Recap anyone?
Better than a recap. The whole interview:
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013...hirey-discusses-obstacles-for-new-arena-plan/
Recap anyone?
I just took a look at Grant's Twitter and even Magic Johnson is supporting the Kings staying! Lot of power in supporting us haha.
Its funny how seattle has to react to everything sacramento. after magic said that chris daniels or somone from seattle had to post a picture of magic with steve ballmer.
Better than a recap. The whole interview:
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013...hirey-discusses-obstacles-for-new-arena-plan/
Better than a recap. The whole interview:
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013...hirey-discusses-obstacles-for-new-arena-plan/
As incredible as my recap was... I urge everyone to listen to the Shirey interview. I think it will answer a lot of questions and doubts about the legitimacy of this whole thing.
. Then, I think it's going to come down to the rights of the owners to sell to whom they wish to.../[/URL]
the only reason left to take the kings away from sacramento is the fact that seattle doesn't have a team... And that's simply not a good enough reason.
I truly don't understand this argument. What do people think will happen? Mark Cuban rejects the Seattle deal, then 5 years later tries to sell his team and the entire BOG rejects him saying "well, you rejected the SEA deal so we're going to reject yours!"
???
I believe the argument is not about owners being vindictive against one another, but that owners don't want other owners deciding who they sell their assets to. By setting a precedent (I know this happened once with the T-Wolves because the new ownership group wasn't approved, but it is an isolated case at this point), the fear is that in the future, the other owners may dictate who they sell to.
Which I can only see as being a hindrance if it means less money in the outgoing owner's pockets. If an owner (in this case the Maloofs) is selling a team and will get the same price from one of two buyers then (1) why would the outgoing owner care who they sell to and (2) why WOULDN'T the league want to dictate which ownership group is entering their circle?
The only possible way I could see an outgoing owner having a strong preference for one group vs another (assuming the sale price is equal) is that they might strongly prefer to sell to a group that would keep the team in town and/or competitive and clearly the Maloofs don't care about either. No, the only possible reason that they'd even care whether it was Hansen/Ballmer or Mastrov/Burkle would be out of spite and to screw over Sacramento as a city and fanbase and quite honestly the BOG should be opposed to such a thing on it's surface.
Count me among those that don't buy this particular line of reasoning or especially that it favors Seattle.
Agreed. If the money is the same (or VERY similar) to the outgoing owner, the league absolutely has the right to decide which owner they sell to for all kinds of reasons, including arena situation, community support, etc.
I believe the argument is not about owners being vindictive against one another, but that owners don't want other owners deciding who they sell their assets to. By setting a precedent (I know this happened once with the T-Wolves because the new ownership group wasn't approved, but it is an isolated case at this point), the fear is that in the future, the other owners may dictate who they sell to.
I agree that the owners wouldn't want to set a precedent of being hindered in the sale process, but we should separate and distinguish a sale with no intention or need to move the team with a sale to a different owner who is intent on moving the team.
When relocation is involved where so many factors suddenly come into play that can damage the NBA, the owners will look at the present state of affairs, not at what may happen when they decide to sell to a different city.
I think Jose is correct. The Maloofs don't have to sell to Mastrov if the move/sale to Seattle is rejected. I don't understand the comments that the Maloofs are out of the picture because they have sold the team. They haven't sold the team until the BOG OKs it. Of course they would be fools to reject Mastrov but they ARE fools.
I think Jose is correct. The Maloofs don't have to sell to Mastrov if the move/sale to Seattle is rejected. I don't understand the comments that the Maloofs are out of the picture because they have sold the team. They haven't sold the team until the BOG OKs it. Of course they would be fools to reject Mastrov but they ARE fools.
I think Jose is correct. The Maloofs don't have to sell to Mastrov if the move/sale to Seattle is rejected. I don't understand the comments that the Maloofs are out of the picture because they have sold the team. They haven't sold the team until the BOG OKs it. Of course they would be fools to reject Mastrov but they ARE fools.
Except as Bruski mentioned the NBA could call in their loan which would basically force the Maloofs to come up with $100+ million. If they don't the NBA can take over the team. They are broke and can't survive the environment they created here. They are selling at this point one way or another.
I may be misunderstanding this... but I don't understand why people think that the BoG would force the Clowns to sell to Mastrov/Sacramento. They already agreed to sell the team to Hansen so he can move it to Seattle. The only vote coming from the BoG is to approve or reject that sale and relocation. Not on the merits of "does Seattle deserve a team?", but on the merits of whether or not the team needs to relocate to be successful - whether or not Sacramento can support an NBA franchise (the same argument that was key when considering the relocation to Anaheim, and was also key in Seattle's relocation to OKC due to lack of city support). Remember, this is a bid to RELOCATE - not a bid to buy and stay.
I think Jose is correct. The Maloofs don't have to sell to Mastrov if the move/sale to Seattle is rejected. I don't understand the comments that the Maloofs are out of the picture because they have sold the team. They haven't sold the team until the BOG OKs it. Of course they would be fools to reject Mastrov but they ARE fools.
Merchant and Lehane killing it on their presentation. Cite fan support and the NBA's second best TV market (adjusted for size)
Its one thing that I am really nervous about in this whole effort. We seem to be assuming that the $525 million includes debt to the city, debt to the NBA and the relocation fee. We don't really know that and that is one key thing that could really screw us over here. All it takes is for one of those to not be included in the $525 million and the Mastrov/Burkle bid falls way short of what it should be and this whole thing goes up in smoke!Something that Carmichael Dave tweeted a few days ago has been bugging me.
"Hansen deal isn't 65% of 525. It's 525-30 mil relo-77 city loan - 140 NBA debt."
Has this been refuted? Because if it's correct, then the true team value would be $278 million, and the 65% share that is being bidded on would only be $180 million. Yet I keep seeing it reported that the team value is now $525 based on the sales agreement. Forbes even values the team at $525 now. It doesn't make sense to me how a value can be inflated to account for the debt. I mean wasn't that the basis of a lot of mortgage fraud during the real estate bubble-- home values were appraised artificially high to allow for loans that far exceeded the true value of the property. Not a perfect comparison by any stretch, but one of the main reasons the purchase price is so high is because of all the debt associated with it. How the debt is handled by any new ownership group is a huge piece of this puzzle. We know that the Mastrov/Burkle bid doesn't need to include the debt to the city of Sacramento or the relocation fee which is potentially $107 million. But I'm also wondering if each bid assumes the NBA debt or if either attempts to pay some or all of it off.
EDIT: Should have phrased that differently. It's not that the Mastrov/Burkle bid doesn't need to account for the city of Sacramento debt, they just don't need to pay it off in one lump sum up front.
I truly don't understand this argument. What do people think will happen? Mark Cuban rejects the Seattle deal, then 5 years later tries to sell his team and the entire BOG rejects him saying "well, you rejected the SEA deal so we're going to reject yours!"
???