And the countdown begins and other news, rumors, etc.
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
Indeed. Previous team sales have *NOT* gone to the highest bidder, but to a lower bid that was committed to keep the team in the same market (or at least make a "good faith" attempt to do so). So the Sacramento team doesn't necessarily need to be extorted to match the ridiculous Hansen bid. A competitive bid with a commitment to the Sacramento market should be enough based on previous sales.
Sorry, but if it was open and shut the team would be going to Seattle. The Sacramento group has taken 'first and goal at the one' and stuffed it back. Now they have to convert and have all the t and i's dotted. The more consideration that is given the better Sacramento's chance is. You may not want to admit it but Seattle put on hell of a offer out there and I'm hoping they get nothing more than a conciliatory prize.
I've been thinking that "8 no votes" is really problematic for the league. If there are 8 no's out there, and the committee has their fair share of them... then the committee - if going by majority - would issue a recommendation to approve the Seattle move. But then those 8 owners have to rebuff the leadership and vote no anyway... and you have a PR mess. 8 honorable men turned back the greedy advisory committee and the will of the majority of owners.
NBA must want to avoid this. I mean suppose the supercommittee of 16 owners has 5 no's. And suppose further that they know for sure they have another 3 or 4 no's among the owners.
If it is like that, then there must be quite a bit of wrestling going on among the supercommittee members. They don't want the committee to recommend the move only to have the BOG vote it down 22-8. So how does the committee reconcile a recommendation of "stay in Sac" although most of the committee members don't feel that way.
Pretty rough - a lot of big egos to contend with.
I sure hope that, even though there is no vote for 7 days, that the recommendation from the committee is leaked. But even if that recommendation is to approve the Seattle move it does not mean checkmate I don't think.
edit: I just realized the supercommittee only has 12 owners but the issue remains the same. If those 12 are 7-5 in favor of approving the Seattle deal... what do they do? Twist real hard on those 5 arms?
NBA must want to avoid this. I mean suppose the supercommittee of 16 owners has 5 no's. And suppose further that they know for sure they have another 3 or 4 no's among the owners.
If it is like that, then there must be quite a bit of wrestling going on among the supercommittee members. They don't want the committee to recommend the move only to have the BOG vote it down 22-8. So how does the committee reconcile a recommendation of "stay in Sac" although most of the committee members don't feel that way.
Pretty rough - a lot of big egos to contend with.
I sure hope that, even though there is no vote for 7 days, that the recommendation from the committee is leaked. But even if that recommendation is to approve the Seattle move it does not mean checkmate I don't think.
edit: I just realized the supercommittee only has 12 owners but the issue remains the same. If those 12 are 7-5 in favor of approving the Seattle deal... what do they do? Twist real hard on those 5 arms?
Last edited:
Maybe I had put it wrong, but open and shut in the favor of Sacramento. Seattle did put up a nice offer but one has to wonder about the reasoning for overpaying and if it has anything to do with shady dealings. Given the Maloofs are part of this deal I don't have many doubts that it was a bit shady.
Anyway, as long as our offer is to match then I am fine. I know it's not my money but I think we are going to have to match to win. As long as we do it's 100% in our favor.
I hope we get news of the amount of the offer in comparison to Seattle's offer today or tomorrow. Maybe Steinberg will leak something like he did with the last offer which supposedly matched cent for cent.
Anyway, as long as our offer is to match then I am fine. I know it's not my money but I think we are going to have to match to win. As long as we do it's 100% in our favor.
I hope we get news of the amount of the offer in comparison to Seattle's offer today or tomorrow. Maybe Steinberg will leak something like he did with the last offer which supposedly matched cent for cent.
Tony Bizjak @TonyBizjak 7m
Our latest story on disagreement over whether Sac offer is firm or non-binding http://sacb.ee/Z3noxn
Our latest story on disagreement over whether Sac offer is firm or non-binding http://sacb.ee/Z3noxn
This is not good if true but I just can't imagine they would submit such an offer. Why would the Maloofs give up a sure deal for the chance to negotiate with Sac Group?
Tony Bizjak @TonyBizjak 12m
Our latest story on disagreement over whether Sac offer is firm or non-binding http://sacb.ee/Z3noxn
Tony Bizjak Tony Bizjak @TonyBizjak 13m
Source also sed Sac submittal is "non-binding, no deposit. Maloofs have pushed NBA to allow a vote soon on their Seattle offer
Tony Bizjak Tony Bizjak @TonyBizjak 16m
Sacbee source says Sac bid calls for Maloofs tto drop their deal with Hansen without an NBA vote. Maloofs stand firm. http://sacb.ee/Z3noxn
Tony Bizjak @TonyBizjak 12m
Our latest story on disagreement over whether Sac offer is firm or non-binding http://sacb.ee/Z3noxn
Tony Bizjak Tony Bizjak @TonyBizjak 13m
Source also sed Sac submittal is "non-binding, no deposit. Maloofs have pushed NBA to allow a vote soon on their Seattle offer
Tony Bizjak Tony Bizjak @TonyBizjak 16m
Sacbee source says Sac bid calls for Maloofs tto drop their deal with Hansen without an NBA vote. Maloofs stand firm. http://sacb.ee/Z3noxn
Two thoughts on this development:
One is that this is still a lot of money, and it shouldn't be a shock if the Sac bidders want to cover their asses for some reason, including not entering a binding agreement.
The second is that this doesn't make sense, since the Maloofs have a binding agreement with Hansen and can't get out of it (I assume) unless the BOG denies the deal. Why would the Sac team require the Maloofs to get out of the Hansen deal before negotiating? The only thing I can think of is that this is what Stern/NBA is telling them to do. But I have no idea why.
50-75M short? You mean 16M?
One is that this is still a lot of money, and it shouldn't be a shock if the Sac bidders want to cover their asses for some reason, including not entering a binding agreement.
The second is that this doesn't make sense, since the Maloofs have a binding agreement with Hansen and can't get out of it (I assume) unless the BOG denies the deal. Why would the Sac team require the Maloofs to get out of the Hansen deal before negotiating? The only thing I can think of is that this is what Stern/NBA is telling them to do. But I have no idea why.
50-75M short? You mean 16M?
See, this is what I was talking about with my earlier post. I don't understand how any of you can consider this good or why KJ's team is still messing not matching and non-binding agreements. Why are they even adding more fuel to the fire with being short AND non-binding AND calling for the Maloofs to cancel the deal?
No good can come of this and KJ's team will have a lot of explaining to do if we get denied because the BOG says they couldn't get a definitive commitment out of the Sac team.
No good can come of this and KJ's team will have a lot of explaining to do if we get denied because the BOG says they couldn't get a definitive commitment out of the Sac team.
