The wait continues and other news, rumors, etc.
- Thread starter ParniValjak
- Start date
I have a friend who's worth over a billion dollars (mostly in real estate holdings). He's not on there.
Anybody who has that kind of money and doesn't necessarily want to be published in a magazine about it, I think would have the means to prevent that.
Your statement was without a factual basis. Yet you thought it was a big enough deal to post.
Anybody who has that kind of money and doesn't necessarily want to be published in a magazine about it, I think would have the means to prevent that.
Your statement was without a factual basis. Yet you thought it was a big enough deal to post.
Last edited:
I cannot remember who put his value at 1.8 billion, or if I read it here..
In the articles that I have read they consider Vivek a Billionaire.
Is there any link to his actual net worth?
http://mynorthwest.com/27/2233038/B...er-joins-Sacramento-effort-to-boost-Kings-bid
That was one of the places I have heard "billionaire" thrown around.
In the articles that I have read they consider Vivek a Billionaire.
Is there any link to his actual net worth?
http://mynorthwest.com/27/2233038/B...er-joins-Sacramento-effort-to-boost-Kings-bid
That was one of the places I have heard "billionaire" thrown around.
I think the net worth of owners is very over-rated in this case. I read an article recently somewhere on the web where it stated that SA owner's net worth is $80 million but really, he would have to be one of the best owners in the league.
Similarly, not that long ago the Maloofs had a net worth of over $1 billion yet they are now broke in NBA terms. I think the financing is important to a point, but it is NOT the key thing here. Personally, I think they value self made millionaires more than inherited billionaires. Those that are self made are generally people that are business savvy and know how to run a successful business which in a way the NBA franchise is. That is why I value someone like Vivek and Mastrov from our potential leadership group than I would someone like the Jacobs brothers. Vivek came to the USA with $50 in his pocket and has started a company that turnover $1 billion per year. Mark Mastrov borrowed $15K from his grandmother to open up his first gym and ended up creating a 24 hour fitness chain that he ended up selling for $1.7 billion. Those are the things that are very important to the ownership group because if those guys know how to make money, they will run successful teams. If those guys inherited their fortune and buy a sports team as a toy, it will be great while they have the money but once they blow it (which eventually they will) then things start going south. This is exactly what has happened with the Maloofs and I will watch with interest what happens with the Lakers now that Dr. Buss has passed away. I am willing to bet that his children will not be anywhere near as savvy as Dr. Buss was in owning that franchise. His son already made a pretty big **** up in hiring Mr. Pringles.
Similarly, not that long ago the Maloofs had a net worth of over $1 billion yet they are now broke in NBA terms. I think the financing is important to a point, but it is NOT the key thing here. Personally, I think they value self made millionaires more than inherited billionaires. Those that are self made are generally people that are business savvy and know how to run a successful business which in a way the NBA franchise is. That is why I value someone like Vivek and Mastrov from our potential leadership group than I would someone like the Jacobs brothers. Vivek came to the USA with $50 in his pocket and has started a company that turnover $1 billion per year. Mark Mastrov borrowed $15K from his grandmother to open up his first gym and ended up creating a 24 hour fitness chain that he ended up selling for $1.7 billion. Those are the things that are very important to the ownership group because if those guys know how to make money, they will run successful teams. If those guys inherited their fortune and buy a sports team as a toy, it will be great while they have the money but once they blow it (which eventually they will) then things start going south. This is exactly what has happened with the Maloofs and I will watch with interest what happens with the Lakers now that Dr. Buss has passed away. I am willing to bet that his children will not be anywhere near as savvy as Dr. Buss was in owning that franchise. His son already made a pretty big **** up in hiring Mr. Pringles.
Burkle is on it. But whether or not anyone is a billionaire is not so important as the sum of the worth of everyone involved including Mitch Richmond - just tossed that in. I tend to believe Vivek but don't care if he lied about how much money everyone has.
I'm a little late on this note but isn't it amazing how many seriously rich people there are in our own backyard?
I'm a little late on this note but isn't it amazing how many seriously rich people there are in our own backyard?
Last edited:
I think it makes sense that relocation will be voted on first. It is the fundamental question in all of this and is a big reason the BoG is concerned about if and when each city can build an arena.
I read that the Hansen/Ballmer binding contract was contingent on the approval of relocation. If that contingency is part of the contract and the BoG votes down relocation, then that contingency not being met would cause the contract to be null and void. (And I would expect the Seattle group would withdraw the offer anyway.) Hansen/Ballmer and the Maloofs would have to amend their contract to remove the contingency or enter into a new contract and start all over. If Hansen/Ballmer really want a team in Seattle, I don't really see a reason for them to want to change the contract to an offer to buy the Kings without relocation.
And if the owners approve relocation, then its likely they know already, at that point, that the sale will be approved, too. I would even expect, that if relocation is approved, the vote for the sale could be unanimous. Either scenario keeps the BoG from looking totally splintered, because they really never have to choose one owner over the other.
Bottom line, Sac is going to need 16 votes to block this, in my mind.
I read that the Hansen/Ballmer binding contract was contingent on the approval of relocation. If that contingency is part of the contract and the BoG votes down relocation, then that contingency not being met would cause the contract to be null and void. (And I would expect the Seattle group would withdraw the offer anyway.) Hansen/Ballmer and the Maloofs would have to amend their contract to remove the contingency or enter into a new contract and start all over. If Hansen/Ballmer really want a team in Seattle, I don't really see a reason for them to want to change the contract to an offer to buy the Kings without relocation.
And if the owners approve relocation, then its likely they know already, at that point, that the sale will be approved, too. I would even expect, that if relocation is approved, the vote for the sale could be unanimous. Either scenario keeps the BoG from looking totally splintered, because they really never have to choose one owner over the other.
Bottom line, Sac is going to need 16 votes to block this, in my mind.
The whole argument about wealth and worth of an owner or ownership group is silly. As a metaphor, if you need to be able to fill a glass with water to own and successfully run an NBA team, then why does it matter if you only have enough net worth to fill the glass twice, whereas another owner could fill it 20 times? You only need one damn glass of water!
I was just going off of the 1.8 billion number that I had heard from somewhere. That would put him probably just outside the top 10.
But if it's more close to the 500mil then it's not a big deal to me because that's what Mastrov is worth as well and both of them owning this team will allow for us to sign some decent players.
But if it's more close to the 500mil then it's not a big deal to me because that's what Mastrov is worth as well and both of them owning this team will allow for us to sign some decent players.
Totally agree. IF the Sacramento ownership group wasn't acceptable as far as financials, this would all be over. The league isn't going to go this far and then say, "Oh, I'm sorry. But the Sacramento group doesn't have the financial standing necessary for NBA ownership."
I do believe it has been mentioned in a couple of articles I've read over the past few days that Vivek is indeed a billionaire. The Forbes list that is being bandied about as being sacrosanct is always at least a year or two behind.
Come on, folks. Let's get back to some kind of logic. This boils down to finding enough reasons to take the team from Sacramento. Anything else is tangential at this poibt.
I do believe it has been mentioned in a couple of articles I've read over the past few days that Vivek is indeed a billionaire. The Forbes list that is being bandied about as being sacrosanct is always at least a year or two behind.
Come on, folks. Let's get back to some kind of logic. This boils down to finding enough reasons to take the team from Sacramento. Anything else is tangential at this poibt.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...arriors-owners-vows-improvement.html?page=all
"ile Guber and Lacob are the front men for the investor group, there are several other owners. The four other principal owners who form the Warriors’ six-member board are Vivek Ranadive, founder of Tibco Software Inc. of Palo Alto; Erika Glazer, a former real estate and construction executive before turning to private investments; Fred Harman, a managing partner at venture capital firm Oak Investment Partners and a minority owner under Cohan; and Bob Piccinini, CEO of Save Mart Supermarkets."
This is an old article from 2010 about the Warriors ownership that won over Larry Ellison. It seems the makeup of that group is very similar to what Sacramento is currently assembling. Two front runners with multiple diverse partners filling out the rest.
"ile Guber and Lacob are the front men for the investor group, there are several other owners. The four other principal owners who form the Warriors’ six-member board are Vivek Ranadive, founder of Tibco Software Inc. of Palo Alto; Erika Glazer, a former real estate and construction executive before turning to private investments; Fred Harman, a managing partner at venture capital firm Oak Investment Partners and a minority owner under Cohan; and Bob Piccinini, CEO of Save Mart Supermarkets."
This is an old article from 2010 about the Warriors ownership that won over Larry Ellison. It seems the makeup of that group is very similar to what Sacramento is currently assembling. Two front runners with multiple diverse partners filling out the rest.
I'll further confirm what you are saying. These kind of lists also very often don't include people with huge family fortunes, people with "old" money. The method that they use for the valuation is also pretty bad from all reports of people both on the list, and those who say they should be. I used to love to read the list, then go do research on the people and see how they became so successful. Unfortunately the list wasn't very accurate.
I may be the only one, but I was glad when I heard relocation was voted on first. It seems much easier to me to prove to 16 owners that Sacramento is where this team should be than to prove to 8 owners that Hanson-Ballmer shouldn't be approved. All of Seattle's talk of, "There is no way that the BoG will try to dictate who other owners can and can't sell to", is now completely irrelevant.
I know that is an over-simplification, and they are all lumped together...but this order is far more logical, and could be helpful...
I know that is an over-simplification, and they are all lumped together...but this order is far more logical, and could be helpful...
Seattle is talking about their stability vs ours and I wanted a solid argument to go back to them with. I don;t think it's a big deal, but now I am saying "mastrov/vivek" are worth more than a Billion. Until I can find something other than articles listing vivek as a billionaire I will just team them two together.
It's really not though. They argue that "Owners will want to sell to who they want to sell to" is not even the issue like you said. Why? Because the Owners keep that right to sell to who they want to, but selling to someone and selling/moving the team from a loyal fanbase is something else.
That's like Ellison paying 5bil for the Lakers then moving them to San Jose because Buss wanted to get back at LA. Think the owners would approve that move, or do you think anyone would argue that the owners want to keep the right to sell who they want to? nahhhh..
Same deal here.
That's like Ellison paying 5bil for the Lakers then moving them to San Jose because Buss wanted to get back at LA. Think the owners would approve that move, or do you think anyone would argue that the owners want to keep the right to sell who they want to? nahhhh..
Same deal here.
I am not sure what you get out this exercise, but it's your time. In the end the BOG will determine if the Sac ownership group is "stable enough" But there is also stability in nubers argument to be made. Do the collection of mufti-millionaires have as much money as Balmer probably not... so what? The question is do they have enough o buy and operate an NBA team? yes. But consider this: Balmer and the Hedge fund pirate are about to drop about 1 billion on a team/arena. What if the past IS prolog and like the Mariners fans the new Seattle NBA fans only half fill the Arena game after game? What if the Media Market does NOT make a sweetheart deal? After how many seasons of loosing money do two "bottom line" guys decide to cut their losses? Who will pay THEM 500 mill for their team and rent out their arena? whould want o own a the second failed Seattle team? Bu hey buy em and move em right? with no long term commitment o the city and with out a public Arena they could have a new Silver dome on their hands.
Last edited: