The wait continues and other news, rumors, etc.
- Thread starter ParniValjak
- Start date
There is no explaining to do. Whether the bid matches or not, whether the team stays or goes - this group gave it their best effort. And the best effort EVER put out by a city trying to prevent their team to be stolen. In spite of the current owners trying to sabotage that effort every step of the way.
It may or not be enough, but the truth is the end result is out of their control. If you think they didn't do the best they could, then you're either trolling or horribly misinformed.
It may or not be enough, but the truth is the end result is out of their control. If you think they didn't do the best they could, then you're either trolling or horribly misinformed.
Hmm. Is the league on a mission then to make the uncertain certain? Seems to me that if in both cases you don't have an actual arena, but instead a proposed arena, there are some inherent uncertainties with both situations. Would the league then want some financial guarantee that the arena would get constructed, so that a financial penalty would be exacted if the arena was not built on time? Developers put up bonds to guarantee construction is finished. Is that what the league wants?
As an aside, I don't like at all the fact that not all the land for the proposed arena has been purchased. It seems to me that it gives an extraordinary amount of leverage to the owner of the parcel over the Sacto group, knowing that their particular parcel may be the keystone to this huge multi-million dollar deal. That makes me very uneasy.
As an aside, I don't like at all the fact that not all the land for the proposed arena has been purchased. It seems to me that it gives an extraordinary amount of leverage to the owner of the parcel over the Sacto group, knowing that their particular parcel may be the keystone to this huge multi-million dollar deal. That makes me very uneasy.
Here we go again.
So I get, and accept, that you are a Sonics fan. That's not my issue. My issue is that you come here and post crap. And by crap I mean wrong things that spin the situation to what seems to be Seattle's favor. Some of your ideas make sense, but then you go an make a statement like the bolded. I would have given you the benefit of the doubt had you simply not known, but you made an affirmative statement, that's why it's crap. If it makes you feel better, fine, but don't come here and post crap.
Stern has explicitly stated that "owners who have decided to exit the league do NOT retain the right to decide where the franchise is located." Now crank up your spin machine all you want. Maybe you'll say that they can still decide who to sell it to. Ah, not when the buyer is absolutely going to move the team.
So I get, and accept, that you are a Sonics fan. That's not my issue. My issue is that you come here and post crap. And by crap I mean wrong things that spin the situation to what seems to be Seattle's favor. Some of your ideas make sense, but then you go an make a statement like the bolded. I would have given you the benefit of the doubt had you simply not known, but you made an affirmative statement, that's why it's crap. If it makes you feel better, fine, but don't come here and post crap.
Stern has explicitly stated that "owners who have decided to exit the league do NOT retain the right to decide where the franchise is located." Now crank up your spin machine all you want. Maybe you'll say that they can still decide who to sell it to. Ah, not when the buyer is absolutely going to move the team.
I told everyone already my interest and preference is in an expansion team in Seattle. I'd rather start from scratch with expansion. I have no obsession over taking your team, I just don't see how its done without creating even more of a mess (ie, rejecting Hansen and putting the game back into the hands of the Maloofs, which is immensely risky in my opinion).
Last edited:
Dude I'm not spinning anything, to be honest I read more things on your guys end than Seattle's. There is a precedent set by what Al Davis did with the Oakland Raiders, which could happen with the Maloofs. They are a total wild card in this whole situation. The NBA can't force a sale without risking litigation, especially if it ends up costing the Maloofs money, how is that spinning something in Seattle's direction? Whatever David Stern said is irrelevant because the Maloofs can theoretically file an anti-trust lawsuit, they have a case. Nobody can guarantee what the Maloofs will do if the sale to Hansen is rejected, and I'm pretty sure I read from David Aldridge that the NBA does not have an anti-trust clause that prevents lawsuits on this issue.
First off, regarding Paul Allen, even if the vote is 28-2 in our favor, it would be the **********s and Paul Allen voting yes.
Paul Allen was born in Seattle, he may even still live there (don't feel like looking that up), and owns 2 professional leagues in Seattle who he may not feel like alienating. Don't believe he was an option from the get go.
Secondly one of the reasons the NBA may be advising against a binding agreement (for NewKingsFan916), is because the owners may convene, and may feel as if they will reject the sale/relocation only if Sacramento further raises bid (though probably not)
Paul Allen was born in Seattle, he may even still live there (don't feel like looking that up), and owns 2 professional leagues in Seattle who he may not feel like alienating. Don't believe he was an option from the get go.
Secondly one of the reasons the NBA may be advising against a binding agreement (for NewKingsFan916), is because the owners may convene, and may feel as if they will reject the sale/relocation only if Sacramento further raises bid (though probably not)
The NBA no doubt has safeguards to prevent what happend with Al Davis including one that we know of which is the "best interest of the league" clause, litigation against the NBA would go nowhere and the goof boys know it. They had a good case when anahiem was rejected too. Remember the NBA constitution and By-laws are private, the only rules we know of are ones which have been exercised before, David Stern and the NBA have been down this road before with donald sterling and I find it hard to believe that they havent covered up many of the holes he exposed in constitution/by-laws.
In my opinion the NBA has full control over who will be the buyer, if they want Sac they could have them tommorow without conflict, same goes for Seattle, I really believe the owners are split and David Stern is trying to bring them together so they make a firm, nearly unanimous choice. (to make it appear they all agreed).
In my opinion the NBA has full control over who will be the buyer, if they want Sac they could have them tommorow without conflict, same goes for Seattle, I really believe the owners are split and David Stern is trying to bring them together so they make a firm, nearly unanimous choice. (to make it appear they all agreed).
Option 3 is the most likely scenario, but it still opens up the possibility for a lawsuit unless the NBA pays the Maloofs for the deal they accepted. I don't see how the NBA can force the Maloofs to take less money without starring down litigation, which is why Stern made sure the money matched. Stern definitely doesn't want an ugly lawsuit from the Maloofs. I don't quite understand the statement the team "sold for way above market value", an asset's value, particularly a very illiquid asset like an NBA franchise, derives its value by the purchase price. Its not like a stock market where the asset changes hands frequently, its all based on buyers, and how much demand is out there for an NBA team. Just because theoretically the Kings may have sold for less if there weren't an out of town buyer doesn't mean it was "above market value". It was at market value, Hansen was a buyer in the market, just like Ranadive was.
The league can assume control of the team using the "in the best interest" clause. They can then sell the team to whomever they choose and get the proceeds to the Maloofs. As has been mentioned elsewhere, because of the amounts of money the Maloofs owe to the NBA and to the City of Sacramento, there's room for negotiation on the exact amount. It's not completely out of the realm of possibility for the Maloofs to actually come out better if the sale is to Sacramento because of the aforementioned existing debts.
He has a total of 88 posts since May 2010. That's not a lot of posts. He's also become a disruption to the board. Hoopster presents an opposing view we may not agree with but he brings debate to the discussion. In fact, because of some of hoopster's questions and the resulting replies, I actually feel we're gaining a better handle on the questions and possible answers.
Perhaps they do have safeguards to prevent the Maloofs from filing anti-trust lawsuit to move the team wherever they'd like, but I just don't see how the league can get away with forcing an owner to take less money. It would seem to me that the laws of the United States would give the Maloofs a very good case. I'm certainly not a lawyer, but just normal business sense would tell me this decision just wouldn't hold up in court. If the money is even on both ends, then its perhaps acceptable to reject a sale to Hansen and then let Sacramento talk to the Maloofs directly, but even then its risky. The only way the NBA can avoid a lawsuit from the Maloofs if the Hansen deal is rejected, then the NBA buys the Kings for the same price as Hansen from Maloofs, then immediately turn around and sell it to Sacramento.
