The wait continues and other news, rumors, etc.
- Thread starter ParniValjak
- Start date
I have a growing sense of irritation. If the offers are the same then the Kings should stay in Sac. It really should be a no-brainer. We have faithfully supported the team for 25 years and have solid plans for another 35 years of suuport. Is this what the cute, faithful girlfriend feels like when her boyfriend starts checking out the homecoming queen because she has indicated strong interest?
We deserve better treatment than what we are receiving.
Oh, btw, the homecoming queen may look good, but may not be all that.
We deserve better treatment than what we are receiving.
Oh, btw, the homecoming queen may look good, but may not be all that.
I really think Stern is trying to avoid any vote at all. He knows any vote isn't good and sets a precedent he may not want kept either way. That is why the current jerk owners keep leaking to the press/releasing open letters to try and drum up public protest or make Stern the bad guy here. There's a few in Seattle who seem to get this, most seem to think Stern is a monster and fail to see that it is their own fault (and I mean Seattle as a public entity) that they lost their team.
Wow here we go again, the Maloofs being the Maloofs. Here are their reasons for favoring the Seattle group...again along the lines of "Trust me, I'm a developer."
1. Sacramento group has asked not to enter into a binding agreement until the Seattle deal is terminated:
- Sounds like Maloofs wants something binding so they can then have Seattle up the offer (like what happened last week) Sac group smart enough to not be conned into a binding offer, so Maloofs can go to Seattle to have them up their bid.
2. The Addition of new investors means "lack of funds."
- All our investors are actual billionaires, I don't think there's lack of funds here.
3. Sac group refuse their requests to make sure current Kings employees' contracts were not terminated for 18 months after closing the deal.
- ALL of the Kings contracts will be essentially terminated since the team is moving to Seattle. Mute point. Since when did the Maloofs really care about Sacramento and its people??
According the Stern's interview today, the two offers will mean the same amount of money to the Maloofs. So why are they so adamantly in favor of the Seattle deal? There must be some under the table deal going on here. I suspect Seattle promised to let the Maloofs own an NHL team in Seattle. Hopefully everyone, including the BOG, can see through all their bullsh*t.
1. Sacramento group has asked not to enter into a binding agreement until the Seattle deal is terminated:
- Sounds like Maloofs wants something binding so they can then have Seattle up the offer (like what happened last week) Sac group smart enough to not be conned into a binding offer, so Maloofs can go to Seattle to have them up their bid.
2. The Addition of new investors means "lack of funds."
- All our investors are actual billionaires, I don't think there's lack of funds here.
3. Sac group refuse their requests to make sure current Kings employees' contracts were not terminated for 18 months after closing the deal.
- ALL of the Kings contracts will be essentially terminated since the team is moving to Seattle. Mute point. Since when did the Maloofs really care about Sacramento and its people??
According the Stern's interview today, the two offers will mean the same amount of money to the Maloofs. So why are they so adamantly in favor of the Seattle deal? There must be some under the table deal going on here. I suspect Seattle promised to let the Maloofs own an NHL team in Seattle. Hopefully everyone, including the BOG, can see through all their bullsh*t.
I agree on points one and three, especially 3 as the whole severance thing is not only absurd it's insulting to the huge number of people basically guaranteed to lose their jobs in a move. With regards to point 2, there is far more evidence to support that none of our potential owners are close to being billionaires than that all are.
Today had more positive news than negative and sac could close this deal with a productive week of news (secured finances, arena progress, temporary plans for sleep train).
Today had more positive news than negative and sac could close this deal with a productive week of news (secured finances, arena progress, temporary plans for sleep train).
People are missing a pretty crucial nugget. At about 5:00 in the press conference, Condotta (Seattle Times) asked about expansion. Stern smirks, gives an answer saying that he won't rule out expansion in the future. Condotta presses him, and Stern basically says that he will look forward to reading about expansion "in your [Condotta's] newspaper" when "Commissioner Silver" is in charge. To me, this is pretty clear-cut - the discussion is whether to give Seattle an expansion team (the kind of thing Seattle Times would be reporting), and the timeline is the next couple years (when Silver will be in charge). This seems explosive - and really good for us.
A basic problem for Seattle as a community is that they are on Stern's bad side because of political decisions that lead to the loss of the Sonics in the first place. This all had to do with the building of an arena with public funds. I think it is very important to Stern that every team has a big shiny new arena. That is why, in my opinion, the decision has been put off. The BOG wants to be sure that whatever group they pick, the group or community can guarantee an arena. As far as Sacramento goes, I think all that is left is the purchase of a few pieces of property. I realize there is much more to it than that but for the sake of a BOG decision, the potential owners need to buy some land.
It might be that simple and it might very well be that the BOG is delaying to give Sacramento a chance.
It might be that simple and it might very well be that the BOG is delaying to give Sacramento a chance.
A couple of comments regarding the new quotes and news we've read today;
- For those of us asserting that Daniels has been much more biased -- and non-factual-- in his reporting than the local Sacramento media, we essentially received confirmation today from David Stern. I've yet to hear him criticize or refute anything reported by a member of the Sacramento media.
- The seller has, yet again, sent a letter to the NBA endorsing their deal with the Seattle group, all while disparaging Sacramento's efforts. Gee, I wonder why would they continue to do that? It wouldn't have anything to do with the possibility that they may be hearing things behind the scenes that's making them nervous? Why else would such a confident bunch keep sending un-necessary letters??
- We have verbal confirmation from David Stern that the offers, while maybe not 100% identical in how they're authored, are indeed 100% equal in regards to the amount of $$ ending up on the sellers pocket. Isn't that a pretty big deal?
- Considering that the above point is true and all things are equal, why does the seller still prefer to sell to the out-of-market group? Could it be confirmation that the seller really does have a "scorched earth" policy/agenda against the city of Sacramento and it's fans? Or could it be because they have colluded with the Seattle group for some type of benefit on the back end if their deal goes through? It makes you wonder what their true motivation is. If neither accusation is true, why on earth would they possibly care who ends up with the team?
- For those of us asserting that Daniels has been much more biased -- and non-factual-- in his reporting than the local Sacramento media, we essentially received confirmation today from David Stern. I've yet to hear him criticize or refute anything reported by a member of the Sacramento media.
- The seller has, yet again, sent a letter to the NBA endorsing their deal with the Seattle group, all while disparaging Sacramento's efforts. Gee, I wonder why would they continue to do that? It wouldn't have anything to do with the possibility that they may be hearing things behind the scenes that's making them nervous? Why else would such a confident bunch keep sending un-necessary letters??
- We have verbal confirmation from David Stern that the offers, while maybe not 100% identical in how they're authored, are indeed 100% equal in regards to the amount of $$ ending up on the sellers pocket. Isn't that a pretty big deal?
- Considering that the above point is true and all things are equal, why does the seller still prefer to sell to the out-of-market group? Could it be confirmation that the seller really does have a "scorched earth" policy/agenda against the city of Sacramento and it's fans? Or could it be because they have colluded with the Seattle group for some type of benefit on the back end if their deal goes through? It makes you wonder what their true motivation is. If neither accusation is true, why on earth would they possibly care who ends up with the team?
I like the way you think.
I went and watched that part, and I'm not absolutely certain that it's as cut and dried as that. He could have meant generally "I look forward to reading in the press (in the future) what Commissioner Silver is saying" [about the idea of expansion].
I'm also not sure about inferring the fact that it's Seattle who would be getting an expansion team. It depends on how literally you think he meant the word "your" in the term "your newspaper." (Although I certainly agree with everyone who thinks it would be ridiculous to move our team and give us an expansion team.)
I think more than anything, Stern and his law degree are being very, very careful about how he words things (as usual). If you notice, he actually reframes the reporter's question first so that it isn't as direct, so that he doesn't have to provide a direct answer. He's very careful to say "it was not discussed," rather than answer the actual question, which is more along the lines of "would expansion be considered?"
Having said all of that, I strongly, strongly hope you're absolutely right.
I went and watched that part, and I'm not absolutely certain that it's as cut and dried as that. He could have meant generally "I look forward to reading in the press (in the future) what Commissioner Silver is saying" [about the idea of expansion].
I'm also not sure about inferring the fact that it's Seattle who would be getting an expansion team. It depends on how literally you think he meant the word "your" in the term "your newspaper." (Although I certainly agree with everyone who thinks it would be ridiculous to move our team and give us an expansion team.)
I think more than anything, Stern and his law degree are being very, very careful about how he words things (as usual). If you notice, he actually reframes the reporter's question first so that it isn't as direct, so that he doesn't have to provide a direct answer. He's very careful to say "it was not discussed," rather than answer the actual question, which is more along the lines of "would expansion be considered?"
Having said all of that, I strongly, strongly hope you're absolutely right.
Last edited:
