Section 101
All-Star
Doesn't matter either way under CA contract law. The Maloofs have to prove they were damaged in some way in order to keep any part of the deposit.
Deal in place!!
- Thread starter Schmoe
- Start date
- Status
Doesn't matter either way under CA contract law. The Maloofs have to prove they were damaged in some way in order to keep any part of the deposit.
whozit
Starter
Good. I was curious how it would work if the Seattle group voluntarily backed out. I was afraid the risk of losing the money outright would be motivation for them to fight to the end.
Should it become the case that the BOG rules in Sacramento's favor I think the $30 million would be very straightforward to deal with.
The $30 million was simply a downpayment on the sale. So the Maloofs have already received $30 million of what they agreed to sell for. Assuming the Sacramento bid is equivalent Mastrov/Ranadive would pay $30 million to Hansen/Ballmer and the remainder of what was agreed to the Maloofs.
It seems like the media is painting the deposit money as a major factor in the Seattle group's bid being approved and I'm not really sure why. It's not standard NBA operating procedure, it wasn't advised by the NBA, it isn't binding since the BOG still has to approve all deals AND reading between the lines it seemed to agitate Stern somewhat, at least in my view. And I can understand that. Stern made it very clear when he was in Oakland that the NBA decides whether a franchise moves or stays and who buys them and the deposit seems like an attempt to force the BOG's hand.
Again, at the moment I am very confident of our chances of keeping our team.
The $30 million was simply a downpayment on the sale. So the Maloofs have already received $30 million of what they agreed to sell for. Assuming the Sacramento bid is equivalent Mastrov/Ranadive would pay $30 million to Hansen/Ballmer and the remainder of what was agreed to the Maloofs.
It seems like the media is painting the deposit money as a major factor in the Seattle group's bid being approved and I'm not really sure why. It's not standard NBA operating procedure, it wasn't advised by the NBA, it isn't binding since the BOG still has to approve all deals AND reading between the lines it seemed to agitate Stern somewhat, at least in my view. And I can understand that. Stern made it very clear when he was in Oakland that the NBA decides whether a franchise moves or stays and who buys them and the deposit seems like an attempt to force the BOG's hand.
Again, at the moment I am very confident of our chances of keeping our team.
Last edited:
Agreed. Simple to work out if necessary.
They won't be able to get their money back. It's basically a non-refundable deposit so that the Maloofs couldn't back out. If the sale is negated for any other reason, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Hansen was trying to protect himself from any George Maloof shenanigans. He had no idea the deal would get leaked prematurely and he vastly underestimated the determination of Kevin Johnson to keep the team here.
Section 101
All-Star
Wrong. It's a deposit. There is no non refundable under CA contract law. Look up the case sited in the tweets. A deposit is there to protect the seller not the buyer. The Maloofs would have to prove they were damaged financially so if the Vek deal is equal there would not be any damages.
Last edited:
I can't see it working out that way just as I couldn't envision a scenario where the team was relocated and the Seattle group were allowed to simply default on the loan for STA. The NBA would see to it that the fair thing was done in both instances.
I've heard several experts say differently. Bottom line for me is that I really don't care one way or the other and I bet Burkle, Mastrov and Ranadive don't either. Since NONE of us have seen the actual sales contract, we're all hazarding guesses anyway, aren't we?
Section 101
All-Star
Look at the tweets posted. That is an attorney verifying which is better than an expert. You can look up and read the case quoted as well.
It has nothing to do with the sales contract. A contract cannot violate the law !
It's interesting to see the mindset of Sonics fans. Almost more interesting to see the evolution of that mindset following the initial announcement that Hansen struck a deal to purchase the Kings. I don't blame them for being excited that their team might be returning but the outlook towards Sacramento began as "we're so sorry this is happening, we know what you're going through and it's awful" to "you don't deserve your team" and "you're deluded if you think the NBA will choose Sacramento/Burkle/Mastrov over Seattle/Hansen/Ballmer" and has now moved into a bizarre conversation about how stupid Sacramento residents and officials must be because this arena deal is obviously horrible etc. It's almost entertaining. Almost.
Part of their thinking is that the NBA screwed them over and thus "owes" them one. They think because of what happened to them that it is inevitable that it now happen to Sacramento. Maybe if Seattle had an arena deal in place five years ago the situations would be comparable. They aren't. This decision isn't as inextricably linked to that situation and Stern has said exactly that.
The other part of their rationale is that Seattle (1) is a bigger market (2) has richer owners and (3) is further along in their efforts towards a new arena which requires less public funding.
1 is actually arguable. For all the down their nose glances in our direction Seattle is the 12th largest market and Sacramento the 20th. Add in the fact that the Kings are the only game in town and the playing field is fairly level. Now, Seattle WOULD have richer owners and would absolutely generate more corporate sponsorship and local TV ad revenue. But here's the interesting question about that - why would the other owners care? Those are things that would benefit the Seattle franchise and not the NBA as a whole. At best it would mean a few more revenue sharing dollars but quite honestly who thinks the Sonics will be among the top handful of profitable franchises? I can't see them contributing much in terms of revenue sharing and since the Kings (when attendance was good) were consistently profitable Sacramento wouldn't be taking revenue sharing money so that is really a non-starter.
Points 2 and 3 aren't really arguable. The Seattle group has more money. Their arena plans, while not light years ahead, ARE further along. Now, had the Maloofs stuck to the deal they raised their hands at midcourt in support of then we'd actually have shovels in the ground, but that's a rant for another time. Here's the only really important fact here - this isn't a contest to see which market is bigger, wealthier etc. It's a decision as to whether or not to TAKE Sacramento's franchise from them and give it to Seattle. And that's an important distinction.
If these were competing bids for an expansion franchise, I'd easily give the nod to Seattle. But they aren't. Sacramento has a loyal and supportive fanbase and an agreement to completely revitalize downtown with a new public/private funded NBA arena as its centerpiece. The question isn't which city is bigger or wealthier. The question is: What has Sacramento done to lose it's NBA franchise? And the answer is nothing.
This isn't a glass half full outlook. I'm not being optimistic. I'm being realistic. And the realistic view says that there is no reason for the BOG to uproot our Kings.
Part of their thinking is that the NBA screwed them over and thus "owes" them one. They think because of what happened to them that it is inevitable that it now happen to Sacramento. Maybe if Seattle had an arena deal in place five years ago the situations would be comparable. They aren't. This decision isn't as inextricably linked to that situation and Stern has said exactly that.
The other part of their rationale is that Seattle (1) is a bigger market (2) has richer owners and (3) is further along in their efforts towards a new arena which requires less public funding.
1 is actually arguable. For all the down their nose glances in our direction Seattle is the 12th largest market and Sacramento the 20th. Add in the fact that the Kings are the only game in town and the playing field is fairly level. Now, Seattle WOULD have richer owners and would absolutely generate more corporate sponsorship and local TV ad revenue. But here's the interesting question about that - why would the other owners care? Those are things that would benefit the Seattle franchise and not the NBA as a whole. At best it would mean a few more revenue sharing dollars but quite honestly who thinks the Sonics will be among the top handful of profitable franchises? I can't see them contributing much in terms of revenue sharing and since the Kings (when attendance was good) were consistently profitable Sacramento wouldn't be taking revenue sharing money so that is really a non-starter.
Points 2 and 3 aren't really arguable. The Seattle group has more money. Their arena plans, while not light years ahead, ARE further along. Now, had the Maloofs stuck to the deal they raised their hands at midcourt in support of then we'd actually have shovels in the ground, but that's a rant for another time. Here's the only really important fact here - this isn't a contest to see which market is bigger, wealthier etc. It's a decision as to whether or not to TAKE Sacramento's franchise from them and give it to Seattle. And that's an important distinction.
If these were competing bids for an expansion franchise, I'd easily give the nod to Seattle. But they aren't. Sacramento has a loyal and supportive fanbase and an agreement to completely revitalize downtown with a new public/private funded NBA arena as its centerpiece. The question isn't which city is bigger or wealthier. The question is: What has Sacramento done to lose it's NBA franchise? And the answer is nothing.
This isn't a glass half full outlook. I'm not being optimistic. I'm being realistic. And the realistic view says that there is no reason for the BOG to uproot our Kings.
jalfa
Starter
has anyone from here commented on this: https://www.facebook.com/steve4sacramento/posts/362789767159431
as a non-resident, I hesitate to say anything but I'd love to see some voices form here added to the discussion.
as a non-resident, I hesitate to say anything but I'd love to see some voices form here added to the discussion.
From Twitter:
Aaron Bruski @aaronbruski 1h
I'm told Vivek Ranadive was always the lead investor for Sac's offer on the Kings. He went public when he liked his chances.
--------------------------------
This makes sense. I seem to recall that KJ said "at least two whales" and that there were a lot of hints about MORE than two right from the beginning. If this is, in fact, true it shows even more just how sophisticated the whole campaign has been from the day the Seattle/Maloofs chicanery came to light.
Aaron Bruski @aaronbruski 1h
I'm told Vivek Ranadive was always the lead investor for Sac's offer on the Kings. He went public when he liked his chances.
--------------------------------
This makes sense. I seem to recall that KJ said "at least two whales" and that there were a lot of hints about MORE than two right from the beginning. If this is, in fact, true it shows even more just how sophisticated the whole campaign has been from the day the Seattle/Maloofs chicanery came to light.
Schmoe
G-League
Is Seattle's revenue-sharing potential larger than the Indian market?
Nope, and that's another point in our favor, especially when you consider how important globalization of the league has been to Stern and will be to Silver.
Schmoe
G-League
Nope, and that's another point in our favor, especially when you consider how important globalization of the league has been to Stern and will be to Silver.
Exactly! Sacramento (20) < Seattle (12)
BUT...
Sacramento (20) + India (1.2 Billion people) > Seattle (12)
AND IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE!
Last edited:
Prophetess
Gallifrayain
sitting in my finance class analyzing the deal as reported by the Sacramento Bee. This ought to be interesting.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
If Councilman Hansen is truly interested in input and will be swayed by input, it is obvious what this Facebook page will tell him. Those of you who can "like" or "unlike" go to the page and post "like." And hey, you'll get to know my full name and a decent picture of my face.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
