A Sonics fan's point of view

[hoopster]

Sonics fans are now pinning their hopes on the NBA allowing Hansen to buy the team in Sacramento, trying "earnestly" to get an arena deal done and then moving it. I think they see some poetic justice in the notion of stealing a team the way Bennett did to them. The rationale being that Hansen has a binding agreement with the Maloofs and while the NBA might have cause to deny relocation, they have no reason to deny the H/B/N ownership group.

But it is a grasping at straws approach. Relocation has been recommended against and will be voted down. So binding agreement or not, the fact remains that the Sacramento group has an agreement on a new arena and the Hansen group does not.

I honestly think the only questions now are whether the NBA expands (or promises expansion) and if the H/B/N group sues.

And quite honestly, for everyone saying that they should "play nice" with the NBA and that if they sue they'll never get a team, I honestly disagree. What does Seattle have to lose? They were giving a wink and an nod in 2008 when the Sonics left that if they went along and did things right they'd get a team back at some point. If the NBA doesn't promise expansion now, then what would they have to lose by suing? Nothing. They have no team now, and I don't see one becoming available to move any time soon.

Without expansion this will get messy. But I think the Kings will be out of this drama in a few weeks and it will be up to H/B/N and the NBA/BOG to sort it out.

Actually I could envision a situation where Hansen purchases the Kings but works with the NBA to sort out the arena deal over the course of the year to make sure it goes smoothly, turns around and sells to Ranadive, and is then rewarded with an expansion team. Perhaps the expansion team price meets the valuation of the Ranadive group so that Hansen doesn't actually lose money. This is a potential reasoning for Hansen continuing to pursue his original plan.

Hansen/Ballmer aren't going away, there is the potential for an anti-trust suit (which contrary to belief, US law doesn't prescribe to signing away an anti-trust suit upon purchase of an asset like an NBA franchise). Even if Ballmer/Hansen can't win, a lengthy litigation process will really be bad for the NBA, exposing information that the league doesn't want to be made public. Whatever anyone thinks of him, Ballmer is a serious heavyweight who has the financial muscle and legal experience to go the distance against the league.

The league made up their mind that the Kings franchise will stay in Sacramento, however Hansen/Ballmer aren't going away. They've sunk $100 million into this project, have no reason to back down, and with no other available teams out there, there is nothing the NBA can really do to make them go away. If they continue aggressively, the league will likely have to reward an expansion team or risk a lengthy, ugly litigation. As of now, the NBA can't say "sue us and you'll never get basketball back in the Northwest" because there won't be anything available on the market for Seattle for at least 5 maybe 10 years minimum, plus I think Seattle will actually not want the NBA back if this process ultimately results in nothing for the region. There really is nothing to lose from Hansen (except the already spent $100 million, which will be lost anyway if he just backs off), so ultimately Hansen and Ballmer have a lot more motivation to see this through than the league does. If this ends up being a game of chicken between Hansen/Ballmer vs. Stern/NBA, I think Stern/NBA back off. The league could easily solve this whole problem tomorrow by rewarding Seattle an expansion team, and thats why I think the ultimate result (however the process might be over the coming months) will be an expansion team, somehow.

 

[Jose]

Actually I could envision a situation where Hansen purchases the Kings but works with the NBA to sort out the arena deal over the course of the year to make sure it goes smoothly, turns around and sells to Ranadive, and is then rewarded with an expansion team. Perhaps the expansion team price meets the valuation of the Ranadive group so that Hansen doesn't actually lose money. This is a potential reasoning for Hansen continuing to pursue his original plan.

No, the only reasoning for Hansen to push this would be to sabotage the arena plan and take the team. It's that simple. Anyone who says this is a "great" alternative is looking at it from the Seattle side, hoping to pull a Bennett.

It's not that difficult. There is no arena without a long-term commitment from the new owners. That means that Hansen would have to sign an agreement to keep the team in SACRAMENTO for the next 30 years. He won't do that, it's that simple.

Anyone who thinks Seattle has any kind of leverage or recourse, again , is looking thru green-colored glasses. The NBA has the right to approve any sale and any relocation. That is part of the deal. Even though Hansen tried to go around this by making a secred deal with the Maloofs, there is no way around it. THE LEAGUE HAS THE RIGHT TO APPROVE OR REJECT ANY SALE OR RELOCATION. That's part of the team ownership agreement. If Hansen was led to believe otherwise, then his gripe is with the Maloofs and not the league. Or with his lawyers for not reading/interpreting the league contracts properly.

 

[hoopster]

In my experience Seattle views itself as on par with NY and LA as a market when reality puts them much closer to Sac than they would be comfortable admitting (and yes, I am in Portland, huge Timbers supporter and therefore have a huge bias against a certain fishy team up North and its customer base, so take with a grain of salt if you must).

I'm not saying Seattle is on par with New York or LA, however I will say the demand for Seattle sports brands has a much larger market than just Puget Sound. I grew up in Spokane, 2nd largets city in the state of Washington, and I can attest that the Sonics had strong statewide support. Washington state has 6.9 million people, and Root Sports, the station that likely would show Sonics games, taps into a very large market considering they show Mariner & Seahawks games in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana & Alaska. Take Oregon out of the mix (considering the Blazers already exist), and Seattle sports teams as a brand are televised to a market size of roughly 10 million people. Not saying all those people even care about Seattle sports, but the brand definitely matches some of the large markets in terms of potential viewers from a television perspective.

 

[hoopster]

No, the only reasoning for Hansen to push this would be to sabotage the arena plan and take the team. It's that simple. Anyone who says this is a "great" alternative is looking at it from the Seattle side, hoping to pull a Bennett.

It's not that difficult. There is no arena without a long-term commitment from the new owners. That means that Hansen would have to sign an agreement to keep the team in SACRAMENTO for the next 30 years. He won't do that, it's that simple.

Anyone who thinks Seattle has any kind of leverage or recourse, again , is looking thru green-colored glasses. The NBA has the right to approve any sale and any relocation. That is part of the deal. Even though Hansen tried to go around this by making a secred deal with the Maloofs, there is no way around it. THE LEAGUE HAS THE RIGHT TO APPROVE OR REJECT ANY SALE OR RELOCATION. That's part of the team ownership agreement. If Hansen was led to believe otherwise, then his gripe is with the Maloofs and not the league. Or with his lawyers for not reading/interpreting the league contracts properly.

Yeah but its not the same as Bennett in the sense that Hansen has already shown his hand. At this point the NBA is not going to relocate the Kings, now its all about how much does Hansen/Ballmer want to set themselves up for expansion. I don't envision the owners rejecting a higher valuation, if they do it would be against their own interests first off. Now, what could happen is there could be a backdoor deal between Hansen/NBA to see through the Sacramento arena deal to make sure it goes smoothly, he sells to then buy the expansion team in Seattle. Hansen is continuing on because it puts more pressure on the league to secure him and his group a team.

Its not ideal for the NBA to have Hansen as an owner, however if the Seattle deal is rejected, considering there was a purchase sale agreement, not to mention the possibility that there were anti-competitive tampering actions by Stern by undermining a signed deal, even if you think Seattle would lose, there is the potential anti-trust lawsuit. And given that its Steve Ballmer, whose one of the world's wealthiest men whose been battling the EU on anti-trust suits for the last decade, I wouldn't put it as out of left field for the group to file suit against the league as pressure for Hansen/Ballmer to secure an expansion team.

There is absolutely no reason at this stage for Hansen or Ballmer to back down from litigation unless there is a signed deal for an expansion team. People don't just sink $100 million to then just walk away. There are no other options at this point from their end.

 

[Kingsfan23]

hoopster, NBA franchises have moved an average every 2.3 years throughout the span of the league.... 4 times since 2000.. What is more probable for them, strongarming the league or being next in line? They have shown they have the money and arena deal to wipe out competition, just need a little patience

 

[VF21]

Hansen is NOT going to buy the Kings. Period. It's just not going to happen.

I know you're trying to find a way to make this easy, hoopster, but it's not gonna happen. Hansen put all his money in the pot, betting on the Maloofs and the belief that Kevin Johnson would not be able to do anything about it. He was wrong.

There is no reason to believe the NBA is going to make a "backdoor deal" with Hansen. And if you want to use the possibility of anti-tampering, be very careful what doors you choose to open. It could well turn out that Hansen himself is guilty of tampering with negotiations between the Maloofs and the city of Virginia Beach IF NOT the deal between the Maloofs and the City of Sacramento.

Hansen and Ballmer can attempt to proceed with litigation if they choose, but if you think the NBA and David Stern haven't already considered this alternative and weighed all the options, you're not thinking clearly.

Hansen is continuing on because it puts more pressure on the league to secure him and his group a team.

No, it doesn't. It puts him in an adversarial role AGAINST the Board of Governors, something they do not generally care for.

 

[hoopster]

hoopster, NBA franchises have moved an average every 2.3 years throughout the span of the league.... 4 times since 2000.. What is more probable for them, strongarming the league or being next in line? They have shown they have the money and arena deal to wipe out competition, just need a little patience

But look around the league, there are no available teams at this moment. And it makes no sense for Ballmer & Hansen to sink $100 million into this project to sit on their hands and wait. The only course from here is to leverage the NBA into an expansion team, which is what people in Seattle wanted in the first place. And the threat or reality of anti-trust litigation by a bunch of Microsoft lawyers could be enough to get expansion. Even if it isn't, Ballmer and Hansen have no reason to not go through with litigation. Call it Hansen and Ballmer being crybabys, but just normal business sense says that you don't sink that much money into a project to come out empty handed and $100 million is serious money, even for a guy worth $15 billion.

 

[hoopster]

Hansen is NOT going to buy the Kings. Period. It's just not going to happen.

I know you're trying to find a way to make this easy, hoopster, but it's not gonna happen. Hansen put all his money in the pot, betting on the Maloofs and the belief that Kevin Johnson would not be able to do anything about it. He was wrong.

There is no reason to believe the NBA is going to make a "backdoor deal" with Hansen. And if you want to use the possibility of anti-tampering, be very careful what doors you choose to open. It could well turn out that Hansen himself is guilty of tampering with negotiations between the Maloofs and the city of Virginia Beach IF NOT the deal between the Maloofs and the City of Sacramento.

Hansen and Ballmer can attempt to proceed with litigation if they choose, but if you think the NBA and David Stern haven't already considered this alternative and weighed all the options, you're not thinking clearly.



No, it doesn't. It puts him in an adversarial role AGAINST the Board of Governors, something they do not generally care for.

Okay first off we're discussing what may or may not happen in this case. You're talking in a world of certainties, I'm just laying out scenarios. You don't know the outcome of this anymore than I do. Even Kevin Johnson said this process wasn't over. The facts in this situation though are that the Hansen offer is above the Ranadive offer, there is a PSA agreement between Hansen & the Maloofs (giving Hansen some legal framework), the NBA has never voted against a sale for one of its teams, but the NBA also recommended not to relocate. Those are the only facts that we know of up to this point. Believe what you want to believe, but there is the possibility that Hansen ends up owning this team. And I'm not the one filing any lawsuit here, you don't have to talk to me like I'm the one calling the shots. I'm a spectator in this whole mess, just like yourself. My hope has always been expansion.

 

[Gary]

But look around the league, there are no available teams at this moment. And it makes no sense for Ballmer & Hansen to sink $100 million into this project to sit on their hands and wait. The only course from here is to leverage the NBA into an expansion team, which is what people in Seattle wanted in the first place. And the threat or reality of anti-trust litigation by a bunch of Microsoft lawyers could be enough to get expansion. Even if it isn't, Ballmer and Hansen have no reason to not go through with litigation. Call it Hansen and Ballmer being crybabys, but just normal business sense says that you don't sink that much money into a project to come out empty handed and $100 million is serious money, even for a guy worth $15 billion.

They knew perfectly well what they were getting into. They sunk all the money into something that wasn't even a sure thing. Not to mention they KNEW that Sac would go down swinging, so it should come as no surprise.


Not to mention they sign a BUNCH of legal papers when they try to buy a team to quell any kind of legal action if they were denied.

 

[hoopster]

They knew perfectly well what they were getting into. They sunk all the money into something that wasn't even a sure thing. Not to mention they KNEW that Sac would go down swinging, so it should come as no surprise.


Not to mention they sign a BUNCH of legal papers when they try to buy a team to quell any kind of legal action if they were denied.

I've read US courts don't recognize signing away anti-trust lawsuit rights.

 

[VF21]

Okay first off we're discussing what may or may not happen in this case. You're talking in a world of certainties, I'm just laying out scenarios. You don't know the outcome of this anymore than I do. Even Kevin Johnson said this process wasn't over. The fact of this situation though are that the Hansen offer is above the Ranadive offer and the NBA has never voted against a sale for one of its teams. Believe what you want to believe, but there is the possibility that Hansen ends up owning this team. And I'm not the one filing any lawsuit here, you don't have to talk to me like I'm the one calling the shots. I'm a spectator in this whole mess, just like yourself.

You have every right to your opinion, just as you have had all along. But, you're the one coming HERE on a SACRAMENTO KINGS board to give it. You're laying out scenarios in desperation. You can talk "facts" all you like but you need to face the reality of the situation.

The Relocation Committee voted UNANIMOUSLY against moving the Kings. That's 7 votes. The total needed to block the sale of the team to Hansen is only 8 votes. Do you truly believe the BoG would vote against moving the team and then approve selling the team to the one individual who has made it clear his only reason for buying them is to move them? Truly?

You say the NBA has never votes against a sale of one of its teams but there has never been such a blatant attempt by someone to steal a team from its current city than now.

I'm celebrating that there is every reason to believe my team is staying put. MY TEAM. MY BELOVED SACRAMENTO KINGS. MINE. Got it? This team is not your Sonics, it will never be your Sonics. You lost your Sonics to Clay Bennett and they're now doing quite well in the playoffs. If he hadn't changed the name of the team to the Thunder, would you be rooting for your former draft pick, Kevin Durant?

I've moved your discussion to a separate thread. This way, Kings fans who don't want to discuss Hansen can choose easily not to do so.

Have a nice day.

 

[Kingsfan23]

Okay first off we're discussing what may or may not happen in this case. You're talking in a world of certainties, I'm just laying out scenarios. You don't know the outcome of this anymore than I do. Even Kevin Johnson said this process wasn't over. The facts in this situation though are that the Hansen offer is above the Ranadive offer, there is a PSA agreement between Hansen & the Maloofs (giving Hansen some legal framework), the NBA has never voted against a sale for one of its teams, but the NBA also recommended not to relocate. Those are the only facts that we know of up to this point. Believe what you want to believe, but there is the possibility that Hansen ends up owning this team. And I'm not the one filing any lawsuit here, you don't have to talk to me like I'm the one calling the shots. I'm a spectator in this whole mess, just like yourself. My hope has always been expansion.

The league never had to deal with a situation like this, where greedy owners who don't give a **** about the market sold to outsiders with the immediate intent on moving it.... hoopster do you think the precedent needs to be set that money doesn't dictate which markets deserve their teams? Does the precent need to be set that Carlos Slim can offer 1 billion for the Seahawks and move them to Mexico city if Paul Allen wanted money? After all they had an agreement and he had the higher price.... This is a precedent that shouldnt even need to be set, its ethics and common sense

 

[hoopster]

You have every right to your opinion, just as you have had all along. But, you're the one coming HERE on a SACRAMENTO KINGS board to give it. You're laying out scenarios in desperation. You can talk facts all you like but you need to face the reality of the situation.

The Relocation Committee voted UNANIMOUSLY against moving the Kings. That's 7 votes. The total needed to block the sale of the team to Hansen is only 8 votes. Do you truly believe the BoG would vote against moving the team and then approve selling the team to the one individual who has made it clear his only reason for buying them is to move them? Truly?

You say the NBA has never votes against a sale of one of its teams but there has never been such a blatant attempt by someone to steal a team from its current city than now.

I'm celebrating that there is every reason to believe my team is staying put. MY TEAM. MY BELOVED SACRAMENTO KINGS. MINE. Got it? This team is not your Sonics, it will never be your Sonics. You lost your Sonics to Clay Bennett and they're now doing quite well in the playoffs. If he hadn't changed the name of the team to the Thunder, would you be rooting for your former draft pick, Kevin Durant?

I've moved your discussion to a separate thread. This way, Kings fans who don't want to discuss Hansen can choose easily not to do so.

Have a nice day.

I've come on here before and have clearly made my position from day one that I hope to have an expansion team. I understand your emotion, and my posts aren't pushing for relocation. I'm merely trying to have an intelligent discussion.

Technically speaking, no votes have been accounted for, so we don't know what the final tally will be. The fact of the matter is that there is legal framework for Hansen to own this team even though the NBA doesn't want him to relocate it. It may even be in the NBA's best interest to AVOID a lawsuit from Hansen/Ballmer to approve a sale, sign some kind of deal with them to work through the Sacramento arena plan with no relocation, and reward the Hansen group with expansion. If they reject a sale, the NBA does risk litigation.

 

[Jose]

Seattle needs to focus on what they CAN do, not focus on things they can't do or on ways to go around being sneaky and deceitful to accomplish what they want. As much as everyone up there wants a team, and everyone else thinks they should get one, stealing a team is not the right way. Everyone knows it, including Seattle folks. And it makes them seem like hypocrites when they rally to do unto others what was done to them. BUILD SYMPATHY, NOT RESENTMENT!!!

Here's what I'd do if I'm Hansen:

1. Solicit the league to schedule some games in Seattle next year. Sort of as a "guest" arena - see if the league would schedule at least one game for every team in Seattle. 15 games or so (total). Maybe 30 if they are willing to move one home game for each team to seattle. Owners may feel enough sympathy for Seattle to give up ONE game this season so it can start the ball rolling in bringing the NBA back to Seattle. Sell those games out so you can show good numbers and build excitement. Sell a "season" pass for those games - that would give you a good indication on what you might get for season tickets. No, it won't be 45,000...

2. PLAY NICE. Don't turn around and try to steal another team or strong-arm the league into approving something they shouldn't. ASK what needs to be done to bring basketball back to Seattle and let them guide you and help you thru the process. Work with the league like Sacramento did - not against them.

3. Drop a truckload of $$ into an escrow account - $150M? $200M? $250M? Whatever - if he's so loaded it wouldn't matter. Tell Stern "that's for an expansion team, I'm officially requesting to be considered for one, here's $$$ in escrow. Then go back to #2 above.

4. Keep the hopes alive. Let your fans know that basketball WILL come back to Seattle. It's just a matter of time and doing it the right way.

5. Purchase the "Sonics" right from Bennett *NOW*. Don't wait until that expires, work with the league to make it happen if Bennett is being a jerk about it.

 

[hoopster]

The league never had to deal with a situation like this, where greedy owners who don't give a **** about the market sold to outsiders with the immediate intent on moving it.... hoopster do you think the precedent needs to be set that money doesn't dictate which markets deserve their teams? Does the precent need to be set that Carlos Slim can offer 1 billion for the Seahawks and move them to Mexico city if Paul Allen wanted money? After all they had an agreement and he had the higher price.... This is a precedent that shouldnt even need to be set, its ethics and common sense

The only thing I'm acknowledging is that its an immensely complicated ordeal. Hansen has the legal right to PURCHASE the Kings, that is backed by US law, even if he doesn't have the legal right to relocate the team. The framework to reject the Hansen sale is a legal gray area given he has a PSA, and the potential to file an anti-trust suit. So I'm merely trying to point out that a scenario exists where Hansen owns the team in Sacramento but can't relocate the team. And his motivation to do so would only be to pressure the league into expansion.

Like I said before, the league could have solved this whole mess ages ago if they expanded. Actually they could have solved both our cities ordeals if they just moved the black hole of the league in New Orleans to Oklahoma City instead 5 years ago, but thats another story.

 

[Jose]

The only thing I'm acknowledging is that its an immensely complicated ordeal. Hansen has the legal right to PURCHASE the Kings...

He doesn't. Not the way he went about it. NBA teams are a franchise. Any sales or transfers are subject to league review and approval, much like the sale or transfer of a McDonald's would be subject to their Corporate review and approval.

Hansen has every right in the world to make an offer for a team. The Maloofs have every right to take offers for their team and bring them up to the league. That offer needs to be approved by the league. It's part of the franchise agreement.

The problem here is that the Maloofs and Hansen entered into a "binding" agreement that legally cannot be binding because the league has to approve the sale. That's their problem (Maloofs & Hansen), not the league's.

Think about this - after all this is done, the Maloofs get their $350M. Imagine they go to Milwakee and somehow make a deal with their owner to buy the Bucks. Do you think there's a chance in hell that the league approves that sale?

 

[VF21]

I've come on here before and have clearly made my position from day one that I hope to have an expansion team. I understand your emotion, and my posts aren't pushing for relocation. I'm merely trying to have an intelligent discussion.

Technically speaking, no votes have been accounted for, so we don't know what the final tally will be. The fact of the matter is that there is legal framework for Hansen to own this team even though the NBA doesn't want him to relocate it. It may even be in the NBA's best interest to AVOID a lawsuit from Hansen/Ballmer to approve a sale, sign some kind of deal with them to work through the Sacramento arena plan with no relocation, and reward the Hansen group with expansion. If they reject a sale, the NBA does risk litigation.

No, you don't. You couldn't possibly.

Your team didn't suffer under the mismanagement of inept and dishonest owners for as far back as you could remember. You didn't see every single one of your favorite players AND COACH tossed aside either by not renewing a contract or making a crap trade under the guise of "flexibility" when in truth all they were doing was shedding salary in a blatant attempt to make the team moving acceptable.

You haven't had your heart ripped out with rumors of moves to Anaheim, Henderson (NV), Virginia Beach and...Seattle.

Yes, your team was sold but it was done above board. The fans knew it was going to happen. Once it did, and your city didn't step up with an arena deal (something I'm sure Clay Bennett was counting on), the Sonics were moved and rebranded as the Thunder.

You know the big, big, big difference? WE FOUGHT FOR OUR TEAM! And Chris Hansen acted more like a corporate raider trying to effect a hostile takeover than a legitimate business person trying to purchase an NBA team.

If Hansen wants an expansion team, he needs to quit acting like he has any right to our team and people like you need to quit coming here and telling us that he's owed something. You keep bringing up scenarios you know will be hurtful to us, such as the idea that Hansen will buy the Kings and then sell them to Ranadive. That's crap, and I believe you know it.

Hansen put out $100M in the hopes he would be able to steal the Kings. Tough noogies. It's called speculation. If he loses his money, that's his problem. Much like investors in his hedge fund recently, he'll just have to learn to deal with the loss.

I'm out of the conversation because I think it's pointless. I'm going to continue to be optimistic until I have concrete reason not to be, just like you're going to continue to hope for a miracle until the Board of Governors makes their decision formal. I have gone through too much and waited far too long top second guess what pretty much every sports pundit not located in Seattle has to say. When even owners of other teams (not involved in the relocation committee vote) are contacting our minority owners to congratulate them on keeping the Kings, the die is cast.

 

[hoopster]

He doesn't. NBA teams are a franchise. Any sales or transfers are subject to league review and approval, much like the sale or transfer of a McDonald's would be subject to their Corporate review and approval.

Hansen has every right in the world to make an offer for a team. The Maloofs have every right to accept an offer for their team. That offer needs to be approved by the league. It's part of the franchise agreement.

Here's where its messy though, Maloofs own the Kings, its theirs, its not the NBA's. They are free to sell their asset to whoever they wish. The NBA orchestrated another offer that undermined a PSA that was signed by the two parties, and the finalization of the deal means is protected by law. So the NBA has the right to reject a sale, but a lawsuit could be filed on the basis that the NBA orchestrated a competitive offer that undermined another deal that was already finalized, it gets very gray. And thats where a potential secondary anti-trust suit (which could be just one big suit, who knows) could be filed, that the NBA operates itself NOT as a franchise but as a cartel, that tampers with the free market to get what it wants.

And the fact that the Ranadive offer isn't dime for dime exact to what Hansen's offer even makes a possible suit stronger against the NBA.

 

[Brac-o-matic]

The only thing I'm acknowledging is that its an immensely complicated ordeal. Hansen has the legal right to PURCHASE the Kings, that is backed by US law, even if he doesn't have the legal right to relocate the team. The framework to reject the Hansen sale is a legal gray area given he has a PSA, and the potential to file an anti-trust suit. So I'm merely trying to point out that a scenario exists where Hansen owns the team in Sacramento but can't relocate the team. And his motivation to do so would only be to pressure the league into expansion.

Like I said before, the league could have solved this whole mess ages ago if they expanded. Actually they could have solved both our cities ordeals if they just moved the black hole of the league in New Orleans to Oklahoma City instead 5 years ago, but thats another story.

This is far more simple than you think. In less then 2 weeks, the BoG will reject relocation. They will reject sale to Hanson/Ballmer. The same day, or soon after, they will approve a sale to Ranadive and Co. That is the ONLY realistic scenario here. Anything else is way out-there "what if" scenarios that have little to no basis in reality. Simple as that.

 

[hoopster]

No, you don't. You couldn't possibly.

Your team didn't suffer under the mismanagement of inept and dishonest owners for as far back as you could remember. You didn't see every single one of your favorite players AND COACH tossed aside either by not renewing a contract or making a crap trade under the guise of "flexibility" when in truth all they were doing was shedding salary in a blatant attempt to make the team moving acceptable.

You haven't had your heart ripped out with rumors of moves to Anaheim, Henderson (NV), Virginia Beach and...Seattle.

Yes, your team was sold but it was done above board. The fans knew it was going to happen. Once it did, and your city didn't step up with an arena deal (something I'm sure Clay Bennett was counting on), the Sonics were moved and rebranded as the Thunder.

You know the big, big, big difference? WE FOUGHT FOR OUR TEAM! And Chris Hansen acted more like a corporate raider trying to effect a hostile takeover than a legitimate business person trying to purchase an NBA team.

If Hansen wants an expansion team, he needs to quit acting like he has any right to our team and people like you need to quit coming here and telling us that he's owed something. You keep bringing up scenarios you know will be hurtful to us, such as the idea that Hansen will buy the Kings and then sell them to Ranadive. That's crap, and I believe you know it.

Hansen put out $100M in the hopes he would be able to steal the Kings. Tough noogies. It's called speculation. If he loses his money, that's his problem. Much like investors in his hedge fund recently, he'll just have to learn to deal with the loss.

I'm out of the conversation because I think it's pointless. I'm going to continue to be optimistic until I have concrete reason not to be, just like you're going to continue to hope for a miracle until the Board of Governors makes their decision formal. I have gone through too much and waited far too long top second guess what pretty much every sports pundit not located in Seattle has to say. When even owners of other teams (not involved in the relocation committee vote) are contacting our minority owners to congratulate them on keeping the Kings, the die is cast.

How is that crap? Like I said, I'm trying to talk through the reality of this whole ordeal intelligently with you all. The league isn't moving the Kings first off, they already voted against that. So if you find it hurtful that another person owns the Kings in YOUR city I'm sorry. This is a billion dollar deal with two parties at stake, its complicated. All I'm saying is that Hansen has a legal framework to work with right now to file litigation. I'm sorry if I insulted you, I'm not here to say I want your team, I'm here to have a discussion.

 

[hoopster]

This is far more simple than you think. In less then 2 weeks, the BoG will reject relocation. They will reject sale to Hanson/Ballmer. The same day, or soon after, they will approve a sale to Ranadive and Co. That is the ONLY realistic scenario here. Anything else is way out-there "what if" scenarios that have little to no basis in reality. Simple as that.

We'll see maybe they do maybe they dont. The only certainty is that you guys have your team in Sacramento, the only question is who will own it.

 

[Jose]

Here's where its messy though, Maloofs own the Kings, its theirs, its not the NBA's. They are free to sell their asset to whoever they wish.

Here's where you don't get it. The Maloofs own the Kings - a FRANCHISE under the NBA, which is subject to the NBA's rules and regulations. One of those rules is that the NBA has to approve any sale or relocation of its franchises, and has the RIGHT to reject any sale or relocation attempt. The Maloofs agreed to that when they purchased the Kings. There's no way around that.

 

[hoopster]

Here's where you don't get it. The Maloofs own the Kings - a FRANCHISE under the NBA, which is subject to the NBA's rules and regulations. One of those rules is that the NBA has to approve any sale or relocation of its franchises, and has the RIGHT to reject any sale or relocation attempt. The Maloofs agreed to that when they purchased the Kings. There's no way around that.

The NBA is free to reject whomever they want. I'm not disputing that.

What I'm talking about is that there was a signed deal that was just waiting to be approved, and the NBA orchestrated a secondary deal undermining the original deal prior to that original deal being rejected. If Hansen & Ballmer can prove that the NBA deliberately tampered with a finalized deal, then this violates US Competition law.

 

[spudfan]

We'll see maybe they do maybe they dont. The only certainty is that you guys have your team in Sacramento, the only question is who will own it.

Sigh. You are really missing the big picture here. I have read all your posts here and see a common theme among them all. You are continuing to put your trust behind a group of people who lied and mislead you. The same group who told you it was a done deal, and that the Sacramento Kings would be in Seattle next year were absolutely wrong. Now you still seam to be clinging to phrases such as binding deal, anti-trust, billion dollar deal, and so forth. I, like many others, feel Seattle should have a team and will probably get an expansion team in the near future. But you are barking up the wrong tree on this one. It makes ZERO sense for Hanson to own the Kings unless they are going to be moved. All of the rumblings behind the scenes say this doesn't look probable. There is still a chance the owners change their mind and vote for relocation, so if you want to cling to hope of something cling to that. The other stuff you are talking about is no more than journalists and reporters taking advantage of you by using buzz words to get the viewership numbers to try and stay relevant.

 

[funkykingston]

Signed agreement with the Maloofs or not, the fact remains that the committee's recommendation is that relocation be denied, something that in all likelihood will be finalized by an official vote in less than two weeks.

So while Hansen may say he still wants to own the Kings in Sacramento, the Ranadive group has an arena plan in Sacramento and Hansen does not. The Ranadive group owns the land the arena is proposed to be built on and Hansen does not. And most importantly, the agreement with the city requires a 30 year commitment to staying in Sacramento, something that Ranadive'd group has agreed to and which Hansen presumably would not.

The NBA want this saga resolved - not prolonged for years to come.

 

[Jose]

If Hansen & Ballmer can prove that the NBA deliberately tampered with a finalized deal, then this violates US Competition law.

Sure. However, the NBA has always been very careful about what they're doing: They've helped Sacramento put together a competitive backup offer (just like the Maloof said they would be willing to entertain). So, in case the Seattle sale/relocation isn't approved there will be a backup offer from a Sacramento group to buy the teams from the Maloofs.

This is not about two competing offers. The Seattle sale/relocation is being voted on. If it doesn't get approved, then the Maloofs have a backup offer from Sacramento.

 

[hoopster]

Sure. However, the NBA has always been very careful about what they're doing: They've helped Sacramento put together a competitive backup offer (just like the Maloof said they would be willing to entertain). So, in case the Seattle sale/relocation isn't approved there will be a backup offer from a Sacramento group to buy the teams from the Maloofs.

This is not about two competing offers. The Seattle sale/relocation is being voted on. If it doesn't get approved, then the Maloofs have a backup offer from Sacramento.

Yes but the NBA chose to orchestrate this secondary offer before that original offer was handled. Its manipulating the market, this is a free market society (or at least has to have the impression its a free market society). The NBA could have waited to reject the Seattle offer first, but that would have meant the team would have been sold for FAR FAR less in Sacramento. They wanted to use the opportunity to leverage a better local offer while booting out the Maloofs. Its market manipulation, plain and simple. I don't know if Hansen & Ballmer pursue litigation, but it would absolutely be a historic US court case if it was pursued, and even more historic if they won.

 

[annihilator_33]

The facts in this situation though are that the Hansen offer is above the Ranadive offer, there is a PSA agreement between Hansen & the Maloofs (giving Hansen some legal framework), the NBA has never voted against a sale for one of its teams, but the NBA also recommended not to relocate.

Larry Ellison was the highest bidder for both the Warriors and Hornets, his bid was rejected both times

 

[spudfan]

Please explain to me how you equate securing a back up offer to going against your definition of a "free market".

 

[Turgenev]

Yes but the NBA chose to orchestrate this secondary offer before that original offer was handled. Its manipulating the market, this is a free market society (or at least has to have the impression its a free market society). The NBA could have waited to reject the Seattle offer first, but that would have meant the team would have been sold for FAR FAR less in Sacramento. They wanted to use the opportunity to leverage a better local offer while booting out the Maloofs. Its market manipulation, plain and simple. I don't know if Hansen & Ballmer pursue litigation, but it would absolutely be a historic US court case if it was pursued, and even more historic if they won.

You are really clutching at straws.

What you have described is not market manipulation. Market manipulation involves producing non genuine offers in order to manipulate a price. Both offers are genuine. Therefore no market manipulation.

You have no credibility on this topic.

Vote is soon, why don't you just chill out for a while.