Bid too low and other latest news, rumors, etc.
- Thread starter HereWeBoogie
- Start date
- Status
The Hammer
All-Star
Ok so I've helped provide a synopsis before, and now I need one. And I think it's time to break off the 580 something post thread. So some stuff happened yesterday, but I'm not sure about everything, as I'm not exposed to local media. Here are some thoughts and summary, but I need others to chip in and I'd especially like it if one of the more informed posters summarized all the recent and relevant info for me and others.
1. M/B bid was too low.
2. This seems to have been expected by some, reason being H/B bid was sealed, or non-disclosure cause of some sort. (My opinion here is that h/b perhaps required this as this helps them try to win the bid.) There could be other legal things I don't know about that are making it difficult for m/b to know about h/b bid details.
3. Mastrov seems unfazed. Appears now the process is that m/b comes back, a bit higher, maybe Stern will indicate when it's finally "competitive". Doesn't appear the public will know any details about how this is playing out, although there's a lot of guessing. CD seems to be an avid guesser or has incredible sources.
4. I was worried at first when I heard the bid news yesterday, but now I'm not. And you shouldn't be either.
5. Others: please add details you think are relevant, and of course your opinions (like I have a choice about that anyway
).
Good Saturday to you friends. It's sunny and warm here in Lewiston, Idaho.
Post copied from other thread for inclusion. - VF21
1. M/B bid was too low.
2. This seems to have been expected by some, reason being H/B bid was sealed, or non-disclosure cause of some sort. (My opinion here is that h/b perhaps required this as this helps them try to win the bid.) There could be other legal things I don't know about that are making it difficult for m/b to know about h/b bid details.
3. Mastrov seems unfazed. Appears now the process is that m/b comes back, a bit higher, maybe Stern will indicate when it's finally "competitive". Doesn't appear the public will know any details about how this is playing out, although there's a lot of guessing. CD seems to be an avid guesser or has incredible sources.
4. I was worried at first when I heard the bid news yesterday, but now I'm not. And you shouldn't be either.
5. Others: please add details you think are relevant, and of course your opinions (like I have a choice about that anyway
).Good Saturday to you friends. It's sunny and warm here in Lewiston, Idaho.
Post copied from other thread for inclusion. - VF21
Last edited by a moderator:
Sh*tle fans go see who's winning. End of story.
Watch what happens to the Sounders amazing support as soon as they start to lose.
interesting take from a sonic guy on another board :
For all of the lack of precedent of the BOG deciding who current owners can and cannot sell to and despite the logic of the Seattle Group having a binding agreement to purchase the team, Stern continues to guide Mastrov & Burkle in their attempts to bid for the Kings. Stern talks publicly about the sale, Kevin Johnson talks non-stop about the sale, Mastrov talks about the process to keep the team in Sacramento and yet Stern has asked the Hansen Group & the Maloofs not to talk about the sale publicly.
Stern states in one breath that this isn't an auction process and then states in another breath that Sacramento has a real chance to keep the Kings in Sacramento if they add more money to their "auction" bid. It has been pointed out by some that the BOG cannot force the Maloofs to sell to Mastrov, they can only deny the sale or the relocation to Hansen. While the logic of this is clear, we know that the Maloof's have not wanted to sell the team, that it is their debt which is forcing their hand. So if the BOG denies the sale to the Hansen group, does the Maloof family have much choice than to sell to Mastrov? The $30M non-refundable deposit can't be much more than temporarily relief or spending money at this point.
Stern was once a supporter of then owner Howard Schultz's attempts to get a new arena in Seattle with public money. When Seattle passed Initiative 91 that stated that no public money could be used for professional sports teams unless the City saw a return equal to an investment in bonds, then there was a clear shift for Stern. Stern helped broker the deal for Schultz to sell to Clay Bennet for a price that was well above the current value of the team. Stern never allowed a local group to "Save Our Sonics", and the BOG passed the sale without hesitation.
Initiative 91 is still alive an well in Seattle, Washington. Their is currently a law suit against the proposed arena in Seattle stating that it will violate Initiative 91. It is my belief that Stern views Initiative 91 as a direct threat to the NBA. I believe that Stern helped broker the sale of the Sonics as a punishment to the law makers and citizens of Seattle and Washington State. I believe that it doesn't really matter that a local group of investors has potentially found a way around Initiative 91 by including more of their own money and developing a better revenue deal with the city because the NBA isn't at all interested in adapting such a model if they can avoid it.
If the sale of the Kings to the Hansen Group is denied by the BOG, Seattle fans will have plenty of clues from Stern that he was never going to allow the NBA to return to Seattle under his watch. And if the sell & relocation of the Kings to the Hansen Group is approved Sacramento fans will be left in a state of confusion as to why Stern made the city jump through hoops to save the team for nothing.
The only thing I'm sure of is that one of Seattle or Sacramento will not be happy in the end, just as Stern stated.
For all of the lack of precedent of the BOG deciding who current owners can and cannot sell to and despite the logic of the Seattle Group having a binding agreement to purchase the team, Stern continues to guide Mastrov & Burkle in their attempts to bid for the Kings. Stern talks publicly about the sale, Kevin Johnson talks non-stop about the sale, Mastrov talks about the process to keep the team in Sacramento and yet Stern has asked the Hansen Group & the Maloofs not to talk about the sale publicly.
Stern states in one breath that this isn't an auction process and then states in another breath that Sacramento has a real chance to keep the Kings in Sacramento if they add more money to their "auction" bid. It has been pointed out by some that the BOG cannot force the Maloofs to sell to Mastrov, they can only deny the sale or the relocation to Hansen. While the logic of this is clear, we know that the Maloof's have not wanted to sell the team, that it is their debt which is forcing their hand. So if the BOG denies the sale to the Hansen group, does the Maloof family have much choice than to sell to Mastrov? The $30M non-refundable deposit can't be much more than temporarily relief or spending money at this point.
Stern was once a supporter of then owner Howard Schultz's attempts to get a new arena in Seattle with public money. When Seattle passed Initiative 91 that stated that no public money could be used for professional sports teams unless the City saw a return equal to an investment in bonds, then there was a clear shift for Stern. Stern helped broker the deal for Schultz to sell to Clay Bennet for a price that was well above the current value of the team. Stern never allowed a local group to "Save Our Sonics", and the BOG passed the sale without hesitation.
Initiative 91 is still alive an well in Seattle, Washington. Their is currently a law suit against the proposed arena in Seattle stating that it will violate Initiative 91. It is my belief that Stern views Initiative 91 as a direct threat to the NBA. I believe that Stern helped broker the sale of the Sonics as a punishment to the law makers and citizens of Seattle and Washington State. I believe that it doesn't really matter that a local group of investors has potentially found a way around Initiative 91 by including more of their own money and developing a better revenue deal with the city because the NBA isn't at all interested in adapting such a model if they can avoid it.
If the sale of the Kings to the Hansen Group is denied by the BOG, Seattle fans will have plenty of clues from Stern that he was never going to allow the NBA to return to Seattle under his watch. And if the sell & relocation of the Kings to the Hansen Group is approved Sacramento fans will be left in a state of confusion as to why Stern made the city jump through hoops to save the team for nothing.
The only thing I'm sure of is that one of Seattle or Sacramento will not be happy in the end, just as Stern stated.
Cwebb#4
G-League
They're so damned spoiled and obnoxious. The Seahickens are winners! The Sounders are winners! The Kings are EPIC losers! Why does Seattle want any part of them? Why not wait a few years and take the Bucks, who are at least slightly winners?
Gary
All-Star
That's the flip side of the coin.. On one hand I am worried, and on the other hand I am thinking that Stern WANTS Mastrov to put in a competitive bid so it will be very easy for both Stern, and the BOG to decide the team stays in Sac.
Who knows.... I know there will be a higher bid and I am fine with that, I just hope they don't take too long haggling over a few million when they are worth over a billion.
Not to mention the Value of the team you own isn't going to go down when it comes time to sell, so I really hope a few million doesn't squelch the deal.
Last edited:
About Mastrov: If he wasn't willing to match the Hansen bid, he wouldn't have gotten into the chase. He made a tentative first offer, just to test the waters. I have no doubt at all that he's got the funds and desire to do whatever it takes to beat Hansen's bid. This is an ongoing process. I believe in Mastrov/Burkle and, perhaps most importantly, I still have the utmost faith in Kevin Johnson and the people helping him in this drive. They aren't going to succumb to some rookie mistake. We just need to keep the faith...and continue to show our support for KJ and CrownDowntown (and, of course, the SACRAMENTO Kings!).
beb0p
Starter
One thing that is beyond the shadow of a doubt - Stern wants two competitive bids for the BOG to consider, which begs the question - Why? Why does he want two equal bids when one is already breaking the record price for a team and having two doesn't add anything, except make the decision that much harder for the BOG? He is actively pushing for a scenario that the decision makers dread. Again, what is his motive?
if Stern has no intention of keeping the team in Sacramento, then he would have just nodded politely at M/B's offer and call it a day. He didn't.
Maybe Stern is just toying with emotions but that makes no sense either because he has no reason to jump in bed with Henson. The only logical reason why he wants a competitive bid from M/B is because he wants the team to stay in Sacramento.
Now, it's up to Sacramento to step up to the plate.
if Stern has no intention of keeping the team in Sacramento, then he would have just nodded politely at M/B's offer and call it a day. He didn't.
Maybe Stern is just toying with emotions but that makes no sense either because he has no reason to jump in bed with Henson. The only logical reason why he wants a competitive bid from M/B is because he wants the team to stay in Sacramento.
Now, it's up to Sacramento to step up to the plate.
Last edited:
Come to think of it...process involves two things that really annoyed Stern in the past: Seattle and Maloofs.
Entity
Hall of Famer
Our objective was to get on the Phoenix Suns broadcast. Mission accomplished.
KJ saw us at the game near the Suns bench and gave us a salute with a smile. He said something but I could not hear what he said.
That Hat That ******* Hat
Chupacabra
Starter
This is all just kind of gossipy, juicy details for people to talk about on E if you ask me. People like Mastrov and Burkle arent just going to waste their time with all of this by knowingly making a bid thats way too low. As many have said theyre basically bidding in the dark. Rest assured, these guys play to win.
ninjabiscuit
Bench
Yep.
Kingsfan23
All-Star
From the Bee http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/10/5250668/ailene-voisin-purchase-groups.html
In an obvious jab at the Maloofs, Stern referred to the Mastrov/Burkle proposal as an "expression of intent" and "a somewhat labored process set up by the Maloofs as to how we would get to an agreement with the Sacramento purchase group." He reiterated that the league's owners make the ultimate decision on sales and relocations
Just my opinions if this is the case
1.Don't feel bad about our initial bid because we didn't know the full details on what we were bidding on, just an initial attempt
2.Don't take anything positive from Stern telling us to up our bid, because if our investors didn't know the full details to make a qualified attempt to keep the team here, that would reflect badly on the league if they allowed that to happen
3.Don't like the Maloofs
But that's just if I'm reading this correctly.
In an obvious jab at the Maloofs, Stern referred to the Mastrov/Burkle proposal as an "expression of intent" and "a somewhat labored process set up by the Maloofs as to how we would get to an agreement with the Sacramento purchase group." He reiterated that the league's owners make the ultimate decision on sales and relocations
Just my opinions if this is the case
1.Don't feel bad about our initial bid because we didn't know the full details on what we were bidding on, just an initial attempt
2.Don't take anything positive from Stern telling us to up our bid, because if our investors didn't know the full details to make a qualified attempt to keep the team here, that would reflect badly on the league if they allowed that to happen
3.Don't like the Maloofs
But that's just if I'm reading this correctly.
John Galt
Starter
I'm counting on Mastrov's stubborn will to own an NBA team. He lost once... that should suggest more urgency this time. Surely he knows it is "now or never" for him to have a NoCal NBA team.
I really think it is going to come down to that. If Mastrov cries uncle... Kings are gone. But I don't think he will. I think he will outbid Hansen/Ballmer as long as he isn't under some delusional impression that there is a hometown discount. If he counts on sentiment, he will regret it the rest of his life.
Just offer $535M Mark... Just do it. Soon people will be offering you a cool billion for it.
I really think it is going to come down to that. If Mastrov cries uncle... Kings are gone. But I don't think he will. I think he will outbid Hansen/Ballmer as long as he isn't under some delusional impression that there is a hometown discount. If he counts on sentiment, he will regret it the rest of his life.
Just offer $535M Mark... Just do it. Soon people will be offering you a cool billion for it.
kennadog
Dog On It!
Some confusion as I read through this thread;
The bankruptcy court for Cook did not get a copy of the Hansen/Ballmer bid. What they got was a copy of the partnership documents between the Maloofs and current minority owners of the Kings, so the "right of first refusal" issue could be investigated. So that could not be a source of information about the Hansen bid. The Hansen bid was not for buying the shares of any of the current minority owners.
The Hansen bid included a requirement that none of the parties could disclose anything about the bid. Hence it was not possible for Mastrov to know how the bid was structured or what it included. I don't think its out of the realm of possibility that the Hansen bid did not include paying the City of Sacramento loan, although lots of people did assume that. If it didn't then one has to assume that Hansen would have paid off the loan to Sacramento after he became owner. Makes sense to me. Why give the money to the Maloofs and then rely on them to pay the city off. (Never trust a Maloof.)
It is possible that Mastrov deducted the city loan from his bid, so that could very well be the reason his bid was substantially too low, if Hansen's bid did not include it.
What does surprise me is that Stern indicated the Mastrov bid was substantially too low. Although I just realized that it is not a "sealed" bid for the NBA. They do not solicit bids. And as far as I know, the Maloofs did not follow any kind of sealed bid process either. I doubt the bidder can require the NBA to keep their bid information sealed. Anyway, I don't see that the NBA is violating any contract or process that they are party to or initiated. Maybe Brick can clarify whether my speculations may be right or completely off base.
At any rate, I'm encouraged that Stern appears to want to help Mastrov get in a good, competitive bid. To me, it means he wants Sacramento to have a very good chance to keep their team.
The bankruptcy court for Cook did not get a copy of the Hansen/Ballmer bid. What they got was a copy of the partnership documents between the Maloofs and current minority owners of the Kings, so the "right of first refusal" issue could be investigated. So that could not be a source of information about the Hansen bid. The Hansen bid was not for buying the shares of any of the current minority owners.
The Hansen bid included a requirement that none of the parties could disclose anything about the bid. Hence it was not possible for Mastrov to know how the bid was structured or what it included. I don't think its out of the realm of possibility that the Hansen bid did not include paying the City of Sacramento loan, although lots of people did assume that. If it didn't then one has to assume that Hansen would have paid off the loan to Sacramento after he became owner. Makes sense to me. Why give the money to the Maloofs and then rely on them to pay the city off. (Never trust a Maloof.)
It is possible that Mastrov deducted the city loan from his bid, so that could very well be the reason his bid was substantially too low, if Hansen's bid did not include it.
What does surprise me is that Stern indicated the Mastrov bid was substantially too low. Although I just realized that it is not a "sealed" bid for the NBA. They do not solicit bids. And as far as I know, the Maloofs did not follow any kind of sealed bid process either. I doubt the bidder can require the NBA to keep their bid information sealed. Anyway, I don't see that the NBA is violating any contract or process that they are party to or initiated. Maybe Brick can clarify whether my speculations may be right or completely off base.
At any rate, I'm encouraged that Stern appears to want to help Mastrov get in a good, competitive bid. To me, it means he wants Sacramento to have a very good chance to keep their team.
Mike0476
Starter
I'm not sure where Ernest got his hat from. Maybe the team store. No idea. I can always ask for you.
SCKingsfan
Bench
Newest "summary of the situation" article from nba.com:
http://www.nba.com/2013/news/featur...l-pierce/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt3b#dribbles
http://www.nba.com/2013/news/featur...l-pierce/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt3b#dribbles
Gary
All-Star
I found this part interesting;
For its part, the relocation committee must, as detailed in Article VII, make its decision on specific criteria. This includes:
What is the support of the team in the existing location?
What is the ability of the existing location to continue to support the team?
What is the demographic breakdown of the existing location -- the population, age, income, market size for cable or other television?
Conversely, what are the same conditions like in the city to which the owners want to move?
What would be the effect of relocation on the overall ability to market the league? How would it affect the league's television partners, if at all?
Would there be a particular disadvantage to travel and/or scheduling by allowing the move? (Interestingly, Article VII also allows for this possibility: are there any other owners who might want to move their teams to that market? This allows for the possibility that there could be an owner willing to spend even more to move there, allowing the league to max out the financial possibilities of a given market.)
nebs
Starter
Aaron Bruski @aaronbruski
Apparently there is an announcement coming from Chris Hansen at 5PM PT at his PR site http://www.sonicsarena.com .
Apparently there is an announcement coming from Chris Hansen at 5PM PT at his PR site http://www.sonicsarena.com .
ninjabiscuit
Bench
Priority Ticket Waiting List.
http://www.sonicsarena.com/news/sonics-priority-ticket-waitlist
"It’s also important that we reiterate that no inference should be drawn between our establishment of the Priority Ticket Waitlist and our efforts to close our acquisition of the Sacramento Kings."
http://www.sonicsarena.com/news/sonics-priority-ticket-waitlist
"It’s also important that we reiterate that no inference should be drawn between our establishment of the Priority Ticket Waitlist and our efforts to close our acquisition of the Sacramento Kings."
shameless copycats
Sh*ttle invented #herewebuy lol
Sh*ttle invented #herewebuy lol
Well if it wasn't already obvious that this ticket waitlist is intended to be part of their pitch for moving the team to Seattle, it is now.
Of course, if they wanted to make an impression they probably should have started this sooner. Kevin Johnson is more on the ball than they are, but when you realize KJ has already been negotiating directly with the NBA for two years now, it isn't at all surprising that Chris Hansen might be watching him closely to see what his next move is. April 19th can't get here soon enough.
ParniValjak
All-Star
Well if it wasn't already obvious that this ticket waitlist is intended to be part of their pitch for moving the team to Seattle, it is now.
Of course, if they wanted to make an impression they probably should have started this sooner. Kevin Johnson is more on the ball than they are, but when you realize KJ has already been negotiating directly with the NBA for two years now, it isn't at all surprising that Chris Hansen might be watching him closely to see what his next move is. April 19th can't get here soon enough.
I think it would be ignorant to assume that Hansen has not been negotiating with the NBA directly himself. NBA is in a pretty good position here with 2 very strong markets fighting over one team. The two ownership groups are very well financed and certainly would be towards the top end of NBA ownership groups with impressive net worth. So this is a game of inches for the NBA. They might have their preference of where they want the team (and I have to believe that its Sacramento) but it does not hurt them to play off each city against one another to get the best possible deal for the NBA in general.
Stern might want to keep the team in Sacramento but he also likes to make sure that Mastrov and Burkle pay a top price for the team, especially considering their combined net worth. But if the offers are not close, then the preference goes out the window.
We would like to think that Stern is guiding us on this and to a large degree he probably is, but lets not be naive to think that he is not doing the same thing for the Seattle group because either way, NBA wins (although if the Kings leave Sacramento it would be a bigger black eye than when the Sonics left Seattle, all things being equal of course). They will get the record sale price, a rich ownership group into the NBA fold, a new arena for the team to play in and bucketloads of ticket and sponsorship sales.
Stern is known as a master of negotiations and make no mistake that he is playing both sides here so he gets what is best for the NBA in all this. I don't think his emotion (if any) is over-ruling his business acumen in all this.
whozit
Starter
The black eye thing is overplayed. When push comes to shove, fans in the other cities don't care. They didn't care when the Sonics left and they won't care if the Kings leave where it matters, in the pocketbook. Other than a few, they won't boycott their teams and NBA life will go on.
I really don't like this development. We can be all smug and laugh at their copying but honestly I'd much rather them sitting back confidently and doing nothing while assuming everything. Aldridge had a good article showing for every plus each side had there was a "but."
Löwenherz
Starter
It's not a black eye for average fans the NBA would worry about. It's the precedent it sets in the publicly-subsidized arena game in the eyes of city governments with small market teams. Moving the Kings from a city that put forth a "Herculean effort" to keep them would weaken the NBA's position in future negotiations when demanding a handout.
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports....ould-be-key-issue-in-sacramento-kings-future/
Kingsfan23
All-Star
I'm still doubtful as to why Mastrov wants to be a part of a group that buys the Kings at a higher valuation than he declined to buy his hometown Warriors for.. I'm just going to listen to the redhead on this one, that we will see a competitive bid set forth
- Status
Similar threads
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA - Sacramento Kings News
- Kings News Links
- Locked
- Poll
