kings fan I’d expect you to feel this way.
Its all good Sacramento believes we are just 10 guys that B!tch a lot and are trolls. As long as we are talking about it here I have no problem with that. Go their site and well you’ll get whats coming to ya
In other words, it’s not arrogant or belittling from my standpoint. It’s just the unvarnished truth: Sacramento is likely very screwed. Their fans will find out soon enough, and when they do, they will become embittered, and then three years from now they will be saying much the same things that we are when the owner of the Bucks tries to pick up and move to Sacramento.
Plus they do care that if Hansen is turned down then all of sudden the ability for the team to relocate is gone thus the valuation decreases by 100 million dollars and Radavine, Mastrov, Burkle bid will surely change because they would then know that the team isn’t moving and no need to overpay
I’m sure there’ll be little guilt about taking the Bucks….just like there isn’t much guilt about Kansas City.
I think some of the people on this board are way too quick to concede defeat.
France would also think some of the people on this board are too quick to concede defeat.
Good to see you here Hafner!
Gotta love the French surrender jokes….
touche? LOL I agree sheesh people just believe “oh they have a term sheet a non binding term sheet, that is an outline of how they are going to do something.” Something that involves gifting lands with federal moratoriums on them and a very speculative parking revenue estimate plus so much more. But yeah WE LOSE LMFAO
Really?!? I saw one quote from one poster that alluded to that “10 guys” characterization and you say “Sacramento.” It really is few on BOTH sides who rag on each other, not the fan bases as a whole.
Youre right the guys like us think thats what we are here. And I have seen more than a few say it. I dont know about the last couple days because I have stayed away for my own psyche.
I don’t read anyone conceding defeat here. As mentioned above, the unvarnished truth of the hard facts puts the odds strongly in the BOG approving the Hansen PSA/reloc. Sac fans will call that arrogance. I will not belittle or mock their efforts. In fact, I cheer them on. It’s helps them get thru the ordeal and certainly moves them forward if they truly can get this to pencil out for their future DP Arena & revitalization. Do I think they can get it to pencil out this go around with the NBA ? Certainly not.
But, as I posted earlier, even with all the righteous facts in your favor, it doesn’t mean you win. The Seattle Sports fan has learned that lesson well.
That’s not conceding defeat. That’s just the Seattle Sports Fan lot in Life.
We’ve earned that paranoia.
I don’t understand this argument at all. On the off chance that the NBA denied the Hansen sale, don’t you think they’d make Vivek/Mastrov enter into some sort of binding agreement first? Or at least get them to make the terms of their “bid” public, so they couldn’t renege later? None of the parties involved in this fiasco is dumb enough to think that it’s a viable plan to just reject the Hansen bid and then let the Maloofs negotiate with Mastrov/Vivek.
They cant tell the Maloofs to sell to anyone. They can encourage it strongly. What if Kehriotis comes out with a bid that is equal with the Radavine bid? You really think the NBA is gonna make a binding side deal? That isnt opening up any litigation is it? Plus I believe the Maloofs will sell to an existing partner (if H/B/N is denied) than sell to a group with Burkle involved.
Agreed. I think it’s a few on both sides and not the fan bases as a whole. Geez, we are in a sense buckled into the the roller coaster together. When this is over and if Sea gets approved - - I’ll be rootin’ for Sac to get their Arena done and get the Kings back. If Sac prevails in keeping the Kings in Sac - - - I’ll hope they cheer us on to get the Sonics back. Sonics/Kings had a good & fun rivalry. I hope to have that again for both Cities.
Let them have there several days in the sun. April 3rd is rapidly approaching!
You really think that Mastrov/Vivek would agree to that? There would be no leverage for the NBA/Sacramento after the NBA turned down Hansen.
Hawes Joins The All-time Greats
From Elias: Spencer Hawes contributed 18 points, 16 rebounds, eight assists and seven blocked shots to the 76ers’ 98-91 victory over the Pacers on Saturday night, and he thereby put his name on a list that had been the exclusive domain of all-time greats. Since the NBA began recording blocked shots 40 years ago, only three other players have ever reached each of those statistical levels in the same game - three fellows named Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (who had three such games), Hakeem Olajuwon (two games) and Charles Barkley, Naismith Hall-of-Famers all. The most recent such game was produced by Olajuwon, 23 years ago this month.
about 7 days ago | Elias Sports Bureau
What Do Spencer Hawes And Lebron James Have In Common?
From Elias: Spencer Hawes scored 24 points, grabbed 10 rebounds, handed out seven assists while making 10 of his 15 shots from the field in the 76ers victory over the Nets. Only one other player in the NBA had a game in which he had that many points, rebounds and assists while making at least two-third of his shots from the field in a game this season: LeBron James on Feb. 21 at Chicago (26 points, 12 rebounds, 7 assists, 11 of 15 from the field).
about 12 days ago | Elias Sports Bureau
He has been on a tear
That wouldn’t be possible. Negotiating a contract while one is already in place would certainly be a breach of the contract by one party (the Maloofs) and tortious interference by the other.
I’m not a guy… would think that my screen name would make that clear…*shrugs* lol
I think the point is - - - the NBA is not going to reject the Hansen PSA/reloc with out a pretty concrete & vetted idea of what the Plan B is for the Kings. There’s the wildcard and million $$ question for the NBA, right ? Just how much power does the NBA have over the MaGoof’s ???
I bet we obsess about this ten fold what Hansen does. He probably got the news yesterday, thought about it for 5 min, and went right back to his golf game in another state or country. lol. Come Monday, back to work all week doing what he does until April 3rd, then sit back some more, since there’s nothing he can do.
If he’s voted against at the bog the 19th, then all that’s left to do is figure out what he wants to do with the land he bought. Right?
Exactly that. That would be a huge risk for the NBA. They can’t have anything in “writing”. But, I am sure they would have a wink & nod fairly concrete Plan B deal for the Kings. They’re not going to reject the Hansen deal not knowing what Plan B is.
Funny how I’m usually the last poster, so my last post I put forth a little effort into will most likely not be seen by most, since we’re at almost 200, and about that time for a new thread. lol
lol. Well, you if skim over it real quick you might only catch the “man” at the end.
That was my point though. Nobody should’ve trusted him to do the right thing. We know how hard he tried to keep the Hornets in OKC so there was no reason for him to all of a sudden stop caring about OKC in favor of Seattle.
Wow- just got in after a trip totally off the grid to Kalaloch.
Don’t stress y’all- this isn’t about what Sacramento puts together- this is about our deal. If NBA says no to Hansen/Ballmer, they say no to Seattle.
We knew Sacramento was going to put together an arena deal and find investors, and now all the unknowns are fully revealed. No more speculating or hoping that their deal would fall apart before the deadline.
But again- we need to relax, understand that it doesn’t matter if we scrutinize the two deals or not, it only matters what the BOG decides in April: return to Seattle or stay in Sacramento.
We’ve done everything we can do as fans- and if this doesn’t happen for us, I’m not sure it’s worth going through this charade again- it will be clear that our actions are irrelevant in the process. This is all happening at a much higher level- hopefully that works out for us.
I think some people are taking this Seattle sports fan getting screwed over a little too far. We just haven’t had very many good teams and a few sucky owners. Much like a bunch of other places.
Darknessspreads, replying to your comments a bit out of order:
Just to be clear, I don’t have a problem with comments that try to suss out which bid is likely to win, which is what you’re speaking to here. What I don’t like are comments that insult Sacramento, its politicians or its fans for having the temerity to fight for their team. I’ve seen the “KJ is giving his citizens false hope” argument a few times, and I think it’s pretty ridiculous. Whether the hope is false or not is a matter of perspective, and we would have been outraged had the OKC fans patronized the Save our Sonics efforts with the “Brian Robinson is giving them false hope” argument.
You’ve used “unvarnished truth” and “harsh light of truth” above, but I think that’s less fact than opinion. Perhaps an informed and considered opinion, but still an opinion.
If you’re talking about the Carmichael Dave tour, or fights between fans on our site, their site, or Twitter, I completely agree with that opinion. None of that matters, and the BoG won’t care.
But what the BoG does care about is getting the right owners, the right city, the right purchase price, and the right arena. If Sacramento doesn’t get all of those pieces in place, they’re done. But Sacramento has been working towards putting together the puzzle, has made impressive progress, and if they get it right, I think the BoG will absolutely care. Just as I think they would have cared had Ballmer’s offer not been stalled in the state legislature.
You could make a compelling case in that situation for either city, and I think we’d have a strong shot - but I don’t think it’s the fait accompli that you’re describing.
Well, if the Sacramento ownership group doesn’t overpay to the same amount, their offer won’t be considered. If they do match, we lose that advantage, so I think it’s moot. I do agree that freedom to sell to whomever and whenever is important to the owners, but the way the Maloofs are being treated here certainly isn’t a bad precedent for owners. They’ll either sell to the Seattle group on an overpay, or to the Sacramento group on the same overpay.
What worries me is that our arena deal is almost entirely private - a great thing for Seattle, and the right thing for arenas, but I could see owners wanting to continue the practice of public funding that Sacramento is offering.
Completely agree. We’re all just spectators watching the billionaires and politicians put together their bids. Our two fanbases squabbling with each other is as pointless as it is probably inevitable.
I’m hoping that one way or another we both have teams in a few years so we can have an especially spicy on-court rivalry with each other.
Thanks and likewise!
Again with the public financing. Seattle is contributing up to $200 million. Stop this argument. Ours is just repaid with arena sales taxes
My guess is he/she wasn’t referring to you Jeanine…lol
You don’t think Chris Hansen is protecting our general fund more than the Kings term sheet protects the Sacramento general fund?
Again, I’m in no way bashing Seattle’s contribution. I think the largely private nature of the financing is a huge strength of our deal. Good on Chris Hansen for putting together one of the most generous arena deals we’ve seen. I just worry that NBA owners won’t see it the same way.
I do, but it is public money either way. The owners will still be able to get money from desperate cities such as sac and other cities with minor league complexes.
Mr. Hafner the public private contributions is over blown in my opinion. People act that if they go with a lesser subsidy they are setting bad precedent. This isnt a court of law. The Golden State Warriors arena project is mostly privately financed. So if you want to make that argument then there us precedent for a pirvately financed arena. In the end the BoG is more likely going to go with the arena project with the most likelihood of getting done. At this point in time (which will be unchanged by 4/3) the likelihood lies in Seattle’s corner. There are many things that the council even after their first vote in Sacramento will reserve the right to change. If changed the Investors could simply walk away. Ours can only be changed for certain reasons. Their plan can be walked away from at point for any reason.
Me too…Jenn…gp? Last I saw there were no guys with the name Jenn.
Girl power! 10 Guys and 2 Girls..does Sac have that? lol
Yeah, other cities have suffered thru bad ownerships, bad calls, and team relocations, etc.
Having not lived in those Cities, I really can’t speak to those experiences. All I can speak to is our experiences. In this case, specifically SonicsGate. I’m of the opinion we hit the Perfect Storm for our loss of the Sonics.
We’ve earned our Paranoia.
By the wa,y as constructed, if both arenas occured and they both went bad for the city. The city of Seattle would lose money and it wouldnt be great by any means. The damage done to Sacramento, whose city is in massive debt, would be a whole heluuva lot worse.
They are contributing 258 million from parking and some various holdings but it is a whole lot more. In the end, after paying off the loan, they would be paying 325-350 million after interest. Plus they are way more likely of putting the general fund at risk.
BTW guys dont be suprised if Kehriotis doesnt put his hat in the ring by Tuesday. I really wonder if he is trying to get the council to deny the proposed term sheet and go with his deal because he is looking for the Natomas land and very little investment from the city. I doubt the city wouldnt vote the term sheet because it is just an okay from them and nothing binding so they are just saying okay take it to the BoG we will figure out the details later.
Let me see how badly I mess up the quoting. A preview button, a preview button, my kingdom for a preview button.
I respectfully disagree. I am 99.9% sure that the Kings to Seattle has pretty much been decided on already for reasons that I will mention below, and I think that you can have admiration for what the city is trying to do for its fans while also noting that a lot of what the city is doing is only going to serve to really let them down on the 18th next month. I don’t think the two are opposite things to say, and I don’t think it’s ridiculous to note that a place like StR is going to be apoplectic on the 18th in a way that some of us Sonics fans were not. I saw the end coming, but then again, I am a cynic about sports in that way. Lots of Kings fans don’t see the end coming. Assuming I am right, KJ really is getting their hopes up in a way that Nickels/the legislature never did for us.
That doesn’t make it bad. It just is.
Chris Hafner:
You’ve used “unvarnished truth” and “harsh light of truth” above, but I think that’s less fact than opinion. Perhaps an informed and considered opinion, but still an opinion. [...] what the BoG does care about is getting the right owners, the right city, the right purchase price, and the right arena. If Sacramento doesn’t get all of those pieces in place, they’re done. But Sacramento has been working towards putting together the puzzle, has made impressive progress, and if they get it right, I think the BoG will absolutely care. Just as I think they would have cared had Ballmer’s offer not been stalled in the state legislature.
You could make a compelling case in that situation for either city, and I think we’d have a strong shot – but I don’t think it’s the fait accompli that you’re describing.
First of all, let me say that those turns of phrase are meant to indicate that I think the NBA, and every major sports league, for that matter, care about one thing - the bottom line. I did not mean to indicate that I hold a singular truth - how can I since I am not on the B.O.G. - but that there is a reality that pretty much matches up with the idea that money talks and everything else walks.
Based on that assumption, I think it’s pretty clear that Seattle is doing all of the talking right now: Raising the values of the other franchises based on their bid and putting together an advanced arena deal put H/S/N far beyond the Sacramento group when it comes to pure cash. Sure, there may be other things that the B.O.G. take into account, but my guess, based on what seems to have ruled almost every franchise relocation in the past, is that money talks more than all of those things. These guys are in it to make a profit except for Cuban and maybe Hansen, once he is approved.
Chris Hafner:
Well, if the Sacramento ownership group doesn’t overpay to the same amount, their offer won’t be considered. If they do match, we lose that advantage, so I think it’s moot. I do agree that freedom to sell to whomever and whenever is important to the owners, but the way the Maloofs are being treated here certainly isn’t a bad precedent for owners. They’ll either sell to the Seattle group on an overpay, or to the Sacramento group on the same overpay.
What worries me is that our arena deal is almost entirely private – a great thing for Seattle, and the right thing for arenas, but I could see owners wanting to continue the practice of public funding that Sacramento is offering.
I will try to be more accurate in my language because I misled you by using those euphemisms in my earlier post, and that is my fault. I assume, based on certain things that have happened (Mastrov having to step back, the Maloofs trying to move somewhere, anywhere, that would make the financials work so that they could keep their team) that Sacramento’s potential owners simply cannot match this deal and make the numbers work without taking significant losses or slashing payroll to a point that would even make the Maloofs shudder with fright.
In other words, I doubt that they match the deal or get even within 30-40M of it. It is an assumption, of course, and we don’t actually know what H/B/N are paying, but from what I am hearing from multiple sources (525B valuation, flat-out repayment of the loan to Sactown, poison pills that could drive the valuation even higher), there just isn’t a way to make the numbers work in a town with that market size and without lots of corporate support like we have.
I also want to note that Sacramento originally got the Kings from Kansas City, a town that was almost fully funding an arena in order to try to keep the Kings there. They lost the team anyway. I don’t think that the B.O.G. cares about how much of the funds for the arena are from the public. They know the scarcity of what they own. We got lucky with H/B/N, but other cities won’t have owners that are so awesome, and they will have to pay if they want one of the other 31 teams to move in. This is an isolated case.
Anyway, thanks for your response. We just disagree on some core things, but I do understand where you are coming from in your perspective, definitely.
Yep, I messed it up. BOO, me!
Florida gulf coast is fun to watch! This Comer point guard is a playmaker.
That was kind of a cheap, leading-on kind of question to ask. Maybe he just decided not to play along.
He’s like a right-wing Bill Walton!
word!
Florida Gulf Coast University……….IM ON THE BANDWAGON BRETT COMER IS A BEAST OF A PASSER!!!!!!
Here’s what bothers me about the “e-word” argument: it goes against precedent in the NBA, and I don’t mean that the league is unwilling to expand.
If we go back to what happened in Charlotte, the Hornets moved to New Orleans, and it was expansion that went to Charlotte with the completion of the new arena. The whole point of that was that despite alienating the fans, the NBA felt it could not dictate who you can sell your team to, as Charlotte was willing to fund a new facility under the condition that Shinn sold the Hornets.
Simply put, if the NBA decides to use the e-word, I firmly believe it would be for Sacramento, not for Seattle. This team is coming.
I’d really like to see a Totems/Metropolitans/NHL rising site born, after a worst case scenario. Rallies n such after a year or so.
I don’t think its really necessary for hockey. We know if the arena gets built a NHL team will follow at some point.
You might see it much sooner than a year !! Maybe even in a couple of months. Heck, arrogance aside - - - we’ll probably be watching the Sonics playing in the Key this fall.
I would bet on the Coyotes heading here in a year or two. Yet another ownership group fell through for them, Glendale is completely broke and can’t pay for their arena (dumb move not to stick the new arena at what is now SkySong in Scottsdale), and the market just doesn’t have enough hockey fans there to flourish, even with retirees coming from the north.
Chris Daniels @ChrisDaniels5 8m
Here is my lengthy, WEB ONLY, story on the #Sacramento Arena deal, & what it means for #NBASeattle hopes: http://ow.ly/jnacl #NBAKings
Pretty thoughtful article. Check it out.
Yeah, getting the quoting right is definitely a challenge. :-)
Just really quickly, I think the crucial part of your post is that you don’t think the Mastrov group can match the Hansen bid. I’m a little less confident about that, but I think this means that otherwise we don’t disagree very much. For all the reasons you outline below, if the Mastrov group *can’t* match the Hansen bid, I think their chances are vanishingly slim. Their only hope is in putting together a group, a bid, and an arena plan that are just as solid as Seattle’s plan. They only have a really shot if it’s a tie - if they don’t get there, the BoG won’t overturn the sale on sentiment alone.
Based on what I’ve seen at Sactown Royalty, they agree as well - if the arena plan isn’t locked and loaded and if the bid doesn’t match Hansen’s, they don’t have a shot.
I’ll agree that if the bid doesn’t get to where it needs to be, their efforts will likely be for naught. But they wouldn’t be even this close had KJ and everybody close to those efforts not been fighting to get to that point.
Putting it in basketball terms - they were behind by 40 at halftime in Game 7 of the Finals when the Hansen sale was announced. They’ve fought and scrapped and now are down by, say, 12 with 2 minutes left in the game. It’s easy to scoff at their efforts and still say they’re not likely to win, but there is a sequence of events in which they could win, and they wouldn’t be in that position if they hadn’t fought for it.
And really, what’s the alternative? That they give up at halftime? We wouldn’t have done that.
I still think we would have had a shot had the state legislature not stonewalled Ballmer’s offer, and I was one of the people writing my representatives for both that deal and to try to advocate for the Clay Bennett arena deal in Renton, so really the upshot is that I’m just a sucker. :-)
Agreed - thanks for your response as well. It’s been a really good conversation.
And to your point about the public financing piece (and from Barely Able and others) - I hope you’re right that it doesn’t play a role in the BoG ruling. It’s just my own neurosis.
Mr Hafner, I have to disagree with you when you say that the Sonics might have stayed, had the legislature been more cooperative with Ballmer.
I think that Seattle had ZERO chance of keeping the Sonics once Bennett entered the picture. His friendship with Stern, the way he tried to keep the Hornets when OKC provided a temporary home for the team after Katrina, the RIDICULOUS Renton arena proposal….to me, it all points to one sad fact. The fix was in from the start. Once Stern introduced Bennett to Schultz, it was over.
41 years of history and fan support meant less than squat to the NBA.
While I applaud Kings fans fighting to keep their team, I still think that they will lose their team. The NBA is a business, and they do not base their decisions out of sentiment and emotion. The financing for this arena deal is tenuous at best and does not compare with the deal that, right now, IS THE ONLY DEAL ON THE TABLE.
I still think Sacramento should put up a fight. Would be worse for them if they walked away from this wondering if they should have done more.
Yup. If Sac gets their Arena financing to pencil out, SacTown will be having the “E” and purchase/relocation conversation. Their leadership will need to keep that conversation alive with their fan base.
I meant for a worst case scenario, and since everyone feels like this is it for the NBA in seattle for quite some time if it doesn’t work. Whole new group, with their own arena plan, ect in the next year or so. Kind of like another Don Levin or something plan. {I think that’s his name}. I’m only getting older, and would like to enjoy 20 years of NBA and NHL before I croak. Of course, whoever it is would have to fund a larger percent of the arena themselves, unlike the last “plan” that guy had.
Funny how it used to be that Sac fans argued that the NBA couldn’t use the money the Maloofs owe as a reason for forcing them to sell to Hansen. Yet now it’s a perfectly good reason they’ll be able to force a sale to the Sac group.
What’s with the “Web Only” part? Chris Daniels pretty face belongs on television!
And it’d be pretty unlikely that the terms of any loan or loans to the Maloofs would grant the league the ability to call it in, in full, at any time of their choosing.
Oh misread the post sorry.
STR acknowledges they need to have an equal offer and an Arena plan “locked & loaded” ? Wow — that’s great news to hear that they are recognizing the steep mountain they must still climb in a very, very short time. Any speculation as to when the new equal bid is forthcoming ? The Arena vetting with i’s dotted and t’s crossed ? When do they think they will be able to get the completed deal to the NBA ? tick, tock, tick, tock.
In retrospect, I can’t disagree, but at the time I was a true believer. I did admit I was a sucker, after all. :-)
(snip)
Agreed.
I was responding specifically to the bit about the bid, not the arena plan. Yes, there have been a lot of comments to the effect that they were nervous about the fact that that the initial bid was short and that if the Mastrov group didn’t match that their chances were very slim. Not to generalize about a community, but the commenters that I most respect over there are very realistic that the BoG won’t rule on sentiment and that the dollars will have to be equal.
The main difference is that they’re optimistic that their group will step up, while there’s some doubt here. I’m split. On the one hand, I’m not sure that a smart businessman would think of the Kings as being worth that much money (which makes me all the more appreciative that the Hansen group is willing to pay it). I think that’s why nobody local got a sales agreement out of the Maloofs while Hansen did, and why Mastrov went in low with his initial bid.
On the other hand, why would Mastrov even get involved if he wasn’t willing to match the purchase price? I know not all of the details are public, but the big-picture numbers were out there.
Ultimately, none of us knows, and we’re all guessing. What I’m interested in more than anything is just getting to the BoG decision so we can stop all the speculation.
I wounds mind a SB nation hockey site!
Even Daniels now seems to be saying Burkle is part of the group trying to buy the Kings. (In his case, it’s to explain why the Maloofs might not deal with them.) Has that been confirmed by anyone?
A new thread is up.
Anxiety can be real frustrating. Remember the NBA has asked the Maloofs as well as the seattle group to remain silent during this whole process, something the Sacramento team doesn’t have to abide by. I’m sure Hansen wants to share news but can’t because he is forced to bite his tongue.