The morning after and other news, rumors, etc.
- Thread starter kennadog
- Start date
We must realize that we have nothing that says the sales committee members didn't vote. I think its quite possible they did vote and are preapring their formal recommendation for the full BoG.
Quite a few CD members showed up for city council tonight and some of us went and had dinner afterwords. I mentioned that I thought it was odd that it was reported a while back that Hansen borrowed the maximum amount of the money he needed to purchase the team. On the other hand, I worked with developers (real ones) for years and I know they (and hedge fund managers) prefer to play with other people's money. They do take risks, but they prefer to limit the amount of their own money that's at risk.
It was surprising, and a breath of fresh air, to hear Randivé state that he doesn't like debt and they would put in cash.
For Seattle, that's a lot of debt to put on the team right from the get go.
One of the other CD folks said he read a while back, that the plan by Hansen was for a lot of debt on the team, but that would reduce revenues so the team would be a receiver in the league. In other words, get the payer teams to pay your debt or at least the interest on the debt. If he that CD member pops in, I'll let him identify himself and where he read that).
Remember, too, that Hansen gave the city his own personal financial guarantee of repayment on any bond debt. Sacramento's money is not being loaned for the arena. Rather they will own the arena and lease it to the owners.
So the argument that Seattle is a better market, might have had less impact when you consider that the deal in Seattle may have involved a lot more debt that would reduce actual net revenues.
I can't say all the above regarding Seattle's offer is true, but it was definitely reported that City's contribution was a loan that Hansen guaranteed full repayment on and the city asked for information from him on the assets he had to make that guarantee. It was also reported that he did indeed borrow the maximum he could to buy the team as opposed to using his own money.
While I did read that Seattle's binding contract was contingent on approval of relocation, the Maloofs and Hansen could sign an amendment to the offer agreeing to waive that contingency. I can't see the BoG approving such a sale either. It would smack too much of what Clay Bennett did and no one wants that to happen again, least of all the other owners.
Finally 7 owners unanimously denied relocation. We'd only need to get one other vote to block a sale. Its virtually inconceivable that those 7 would vote to approve the sale.
When so many Sea fans now seem to like the idea of Hansen buying the team anyway, killing an arena deal in Sac and then applying for relocation lost them any sympathy I might have had. I know there are classy Sonics fans, as I have seen their congratulations tweeted to Sac fans, despite their being broken-hearted. I fully support an expansion team for Seattle. I will not support anyone taking a team from a city that shows clear desire combined with actions to keep their team.
Quite a few CD members showed up for city council tonight and some of us went and had dinner afterwords. I mentioned that I thought it was odd that it was reported a while back that Hansen borrowed the maximum amount of the money he needed to purchase the team. On the other hand, I worked with developers (real ones) for years and I know they (and hedge fund managers) prefer to play with other people's money. They do take risks, but they prefer to limit the amount of their own money that's at risk.
It was surprising, and a breath of fresh air, to hear Randivé state that he doesn't like debt and they would put in cash.
For Seattle, that's a lot of debt to put on the team right from the get go.
One of the other CD folks said he read a while back, that the plan by Hansen was for a lot of debt on the team, but that would reduce revenues so the team would be a receiver in the league. In other words, get the payer teams to pay your debt or at least the interest on the debt. If he that CD member pops in, I'll let him identify himself and where he read that).
Remember, too, that Hansen gave the city his own personal financial guarantee of repayment on any bond debt. Sacramento's money is not being loaned for the arena. Rather they will own the arena and lease it to the owners.
So the argument that Seattle is a better market, might have had less impact when you consider that the deal in Seattle may have involved a lot more debt that would reduce actual net revenues.
I can't say all the above regarding Seattle's offer is true, but it was definitely reported that City's contribution was a loan that Hansen guaranteed full repayment on and the city asked for information from him on the assets he had to make that guarantee. It was also reported that he did indeed borrow the maximum he could to buy the team as opposed to using his own money.
While I did read that Seattle's binding contract was contingent on approval of relocation, the Maloofs and Hansen could sign an amendment to the offer agreeing to waive that contingency. I can't see the BoG approving such a sale either. It would smack too much of what Clay Bennett did and no one wants that to happen again, least of all the other owners.
Finally 7 owners unanimously denied relocation. We'd only need to get one other vote to block a sale. Its virtually inconceivable that those 7 would vote to approve the sale.
When so many Sea fans now seem to like the idea of Hansen buying the team anyway, killing an arena deal in Sac and then applying for relocation lost them any sympathy I might have had. I know there are classy Sonics fans, as I have seen their congratulations tweeted to Sac fans, despite their being broken-hearted. I fully support an expansion team for Seattle. I will not support anyone taking a team from a city that shows clear desire combined with actions to keep their team.
They will not approve the sale of the Kings to him. That is a pipe dream that the media up there is brainwashing the SEA fans with. The NBA has made one thing clear before this whole things started. Who ever owns the Kings needs to have an arena deal in place to get that ownership. Now that the NBA has come out and said we will not be moving the Kings to Seattle, Hansen doesn't have an arena deal here in Sacramento. Vivek's group does.
Close but it was Schultz who was at that meeting. That was the straw that broke the camel's back for him and that led to him selling the team.
Of course you also had I-91, a disengaged governor and another politician making statements about how the NBA has "zero cultural value". If you could write a book about how to lose a team, Seattle in 2006 was it.
Of course you also had I-91, a disengaged governor and another politician making statements about how the NBA has "zero cultural value". If you could write a book about how to lose a team, Seattle in 2006 was it.
If were a Seattle fan the two people I would MOST pissed off at right now are Chris Daniels and Chris Hansen (the two Chrises) They are killing any chance for an expansion team or a serious run to buy a true orphaned team. Kids up in rain vill can complain about Stern and Bennet all they want want but if they want to put a flaming bag of poo on the door step of the guys that making sure the NBA will not return to Seattle they can walk to the responsible parties houses.
Reading Sac Bee editorial, "End the Drama," this morning was bit concerning (link). What if Maloofs stubbornly refuse to sell to Sac group and instead turn over franchise keys to Seattle group who simply stays put in Sac for the time being. NBA would not like it but I don't think they can block the sale, only proposed move. Thus Hansen might be betting on who gets new arena built first - Sac or Seattle. He could then presumably move to Seattle if Sac arena fell apart, which it likely would with Hansen controlling Kings franchise - at some point counting on an agreeable NBA board. Of note, perhaps league could step in to forgive some or all of millions Maloofs owe NBA in order to make Sac deal superior to Seattle offer. Still, not very good way to wake up this morning digesting Bee editorial virtually pleading with Maloofs to back off, sell to Sac investors - "finally putting an end to the endless pain."
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/01/5384665/time-for-maloofs-to-end-kings.html
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/01/5384665/time-for-maloofs-to-end-kings.html
Last edited:
david stern consistently swats at chris daniels as if he were a fly. he's an annoyance. nothing more. but if it's true that chris hansen is planning a scorched earth policy with respect to chasing the kings in spite of every indication that sacramento will retain the team, then yeah, i'd be pretty pissed off if i were a sonics fan. sacramento made a truly compelling case. the league was compelled by that case to rule against relocation, which will more than likely result in the sale of the team to a local investment group. that's the way that one went. now's the time to push for expansion, especially while it's being popularly touted as an option, however remote the actual possibility might be...
Of course they can block the sale. Just need 8 votes.
Now, if it does come to a vote on a sale to Hansen/Ballmer (and I'm not convinced it would once relocation is denied), then you need 8 owners to vote against the sale purely based on the reasoning that they don't want Hansen/Ballmer to own a team in Sac with the obvious intention of moving them later (and given that if they own the team in Sac the arena deal likely falls through). Will the 8 votes be there? Probably, so even if they did force a vote on the sale I expect it wouldn't pass.
I think it's more likely that Hansen is still fighting to win the relocation vote, and once that vote goes Sacramento's way they don't even vote on sale to him (because he backs out or more likely because his deal is contingent on the move in the first place).
The real concern from the Maloofs is that they just muck it up with weird demands and refuse to sign the deal with Ranadive so the NBA has to strongarm them somehow. Still would probably turn out ok but that's the drama that can still happen.
Now, if it does come to a vote on a sale to Hansen/Ballmer (and I'm not convinced it would once relocation is denied), then you need 8 owners to vote against the sale purely based on the reasoning that they don't want Hansen/Ballmer to own a team in Sac with the obvious intention of moving them later (and given that if they own the team in Sac the arena deal likely falls through). Will the 8 votes be there? Probably, so even if they did force a vote on the sale I expect it wouldn't pass.
I think it's more likely that Hansen is still fighting to win the relocation vote, and once that vote goes Sacramento's way they don't even vote on sale to him (because he backs out or more likely because his deal is contingent on the move in the first place).
The real concern from the Maloofs is that they just muck it up with weird demands and refuse to sign the deal with Ranadive so the NBA has to strongarm them somehow. Still would probably turn out ok but that's the drama that can still happen.
this parenthetical is the sticking point, in my mind. the nba is voting on the merits of two individually proposed bids with accompanying arena plans. they are not voting on hypothetical scenarios in which hansen/ballmer accept the terms of an arena deal negotiated by ranadive/mastrov with the city of sacramento. that's why most are considering this a victory for sac. the league will first have to backtrack on the relocation committee's recommendation in order to sell to hansen/ballmer, and that remains an extraordinarily slim possibility...
CD may be a minor annoyance to Stern, but to the Seattle fans he is a voice and a rallying cry. Right now he is partly responsible for urging on this scorched earth policy and generating hate mail from Seattle. Again if I am looking to compete with a Seattle buyer for a future team I may very well collect all of the on line rants and posts swearing off the NBA forever as evidence that the well up there is poisoned. CD is the lead cheerleader for the poising.
indeed. but chris hansen is hardly beholden to the whims of a media firebrand. my point was that, no matter how much seattle fans may be calling for blood right now in the throes of their disappointment and rage, no matter who is attempting to stoke those flames, these deals always occur in back rooms, with handshakes by Very Important People. hansen/ballmer must be measured in their approach if they are to have a shot at a future team, either by way of expansion or in the relocation of a different franchise. buying into media hype will torch their chances. i mean, ****, to put this in perspective, imagine if KJ and co. had bought into the nonsense consistently spouted by the sacramento media throughout the last few years!! dear lord, i shudder at the thought...
Thin, very thin. 7 NBA owners have already voted to keep the Kings in Sac, how hard would it be to find one more to block the sale? Hansen is just flailing, with no idea what to do next and with only financial advisers around him. If he picked up the phone and talked to team owners, almost any team owners of almost any sport (Not named Maloof or Shinn) they could help him out here. I don't know if the NBA is trying to offer Seattle a consolation prize or not but I do know that his current antics 'ain't helpin" No way he buys the team, no way any pro sports league lets the BM buy in expect possibly as a minority owner and even then I think once SI lables you the worst owners in sports you don't get a second team.
