Chris Daniels : David Stern backing Sacramento.

[The Hammer]

Mentioned more succinctly by other posters before me, but nothing Daniels is doing is accidental. He's using the same tactics grocery stores use to get you to buy more cans of beans than you'd want by advertising them as 10 for $10. They aren't lying, but they're leaving out the important part that the cans are $1 each anyway, knowing the sign is going to be interpreted as meaning you have to buy 10 to get them at a discount price.

The whole article is rife with these "lying by omission" and "loaded words" sleights of hand, but the real glaring example is this graf:

"Sacramento has scrambled since the Seattle deal was announced in January to put together a term sheet for an arena deal and investor group to counter the Hansen-led bid. Billionaire Ron Burkle was expected to join the Sacramento effort, but dropped out of the investment group this week citing a business conflict. Burkle has an ownership stake in Relativity Media, which has a division representing NBA players."

First off, "scrambled" conjures imagery of haphazardness, chaos, futility and unprofessionalism that "raced," "sped" or even "rushed" among many other possible word choices would not. But it's key when considering the sentence that follows and otherwise has absolutely no connection to the first. Burkle removing his name from the investor group and instead focusing on the redevelopment and arena building aspect (another inconvenient fact omitted) is not at all related to the hurried and, to put my own biased spin on it, nigh-miraculous pace at which Mayor Johnson has forged together said term sheet and investor group. But because the sentences are adjacent and the word "scrambled" is already implanted in the mind, the reader is left to assume they're connected.

And then Daniels drives home this perception by dropping the coup de grace of his three pronged attack, the anonymous source.

"A league source said the conflict was just one factor in Burkle's decision. Burkle “wasn’t all that fired up about this deal," the source said."

A "league source" could be anyone at all related to the NBA, from Commissioner Stern down to a hot dog vendor at Sleep Train Arena, and that's the least damning part of this quote. Let's not forget that Burkle was the first investor tapped by Mayor Johnson to take control of the team more than two years ago and instrumental in preventing the team's move to Anaheim, had a person-to-person private meeting with Commissioner Stern fairly immediately after the sale to the Seattle group had been announced, handpicked the K Street Mall site over the Railyards and is still a major player in the development aspect of the project. Given the evidence to the contrary, the quote makes little sense unless the "league source" is a master empath and can read the mind of this absurdly private man or you're a Seattle reader who knows none of that and believes Burkle was just one of the many California billionaires whose name KJ "scrambled" to slap on the term sheet.

Glad you went to the trouble to detail these tactics for the less observant among us. Critical thinking skills and media literacy really should be taught more widely in schools. It says a lot that half the people on this board think what Daniels is doing is either not that biased or merely "slanted". He is deliberately creating the impression that he wants to create in his readers minds. The exact OPPOSITE of reporting. It's also not an opinion piece, fyi. It's nothing that belongs in print, anywhere. It's essentially emotional violence toward his audience, just for the sake of clicks. I have no respect or patience for people like that.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Gotta agree with Hammer's assessment, if you go over to * Rising, you'll see they are all pretty much mindless (they've even relegated anything remotely pro-Sacramento to its own thread) and misinformed ex. a big discussion in a recent thread that suggested Sac maybe has 10 votes to their 20. Ummm guys, in that case you're cooked.

 

[VF21]

Gotta agree with Hammer's assessment, if you go over to * Rising, you'll see they are all pretty much mindless (they've even relegated anything remotely pro-Sacramento to its own thread) and misinformed ex. a big discussion in a recent thread that suggested Sac maybe has 10 votes to their 20. Ummm guys, in that case you're cooked.

Shhhhh. Don't tell them.

 

[The Hammer]

Gotta agree with Hammer's assessment, if you go over to * Rising, you'll see they are all pretty much mindless (they've even relegated anything remotely pro-Sacramento to its own thread) and misinformed ex. a big discussion in a recent thread that suggested Sac maybe has 10 votes to their 20. Ummm guys, in that case you're cooked.

I had a discussion with I believe Mr. sdballer on whether or not I was making biased statements when I claimed there was a 100% chance the Kings would stay, and that virtually ALL sonics fans who claimed any different were simply not working with a complete set of information, and that I had yet to come across anyone who had all the information that has been made public, including the history of what happened with the Maloofs, who believed differently than me.

Your example supports my argument.

I have still yet to come across such a person.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Shhhhh. Don't tell them.

The votes don't really matter.
THEY HAVE A SIGNED CONTRACT!!!111oneeleventy1!1

 

[whozit]

I think it goes beyond that. I think the Hansen/Maloof groups are feeding him stuff. But it's a read on what cards they have left to play.
Play one is to threaten the NBA into making sure Hansen is made whole on his deposit. That appears to have worked according to the Bee article.

Play two is for George Maloof to require a dollar for dollar match on the 341 million offered by Hansen. The deposit does not apply to matching the team value for Sac because they did not pay the deposit.

By shifting the deposit loss to the Sac group and forcing the full team match, they hope to make this so expensive for Sac, that they actually back out. Even if they don't back out, it's a battle with the Maloofs over the 311 bid versus 341 match.

Basically this is the final Maloofery by forcing Sac to overspend to keep the team. I would have hoped the NBA had some leverage, but that move today by making Hansen whole on his deposit was not good. It shifted the burden of refund to the Sac group. That's not a good sign.

Some on this thread have questioned his sources, I think you just named them.

I'm not sure about it being a bad sign in terms of Maloofery. The devils in the details. If they have to match AND pay the deposit back, that bleeps. If after making Hansen whole the Maloofs get the same amount they would've gotten from Hansen if that deal had gone through, that's OK.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Ok, I'm not understanding why people are making a big deal out of the $30M deposit.

The current ownership group agreed to a deal for $341M (let's go with that number for arguments sake).
The Seattle group already gave them $30M of that $341M as a deposit. If they back out of the deal, they lose that $$.
If the deal goes through, the Seattle group only owes $311M to complete the deal.

Now, apply the same to our Sacramento group. If they've matched the deal for $341M, then wouldn't all they need to do is pay the Seattle group $30M and the soon-to-be former ownership group $311M, as the they already have the 30M deposit?

Worst case, the Sacramento group pays $341M to the soon-to-be former ownership group (who would then have $371M) and they refund the Seattle group their $30 deposit.

I don't care how you draw it up, in regards to who returns the deposit, it's pretty simple .. the deal is for $341M total, not $371M. After returning the deposit, the same exact dollar amount is made had the original deal gone through.

 

[whozit]

Gotta agree with Hammer's assessment, if you go over to * Rising, you'll see they are all pretty much mindless (they've even relegated anything remotely pro-Sacramento to its own thread) and misinformed ex. a big discussion in a recent thread that suggested Sac maybe has 10 votes to their 20. Ummm guys, in that case you're cooked.

What's funny is that they say the same thing about us. Unless the NBA steps up the plate, one fan base is going to be hosed and it just shouldn't be.

 

[macadocious]

I don't understand the argument that the NBA is doing something to Seattle here. THe NBA did not facilitate the sale. They had nothing to do with it. If the Kings stay it's not a vote against Seattle its a vote for Sacramento.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I don't understand the argument that the NBA is doing something to Seattle here. THe NBA did not facilitate the sale. They had nothing to do with it. If the Kings stay it's not a vote against Seattle its a vote for Sacramento.

Exactly.

They act like it is their team and we are stealing it from them. Phooey.

 

[The Hammer]

Ok, I'm not understanding why people are making a big deal out of the $30M deposit.

The current ownership group agreed to a deal for $341M (let's go with that number for arguments sake).
The Seattle group already gave them $30M of that $341M as a deposit. If they back out of the deal, they lose that $$.
If the deal goes through, the Seattle group only owes $311M to complete the deal.

Now, apply the same to our Sacramento group. If they've matched the deal for $341M, then wouldn't all they need to do is pay the Seattle group $30M and the soon-to-be former ownership group $311M, as the they already have the 30M deposit?

Worst case, the Sacramento group pays $341M to the soon-to-be former ownership group (who would then have $371M) and they refund the Seattle group their $30 deposit.

I don't care how you draw it up, in regards to who returns the deposit, it's pretty simple .. the deal is for $341M total, not $371M. After returning the deposit, the same exact dollar amount is made had the original deal gone through.

To all this, I say: Of course.

But what I think we're witnessing is George trying to go for 371. Bold and crazy as it sounds, I think he thinks he has a shot. Get the "matching" 341 "binding offer" from the Sac group, and kindly keep the 30M non refundable deposit from Hansen.

 

[JB_kings]

Ok, I'm not understanding why people are making a big deal out of the $30M deposit.

The current ownership group agreed to a deal for $341M (let's go with that number for arguments sake).
The Seattle group already gave them $30M of that $341M as a deposit. If they back out of the deal, they lose that $$.
If the deal goes through, the Seattle group only owes $311M to complete the deal.

Now, apply the same to our Sacramento group. If they've matched the deal for $341M, then wouldn't all they need to do is pay the Seattle group $30M and the soon-to-be former ownership group $311M, as the they already have the 30M deposit?

Worst case, the Sacramento group pays $341M to the soon-to-be former ownership group (who would then have $371M) and they refund the Seattle group their $30 deposit.

I don't care how you draw it up, in regards to who returns the deposit, it's pretty simple .. the deal is for $341M total, not $371M. After returning the deposit, the same exact dollar amount is made had the original deal gone through.

I've asked Ryan Lillis to run down this supposed NBA requirement for Sac to repay Hansen his deposit. Because that Sports Business Daily article is the only source. I think it should fall on the Maloofs since they received the deposit. Can Hansen sue the NBA if he loses his deposit money? I got no answer for that one.

 

[HndsmCelt]

I've asked Ryan Lillis to run down this supposed NBA requirement for Sac to repay Hansen his deposit. Because that Sports Business Daily article is the only source. I think it should fall on the Maloofs since they received the deposit. Can Hansen sue the NBA if he loses his deposit money? I got no answer for that one.

For what it is worth Art Thiel in Seattle is repeating the Sports Biz story. Since there is no one correcting it I have to assume it is true, and that the League is trying to play nice with Hansen.

 

[Löwenherz]

Glad you went to the trouble to detail these tactics for the less observant among us. Critical thinking skills and media literacy really should be taught more widely in schools. It says a lot that half the people on this board think what Daniels is doing is either not that biased or merely "slanted". He is deliberately creating the impression that he wants to create in his readers minds. The exact OPPOSITE of reporting. It's also not an opinion piece, fyi. It's nothing that belongs in print, anywhere. It's essentially emotional violence toward his audience, just for the sake of clicks. I have no respect or patience for people like that.

I'm grateful you appreciated the effort. Not to be intentionally hyperbolic, but the entire article could be presented in a media class as an example of agenda-slanted yellow journalism at best and partisan propaganda at worst.

And that's actually the most benign part. Who cares if he pours honey into the ears of his own local zealots, right?

The really aggravating and depressing part comes from the realities of the viral media in the Information Age and the weird phenomena that when his anonymous sources and wild, opinionized pseudo-factoids get laundered through the tertiary reporting agency of the National Media, they somehow become credible because his work is now the "cited source."

Take this example from CBS Sports which doesn't use a single source outside of Daniels' article (in all reality, simply copy-and-pasting key parts and adding supporting flavor text around it). It creates the illusion of actual journalism because, "Hey look, we're citing our source and HE has quotes from his own insider sources ... who are anonymous ... and are now secondhand. So we have secondhand, anonymous sources providing information inconsistent with the known facts of the story ... and the words of this one guy. But we'll get around the "one guy" thing by calling it KING 5 in Seattle. More credible when we cite an entire news organization ... even if it is just this one guy and his anonymous sources. Quick, get an intern to add some flavor text and get this baby on the web."

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/e...68155443205340":"og.likes"}&action_ref_map=[]

And that my friends is how conjecture becomes fact.

 

[uolj]

I had a discussion with I believe Mr. sdballer on whether or not I was making biased statements when I claimed there was a 100% chance the Kings would stay, and that virtually ALL sonics fans who claimed any different were simply not working with a complete set of information, and that I had yet to come across anyone who had all the information that has been made public, including the history of what happened with the Maloofs, who believed differently than me.

Your example supports my argument.

I have still yet to come across such a person.

100%? That's pretty amusing that you think anybody who doesn't think there's 100% chance the Kings stay must be ignorant of all the public facts. Is there some information I don't know that is why I'm only 75% confident that the Kings will stay?

Glad you went to the trouble to detail these tactics for the less observant among us. Critical thinking skills and media literacy really should be taught more widely in schools. It says a lot that half the people on this board think what Daniels is doing is either not that biased or merely "slanted". He is deliberately creating the impression that he wants to create in his readers minds. The exact OPPOSITE of reporting. It's also not an opinion piece, fyi. It's nothing that belongs in print, anywhere. It's essentially emotional violence toward his audience, just for the sake of clicks. I have no respect or patience for people like that.

It's funny, I agree with your assessment of the Maloofs (or George specifically) in another thread where show an appreciation for how his motivations might be something other than spite or hostility towards Sacramento. I think the same type of thinking could be applied to an assessment of Daniels.

While the piece linked in the OP is pretty bad (the worst I've seen from him), he has also consistently retweeted and reported pro-Sacramento pieces of news. That is consistent with someone who is for the most part trying to give an honest assessment. I'm sure he would acknowledge that he's looking for and playing up nuggets of information that support Seattle's cause. He is not unbiased. But there's a difference between that and what you and others seem convinced of, which is intentionally trying to spin the story at every opportunity to favor Seattle.

Many of the criticisms of Daniels, save for the ones about bias, could be levied at many writers, including national reporters. Reporting things based on unnamed sources that haven't been confirmed or reported elsewhere is common. People like Bucher, Howard-Cooper, or even Amick do it all the time. The Bee reporters and local TV guys do it, too. Just because Daniels' source(s) appear to favor Seattle and don't appear to be giving much useful information from our perspective doesn't mean they aren't real. Sources can be anyone with an opinion. Reporters are bad reporters when they use bad sources, that doesn't make them intentionally trying to disseminate false information.

In other words, I think many are mistaking poor reporting skills and mild bias for extreme bias and "evil" intentions. Your evidence isn't compelling that it is the latter.

Try Art Thiel. But be warned, there is a vocal section in Seattle that don't like him (accuse of being the mouthpiece of the port).

Thanks, I read an article from him that was long on opinion and short on reporting, but at least it's somebody besides Daniels to provide an alternate perspective.

 

[Gary]

I'm grateful you appreciated the effort. Not to be intentionally hyperbolic, but the entire article could be presented in a media class as an example of agenda-slanted yellow journalism at best and partisan propaganda at worst.

And that's actually the most benign part. Who cares if he pours honey into the ears of his own local zealots, right?

The really aggravating and depressing part comes from the realities of the viral media in the Information Age and the weird phenomena that when his anonymous sources and wild, opinionized pseudo-factoids get laundered through the tertiary reporting agency of the National Media, they somehow become credible because his work is now the "cited source."

Take this example from CBS Sports which doesn't use a single source outside of Daniels' article (in all reality, simply copy-and-pasting key parts and adding supporting flavor text around it). It creates the illusion of actual journalism because, "Hey look, we're citing our source and HE has quotes from his own insider sources ... who are anonymous ... and are now secondhand. So we have secondhand, anonymous sources providing information inconsistent with the known facts of the story ... and the words of this one guy. But we'll get around the "one guy" thing by calling it KING 5 in Seattle. More credible when we cite an entire news organization ... even if it is just this one guy and his anonymous sources. Quick, get an intern to add some flavor text and get this baby on the web."

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/e...68155443205340":"og.likes"}&action_ref_map=[]

And that my friends is how conjecture becomes fact.

In that article they site Stern as saying he was in favor of the move? Since when? We always knew Stern was on our side. When did he want to move the Kings to Seattle?

 

[ParniValjak]

In that article they site Stern as saying he was in favor of the move? Since when? We always knew Stern was on our side. When did he want to move the Kings to Seattle?

The misconception from Seattle's angle has always been that Stern feels bad about Sonics leaving Seattle and considers it his biggest black mark on his career so these guys believed that this was his way of "making things right" with Seattle before he sets off into the sunset.

The problem with their thinking is that they were not aware just how invested in Sacramento Stern has been in the last few years and just how close a relationship he has with Kevin Johnson. Stern's and NBA's actions in part are not surprise to those following the Kings situation closely over the last few years BUT it is to those that have not followed it. Now that Stern's influence in this is becoming apparent, the Seattle crew are backtracking on initial belief and painting Stern as the bad guy once again.

To anyone who was aware of Stern's involvement in keeping the team in Sacramento the last few years, the latest developments are not a big surprise. As Sam Amick said in this interview the other day, Stern has pretty much given KJ the play book on how to win this thing for Sacramento and that has come as a big surprise to the Seattle hopefuls because in their mind, Stern was going to set off to sunset once he gave another team to Seattle.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

And let's not forget, Stern has no regrets about sending the Sonics to OKC. He said as much - your city told me to make the players pay for your new arena.

That's not the NBA business model.

 

[Dreamtiger]

I don't care if the pro Seattle crowd laughs it off. Jerry Brown has been quietly supporting the cause. He's in China right now asking for investment in California. Stern's been in India. KJ is friendly with Obama. Burkle's friendly with every major player in the Democratic Party. Lehane. Steinberg. Even Friedman seems to be connected. IF the Sac bid is a close match and the only thing seperating the two cities is the promise (but no sure thing) of additional long-term revenue in Seattle, then it comes down to the intangibles. How much the owners like the investors on each side, do they want to hang with them and associate with them on a regular basis? Do they want to be politically connected with some of the players on the Sacramento side? Do they want to reward Sacramento for doing EVERYTHING the league has asked them to do, and more? Do they buy into the vision that the Sac team has? Do they see any value in having a former NBA star with a high profile political career? Because if they don't, KJ's career wiill take a big hit if his bid to save the Kings fails. If he wins this battle, and down the road becomes Governor or a member of Congress, does that help the NBA in any way? In other words, are there ways in which keeping the team in Sacramento helps the league overall, even if it isn't through direct revenue over the next few years? Stern seems to think so, and I'm sure he's got at least a handful of owners who agree with him.

 

[kennadog]

All right, I'm a bit confused. After the BoG meeting it was reported that the $30 million deposit was not, in fact, non-refundable. That it is, actually, contingent upon approval of the sale to Seattle by the league. Also, it is supposedly in a bank account or escrow account and the Maloofs have spent none of it.

I am annoyed ny Sonics fans who act like they are getting ripped off again, if the league doesn't approve the sale. Excuse me? No, it means that Kings fans won't get ripped off by the Maloofs, with the league abetting the theft.

 

[Trueblood]

All right, I'm a bit confused. After the BoG meeting it was reported that the $30 million deposit was not, in fact, non-refundable. That it is, actually, contingent upon approval of the sale to Seattle by the league. Also, it is supposedly in a bank account or escrow account and the Maloofs have spent none of it.

I am annoyed ny Sonics fans who act like they are getting ripped off again, if the league doesn't approve the sale. Excuse me? No, it means that Kings fans won't get ripped off by the Maloofs, with the league abetting the theft.

That's what I don't get. What happened to the contingent that didn't want to steal another team? What happened to Hansen's original statement that preached patience, that this may turn out to be a 3 or 4 year exercise?

I don't think Hansen is necessarily the hypocrite here but rather a handful of fans who don't want to go through this again. They need to realize that they're going against a tough opponent. I know it's not right to talk about other teams that could be had or the possibility of expansion but that's what Hansen was talking about when he preached patience. There are other situations for Seattle that will be easier than this one.

 

[Chupacabra]

Since day one i havent seen the BOG passing the sale to seattle simply because the team is already here and it has more than enough support to stay here and prosper. Moving the team at this point would make absolutely zero sense.

 

[sdballer]

Since day one i havent seen the BOG passing the sale to seattle simply because the team is already here and it has more than enough support to stay here and prosper. Moving the team at this point would make absolutely zero sense.

Its not about making sense, its about making money. And short term at least, the owners will make more money with a team in Seattle than in Sac. The long term benefits of a $525M valuation in a small market could absolutely prove more beneficial down the road but there is a lot of financial reason to vote for the move.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

See, I think the franchise will be more valuable in Sacramento -- with this new ownership group -- than it would be in Seattle. Even the TV revenue could be more lucrative. Why? Remember when the Kings were among the most popular teams in Europe because of Vlade and Peja? Well, the same thing could happen in India with Vivek Ranadive at the helm. Basketball is the 2nd most popular sport in India (behind their pastime, Cricket) and with the first ever owner from India, who is to say that Ranadive isn't able to negotiate some kind of a TV deal in that country due to demand to see his team? Yeah, I get that Ranadive is only an owner and not a player, but there is still sure to be a lot of interest in his team because of his roots. And I bet they find a way to play some exhibition games in India to help drum up more interest.

 

[sdballer]

See, I think the franchise will be more valuable in Sacramento -- with this new ownership group -- than it would be in Seattle. Even the TV revenue could be more lucrative. Why? Remember when the Kings were among the most popular teams in Europe because of Vlade and Peja? Well, the same thing could happen in India with Vivek Ranadive at the helm. Basketball is the 2nd most popular sport in India (behind their pastime, Cricket) and with the first ever owner from India, who is to say that Ranadive isn't able to negotiate some kind of a TV deal in that country due to demand to see his team? Yeah, I get that Ranadive is only an owner and not a player, but there is still sure to be a lot of interest in his team because of his roots. And I bet they find a way to play some exhibition games in India to help drum up more interest.

If we're banking on the tipping point being an Indian owner, I think we're not being honest with our selves. There is no precedent in sports that having an owner with international ties is a game changer. The TV deal will be substantially better in Seattle and the ownership group is much wealthier which likely means they will be contributors to the luxury tax and revenue sharing vs Sacramento which is more likely to receive than share (not definite but more likely).

What we have going for us is the fact we already here, had great one team support prior to the Maloof screwjob the last few years, and made substantial efforts to keep the team here. Seattle has a lot going for it on the market value, ownership wealth, arena progress and history. Its a tight race.

 

[ninjabiscuit]

If we're banking on the tipping point being an Indian owner, I think we're not being honest with our selves. There is no precedent in sports that having an owner with international ties is a game changer. The TV deal will be substantially better in Seattle and the ownership group is much wealthier which likely means they will be contributors to the luxury tax and revenue sharing vs Sacramento which is more likely to receive than share (not definite but more likely).

What we have going for us is the fact we already here, had great one team support prior to the Maloof screwjob the last few years, and made substantial efforts to keep the team here. Seattle has a lot going for it on the market value, ownership wealth, arena progress and history. Its a tight race.

Boy, you're a real beam of sunshine, aren't you?

 

[Gary]

If we're banking on the tipping point being an Indian owner, I think we're not being honest with our selves. There is no precedent in sports that having an owner with international ties is a game changer. The TV deal will be substantially better in Seattle and the ownership group is much wealthier which likely means they will be contributors to the luxury tax and revenue sharing vs Sacramento which is more likely to receive than share (not definite but more likely).

What we have going for us is the fact we already here, had great one team support prior to the Maloof screwjob the last few years, and made substantial efforts to keep the team here. Seattle has a lot going for it on the market value, ownership wealth, arena progress and history. Its a tight race.

How do you know the TV deal will be better? How do you know more money will be made? We know nothing about the deal, and we know nothing about any negotiations with TV before the new owner even gets into it.

We're just as good of a market for Basketball as Seattle, and yes, I am being honest with myself. I feel that you are the one selling the Sacramento market short.. You live here right?

 

[butteredbiscuit]

In that article they site Stern as saying he was in favor of the move? Since when? We always knew Stern was on our side. When did he want to move the Kings to Seattle?

I have never known Stern to support the move to Seattle. I was reading Seattle times today and I read the begining part of it.

http://seattletimes.com/html/nba/2020761390_kings12.html

According to a report, the NBA has asked the Sacramento group to compensate the Seattle contingent for its $30 million deposit if the league decides to not allow the sale.

Why would you want the new owners to compensate Hansen if you didnt think you were going to get the Kings? Sounds like to me, Stern wants them in Sacramento dont you?

 

[sdballer]

How do you know the TV deal will be better? How do you know more money will be made? We know nothing about the deal, and we know nothing about any negotiations with TV before the new owner even gets into it.

We're just as good of a market for Basketball as Seattle, and yes, I am being honest with myself. I feel that you are the one selling the Sacramento market short.. You live here right?

Hansen has already releases a potential number for the tv deal at $40M, which is way beyond any tv deal we've ever had and leverages their other sports. Our potential new ownership group is vastly superior to the Maloofs and I think we'll see improved business on many fronts. But that doesn't mean they have the magical ability to level any playing field with the Seattle market.

They also have a vastly different corporate base that will lead to much more in sponsorship $.

I still think we have a great market and the concentrated fan base is a great balance. But from a annual value standpoint plus the other financial benefits of a move to the other owners, I think the short term finances favor Seattle.

 

[Gary]

30mil is a lot of money and while I think the way the whole deposit thing was done was a bit shady like they were trying to bypass the NBA or something. I assume that the whole "giving the deposit back" thing is because they want Hansen in the league through either expansion or another team moving (which I dread) and want to stay on his good side.