City of Sacramento directs Ahaheim to stop negotiations with Kings.

[ParniValjak]

Not true. This is the way I see it going down. Local buyers pull together to buy the team. A new arena gets built. The team gets a nice long lease in the new arena. The local owners can now sell their share to a majority and the team stays.

The local owners would just be a transition to get the team cemented to Sacramento.

Wishful thinking!

For one you are assuming that the local buyers would be able to outbid a number of multi-billionaires that have shown considerable interest in buying NBA team and moving them to their city

You are further assuming that the City of Sacramento CAN build a new arena, something that have NEVER been able to do in their recent history. Both Arco I and Arco II were privately funded.

Two VERY big assumptions to make. The way you see it going down is closer to how you would LIKE to see it go down, not the most realistic way of it going down.

I ask a question again, who out there can offer $300-$400 million to buy the team? How does Sacramento come up with the same amount of money to build a modern sports and entertainment complex to keep the team in town?!

We are talking anywhere between $600 million to $1 billion for your scenario to go down.

 

[Larry David]

I agree 100% with Brick's take on WHAT the city is doing and HOW they can do it. But I think some people are too excited on the WHY (which is not something Brick or many other missed).

Based upon city's words and actions, I think this move and lawyering up is designed to: (1) make sure the city gets paid when the Maloof leave; and (2) try to keep them here by delaying / messing up the talks - in that order. And like Seattle, if it comes down to: (1) getting paid; or (2) keeping the Kings for a lame duck season ... they will take the money.

 

[Gary]

Absolutely. Make them stay one more year, get an area underway, and then they wouldn't be able to leave even if they wanted to.

Yep, and make the Magoofs sell their interest if they don't want to be here.. Best case scenario. Maybe we could get owners that aren't broke who are defaulting on pretty much every loan they have out.

 

[Glenn]

Wishful thinking!

For one you are assuming that the local buyers would be able to outbid a number of multi-billionaires that have shown considerable interest in buying NBA team and moving them to their city

You are further assuming that the City of Sacramento CAN build a new arena, something that have NEVER been able to do in their recent history. Both Arco I and Arco II were privately funded.

Two VERY big assumptions to make. The way you see it going down is closer to how you would LIKE to see it go down, not the most realistic way of it going down.

I ask a question again, who out there can offer $300-$400 million to buy the team? How does Sacramento come up with the same amount of money to build a modern sports and entertainment complex to keep the team in town?!

We are talking anywhere between $600 million to $1 billion for your scenario to go down.

With all due respect, and you have my respect, as soon as you said the City of Sacramento blah, blah, blah, I got lost. I think the MAJOR mistake is that the city has selfishly taken this as their own. They are not the only entity in this area.

Who can pay for it? Depends on who is interested and how wide the area's net is cast. The only industry in this town and area is that of development. Luckenbill, Tsakapolis, Spanos (wide net), Taylor, and of course the several I have forgotten. If all these people had civic pride (I know Luckenbill does) this might appeal to them. It is not something to laugh off. We are talking about eliminating a 51% ownership. Or we are discussing an arena. It is not one person or one family now. It is a group of investors. It is a group that has a few people who want to stay. I'd love to hear what they say to the Maloofs. Cook didn't invest in this team to have the thrill of a team in Anaheim. I don't know the 49% but 25% do not want to move.

They have no power and have never been given credit. They have never been in the spotlight but half this team is NOT owned by the Maloofs. Theoretically, it is not one person that needs to come up with one huge check but several people to be a part of half of the ownership. The part owned by the Maloofs. Perhaps the Maloofs would breath a sigh of relief. This doesn't cover all the problems but is just a direct shot at the idea of the City of Sacramento being in charge of everything and the idea of where the money is.

The Maloofs don't have to sell to their Aunt Lucretia. The other half don't have to idly sit back and twiddle their thumbs while the Maloofs go careening back and forth on their dangerous escapade that presently includes Anaheim.

The local people Crandell brought up are light weights. One was from Auburn (not Sacramento). It may come down to who has the best credit. Certainly the Maloofs don't have good credit.

I am sorry but I don't want the city of Sacramento to try to do anything. They are poison. They've had their shot. We can only hope someone or something else gets interested and that it is local.

 

[Section 101]

Wishful thinking!

For one you are assuming that the local buyers would be able to outbid a number of multi-billionaires that have shown considerable interest in buying NBA team and moving them to their city

You are further assuming that the City of Sacramento CAN build a new arena, something that have NEVER been able to do in their recent history. Both Arco I and Arco II were privately funded.

Two VERY big assumptions to make. The way you see it going down is closer to how you would LIKE to see it go down, not the most realistic way of it going down.

I ask a question again, who out there can offer $300-$400 million to buy the team? How does Sacramento come up with the same amount of money to build a modern sports and entertainment complex to keep the team in town?!

We are talking anywhere between $600 million to $1 billion for your scenario to go down.

They dont have to outbid them as we saw with the Hornets. The NBA determines who buys a team. All owners have to be approved.

They don't need $300-400 to buy the team. The team already has sacramentan minority owners with over 25% stake in the team. I'm not talking about 1 person having a majority. It would be a group of people buying it. Maybe Lukenbill, Tsakopoulos, etc. Then figure on $400 to build the arena with $300 finance via bonds the team pays in the lease. The other $100 million for tourist taxes or other sources.

 

[Section 101]

With all due respect, and you have my respect, as soon as you said the City of Sacramento blah, blah, blah, I got lost. I think the MAJOR mistake is that the city has selfishly taken this as their own. They are not the only entity in this area.

Who can pay for it? Depends on who is interested and how wide the areas net is cast. The only industry in this town and area is that of development. Luckenbill, Tsakapolis, Spanos (wide net), Taylor, and of course the several I have forgotten. If all these people had civic pride (I know Luckenbill does) this might appeal to them. It is not something to laugh off. We are talking about eliminating a 51% ownership. Or we are discussing an arena.

The local people Crandell brought up are light weights. One was from Auburn (not Sacramento) It may come down to who has the best credit. Certainly the Maloofs don't have good credit.

I am sorry but I don't want the city of Sacramento to try to do anything. They are poison. Thy've had their shot. We can only hope someone or something else gets interested and that it is local.

The city and county could entice them by opening up some development on properites they own too.

 

[Rain man]

I am a California attorney. We see these types of lawsuits every so often, and this could be a good card for Sacramento to play.

[FONT=&quot]There is actually a potential cause of action that can be brought against Anaheim, by Sacramento for this exact scenario- intentional interference with contract/economic advantage. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Loosely quoting to you from the California Jurisprudence legal treatise- intentional interference with an economic advantage is [FONT=&quot]an unjustified, intentional and wrongful interference with the prospective economic advantage of another. Thus, a stranger to a contract may be liable for intentionally interfering with the performance of the contract. This protects the expectation that the parties will honor the terms of the contract against officious intermeddlers.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Basically, this allows a party to a contract (Sacramento) to sue a third party (Anaheim) for trying to destroy Sacramento’s contract, or economic opportunity, with the Kings. Basically, Anaheim could be liable for improperly disrupting Sacramento’s contract with the Kings, beyond the scope of fair competition. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Do I think that Sacramento would win, probably not. But all Sacramento has to do is file a Complaint and survive an initial demurrer (a motion to dismiss the claim as legally untenable). I think Sacramento would have a fair shot at surviving the demurrer. After that, the case either has to settle, or it gets dragged out for about a year while the parties engage in very messy and public discovery of their records, books, etc… Anaheim would not have another chance to dismiss the lawsuit for another 6-9 months, and not without some very public litigation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
So, this could legitimately scare Anaheim if done correctly, even if Sacramento’s chances of winning the lawsuit at the end of the day are slim. [FONT=&quot][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Gary]

I am a California attorney (though a Labor/Employment attorney- so this is a bit out of my expertise). Still, we see these types of lawsuits every so often, and this could be a good card for Sacramento to play.

[FONT=&quot]There is actually a potential cause of action that can be brought against Anaheim, by Sacramento for this exact scenario- intentional interference with contract/economic advantage. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Loosely quoting to you from the California Jurisprudence legal treatise- intentional interference with an economic advantage is [FONT=&quot]an unjustified, intentional and wrongful interference with the prospective economic advantage of another. Thus, a stranger to a contract may be liable for intentionally interfering with the performance of the contract. This protects the expectation that the parties will honor the terms of the contract against officious intermeddlers.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Basically, this allows a party to a contract (Sacramento) to sue a third party (Anaheim) for trying to destroy Sacramento’s contract, or economic opportunity, with the Kings. Basically, Anaheim could be liable for improperly disrupting Sacramento’s contract with the Kings, beyond the scope of fair competition. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Do I think that Sacramento would win, probably not. But all Sacramento has to do is file a Complaint and survive an initial demurrer (a motion to dismiss the claim as legally untenable). I think Sacramento would have a fair shot at surviving the demurrer. After that, the case either has to settle, or it gets dragged out for about a year while the parties engage in very messy and public discovery of their records, books, etc… Anaheim would not have another chance to dismiss the lawsuit for another 6-9 months, and not without some very public litigation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
So, this could legitimately scare Anaheim if done correctly, even if Sacramento’s chances of winning the lawsuit at the end of the day are slim. [FONT=&quot][/FONT][/FONT]

Could it delay the move long enough to where they have to stay in Sac for another year and then what if the Arena plans come into the mix, would they have to keep the team here in the end?

 

[Section 101]

I am a California attorney (though a Labor/Employment attorney- so this is a bit out of my expertise). Still, we see these types of lawsuits every so often, and this could be a good card for Sacramento to play.

[FONT=&quot]There is actually a potential cause of action that can be brought against Anaheim, by Sacramento for this exact scenario- intentional interference with contract/economic advantage. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Loosely quoting to you from the California Jurisprudence legal treatise- intentional interference with an economic advantage is [FONT=&quot]an unjustified, intentional and wrongful interference with the prospective economic advantage of another. Thus, a stranger to a contract may be liable for intentionally interfering with the performance of the contract. This protects the expectation that the parties will honor the terms of the contract against officious intermeddlers.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Basically, this allows a party to a contract (Sacramento) to sue a third party (Anaheim) for trying to destroy Sacramento’s contract, or economic opportunity, with the Kings. Basically, Anaheim could be liable for improperly disrupting Sacramento’s contract with the Kings, beyond the scope of fair competition. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Do I think that Sacramento would win, probably not. But all Sacramento has to do is file a Complaint and survive an initial demurrer (a motion to dismiss the claim as legally untenable). I think Sacramento would have a fair shot at surviving the demurrer. After that, the case either has to settle, or it gets dragged out for about a year while the parties engage in very messy and public discovery of their records, books, etc… Anaheim would not have another chance to dismiss the lawsuit for another 6-9 months, and not without some very public litigation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
So, this could legitimately scare Anaheim if done correctly, even if Sacramento’s chances of winning the lawsuit at the end of the day are slim. [FONT=&quot][/FONT][/FONT]

Thank you. We will find out tomorrow how much the Anaheim city council wants to deal with it.

 

[hrdboild]

I think this needed to be done. The Anaheim deal doesn't look like it's going to be lucrative enough to pay off the current loan and also cover moving expenses. The city of Sacramento is going to be stuck with a huge problem if the Maloofs default on the loan. It's a much bigger problem than a mostly empty arena in Seattle. The arena and land can't be enough to cover the $70 million right now. At least this puts in the head of voters in Anaheim before they approve a $50 million loan that the Kings will have screwed over another city (in the same state no less) and could do the same to them. Even if this won't change anyone's mind in Anaheim, it establishes that Sacramento isn't going to go down without a fight. If the Maloofs want to move to Anaheim that badly, they should honor their debts to Sacramento first. They're legally obligated to do so.

 

[ParniValjak]

They dont have to outbid them as we saw with the Hornets. The NBA determines who buys a team. All owners have to be approved.

They don't need $300-400 to buy the team. The team already has sacramentan minority owners with over 25% stake in the team. I'm not talking about 1 person having a majority. It would be a group of people buying it. Maybe Lukenbill, Tsakopoulos, etc. Then figure on $400 to build the arena with $300 finance via bonds the team pays in the lease. The other $100 million for tourist taxes or other sources.

There you go making yet another assumption which leads to yet another question I have.

Why would league approve the sale of the team to local group whose intent is to keep the team in Sacramento without having a bullet-proof, approved plans for the Arena?!?!?!?

You are forgetting that for years Stern himself has been vocal in saying that Arco is outdated and something will urgently need to be done for the Kings to stay in Sacramento and all of a sudden they will approve sale to a local group that might not be the highest bidders to start off with in order to keep the team in Sacramento without agreed upon plan for a new arena?!?!?

No chance in hell.

Another thing that is being ignored here is that NBA is pissed off with Sacramento about their inability to get the arena built and in case someone hasn't noticed, there has not been a single negative comment from the NBA on the potential move to Anaheim. Not one which leads to my belief that NBA have no objections to Kings moving to Anaheim of all places.

Now if Sacramento had an Arena or plans for one to start off with, then there is no way that the NBA would grant relocation request for the Kings.

I still get back to my original point, it would be MUCH cheaper to build the arena and keep the Kings than in would be to buy the Kings AND then build the arena on top of that. Thats just wishful thinking.

I am hopeful that there will be a break through on this front and that there will be a group that comes forward that is willing to fund the arena in Sacramento. That is a our best chance at this point (no matter how remote) but anything more drastic and we are really setting ourselves up for a much bigger disappointment.

 

[Rain man]

The Kings could move, even if a lawsuit is pending. I think it works more as a bluff against Anaheim. Basically, "if you steal our team, we will sue you in a very public and drawn out way and seek money damages" So, the actual lawsuit won't stop the move (and even if Sacramento wins it will probably only be about collecting money from Anaheim- i.e. lost revenues, probably in the amount of the loan- not actually keeping the Kings). it is more a threat to stop Anaheim from trying to get the Kings in the first place.

 

[Glenn]

Damn, there are some high powered folks around here. Love it, love it, love it.

What specialists have we got? Too many lawyers but that is the way of things, a psychiatrist, and ...... I'm actually a little curious because I am sometimes pleasantly surprised at the information shared here. It is high end as opposed to the typical forum of adolescent males ONLY and what happens in that environment. I am not picking on the idea of adolescent males contributing so don't get your knickers in a twist guys and gals. It's just that there are some seasoned minds and THAT is special. It is a cross section of fandom.

 

[Glenn]

There you go making yet another assumption which leads to yet another question I have.

Why would league approve the sale of the team to local group whose intent is to keep the team in Sacramento without having a bullet-proof, approved plans for the Arena?!?!?!?

You are forgetting that for years Stern himself has been vocal in saying that Arco is outdated and something will urgently need to be done for the Kings to stay in Sacramento and all of a sudden they will approve sale to a local group that might not be the highest bidders to start off with in order to keep the team in Sacramento without agreed upon plan for a new arena?!?!?

No chance in hell.

Another thing that is being ignored here is that NBA is pissed off with Sacramento about their inability to get the arena built and in case someone hasn't noticed, there has not been a single negative comment from the NBA on the potential move to Anaheim. Not one which leads to my belief that NBA have no objections to Kings moving to Anaheim of all places.

Now if Sacramento had an Arena or plans for one to start off with, then there is no way that the NBA would grant relocation request for the Kings.

I still get back to my original point, it would be MUCH cheaper to build the arena and keep the Kings than in would be to buy the Kings AND then build the arena on top of that. Thats just wishful thinking.

I am hopeful that there will be a break through on this front and that there will be a group that comes forward that is willing to fund the arena in Sacramento. That is a our best chance at this point (no matter how remote) but anything more drastic and we are really setting ourselves up for a much bigger disappointment.

Same objection. The group of people I am considerimg are builders and they would rather build than manage a basketball team. That's a good thing.

No chance in hell? I can't agree but then there is no solution. It's just a tad strong, dontcha think.?

I have a question: when you say Sacramento, what do you mean? The city, the county, the immediate area like Yolo and El Dorado counties. What?

Maybe the team should be in Yolo county. I'm sure an arena would be a nice addition now that they have a baseball park.

 

[Section 101]

The Kings could move, even if a lawsuit is pending. I think it works more as a bluff against Anaheim. Basically, "if you steal our team, we will sue you in a very public and drawn out way and seek money damages" So, the actual lawsuit won't stop the move (and even if Sacramento wins it will probably only be about collecting money from Anaheim- i.e. lost revenues, probably in the amount of the loan- not actually keeping the Kings). it is more a threat to stop Anaheim from trying to get the Kings in the first place.

They can't move if there is a legal injunction preventing it.

Sacramento could also go after lost economic income if its determined that Anaheim used undue influence as stated above.

 

[Section 101]

My money is on Anaheim delaying the vote tomorrow. Any other guesses?

 

[Section 101]

There you go making yet another assumption which leads to yet another question I have.

Why would league approve the sale of the team to local group whose intent is to keep the team in Sacramento without having a bullet-proof, approved plans for the Arena?!?!?!?

You are forgetting that for years Stern himself has been vocal in saying that Arco is outdated and something will urgently need to be done for the Kings to stay in Sacramento and all of a sudden they will approve sale to a local group that might not be the highest bidders to start off with in order to keep the team in Sacramento without agreed upon plan for a new arena?!?!?

No chance in hell.

Another thing that is being ignored here is that NBA is pissed off with Sacramento about their inability to get the arena built and in case someone hasn't noticed, there has not been a single negative comment from the NBA on the potential move to Anaheim. Not one which leads to my belief that NBA have no objections to Kings moving to Anaheim of all places.

Now if Sacramento had an Arena or plans for one to start off with, then there is no way that the NBA would grant relocation request for the Kings.

I still get back to my original point, it would be MUCH cheaper to build the arena and keep the Kings than in would be to buy the Kings AND then build the arena on top of that. Thats just wishful thinking.

I am hopeful that there will be a break through on this front and that there will be a group that comes forward that is willing to fund the arena in Sacramento. That is a our best chance at this point (no matter how remote) but anything more drastic and we are really setting ourselves up for a much bigger disappointment.

Stern will twist it anyway he can to make the NBA look good. If an arena gets built he will just say we got it done in the most difficult enviroment.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

My money is on Anaheim delaying the vote tomorrow. Any other guesses?

Anaheim. It's the new Sacramento.

 

[The Hammer]

This just hasn't been the best day for the Maloofs, has it?

I'm not sure if this has any clout with it, but at least it sends the message that you don't do this without it getting a bit nasty. But the nice part is that it sends the message that signed agreements should be honored. Anaheim could probably look at this and say it's not their problem. And it really isn't. But you have to be an idiot not to catch the reference to the EIR shot across the bow. I guess those lawyers fees were for more than just a little reading and advice. It sounds like a retainer to start a litigation war.

Are you ready to.... RUMMMMMBBBBLLEEEE......

And here we go. Nice to see Sac show some balls....

 

[ParniValjak]

Same objection. The group of people I am considerimg are builders and they would rather build than manage a basketball team. That's a good thing.

No chance in hell? I can't agree but then there is no solution. It's just a tad strong, dontcha think.?

I have a question: when you say Sacramento, what do you mean? The city, the county, the immediate area like Yolo and El Dorado counties. What?

Maybe the team should be in Yolo county. I'm sure an arena would be a nice addition now that they have a baseball park.

When I say Sacramento, I mean the whole region. I am not from Sacramento or USA for that matter, so I would not know what counties, regions etc are there. However, I have followed this team for decades and have followed all the arena talk since day one so I am well aware of all the hurdles that are in place or have been in place for years.

As for no chance in hell comment, I stand by it! Stern and the NBA would NOT approve selling to a local group for less money with the view of keeping the team in Sacramento without an approved deal on the arena.

He has been saying for years that Arco is outdated and Sacramento desperately needs a new Arena and all of a sudden he would risk one of the NBA teams folding because by letting them play in an outdated arena that is not financially viable for the team?

Where is the logic in that???

 

[hrdboild]

You are forgetting that for years Stern himself has been vocal in saying that Arco is outdated and something will urgently need to be done for the Kings to stay in Sacramento and all of a sudden they will approve sale to a local group that might not be the highest bidders to start off with in order to keep the team in Sacramento without agreed upon plan for a new arena?!?!?

No chance in hell.

Another thing that is being ignored here is that NBA is pissed off with Sacramento about their inability to get the arena built and in case someone hasn't noticed, there has not been a single negative comment from the NBA on the potential move to Anaheim. Not one which leads to my belief that NBA have no objections to Kings moving to Anaheim of all places.

Now if Sacramento had an Arena or plans for one to start off with, then there is no way that the NBA would grant relocation request for the Kings.

All of this is true, but the flip side is that the NBA will do considerable damage to Sacramento if it fails to pay back the remainder of the 1997 loan. Taking the team to a different city is one thing. That's perfectly acceptable behavior within David Stern's "having an NBA team is a privilege that can be revoked at any time" mentality. But when a city has guaranteed a $77 million loan to keep said NBA team afloat, and $70 million of that loan still needs to be repaid even while the team is in negotiations to secure a loan from a different city -- I think that goes beyond "privilege" and enters the realm of legal obligation. If the Maloofs can find a way to pay back the $70 million and still go through with the move, then the NBA's obligations to Sacramento would be met. That's a bigger issue for the city than whether or not the Kings leave right now.

 

[Glenn]

When I say Sacramento, I mean the whole region. I am not from Sacramento or USA for that matter, so I would not know what counties, regions etc are there. However, I have followed this team for decades and have followed all the arena talk since day one so I am well aware of all the hurdles that are in place or have been in place for years.

I break out into a rash when I hear the words "City of Sacramento." The time has passed on so many ideas but there is a legal way of joining the entire area into a political entity specifically to deal with this team and arena. I think the City has been the lead entity by default but they have failed and I wish there was a way to get the rest of us involved in this problem. It is frustrating.

Did you know there uesed to be a Serb translation of KingsFans.com? It was more of an article place and while the US was busily bombing Serbia, I had a buddy hiding in his grandmothers basement translating. I think it can be found on Wayback Machine or whatever it is called.

 

[ParniValjak]

All of this is true, but the flip side is that the NBA will do considerable damage to Sacramento if it fails to pay back the remainder of the 1997 loan. Taking the team to a different city is one thing. That's perfectly acceptable behavior within David Stern's "having an NBA team is a privilege that can be revoked at any time" mentality. But when a city has guaranteed a $77 million loan to keep said NBA team afloat, and $70 million of that loan still needs to be repaid even while the team is in negotiations to secure a loan from a different city -- I think that goes beyond "privilege" and enters the realm of legal obligation. If the Maloofs can find a way to pay back the $70 million and still go through with the move, then the NBA's obligations to Sacramento would be met. That's a bigger issue for the city than whether or not the Kings leave right now.

And like I said, the city of Sacramento pulled this move to make sure they get their money and not make the deal between Kings and Anaheim a smooth sailing. Perfectly timed move but it is naive to think that this all of a sudden will mean that the Kings will be forced to say.

Do people honestly thing that Maloofs would get into this without first checking what legal obligations they have to Sacramento and if they have to pay off the loan with a kicker, then make sure that they can fund that before they can make the move?

We are talking about a process that would cost millions of dollars and they would not have checked the most obvious potential hurdle before they are this far down the track in negotiations with Anaheim.

I am calling that the load to Sacramento gets repayed (that $76-odd million) and the Kings still move, which is what this move by Sacramenot is all about

 

[Rain man]

They can't move if there is a legal injunction preventing it.

Sacramento could also go after lost economic income if its determined that Anaheim used undue influence as stated above.

Very true- but an injunction (even a preliminary injunction) is going to be hard to come by based on the facts of this case. I could be very wrong (and again- this is not really my area of law), but I don't see grounds for winning an injunction. We could certainly file one and hope for the best, but I don't think we win it.

 

[ParniValjak]

Did you know there uesed to be a Serb translation of KingsFans.com? It was more of an article place and while the US was busily bombing Serbia, I had a buddy hiding in his grandmothers basement translating. I think it can be found on Wayback Machine or whatever it is called.

That doesn't surprise me!

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

Actually that's not true -- I suspect you could even make out a little tortious interference claim against Anaheim if in fact the Maloofs do not pay, enough to survive a motion to dismiss, and then Anaheim the city finds itself a party to a lawsuit. Even if it eventually wins, you can stretch it out and make it expensive -- trust me on this -- drag them throguh as much mud as possible, and try to make them sour on the whole deal. Or if not them, then to make the voters down there sour on the idea of getting sued/paying money for a team they ar not wildly enthusiastic about.

The threat of such a thing in turn causes them to call the Maloofs and make sure the loan is going to be immediately paid, whic in turn causes the cash strapped Maloofs to ask Anaheim for enough money to do it, or makes them rethinki things, or makes the amount of the relocation fee critical, or just anything. You are attempting now to sow doubt, so you fling your arrows and hope one finds a chink in the armor somewhere.

Everything that you said are just your own best case scenario assumptions. It is up to Sac to prove that all this has anything to do with Anaheim. Anaheim CAN vote tomorrow if they want. If Anaheim calls their bluff, is Sac willing to spend $ to sue Anaheim? Who pays Anaheim's legal fees if Sac loses? For all we know, Samueli can decide to just issue the loan under his own name. No one knows for sure, we are all guessing here.

 

[Section 101]

Very true- but an injunction (even a preliminary injunction) is going to be hard to come by based on the facts of this case. I could be very wrong (and again- this is not really my area of law), but I don't see grounds for winning an injunction. We could certainly file one and hope for the best, but I don't think we win it.

The injunction could come at the state level too. If Steinberg does something I may have to vote for him which goes against every fiber in me.

 

[ReinadelosReys]

I feel like the Kings told Sacramento that they wanted to break up, and Sacramento told the Kings, "you can't leave me now, I'm pregnant!"

Tomorrow, the Kings doubt its their baby and call The Maury Show.

 

[Section 101]

Everything that you said are just your own best case scenario assumptions. It is up to Sac to prove that all this has anything to do with Anaheim. Anaheim CAN vote tomorrow if they want. If Anaheim calls their bluff, is Sac willing to spend $ to sue Anaheim? Who pays Anaheim's legal fees if Sac loses? For all we know, Samueli can decide to just issue the loan under his own name. No one knows for sure, we are all guessing here.

sure is easy loaning out others people money with no collateral.

The reverse is true too. If Sacramento wins then how is Anaheim paying? Guess that means more taxes !

 

[Section 101]

Maloofs respond

Sacramento's plea to Anaheim 'below the belt'

http://www.tealdragon.net/sports/nbamoves.htm

haha Joe. If you want the city out of your business they pay off the loan now ! Otherwise, they are part of your business.

It would be totally ironic if the Anaheim deal falls apart and the city goes after them for the full bond amount as a breach of lease contract with full payment due.