Anyone here know about NBA veto rights involving relocation?

[RookieOfTheDay]

I've read conflicting reports. I've read some sources that say teams can veto a move if it comes within a 50 (or was is 90) mile radius of them. Meaning, The Lakers and Clippers could veto a move to Anaheim. I've read others sources though that say the Lakers and Clippers can't do anything to stop the move even if they wanted to. Can anyone here clear this up for me?

 

[jdbraver]

Dont you think the Maloofs would seek a conversation with them if they are intending on moving. My guess is the other teams already bought off on the idea.

 

[kennadog]

As far as I know, if a majority of the owners vote "yes" that's it. They may make the Kings franchise pay money to those other team...or they might not. To me, it will be interesting to see if the owners will be okey with three teams so slose together. One thing I know, is none of the other team like Sac's arena at all. Also, those other owners aren't going to force a team to stay where they can't survive financially. They may have to ask for something from the other owners someday, so they area always go to lean in favor of an owner probably 99% of the time.

 

[Section 101]

This could get interesting too with the CBA. Say Buss is dead set against the Kings move and threatens to hold up any consessions in revenue sharing with small market teams. He would have Sterling on his side and maybe some of the other big money owners.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

As far as I know, if a majority of the owners vote "yes" that's it. They may make the Kings franchise pay money to those other team...or they might not. To me, it will be interesting to see if the owners will be okey with three teams so slose together. One thing I know, is none of the other team like Sac's arena at all. Also, those other owners aren't going to force a team to stay where they can't survive financially. They may have to ask for something from the other owners someday, so they area always go to lean in favor of an owner probably 99% of the time.

True, a lot of teams that doesn't have close ties to any of the so cal teams won't really care other than not wanting to pee off the other teams' owners. I don't think people care much for what Sterling thinks. Honestly, even Buss, phil jackson etc all have vocally stated how much they despise Sterling.

As for Buss, do most owners rather watch the lakers get stronger with their new TV deal and successfully defend their territory, or would they rather weaken the lakers/clippers by approving anther team nearby? Most teams are always gunning for the lakers.

I just can't see teams like the Spurs, Mavs, Celtics, Heats, Thunder, Magic etc want to help the lakers defend their territory and retain their market share. If anything, this is a great opportunity to throw some trouble to the way of the lakers without having to do much themselves. There are those other teams such as the Rockets, Pacers that have been long term trade partners of the Kings. The kings have also been "helping" teams left and right by taking junk players in order for those teams to get under the cap. Yes they get money in return, but its still a favor.

My question would be, has there been any team in history that filed for relocation and loss the voting? I looked it up a bit and found one where the Wolves tried to move and filed but that had to do with another company coming in trying to buy the team and then move it.

 

[Trueblood]

True, a lot of teams that doesn't have close ties to any of the so cal teams won't really care other than not wanting to pee off the other teams' owners. I don't think people care much for what Sterling thinks. Honestly, even Buss, phil jackson etc all have vocally stated how much they despise Sterling.

As for Buss, do most owners rather watch the lakers get stronger with their new TV deal and successfully defend their territory, or would they rather weaken the lakers/clippers by approving anther team nearby? Most teams are always gunning for the lakers.

I just can't see teams like the Spurs, Mavs, Celtics, Heats, Thunder, Magic etc want to help the lakers defend their territory and retain their market share. If anything, this is a great opportunity to throw some trouble to the way of the lakers without having to do much themselves. There are those other teams such as the Rockets, Pacers that have been long term trade partners of the Kings. The kings have also been "helping" teams left and right by taking junk players in order for those teams to get under the cap. Yes they get money in return, but its still a favor.

My question would be, has there been any team in history that filed for relocation and loss the voting? I looked it up a bit and found one where the Wolves tried to move and filed but that had to do with another company coming in trying to buy the team and then move it.

Like you pointed out, the problem was that the team wasn't officially sold yet. The original TWolf owners wanted to sell to a group that would then in turn move it to New Orleans. The league didn't want to leave the Twin Cities for a smaller market so they blocked the SALE of the team before they had any chance of starting a relocation process. The NBA has the ability to block sales of teams but it's very tough to block relocations.

Another example similar to that one was when the Grizzlies original owners tried to sell to Bill Lurie, owner of the St. Louis Blues and their arena. Stern saw the obvious writing on the wall, didn't want St. Louis and blocked the sale. They wound up getting sold to someone else who made a half hearted attempt at staying but it was good enough to qualify as a make good effort so he wound up getting green lighted for Memphis.

To further my point about sales getting held up, you need look no further than the Sonics situation. Clay Bennett was actually outbid by $75 million for the team. He bid $350 million and Larry Ellison put up $425 million. The problem was that the league preferred OKC to San Jose so they told Schultz that his sale to Ellison would be rejected so he took the next best offer.

Same with Ellison's bid to buy the Hornets this year. Despite what you hear, he actually outbid the league for control of the Hornets. The league wants New Orleans over San Jose so again, Larry gets left out in the cold.

Long story short and to more directly answer your question, the league has never directly blocked a relocation attempt. That's bad news for us who want the team to stay in Sac.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

Like you pointed out, the problem was that the team wasn't officially sold yet. The original TWolf owners wanted to sell to a group that would then in turn move it to New Orleans. The league didn't want to leave the Twin Cities for a smaller market so they blocked the SALE of the team before they had any chance of starting a relocation process. The NBA has the ability to block sales of teams but it's very tough to block relocations.

Another example similar to that one was when the Grizzlies original owners tried to sell to Bill Lurie, owner of the St. Louis Blues and their arena. Stern saw the obvious writing on the wall, didn't want St. Louis and blocked the sale. They wound up getting sold to someone else who made a half hearted attempt at staying but it was good enough to qualify as a make good effort so he wound up getting green lighted for Memphis.

To further my point about sales getting held up, you need look no further than the Sonics situation. Clay Bennett was actually outbid by $75 million for the team. He bid $350 million and Larry Ellison put up $425 million. The problem was that the league preferred OKC to San Jose so they told Schultz that his sale to Ellison would be rejected so he took the next best offer.

Same with Ellison's bid to buy the Hornets this year. Despite what you hear, he actually outbid the league for control of the Hornets. The league wants New Orleans over San Jose so again, Larry gets left out in the cold.

Long story short and to more directly answer your question, the league has never directly blocked a relocation attempt. That's bad news for us who want the team to stay in Sac.

Hmm, I didn't know Ellison bidded on the Sonics. Good to know. I knew about his higher bid for the Hornets, but my question is has the owners ever voted against a team filing for relocation, not the league blocking.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/46881/Anaheims_economics_luring_Kings_mayor_says

"During a phone call with the mayor Wednesday, NBA Commissioner David Stern encouraged Johnson to continue to "fight" for the Kings – but said he'd support the Maloofs when they make a case to move to Anaheim to other team owners during the NBA Board of Governors meeting April 14-15. "


If this quote is true, then Stern will throw his weight to make it happen.

 

[Tetsujin]

Like you pointed out, the problem was that the team wasn't officially sold yet. The original TWolf owners wanted to sell to a group that would then in turn move it to New Orleans. The league didn't want to leave the Twin Cities for a smaller market so they blocked the SALE of the team before they had any chance of starting a relocation process. The NBA has the ability to block sales of teams but it's very tough to block relocations.

Another example similar to that one was when the Grizzlies original owners tried to sell to Bill Lurie, owner of the St. Louis Blues and their arena. Stern saw the obvious writing on the wall, didn't want St. Louis and blocked the sale. They wound up getting sold to someone else who made a half hearted attempt at staying but it was good enough to qualify as a make good effort so he wound up getting green lighted for Memphis.

To further my point about sales getting held up, you need look no further than the Sonics situation. Clay Bennett was actually outbid by $75 million for the team. He bid $350 million and Larry Ellison put up $425 million. The problem was that the league preferred OKC to San Jose so they told Schultz that his sale to Ellison would be rejected so he took the next best offer.

Same with Ellison's bid to buy the Hornets this year. Despite what you hear, he actually outbid the league for control of the Hornets. The league wants New Orleans over San Jose so again, Larry gets left out in the cold.

Long story short and to more directly answer your question, the league has never directly blocked a relocation attempt. That's bad news for us who want the team to stay in Sac.

In other words, David Stern is a ham-fisted dictator?

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/46881/Anaheims_economics_luring_Kings_mayor_says

"During a phone call with the mayor Wednesday, NBA Commissioner David Stern encouraged Johnson to continue to "fight" for the Kings – but said he'd support the Maloofs when they make a case to move to Anaheim to other team owners during the NBA Board of Governors meeting April 14-15. "


If this quote is true, then Stern will throw his weight to make it happen.

So Stern is basically a hypocrite then. he's stated in the past that he's for market teams but he's going to support The Maloofs pulling the plug on Sacramento without even waiting to see what Taylor, ICON, and the mayor can do?

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

So Stern is basically a hypocrite then. he's stated in the past that he's for market teams but he's going to support The Maloofs pulling the plug on Sacramento without even waiting to see what Taylor, ICON, and the mayor can do?

Well, to be fair, Stern has tried to help in the past. But he said they couldn't make any progress so eventually he gave up because his efforts is useless.

 

[SacTownKid]

So Stern is basically a hypocrite then. he's stated in the past that he's for market teams but he's going to support The Maloofs pulling the plug on Sacramento without even waiting to see what Taylor, ICON, and the mayor can do?

You have to understand something about Stern, he has a disorder called "little wiener syndrome", when he came into the picture a few years ago and an arena didn't appear after he snapped his fingers he got pissed.

 

[Trueblood]

Hmm, I didn't know Ellison bidded on the Sonics. Good to know. I knew about his higher bid for the Hornets, but my question is has the owners ever voted against a team filing for relocation, not the league blocking.

Voting against relocation and the league blocking are pretty much one in the same. If the league were to block a relocation, it would come in the form of the owners voting against it. It's just a matter of semantics or however you want to phrase it. The owners do what Stern wants them to do. They would never go against his orders which is why you see relocation votes passed by 28-1 and 29-0 margins.

The problem is basically a legal one. If an ownership group is in a money losing situation and they see a situation where they would be making money, the league pretty much has to let them leave or risk a drawn out and very expensive lawsuit. The Raiders and the NFL set a precedence for this and the NBA has been careful not to make the same mistake that Rozelle did.

 

[Trueblood]

In other words, David Stern is a ham-fisted dictator?

He is but like I said in the previous post, he's legally challenged in a lot of situations and has no choice but to allow the owners to do what they can as long as they aren't tied down by an iron clad lease or things like that. This is why I'm glad that some Sacramento media outlets are trying to get the city to study the lease and the money that is owed to the city by the Maloofs. Yeah, maybe Samueli will just step up and put the $100 million back on the table but at least you're making them sweat and if you do that, there might me enough pressure to at least let them see what the ICON/Taylor thing can produce.

 

[chief bromden]

http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/46881/Anaheims_economics_luring_Kings_mayor_says

"During a phone call with the mayor Wednesday, NBA Commissioner David Stern encouraged Johnson to continue to "fight" for the Kings – but said he'd support the Maloofs when they make a case to move to Anaheim to other team owners during the NBA Board of Governors meeting April 14-15. "


If this quote is true, then Stern will throw his weight to make it happen.

"When" and not "if" I see...I've always pictured Stern as an Ellsworth Toohey. I wonder what team is next on his list.

 

[Showtime]

Owners vote on relocation, and no team has more power than another. One team can't block a move on it's own.

 

[Showtime]

So Stern is basically a hypocrite then. he's stated in the past that he's for market teams but he's going to support The Maloofs pulling the plug on Sacramento without even waiting to see what Taylor, ICON, and the mayor can do?

Stern already tried to get something done. It failed. Why are people acting as if this ICON project is a good shot? It's a long shot to begin with, and if it fails to come to fruition, which is most likely, then they are back to square one anyway. At this point, their stance is "I'll believe it when I see it", and I don't blame them. Personally, I won't ever believe Sacramento can get a building up until I'm sitting in a seat.

 

[Trueblood]

Stern already tried to get something done. It failed. Why are people acting as if this ICON project is a good shot? It's a long shot to begin with, and if it fails to come to fruition, which is most likely, then they are back to square one anyway. At this point, their stance is "I'll believe it when I see it", and I don't blame them. Personally, I won't ever believe Sacramento can get a building up until I'm sitting in a seat.

Good post. Stern is just being a realist right now. He sees the writing on the wall.

That being said, I don't know why there is such a hurry to be in Anaheim next season, especially with a possible lockout. I've mentioned it a few times on this board. Larry David says that it's the perfect time to get away but my counter argument is that it's a bad time to market to a new fan base.

Also, I don't think getting away is a problem. JMO but getting away during a lockout and getting away when there isn't one doesn't make much difference. The King and Maloof haters want them gone so you're actually making them happy and the fans that understand and are in the loop know what the Maloofs are up against when it comes to getting an arena and have become pretty much compliant with what's happening.

Knowing all that, you would think they could just give ICON/Taylor a shot and then leave next season, when the cba is done with. The fact that they will be better off financially is irrelevant since Arco is sub standard. Yeah, the Kings can make money if their payroll is minimum but they won't be competitive. Therefore, it's very dissapointing that they aren't giving ICON/Taylor a shot. It makes them look like liars when they say that Sacramento is a priority because now they're basically saying that the best fiancial deal ASAP is the priority. They are being paranoid like someone is going to swoop into Anaheim if they don't hurry.

 

[Showtime]

Good post. Stern is just being a realist right now. He sees the writing on the wall.

That being said, I don't know why there is such a hurry to be in Anaheim next season, especially with a possible lockout. I've mentioned it a few times on this board. Larry David says that it's the perfect time to get away but my counter argument is that it's a bad time to market to a new fan base.

Also, I don't think getting away is a problem. JMO but getting away during a lockout and getting away when there isn't one doesn't make much difference. The King and Maloof haters want them gone so you're actually making them happy and the fans that understand and are in the loop know what the Maloofs are up against when it comes to getting an arena and have become pretty much compliant with what's happening.

I think there are several reasons of "why now"?

- New CBA in place in LA gives the team a better shot at attracting a free agent by luring them to the LA area instead of a Sacramento-team-that-will-be-moving-soon. Also, if ICON doesn't get shovels in the ground, everybody knows the team is gone anyway and nobody will show up to that entire season. Better to do it now than have a farewell season in an empty arena.
- The Lakers inked a new network deal, making this a perfect time to strike while the iron's hot and grab that market space they left behind. Networks don't like to lose out on money that they don't have to, and the local media revenue is a big selling point to the Maloofs regarding the move.
- Since we know of Ellison's interest in buying and moving the hornets to San Jose, it's been suggested this move is part of a horse trade. Maloofs wanted to move to either SJ or Anaheim, so Ellison will give them a supporting vote to move south if the Maloofs support his move to the Bay (which is probably going to happen after the CBA negotiations).

Knowing all that, you would think they could just give ICON/Taylor a shot and then leave next season, when the cba is done with. The fact that they will be better off financially is irrelevant since Arco is sub standard. Yeah, the Kings can make money if their payroll is minimum but they won't be competitive. Therefore, it's very dissapointing that they aren't giving ICON/Taylor a shot. It makes them look like liars when they say that Sacramento is a priority because now they're basically saying that the best fiancial deal ASAP is the priority. They are being paranoid like someone is going to swoop into Anaheim if they don't hurry.

I don't understand people who say "give them a shot". The move won't be determined prior to ICON's findings. Also, they aren't getting fully behind this because it's no better shot at getting done than any other venture they've explored. It's all talk. ICON's job is to research the viability of the project. That's it. That's what the Maloofs are supposed to get behind? The biggest issues that have hindered previous projects, namely funding (along with others related to the downtown site such as land ownership, the extent of public support, transportation infrastructure, etc) still haven't been worked out. So as far as the Maloofs are concerned, everybody's at square one of just talking about a new area. So what is there to get behind?

 

[Trueblood]

Are you suggesting that ICON is going to send a report to the city before April 15th? If so, and the report comes back negative with no hope of an arena, then I'm fine with them applying for relocation. I'd just hate to see them relocate and then find out that an arena was not only feasible but something that would get done. At that point, you couldn't blame the fans for accusing the Maloofs of squeezing out every penny as opposed to making Sacramento a priority.

Also, you mention that it looks like the league will allow for Ellison to buy the Hornets after the cba is negotiated. Is the Kawakami article in the SJ Merc the article you're going on or do you have other sources? I like Kawakami but he goes on lots of wild goose chases. I wouldn't put too much credibility in that one article. If the league wants out of New Orleans and into San Jose, it would've been a lot easier to have just let him buy them a couple months ago. With an out of town owner in place, there's no way New Orleans would've hit the attendance threshold and they'd be free to move now. Not the case anymore.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Stern already tried to get something done. It failed. Why are people acting as if this ICON project is a good shot? It's a long shot to begin with, and if it fails to come to fruition, which is most likely, then they are back to square one anyway. At this point, their stance is "I'll believe it when I see it", and I don't blame them. Personally, I won't ever believe Sacramento can get a building up until I'm sitting in a seat.

Because a long shot is better than no shot which is basically what every proposal up until now has had. Everyone understood that if this couldn't get done it was over. So what's the harm in playing it out since it is essentially the first serious proposal anyone has had?

 

[Showtime]

Are you suggesting that ICON is going to send a report to the city before April 15th?

No, I'm saying the Maloofs can file for relocation but that doesn't mean they are moving. That still has to be decided by the NBA later. 4 teams filed to relocate last year, and none actually moved. A file for relocation doesn't make it a done deal.

Also, you mention that it looks like the league will allow for Ellison to buy the Hornets after the cba is negotiated. Is the Kawakami article in the SJ Merc the article you're going on or do you have other sources? I like Kawakami but he goes on lots of wild goose chases. I wouldn't put too much credibility in that one article. If the league wants out of New Orleans and into San Jose, it would've been a lot easier to have just let him buy them a couple months ago. With an out of town owner in place, there's no way New Orleans would've hit the attendance threshold and they'd be free to move now. Not the case anymore.

Here's the problem with letting Ellison buy months ago: it hurts the CBA negotiations, which the owners are really pushing hard for a restructured cap and revenue sharing. The worse off they can present the league, the better. Selling the team and moving it to SJ would hurt their agenda. If they can present a prime example of a financially defunct franchise (even dangling the possibility of contraction), as well as a Kings team that can't afford to remain in a small market, then the owners have a better position from which to leverage against the players association during negotiations.

And in regards to that attendance mark: the fans weren't buying tickets. Local businesses were so desperate to keep the team in town (gee, wonder why sacramento?), that local businessmen were buying the tickets and giving them to kids to meet the minimum mark. But that's only for a little while longer, and if Ellison and the NBA wanted the team out in the next year or two, it's possible they could attempt to negotiate their way out of the lease. That's been done before if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

No, I'm saying the Maloofs can file for relocation but that doesn't mean they are moving. That still has to be decided by the NBA later. 4 teams filed to relocate last year, and none actually moved.

That report was later retracted. No teams filed for relocation last year:

http://www.news10.net/sports/story.aspx?storyid=124710

 

[Showtime]

That report was later retracted. No teams filed for relocation last year:

http://www.news10.net/sports/story.aspx?storyid=124710

It still doesn't change the fact that once a team files for relocation, it's still up to be decided by the NBA.

 

[ParniValjak]

Stern already tried to get something done. It failed. Why are people acting as if this ICON project is a good shot? It's a long shot to begin with, and if it fails to come to fruition, which is most likely, then they are back to square one anyway. At this point, their stance is "I'll believe it when I see it", and I don't blame them. Personally, I won't ever believe Sacramento can get a building up until I'm sitting in a seat.

Thank you!

I don't understand how people can say this is the best shot yeat when its doomed to fail just like all the proposals before it. Arena CANNOT be built without an introduction of some sort of tax and whenever we mention taxes, it is a doomed exercise. Even Taylor himself said his effort is a long shot but people choose to ignore all that and still carry on like pork chops about how this is the best plan yet. In reality it is no different to any other efforts to date.

How long do they expect the team to wait. They waited for the entire time of their ownership. Owner before them waited for years. How long is the piece od string?

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Stern already tried to get something done. It failed. Why are people acting as if this ICON project is a good shot? It's a long shot to begin with, and if it fails to come to fruition, which is most likely, then they are back to square one anyway. At this point, their stance is "I'll believe it when I see it", and I don't blame them. Personally, I won't ever believe Sacramento can get a building up until I'm sitting in a seat.

Don't blame ICON for the failures of the past which it had nothing to do with. Stern and the NBA backing that cockamamie land swap plan is why were getting ****** now. Pretty much anyone with half a brain knew that plan would never go anywhere. They wasted three or four years on that nonsense. If Stern had backed a reasonable plan to begin with, maybe we wouldn't be losing our team now.

 

[ParniValjak]

Don't blame ICON for the failures of the past which it had nothing to do with. Stern and the NBA backing that cockamamie land swap plan is why were getting ****** now. Pretty much anyone with half a brain knew that plan would never go anywhere. They wasted three or four years on that nonsense. If Stern had backed a reasonable plan to begin with, maybe we wouldn't be losing our team now.

Are you saying we had a reasonable plan?! Please enlighted us with that reasonable plan? Every plan for date was doomed for failure, and blaming anyone else but the inferior complex and backward thinking of Sacramento is rather a long bow to draw. And how is this Taylor ICON any different when Taylor himself said that its a long shot but he will give it a go!

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Are you saying we had a reasonable plan?! Please enlighted us with that reasonable plan? Every plan for date was doomed for failure, and blaming anyone else but the inferior complex and backward thinking of Sacramento is rather a long bow to draw. And how is this Taylor ICON any different when Taylor himself said that its a long shot but he will give it a go!

Saying we shouldn't have backed a ridiculous plan is saying we had a reasonable one? My point is that they should have developed a reasonable plan rather than wasting years on that senseless land swap deal that's success depended entirely on convincing the Cal Expo owners to go along with it. It was idiotic and a huge long shot. They should have not backed anything until a reasonable, conventional plan was on the table.

 

[ParniValjak]

Saying we shouldn't have backed a ridiculous plan is saying we had a reasonable one? My point is that they should have developed a reasonable plan rather than wasting years on that senseless land swap deal that's success depended entirely on convincing the Cal Expo owners to go along with it. It was idiotic and a huge long shot. They should have not backed anything until a reasonable, conventional plan was on the table.

He have waited 15 odd years for a reasonable plan and we are yet to see one. The fact is, you can't build an arena if you are not willing to spend money. The area has proven time and again does NOT want to spend money on an Arena. You can't build an arena unless you either get the money from someone, or you introduce some sort of taxes to fund it and that will ALWAYS fail because no one is willing to pay money for the arena to be build. How long do we exactly have to wait until a reasonable plan comes along?!

NBA tried to think outside the square to try anf get a plan that would require minimal input from the public because they know full well when ever you ask the public od Sacramento to put up some money for this, the answer is a loud NO!

That is the real problem here. How many proposals have failed before NBA got involved and what was the common issue with each of those failed proposals? NBA tried to get something done by swapping land and giving some incentives for all of those involved. The deal might have been a long shot but ANY deal that gets put forward to public of Sacramento IS a long shot because no one wants to contribute to the arena and expect it to be privatly funded. Just not going to happen. The hell would freeze over before there is a "reasonable" plan for those that keep screwing this thing over and over again.

Its easy to point the finger at the NBA because you need to have someone to blame. I would be looking at my own backyard before I start throwing pot shots at the NBA and the Maloofs. The fact is, if the NBA has a choice, they would want the Kings to stay in Sacramento because its ridicilously embarassing that Sacramento would be the only top 30 media market in the USA that would NOT have an NBA team. Hell it would be the only city that would not have a major league team full stop. Make no mistake, this is an issue that NBA would rather not have to face but they do not really have a choice.

 

[rainmaker]

Saying we shouldn't have backed a ridiculous plan is saying we had a reasonable one? My point is that they should have developed a reasonable plan rather than wasting years on that senseless land swap deal that's success depended entirely on convincing the Cal Expo owners to go along with it. It was idiotic and a huge long shot. They should have not backed anything until a reasonable, conventional plan was on the table.

But that was the best deal Sac could come up with at the time. Every other idea had been shot down one by one over the years. Unless Sac is willing to spend, which it isn't, the options are severely limited. The NBA and Stern tried to help, because they want a team in Sac, yet with the local climate of the business and political leaders, nothing could get done.

I really don't understand why you have all this hatred towards the Maloofs, and the NBA, who both have tried to get something done, yet none of your hatred is directed towards the city, who put both the Maloofs and the NBA is this position to begin with.