From a Seattle fan

[hoopster]

Hello all, Seattle fan here. Just wanted to say good luck, I've been really impressed by the way Sacramento has handled the whole situation, despite your fantastic political support the arguments do favor your side rather than Seattle's. I wish Seattle had a mayor like KJ 5 years ago, and none of this would be happening today. Its amazing that all of these relocation battles can be pretty much traced back to Hurricane Katrina.

However, I think what will happen is that Hansen will be approved of the sale, but relocation will be rejected. I think this is the only way Stern can assure that the Maloofs out free and clear of the NBA without litigation, and in rejecting relocation, he makes a deal with Hansen to sell the team to the Sacramento group at the same price Hansen purchased it for, and in return Seattle will be awarded an expansion team. I just really cannot see the NBA rejecting two $525 million offers for an NBA team, thats just too much money to be turning down. Offers like these don't come around every day, and the Seattle bid is extremely strong, its just the Sacramento bid is also very strong. Both deals benefit the NBA tremendously in future NBA sales, especially if its $525 million to keep the team in a smaller market. I think the reason Stern said Sacramento needed to up its offer was that the NBA could sell the idea of expansion to the other owners showing that there is over $1 billion on the table right now, and that EVERY single NBA franchise would benefit from a $525 million expansion fee (if not more). Contrary to popular opinion, one more team in the NBA in Seattle will not drain NBA resources, in fact the money generated from a team in the 12th largest NBA market will be contributing to the total pot of the NBA. Plus Stern has already stated he isn't afraid to contract underperforming teams, the process of relocation though is immensely complicated, and Stern absolutely wants basketball back in Seattle. Stern ruled out time and time again expansion, however that was prior to there being $1.05 billion on the table for one NBA team, you just have to think its at least being discussed as a possibility at this point, over the next two weeks.

So lets hope this scenario plays out, and instead of bickering over which city is better, we can in a year's time be arguing over whose team is better. Believe it or not a lot of people in Seattle would prefer expansion anyways and not have to deal with the guilt of having a team relocated.

 

[Kingsfan23]

Good to hear from a respectful Sonics fan. The scenario where the team is approved to hansen/balmer but rejected for relocation I have only heard come from one other person - me (infact I called Grant with the same scenario).. The fact that the NBA would approve a strong bid from Hansen/Balmer yet force them to make a good faith effort in Sacramento I thought was feasible - but I heard from other Kings fans that indeed the sale would only be approved to Hansen/Balmer if it would automatically be relocated. However I don't think Stern cares if basketball is back in Seattle. why would he? He was offended by the regions lack of political will towards keeping the team after they subsidized the Seahawks/Mariners

 

[hoopster]

Good to hear from a respectful Sonics fan. The scenario where the team is approved to hansen/balmer but rejected for relocation I have only heard come from one other person - me (infact I called Grant with the same scenario).. The fact that the NBA would approve a strong bid from Hansen/Balmer yet force them to make a good faith effort in Sacramento I thought was feasible - but I heard from other Kings fans that indeed the sale would only be approved to Hansen/Balmer if it would automatically be relocated. However I don't think Stern cares if basketball is back in Seattle. why would he? He was offended by the regions lack of political will towards keeping the team after they subsidized the Seahawks/Mariners

He wasn't offended, he just didn't get what he wanted 6 years ago from the region, which was a modern NBA arena. He now has that with Hansen, Stern knows how hard Hansen worked to push that deal through the tough city council in Seattle. Stern wants the NBA in Seattle, its a great sports city. Look at how well the city supported an MLS team after the Sonics left, an MLS soccer team is pulling in crowds larger than some major European soccer teams, and a lot of the early support into the Sounders were pissed off Sonics fans. And Seattle plus the state of Washington is quietly an extremely basketball crazy state. A good number of NBA players hail from the region, plus even other cities in the state of Washington (Spokane) are basketball nuts, just look at how well supported Gonzaga is, Spokane holds a basketball tournament every summer that attracts 50,000 players. The Sonics were very well supported across the state and its the 13th most populous in the country.

I respect Sacramento a lot, believe me, I'm not arguing Sacramento vs. Seattle I'm merely saying its a myth that the city and state cannot again support basketball. Politics got in the way as usual in 2008.

 

[hoopster]

And again, it would be incredibly stupid for the owners to turn down one of these offers, both cities deserve a team, I just hope this whole process was set up by Stern to leverage other league owners into approving expansion. Two $525 million offers with billionaires in each ownership group is incredible, and it would just be such bad business to just accept one city and turn away the other. I'm really, really pulling for both of our cities to have the NBA in 2014.

 

[VF21]

Stern reiterated that expansion is not on the table right now.

I thank you for coming here with respect but our two views are going to end up being factional until this is over. As Stern said a while back, there's no way both cities end up happy. And while I sympathize with the true Sonics fans who lost their team, I think the NBA has a strong chance to avoid making a second huge mistake by allowing a team with incredible local support to be taken away because its owners sneaked around and got a deal while they were busily denying the team was even for sale.

I hope you get a team again, but taking OUR KINGS would not resurrect your Sonics.

 

[Bricklayer]

Well if it helps any, from the very beginning of this thing I've said that the logical answer was always just to give Seattle an expansion team. Seattle is a proven market with major money behind their bid, there is very little risk. But unfortunately the commish seems to have gone out of his way to repeatedly deny that's an option.

 

[funkykingston]

Unfortunately there is no scenario in which both cities will have teams in 2014. There will be Seattle Sonics OR Sacramento Kings next year. Even if expansion were an option, it wouldn't happen for another two years at least. More than likely it would coincide with the completion of the new arena. And I think it would only be an option for Seattle. I can't imagine any circumstance whatsoever where Sacramento has done everything asked of it, has the team stripped away anyway and then the NBA turns around and grants us an expansion team in a few years. No, I think if the NBA leaves this market it won't be returning for quite a few years, if at all.

It would be nice if both cities could win and all the unnecessary animosity and strife between the two fan bases could be swept aside with both deserving cities being awarded teams. But Stern certainly seems sincere when he says expansion isn't a consideration right now.

Everyone knows that Seattle can and would support a team if the NBA returned. It's a wonderful city with a passionate fanbase that should have never lost their Sonics.

But since the current situation means the Sonics only return by destroying the team I grew up with I am in the unfortunate position of rooting for your city's efforts to fail.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Well if it helps any, from the very beginning of this thing I've said that the logical answer was always just to give Seattle an expansion team. Seattle is a proven market with major money behind their bid, there is very little risk. But unfortunately the commish seems to have gone out of his way to repeatedly deny that's an option.

I can only assume that the owners have been very clear that they are opposed to expansion categorically at this time.

 

[slugking50]

I can only assume that the owners have been very clear that they are opposed to expansion categorically at this time.

they don't want to add another slice to the pie. Another slice is less money in owners pockets.

 

[ArcoKings]

Hoopster, thanks for chiming in. Very interesting scenarios you pointed out. In a perfect world BOTH cities would have a team but unfortunately only one city is getting a team. Both cities deserve a team! The only hope for the losing city is that there's a team somewhere in the league that will move to one of these cities because the financial situation and fan support there is dire. Very unlikely.

 

[TyFreak Evans]

Hello all, Seattle fan here. Just wanted to say good luck, I've been really impressed by the way Sacramento has handled the whole situation, despite your fantastic political support the arguments do favor your side rather than Seattle's. I wish Seattle had a mayor like KJ 5 years ago, and none of this would be happening today. Its amazing that all of these relocation battles can be pretty much traced back to Hurricane Katrina.

However, I think what will happen is that Hansen will be approved of the sale, but relocation will be rejected. I think this is the only way Stern can assure that the Maloofs out free and clear of the NBA without litigation, and in rejecting relocation, he makes a deal with Hansen to sell the team to the Sacramento group at the same price Hansen purchased it for, and in return Seattle will be awarded an expansion team. I just really cannot see the NBA rejecting two $525 million offers for an NBA team, thats just too much money to be turning down. Offers like these don't come around every day, and the Seattle bid is extremely strong, its just the Sacramento bid is also very strong. Both deals benefit the NBA tremendously in future NBA sales, especially if its $525 million to keep the team in a smaller market. I think the reason Stern said Sacramento needed to up its offer was that the NBA could sell the idea of expansion to the other owners showing that there is over $1 billion on the table right now, and that EVERY single NBA franchise would benefit from a $525 million expansion fee (if not more). Contrary to popular opinion, one more team in the NBA in Seattle will not drain NBA resources, in fact the money generated from a team in the 12th largest NBA market will be contributing to the total pot of the NBA. Plus Stern has already stated he isn't afraid to contract underperforming teams, the process of relocation though is immensely complicated, and Stern absolutely wants basketball back in Seattle. Stern ruled out time and time again expansion, however that was prior to there being $1.05 billion on the table for one NBA team, you just have to think its at least being discussed as a possibility at this point, over the next two weeks.

So lets hope this scenario plays out, and instead of bickering over which city is better, we can in a year's time be arguing over whose team is better. Believe it or not a lot of people in Seattle would prefer expansion anyways and not have to deal with the guilt of having a team relocated.

Please stay as classy as you come across as with your initial comments. And please tell your fellow Seattle fans the same as well.

Thanks for your kind words, and I also hope this ends up on the positive end of the spectrum for both cities. I would not mind rooting for the Seattle SuperSonics a couple of times during the season (unless they're playing the Sacramento Kings, of course).

 

[HndsmCelt]

they don't want to add another slice to the pie. Another slice is less money in owners pockets.

In a sense I think you are right. Although I don' think adding teams would directly cut into existing teams revenue, if the added teams are not profit makers they may well exist off of the profit sharing provided by those that are. Worse still is the dilution of the talent pool that WILL effect virtually every team. Ironically I have for years called this the Starbucks effect. When a quality franchise expands it can well ruin it's brand in the process. Bringing in 20 or 40 more players means that the 20-40 guys that would not have made the cut on existing teams are now players. (Like buying 50 tons more coffee beans means 50 tons of beans you would have passed on before.) The other effect is location. Once all the prime locations are taken then you are adding to more marginal locations. Seattle had a good fan base bu if you look at articles from 2007-2008 the sports world considered them among the 10 worst fans in professional sports. After Seattle what town is next? return to Vancouver? St. Louis? Omaha? It may very well be that for the foreseeable future the NBA as such has reached (and some would argue exceeded) optimum size. I think expansion efforts such that they might be, will be focused on the Developmental League. Maybe Hansen can buy and expansion D-League team for Kirkland?

 

[xyrin]

There will not be an expansion team. I know people like to float that solution but it isn't going to happen. By the end of this saga either Sacramento or Seattle will be heartbroken. I think it comes down to whomever can prove to the NBA they can build an arena first.

 

[kennadog]

He wasn't offended, he just didn't get what he wanted 6 years ago from the region, which was a modern NBA arena. He now has that with Hansen, Stern knows how hard Hansen worked to push that deal through the tough city council in Seattle.

Sacramento had a deal for an arena last year (Maloofs backed out) and approved one again this year. So Sacramento did what Seattle didn't do 6 years ago, but should lose its team?

Sacramento has had a potential buyer since 2011, but the Maloofs deny the team is even for sale, while they negotiate with Hansen to sell the team. I don't think an NBA team has been sold ever, without the city being given at least a chance to come up with buyers and a bid to keep the team from moving. Heck, the league bought the Hornets to keep them in NO a very small market.

Sacramento has done everything the league has asked for for the last two years. So Sacramento aces the test, but should be flunked, just because Seattle wants a do-over?

I would like Seattle to get an NBA team. Really I would. The fans had no control over what happened, but the city did. Here in Sacramento, the fans and the city have done everything possible, everything asked. If fairness was actually practiced in the real world, instead of being given lip service, no way would Sacramento lose its ONLY pro-sports team.

 

[Tetsujin]

Sacramento had a deal for an arena last year (Maloofs backed out) and approved one again this year. So Sacramento did what Seattle didn't do 6 years ago, but should lose its team?

Sacramento has had a potential buyer since 2011, but the Maloofs deny the team is even for sale, while they negotiate with Hansen to sell the team. I don't think an NBA team has been sold ever, without the city being given at least a chance to come up with buyers and a bid to keep the team from moving. Heck, the league bought the Hornets to keep them in NO a very small market.

Sacramento has done everything the league has asked for for the last two years. So Sacramento aces the test, but should be flunked, just because Seattle wants a do-over?

I would like Seattle to get an NBA team. Really I would. The fans had no control over what happened, but the city did. Here in Sacramento, the fans and the city have done everything possible, everything asked. If fairness was actually practiced in the real world, instead of being given lip service, no way would Sacramento lose its ONLY pro-sports team.

But without the Sonics, how would Seattle sports fan spend their time between the NFL season, the MLS season, and the MLB season?

 

[butteredbiscuit]

But without the Sonics, how would Seattle sports fan spend their time between the NFL season, the MLS season, and the MLB season?

I dont know. How are they doing it now?

 

[HndsmCelt]

I dont know. How are they doing it now?

Roller Derby

 

[hoopster]

In a sense I think you are right. Although I don' think adding teams would directly cut into existing teams revenue, if the added teams are not profit makers they may well exist off of the profit sharing provided by those that are. Worse still is the dilution of the talent pool that WILL effect virtually every team. Ironically I have for years called this the Starbucks effect. When a quality franchise expands it can well ruin it's brand in the process. Bringing in 20 or 40 more players means that the 20-40 guys that would not have made the cut on existing teams are now players. (Like buying 50 tons more coffee beans means 50 tons of beans you would have passed on before.) The other effect is location. Once all the prime locations are taken then you are adding to more marginal locations. Seattle had a good fan base bu if you look at articles from 2007-2008 the sports world considered them among the 10 worst fans in professional sports. After Seattle what town is next? return to Vancouver? St. Louis? Omaha? It may very well be that for the foreseeable future the NBA as such has reached (and some would argue exceeded) optimum size. I think expansion efforts such that they might be, will be focused on the Developmental League. Maybe Hansen can buy and expansion D-League team for Kirkland?

Well if theoretically there is an expansion team placed in Seattle, and only Seattle, thats only an extra 12 players, which is hardly a talent dilution. Basketball is a funny sport, you see all the time guys who exceed expectations when given an opportunity to play who seemingly come out of nowhere, but all it took was an opportunity, Jeremy Lin being the best example, but even this year Goran Dragic, Reggie Evans, Greivis Vazquez, now Tobias Harris are examples of players who have far exceeded their expectations who previously were fringe NBA players. A few even rising stars, every year guys come from nowhere to win a starting position and be extremely effective at that position. One thing is for sure, the players union would have no problem with expansion.

The revenue sharing dilution also isn't much difference. If you consider the NBA spreads around $30 million a year in TV revenue sharing, adding one more team is just taking the figure from $30 to $29 million, but a $525 million expansion fee to be spread around to every team would be roughly $17 million per team. So while each team may lose around a $1 million in TV revenue from expanding to Seattle, the $17 million per team would make up for those losses. Plus when the new TV deal is signed in the coming years by the NBA, adding the 12th largest market to the mix would theoretically make Seattle a team adding more revenue to the league and not taking away. Not to mention, Seattle's ownership theoretically has the capital to be a luxury tax paying team. The revenue dilution I think is hardly a problem.

Again, I really wouldn't be surprised if Hansen/Stern set it up so that A) Sacramento/NBA could finally be rid of the Maloofs B) Kings stay in Sacramento with a new arena and great ownership group and C) Stern could use the whole situation to leverage the other owners into accepting expansion. Stern says expansion is off the table, but at the same time its just so much money to be turning away from on of these cities that you have to think its going to be discussed amongst the owners. In 2004, Charlotte paid $300 million expansion fee, 9 years later a $525 million expansion fee, or even $600 million expansion fee, is tremendous for the league. Not to mention every single NBA team benefits from two $525 million sales. The arguments make sense for expansion, lets just hope the league has the decency to keep both cities happy, and increase their own pocketbooks in the process.

 

[slugking50]

Expansion will not happen. The owners do not want to give up more money from the TV/Radio/Jerseys, etc.