Kings move would hurt Lakers' TV deal?

[RKid]

I think that - if the vote fails - the team gets contracted.

The Maloofs would have no other play. They can't keep running the team here and need they money.

I'm sure at least 10 people will reply about "the Maloofs don't want to sell/regret the Rockets sale" and "the Palms and Kings are run seperately" blah blah. That's great. The facts don't match those words any more.

These guys are falling appart and have no businesses that currently make money for them. If they can't move the Kings to Anahiem for a short term year to year profits as they try to hold onto the Kings and Palms, they will be forced to cut bait on the Kings or risk bleeding out all of dad's money as they wait for both the Kings and Palms to turn around.

Because Buss: (1) wants to contract 4 teams; and (2) doesn't want the Royals/Kings to jack his TV deal ... that will be his case to the owners. Why are we letting the Royals/Kings move again? Let's just put this team down.

How do you know Buss wants to contract 4 teams? I have not heard about this. Just asking.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

If Jerry Buss was put in charge of determining the relocation fee, then he would probably ask for 300 million to make up for the 10%.

But fortunately he doesn't get to determine that. First, Buss and Sterling would have to convince enough people to vote against the Kings in order to make any demands. If Buss approaches the other owners and tell them that he just signed a new $3 billion deal and he is here to cry about getting only 2.7 billion if the Kings move to Anaheim, how would the owners feel?

Would the owners really sympathize with Buss? At $3B, he gets $150 million a year from TV DEAL ALONE!!! Most teams' entire revenue for a year is less than $150 million. The Kings supposedly had a $103M revenue total. Would the owners be more inclined to help the Lakers (already by far the titan in the league) protect their territory and profits or would they rather "weaken" the lakers and give them some long term trouble to worry about down the line when the Kings return to glory?

I just can't see teams like the Knicks, Celtics, Heats, Mavs, Spurs, OKC, Bulls, Magic, Rockets among others, want to help the lakers make more money when they can actually throw some trouble their way.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I just can't see teams like the Knicks, Celtics, Heats, Mavs, Spurs, OKC, Bulls, Magic, Rockets among others, want to help the lakers make more money when they can actually throw some trouble their way.

Some of those same teams probably aren't crazy about the idea of multiples teams in the same market, though.

 

[Section 101]

I just can't see teams like the Knicks, Celtics, Heats, Mavs, Spurs, OKC, Bulls, Magic, Rockets among others, want to help the lakers make more money when they can actually throw some trouble their way.

Except when they get their TV deals and they lose 10% if another team moves in. I bet they would veto it too.

 

[JB_kings]

If Jerry Buss was put in charge of determining the relocation fee, then he would probably ask for 300 million to make up for the 10%.

But fortunately he doesn't get to determine that. First, Buss and Sterling would have to convince enough people to vote against the Kings in order to make any demands. If Buss approaches the other owners and tell them that he just signed a new $3 billion deal and he is here to cry about getting only 2.7 billion if the Kings move to Anaheim, how would the owners feel?

Would the owners really sympathize with Buss? At $3B, he gets $150 million a year from TV DEAL ALONE!!! Most teams' entire revenue for a year is less than $150 million. The Kings supposedly had a $103M revenue total. Would the owners be more inclined to help the Lakers (already by far the titan in the league) protect their territory and profits or would they rather "weaken" the lakers and give them some long term trouble to worry about down the line when the Kings return to glory?

I just can't see teams like the Knicks, Celtics, Heats, Mavs, Spurs, OKC, Bulls, Magic, Rockets among others, want to help the lakers make more money when they can actually throw some trouble their way.

True that he won't get much sympathy. But when it comes time to discuss revenue sharing those massive media deals with smaller markets, they will have to get his buy off as well as the Knicks, Nets, Bulls, etc. The mega markets have to be convinced to to share that and also open up their territory to other teams to move in? This move more than any other is going to impact the NBA as a business.

If you as a small market owner want to move up and share the mega market, it should not be just as free and easy as moving to a smaller market. I have to face that choice if I want to move.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

And like I've said the Anaheim deal establishes that losing the Kings to another arena in the market is worth $30 million to the Honda center. That should be the minimum for a team moving into the market to pay the two teams each.

This is a different situation. The fee that Samueli would charge the Kings is for walking out on him and then on top of that setting up shop nearby. Its a collateral effect almost. The Kings did not play at Staples and then move to Anaheim. The did not have any prior business with Staples or its tenants. They would just be moving in from norcal.

I don't know what the clippers/lakers will ask for, but its just too different of a situation to draw a conclusion like that.

 

[Larry David]

http://blogs.hoopshype.com/blogs/lazenby/2011/01/27/what-nba-teams-will-disappear/

I stand corrected. 2 teams not 4. About the time this was reported, Jeanie started her contraction talk to get the issue in the media. Also, Lebron put his foot into his mouth on the issue.

Even Jerry knows its probably not going to happen, but over the long haul ... they will make a lot more than the money back and between NO and SAC, there will never be two better teams to put down.

If he wants to make a pitch for 15 no votes, this is it ... not "Look, I've got the best TV deal ever, and even if I lose 10% it still dwarfs what you get ... but help me get a lot of money from a small market team." Pitch one is good business and has a shot, pitch two is yelling "That guy in the 1997 VW dented the door on my Lambo ... make him pay, make him pay." I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I just can't see teams like the Knicks, Celtics, Heats, Mavs, Spurs, OKC, Bulls, Magic, Rockets among others, want to help the lakers make more money when they can actually throw some trouble their way.

I think the LA teams can find allies in Dallas, Chicago and NY - that's 5 teams. These markets are huge both in population and corporate $$$ and this sets a bad precedent for their markets being next. (7 total)

Golden State is also presumably against this since Ellison is targeting the Hornets for San Jose (or possibly the Kings should this fall through?). (8 total)

Then they'd look for backing from big cities that would stand to lose ground if those 3 markets also gained an additional team - Boston, Philly, DC, Detroit, Milwaukee (proximity to Chicago), Houston. Super markets in LA, NY, Dallas and Chicago would kill the luster these teams have in regional rivalries and make it very difficult for them to compete for free agents. (14 teams).

So then you've just got to peel off one or two more votes. The Florida teams could want to protect Florida since it is a big free agency destination thanks to tax breaks but they couldn't compete with the endorsement dollars the big 4 cities could offer. San Antonio could be a big loser in TX even moreso than Houston and Dallas, though they tend to rely on a strong foundation and good scouting moreso than bringing in free agents.

It's not necessarily about helping the Lakers so much as it is protecting their own various interests. There are a few other teams I haven't mentioned that are entrenched in their cities and also not likely to move for any reason, but a consolidation of teams into the mega-markets would pretty much insure they are small market players forever.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

True that he won't get much sympathy. But when it comes time to discuss revenue sharing those massive media deals with smaller markets, they will have to get his buy off as well as the Knicks, Nets, Bulls, etc. The mega markets have to be convinced to to share that and also open up their territory to other teams to move in? This move more than any other is going to impact the NBA as a business.

If you as a small market owner want to move up and share the mega market, it should not be just as free and easy as moving to a smaller market. I have to face that choice if I want to move.

For this new CBA, there are too many different issues that they want to tackle. Realistically, I don't see them coming close to accomplishing all the issues they want.

Do you really think Jerry Buss worked hard to built his dynasty and work out a historic deal so he can share the $3B with his fellow owners just so he can stop the Kings from moving to Anaheim? While Buss and other big city team owners may not want other teams sharing their territory, they also would not want to share their revenues. They are not going to agree to lose a bunch of money now so they can protect any future move into their territory by lesser teams.

The lakers' ability to generate higher revenues is one of the biggest reason why they have been able to be consistently good. Thats a huge reason why they've built dynasties. If they share their profits with other cities, they've loss their advantage to afford higher payrolls, better resources, better facilities, better marketing, etc etc. Would they really agree to lose all of that just so they can keep out the potential of lesser teams moving into their markets? I just don't see them making a trade for votes with smaller market teams like that. This goes for all other big market teams.

 

[cfechter]

I think the LA teams can find allies in Dallas, Chicago and NY - that's 5 teams. These markets are huge both in population and corporate $$$ and this sets a bad precedent for their markets being next. (7 total)

Golden State is also presumably against this since Ellison is targeting the Hornets for San Jose (or possibly the Kings should this fall through?). (8 total)

Then they'd look for backing from big cities that would stand to lose ground if those 3 markets also gained an additional team - Boston, Philly, DC, Detroit, Milwaukee (proximity to Chicago), Houston. Super markets in LA, NY, Dallas and Chicago would kill the luster these teams have in regional rivalries and make it very difficult for them to compete for free agents. (14 teams).

So then you've just got to peel off one or two more votes. The Florida teams could want to protect Florida since it is a big free agency destination thanks to tax breaks but they couldn't compete with the endorsement dollars the big 4 cities could offer. San Antonio could be a big loser in TX even moreso than Houston and Dallas, though they tend to rely on a strong foundation and good scouting moreso than bringing in free agents.

It's not necessarily about helping the Lakers so much as it is protecting their own various interests. There are a few other teams I haven't mentioned that are entrenched in their cities and also not likely to move for any reason, but a consolidation of teams into the mega-markets would pretty much insure they are small market players forever.

These are great points here - if the NBA allows three teams in the LA market, why wouldn't one of the smaller franchises immediately target SF bay area, NYC, etc.? The larger franchises probably realize there is a lot at stake here. Ironically our best chance to keep the Kings (at least for the next year) is for the Lakers to lead a vote against relocation.

 

[Section 101]

For this new CBA, there are too many different issues that they want to tackle. Realistically, I don't see them coming close to accomplishing all the issues they want.

Do you really think Jerry Buss worked hard to built his dynasty and work out a historic deal so he can share the $3B with his fellow owners just so he can stop the Kings from moving to Anaheim? While Buss and other big city team owners may not want other teams sharing their territory, they also would not want to share their revenues. They are not going to agree to lose a bunch of money now so they can protect any future move into their territory by lesser teams.

The lakers' ability to generate higher revenues is one of the biggest reason why they have been able to be consistently good. Thats a huge reason why they've built dynasties. If they share their profits with other cities, they've loss their advantage to afford higher payrolls, better resources, better facilities, better marketing, etc etc. Would they really agree to lose all of that just so they can keep out the potential of lesser teams moving into their markets? I just don't see them making a trade for votes with smaller market teams like that. This goes for all other big market teams.

I think your missing the point. The direction now is the revenue sharing is going to increase to help smaller market teams in the new CBA. By having a team move into their territory now takes away more revenues. The point is that the larger market teams would say you can have one, but not both.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

I think your missing the point. The direction now is the revenue sharing is going to increase to help smaller market teams in the new CBA. By having a team move into their territory now takes away more revenues. The point is that the larger market teams would say you can have one, but not both.

You missed my point. The point that you are trying to make was already made by JB_kings. I was referring to him/her saying that the big city owners would not want to share a huge chunk of their revenue so they can be on a level playing field with smaller market teams. Why would anyone assume the big bosses would give up one or the other? Give up the huge deals that they landed themselves? Who's to say that won't want both in their favor?

Just because they don't want to share their market doesn't mean they will want to share their revenue. There is no guarantee in that. Its not as easy as picking one or the other. Would a team like the Knicks lose more by sharing their revenue or by letting the Raptors move to Newark, NJ after the Nets move to Brooklyn? We don't know at this point. But I wouldn't assume right away the big bosses would be ok to share their profits (and be on an even playing field with their own competition from then on) just so they can block out the POSSIBILITY of more small market teams moving in.