Monday will be crazy and other news, rumors, etc.
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
FWIW, I talked to the business partner of one of the NEW minority owners for the Kings. Couple things of note.
1.) His money has been with the league for a couple weeks.
2.) Most of the $1MM owners have put in between $1.5 - $5MM, there are 30 of them.
3.) From their conversations with the NBA over the past two weeks, all indications to them have been that this is a done deal and has been for some time.
4.) Most, if not all of the local $1MM owners are not investing in the Kings to make money with the Kings. They are doing it because the Kings staying local is good for their businesses. They expect to make the money elsewhere.
5.) The reports of the financial vetting of the owners is 100% true, most they have ever gone through for any business transaction in their careers.
1.) His money has been with the league for a couple weeks.
2.) Most of the $1MM owners have put in between $1.5 - $5MM, there are 30 of them.
3.) From their conversations with the NBA over the past two weeks, all indications to them have been that this is a done deal and has been for some time.
4.) Most, if not all of the local $1MM owners are not investing in the Kings to make money with the Kings. They are doing it because the Kings staying local is good for their businesses. They expect to make the money elsewhere.
5.) The reports of the financial vetting of the owners is 100% true, most they have ever gone through for any business transaction in their careers.
Dave has recommended another article to read: http://www.nba.com/2013/news/featur...-qa-manu-ginobili/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt6c
Scroll down past the Warriors article, which is good but not what we're on the edge of our seats about. Read the "Nobody Asked Me, But..." stuff. It's amazing how much homework these sports guys are having to do to catch up with their readers.
And Aldridge still finds ways to misrepresent and get parts of it wrong.
EDIT: The latter part of the article addresses the potential for lawsuits and actually does a pretty good job explaining that area of the problem. Aldridge seems convinced there aren't any real issues for litigation.
Scroll down past the Warriors article, which is good but not what we're on the edge of our seats about. Read the "Nobody Asked Me, But..." stuff. It's amazing how much homework these sports guys are having to do to catch up with their readers.
And Aldridge still finds ways to misrepresent and get parts of it wrong.EDIT: The latter part of the article addresses the potential for lawsuits and actually does a pretty good job explaining that area of the problem. Aldridge seems convinced there aren't any real issues for litigation.
Last edited:
Dave has recommended another article to read: http://www.nba.com/2013/news/featur...-qa-manu-ginobili/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt6c
Scroll down past the Warriors article, which is good but not what we're on the edge of our seats about. Read the "Nobody Asked Me, But..." stuff. It's amazing how much homework these sports guys are having to do to catch up with their readers. And Aldridge still finds ways to misrepresent and get parts of it wrong.
EDIT: The latter part of the article addresses the potential for lawsuits and actually does a pretty good job explaining that area of the problem. Aldridge seems convinced there aren't any real issues for litigation.
Scroll down past the Warriors article, which is good but not what we're on the edge of our seats about. Read the "Nobody Asked Me, But..." stuff. It's amazing how much homework these sports guys are having to do to catch up with their readers.
And Aldridge still finds ways to misrepresent and get parts of it wrong.EDIT: The latter part of the article addresses the potential for lawsuits and actually does a pretty good job explaining that area of the problem. Aldridge seems convinced there aren't any real issues for litigation.
Last edited:
I do find it interesting that most of the national writers predict the same end result: Kings stay and Maloofs go. But the predictions on the process to getting there varies a bit. I personally am finely off the ledge from worrying that the Maloofs would follow up a compete scorched earth camping on Hanesn's behalf. As cooler minds have repeatedly pointed out there is no reason to believe the Maloofs have not been at some level working with the Local group behind H/B's back... it would be classic Maloof. They may not even know how to only make one deal at a time. So despite what H/B have planned here they may well find themselves Maloofed as the boys take the check and run.
Regardless, I remain sure that the Best interest in the league clause is probably no going to be needed. There are several steps below that the league take that will make not accepting the local offer extremely painful. I still suspect there will be a a law suite or 10 here but they will have no impact on the new owners, the team or next season.
Regardless, I remain sure that the Best interest in the league clause is probably no going to be needed. There are several steps below that the league take that will make not accepting the local offer extremely painful. I still suspect there will be a a law suite or 10 here but they will have no impact on the new owners, the team or next season.
ORIGINAL RELOCATION RECOMMENDATION WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED, ACCORDING TO CD!!
Just posted on this twitter acct.
https://twitter.com/CarmichaelDave
Just posted on this twitter acct.
https://twitter.com/CarmichaelDave
original recommendation remains unchanged, according to CD
CarmichaelDave Original relocation recommendation will remain unchanged. That's an important piece of news going into Wednesday.
CarmichaelDave Original relocation recommendation will remain unchanged. That's an important piece of news going into Wednesday.
Great news
CarmichaelDave Original relocation recommendation will remain unchanged. That's an important piece of news going into Wednesday.
I agree it is the nuclear option, but as such it NEVER has to be 'put out there" because it is always "back there" in the minds of owners when negotiating with the league. But as with most final and extreme options once used there is no more escalation, you are at the end. And since it has never been used it also has never been challenged in court so IF the NBA uses it they KNOW it will be challenged. If the challenge fails great you stick just got bigger, but there is a chance that courts will NOT support it. On it's face you are essentially depriving some one of their property. Lost of non-sports groups may jump on that band wagon.
Better to keep it back until you HAVE to use it. They can simply and clearly deny the move, the sale and the back up from H/B and then lay down the law: "The Maloofs debt is due, the league will not profit share, the current offer from the locals had an short exasperation date, here is a list of problems at STA that must immediately be fixed, and unofficially you are shunned, no team will trade with you, you KNOW your arena will be completely empty, and no disciplinary action will be taken against players who refuse to report. Now have you reconsidered?"
Better to keep it back until you HAVE to use it. They can simply and clearly deny the move, the sale and the back up from H/B and then lay down the law: "The Maloofs debt is due, the league will not profit share, the current offer from the locals had an short exasperation date, here is a list of problems at STA that must immediately be fixed, and unofficially you are shunned, no team will trade with you, you KNOW your arena will be completely empty, and no disciplinary action will be taken against players who refuse to report. Now have you reconsidered?"
Recap from Twitter (read from bottom up):
Dave Lack (Fireplug) @DaveLack 6m
Unfortunately for Seattle, GETTING team has more requirements than KEEPING team, & there is no team available since Sac meeting requirements
Dave Lack (Fireplug) Dave Lack (Fireplug) @DaveLack 8m
3 keys to gaining team: Financially stable ownership group, willing community arena partnership & TEAM AVAILABLE FROM CITY WITHOUT 1 OR 2.
Dave Lack (Fireplug) Dave Lack (Fireplug) @DaveLack 9m
Two keys to keeping team in an NBA city: Financially stable ownership group & community willing to partner to maintain modern arena.
Dave Lack (Fireplug) Dave Lack (Fireplug) @DaveLack 9m
As public service to those not "getting it" after NBA spelled it out, going to simplify keys to keeping/getting team, w/ no expansion avail.
Carmichael Dave Carmichael Dave @CarmichaelDave 17m
Original relocation recommendation will remain unchanged. That's an important piece of news going into Wednesday.
Dave Lack (Fireplug) @DaveLack 6m
Unfortunately for Seattle, GETTING team has more requirements than KEEPING team, & there is no team available since Sac meeting requirements
Dave Lack (Fireplug) Dave Lack (Fireplug) @DaveLack 8m
3 keys to gaining team: Financially stable ownership group, willing community arena partnership & TEAM AVAILABLE FROM CITY WITHOUT 1 OR 2.
Dave Lack (Fireplug) Dave Lack (Fireplug) @DaveLack 9m
Two keys to keeping team in an NBA city: Financially stable ownership group & community willing to partner to maintain modern arena.
Dave Lack (Fireplug) Dave Lack (Fireplug) @DaveLack 9m
As public service to those not "getting it" after NBA spelled it out, going to simplify keys to keeping/getting team, w/ no expansion avail.
Carmichael Dave Carmichael Dave @CarmichaelDave 17m
Original relocation recommendation will remain unchanged. That's an important piece of news going into Wednesday.
And more:
Dave Lack (Fireplug) @DaveLack 1m
"@SPTSJUNKIE: Hurt Seattle peeps keep seeing this as Seattle-centric process. Not. Sac-centric. Incumbent has advantage." Yup, clear is case
Dave Lack (Fireplug) Dave Lack (Fireplug) @DaveLack 4m
"@putupyourDukes: @DaveLack @AL_NorCal Smart cities don't subsidize billionaires." That is a city's prerogative, but then they lose team.
Dave Lack (Fireplug) Dave Lack (Fireplug) @DaveLack 4m
"@putupyourDukes: @DaveLack @AL_NorCal One big requirement left. Maloofs agreeing to sell." Think you will soon find that isnt an issue.
Dave Lack (Fireplug) Dave Lack (Fireplug) @DaveLack 6m
Seattle in 06-08 failed completely on the community partnership for arena part, and was too late on the finding local stable ownership part
Dave Lack (Fireplug) @DaveLack 1m
"@SPTSJUNKIE: Hurt Seattle peeps keep seeing this as Seattle-centric process. Not. Sac-centric. Incumbent has advantage." Yup, clear is case
Dave Lack (Fireplug) Dave Lack (Fireplug) @DaveLack 4m
"@putupyourDukes: @DaveLack @AL_NorCal Smart cities don't subsidize billionaires." That is a city's prerogative, but then they lose team.
Dave Lack (Fireplug) Dave Lack (Fireplug) @DaveLack 4m
"@putupyourDukes: @DaveLack @AL_NorCal One big requirement left. Maloofs agreeing to sell." Think you will soon find that isnt an issue.
Dave Lack (Fireplug) Dave Lack (Fireplug) @DaveLack 6m
Seattle in 06-08 failed completely on the community partnership for arena part, and was too late on the finding local stable ownership part
Two ways this new meeting is being reported.
CD #1 (Carmichael Dave) is phrasing it "original recommendation will remain unchanged"
CD #2 (Chris Daniels) is phrasing it "no recommendation made on the Kings"
There is a significant difference in the meaning of those two phrases. Unfortunately both CDs are prone to spinning and leaving out the occasional inconvenient word if it helps their point. But CD#1 has been a lot closer to the truth of the matter in this one from the beginning, so I'm going to assume that CD#2 conveniently dropped the word "new" from in front of recommendation in his version.
CD #1 (Carmichael Dave) is phrasing it "original recommendation will remain unchanged"
CD #2 (Chris Daniels) is phrasing it "no recommendation made on the Kings"
There is a significant difference in the meaning of those two phrases. Unfortunately both CDs are prone to spinning and leaving out the occasional inconvenient word if it helps their point. But CD#1 has been a lot closer to the truth of the matter in this one from the beginning, so I'm going to assume that CD#2 conveniently dropped the word "new" from in front of recommendation in his version.
Twitter:
Aaron Bruski @aaronbruski 1m Small tidbit. I'm told Chris Hansen's land use attorney Jack McCullough will speak tomorrow before the relo committee.
So Hansen is still trying to convince them to relocate the team, probably by trying to shoot down the Sacramento arena deal.
Just think, fellow Kings fans. In less than 72 hours, this will all be part of the "Hey, remember when Seattle thought they were going to get a team? Any team?" part of our collective memories...and no longer a topic for any kind of active discussion. :
Aaron Bruski @aaronbruski 1m Small tidbit. I'm told Chris Hansen's land use attorney Jack McCullough will speak tomorrow before the relo committee.
So Hansen is still trying to convince them to relocate the team, probably by trying to shoot down the Sacramento arena deal.
Just think, fellow Kings fans. In less than 72 hours, this will all be part of the "Hey, remember when Seattle thought they were going to get a team? Any team?" part of our collective memories...and no longer a topic for any kind of active discussion. :
well, i'm inclined to believe cd#1 simply because a recommendation has already been made on the kings. so, if no news of a recommendation is coming out of today's conference call, it would seem wise to assume that it means nothing was done to alter the april 29th recommendation that request for relocation be denied...
I sincerely doubt the purpose of today's call was a 're-vote" That would mean that something happened this weekend to make someone, anyone say "Gee guys maybe we should re-vote because with all that money on the table and possible law suite things are different now"
So what do you think the DID talk about?... legal strategy? best course of action to avoid exposure in court? how about fastest way to get rid of the Maloofs AND Hansen/Ballmer?
I would LOVE to see Wednesday's agenda items!
So what do you think the DID talk about?... legal strategy? best course of action to avoid exposure in court? how about fastest way to get rid of the Maloofs AND Hansen/Ballmer?
I would LOVE to see Wednesday's agenda items!
just a thought but ive noticed that throughout this entire process the maloofs have been vary careful in not saying that they wont take the sac offer no matter what. sure they have trashed the ownership group, shown complete alliance with hansen the entire time, but they wont outright say they will never take a sac offer no matter what. even yesterday when windhorst reported the maloofs wouldnt take a sac offer they quickly backed off of that today(could mean that windhorst's source was from seattle and threw that in their).
I think they are mucking this up partly do to hating KJ but mostly for the 30m gift and potential 625m price tag from the hansen side, they are obligated to stick with hansen until the PSA(s) are voted down free them of any potential lawsuits at which i believe, and alot of other do as well, that the goofs will have no choice but to take sac's offer.
I think they are mucking this up partly do to hating KJ but mostly for the 30m gift and potential 625m price tag from the hansen side, they are obligated to stick with hansen until the PSA(s) are voted down free them of any potential lawsuits at which i believe, and alot of other do as well, that the goofs will have no choice but to take sac's offer.