I assume that one of those options was supposed to be Seattle gets Kings, Sacramento gets expansion team. Which I still think is on the table for the BOG. The question is, how do they view the similar decision to deal Charlotte in 2002? They lost some of their fanbase when they finally returned, although it was a completely new team which they're only now rectifying (Hornets becoming the Pelicans; Bobcats becoming the Hornets again). If the Kings move to Seattle, they will cease to exist only to be resurrected if Sacramento is awarded an expansion team. The only way this scenario happens is if the BOG is afraid of what the Maloofs might do if their sale to Hansen isn't allowed. Yes, the BOG controls sales and relocations, but are they willing to go so far as to take the team away from the Maloofs if necessary? Just saying that we should remember that Sacramento getting the expansion team isn't completely out of the picture.
And the countdown begins and other news, rumors, etc.
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
I can say with complete confidence that we're all going to die.
Seriously, I've been saying for months (along with lots of other people) that expansion makes the most sense. It's the one thing they can do that keeps everyone happy and doesn't screw anyone over. Seattle deserves a team, in my opinion, but the Kings fans don't deserve to lose theirs. This is the solution. Hopefully they take it.
Seriously, I've been saying for months (along with lots of other people) that expansion makes the most sense. It's the one thing they can do that keeps everyone happy and doesn't screw anyone over. Seattle deserves a team, in my opinion, but the Kings fans don't deserve to lose theirs. This is the solution. Hopefully they take it.
I'd say we can go with both.
It's not being discussed actively, but it's not off the table.
My guess is there are some internal BOG politics going on here in that Stern always tries to avoid looking like he's strong arming the owners. So he lets the process take its time, and lets Holt introduce the idea publicly in a gentle way. That way the idea comes from an owner.
It's not being discussed actively, but it's not off the table.
My guess is there are some internal BOG politics going on here in that Stern always tries to avoid looking like he's strong arming the owners. So he lets the process take its time, and lets Holt introduce the idea publicly in a gentle way. That way the idea comes from an owner.
This is in reference to the whole binding/non-binding confusion from earlier....
Michael McCann @McCannSportsLaw 29m
@blykmyk44 @panthiesba Maybe negotiations still happening but Maloofs can't be party to contract w/SAC without breaching/exiting Hansen deal
Michael McCann @McCannSportsLaw 1h
@panthiesba Has to be non-binding- Maloofs would breach contract with Hansen if they simultaneously entered into contract w/Sacramento group
Michael McCann @McCannSportsLaw 29m
@blykmyk44 @panthiesba Maybe negotiations still happening but Maloofs can't be party to contract w/SAC without breaching/exiting Hansen deal
Michael McCann @McCannSportsLaw 1h
@panthiesba Has to be non-binding- Maloofs would breach contract with Hansen if they simultaneously entered into contract w/Sacramento group
I can see a couple different scenarios with the whole binding/non-binding thing from today.
It could be an overzealous reporter (or a few) who asks whether the Sac offer is binding or non-binding. The source(s) say "no" because that wouldn't make sense, but the reporter(s) report it and people run with it as if it is a significant development.
Or, it could be that by binding, they simply mean binding backup offer, as in "if the BOG rejects the sale to Hansen, this offer would be binding pending league approval". That would make sense, and also not be a good thing for the Kings, but may also not be a bad thing if it's based on the NBA and Stern's instructions.
It could be an overzealous reporter (or a few) who asks whether the Sac offer is binding or non-binding. The source(s) say "no" because that wouldn't make sense, but the reporter(s) report it and people run with it as if it is a significant development.
Or, it could be that by binding, they simply mean binding backup offer, as in "if the BOG rejects the sale to Hansen, this offer would be binding pending league approval". That would make sense, and also not be a good thing for the Kings, but may also not be a bad thing if it's based on the NBA and Stern's instructions.
Thanks for that, but the point remains that people could be using (incorrectly or otherwise) the term "binding" in ways other than based on the legal definition of the term. Just because it has legal meaning doesn't mean reporters, sources, etc, are not using it colloquially.
I'm not arguing the non-binding thing is bad news. I'm pointing out there are different ways to interpret the reports, with some bad and some irrelevant, so we really don't know much at all and there's no reason to jump off a cliff.
I'm not arguing the non-binding thing is bad news. I'm pointing out there are different ways to interpret the reports, with some bad and some irrelevant, so we really don't know much at all and there's no reason to jump off a cliff.
Did anybody see channel 3 news where David Stern Answered the question on whether or not the Sacramento ownership group put a down payment on the Kings? Stern said the Sacramento ownership group did put a down payment on the kings but the way he said it was kind of weird. It was almost as if he sighed before he said yes. He seem to of paused for about 5 to 10 seconds before he said yes. And the look on his face was something of despair.
I noticed the hesitation and the sigh. I don't think I would call his facial expression despair, however, I think he was trying to formulate his response very carefully, so as not to give hope or false hope to either side. Almost like the down payment isn't going to be a major factor, that it's about something totally different than just the amount of the bid, but he cannot say that.
Yes, I know. I defended him before. It just seems much more pronounced than before. I'm sort of disappointed.
It's funny how we have ragged on the Bee in the past for being a rag, but their coverage on this has been IMHO very good. They have seemed to have given both sides but then again I'm biased.
It's funny how we have ragged on the Bee in the past for being a rag, but their coverage on this has been IMHO very good. They have seemed to have given both sides but then again I'm biased.
Who are you and where did you come from? You know nothing of the magoofs! They will never "just hold on to the team" now. Why? #1-they are broke, #2-they are greedy, and #3-they are failures at just about everything they have tried on their own. Look at their history. It speaks volumes. They wont run it into the ground becaause the NBA wont let that continue. There are minimum standards that must be met and they cannot meet them any longer, hence, the reason for the sale. Georgie porgie has convinced the family that they cannot continue to bleed $$$. They need to invest that money into what they will most certainly think will be a cash cow, which the Kings are not.
Another point; your sources you have used are not legitimate and credible therefore most likely wrong and they are probably someone trying to spin something in their favor from the magoof or hanson camp. If CNN can get their facts wrong, so can you.
I predict the NBA has been steering the Hanson camp to backing out of this agreement they have with the magoofs. Ultimatly, the magoofs will accept the Sacramento offer, Seattle will receive their expansion team and there WILL NOT BE A VOTE IN FAVOR OF SACRAMENTO OR SEATTLE as we all expect. Only a vote to approve the sale of the team to new ownership in Sacramento. Seattle will walk away with the promise of an expansion team and all will be right with the world.
You are right about one thing though. The BOG DOES want to rid themselves of the magoofs. Who wouldn't?
Another point; your sources you have used are not legitimate and credible therefore most likely wrong and they are probably someone trying to spin something in their favor from the magoof or hanson camp. If CNN can get their facts wrong, so can you.
I predict the NBA has been steering the Hanson camp to backing out of this agreement they have with the magoofs. Ultimatly, the magoofs will accept the Sacramento offer, Seattle will receive their expansion team and there WILL NOT BE A VOTE IN FAVOR OF SACRAMENTO OR SEATTLE as we all expect. Only a vote to approve the sale of the team to new ownership in Sacramento. Seattle will walk away with the promise of an expansion team and all will be right with the world.
You are right about one thing though. The BOG DOES want to rid themselves of the magoofs. Who wouldn't?