Burkle to focus on development, not Kings ownership

[Capt. Factorial]

He used an expression that is often misused - I could care less vs. I couldn't care less.

But the misused version of the expression is "I could care less", which suggests that one cares at least a little because there are quanta of caring that are smaller. "I couldn't care less" is the appropriate wording for the sentiment. The only problem that I can see is that the apostrophe was in the wrong place, which was likely a typo considering FTP got it right in the followup.

..and with that, it's bedtime for the Grammar Police. Even if it is 8:22 in the morning. They stay up all night, I think.

 

[Gary]

This REALLY scares me because we shouldn't be making changes to our investment group so late. If I were an owner I would have to question whether or not Sacramento could get things done with so many changes happening. We basically have a new investor group as of last week with Mastrov taking a back seat.

There's just too many changes happening too late in the game and it sends the message that we aren't organized. This is terrible news, and I couldn't think of a way to spin this positively.

 

[UK_King]

This REALLY scares me because we shouldn't be making changes to our investment group so late. If I were an owner I would have to question whether or not Sacramento could get things done with so many changes happening. We basically have a new investor group as of last week with Mastrov taking a back seat.

There's just too many changes happening too late in the game and it sends the message that we aren't organized. This is terrible news, and I couldn't think of a way to spin this positively.

Bruski will find a way.

Seriously though, i assume this came up in the meeting and the NBA would have shut them down there and then if the deal wasn't good enough to proceed.

Clearly the Brukle news wasn't a concern and we wait and see what the result of the vote is going forward.

nothings changed IMO.

 

[Gary]

Bruski will find a way.

Seriously though, i assume this came up in the meeting and the NBA would have shut them down there and then if the deal wasn't good enough to proceed.

Clearly the Brukle news wasn't a concern and we wait and see what the result of the vote is going forward.

nothings changed IMO.

Nothings changed from my point of view either, but I am looking at this through other peoples' eyes. Having so much instability in what amounts to a billion dollar deal with only a week to go before "the decision" kind of scares me.

Wonder if ESPN will make a show called "The Decision 2" and if the owners will be walked out one at a time to give a rose or no rose to the new investment group..

 

[Section 101]

This REALLY scares me because we shouldn't be making changes to our investment group so late. If I were an owner I would have to question whether or not Sacramento could get things done with so many changes happening. We basically have a new investor group as of last week with Mastrov taking a back seat.

There's just too many changes happening too late in the game and it sends the message that we aren't organized. This is terrible news, and I couldn't think of a way to spin this positively.

This has been a known issue since the beginning. The only way to hash it out was out the meeting last week with the committee. They didn't know if the NBA saw it as a conflict. The only people it was news to was the public.

 

[Jose]

On NBA.com, the third top story is titled "Burkle drops out of Sacramento's bid to keep Kings."

http://www.nba.com/2013/news/04/08/kings-sale-burkle.ap/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpts

I have to say, I don't like the way this looks. A few key words, carefully designed, can send stocks tumbling, even if they are insignificant. This looks bad instinctively. 50% of the people who glance at this will think our bid has been damaged, and maybe that's what the NBA wants... <remove tin foil hat?>

It's also on realgm, but at least they're somewhat fair in the article and make it seem like a non-issue (and perhaps a good thing):

Burkle is not able to have a stake in the potential purchase of the Kings because he is also an investor in an agency firm that represents NBA players. The possibly conflict was raised during last week's committee meeting in New York and the Maloofs were not interested in selling the team to Burkle in any form.

 

[Gary]

This has been a known issue since the beginning. The only way to hash it out was out the meeting last week with the committee. They didn't know if the NBA saw it as a conflict. The only people it was news to was the public.

It still doesn't change the fact that the media and some owners might see this as instability.

 

[Section 101]

It still doesn't change the fact that the media and some owners might see this as instability.

The owners were aware from the start. That was the point. It's not news to them.

And btw

It was just leaked the Mark Friedman is joining the group to replace Burkle as the lead on the Arena part.

 

[Schmoe]

It was just leaked the Mark Friedman is joining the group to replace Burkle as the lead on the Arena part.

I'm not going back to look, but I thought the Bee reported Friedman is joining up for non-arena development.

 

[Section 101]

I'm not going back to look, but I thought the Bee reported Friedman is joining up for non-arena development.

Nope

Sacramento developer Mark Friedman said today he's joining the bid to buy the Kings and build the team a new arena at Downtown Plaza.

Friedman said today he'll also participate in the non-arena development that's being proposed for the Downtown Plaza site.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/09/5325689/mark-friedman-sacramento-kings.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Schmoe]

Got it. Didn't remember the "also" part.

 

[Bibbilicious]

http://www.news10.net/video/liveonline/default.aspx

Press conference on Friedman joining Im assuming.

 

[Jose]

Just thinking... would have been nice if the Burkle situation had been addressed early but it's not a bad thing. What's really good is that we seem to have a LOT of very wealthy investors lining up, waiting for a chance to jump in and join the group. It gives even less credibility to the Maloofs (if that's even possible!) claiming that this is not a good market, when we have this many people saying it is a great market and putting their money where their mouth is.

 

[Warhawk]

Just thinking... would have been nice if the Burkle situation had been addressed early but it's not a bad thing. What's really good is that we seem to have a LOT of very wealthy investors lining up, waiting for a chance to jump in and join the group. It gives even less credibility to the Maloofs (if that's even possible!) claiming that this is not a good market, when we have this many people saying it is a great market and putting their money where their mouth is.

Agreed. It was something that had to be discussed and sorted out.

What was really good was his involvement two years ago to get us to where we are today. If not for him in KJ's pocket, the team might be in Anaheim right now. If he is "only" going to be dumping millions of $$$ into the Sacramento downtown area for redevelopment, I am not going to complain! Thanks, Burkle!!!

 

[Bibbilicious]

So how much is Friedman worth??

 

[xyrin]

Yes, but he didn't use an idiom so he couldn't possibly misuse it.

You're wrong again VF21 It IS classified as an idiom, even though you may just think it is a literal expression.

Though on topic: This whole Burkle thing doesn't change a thing. Nonfactor. The strength of Sacramento's bid hasn't changed at all in the eyes of the NBA. Sacramento or Seattle can try to spin it however they want, but it is nothing at all.

Vivek's involvement is the big gamechanger in all of this, I think he is the only reason we have a shot.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

The owners were aware from the start. That was the point. It's not news to them.

And in all the noise, the best news from yesterday has gone nearly unreported - that the Hansen group plans to mortgage themselves to the hilt to do this deal, while the Sacramento group is going to use equity. The NBA will much prefer the Sacramento option on that front.

 

[Gary]

The media likes a "back and forth" game I guess. Sac has the momentum, now Seattle, now Sac, now Seattle! Makes for Drama I guess?

It still scares the crap out of me. It's agonizing having to wait, and every little bit of negative news is just killing me.

 

[UK_King]

So the local investors will be aiding the purchase of the Maloofs share.

that will give the term "ownership group" a unique spin.

 

[uolj]

So the local investors will be aiding the purchase of the Maloofs share.

that will give the term "ownership group" a unique spin.

I think that may be pretty common, having a lot of minority owners with small stakes. It doesn't really matter if the local investors put their money towards the Maloofs' share or Bob Cook's or something else, it's still all part of the same pie.

 

[Kingster]

I suspect they will simply do what Ranadive says. That's simplistic but they are friends. I don't know exactly how they came on board but the impression I get is that Ranadive got on the phone and said, "Hey, guys, we need money and it's for a great, great cause." "Cause" and not "investment." I doubt if they will do much of anything but sit at court side seats. I already admire Ranadive and could understand that his sales job to the Jacobs brothers or brother or whoever it is, went very smoothly. Who could turn down Vivek unless they were broke?

If Vivek gets this team it is going to be sooooo extremely interesting to see what he does. He's a very unconventional thinker.

 

[Kingster]

It still doesn't change the fact that the media and some owners might see this as instability.

Remember, it's the BOG that brought up the conflict of interest issue to begin with. That is on "the list". Well, that just got checked off the list by the withdrawal of Burkle from a "direct" investment in the arena. He'll obviously be there for consultation purposes on the arena, which is no conflict of interest from the BOG point of view. The NBA wanted it done. Now it is done and there is no source of concern there anymore.

 

[butteredbiscuit]

Sam Amick said on KHTK 1140 am that the NBA doesnt want to move the Kings.

 

[AL/kfan]

And in all the noise, the best news from yesterday has gone nearly unreported - that the Hansen group plans to mortgage themselves to the hilt to do this deal, while the Sacramento group is going to use equity. The NBA will much prefer the Sacramento option on that front.

It's possible that Hassan may try to raise more money but Ballmer could probably buy new arenas for over half of current NBA teams and still have more money than he could ever spend in a lifetime. Maybe that's the news from Seattle but I don't get it. Is Ballmer backing out?

 

[AL/kfan]

Remember, it's the BOG that brought up the conflict of interest issue to begin with. That is on "the list". Well, that just got checked off the list by the withdrawal of Burkle from a "direct" investment in the arena. He'll obviously be there for consultation purposes on the arena, which is no conflict of interest from the BOG point of view. The NBA wanted it done. Now it is done and there is no source of concern there anymore.

I fully agree Kingster and if you recall the press or on April 3rd Burkle stayed in the background and didn't seat himself on the stage. Almost like this possible conflict of interest was hashed out earlier and he wanted to distance himself from the seated four to show the BOG that he agreed to their concerns.

 

[uolj]

I fully agree Kingster and if you recall the press or on April 3rd Burkle stayed in the background and didn't seat himself on the stage. Almost like this possible conflict of interest was hashed out earlier and he wanted to distance himself from the seated four to show the BOG that he agreed to their concerns.

Johnson specifically said in today's press conference that the proposal they submitted to the NBA committees April 3rd did *not* include Burkle because of concern over this issue. They had hoped to find a way to work it out so he could be remain part of the group, but he could not divest himself from the other company at this time and the NBA confirmed he wouldn't be allowed to invest in the team or arena so he removed himself from those things now.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

It's possible that Hassan may try to raise more money but Ballmer could probably buy new arenas for over half of current NBA teams and still have more money than he could ever spend in a lifetime. Maybe that's the news from Seattle but I don't get it. Is Ballmer backing out?

No, they're just structuring the deal with a ton of debt because apparently they feel that's the best way to do it. It's just that the NBA probably doesn't agree and speculation is that they would prefer Sacramento's low-debt deal structure. I don't think there's any fundamental reason Ballmer couldn't pay up front, but apparently he's not planning to.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Sam Amick said on KHTK 1140 am that the NBA doesnt want to move the Kings.

Note to the NBA:

You don't have to. Hint, hint.

Love, Capt. Factorial

 

[Gary]

Sam Amick said on KHTK 1140 am that the NBA doesnt want to move the Kings.

Was there a "But....." after it?

 

[uolj]

No, they're just structuring the deal with a ton of debt because apparently they feel that's the best way to do it. It's just that the NBA probably doesn't agree and speculation is that they would prefer Sacramento's low-debt deal structure. I don't think there's any fundamental reason Ballmer couldn't pay up front, but apparently he's not planning to.

I'm skeptical that the debt load is much of an issue with the NBA. If both operations are financed by deep pockets (which we all presume Ballmer is), then it's not a big deal. If there was any worry about the financial wherewithal of the Sacramento group, then the fact that they aren't financing it with much debt is probably a positive, but I don't see any indication that that was much of a worry anyway.