The wait continues and other news, rumors, etc.

[Gary]

The order works in Seattles favor then, unfortunately... With a simple majority needed for the relocation, and a full 23 votes for the sale, the fact that relocation goes first makes our fate a simple majority unfortunately.. if the sale will follow that decision.

It's not in Seattle's favor at all. The reason the relocation vote is first is that the deal between Hansen/Balmer and the Maloofs is contingent on the relocation being approved so it makes total sense that they vote for that first. What are they going to do? Approve the deal and then vote no on the relocation? That would just void the deal. That makes ZERO sense. Why vote on them as owners then turn around and vote no on relocation?

If you wanted to guess the other reasons, maybe rather than denying Han/Bal they could just nullify their deal by voting no on the relocation. Then they wouldn't even have to vote no on their ownership group and they could work with them on another team, or expansion. The only ownership group left would be the Kings hence they vote yes for them. Maloofs walk away with the same money and we're done.

 

[Warhawk]

NO IT DOESN'T. As I tried to explain above, it is the committee recommendation that will carry the most weight. The relocation and finance committees have been combined and they will present a combined report and recommendation to the entire BoG. They aren't going to recommend a split decision. It will be all or nothing for either Sacramento or Seattle. At that point, IF the recommendation goes against Seattle, it doesn't take too much to figure out the logic of having the relocation vote first.

Outcome A: The BoG votes against the move, saying to Hansen/Ballmer that they would love to have them as owners in the NBA, but that they just do not have sufficient grounds to vote to move the Kings from Sacramento. Result: Sacramento is happy, the Maloofs are happy because they will still get their money, the NBA is happy because the Maloofs are finally gone and Hansen/Ballmer are pretty much guaranteed either the next available team or an expansion team.

Outcome B: The BoG votes for the move, which validates the Hansen/Ballmer sale. Result: Sacramento is unhappy, the Maloofs are happy because they got their money AND stuck it to KJ, the NBA is happy because the Maloofs are finally gone until they have to start dealing with the negative impact their actions will have in regards to trying to get ANY future arena deal done with public/private financing. And, Stern leaves the NBA with another black mark, this one a lot more recent and possibly a defining (in a bad way) end to his legacy.

This.

Look, there is only going to be one of two outcomes here. Either the team is sold to Seattle and moved or the team stays and Seattle searches for an expansion team or one like the Bucks who may be up for sale soon.

The recommendation will hinge on whether the team should be moved. Both ownership groups are more than capable and would be approved for team ownership individually.

The decision of ownership is not worthy of discussion. It really isn't a factor. If it was (Sacramento's isn't desirable/feasible), we wouldn't still be talking about this and the U-haul trucks would be heading to Seattle right now.

This is all about the arena deals and relocation of a franchise. That is really the only concern right now.

 

[Mojo]

Is anybody actually going to put this on Stern if we don't win? He's done just about everything he could to keep us in this so far. I hold nothing against him.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Is anybody actually going to put this on Stern if we don't win? He's done just about everything he could to keep us in this so far. I hold nothing against him.

I for one will not blame Stern, but I do expect the NBA to put in place safeguards to prevent this from ever happening again. Owners should be required to look for local buyers and seek remedy to local issues such as Arenas, or attendance. No one should be allowed to sail into town with the jolly roger flying grab a team and take it back to their hide out.

 

[Turgenev]

Voting for relocation first may work in Sacramento's favour. The strength of the Seattle bid is its monetary size. One of Sacramento's challenges is that the 'planning on the go', forced by the secrecy of the sale, has not easily facilitated the production of a flawless counter offer.

One of Sacramento's strong points is its market for NBA basketball and the continued support given by community, government, and business.

Voting for relocation first potentially nullifies the Seattle group's strength- and as David Stern had previously stated- prevents it from turning into a bidding war or a decision based purely on numbers.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

The recommendation will hinge on whether the team should be moved. Both ownership groups are more than capable and would be approved for team ownership individually.

Yes. It all hinges on relocation, not on transfer. Relocation is a conservative vote, while transfer is generally a rubber-stamp. This also keeps the decision in the realm where the NBA has strong by-laws, where anti-trust suits will have little chance of success, and where, as Turgenev points out above, there is no worry of a bidding war.

Do we now need 16 votes? Yes. But we always did. When we thought we needed 8 votes, we were fooling ourselves. Whether or not the Hansen sale goes through hinges on relocation, not on transfer, and it always has.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Yes. It all hinges on relocation, not on transfer. Relocation is a conservative vote, while transfer is generally a rubber-stamp. This also keeps the decision in the realm where the NBA has strong by-laws, where anti-trust suits will have little chance of success, and where, as Turgenev points out above, there is no worry of a bidding war.

Do we now need 16 votes? Yes. But we always did. When we thought we needed 8 votes, we were fooling ourselves. Whether or not the Hansen sale goes through hinges on relocation, not on transfer, and it always has.

I am not sure I completely agree with you. It is entirely possible for there to be a relocation vote that passes with 8 or more No's. At that point if word leaked to Hansen it is possible he would pull his offer. If not on a vote for transfer of ownership he could loose. There could very well be 8-15 owners who do not favor relocation that are more than willing to stop the sale.

 

[Gary]

I am not sure I completely agree with you. It is entirely possible for there to be a relocation vote that passes with 8 or more No's. At that point if word leaked to Hansen it is possible he would pull his offer. If not on a vote for transfer of ownership he could loose. There could very well be 8-15 owners who do not favor relocation that are more than willing to stop the sale.

No chance. It's either going to go all one way or the other. I understand what you are trying to say but it's just so far fetched that it's pretty much guaranteed not to happen..

If it's any consolation though, if the relocation gets voted down then at least we all know that the Han/Bal agreement is null and void and Sacramento's offer would be the only one left standing. So there is no chance of a Clay Bennett thing happening.

Anyhow, once I read that the Maloofs are getting the same amount of money from either side I think it's a virtual lock that we keep the team, no matter which vote goes first. Also, what kind of person would leave a city like us who have fought tooth and nail hanging as long as the NBA has without giving us the good news at the end? It's not like Seattle is up there fighting for this team like we are down here.

 

[ninjabiscuit]

I for one will not blame Stern, but I do expect the NBA to put in place safeguards to prevent this from ever happening again. Owners should be required to look for local buyers and seek remedy to local issues such as Arenas, or attendance. No one should be allowed to sail into town with the jolly roger flying grab a team and take it back to their hide out.

I agree that Stern is not to be blamed. He is doing what he feels needs to be done to ensure that the NBA as a whole is perceived in a good light. I personally feel that we are playing by the book and, as many others have said (including KJ's group) are doing what the NBA has asked them to do. We'll see.

 

[HndsmCelt]

No chance. It's either going to go all one way or the other. I understand what you are trying to say but it's just so far fetched that it's pretty much guaranteed not to happen..

If it's any consolation though, if the relocation gets voted down then at least we all know that the Han/Bal agreement is null and void and Sacramento's offer would be the only one left standing. So there is no chance of a Clay Bennett thing happening.

Anyhow, once I read that the Maloofs are getting the same amount of money from either side I think it's a virtual lock that we keep the team, no matter which vote goes first. Also, what kind of person would leave a city like us who have fought tooth and nail hanging as long as the NBA has without giving us the good news at the end? It's not like Seattle is up there fighting for this team like we are down here.

Think of the first vote as a test by fire/trial balloon. Best case they are short votes and the Kings stay... game over. Scenario two there are between 8-15 votes (Trial balloon) sure the move is approved but the writing is on the wall for the second vote. Worst case the move is approve with less than 8 no votes and then we are looking at the end. I can't imagine a owner voting for the move then voting against the sale.

 

[kupman]

Is anybody actually going to put this on Stern if we don't win? He's done just about everything he could to keep us in this so far. I hold nothing against him.

I will say this much, great leaders are great leaders because they have a knack of turning difficult "win-loss" scenarios into "win-win" scenarios for everyone. If this continues to be a win-loss situation I will be disappointed, especially given that the league contributed to the situation by letting the Sonics move to OKC rather easily a few years back. I maintain that the league essentially choose expansion a few years ago when it decided to make OKC an NBA city but never truly let go of the idea of Seattle as an NBA city. We are bearing the sour fruit of that decision now. If Stern wants to go out on a high note, he will find a way to make this a win-win. Otherwise, I think that he will always have a sour taste in his mouth.

 

[Jose]

I will say this much, great leaders are great leaders because they have a knack of turning difficult "win-loss" scenarios into "win-win" scenarios for everyone. If this continues to be a win-loss situation I will be disappointed, especially given that the league contributed to the situation by letting the Sonics move to OKC rather easily a few years back. I maintain that the league essentially choose expansion a few years ago when it decided to make OKC an NBA city but never truly let go of the idea of Seattle as an NBA city. We are bearing the sour fruit of that decision now. If Stern wants to go out on a high note, he will find a way to make this a win-win. Otherwise, I think that he will always have a sour taste in his mouth.

If you look at this in a different way, Sacramento keeping the team and Seattle getting nothing is not a "win-loss". It's a non-event. Seattle chose to meddle with the order of things by dealing under the table with the Clowns and making a ridiculous record offer way above market value. If they don't get the team, it's not really a loss - the team stays in Sacramento where it was before, and where it rightfully should be. This is actually the solution to this problem that makes ZERO waves.

Now, to give the Kings to Seattle and drop Sacramento from the NBA would really be a "win-loss" scenario. And it would set a horrible precedent that a person with a lot of money can steal a team from another market by secretly negotiating and signing a "binding" agreement. If Seattle gets the Kings, I'm starting a $2 billion fund campaign to secretly make an offer to the Buss family, steal the Lakers and bring them here. Because that's what's gonna happen if the NBA sets that precedent - ANY team is up for grabs & relocation for the right amount.

Giving Seattle an expansion team also sets up a bad precedent: Say Samueli wants a team in Anaheim, he offers $500M for the Bucks and signs a binding agreement to buy them and move them to Anaheim. What does the league do? They already set the precedent in Seattle by giving them an expansion team. They have to let the Bucks go (setting yet another bad precedent), or give Anaheim an expansion team (or risk anti-trust litigation based on the Seattle precedent). Or, heck, if I'm Vivek I turn around and make the offer myself for the Bucks... then what?

Leaving things the way they are is really the cleanest solution to this dilemma. It sends two very clear messages: 1) You cannot steal a team from another market as long as there is support in that market 2) You cannot strong-arm the league into expansion

Stern is indeed a very smart man. Sacramento will keep the Kings, Seattle will get nothing (except a wink/nod to let them know they're next in line for an AVAILABLE team), this drama will soon be forgotten and will have no negative impact on the league.

 

[Kingsfan23]

^^ Jose, yes thats the just conclusion to an acurrate summation of the precedents attempting to be set here, unfortunately we don't live in a just world so it will be interesting to see how it shakes out

 

[Gary]

If you look at this in a different way, Sacramento keeping the team and Seattle getting nothing is not a "win-loss". It's a non-event. Seattle chose to meddle with the order of things by dealing under the table with the Clowns and making a ridiculous record offer way above market value. If they don't get the team, it's not really a loss - the team stays in Sacramento where it was before, and where it rightfully should be. This is actually the solution to this problem that makes ZERO waves.

Now, to give the Kings to Seattle and drop Sacramento from the NBA would really be a "win-loss" scenario. And it would set a horrible precedent that a person with a lot of money can steal a team from another market by secretly negotiating and signing a "binding" agreement. If Seattle gets the Kings, I'm starting a $2 billion fund campaign to secretly make an offer to the Buss family, steal the Lakers and bring them here. Because that's what's gonna happen if the NBA sets that precedent - ANY team is up for grabs & relocation for the right amount.

Giving Seattle an expansion team also sets up a bad precedent: Say Samueli wants a team in Anaheim, he offers $500M for the Bucks and signs a binding agreement to buy them and move them to Anaheim. What does the league do? They already set the precedent in Seattle by giving them an expansion team. They have to let the Bucks go (setting yet another bad precedent), or give Anaheim an expansion team (or risk anti-trust litigation based on the Seattle precedent). Or, heck, if I'm Vivek I turn around and make the offer myself for the Bucks... then what?

Leaving things the way they are is really the cleanest solution to this dilemma. It sends two very clear messages: 1) You cannot steal a team from another market as long as there is support in that market 2) You cannot strong-arm the league into expansion

Stern is indeed a very smart man. Sacramento will keep the Kings, Seattle will get nothing (except a wink/nod to let them know they're next in line for an AVAILABLE team), this drama will soon be forgotten and will have no negative impact on the league.

Very well thought out..

I could go one step further and basically say that IF they gave Seattle the Sonics back via expansion in 2017 then the second expansion slot would be up in the air for any city to bid on while advising the cities in the USA/Canada that this is the last expansion and that it's not going to happen for a very long time (if ever). That would get other cities involved for that last spot if they knew this was the last chance for a very long time. Make it look like a privilege to have an NBA city and call out those franchises that are underperforming at the same time that they would not hesitate to relocate them to one of the other cities that was vying for that last expansion team.

 

[VF21]

Interesting article about the difference between Seattle before the move and Sacramento:

Don't put all the blame on Mayor Greg Nickels

 

[VF21]

Think of the first vote as a test by fire/trial balloon. Best case they are short votes and the Kings stay... game over. Scenario two there are between 8-15 votes (Trial balloon) sure the move is approved but the writing is on the wall for the second vote. Worst case the move is approve with less than 8 no votes and then we are looking at the end. I can't imagine a owner voting for the move then voting against the sale.

That's where I totally see it differently. Once the combined committee makes its recommendations to the Board, the owners will have seven working days before the actual vote. Depending on the recommendations, I think it's going to be fairly obvious on which side most of the owners will land. It's not going to be a trial balloon situation. In fact, I think the actual vote will be little more than a formality one way or the other. Again, the key is the recommendation by the committee and I think we'll hear leaks about that within a very short period of time.

 

[HndsmCelt]

That's where I totally see it differently. Once the combined committee makes its recommendations to the Board, the owners will have seven working days before the actual vote. Depending on the recommendations, I think it's going to be fairly obvious on which side most of the owners will land. It's not going to be a trial balloon situation. In fact, I think the actual vote will be little more than a formality one way or the other. Again, the key is the recommendation by the committee and I think we'll hear leaks about that within a very short period of time.

I know Stern would like a unified front, but he not only acknowledged that the vote was split but it seemed to me he had little hope of getting it together. Maybe once the recommendation is made the owners will line up but if not... I'll stand by my observations

 

[Gary]

I know Stern would like a unified front, but he not only acknowledged that the vote was split but it seemed to me he had little hope of getting it together. Maybe once the recommendation is made the owners will line up but if not... I'll stand by my observations

Why do you feel that the vote is split? Try to get into one of the owners that's for the move and try to figure out the reasoning...

The only thing I would get from the sonics forum is that the NBA wants stability and they said the economics in Seattle is better and the revitalization after the arena will be greater than ours.

Two of those points I really disagree with. We are pouring 1bil into our downtown area and they aren't even building their arena downtown are they? As for the ownership groups being solid and saying Sacramento's is not solid I also disagree. Vivek would be in the top 10 owners in terms of wealth so I don't think there is much concern.. And if they really thing money brings stability then Ellison would have a team in San Jose.

I do agree that the economics in Seattle are better than ours right now, but after that project begins I can see our city having a huge boom. Especially a population boom in the city.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Why do you feel that the vote is split? Try to get into one of the owners that's for the move and try to figure out the reasoning...

The only thing I would get from the sonics forum is that the NBA wants stability and they said the economics in Seattle is better and the revitalization after the arena will be greater than ours.

Two of those points I really disagree with. We are pouring 1bil into our downtown area and they aren't even building their arena downtown are they? As for the ownership groups being solid and saying Sacramento's is not solid I also disagree. Vivek would be in the top 10 owners in terms of wealth so I don't think there is much concern.. And if they really thing money brings stability then Ellison would have a team in San Jose.

I do agree that the economics in Seattle are better than ours right now, but after that project begins I can see our city having a huge boom. Especially a population boom in the city.

I got the impression from Sterns answers in the last presser that there was no consensus among the owners. I try to avoid the Seattle web sites after my first visit to fantasy island.

 

[ninjabiscuit]

I got the impression from Sterns answers in the last presser that there was no consensus among the owners. I try to avoid the Seattle web sites after my first visit to fantasy island.

Agreed. I try and stay in my little comfort zone on this side of the fence.

 

[Gary]

At least we know that it cant go the way of the "no to relocation, yes on sale to Balmer/Hansen". That's at least ruled out.

If the BOG is truely split then i have no doubt in my mind they will come around. Gives them time to think about the "right thing to do".

 

[HndsmCelt]

I am still pretty confident that we have he 8 votes.

 

[sdballer]

Why do you feel that the vote is split? Try to get into one of the owners that's for the move and try to figure out the reasoning...

The only thing I would get from the sonics forum is that the NBA wants stability and they said the economics in Seattle is better and the revitalization after the arena will be greater than ours.

Two of those points I really disagree with. We are pouring 1bil into our downtown area and they aren't even building their arena downtown are they? As for the ownership groups being solid and saying Sacramento's is not solid I also disagree. Vivek would be in the top 10 owners in terms of wealth so I don't think there is much concern.. And if they really thing money brings stability then Ellison would have a team in San Jose.

I do agree that the economics in Seattle are better than ours right now, but after that project begins I can see our city having a huge boom. Especially a population boom in the city.

I agree on the economic gain in Seattle vs sac. I'm surprised anyone could try and argue differently on that point. But I don't think Vivek has anything near the wealth to be top ten in the owners. He's probably closer to the bottom

 

[The Hammer]

I agree on the economic gain in Seattle vs sac. I'm surprised anyone could try and argue differently on that point. But I don't think Vivek has anything near the wealth to be top ten in the owners. He's probably closer to the bottom

Evidence?

Or just a hunch...?

You also forget to include the rest of our ownership group.

 

[Gary]

Wasn't Vivek worth 1.7bil or something? Forgive me if I am wrong. I am trying to find the number or where I got it but I cannot find it. How much is Vivek worth?

EDIT: All the articles I have read or that I could find say he's a "billionaire"..

Hmmm.. They also mention the Jacob's as billionaires too.. All that matters is hat they will spend money

I think the top 10 NBA owners are all 2+mil people... There are also owners near the bottom that don't have a billion.

 

[jpsls]

Vivek's net worth is a non issue at this point

 

[sdballer]

Wasn't Vivek worth 1.7bil or something? Forgive me if I am wrong. I am trying to find the number or where I got it but I cannot find it. How much is Vivek worth?

EDIT: All the articles I have read or that I could find say he's a "billionaire"..

Hmmm.. They also mention the Jacob's as billionaires too.. All that matters is hat they will spend money

I think the top 10 NBA owners are all 2+mil people... There are also owners near the bottom that don't have a billion.

The only wealth info I've seen for Vivek puts him at less than $400M net worth and this is the Jacobs brothers not the dad and their wealth is also less than $400M. All together, they have a good amount of cash. It's just not as much as a lot of the owners. But it's more than the magoofs which is all we need.

 

[The Hammer]

The only wealth info I've seen for Vivek puts him at less than $400M net worth and this is the Jacobs brothers not the dad and their wealth is also less than $400M. All together, they have a good amount of cash. It's just not as much as a lot of the owners. But it's more than the magoofs which is all we need.

And you really think that it's that easy to find out how much these people are worth? Like they'd make that public information?

Also, since Vivek said any of the people in the ownership group (when it was Jacobs, Mastrov, Burkle, himself) could write the check for the team by themselves, he would have to be lying there. So you're calling Vivek a liar.

 

[sdballer]

And you really think that it's that easy to find out how much these people are worth? Like they'd make that public information?

Also, since Vivek said any of the people in the ownership group (when it was Jacobs, Mastrov, Burkle, himself) could write the check for the team by themselves, he would have to be lying there. So you're calling Vivek a liar.

Not to the exact dollar, but yeah I think places like Forbes do a pretty good job of reporting on net worth for the wealthiest. In regards to the second point, I think Vivek was probably exaggerating a bit.

 

[The Hammer]

Not to the exact dollar, but yeah I think places like Forbes do a pretty good job of reporting on net worth for the wealthiest. In regards to the second point, I think Vivek was probably exaggerating a bit.

Link?