Have Maloofs threatened the NBA’s billion dollar arena subsidy industry?

[rainmaker]

Very, very interesting read. Maybe I'll copy and paste some of it later when I have time. Of course, anyone else is more than welcome to do the same.

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports....e-nbas-billion-dollar-arena-subsidy-industry/

The Maloofs world is crumbling, and faster than most thought.

In that letter, he described the Maloofs’ harassment of at least one Sacramento business owner using an ex-FBI agent and asks for a federal investigation into the matter.

On Friday night, CBS13, the local CBS News affiliate, reported that the Maloof Family is employing a former FBI Agent whose purported activities appear designed to intimidate citizens of the Sacramento region who in recent weeks have expressed their concerns about the Maloof Family’s ownership of the Sacramento Kings.

If accurate, the report that the Maloof Family is potentially party to such unscrupulous conduct shocks the conscience at any number of levels.

First, in an era where professional sports organizations have been heavily punished for engaging in “spying” on opposing teams and putting “bounties” on opposing players – the idea that a professional sports team’s ownership group would target its own fans, including prominent and respected local business leaders who are financial supporters of the team, is simply unconscionable.

Lehane then goes in on what happened when Steinbrenner got caught paying Howie Spira, a man with an extremely questionable background, $40,000 to dig up dirt on then Yankee Dave Winfield.

Second, given the history of professional sports owners being severely sanctioned for the use of private detectives involved in comparable activities, it would appear that the Maloofs are possibly exposing themselves to sanctions. Former New York Yankee owner George Steinbrenner was permanently suspended by Major League Baseball for hiring a private detective to dig up dirt on Dave Winfield.

And for the cherry on top, Lehane asks for the federal investigation:

And, third, in deploying a former FBI Agent to engage in what was reported to be acts of intimidation and harassment, various federal criminal statutes are potentially implicated.

Furthermore, the real reason why Lehane brought the Steinbrenner incident into focus is the “best interest of the league” clause found in each of the major sports’ constitutions and by-laws. Vincent used the clause to give Steinbrenner a lifetime ban for the Spira incident (among other factors), though Steinbrenner later exerted enough pressure to be reinstated after two years of riding the pine.

There has already been some talk, some published and most of it unpublished, that Stern could or should use the NBA’s version of the best interest clause to force the sale of the team or nicely encourage ‘the boys’ to negotiate in good faith with Sacramento. The motivation is simple. The Maloofs don’t appear to have the money to run an NBA team, the NBA doesn’t need another Sonicsgate, and the NBA itself has gone to great lengths to preserve the Sacramento market.

According to the Marquette Sports Law Review, the commissioner’s office is installed within the framework of a “monopolistic business association,” shielding the NBA from being bogged down by litigation so long as the commissioner’s office provides “due process” for disputes between players, owners, and the league itself. The office is supposed to act as a disinterested reviewing body with the power and independence to sanction players and owners alike. This body gives the owners the ability to ‘obviate judicial interference,’ which is a fancy way of saying the courts stay out of their business on a multitude of legal issues. From the league and owners’ perspectives, a commissioner can resolve certain conflicts faster and more effectively (read: cheaper) than the courts can.

This “due process” is also an important mechanism required for the league to avoid antitrust suits in relocation disputes. If you recall during Stern’s press conference just hours after George Maloof and his antitrust attorneys torched the Sacramento deal, he said “I am very sensitive of the rights of the Maloofs to do what they did.” That’s because in past relocation disputes, leagues have lost cases because they did not give owners, such as Al Davis and Donald Sterling, an appropriate forum and process to apply for their relocation requests. As distasteful as the Maloof’s actions were, honoring the application and due process of a relocation request is paramount and the likely motivation behind Stern’s comments.

This doesn’t mean, however, that the Maloofs get to unilaterally hurt other NBA owners or the league as it considers their relocation request. Moreover, the ‘best interest’ clause sits side by side with antitrust law to determine how much, if at all, the Maloofs can hurt the NBA and its other owners with their relocation activities. While all of this gets fleshed out inside of Stern’s due process, not to mention outside of the due process with all of the various arm-twisting that goes on behind the scenes, it’s the due process itself that upholds the commissioner’s office as a viable mechanism to obviate judicial interference.

So there's a few quotes. There's a fair amount more, so I suggest anyone entering this thread read the article. I'm getting the feeling Stern might confront this after the season and not let it drag on for a couple years, as we're all afraid it might.

 

[JB_kings]

Yes it was about as insightful as anything I've read on this. And yes, what in the world on the Maloofs thinking? Since they are a bunch of emotional "deep thinkers", I'm wondering if they really have no idea where they are going with all this and just doing a B action movie going out with all guns blazing type of reaction. Stupid and pointless from what I can see.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

I just read this article and thought I'd post it if nobody else had done so. Rainmaker beat me to the punch! Very well written and spot on as far as I'm concerned. It's nice to see that outsiders are beginning to recognize the Maloofs actions for what they truly are.

 

[The Hammer]

I never thought about what the city might be able to sue the NBA and/or the Maloofs for. I wonder if the city could sue under "Deceit" or "Fraud":



http://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1900/1900.html

1. Maloofs said they needed a new arena knowing that it was false ("Just renovate Arco," George said). Also that they wanted to stay in Sacramento.
2. Maloofs intended to induce Sacramento to rely on those statements while working to get a new arena.
3. Sacramento justifiably relied on the Maloof's representation that they needed a new arena and wanted to stay in Sacramento.
4. City suffered damages.

Could also sue the NBA for negligent misrepresentation:



http://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1900/1903.html

1. NBA misrepresented that the Maloofs were agreeing to the new arena deal,
2. Even though George Maloof was sending those lame emails that indicated he did not agree,
3. So that the city would continue to try and pass the deal,
4. But the city justifiably relied on the NBA's misrepresentations because the city never received George's emails, Gavin was at the city council meeting and said nothing but positives, and the NBA said it was acting on the Maloof's behalf,
5. And the city suffered damages.

Very, very interesting points.

 

[Tetsujin]

I know I'm not the first one to say this but I think I'm developing a mancrush on Chris Lehane

 

[Bricklayer]

I never thought about what the city might be able to sue the NBA and/or the Maloofs for. I wonder if the city could sue under "Deceit" or "Fraud":



http://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1900/1900.html

1. Maloofs said they needed a new arena knowing that it was false ("Just renovate Arco," George said). Also that they wanted to stay in Sacramento.
2. Maloofs intended to induce Sacramento to rely on those statements while working to get a new arena.
3. Sacramento justifiably relied on the Maloof's representation that they needed a new arena and wanted to stay in Sacramento.
4. City suffered damages.

Could also sue the NBA for negligent misrepresentation:



http://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1900/1903.html

1. NBA misrepresented that the Maloofs were agreeing to the new arena deal,
2. Even though George Maloof was sending those lame emails that indicated he did not agree,
3. So that the city would continue to try and pass the deal,
4. But the city justifiably relied on the NBA's misrepresentations because the city never received George's emails, Gavin was at the city council meeting and said nothing but positives, and the NBA said it was acting on the Maloof's behalf,
5. And the city suffered damages.

The city suffering damages is the key. You might be able to try to go after the Maloofs for planning costs etc., but without a shovel in the ground, the amount would be limited.

 

[Glenn]

I know I'm not the first one to say this but I think I'm developing a mancrush on Chris Lehane

Me first!!! I just didn't have the courage to come out of the closet.

 

[Glenn]

The city suffering damages is the key. You might be able to try to go after the Maloofs for planning costs etc., but without a shovel in the ground, the amount would be limited.

And at that, a lot of energy was pro bono. Still it is best to be on the "right" side of the issue and I doubt if anyone of us good guys wants to end up in court ESPECIALLY against the NBA. That would seem a bit suicidal.

 

[The Hammer]

I know I'm not the first one to say this but I think I'm developing a mancrush on Chris Lehane

Well you're in luck then because he is being played by Rob Lowe in new movie titled with a quote that Lehane is famous for, as stated in the article: "Knife Fight"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1931466/news


The quote is something like (when referring to political battles): "It all comes down to a knife fight in a phone booth."

 

[Glenn]

The city could show that as a result of its reliance on the Maloofs and NBA that it did not pursue another option to be an anchor tenant. The recent rumblings about the Oakland A's could allow for Sacramento to say that if not for the Maloofs, Sacramento would have been building a baseball stadium. Could the city get lost earnings that way?

That's not a definable loss. It is predicting the future.

 

[VF21]

I don't know if that's what the issue is though. You're allowed to have a certain amount of speculation. If a 20-year old unemployed sophomore college student dies in a plane crash, won't his surviving family be potentially able to recover the amount that he would have otherwise earned over the remainder of his lifetime (50 years?) at a job that required a college degree?

Likewise, Sacramento didn't yet have an arena (college sophomore) but was in the business of building arenas (still in school) and was prevented from building one by relying on the Maloofs (plane crash). So long as the city can show that there was another team that the city would have partnered with last year (the student would have completed college and gotten a job) if not for the reliance on the Maloofs (plane crash), then the city should be able to recover the lost earnings from an arena (which may include the Olympics and all that other good stuff).

How off track am I?

Sacramento wasn't in the business of building an arena. The closest we've gotten is serious discussions on the possibility of building an arena. The only way the city could even have a chance at prevailing would be if there was tangible proof that another team had actually declined to partner with Sacramento because of the pending deal with the Kings. I don't think there's any way you could prove that.

Woulda/coulda/shoulda doesn't work in legalese.