Its a sad day but in my heart, I always knew it would come to this. Sure things can still happen but when you put things in perspective, this could be a perfect example of addition by subtraction. The magoofs are trapped between a rock and a hard place. They have to sell. If the Kings go to Seattle which it appears is likely then Sacramento gets its 77 million back in the loan to the Kings. This also frees up some of the potential liabilities that the city currently faces as far as building a new ESC because the magoofs are no longer owners and there is no longer an NBA team here. which was a sticking point to the city getting its loan back in full.. The dilapidated Sleep Train Arena is demolished, the new stadium is completed in downtown which creates a thriving urban mecca, jobs are created, and best of all, Stern sends us a new team (of which we will retain the rights of the name "Kings"). Not to mention we will start seeing first class acts come back to town in the beautiful new stadium, while the magoofs spend the rest of their pitiful lives trying to peddle their cheap *** vodka...Other alternative, magoofs sell to Burkle and the Kings stay. Its a win-win. Wow, if I can see the glass half full, of all people, then surely many of you can as well right? It aint over till mama maloof sings.....Stay strong Kingsfans, the best is yet to come.
Seattle rumors/comments - post them here!
- Thread starter mm16
- Start date
- Status
from Ric Bucher
What I know about the Kings-to-Seattle story at this point: sources say the Maloofs are getting back into the liquor business and the only way for them to do that is to sell the Kings, their last asset of any worth. The Maloofs, of course, had beverage distributorships in Colorado and New Mexico but sold them to try -- futilely -- to keep their Las Vegas hotel casino, The Palms, afloat. Separate sources say that putting a team back in Seattle is at the top of David Stern's bucket list as NBA commissioner and, as we know, David invariably gets what he wants. The Maloofs reversed field once before, on a deal that would've kept the team in Sacramento, but sources say the terms of that deal were negotiated by Stern and that the Maloofs backed out because the terms weren't the ones they specified they had to have.
What I know about the Kings-to-Seattle story at this point: sources say the Maloofs are getting back into the liquor business and the only way for them to do that is to sell the Kings, their last asset of any worth. The Maloofs, of course, had beverage distributorships in Colorado and New Mexico but sold them to try -- futilely -- to keep their Las Vegas hotel casino, The Palms, afloat. Separate sources say that putting a team back in Seattle is at the top of David Stern's bucket list as NBA commissioner and, as we know, David invariably gets what he wants. The Maloofs reversed field once before, on a deal that would've kept the team in Sacramento, but sources say the terms of that deal were negotiated by Stern and that the Maloofs backed out because the terms weren't the ones they specified they had to have.
STA belongs to the Maloofs... so the city has no say in demolishing it. Most likely, they'll try to stick the city with STA as partial payment to the loan as they default on it. Hopefully Hansen and the NBA have a good moral compass and insist that the loan is paid off in full, in cash, as part of any deal being made.
I think most people saw through the nice guy David Stern from the start. He intervened with keeping the Kings in Sac because he chose Jerry Buss' side over the Maloofs. Its easy for him to come out and act like he did so because he cares about the city of Sac, but at the end of the day its just business, money, and doing things for the right people.
I'll say that I rather the Kings stay in Sac then move to Seattle, but I've never trusted Stern as he is just another sly business man. His true colors was what he did with the Seattle/OKC mess. The stuff later is just trying to clear his image. But at the end of the day, he did what he did in "helping" Sac in the Anaheim relocation only because he cares about making the Lakers/Clippers and its owners happy than the Maloofs.
See, to me, you just hit on the most important element to all of this and that is whether or not the NBA has had a Seattle agenda this entire time. What I mean is, when the Maloofs were stubbornly refusing to sell and trying to move to Anaheim, perhaps the only reason the NBA backed Sacramento was because, not wanting a 3rd team in SoCal, they secretly hoped to stall the Maloofs to a point where they had no choice but to sell. And when they did, the NBA would make certain that it was the Seattle group.
Am I way off base? Perhaps. But if the NBA green lights this sale without giving other potential buyers with interests in keeping the team in Sacramento a chance to meet or beat the reported offer ... how can anybody come to another conclusion?
Everyone is well aware that there are several groups interested in buying the team and keeping them in Sacramento. Ron Burkle, Manuel Pangilinan (and the Chris Webber group), etc. Knowing that and also considering how the NBA went out of their way to purchase and keep the New Orleans Hornets in New Orleans, if the league doesn't allow that to happen in this situation, their intentions all along will become completely transparent.
If the NBA was/is truly on board with keeping the team in Sacramento (and not just interested in ridding themselves of the Maloofs), then they will not allow the franchise to be purchased by an ownership group that they know will file for relocation over an ownership group that is committed to keeping the team where they currently reside.
Didn't they do just that with the sale of the Golden State Warriors? Larry Ellison had the highest bid, but it was known that his intention was to move the team to San Jose so the NBA and current ownership opted for the lower bid that kept the franchise where it is now.
So, as I said, if this proposed deal goes down as quickly and easily as it is being reported, then it is obvious the NBA never wanted to keep the Kings in Sacramento.
Am I way off base? Perhaps. But if the NBA green lights this sale without giving other potential buyers with interests in keeping the team in Sacramento a chance to meet or beat the reported offer ... how can anybody come to another conclusion?
Everyone is well aware that there are several groups interested in buying the team and keeping them in Sacramento. Ron Burkle, Manuel Pangilinan (and the Chris Webber group), etc. Knowing that and also considering how the NBA went out of their way to purchase and keep the New Orleans Hornets in New Orleans, if the league doesn't allow that to happen in this situation, their intentions all along will become completely transparent.
If the NBA was/is truly on board with keeping the team in Sacramento (and not just interested in ridding themselves of the Maloofs), then they will not allow the franchise to be purchased by an ownership group that they know will file for relocation over an ownership group that is committed to keeping the team where they currently reside.
Didn't they do just that with the sale of the Golden State Warriors? Larry Ellison had the highest bid, but it was known that his intention was to move the team to San Jose so the NBA and current ownership opted for the lower bid that kept the franchise where it is now.
So, as I said, if this proposed deal goes down as quickly and easily as it is being reported, then it is obvious the NBA never wanted to keep the Kings in Sacramento.
Last edited:
So if they leave to Seattle the Maloofs have to pay an additional $125 million that would not be paid if they sold to a Sacto buyer, per the Bruski article. And, the NBA isn't going to allow them to go without hearing other offers. And there are purportedly other buyers that want to keep the team in Sacto. So if a Sacto buyer comes in with an offer of $400 mill then the Maloofs end up earning an extra $25 mill because of the $125 mill transfer cost. I don't think this Seattle thing is going anywhere. I'll wait for see Beacon's vans at Sleep Train Arena before I believe it.
I would think the the existing debt (city + nba loan) would come out of the Maloof's end of the 500M but not the relocation fee (Hanson's choice after purchase). Truth is no one knows what the deal is until it is signed and public. Hasn't happened yet.
Brenton just said in his Bee chat that Burkle has been silent. He's either keeping his interest very quiet or these 500M numbers are too high for what he wants to pay.
Brenton just said in his Bee chat that Burkle has been silent. He's either keeping his interest very quiet or these 500M numbers are too high for what he wants to pay.
Like sidney said... we'll know when it's made public if it goes thru, but I would imagine it's Hanson's choice to move after the sale, so it's on his dime. Now, the existing debt would be interesting. No way Hanson pays 500M, plus all the moving expenses, plus takes on the debt. That would just be insane.
Also interesting is that if the Maloofs want to stay part owners, then it means that some minority owners have to agree to sell their stake in the team. Otherwise, Hanson can't get a majority ownership (unless the Maloofs end up being like a 1% owners). They only own like 52% of the team, after all - so that's the only thing they can sell unless there's a provision somewhere that says the minority owners have to sell at the majority owner's discretion?
Looks like a lot has to be worked out before this is a done deal?
Also interesting is that if the Maloofs want to stay part owners, then it means that some minority owners have to agree to sell their stake in the team. Otherwise, Hanson can't get a majority ownership (unless the Maloofs end up being like a 1% owners). They only own like 52% of the team, after all - so that's the only thing they can sell unless there's a provision somewhere that says the minority owners have to sell at the majority owner's discretion?
Looks like a lot has to be worked out before this is a done deal?
Not really... what is the advantage, besides avoiding moving expenses and relocation fees? The sale price is the sale price, no matter what. Everything else is the new owner's choice.
The only advantage to a buyer who wants to stay in Sac is that they have a great fanbase and an very good deal on the table for a new arena (which I assume will still have the support and financial backing of the NBA).
The downside to ANY buyer (staying or leaving) is the absolute horrid state the organization is in, the huge debt (which I assume will be paid off by the Maloofs as part of the sale) and inheriting an old building (STA) that has pretty much reached the end of its practical life and needs to be replaced. Oh, and the large amount of work they will have to put into repairing the relationship and trust with the fans (lots of work, but I'm sure it will be fairly easy if they say/do the right things).
The only advantage to a buyer who wants to stay in Sac is that they have a great fanbase and an very good deal on the table for a new arena (which I assume will still have the support and financial backing of the NBA).
The downside to ANY buyer (staying or leaving) is the absolute horrid state the organization is in, the huge debt (which I assume will be paid off by the Maloofs as part of the sale) and inheriting an old building (STA) that has pretty much reached the end of its practical life and needs to be replaced. Oh, and the large amount of work they will have to put into repairing the relationship and trust with the fans (lots of work, but I'm sure it will be fairly easy if they say/do the right things).
The Kings aren't the enemy here, nor have they ever been. Maybe to some, at first, but the Maloofs showed their big baboon butts to the entire world and now there's no denying where the **** stains on the furniture came from. I'd argue any owner willing to buy the team and keep them in Sac could become a savior of sorts. Talk about a great PR opportunity.
The advantage is simply the net profit to the Maloofs or the potential cost to the buyer. The $125 mill is either going to do one of two things - reduce the net profit to the Maloofs, or increase the cost to the buyer (thereby making it less competitive relative to potential Sacto buyers). I don't think that any of the points you bring up have bearing on these key elements of any deal.
That's not what is being reported. $500 mil from Hanson and a local group at $425 would net the Maloofs more money on the deal.
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports....to-kings-to-seattle-not-a-done-deal-just-yet/
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports....to-kings-to-seattle-not-a-done-deal-just-yet/
That doesn't make much sense...
... it assumes the new buyer would assume the loan (therefore not have to pay for it right away), and that the Maloofs would somehow be responsible for paying the relocation fees (or they are included in the sale price).
So, yes - a $425M offer PLUS assuming the loan is roughly the same as a Hanson offer of $500M that has the Maloofs paying off the loan and Hanson paying all the moving/relo expenses. It's the same to the Maloofs, but it's still a $500M deal for the local buyer. It's only deferring the loan payoff.
... it assumes the new buyer would assume the loan (therefore not have to pay for it right away), and that the Maloofs would somehow be responsible for paying the relocation fees (or they are included in the sale price).
So, yes - a $425M offer PLUS assuming the loan is roughly the same as a Hanson offer of $500M that has the Maloofs paying off the loan and Hanson paying all the moving/relo expenses. It's the same to the Maloofs, but it's still a $500M deal for the local buyer. It's only deferring the loan payoff.
well, it is the kind of commitment that you'd love to have from the owner of your team, no? it's not as if there were any other teams seriously available right now and if the prospective owner of your franchise were that hell-bent on providing you with a team, then you'd welcome him with open arms, wouldn't you?
- Status