The wait continues and other news, rumors, etc.

M

menziebr

Prospect
#181
#181
ninjabiscuit said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree, I don't think it's a slam dunk or anything, but it's a very strange way to word a generic "maybe at some point we would consider expansion to a strong market." He also could have said "I look forward to reading about Commissioner Silver's thoughts on this issue in the future." The fact that he went out of his way to indicate that Seattle would have something to write about in the Silver era is curious at the least. Maybe all it says is that that's the way Stern himself is leaning (which would also be a good thing).

Or maybe I spent too many hours as a kid reading theories about Lost, and my irrelevant-details sense is out of control here.
 
pdxKingsFan

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#183
#183
KingsFanSince85 said:
- 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?
Click to expand...
We know they talked to the NHL. I think they want to buy the Coyotes and bring them to Seattle.

I also think this would be an absolute disaster for the NHL.
 
Bibbilicious

Bibbilicious

Bench
#188
#188
So I know this question is being flung around a lot and im sorry if its been answered. Now that we know for sure the relocation vote is first do we need 8 no votes or 16??
 
S

sdballer

Starter
#192
#192
The interesting thing on the relocation vote is that it didn't really change anything, even though Seattle fans are pointing to it as game over. For all the advantages that Seattle has (ownership groups, offer, arena progress, tv deals, etc.), the one major thing Sac has always had is city/fan support and the usual desire to not move a team from a committed city. This was always going to come down to whether the BOG was willing to move the team more so than who the owners were. Making that the priority in voting really doesn't change anything but it does make the debate more focused on that one point.
 
Glenn

Glenn

Hall of Famer
#193
#193
Bibbilicious said:
Oh wow. Im not sure how confident I feel anymore :/. Getting anxious. Hopefully the vote is as soon as it can be.
Click to expand...
They still need 22 votes to sell. Not sure that anyone knows how the BOG will go about this. It's up to them. If there are 8 votes against the sale, it's over for Seattle. I suspect the order of votes will be decided on the spot and not before hand.
 
S

sdballer

Starter
#194
#194
HndsmCelt said:
disregard this poppycock. The two issues are being voted on once. The deal is for BOTH change of ownership AND moving the team. 8 no votes will block the sale.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean. They are going to vote on relocation first and we need 16 no votes for that. I guess it's so closely tied together that most owners would vote the same on both so you could theoretically have an approved relocation (only 8 nos) and rejected sale (8 no) but I don't know why any owner would vote yes on relocation and no on the sale. At the end of the day, you need 16 no votes on the first vote (relocation). Right?
 
HndsmCelt

HndsmCelt

Hall of Famer
#195
#195
Stern said weeks ago that the two issues would be voted on at one time. It would be pointless to vote separately This is also why the presentation meeting was a COMBINED meeting of the finance committee and relocation committee.
.
 
Last edited:
T

The Hammer

All-Star
#196
#196
sdballer said:
Not sure what you mean. They are going to vote on relocation first and we need 16 no votes for that. I guess it's so closely tied together that most owners would vote the same on both so you could theoretically have an approved relocation (only 8 nos) and rejected sale (8 no) but I don't know why any owner would vote yes on relocation and no on the sale. At the end of the day, you need 16 no votes on the first vote (relocation). Right?
Click to expand...
No.

The whole issue in this unprecented case has been rolled into one. That's why there is one recommendation committee. There will be one vote. It will need the 23 votes supermajority to be approved. One vote.
 
S

sdballer

Starter
#197
#197
The Hammer said:
No.

The whole issue in this unprecented case has been rolled into one. That's why there is one recommendation committee. There will be one vote. It will need the 23 votes supermajority to be approved. One vote.
Click to expand...
I should preface it by saying I don't think it negatively impacts the kings either way, but I'm pretty sure I heard him say today they would be voting on relocation first since it was the lynchpin.

My understanding of what has been combined were the committees recommending to the rest of the BOG on both the sale and relocation, not the actual 30 member votes.
 
Last edited:
T

The Hammer

All-Star
#198
#198
I think the number one selling point Stern and KJ have going is that voting to approve this deal means rejecting possibly the best subsidized arena plan the league has ever seen and ditching that city. That alone will devalue all the franchises in the league becuase it weakens the bargaining power when it comes time for owners to get a new arena. For all those that say "owners don't want to go against owners", you can think of it in these terms: even if your team won't be needing a new arena for 30 years, Other teams will. You want to support your fellow owners negotiating capacity and help them get the most $$ from local governments as possible.

I think this is the biggest issue. Second to this would be rejecting a fanbase that has done so much, but really the two are connected. It's just that the arena issue one of the most important aspects from the owners side.
 
Glenn

Glenn

Hall of Famer
#200
#200
Just a thought but because the NBA seems committed to keeping franchises in a city that has supported them (Sacramento) it actually might be more difficult to get the over half of the BOGs votes for relocation than an OK for a sale which requires 75%. I still think the bottom line for Sacramento is to buy the parcels of land.

I can imagine that with all the owners involved, like the pod of 20 something that are chipping in a million apiece, it will take awhile to guarantee the amount of money is available. This is one problem in having so many people involved in ownership.
 
funkykingston

funkykingston

Super Moderator
Staff member
#201
#201
Looking at whether it's 8 votes or 16 votes it doesn't really make a difference. IF this gets to a vote (and still I'm not convinced it will) I don't see this being split in any way. I really think it will be a landslide one way or another. 28-2, 27-3 or so in whatever direction the committee recommends to the BOG. In my mind, the moment the recommendation is made is essentially when this is over.
 
S

sdballer

Starter
#202
#202
funkykingston said:
Looking at whether it's 8 votes or 16 votes it doesn't really make a difference. IF this gets to a vote (and still I'm not convinced it will) I don't see this being split in any way. I really think it will be a landslide one way or another. 28-2, 27-3 or so in whatever direction the committee recommends to the BOG. In my mind, the moment the recommendation is made is essentially when this is over.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
pdxKingsFan

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#203
#203
I agree the final vote (if one happens, and I think Stern will find a way to stop it) will not be close. I think that even though the relocation vote is the "easier" number to get the reality is that it is the tougher call so I think Stern back tracked and began to emphasize it so as not to draw the ire of both the Hansen team and the jokers we have for owners now.

Hey you guys are great and you'd be a welcome addition if you kept the team in Sac is a lot less of a big deal than outright blocking the sale.
 
T

The Hammer

All-Star
#205
#205
Kingsfan23 said:
4. Unless I'm missing something, we didn't match Hansen's 25 mil increase

I was concerned that Stern made it a point to say that he wasn't influencing at this conference - that is one of our cards
Click to expand...
You're right. It would have been much better for him to say "I'm using my power to influence all of the independent voting owners to keep the team in Sacramento. I made up my mind weeks ago that the team should be there, and all this has just been a show to make it seem like there's legitimate process going on here."
 
ninjabiscuit

ninjabiscuit

Bench
#207
#207
The Hammer said:
If he actually is, then he SHOULD go out of his way to publicly say he isn't.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he always says something along the lines of "I'm not making the decision, the team owners are." Whether he's actually running everything or not, that's kinda what he should say, in my opinion. I wouldn't worry about that at all.
 
Trueblood

Trueblood

Bench
#208
#208
HndsmCelt said:
I have attended 2 Warriors games a year since 1988... No Kings I will not go... just my 2 cents. But imagine a Warriors Kings play off series.. just sayn.
Click to expand...
I've been preaching that for awhile as well. It's amazing how close the markets are yet no rivalry has really developed but when you consider that there's never been a season where both teams were above .500 or in the playoffs in the same season, you sort of get a better idea. There would be nothing cooler than the Warriors at an SF waterfront arena and the Kings at a DT plaza arena with both not only in the playoffs in the same season but playing against each other.
 
Section 101

Section 101

All-Star
#209
#209
Interesting. They really are compulsive liars.

Tim Montemayor Tim Montemayor ‏@TheMontyShow 1h

#NBAKings update: after todays BOG meetings wrap up I talked with the people I know who are involved directly and indirectly ...

Tim Montemayor Tim Montemayor ‏@TheMontyShow 1h

During meetings the #Maloofs begged for the team to be sold and moved to #Seattle and have pushed the idea that the mayor lied to them...

Tim Montemayor Tim Montemayor ‏@TheMontyShow 1h

and pulled funds out of their arena deal and that is why they had to pull out, they said many times KJ lied to them #NBAKings

Tim Montemayor Tim Montemayor ‏@TheMontyShow 1h

The #Maloofs told BOG they worked hard to "fix" #Sacramento and they believe the mayor worked against that effort to force sale #NBKings

Tim Montemayor Tim Montemayor ‏@TheMontyShow 1h

#Maloofs and #Stern R adversaries with the commish worried about giving #Sacramento every chance while Maloofs want vindication in the...

Tim Montemayor Tim Montemayor ‏@TheMontyShow 1h

…departure of the #NBAKings from #Sacramento …and by all accounts the #Maloofs believe they only need a few owners to get a #Seattle ...

Tim Montemayor Tim Montemayor ‏@TheMontyShow 1h

…Move done. Re: #Seattle told today the group looks desperate with their raise in offer for #NBAKings "best move for them is to be quiet"

Tim Montemayor ‏@TheMontyShow 1h

I have a short list of owners who are opposed to the move but I can't substantiate their roll in the process. #NBAKings #Seattle #Sacramento
Click to expand...
 
J

Jose

Bench
#210
#210
Section 101 said:
Interesting. They really are compulsive liars.

Tim Montemayor Tim Montemayor ‏@TheMontyShow 1h

During meetings the #Maloofs begged for the team to be sold and moved to #Seattle and have pushed the idea that the mayor lied to them...

Tim Montemayor Tim Montemayor ‏@TheMontyShow 1h

and pulled funds out of their arena deal and that is why they had to pull out, they said many times KJ lied to them #NBAKings

Tim Montemayor Tim Montemayor ‏@TheMontyShow 1h

The #Maloofs told BOG they worked hard to "fix" #Sacramento and they believe the mayor worked against that effort to force sale #NBKings
Click to expand...
Yeah, right... If that was the case, they would have documents to back up those statements and would have no problems showing them.

MUCK THE FALOOFS!!!! So glad we're done with these clowns one way or the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.