K
Kingsguy881
Guest
Stern said there would be 'no support for a move to ANAHEIM'. What about support for a move to Seattle? Just a thought...
BREAKING: Stern says owners WILL NOT approve a potential Kings move to Anaheim
- Thread starter BMiller52
- Start date
L
LWP777
Guest
My thought is that Stern was double-crossed by the Maloofs and he's not going to do them any favors at the expense of Sacramento.
Well, Aldridge asked if the league would support a move to Anaheim, and Stern said there would be no support for "a" move at this time. That's a bit ambiguous, because he very easily could have said "that" move to leave a door open for other moves, and he could have said "any" move to shut the door on all of them. It's all guesswork, really.
This is really it. While I think at some point we would have had to move on from Adelman they couldn't have picked a worse time. And they were already tightening the purse strings years before they even made the Palms expansions that sunk them. It may have started the year prior, but the Webber trade was definitely the kickoff of a new era of Maloof meddling in basketball affairs trying to keep winning while not spending. It has been a disaster. That was at least 2 years before the real estate bubble popped, though Vegas was one of the first and hardest hit.
Not to mention they were complete jerks on the arena deal back then too, though it was less obvious when the city wasn't taking it seriously.
The Hammer
All-Star
You're reading it all wrong. Stern can't just come out and say "the owners won't allow a Maloof owned Kings to move anywhere". That comes across as way to anti Maloof, and can easily be used against him should an anti trust suit arise. His statement is finely crafted, but very pointed. He intends it to give the Maloofs the notion that they won't be going anywhere anytime soon.
Stern's statements usually require various levels of decoding. While this one does still require SOME decoding, it's one of the most straightforward ones we've heard from him in a long time, which is one reason why it's providing so much relief to Kings fans. He means what he says. But in this case, I think he means even a bit more than what's explicitly laid out. He just can't say it for potential anti trust stuff.
There's no reason to believe the Maloofs want to move to Seattle (where there is no arena) or some midwestern city with a vacant one. This is about restoring their socialite celebrity cred.
sidney
Starter
With Stern's "as long as it passes fire code" comment he makes it clear that he is not expecting the city to finance a remodel. I would have been much more concerned if he even suggested the city and Maloofs work together to repair the arena. He is completely satisfied with the effort from the city and expects nothing more now. This is a great place to be.
The Maloofs made their bed and Stern is not going to lift a finger to help them now. He's abandoned them...and they are borderline broke. Hopefully it won't be long now...
The Maloofs made their bed and Stern is not going to lift a finger to help them now. He's abandoned them...and they are borderline broke. Hopefully it won't be long now...
Last edited:
K
Kingsguy881
Guest
Agreed. And it was even more pointed when he said that he 'believes them when they say they are commited to staying in Sacramento'. That right there is the telling point for me, really. He doesn't foresee a move out of this region and even more, he probably suspects that they are eventually going to have to pony up and sell and he envisions a new ownership group commited to the 'fans and businesses and city council of Sacramento'. Very good place to be for us no doubt.
sidney
Starter
Well sure, now that Stern has come out with the strength of this statement. Had he not made this sort of statement this summer, I would argue it would have been very appropriate next season with the goal of sending a message to the NBA, other owners, and the Maloofs. Stern has just made that statement for Sac fans. Just like you're probably not going to see a lot of protests to legalize gay marriage outside the White House this year...the guy in office is already for it.
I still think holding off on all purchases that go directly to the Maloofs is appropriate. Starve them out while supporting the team.
Wuster
Starter
Mike0476
Starter
In depth: Stern fires shot across the bow at the Maloofs...
Aaron Bruski of NBC Sports with another great article.
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports....ubsidy/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Aaron Bruski of NBC Sports with another great article.
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports....ubsidy/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Excellent article, with a nice summary of all the Maloof missteps to date. It seems the genie is now completely out of the bottle.
EDIT: I don't agree with Bruski on all points, however. He neglects to mention Ron Burkle's continuing interest in the team AND Sacramento, which I think is just as relevant as the Seattle possibility. In fact, for what it's worth, I don't think Seattle is that viable an alternative especially when you remember, as Bruski points out, that Stern has a good working relationship with the City of Sacramento and the fans of Sacramento.
Last edited:
kennadog
Dog On It!
A good article on where things currently stand. I just hope the Maloofs get the message and sell the team. Preferably to Burkle or someone equally rich. Too bad we couldn't snag Pera.
whozit
Starter
I'm not sure Pera is in the same class of Burkle in terms to wealth. I'm sorry I don't have the link, but one of the articles I read of him buying the team indicated that his wealth had taken a hit when his company's stock had dropped. I was surprised by the numbers given that he would even be under consideration as a owner.
kennadog
Dog On It!
All I want is an owner that can afford to buy the team, can afford to contribute a large chunk to a new arena in Sacramento and can afford to put a competitive team on the floor.
I don't think that's too much to ask.
I am just so impatient right now, becasue I really want things settled for Kings fans and the City.
I don't think that's too much to ask.
I am just so impatient right now, becasue I really want things settled for Kings fans and the City.
Circa_1985_Fan
All-Star
Ladies and gentleman, Manny Pangilian...
Schmoe
G-League
Probably not, but listening to that Jim Rome interview today made me think he isn't always careful. I didn't think Rome was out of line at all, but Stern sure got pretty huffy about it.
ParniValjak
All-Star
Link?
Schmoe
G-League
Sorry! http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-david-stern-jim-rome-20120613,0,4685346.story
But to be clear, this interview and the argument 2/3 of the way through were not about the Kings arena situation.
Livinthedream
All-Star
I thought that was hilarious. Stern was making a point and he knew what he was saying. I just think it went over the audiences head, but Rome knew what he was getting at. Stern has always been prickly in this manner. He's had run ins on other radio shows. But this is not nearly as important as choosing your words to make sure you avoid an anti trust lawsuit during the middle of a press conference at the beginning of the 1st game of the NBA finals.
Hoovtrain
All-Star
That was one of the most uncomfortable/entertaining interviews ever.
Gotta back Stern on this one. If you've been around long enough, you know Jim Rome is a cheap shot punk who will pull stunts like this to his benefit. His career was built on junk like calling Jim Everett "Chris". The only thing I would question Stern on is why he chose to go on the show in the first place. He probably needed another controversy for a ratings bump.
Elektrik
Starter
Yeah I heard that interview too. I was completely shocked when Stern asked Rome "when was the last time you beat your wife?" Totally out of line. He said that in response to Rome asking Stern about whether the lottery was rigged. He more or less called Rome a cheap shot journalist. It was really contentuous...Very bad form on Stearns part.
Oh please. Rome IS and has built a career upon being a cheap shot journalist. Stern's response was perfect and in the exact same style as the one posed by Rome. You learn that kind of stuff in first semester journalism class.
John Galt
Starter
I agree. And I really enjoyed the transcript of the interview. Stern CRUSHED in my opinion. Called Rome out in such plain and true language it was fantastic.
Section 101
All-Star
The reason Stern said it that way is because that's the way Rome asked the question. There was a guilt implied already. When he says when is the last time you beat your wife the is the implication that he has beat his wife. He was making a point that the question was not worded correctly.
Jim Rome isn't really worth talking about in this thread.
I do have to say I like how Aaron Bruski has the ability to bring a pretty good picture on the whole mess with the Kings and where this could be heading. I don't think Stern fires that shot yesterday unless he has good insight to whether the Maloofs will take the next step towards filing an anti trust lawsuit. And obviously he doesn't think they will. After all, that would be a war of lawyers and deep pockets. One of the parties does not fit that description.
The Maloofs probably have some stretch goals that they would consider different levels of victory. These look to be narrowing down to selling and getting the best price for the team. They are boxed in and I think the time might be right to see what the team value will bring them. They can keep saying no until a bid hits the magic number. The concern I have is what kind of train wreck have the Maloofs turned the Kings business into that 350 million for a Memphis team was more attractive to Pera than to upping his bid for the Kings? Assuming all the Kings debt incurred by the majority owners between the city loan and the NBA loan plus the magic number for the Maloofs to put into their pocket to go away, it's going to be a big number.
I wish I understood better the nature of the Kings ownership partners. What sort of dollar value do they put on the majority ownership, Maloofs & Hernriech's, percentages? Does the limited partners shares hold less value? Is the debt spread over all partners or over just the majority? A lot of how that shakes out will depend on how much real cash can the Maloofs pocket to sell their shares.
It's got to be a big step for a billionaire to pay them a good sum of money to basically be buying up a huge load of debt along with the majority shares. Then to have to pony up about 75 million as their share of the arena. Of if you are Chris Hansen, you will have to buy the team, pay off the city of Sacramento bond debt, pay the relocation fee and then pay for a new arena in Seattle. How does that pencil out?
I do have to say I like how Aaron Bruski has the ability to bring a pretty good picture on the whole mess with the Kings and where this could be heading. I don't think Stern fires that shot yesterday unless he has good insight to whether the Maloofs will take the next step towards filing an anti trust lawsuit. And obviously he doesn't think they will. After all, that would be a war of lawyers and deep pockets. One of the parties does not fit that description.
The Maloofs probably have some stretch goals that they would consider different levels of victory. These look to be narrowing down to selling and getting the best price for the team. They are boxed in and I think the time might be right to see what the team value will bring them. They can keep saying no until a bid hits the magic number. The concern I have is what kind of train wreck have the Maloofs turned the Kings business into that 350 million for a Memphis team was more attractive to Pera than to upping his bid for the Kings? Assuming all the Kings debt incurred by the majority owners between the city loan and the NBA loan plus the magic number for the Maloofs to put into their pocket to go away, it's going to be a big number.
I wish I understood better the nature of the Kings ownership partners. What sort of dollar value do they put on the majority ownership, Maloofs & Hernriech's, percentages? Does the limited partners shares hold less value? Is the debt spread over all partners or over just the majority? A lot of how that shakes out will depend on how much real cash can the Maloofs pocket to sell their shares.
It's got to be a big step for a billionaire to pay them a good sum of money to basically be buying up a huge load of debt along with the majority shares. Then to have to pony up about 75 million as their share of the arena. Of if you are Chris Hansen, you will have to buy the team, pay off the city of Sacramento bond debt, pay the relocation fee and then pay for a new arena in Seattle. How does that pencil out?
Jordan Goins
G-League
Well...... Since we are talking about Jim Rome...
Why Not?
Why Not?
Last edited by a moderator:
Rookie
Starter
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
