Amick: KJ Focusing on Burkle

rainmaker

rainmaker

Hall of Famer
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/sam_amick/04/16/sacramento.kings/index.html

He told them that a bit of bad arena news "might be coming out of L.A.," as one source who was in the room remembered, a clear foreshadowing of the Los Angeles Times report published just hours later that detailed the Maloofs' concerns about the deal and raised the possibility yet again that they might be on the move. Johnson -- who had seen Kings co-owner Gavin Maloof cry tears of joy when they had the "framework" agreed to at All-Star weekend in Orlando; who had celebrated with the team's owners on the Power Balance Pavilion court as if this game was over; and who had spent so much of his time in office pushing this revitalization project only to see it fall apart at the end -- was fuming about this failed partnership again. He said the Maloofs "should be ashamed to show their faces in Sacramento," the source said, then offered an unsolicited reminder that his Plan B was still very much in play: Ron Burkle.

A year after Johnson partnered with the L.A.-based billionaire to put pressure on the Maloofs to sell the Kings, sources say he remains in constant contact with Burkle and is still hopeful that he will eventually take over the team and keep it in Sacramento. Burkle, the Pittsburgh Penguins' owner who was ranked 107th on Forbes' list of richest people in America last year (net worth of $3.2 billion), was a major part of Johnson's pitch to stop the Maloofs from moving to Anaheim.
Click to expand...
 
I've heard that the Maloofs already have about $140MM in debt on the team (to the city and the league); the deal they shot down would have given them another $170MM. Having ~$310MM in debt on an asset that can't be sold for more than $350MM makes me think that the Maloofs were afraid of going completely underwater on this. Anaheim seems like their only way out, but even then they have to know that they can only keep the team if they get a serious windfall from TV sales, ticketing, and sponsorships.

If they take the Sacramento deal they'll be underwater, and with the rest of their fortune gone they simply can't afford it. So they're options are either (a) wait it out in Sacramento at Arco in the hopes that the rest of their finances get turned around and/or the Kings become profitable; or (b) they take the sweetheart deal to Anaheim and hope things turn around there. It makes sense to pursue Anaheim because they're at the end of their rope in Sacramento.

Bottom line: I think the Maloofs know they can't stick with the status quo. I think they know that between Stern, Buss/Sterling, and now every small-to-mid market team that will be looking for a new arena (Minnesota, Denver, Portland, San Antonio, Orlando, Cleveland, Indiana, Milwaukee, Memphis, OKC, New Orleans, Utah are all as small or smaller than the Sacramento market) realize that if the Kings screw the city like this, other cities are going to take notice and try to fight back. The last thing the league wants is small markets to start questioning the wisdom of building these arenas for pro franchises. Furthermore, every big market is going to be suspicious of the Charlottes and Milwaukees of the world trying to sneak into their cities to take a piece of the pie.

So long as the NBA holds the line against relocation, it's only a matter of time until the Maloofs have to sell. They may not be legally able force a sale, but by making it apparent that the Kings aren't leaving Sacramento, they will force the issue.

At that point, the only issue is (1) how long it will take the Maloofs to pull the trigger (maybe they're holding out for an offer they can't refuse, knowing that they can hold on for a couple years and force the NBA to come in and sweeten a deal, maybe even forgive some of their loans) and (2) whether the Maloofs will go down with the ship and file an anti-trust suit to try to move the team if the relocation committee denies them again after the 2013 season.

The Maloofs are for all intents and purposes dead in the water as NBA owners. Problem is they won't go easy, and they're willing to burn down our team if it means staying relevant for a few more years.
 
I believe the Maloofs really do think they can stay in control of the team and this isn't some ploy to sell to get more value in a sale, I think the arena deal as is would do that and certainly do more than the Anaheim deal. They think an Anaheim TV contract will be their knight in shining armor and failing that, they want an arena that brings in more cash to them at little or no cost. George's comments make it clear they are completely delusional, he even mentioned having a great coach at some point in his presser. I'm not sure if that was supposed to be Westphal or Smart. One was fired and the other is still getting his feet wet as a head coach.
 
captain bill said:
I've heard that the Maloofs already have about $140MM in debt on the team (to the city and the league); the deal they shot down would have given them another $170MM. Having ~$310MM in debt on an asset that can't be sold for more than $350MM makes me think that the Maloofs were afraid of going completely underwater on this. Anaheim seems like their only way out, but even then they have to know that they can only keep the team if they get a serious windfall from TV sales, ticketing, and sponsorships.
Click to expand...

Your numbers are off. They owe the NBA a rumored $100 mil, city bonds $70 mil for $170. If they did the arena deal it would add another $67 mil to the NBA for a total of $337 mil.

As for Anahiem, the rumored location fee was going to be over $150 mil. possibly $200 mil. How are they paying for that w/o a loan?
 
captain bill said:
I've heard that the Maloofs already have about $140MM in debt on the team (to the city and the league); the deal they shot down would have given them another $170MM. Having ~$310MM in debt on an asset that can't be sold for more than $350MM makes me think that the Maloofs were afraid of going completely underwater on this. Anaheim seems like their only way out, but even then they have to know that they can only keep the team if they get a serious windfall from TV sales, ticketing, and sponsorships.

If they take the Sacramento deal they'll be underwater, and with the rest of their fortune gone they simply can't afford it. So they're options are either (a) wait it out in Sacramento at Arco in the hopes that the rest of their finances get turned around and/or the Kings become profitable; or (b) they take the sweetheart deal to Anaheim and hope things turn around there. It makes sense to pursue Anaheim because they're at the end of their rope in Sacramento.

Bottom line: I think the Maloofs know they can't stick with the status quo. I think they know that between Stern, Buss/Sterling, and now every small-to-mid market team that will be looking for a new arena (Minnesota, Denver, Portland, San Antonio, Orlando, Cleveland, Indiana, Milwaukee, Memphis, OKC, New Orleans, Utah are all as small or smaller than the Sacramento market) realize that if the Kings screw the city like this, other cities are going to take notice and try to fight back. The last thing the league wants is small markets to start questioning the wisdom of building these arenas for pro franchises. Furthermore, every big market is going to be suspicious of the Charlottes and Milwaukees of the world trying to sneak into their cities to take a piece of the pie.

So long as the NBA holds the line against relocation, it's only a matter of time until the Maloofs have to sell. They may not be legally able force a sale, but by making it apparent that the Kings aren't leaving Sacramento, they will force the issue.

At that point, the only issue is (1) how long it will take the Maloofs to pull the trigger (maybe they're holding out for an offer they can't refuse, knowing that they can hold on for a couple years and force the NBA to come in and sweeten a deal, maybe even forgive some of their loans) and (2) whether the Maloofs will go down with the ship and file an anti-trust suit to try to move the team if the relocation committee denies them again after the 2013 season.

The Maloofs are for all intents and purposes dead in the water as NBA owners. Problem is they won't go easy, and they're willing to burn down our team if it means staying relevant for a few more years.
Click to expand...

They only own some 52% of the franchise which is enough to make them dangerous but nowhere near enough to sell for $350 million.

Their share would be worth around $170 million considering that the Hornets sold for less than $340 million and I don't think they are in as much debt as the Kings (could be wrong). If Burkle writes out a cheque to Maloofs for $200 million, I am sure they would sit down and think about it.

I am not sure what the process in buying NBA team is and at some point everything has to be approved by the NBA and I highly doubt that the NBA would block that. They would love to rid themselves of the Maloofs and their antics and welcome a financial tycoon like Burkle into their circle.
 
Could this actually be the situation?
* Can't afford to take on more debt with new arena deal.
* Can't even request to relocate due to no support at NBA level.
* Even if support to relocate is found down the line, debt to accomplish the move would require new revenue sources that have not been revealed. Honda Center lease was pretty close in team revenues to the new arena deal. Phantom TV deal would probably have to astronomical to pay it all back.
* Relocate without approval would at the very least put the Maloofs in the poor house in lawyer fees alone. Even if they win.

The only options are to play at Arco and run a bare bones operation or sell the team.
 
JB_kings said:
Could this actually be the situation?
* Can't afford to take on more debt with new arena deal.
* Can't even request to relocate due to no support at NBA level.
* Even if support to relocate is found down the line, debt to accomplish the move would require new revenue sources that have not been revealed. Honda Center lease was pretty close in team revenues to the new arena deal. Phantom TV deal would probably have to astronomical to pay it all back.
* Relocate without approval would at the very least put the Maloofs in the poor house in lawyer fees alone. Even if they win.

The only options are to play at Arco and run a bare bones operation or sell the team.
Click to expand...

They will stay at arco at bare bones just to keep their status as owners and hang onto the little fame that they have.

next year is going to be interesting, 50 sponsors are up for renewal and none will renew for the same rate and many will not renew at all. add the big drop in season tickets as well as less game day tickets and they have lost much more than those "predev" costs would have cost.
 
JB_kings said:
The only options are to play at Arco and run a bare bones operation or sell the team.
Click to expand...

Now that is a scary thought! Scary in that it is starting to make sense. Surely, there are clear heads somewhere in this mess to work out a deal on the new arena. Even if one is Burkle. Especially if one is Burkle.
 
So what exactly is the role of the other owners (who own a little less than 50% of the team). Sounds like they've got no say whatsoever in the operation of the team. What about other issues, like debt incurred by the team? If the Maloofs own 52%, and the team is valued at $350 million (hypothetical), then the Maloof's value would be approximately $182 million. If they take out additional loans, can the debt that they incurr be more than their share of the team? And if so, is that their debt alone-- if they end up with $250 million in debt, and the team sells for $350 million, do the other owners get their $168 million while the Maloofs wouldn't get enough to pay off their debt and would still owe something like $68 million? Sorry if my understanding of basic team economics is so poor. And then, do the other owners share in any of the ongoing profit (or loss) of the team, or again is that all on the Maloofs since they own the majority stake? One final thing, if someone wanted to buy the Maloofs share, could they conceivably pay them whatever they wanted, or does it have to be based somehow on fair market value (however they determine that). Could Burkle come in and pay $300 million for their share even though that would be far more than 52% of the true market value of the team? Not that they would get an offer than generous, just curious how these things work.
 
Section 101 said:
Your numbers are off. They owe the NBA a rumored $100 mil, city bonds $70 mil for $170. If they did the arena deal it would add another $67 mil to the NBA for a total of $337 mil.
Click to expand...

Your numbers are off too ;)

100M+70M+67M= 237M

Once again what's funny is, Joe Maloof claims they are debt free.

''We have tremendous personal wealth. Wells Fargo stock … but I don't want to go into. But we have no debt. We're fine.''
Click to expand...

Hilarious.
 
kingjatt said:
They will stay at arco at bare bones just to keep their status as owners and hang onto the little fame that they have.

next year is going to be interesting, 50 sponsors are up for renewal and none will renew for the same rate and many will not renew at all. add the big drop in season tickets as well as less game day tickets and they have lost much more than those "predev" costs would have cost.
Click to expand...

I know we would all like to kick the Maloofs where it hurts most but THAT right there is the worst thing that could happen for Sacramento's case as the NBA city. Do NOT get into a pissing contest with the owners in the same way Charlotte got into a pissing contest with George Shinn. Its exactly what Maloofs want. They WANT to drive away fans and sponsorship. They want to continue neglecting the basic maintenance of PBP because that will get them support to re-locate. They will once again have a minimum salary next season (set at 85% of the salary cap) and with the new revenue sharing model they will at least break even despite lack of sponsorship and season ticket sales.

By doing what people are suggesting is giving Maloofs ammunition to relocate because the NBA will have no choice but to approve the move. What we should be doing is continue to support the team in numbers but continue to undermine the Maloofs. Continue the public witch hunt on them, continue to try and get the ESC done without them and continue to put the pressure on them to sell. if teh season ticket and sponsorship renewals remain strong, then Maloofs will not be able to go to the BOG meeting next year asking to relocate citing lack of support. It won't wash and they can't point to the lack of Arena as others would say you had a chance to get one 12 months ago.
 
Čarolija said:
I know we would all like to kick the Maloofs where it hurts most but THAT right there is the worst thing that could happen for Sacramento's case as the NBA city. Do NOT get into a pissing contest with the owners in the same way Charlotte got into a pissing contest with George Shinn. Its exactly what Maloofs want. They WANT to drive away fans and sponsorship. They want to continue neglecting the basic maintenance of PBP because that will get them support to re-locate. They will once again have a minimum salary next season (set at 85% of the salary cap) and with the new revenue sharing model they will at least break even despite lack of sponsorship and season ticket sales.

By doing what people are suggesting is giving Maloofs ammunition to relocate because the NBA will have no choice but to approve the move. What we should be doing is continue to support the team in numbers but continue to undermine the Maloofs. Continue the public witch hunt on them, continue to try and get the ESC done without them and continue to put the pressure on them to sell. if teh season ticket and sponsorship renewals remain strong, then Maloofs will not be able to go to the BOG meeting next year asking to relocate citing lack of support. It won't wash and they can't point to the lack of Arena as others would say you had a chance to get one 12 months ago.
Click to expand...

I think they are going to file for relocation regardless of what we do, my biggest fear is that the other owners (being sympathetic) will approve the move as it seems they dont care enough about us SAC kings fans to keep putting up with the maloofs creating a stink every year about moving (or else they would have done something this year). So many cities are in the running for the kings now that the NBA will not be as affected revenue wise and sure they will take a hit in the media but sac is not NY or LA in terms of national recognition heck Mike Trico called the april 26th game against the lakers the last game for the kings in sacramento on national TV when stern clearly said they will play hear next year.

I know we think stern and the other owners have our back but until they come out against the maloofs or be strightforward and commit to sacramento we are a lame duck franchise. we are stuck in a painful limbo as we love our team but hate our owners. as much as we hate it, the magoofs have complete control over this situation and they clearly want out.
 
As regards the relocation committee, I thought it was bad news when Clay Bennett was appointed to lead the decision-making for the NBA after what he did to Seattle. But a year later, I think we might actually have a pretty good ally. Why? Because he's a businessman from OKC and OKC is a small market just like Sacramento (smaller even). He bought the Sonics because the NBA was just about finished dealing with the city of Seattle and he wanted a team in his home town. After OKC supported the Hornets so well, Stern probably felt like he owed the city a favor. In contrast, the Maloofs are not from Sacramento, they didn't earn their fortune, and they're transparently trying to screw over a loyal fanbase in order to move into the second biggest media market in the nation. I'll never approve of what Clay Bennett did to Seattle, but in our situation at least he seems to be on our side. So long as the fans and the city of Sacramento continue to make noise about our love for the Kings, I think it's going to be a real hard sell for the Maloofs to get league approval for a move.
 
Last edited:
kingjatt said:
I think they are going to file for relocation regardless of what we do, my biggest fear is that the other owners (being sympathetic) will approve the move as it seems they dont care enough about us SAC kings fans to keep putting up with the maloofs creating a stink every year about moving (or else they would have done something this year). So many cities are in the running for the kings now that the NBA will not be as affected revenue wise and sure they will take a hit in the media but sac is not NY or LA in terms of national recognition heck Mike Trico called the april 26th game against the lakers the last game for the kings in sacramento on national TV when stern clearly said they will play hear next year.

I know we think stern and the other owners have our back but until they come out against the maloofs or be strightforward and commit to sacramento we are a lame duck franchise. we are stuck in a painful limbo as we love our team but hate our owners. as much as we hate it, the magoofs have complete control over this situation and they clearly want out.
Click to expand...

The BOG cannot approve the relocation unless they have strong evidence that support Maloofs' claims that Sacramento is not a good market. By abandoning the Kings, we are giving them that evidence. By showing strong support, their aces no longer exist. They can point to the Arena deal in which case the BOG can just point to their actions during the most recent negotiations and tell them, go back to PBP. The Maloofs tried this last year and failed. They neglected the arena, cut costs everywhere, put a **** product on the floor but at the same time raised ticket prices to drive the fans away so that they would have enough evidence to get the relocation approved, except KJ blew them out of the water by showing the NBA just how much the Maloofs neglected the market.

Stern and the NBA negotiated the deal on behalf of the Maloofs and they all obviously thought the deal was good for all involved except the Maloofs don't have the money to make it work. That is not the fault of Sacramento or the NBA, that is the fault of Maloofs. The NBA and the other owners are very much in Sacramento's corner here but they cannot come out and publicly support us against the Maloofs. They cannot give the Magoofs evidence to support their anti-trust lawsuit which they are likely to file once the season is over. I think Stern's comments on Sacramento, the fans and KJ's efforts over the last 12 months and his little remarks about the Maloofs and their economist are as good a indication that the NBA and the other owners are behind us as you are going to get. Things will become more public once the Maloofs are out of the NBA circle but while they are part of it, NBA cannot be seen as taking sides but Stern's comments more than indicate whose side he and the rest of the owners are on.

Remember, Stern negotiated this deal and Maloofs embarrassed him on national television. Do you think that will go down lightly with him?! I don't think so. NBA cannot take control of the team or tell Maloofs to sell but they can make life extremely difficult for them which I am sure will be the case to box them in and force their hand. Coming out and publicly bagging the Maloofs would just play straight into their hands. It is what they want and Stern is too smart to fall for that amateurish attempt to get it their way.

They can file for relocation but I can guarantee you they won't get it as long as Sacramento community continues to show support for the Kings so the Maloofs will have 3 options. Stay in Sacramento, Sell the team or file anti-trust lawsuit against the NBA. They are stupid enough to take on the NBA and that will be their biggest failing.

Just sit back, relax, continue to support the team and watch the Magoofs self-destruct.
 
kingjatt said:
I think they are going to file for relocation regardless of what we do, my biggest fear is that the other owners (being sympathetic) will approve the move as it seems they dont care enough about us SAC kings fans to keep putting up with the maloofs creating a stink every year about moving (or else they would have done something this year). So many cities are in the running for the kings now that the NBA will not be as affected revenue wise and sure they will take a hit in the media but sac is not NY or LA in terms of national recognition heck Mike Trico called the april 26th game against the lakers the last game for the kings in sacramento on national TV when stern clearly said they will play hear next year.

I know we think stern and the other owners have our back but until they come out against the maloofs or be strightforward and commit to sacramento we are a lame duck franchise. we are stuck in a painful limbo as we love our team but hate our owners. as much as we hate it, the magoofs have complete control over this situation and they clearly want out.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair, Mike Tirico is a poo-eating moron who makes Bill Walton look like Aristotle
 
Čarolija said:
The BOG cannot approve the relocation unless they have strong evidence that support Maloofs' claims that Sacramento is not a good market. By abandoning the Kings, we are giving them that evidence. By showing strong support, their aces no longer exist. They can point to the Arena deal in which case the BOG can just point to their actions during the most recent negotiations and tell them, go back to PBP. The Maloofs tried this last year and failed. They neglected the arena, cut costs everywhere, put a **** product on the floor but at the same time raised ticket prices to drive the fans away so that they would have enough evidence to get the relocation approved, except KJ blew them out of the water by showing the NBA just how much the Maloofs neglected the market.

Stern and the NBA negotiated the deal on behalf of the Maloofs and they all obviously thought the deal was good for all involved except the Maloofs don't have the money to make it work. That is not the fault of Sacramento or the NBA, that is the fault of Maloofs. The NBA and the other owners are very much in Sacramento's corner here but they cannot come out and publicly support us against the Maloofs. They cannot give the Magoofs evidence to support their anti-trust lawsuit which they are likely to file once the season is over. I think Stern's comments on Sacramento, the fans and KJ's efforts over the last 12 months and his little remarks about the Maloofs and their economist are as good a indication that the NBA and the other owners are behind us as you are going to get. Things will become more public once the Maloofs are out of the NBA circle but while they are part of it, NBA cannot be seen as taking sides but Stern's comments more than indicate whose side he and the rest of the owners are on.

Remember, Stern negotiated this deal and Maloofs embarrassed him on national television. Do you think that will go down lightly with him?! I don't think so. NBA cannot take control of the team or tell Maloofs to sell but they can make life extremely difficult for them which I am sure will be the case to box them in and force their hand. Coming out and publicly bagging the Maloofs would just play straight into their hands. It is what they want and Stern is too smart to fall for that amateurish attempt to get it their way.

They can file for relocation but I can guarantee you they won't get it as long as Sacramento community continues to show support for the Kings so the Maloofs will have 3 options. Stay in Sacramento, Sell the team or file anti-trust lawsuit against the NBA. They are stupid enough to take on the NBA and that will be their biggest failing.

Just sit back, relax, continue to support the team and watch the Magoofs self-destruct.
Click to expand...

I partly disagree with the "giving up" issue. First, I don't see attendance dropping too much. May 1 or 2K less fans show up per game next year? Maybe. But I see no situation where the fans abandon the team. Think that's being overblown. Just Cuz's growth alone will keep fans interested. Some nights against a team like Char or Tor might have low attendance, but that's the norm.

I also don't think we'll be judged on attendance next year anyway. We've proven what kind of a fanbase we are over the years, and if anything cemented that with the Here We Stay campaign last year. The NBA and other owners aren't fools. They know if attendance drops at all it's because of the Maloofs. When others heard about the attendance last night, they're probably thinking, "yep, that's Sac for you. Always support their team". I don't think in any way possible lower attendance next year negates our reputation earned over the 2+ decades prior, at all.

On top of that, the Maloofs argued last year Sac wasn't a viable market in part because we couldn't get corporate sponsorships. Well, KJ came back with 10M in sponsorships in a week. That pretty much proved to the NBA that this is a viable market which had just been neglected by the Maloofs. Next year, those sponsorships probably dry up. Is that because of the market? Nope, it's solely because of the Maloofs. Was before KJ produced 10M, and will be after a large part of that dries up next year.

Maloofs have a reputation among the BOG's to have neglected this region. KJ cemented that with the sponsorships and talk of doubling the TV deal here. Our fans have the reputation of being among the best the league has ever seen, and last year we proved that once again. Last night was more of the same. I don't think the reputations are changed in any way over the next 12 months.
 
kingjatt said:
I think they are going to file for relocation regardless of what we do, my biggest fear is that the other owners (being sympathetic) will approve the move as it seems they dont care enough about us SAC kings fans to keep putting up with the maloofs creating a stink every year about moving (or else they would have done something this year). So many cities are in the running for the kings now that the NBA will not be as affected revenue wise and sure they will take a hit in the media but sac is not NY or LA in terms of national recognition heck Mike Trico called the april 26th game against the lakers the last game for the kings in sacramento on national TV when stern clearly said they will play hear next year.

I know we think stern and the other owners have our back but until they come out against the maloofs or be strightforward and commit to sacramento we are a lame duck franchise. we are stuck in a painful limbo as we love our team but hate our owners. as much as we hate it, the magoofs have complete control over this situation and they clearly want out.
Click to expand...

I think you might be misreading the situation. I doubt there is much "sympathy" for the Maloofs from their fellow owners and especially Stern. They got the green light to back out of the arena deal because no owner wants to set a precedent of being forced to go ahead on a non-binding "handshake" deal.

But if there was any support for the Maloof's behavior or reasonings, Stern would not have used the language he did during the explanitory press conference (passively insulting everything from the "ill-grace" move of hiring an economist to Power Balance's stupid name) and we wouldn't be having annonymous sources leaking information about how disgusted the BoG is with them. So far, the only source voicing support from the other owners has been the Maloofs themselves ... so, yeah.

Looking at this from an owners perspective (if that's even possible for me) the Maloofs are not only creating a PR nightmare and thumbing their noses at a deal bartered by the NBA itself, but, and this is key, they are continually making the arguement that no city should ever contribute public funds to build a sports arena. That's not gonna fly boys.

Look, this is all speculative and neither of us was in the room during the meeting or has an insider hotline to the BoG. But, I think the owners want the Maloofs removed from their ranks too, not because they really care about Sacramento, I'm not delusional, but because they are bad for business. I don't see them supporting anything that helps the Maloofs at this point, especially a move to Anaheim.
 
Last edited:
Löwenherz said:
I think you might be misreading the situation. I doubt there is much "sympathy" for the Maloofs from their fellow owners and especially Stern. They got the green light to back out of the arena deal because no owner wants to set a precedent of being forced to go ahead on a non-binding "handshake" deal.
Click to expand...
I've seen this said a couple times and was wondering about it. Did they really need "permission" from the BOG to back out, or did they just go to explain themselves and try to get sympathy from fellow owners? I'm not clear that there was any type of vote taken. The agreement was non-binding and they exercised their prerogative to back stab...I mean...back out. Agreed though that they're likely not favorites around the league.
 
Well they now have the ability to ruin the kings leading to a league contraction no more kings... then burkle can buy the new expansion team in sacramento......only thing is how long will it take for them to bleed dry?
 
as an aside any nba team that is a sacramento nba team will be supported by the sacramento fan...look at it this way no other city will get the kings the league can make sure that does not happen
 
eflat said:
I've seen this said a couple times and was wondering about it. Did they really need "permission" from the BOG to back out, or did they just go to explain themselves and try to get sympathy from fellow owners? I'm not clear that there was any type of vote taken. The agreement was non-binding and they exercised their prerogative to back stab...I mean...back out. Agreed though that they're likely not favorites around the league.
Click to expand...

That's true. I don't know definitively that they had to get approval from the board, but it seemed important enough to them that they lawyered up, hired an economist and broke out the all-powerful Power Point at the St. Regis.

And every conversation afterward has been about receiving the board's blessing to torpedo the deal and Stern commenting how he's very protective of the owner's right to walk away in that situation. I don't know the inner workings of the NBA, but as an outsider, seems like the BoG had some kind of pull.

If though, they didn't need the approval and went out there purely to garner support/sympathy, I'd say mission failed.
 
Löwenherz said:
That's true. I don't know definitively that they had to get approval from the board, but it seemed important enough to them that they lawyered up, hired an economist and broke out the all-powerful Power Point at the St. Regis.

And every conversation afterward has been about receiving the board's blessing to torpedo the deal and Stern commenting how he's very protective of the owner's right to walk away in that situation. I don't know the inner workings of the NBA, but as an outsider, seems like the BoG had some kind of pull.

If though, they didn't need the approval and went out there purely to garner support/sympathy, I'd say mission failed.
Click to expand...

They didnt need approval dude. They just went out there to get sympathy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AmaranthineBB
7 year old with Leukemia done wrong
Replies
10
Views
1K
Jdbraver137
J
King Baller
This is why we love the Kings
Replies
9
Views
950
MizzouKing
MizzouKing
Mr. S£im Citrus
[NBA] Comments that don't warrant a thread (APR)
3 4 5
Replies
137
Views
5K
Warhawk
Warhawk
T
Sacramento Kings Fans Get Raunchy On Kiss Cam W/ NSFW Gesture
Replies
7
Views
326
macadocious
macadocious
iowamcnabb
“The List”
2 3
Replies
67
Views
4K
midtowner
M
Back
Top