Thar she blows! We've got Burkle!!!!

[VF21]

All I'm saying is... it may come to this. It sure beats losing the Kings forever...

NO, no, no and hell freaking no.

The Seattle group doesn't give a rat's patoot about the Kings as such. They want an NBA team. It makes NO SENSE whatsoever to let them have an existing team and give the city that had the existing team a bunch of left-overs to start with. **** that.

If Seattle wants a teak so freaking bad, let them get the expansion slot and leave Sacramento alone.

Carmichael Dave is wrong. The whole idea sounds defeatist and I'm not ready to settle for crumbs at this juncture. We've gone through too much and come too far to talk about settling for anything other than OUR KINGS in OUR NEW ARENA.

 

[Arco Arena]

REPEAT AFTER ME !!! They do not have a binding agreement until the BOG approves the sale. The deposit is not non refundable. It has conditions applied to it.

Where did you hear otherwise? Was the agreement they signed released or leaked?

 

[VF21]

Exactly. The Seattle "deal" with the Maloofs has had the effect (probably by design) of making this seem like the team moving to Seattle without question. The $30 million dollar deposit (which I actually haven't seen confirmed by either Hansen/Ballmer or the Maloofs) just adds to that sense.

But it isn't inevitable.

The NBA blocked the sale of the Timberwolves when they would have been moved and told them to find local buyers, which they did. And they have very good reasons to do the same thing now.

1. The Maloofs refused to sell to Burkle when he offered to buy the Kings and keep them in Sacramento. When the Maloofs DID decide to sell, they didn't contact him or Kevin Johnson to allow for a buyer that would not uproot the team and destroy a 60 year old franchise.

2. The NBA spent a lot of time, effort and money to negotiate an arena deal in Sacramento which was only blown up by the Maloofs much to KJ AND Stern's consternation.

3. Sacramento has been a great small market team for the NBA, selling out every game for 19 of 27 seasons despite being lottery bound for most of that time.

4. The Kings are the only major sports team in the 20th largest market. How much better is Seattle being the 12th largest market when you account for the other 3 pro teams, not to mention major college sports programs?

5. Stern contacted AEG (a MAJOR partner with the NBA with a long and important relationship) to personally ask them to start up work with KJ. Why on earth would he do that if he didn't think it was feasible to keep the team in Sacramento.

6. Sacramento, in this economic climate offered up public funding for an arena. I won't defend the Sonics being plucked from Seattle but one unmistakable difference is that Seattle refused to commit public funds for an arena or for a revamp of Key Arena. This is absolutely the most key point to me. Should the Kings be allowed to move, the NBA will have taken a franchise from a city that did absolutely everything the league asked of it simply because the Maloofs chose to sell the team to a guy who wants to move it. I finally watched Sonicsgate and with all due respect, this situation is worse.

If KJ gets the money in order you'll have two offers for the team, both of which will sell the team to a group involving a billionaire have them playing in an outdated arena for two years before moving but one of which means uprooting the team, destroying it's history, financially damaging a small market that has been incredibly loyal to the NBA and damaging a relationship with a city that fought hard to commit public funds and be a good partner with the league in every respect. So why should they side with Hansen/Ballmer?

Because it's what the Maloofs want? Really? I can't believe the league feels any need to cater to their wishes, especially now that they are going to be out as owners one way or another and the money they receive should be the same or very close either way.

Because Hansen might sue over their $30 million if they don't? Every indication I've ever seen from David Stern over the years is that he won't be bullied or intimidated. "Some of my best friends are anti-trust lawyers". Remember those words when the Maloofs seemed to be intimating that they might sue the league? Or even better, there's this quote from Stern, "Sometimes we have lawsuits in a drawer for special occasions – birthdays, weddings and franchise transfers." That was in reference to the NBA suing the Timberwolves to get an injunction blocking relocation.

Again, the Maloofs chose to try and screw over Sacramento by making a deal with Hansen. But on the whole of things, why WOULDN'T the NBA prefer to have the team stay in Sacramento with a new arena?

Thank you. Great summary and you hit all the cogent points. I just hope people take the time to read and digest it. There are so many talking heads out there spewing nonsense that it's hard to glean the truth from the fantasy.

 

[Larry David]

I don't know why you think the Arena isn't being sold with the team. Part of the collateral is team shares and the land. I'm sure that if that collateral changes hands the loan becomes due. I don't see anyway the arena is not part of any deal.

The arena isn't being sold to the Seattle group. They could sell them both at once to Burkle, but they don't have to. Two years ago, it seems like they might have the right to hand it back to the city without a default. So they might take the 350 and leave the upside down property behind

 

[Section 101]

Where did you hear otherwise? Was the agreement they signed released or leaked?

It can't be binding when a 3rd party has to approve it.

 

[Section 101]

The arena isn't being sold to the Seattle group. They could sell them both at once to Burkle, but they don't have to. Two years ago, it seems like they might have the right to hand it back to the city without a default. So they might take the 350 and leave the upside down property behind

Where did you see it was no being sold?

 

[Arco Arena]

It can't be binding when a 3rd party has to approve it.

So you do not believe the sources that say the $30 million is non-refundable regardless if the deal is approved or not?

 

[Tetsujin]

So you do not believe the sources that say the $30 million is non-refundable regardless if the deal is approved or not?

The 30 million being non-refundable has little to do with the agreement being non-binding.

 

[JB_kings]

The arena isn't being sold to the Seattle group. They could sell them both at once to Burkle, but they don't have to. Two years ago, it seems like they might have the right to hand it back to the city without a default. So they might take the 350 and leave the upside down property behind

Makes no sense. If the Maloofs retain ownership of the arena, they still owe 77 million to pay off the loan. It's triggered when the team leaves. I think that is one detail that Hansen would not ignore if his deal is going to be scrutinized by the BOG. I'm sure if he answers, don't ask me, ask the Maloofs. That is one big red flag.

 

[Arco Arena]

The 30 million being non-refundable has little to do with the agreement being non-binding.

You misunderstood. Was talking about the 30 million being non-refundable. Section 101 said it was not non-refundable.

 

[Glenn]

I've heard a few that you've been called....

You are one upping me on every interchange. I'll keep trying.

 

[Larry David]

Makes no sense. If the Maloofs retain ownership of the arena, they still owe 77 million to pay off the loan. It's triggered when the team leaves. I think that is one detail that Hansen would not ignore if his deal is going to be scrutinized by the BOG. I'm sure if he answers, don't ask me, ask the Maloofs. That is one big red flag.

Hansen Balmer aren't ending up with Sta. not in deal and they don't want it. The loan does come due when they move. The most likely scenario is the Bog won't approve any transaction without the Maloofs playing off the loan with the proceeds of the vastly over priced sale. At which point the Maloofs own it and they will try to move it later. But people who read the contract here two years ago thought the team might have the right to hand the arena to the city (bill and all.). I don't know if that's right.

I agree with Brick that Kj will have an offer to resolve that. But the nba can't make the Maloofs sell Sta. It becomes another moving part the league doesn't control, between two parties that hate each other, and one party rarely can committ. The two years of an arena is messy and could be hard to close at bog. It may end up with the team being away for two years

 

[funkykingston]

The Maloofs acquired STA (née Arco Arena) and the associated debt when they bought the team. It will be part of the purchase price - either with Seattle having to pay it off or by new owners in Sacramento taking possession of it in the sale. I don't think the scenario you've laid out is a possibility.

STA belongs to the owners of the Sacramento Kings, not the Maloofs specifically. But if someone has proof that the situation is otherwise I'll certainly listen.

 

[Larry David]

The Maloofs acquired STA (née Arco Arena) and the associated debt when they bought the team. It will be part of the purchase price - either with Seattle having to pay it off or by new owners in Sacramento taking possession of it in the sale. I don't think the scenario you've laid out is a possibility.

STA belongs to the owners of the Sacramento Kings, not the Maloofs specifically. But if someone has proof that the situation is otherwise I'll certainly listen.

The same people own STA and the Kings. Here they are held as one. That’s not always the case. I think Portland is again, but Allen sold off the arena and kept the team at one point. If you wanted to buy the team and keep it here, you would probably want to buy both. If you were moving the Kings to Seattle, and the arena would remain dormant … and then somebody would have to sell it to local developers, well I wouldn’t want to be Hansen trying to find a local buyer and the press that would entail.

By all accounts, he’s buying 65% of the Kings. There has been nothing published saying that Balmer Hansen is buying STA. And that makes sense, why would they want to? It’s not worth 77 million. What are they going to do with STA?
I don’t know if the Kings sellers own 65% of STA or more, but it doesn’t matter.

STA has a bond on it. Assuming there isn’t a give back right to the city, Balmer Hansen over pays for 65% of the Kings, the current pay off the bond, at which point the current owners own it free and clear. At some point, when the dust settles, they will sell it to a developer or perhaps the city.

Or maybe there is a give back, at which point the city will own it and they have to come up with the cash.
It will be resolved at the BOG: either by current owners paying off debt, current owners exercising a legal right in the contract, or it being rolled into the deal to keep a team here.

Balmer Hansen aren’t buying STA. The Maloofs may use the money they get from Balmer to pay that off. Maybe it’s being moved in the deal to a third party that’s willing to deal with the press and hassle of selling it after a move.
But Hansen Balmer isn’t “buying” STA

 

[Chupacabra]

Even if the option of securing an expansion team was available for Sacramento right now there would be no reason to take it. Sacramento is in the position of strength because THE TEAM IS ALREADY IN SACRAMENTO. It would be like folding a winning hand. There isnt a justifiable reason for the Kings to move as long as the counter offer matches or exceeds the seattle deal. Imagine someone trying to argue the case for taking the Kings from Sacramento and moving them to seattle while there are two identical deals on the table from each party. Not happening. " Well...uhhh...we want to take the Kings from Sacramento and move them to seattle because uhhh..." - Hansen

 

[kpm308]

The maloofs have already won their battle, I honestly don't see anything in the form of lawsuits coming from them. They have their own problems, are looking for one big deal that will put them back on the right track (in their minds). So they throw out a dream number that would accomplish that, and not only do they get a willing buyer, but they get a backup plan on that offer that they use to leverage it into more money (both the bump from the original 500m to 525, and the 30m that hey seemed to have squeezed out of Hanson because of the threat of competition)

So now they either sell to Hanson or to a sac buyer, but either way this is going to be for a substantially higher amount that would have been predicted when they were looking at the Anaheim bailout. These guys need the money, are now virtually guaranteed at getting it from someone, and are going to take it and run.

They may be petty and vindictive, but they are way too broke take a chance to mess anything up.

 

[Section 101]

So you do not believe the sources that say the $30 million is non-refundable regardless if the deal is approved or not?

A quick google search found something interesting. Remember this transaction is taking place in CA so CA law is what is applied.

http://www.biggerpockets.com/renews...ornia-court-rules-on-non-refundable-deposits/

Now this is in regards to a real estate transaction, but the law is in reference to contracts.

In conclusion, do not sign and do not try to get anyone to agree to a clause stipulating deposits to be “non-refundable”. They will just end up being “non-enforceable” in court. Time and time again this clause just does not hold up in court.

Here is another article on the same case.

http://contracts.lawyers.com/blogs/archives/8602-When-is-a-Non-Refundable-Deposit-Refundable.html

Basically it says the seller has to prove damages if the sale is cancelled. So to me that means as long as the Maloofs get the same amount of money they would have to return the deposit.

 

[Section 101]

The same people own STA and the Kings. Here they are held as one. That’s not always the case. I think Portland is again, but Allen sold off the arena and kept the team at one point. If you wanted to buy the team and keep it here, you would probably want to buy both. If you were moving the Kings to Seattle, and the arena would remain dormant … and then somebody would have to sell it to local developers, well I wouldn’t want to be Hansen trying to find a local buyer and the press that would entail.

By all accounts, he’s buying 65% of the Kings. There has been nothing published saying that Balmer Hansen is buying STA. And that makes sense, why would they want to? It’s not worth 77 million. What are they going to do with STA?
I don’t know if the Kings sellers own 65% of STA or more, but it doesn’t matter.

STA has a bond on it. Assuming there isn’t a give back right to the city, Balmer Hansen over pays for 65% of the Kings, the current pay off the bond, at which point the current owners own it free and clear. At some point, when the dust settles, they will sell it to a developer or perhaps the city.

Or maybe there is a give back, at which point the city will own it and they have to come up with the cash.
It will be resolved at the BOG: either by current owners paying off debt, current owners exercising a legal right in the contract, or it being rolled into the deal to keep a team here.

Balmer Hansen aren’t buying STA. The Maloofs may use the money they get from Balmer to pay that off. Maybe it’s being moved in the deal to a third party that’s willing to deal with the press and hassle of selling it after a move.
But Hansen Balmer isn’t “buying” STA

After thinking about it, I think your wrong. They are buying the shares in the Kings team. The team owns the arena not the Maloofs. It just so happens the organization that owns the team is MSE. So if they buy a 65% share in MSE that includes everything the organization owns.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Balmer Hansen aren’t buying STA. The Maloofs may use the money they get from Balmer to pay that off. Maybe it’s being moved in the deal to a third party that’s willing to deal with the press and hassle of selling it after a move. But Hansen Balmer isn’t “buying” STA

If the Hansen group does not buy STA, the Maloofs will not pay it off. They will default on it. As I pointed out above, part of the collateral on the STA loan is a $25M stake in the Kings...which the Maloofs would no longer own. If STA is not sold with the Kings, it opens up a very bizarre situation, and I wonder if the collateral situation alone would be enough to stop the sale in a court.

 

[jpsls]

If the Hansen group does not buy STA, the Maloofs will not pay it off. They will default on it. As I pointed out above, part of the collateral on the STA loan is a $25M stake in the Kings...which the Maloofs would no longer own. If STA is not sold with the Kings, it opens up a very bizarre situation, and I wonder if the collateral situation alone would be enough to stop the sale in a court.

If that's the case, I don't see how the NBA approves the sale. Bug black eye for the league. Talk about a city getting screwed over.

 

[Section 101]

If the Hansen group does not buy STA, the Maloofs will not pay it off. They will default on it. As I pointed out above, part of the collateral on the STA loan is a $25M stake in the Kings...which the Maloofs would no longer own. If STA is not sold with the Kings, it opens up a very bizarre situation, and I wonder if the collateral situation alone would be enough to stop the sale in a court.

Like I said above. They would be buying MSE stock and taking over the company. MSE owns STA not the Maloofs.

 

[JB_kings]

There is a reason why the BOG takes a long time to approve new owners. They go through everything in the deal. If you have anything that could expose them to litigation, they will make them change the deal or not approve. There are no rubber stamps in this process. If they approve a deal that allows one of the parties to default on an obligation to a city, they have to reject the deal. More likely they will want this to go to some sort of negotiated settlement between the parties.

 

[Larry David]

A quick google search found something interesting. Remember this transaction is taking place in CA so CA law is what is applied.

http://www.biggerpockets.com/renews...ornia-court-rules-on-non-refundable-deposits/

Now this is in regards to a real estate transaction, but the law is in reference to contracts.



Here is another article on the same case.

http://contracts.lawyers.com/blogs/archives/8602-When-is-a-Non-Refundable-Deposit-Refundable.html

Basically it says the seller has to prove damages if the sale is cancelled. So to me that means as long as the Maloofs get the same amount of money they would have to return the deposit.

No. Just no.

It's a federal anti-trust law case. The Sherman Act is the law, not California contract law. The anti-trust law provides for treble damages. We don't know where the contract was signed, I would guess Seattle for this reason. The team is in CA. The BOG will meet in NY. I don't know if there will be a case, but where it's filed and goes forward would be way up in the air.

 

[HereWeBoogie]

not sure if this had been posted on here yet. but its great news


Carmichael Dave ‏@CarmichaelDave
As I understand, simple BOG majority needed for relo, but 3/4 for sale. 29 owners, that's 22 votes. Meaning 8 no votes blocks sale. Hmmmm.

 

[HndsmCelt]

No. Just no.

It's a federal anti-trust law case. The Sherman Act is the law, not California contract law. The anti-trust law provides for treble damages. We don't know where the contract was signed, I would guess Seattle for this reason. The team is in CA. The BOG will meet in NY. I don't know if there will be a case, but where it's filed and goes forward would be way up in the air.

I am just guessing that Hanson wants an NBA team not an extended lawsuit against the deep pockets who also hold the keys to the thing he wants. It's one thing to threaten a contractor with a big law suit, you can hire another an move on regardless. But if Hanson EVER wants a team suing the NBA would be the LAST thing he would want to do.

 

[Section 101]

No. Just no.

It's a federal anti-trust law case. The Sherman Act is the law, not California contract law. The anti-trust law provides for treble damages. We don't know where the contract was signed, I would guess Seattle for this reason. The team is in CA. The BOG will meet in NY. I don't know if there will be a case, but where it's filed and goes forward would be way up in the air.

This has nothing to do with anti trust law. This is about the buyer/seller contract and the $30 million deposit being refundable even with a non refundable cause. Yes the team and the company is in CA. This is where the law applies. Just like if you buy anything else from out of state.