I was finding it funny that hoopster talks about Ballmer being able to afford a lawsuit against the NBA. Who do you think the NBA is? It's basically 30 really rich owners you'd be suing. Including at least two that I can think of that come close to matching Ballmer's wealth in Paul Allen and Mikhail Prokhorov. They likely know some good lawyers, too. Bottom line, though, is you are going to be suing the very people you want to approve you into their membership. Not a brilliant move. Not to mention the league has excellent attorneys, too.
A Sonics fan's point of view
- Thread starter hoopster
- Start date
- Status
It's not a matter of precedent. It's a matter of the corporate rules and by-laws of the NBA. Any move by an owner to independently sell his team FRANCHISE is subject to review and approval by the rest of the owners, (i.e. the Board of Governors).
In our case, the Maloofs found a buyer who would remove the Kings from Sacramento. If Kevin Johnson hadn't been able to get an arena deal through the city council AND assemble an incredibly strong ownership group, the Kings would have been gone. And that's pretty much what has happened in the past.
Our situation is unique because Sacramento didn't want to give up the Kings. People in all walks of life at all levels came together and made it clear to the NBA that we are still a viable NBA market, which is one of the first things the relocation committee looked at.
Potential owners don't try to buy successful franchises because it generally doesn't work. Our franchise looked ripe for the picking because of how badly the Maloofs had handled it. And the Maloofs went around like a back-street huckster, trying to get a deal the NBA couldn't refuse. Unfortunately for them, they forgot one thing:
It isn't just about the money. It's about public and private support for the franchise. And you don't get a much better example of that kind of support than an arena deal that totally satisfies the NBA and, at the same time, promises to bring $1 billion in new development to the city involved. That - and the ability of our new ownership group to bring a breath of fresh air to the NBA - went a long ways towards convincing the relocation committee that Sacramento was not dead in the water. I'm also sure that getting rid of the Maloofs and the stench they've brought to the NBA has also been a major consideration.
i know that probably doesn't answer your question, but I do think this whole experience will bring a change to how the NBA handles potential sales. I suspect they will soon amend their by-laws to make it a requirement that any existing city with an NBA team has to be given a fair chance to buy said team if the owners decide to sell.
In our case, the Maloofs found a buyer who would remove the Kings from Sacramento. If Kevin Johnson hadn't been able to get an arena deal through the city council AND assemble an incredibly strong ownership group, the Kings would have been gone. And that's pretty much what has happened in the past.
Our situation is unique because Sacramento didn't want to give up the Kings. People in all walks of life at all levels came together and made it clear to the NBA that we are still a viable NBA market, which is one of the first things the relocation committee looked at.
Potential owners don't try to buy successful franchises because it generally doesn't work. Our franchise looked ripe for the picking because of how badly the Maloofs had handled it. And the Maloofs went around like a back-street huckster, trying to get a deal the NBA couldn't refuse. Unfortunately for them, they forgot one thing:
It isn't just about the money. It's about public and private support for the franchise. And you don't get a much better example of that kind of support than an arena deal that totally satisfies the NBA and, at the same time, promises to bring $1 billion in new development to the city involved. That - and the ability of our new ownership group to bring a breath of fresh air to the NBA - went a long ways towards convincing the relocation committee that Sacramento was not dead in the water. I'm also sure that getting rid of the Maloofs and the stench they've brought to the NBA has also been a major consideration.
i know that probably doesn't answer your question, but I do think this whole experience will bring a change to how the NBA handles potential sales. I suspect they will soon amend their by-laws to make it a requirement that any existing city with an NBA team has to be given a fair chance to buy said team if the owners decide to sell.
i've been one of the most ardent supporters of seattle receiving a team by way of expansion, and i remain so. i don't have the energy to hold the kind of grudges that so many of you have erected. that said, i find the title of this thread amusing vis a vis the sacramento kings. "a sonics fan's point of view" on the situation is about as relevant as... hell, i dunno, the opinion of a member of the cherokee tribe. as long as 1) there is a capable ownership group in place, 2) a suitable arena for the kings to play in, and 3) a sacramento market that willingly supports the franchise, then the kings should remain here. there's no question about it, and the nba itself fully corroborates that notion. the only sticking point for the league was that they had to confirm those three points above. once they did, it was a unanimous decision...
no apologies to seattle on this subject. i'm happy to listen to "a sonics fan's point of view" on the former sonics, or on the possibility of expansion in seattle. but "a sonics fan's point of view" on why the kings belong in seattle is an absolute non-starter, in my opinion. there's no worthy debate to be had there, particularly after the relocation committee decisively ruled against the relocation of the kings franchise. as always, it's not about seattle. personally, unlike many of you, i'm a big fan seattle. i've had a love affair with that city for years. i enjoy visiting. i enjoy dropping into their bars, and talking sports with their fans. i'm hoping to relocate myself and my wife there someday. and i hope there is an nba expansion team i can cheer for when i arrive, alongside my life-long cheers for the sacramento kings. but, no matter how much i love the pacific northwest, this particular saga is not about seattle. it's about sacramento. seattle has their own saga to deal with: the legacy of a sonics franchise uprooted from its home, and the longshot of expansion somewhere on the horizon...
but our saga has nearly come to an end. we're in the final weeks of a decade-long battle to keep the team where it belongs. kings fans, please, don't let "a sonics fan's point of view"--or any sonics fans' point of view, for that matter--distract you from just how momentous this victory really is...
no apologies to seattle on this subject. i'm happy to listen to "a sonics fan's point of view" on the former sonics, or on the possibility of expansion in seattle. but "a sonics fan's point of view" on why the kings belong in seattle is an absolute non-starter, in my opinion. there's no worthy debate to be had there, particularly after the relocation committee decisively ruled against the relocation of the kings franchise. as always, it's not about seattle. personally, unlike many of you, i'm a big fan seattle. i've had a love affair with that city for years. i enjoy visiting. i enjoy dropping into their bars, and talking sports with their fans. i'm hoping to relocate myself and my wife there someday. and i hope there is an nba expansion team i can cheer for when i arrive, alongside my life-long cheers for the sacramento kings. but, no matter how much i love the pacific northwest, this particular saga is not about seattle. it's about sacramento. seattle has their own saga to deal with: the legacy of a sonics franchise uprooted from its home, and the longshot of expansion somewhere on the horizon...
but our saga has nearly come to an end. we're in the final weeks of a decade-long battle to keep the team where it belongs. kings fans, please, don't let "a sonics fan's point of view"--or any sonics fans' point of view, for that matter--distract you from just how momentous this victory really is...
Last edited:
I think this is a given now, the NBA has set the precedent by allowing the city to presents its case and unanimously voting down relocation. The biggest thing that they will have to address is HOW owners will be allowed to sell their teams. They should never allow the kind of backdoor deal that was made here. It inflates the franchise price and makes it harder for the city to compete.
I think that what they should do is that the relocation fee would be extracted from the sale price. For example, for any sale+relocation, 25% of the franchise valuation will be assessed as a "relocation impact". This would mean that, in the Seattle $550M sale there would have been a $138M relocation impact, bringing the team valuation down to $412M, making it a lot easier for the competing city to match. Also, the relocating buyer needs to be obligated to buy the shares from any minority owner that wants to sell at the proposed valuation (to avoid cash calls & lowballing later).
In order to avoid a Bennett, any non-relocation sale would need to include a commitment from the new owners to stay in the city for xx years (10?) or be subject to a massive ($50M per year?) relocation penalty on top of the league's relocation fee.
If they do something like that, all this shady dealing is pretty much guaranteed to not happen again. I know the owners would never agree to something like this, but if the NBA really wants to protect smaller markets then they need to prevent team poaching.
I think that what they should do is that the relocation fee would be extracted from the sale price. For example, for any sale+relocation, 25% of the franchise valuation will be assessed as a "relocation impact". This would mean that, in the Seattle $550M sale there would have been a $138M relocation impact, bringing the team valuation down to $412M, making it a lot easier for the competing city to match. Also, the relocating buyer needs to be obligated to buy the shares from any minority owner that wants to sell at the proposed valuation (to avoid cash calls & lowballing later).
In order to avoid a Bennett, any non-relocation sale would need to include a commitment from the new owners to stay in the city for xx years (10?) or be subject to a massive ($50M per year?) relocation penalty on top of the league's relocation fee.
If they do something like that, all this shady dealing is pretty much guaranteed to not happen again. I know the owners would never agree to something like this, but if the NBA really wants to protect smaller markets then they need to prevent team poaching.
It would be annoying for me to see Seattle come to terms with another franchise in 2-4 years for 100-150 mil less than what we are having to pay for this franchise due to them.. Milwaukee, and yes I know Brick's opinion on this, is a struggling franchise with a dying fanbase that I believe does not have the public backing, or forseeable private backing to replace the Bradley Center after their lease is up. Even if the Hornets franchise is in the Saints owners hands I don't think it is at all a viable market.. The Grizzlies also should be in trouble when they start to slow down on the court. I think Seattle has options with that market/ownership/arena package, and as much as I don't want them to get a team after all of this, I think they will, and it will annoy me if it is for significantly less than what we were coerced into paying
I had a long chat with someone from the Milwaukee area. He's a friend of 53 years but with a definite Libertarian view. He personally thinks government should stay out of major sports so there is a slant to what he says. However, there is little governmental will to support the Bucks. The area residents feel like they got burned on the Brewers. On the other hand, Kohl, a life long resident of Milwaukee, bought the Bucks to keep them in Milwaukee. He is 76 and just retired from the Senate. He does not have the money to fund an arena himself. There is no telling what he will do with the Bucks but he will not go down without a fight.
As to whether or not the Seattle area gets a team and what the price is, I don't care as long as we have the Kings. My focus is on us and our plight. If our owners are willing to pay the price, so be it. We are very lucky and let's not stray away from that idea. We are lucky.
As to whether or not the Seattle area gets a team and what the price is, I don't care as long as we have the Kings. My focus is on us and our plight. If our owners are willing to pay the price, so be it. We are very lucky and let's not stray away from that idea. We are lucky.
Just a little something for MIL to consider:
http://www.todaystmj4.com/sports/milwaukee-bucks/205803901.html
http://www.todaystmj4.com/sports/milwaukee-bucks/205803901.html
Why have an arena at all? Here's a business model they I'm sure they would get behind: The Bakersfield Jam (NBA D-League) were struggling filling seats and making money at Rabobank arena, so they moved into a new facility that only seats 750. The kicker is that no single-game tickets are sold. It's exclusively VIP, box seats, corporate, etc. And apparently they've turned around their finances by doing this.
http://www.nba.com/dleague/bakersfield/jam_events_center.html
http://www.nba.com/dleague/bakersfield/jam_events_center.html
If any of the crap this hack is spewing were true, we wouldn't have got this far in the process already. Talk about grasping at straws.
Not only that, didn't Ranadive publicly state, weeks ago, that they had several late-comer investors trying to get in on the deal and that they had to turn them away? I guess he was lying....
Not only that, didn't Ranadive publicly state, weeks ago, that they had several late-comer investors trying to get in on the deal and that they had to turn them away? I guess he was lying....
I believe Vivek.
It is truly an interesting phenomena that so many geeky investors want to jump on the bandwagon. Would this happen with any other team or city? It's like all the nerds are lining up to show the jocks that they know a thing or two and that there can be a nexus between the two types. If there is enough interest in this line of speculation, I'd appreciate a new thread.
It is truly an interesting phenomena that so many geeky investors want to jump on the bandwagon. Would this happen with any other team or city? It's like all the nerds are lining up to show the jocks that they know a thing or two and that there can be a nexus between the two types. If there is enough interest in this line of speculation, I'd appreciate a new thread.
For some reason the Sonic fans are under the impression that Hansen will own the team in Sac for a year. They say stuff like "The NBA cannot refuse an owner like Hansen" and "Hansen already has a deal to buy the team" ect ect.. Do they not know when the move is voted down then he would have to strike another deal with the Maloofs? Not to mention all the particulars would have to be discussed again with Hansen and Sacramento if that were to happen. It would be a headache added onto what's already been about 100 headaches. It's just not going to happen, and while it's funny to read what they say, it's getting sad and pathetic.
Please hurry and come, May 15th. We need to put those zombies out of their misery.
Please hurry and come, May 15th. We need to put those zombies out of their misery.
They seem to think that the BoG is a collection of blithering idiots, and will totally believe that Hansen will put forward a good-faith effort to keep the Kings in Sac for a year. These guys aren't unemployed WalMart greeters. They became billionaires for a reason.
It is sad. For some reason, they all still seem to be trusting in their media. Don't they realize that the Seattle media has been totally incorrect all along? All previous speculation has been way off-base. Even David Stern had to call out Chris Daniels on it.
It is sad. For some reason, they all still seem to be trusting in their media. Don't they realize that the Seattle media has been totally incorrect all along? All previous speculation has been way off-base. Even David Stern had to call out Chris Daniels on it.
This thread was created just for the discussion of the Seattle stuff. If we're talking about the Kings or the new ownership group it goes in the latest news, rumors, etc. thread.
I've moved a bunch of stuff from here into the other thread. I'm hoping this thread will soon die as the handwriting on the wall becomes clear enough for even the Seattle folks to read.
I've moved a bunch of stuff from here into the other thread. I'm hoping this thread will soon die as the handwriting on the wall becomes clear enough for even the Seattle folks to read.
This thread was created just for the discussion of the Seattle stuff. If we're talking about the Kings or the new ownership group it goes in the latest news, rumors, etc. thread.
I've moved a bunch of stuff from here into the other thread. I'm hoping this thread will soon die as the handwriting on the wall becomes clear enough for even the Seattle folks to read.
I've moved a bunch of stuff from here into the other thread. I'm hoping this thread will soon die as the handwriting on the wall becomes clear enough for even the Seattle folks to read.
Incredible read...Heat owner Mickey Arison has a Twitter exchange with a Seattle fan and really tells it like it is.
- Status