A Sonics fan's point of view

[Gary]

This all boils down to the Kings being a Franchise of a Corporation. None of us are privy to the papers they sign when becoming an owner, and none of us are privy to the rules when exiting (wanting to sell).

I can't even really argue with you about any one thing because you're totally all over the place with these tin foil hat theories. The bottom line is this....

1. The Kings are not going to Seattle. No vote has ever gone against recommendation. Ever....


2. Hansen will not own the Kings in Sacramento. Why? The NBA stated that there would have to be an arena Deal in place before accepting an agreement. Hansen does not own the land, and he's never been in any discussion with Sacramento. Hansen deal would be void once relocation is voted down and he would have to start over with Sacramento to make a new deal (which would include a 30-35 year lease which Hansen wouldn't go for). Not to mention there is already a backup binding offer in place so once the vote is in and the H/B deal is voided it automatically will go to the backup offer. Then if Hansen tried to get a deal with Sacramento he would in essence be doing the same thing that happened to him, and I don't think Sacramento would even want to deal with the same slime that tried to get a deal done behind their back. Hansen will not own a team here. PERIOD.


3. H/B will not be successful with a lawsuit. On what grounds would they even file on? That they wanted to buy a franchise but were turned down? That's the same as saying "hey look at me, I put a building over here that I wanted to turn into McDonalds" but then McDonalds turning down your franchise request because they don't want a McDonalds there. "But.... but..... I already built the building and spent my own money!!!" McDonalds-"Tough luck fella.. You should have done all that before getting approval."


4. If H/B went the lawsuit direction then they wouldn't be allowed to own a team ever. Sue the guys you want a favor from in the future. Yah that's a way to make friends with people that have to VOTE you in.


Another analogy is like political office. You spend all this money to get the votes but you are never guaranteed them so in the end you could have nothing. Hansen went into the VOTE knowing full well that he might not get the votes and still decided on HIS OWN FREE WILL to spend HIS OWN money. Now he's upset? geee.. duhhhh Hansen, maybe you shouldn't have done that.

 

[Jose]

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.

It is not a secondary offer. It is a backup offer in case the Seattle offer is not approved.

KJ asked the BoG to allow them to make a presentation that Sacramento was a viable market, so relocating the team should not be allowed. That effort included putting together an investment group capable of presenting an offer to buy the team and keep it in town. The Maloofs agreed to entertain backup offers. KJ has worked together with the league to make sure that the backup offer would be one that would meet the league's expectations so there would be no need to renegotiate if the Seattle offer was rejected. All parties would be "whole" (Maloofs don't lose money, Hansen gets his deposit).

There is only ONE offer being voted on - the Seattle offer. When that offer is rejected, there is a backup offer on the table. Again, this is not about competing offers. It's about a backup offer, which happens to prove the viability of the market (and the confidence of quite a few billionaires in that market).

I'm not sure how you can continue to insist that the league has done something wrong. KJ was given a chance to prove that Sacramento is a viable market and should not lose its team. He did, so the relocation committee recommended against moving the team. Now the only remaining issue is whether it makes sense to approve a transfer of ownership to an out-of-town investment group with NO arena plan for Sacramento, NO ties to this market and NO interest in keeping the team in this market and very clearly stated intentions of doing WHATEVER IT TAKES to move the team to Seattle. Why on earth would the league approve that?

 

[Kingsfan23]

hoopster, David Stern is a step ahead of you, and he's a step ahead of Chris Hansen and Steve Ballmer, he's not going to put himself in a compromising position over keeping the Kings in Sacramento

 

[Warhawk]

Hoopster, others have laid out much of the argument, but here is something to chew on.

The "binding" deal from Seattle - it isn't binding. It can't be. It wasn't approved by the NBA BOG. Hansen can call it a super-duper-pinkie-shake-Superglue deal. Doesn't matter in the least. Until an offer is approved by the NBA, it is just that, an offer. A proposal. Whatever you want to call it. The "binding" part just meant that the Maloofs couldn't actively search for competing offers. It was only binding to the Maloofs, NOT the NBA. And it doesn't matter if they gave money to the Maloofs or not (and let that be a lesson to everyone, NEVER give money to the Maloofs until ALL parties have signed off on something).

Again, to use the McDonalds example - you can go to a McDonalds owner and have him sign anything you want and give him a billion dollars. Doesn't matter unless McD's corporate signs off on it, otherwise you just threw your money out the window.

You really need to learn how the NBA works before you go spouting off on nonsense hypotheticals and non-existing options.

That is, in fact, what got Hansen in a jam here. They tried to back-door the NBA. You don't back-door Stern or Sacramento. We've been through that before. You will just get your a** handed back to you on a platter.

Hope you like the taste of roasted a**.

 

[Glenn]

I started to read this thread as I respect hoopster. However it began to drift into "what ifs" that simply could not happen. The last few notes are to the point. If I were to take part in this, I would ask first what the 7-0 vote against relocation means. That vote is a fact and a good place to start flitting off into conjecture. In all liklihood, the unanimous recommendation to bar relocation to Seattle will be followed by the rest of the BoG. The fact that it is unanimous has import as it is a solid recommendation.

So what next? Let us say the entire BoG votes down the relocation. Why would they do that? Why would the relocation committee vote down the relocation?

If you want to be an owner in a league, you must agree to play by the league's rules.

 

[kupman]

I started to read this thread as I respect hoopster. However it began to drift into "what ifs" that simply could not happen. The last few notes are to the point. If I were to take part in this, I would ask first what the 7-0 vote against relocation means. That vote is a fact and a good place to start flitting off into conjecture. In all liklihood, the unanimous recommendation to bar relocation to Seattle will be followed by the rest of the BoG. The fact that it is unanimous has import as it is a solid recommendation.

So what next? Let us say the entire BoG votes down the relocation. Why would they do that? Why would the relocation committee vote down the relocation?

If you want to be an owner in a league, you must agree to play by the league's rules.

Yeah, this whole thread is more than just a little bit "out there."

 

[Kingsfan23]

I started to read this thread as I respect hoopster. However it began to drift into "what ifs" that simply could not happen. The last few notes are to the point. If I were to take part in this, I would ask first what the 7-0 vote against relocation means. That vote is a fact and a good place to start flitting off into conjecture. In all liklihood, the unanimous recommendation to bar relocation to Seattle will be followed by the rest of the BoG. The fact that it is unanimous has import as it is a solid recommendation.

So what next? Let us say the entire BoG votes down the relocation. Why would they do that? Why would the relocation committee vote down the relocation?

If you want to be an owner in a league, you must agree to play by the league's rules.

From what I've seen I like hoopster as well. Civil, has proper empathy for us losing the Kings (unlike 85% of Sonics fans I've read), and I understand the need for his emphasis on the legal actions of Hansen/Ballmer.. Thats the only way, a Sonics fan, who was preparing for basketball in his market soon, still has that glimmer of hope (even though I disagree with the approach of legal action for Hansen/Ballmer)

 

[Chupacabra]

I can definitely see the nba giving Seattle an expansion team. With the appearance of Hansen/balmer Seattle certainly seems to be next in line for an NBA team. As for Hansen/Balmer being ALLOWED to buy the kings....NO. Not after Sacramento and the NBA have gone to such great lengths to make sure that the Kings stay in Sacramento for a LONG time.

 

[Glenn]

So if Hansen wins a law suit and owns the Kings, that doesn't mean the NBA has to approve it. Therefore H/B would own an NBA team but belong in no league. As stupid as that sounds, it makes as much sense as a lot I have read. Also, H/B would have no arena. Maybe H/B could buy an old building in Turlock or something and play AAU teams.

 

[hoopster]

The NBA won't discuss expansion though, Seattle absolutely 100% deserves expansion, except the league is using Seattle to leverage its other cities, which is not right. Which is why I hope Ballmer uses possible litigation to force expansion. Even if everyone here believes there is no case that exists, if anyone can make an anti-trust case against the NBA its Steve Ballmer and his Microsoft lawyers. And even if its a losing case, the league still loses because they'd have to open up their books, open up emails, open up a lot of things the league wants to keep quiet. So this kind of legal pressure on the league could still force expansion.

The league used Seattle to leverage Sacramento into paying a higher price for the team, I don't think for a second Hansen or Ballmer pursued this path without getting a wink or two from the league office. And to be honest, I think if Ballmer pursues litigation, its purely to spite the NBA, because even if Seattle plays nice I don't think the NBA is returning for a decade at minimum. Seattle should have forced the league into honoring its lease in 2008, the Sonics would still be there because I think the economic conditions (the economy falling off a cliff) would have forced him into selling. The past is the past, and the people did speak, for all the people who say Seattle should have stepped up in the past, the voters of Seattle booted out Nickels and brought in a guy more pro-Sonics.

At the end of the day, I truly believe the relocation committee voted the way they did because Sacramento put up more public funding than Seattle. I just don't understand why the NBA has to go to the lengths of pushing for basically bankruptcy in order to get its way. At the very least, EVERY single NBA team that puts money into funding a public arena should have equity in the team they are funding. Every NBA, NFL, and MLB team should demand equity if they're going to fund an arena. Its just not right the way all these professional sporting leagues operate, from a fan perspective and from a taxpayer perspective. I think all of us can agree on that point.

 

[Section 101]

The NBA won't discuss expansion though, Seattle absolutely 100% deserves expansion, except the league is using Seattle to leverage its other cities, which is not right. Which is why I hope Ballmer uses possible litigation to force expansion. Even if everyone here believes there is no case that exists, if anyone can make an anti-trust case against the NBA its Steve Ballmer and his Microsoft lawyers. And even if its a losing case, the league still loses because they'd have to open up their books, open up emails, open up a lot of things the league wants to keep quiet. So this kind of legal pressure on the league could still force expansion.

The league used Seattle to leverage Sacramento into paying a higher price for the team, I don't think for a second Hansen or Ballmer pursued this path without getting a wink or two from the league office. And to be honest, I think if Ballmer pursues litigation, its purely to spite the NBA, because even if Seattle plays nice I don't think the NBA is returning for a decade at minimum. Seattle should have forced the league into honoring its lease in 2008, the Sonics would still be there because I think the economic conditions (the economy falling off a cliff) would have forced him into selling. The past is the past, and the people did speak, for all the people who say Seattle should have stepped up in the past, the voters of Seattle booted out Nickels and brought in a guy more pro-Sonics.

At the end of the day, I truly believe the relocation committee voted the way they did because Sacramento put up more public funding than Seattle. I just don't understand why the NBA has to go to the lengths of pushing for basically bankruptcy in order to get its way. At the very least, EVERY single NBA team that puts money into funding a public arena should have equity in the team they are funding. Every NBA, NFL, and MLB team should demand equity if they're going to fund an arena. Its just not right the way all these professional sporting leagues operate, from a fan perspective and from a taxpayer perspective. I think all of us can agree on that point.

They can't say anything about expansion until Vek gets control of the team. After that you will hear about expansion.

If Ballmer sues Seattle will never get an NBA team again. His Microsoft lawyers work for Microsoft not him personally. In fact, Microsoft's board thinks he's wasting his time on the NBA when he should be focusing on Microsoft.

 

[hoopster]

I started to read this thread as I respect hoopster. However it began to drift into "what ifs" that simply could not happen. The last few notes are to the point. If I were to take part in this, I would ask first what the 7-0 vote against relocation means. That vote is a fact and a good place to start flitting off into conjecture. In all liklihood, the unanimous recommendation to bar relocation to Seattle will be followed by the rest of the BoG. The fact that it is unanimous has import as it is a solid recommendation.

So what next? Let us say the entire BoG votes down the relocation. Why would they do that? Why would the relocation committee vote down the relocation?

If you want to be an owner in a league, you must agree to play by the league's rules.

Listen all I'm saying is the ultimate outcome is still up in the air, nothing has been set in stone, all we know is that the league wants the Kings in Sacramento. I'll eat my words if I'm wrong here, but all I"m saying is owners are voting against their own business interests to vote down the Hansen deal, even if it comes with stipulations requiring he build an arena and being forced to sell if he fails to do so. Which makes it possible that Hansen ends up owning the team. Hansen can't burn his bridges in Sacramento like Bennett because he's already shown his hand. He can't conspire because everyone already knows his intentions. And again, for Hansen, its at least a foot in the door to the NBA even if the team stays in Sacramento. That would buy him at least some leverage (first off a vote for expansion) to ultimately get the league to expand.

And if Hansen is rejected, the possibility of a lawsuit, which remains a possibility, could force the league's hand enough to expand.

The most unlikely outcome is that Hansen and Ballmer walk away from this project $100 million poorer waiting around for the next available team, which is the Bucks, who are not for sale, whose lease doesn't expire until 2017. That to me is really the least likely outcome.

 

[hoopster]

They can't say anything about expansion until Vek gets control of the team. After that you will hear about expansion.

If Ballmer sues Seattle will never get an NBA team again. His Microsoft lawyers work for Microsoft not him personally. In fact, Microsoft's board thinks he's wasting his time on the NBA when he should be focusing on Microsoft.

Ballmer is worth $15 billion, you don't think he could pay for his Microsoft lawyers out of his own pocket?

And even if Ballmer doesn't sue the league, I still don't believe the NBA will bring basketball back to Seattle for another decade, and how would they? So what is there to lose? Unless there is iron clad legal assurances that expansion will happen on such and such date, the league can't leave the Seattle situation up in the air after the vote.

 

[hoopster]

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

There is a big difference from a bid being rejected, and a signed and agreed sale being rejected.

You're right, Ellison has had his bids turned down but Ellison never got past that point, he never actually had a sale get rejected. Owners have never voted down a sale.

 

[VF21]

Never mind. Arguing this any further is pointless.

 

[Kingsfan23]

There is a big difference from a bid being rejected, and a signed and agreed sale being rejected.

You're right, Ellison has had his bids turned down but Ellison never got past that point, he never actually had a sale get rejected. Owners have never voted down a sale.

Well they need to, because its a precedent that desperately needs to be set, unless you want a corrupt system of musical chairs with franchises.. wealthy outsiders coming in, and overvaluing franchises and paying for exorbitant sums of money so they can relocate teams to the locations of their choice would ruin the integrity of the game, to say the least. If it never came up until now, there was never pond scum like the Maloofs and wealthy outside poachers like HBN working together to immediately move a team from its deciated fanbase, and that shouldnt be tolerated in the future. If this sets the precedent, it needs to be set and will be set

 

[Widowmaker2k]

Listen all I'm saying is the ultimate outcome is still up in the air, nothing has been set in stone, all we know is that the league wants the Kings in Sacramento. I'll eat my words if I'm wrong here, but all I"m saying is owners are voting against their own business interests to vote down the Hansen deal, even if it comes with stipulations requiring he build an arena and being forced to sell if he fails to do so. Which makes it possible that Hansen ends up owning the team. Hansen can't burn his bridges in Sacramento like Bennett because he's already shown his hand. He can't conspire because everyone already knows his intentions. And again, for Hansen, its at least a foot in the door to the NBA even if the team stays in Sacramento. That would buy him at least some leverage (first off a vote for expansion) to ultimately get the league to expand.

And if Hansen is rejected, the possibility of a lawsuit, which remains a possibility, could force the league's hand enough to expand.

The most unlikely outcome is that Hansen and Ballmer walk away from this project $100 million poorer waiting around for the next available team, which is the Bucks, who are not for sale, whose lease doesn't expire until 2017. That to me is really the least likely outcome.

I think the least likely outcome is the NBA approving the sale to Hansen, precisely because everybody knows what his intentions are. Sacramento only needs 8 votes to block the sale to Hansen, the NBA has clearly showed they want to keep the Kings, and prolonging the Sacramento Kings relocation saga is far worse PR than an anti-trust lawsuit.

 

[Jose]

Hoopster, I know you're hopeful that something will happen in Seattle's favor. But, quite frankly, once the sale is rejected and OUR team is secure in the hands of Vivek, I doubt anyone here cares if Hansen and the NBA are tied up in litigation for the next 100 years. Or if Hansen wants to drag the Maloofs into the litigation - even better as far as we're concerned.

The point is, as far as we (Sacramento fans) are concerned this is nearly a done deal. The committee recommended no relocation and the BoG will follow suit. Once that happens the "binding" agreement becomes void and the only offer in the table is the one from the Sacramento team (which also happens to be "binding"). You know what happens then. Any other "alternatives" brought up are just wishful thinking on the part of fans wanting a team in their city, no matter how it gets there. They are going to be shut down very quickly - this is, after all, a Kings fans board. And full of very smart people who are well informed on what's been going on. Remember, we've lived with the Maloofs for years. We've lived this saga and know what's happened, what they've done, what the city has done, what the NBA has done, etc... We didn't just fall into this saga in January.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. You seem like a smart person - your post are articulate and mostly syntactically correct, which is way beyond the average internet poster. But you continue to ignore or brush off what everybody else in here is saying and keep going back to the same lawsuit argument. Or the same "whatever it takes" mentality that we've seen from other Seattle fans. Please believe me when I say most people aroud here wish Seattle could have their team but not at the expense of ours. A lot of people are getting tired, though, and this whole "WE BOUGHT THE TEAM IT'S OURS BECAUSE WE HAVE A CONTRACT AND WE'LL FIGHT TO THE DEATH" thing is getting old. Do some reading from neutral sources if you don't trust what is being said here. You'll soon realize the value of that "binding" contract is as much as the Maloof's word... ZERO

 

[Gary]

Listen all I'm saying is the ultimate outcome is still up in the air, nothing has been set in stone, all we know is that the league wants the Kings in Sacramento. I'll eat my words if I'm wrong here, but all I"m saying is owners are voting against their own business interests to vote down the Hansen deal, even if it comes with stipulations requiring he build an arena and being forced to sell if he fails to do so. Which makes it possible that Hansen ends up owning the team. Hansen can't burn his bridges in Sacramento like Bennett because he's already shown his hand. He can't conspire because everyone already knows his intentions. And again, for Hansen, its at least a foot in the door to the NBA even if the team stays in Sacramento. That would buy him at least some leverage (first off a vote for expansion) to ultimately get the league to expand.

And if Hansen is rejected, the possibility of a lawsuit, which remains a possibility, could force the league's hand enough to expand.

The most unlikely outcome is that Hansen and Ballmer walk away from this project $100 million poorer waiting around for the next available team, which is the Bucks, who are not for sale, whose lease doesn't expire until 2017. That to me is really the least likely outcome.

I understand what you are trying to say but there is NO scenario in which this happens. Hansen can NOT own the team in Sacramento even if he has "good faith" intentions. First of all he would have to re-do his ENTIRE agreement over again with the Maloofs/Sacramento without his moneyman behind him I.E. Balmer to include the arena, and 35 year lease with that new arena, and also have to backdoor Vivek, which is something Sacramento is NOT willing to do. Basically since relocation is voted for FIRST then when they decide to keep the Kings in Sacramento Hansen's agreement is voided. So he would have to negotiate with Sac/Maloofs again while Vivek's deal is out there (as the only deal left so you backdoor Vivek which Sac wont do), not to mention, where will they decide to put the arena? Rail Yards again?

There is no way this can happen. I really wish Seattle people would stop talking about that, because it's a total pipe dream, and unrealistic.

 

[Gary]

There is a big difference from a bid being rejected, and a signed and agreed sale being rejected.

You're right, Ellison has had his bids turned down but Ellison never got past that point, he never actually had a sale get rejected. Owners have never voted down a sale.

Yah and Ellison didn't try to backdoor the NBA and Oakland getting a signed deal from the owners at the time.

If Hansen did everything by the books then he would have been rejected just like Ellison.

 

[Section 101]

Ballmer is worth $15 billion, you don't think he could pay for his Microsoft lawyers out of his own pocket?

And even if Ballmer doesn't sue the league, I still don't believe the NBA will bring basketball back to Seattle for another decade, and how would they? So what is there to lose? Unless there is iron clad legal assurances that expansion will happen on such and such date, the league can't leave the Seattle situation up in the air after the vote.

Nope, that's a conflict of interest.

 

[Gary]

I really would like to know this as well...... What is H/B going to even sue for? What's the basis of their argument? Why do Seattle people hold on to both of the notions that they can sue, and Hansen can sabotage the Sac market for a year or two then file for relocation?

I would seriously like to get someone's take on those arguments I constantly hear from Seattle.

 

[hoopster]

Well they need to, because its a precedent that desperately needs to be set, unless you want a corrupt system of musical chairs with franchises.. wealthy outsiders coming in, and overvaluing franchises and paying for exorbitant sums of money so they can relocate teams to the locations of their choice would ruin the integrity of the game, to say the least. If it never came up until now, there was never pond scum like the Maloofs and wealthy outside poachers like HBN working together to immediately move a team from its deciated fanbase, and that shouldnt be tolerated in the future. If this sets the precedent, it needs to be set and will be set

Lol its already corrupt! Its been corrupt for a very, very long time.

Maloofs aren't the first bad owners and certainly aren't the last.

Shinn had a high profile sexual harassment lawsuit slapped on him back in the 1990s. Bennett/McClendon pillaged the Sonics, not to mention McClendon embezzled funds in 2011 in his actual corporate company (which by the way makes its money through fracking, which is highly controversial in itself). And Donald Sterling, probably the worst of them all, a slumlord, and certified racist, who ran his team into the ground for two decades, and openly discriminates against hispanics and black people in his business life.

If these guys aren't corrupt/nasty human beings, I don't know who is. Not to mention Stern, who two years ago bought the Hornets, then rejected a fair value trade from Chris Paul because it directly went against his argument for the CBA. Not to mention for over 20 years the NBA is behind the scenes determining the lottery results for the #1 pick.

Corruption is going to hang around this league for a very long time. I don't expect Silver to be any better.

 

[hoopster]

I really would like to know this as well...... What is H/B going to even sue for? What's the basis of their argument? Why do Seattle people hold on to both of the notions that they can sue, and Hansen can sabotage the Sac market for a year or two then file for relocation?

I would seriously like to get someone's take on those arguments I constantly hear from Seattle.

Read my previous posts

 

[hoopster]

Hoopster, I know you're hopeful that something will happen in Seattle's favor. But, quite frankly, once the sale is rejected and OUR team is secure in the hands of Vivek, I doubt anyone here cares if Hansen and the NBA are tied up in litigation for the next 100 years. Or if Hansen wants to drag the Maloofs into the litigation - even better as far as we're concerned.

The point is, as far as we (Sacramento fans) are concerned this is nearly a done deal. The committee recommended no relocation and the BoG will follow suit. Once that happens the "binding" agreement becomes void and the only offer in the table is the one from the Sacramento team (which also happens to be "binding"). You know what happens then. Any other "alternatives" brought up are just wishful thinking on the part of fans wanting a team in their city, no matter how it gets there. They are going to be shut down very quickly - this is, after all, a Kings fans board. And full of very smart people who are well informed on what's been going on. Remember, we've lived with the Maloofs for years. We've lived this saga and know what's happened, what they've done, what the city has done, what the NBA has done, etc... We didn't just fall into this saga in January.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. You seem like a smart person - your post are articulate and mostly syntactically correct, which is way beyond the average internet poster. But you continue to ignore or brush off what everybody else in here is saying and keep going back to the same lawsuit argument. Or the same "whatever it takes" mentality that we've seen from other Seattle fans. Please believe me when I say most people aroud here wish Seattle could have their team but not at the expense of ours. A lot of people are getting tired, though, and this whole "WE BOUGHT THE TEAM IT'S OURS BECAUSE WE HAVE A CONTRACT AND WE'LL FIGHT TO THE DEATH" thing is getting old. Do some reading from neutral sources if you don't trust what is being said here. You'll soon realize the value of that "binding" contract is as much as the Maloof's word... ZERO

You're right, a litigation case is not your problem. But people have brought up lawsuits in other threads so I was just bringing up why Hansen/Ballmer would be motivated to file a lawsuit. I don't have any purpose here, I merely am discussing this with you all because I get a better perspective.

 

[Jose]

Not to mention for over 20 years the NBA is behind the scenes determining the lottery results for the #1 pick...

Thanks for the laugh... this explains a lot!

 

[Gary]

Read my previous posts

I did and what you had said does not make a lick of sense in the real world. I think I am done with this thread.. Everything you had said is laughable.

 

[VF21]

I did and what you had said does not make a lick of sense in the real world. I think I am done with this thread.. Everything you had said is laughable.

Welcome to my world. The circular logic being spouted by Sonics fans can make you very dizzy. The only way to survive is to step off the merry-go-round.

 

[spudfan]

The league used Seattle to leverage Sacramento into paying a higher price for the team, I don't think for a second Hansen or Ballmer pursued this path without getting a wink or two from the league office. And to be honest, I think if Ballmer pursues litigation, its purely to spite the NBA, because even if Seattle plays nice I don't think the NBA is returning for a decade at minimum. Seattle should have forced the league into honoring its lease in 2008, the Sonics would still be there because I think the economic conditions (the economy falling off a cliff) would have forced him into selling. The past is the past, and the people did speak, for all the people who say Seattle should have stepped up in the past, the voters of Seattle booted out Nickels and brought in a guy more pro-Sonics.

This is absolutely wrong and untrue. The league was working WITH Sacramento and the Maloofs BEFORE Seattle was even in the picture. We had an Arena deal with the Maloofs that was supported by Sacramento, The Maloofs and the NBA. If the Maloofs didn't back out we would most likely have an arena under construction right now and none of this nonsense would be going on. It was the MALOOF family that has been trying to first use a move to Las Vegas, then a move to Anaheim, then a move to Virginia Beach, and finally a move to Seattle as leverage to RAISE the selling price of the team. That nonsense had ZERO to do with the NBA, as history has clearly shown that the NBA was and is on Sacramento's side in getting a new arena built while improving the team.

This attitude from many Seattle fans like you that the NBA is out to get them is silly. The NBA doesn't owe you anything. The NBA didn't screw you over. You got burned the first time because you didn't (or couldn't) get an arena built. A lot of that was due to a bad owner, some of it had to do with Seattle. This time around it was the MALOOFS who screwed you over by offering something that they did not have the ability to deliver. And it is ALSO Hansen's fault for believing they could deliver on something they had no control over. I am sorry the fans of Seattle got a small taste of the way the Maloof family does business. Their "me first" attitude used your fans, as well as many other cities in order to make a few more bucks. The fans of Sacramento know quite well how they operate.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Thanks for the laugh... this explains a lot!

Yep, I was about to say the same thing!