League profitability Seattle V Sacramento

[Trueblood]

whozit, I have wondered the same thing. I'll leave that to the lawyers. I would suspect that the BOG would not only want to simply change the name of the buyers but also bump up the purchase price a little bit so there was no argument about the Maloofs losing money.

Does anyone wonder about the Sacramento based minority owners? The Maloofs are only selling their portion plus the bankrupt portion, right? I have been involved in a partnership before and the managing partners were spelled out in the partnership agreement. This isn't like buying stocks and majority rules. In fact, I think the Maloofs wanted a deal with Hansen where they could maintain 2% ownership AND be the managing partners.

Anyway, back to the minority owners. Let us say the managing partners are spelled out in the partnership agreemnt. Can they simply substitute the name Hansen? I doubt it unless THAT is spelled out in the partnership agreement. I was the managing partner in a partnership of three where we all invested the same amount. What happens to the minority owners? If I were a minority owner I would want a way out as no way in hell would I want to be a part owner of a team in Seattle unless it is simply a money thing with them which I doubt. As the sale only needs the approval of the BOG maybe everything is settled but I would suspect any self respecting lawyer writing up a partnership agreement would give the minority owners some rights as to who the managing partner is.

Complicated, eh? I can't imagine all this being solved April 18 in one meeting.

Easiest solution is to sell to Burkle/Mastrov. I doubt if any minority owner would quibble about leaving either of the two in charge.



Milwaukee's owner, Herb Kohl is very old and I don't know who runs that team.

I could be wrong but I think the 65% being sold is the Maloof's 53% plus Heinrich's 12%. Cook's 7% is up for auction.

Kohl is very old. The concern in Milwaukee is that he dies before financing is in place for a new arena. Without him leading the charge, the odds of Milwaukee getting a new crib are slim to none.

 

[Section 101]

I could be wrong but I think the 65% being sold is the Maloof's 53% plus Heinrich's 12%. Cook's 7% is up for auction.

Kohl is very old. The concern in Milwaukee is that he dies before financing is in place for a new arena. Without him leading the charge, the odds of Milwaukee getting a new crib are slim to none.

They just signed like a 10 year lease or something.

 

[Trueblood]

They just signed like a 10 year lease or something.

It's a 6 year lease and they're in year 2 of it already. If the team were for sale and the possibility of a new arena was dead, someone would be able to buy their way out of that lease if they wanted to.

 

[Kingsfan23]

I do think that Maloofs have become irrelevant in this whole story provided that they get the same amount of money in the end. If they say no to Burkle/Mastrov, NBA has the ability to invoke the "in the best interest of the league" clause and take over the ownership of the team while paying the Maloofs out for $341 million. Then sell the team to the ownership group of their choice. They did take over the Hornets from Shinn, albeit under different circumstances but the principle was the same.

Provided that KJ comes up with an ironclad arena deal where the shovels are ready to hit the ground just about immediately, and Maloofs get their $341 million, the NBA will not want to set the precedent in leaving small market city when the arena deal is in place and an ownership group offering same money and willing to sign on the arena deal to keeping the team in the small market. That would be a HUGE back eye for the league. Bigger than anything else in the last 30 years. Its a PR disaster for the league that claims strives to be equitable and fair for all teams regardless of the market. Its one of the main reasons for revenue sharing under the new CBA. Walk away from Sacramento when they have delivered everything asked would be a PR disaster that would be difficult for the NBA to recover from. I doubt Stern would want to leave on those terms and I am sure that Silver would be reluctant to pick up that mess right at the start of his term.

I personally don't think our whales will need to match, if their offer is fair market value and there is a arena deal in place. The NBA is hopefully not going to want to set the precedent of wealthy outsiders buying a team from greedy owners so they can move the team god-knows-where while a deserved market loses their team simply because they cant match an exorbitant offer

 

[VF21]

I've thought of that as well. I have to think that there are other franchises for Seattle that would make more sense than the Kings. Losing Sacramento would give the league a black eye. OTOH, Milwaukee, Indiana or Charlotte would put up less of a fight due to already having major sports (Brewers, Colts and Panthers respectively).

You don't know much about Pacer fans, do you? For a view into their world, check out PacersDigest.com I'm pretty sure they'd make a major fuss if they even saw this comment, let alone if someone suggested their team was going to be relocated.

 

[ParniValjak]

I personally don't think our whales will need to match, if their offer is fair market value and there is a arena deal in place. The NBA is hopefully not going to want to set the precedent of wealthy outsiders buying a team from greedy owners so they can move the team god-knows-where while a deserved market loses their team simply because they cant match an exorbitant offer

The NBA would not want to go down this route! They want Maloofs out ASAP andwon't risk any legal action, no matter how remote. That is why I think we need to match to tip this in our favor! Being the prick that I can be when crossed, I would beat the offer by a single dollar just to rub it in to the Maloofs!

 

[whozit]

The NBA would not want to go down this route! They want Maloofs out ASAP andwon't risk any legal action, no matter how remote. That is why I think we need to match to tip this in our favor! Being the prick that I can be when crossed, I would beat the offer by a single dollar just to rub it in to the Maloofs!

I agree with this but out of spite, I would probably make it a dollar less rather than a dollar more. What we don't know is what the 525 million valuation includes (such as possibly $77 million for the current arena?). There have been hints that it might not be as great as been reported. The media has been guilty of taking a nugget of information and running with it as fact.

One thing is clear, Johnson has to deliver (hasn't failed yet).

 

[Trueblood]

You don't know much about Pacer fans, do you? For a view into their world, check out PacersDigest.com I'm pretty sure they'd make a major fuss if they even saw this comment, let alone if someone suggested their team was going to be relocated.

I never said I wanted them to be relocated. I like the idea of the NBA being succesful in a college hoops oriented state. My point was that it's less of a black eye for the league if someone in a two sport market were to leave as opposed to one that has been as loyal as Sacramento.

 

[whozit]

I never said I wanted them to be relocated. I like the idea of the NBA being succesful in a college hoops oriented state. My point was that it's less of a black eye for the league if someone in a two sport market were to leave as opposed to one that has been as loyal as Sacramento.

A black eye is a black eye. I don't think Indiana falls into the category of "not as loyal as Sacramento." I don't think we want to go down the Seattle road of self-righteousness.

 

[panda]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Clippers were to be sold in the near future. Their owner may be worse than the Maloofs, lawsuits for being a slumlord, a racist and a misogynist.

btw... I have no sympathy for Seattle, if they want to know how an NBA team was stolen, look at how the Buffalo Braves became the Clippers

 

[nbaFan]

I personally don't think our whales will need to match, if their offer is fair market value and there is a arena deal in place. The NBA is hopefully not going to want to set the precedent of wealthy outsiders buying a team from greedy owners so they can move the team god-knows-where while a deserved market loses their team simply because they cant match an exorbitant offer

uhh how about Seattle in 2008

 

[nbaFan]

And to prove that the league isn't all about money, just look at the Sonic sale and relocation as proof. They had an offer of $425 million from Larry Ellison to move the team to San Jose but they chose the $350 million from Bennett because OKC was a desireable market due to the Hornet support. Plus, the NBA didn't want to anger the Warriors and face possible lawsuits that would come about due to territorial rights in the Bay Area.

Heck, the league sold the Hornets for $338 million. If they wanted money, it would've made more sense to take $525 from Hansen instead. But for whatever reason, the league is committed to New Orleans and they took a huge cut to keep them there.

its always about the Money, heres todays paper in Sac http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/17/5196552/ailene-voisin-money-major-factor.html sorry but your reference about ellision is mere symantics. Yes true there was a Ellision offer to Shultz for 425 mill. But really the sale to Bennett was orchestrated months earlier with Sterns Blessing as a "thank You" to his boy toy for hosting the Hornets so well. A promise of "when the next team is avail ,we will get you in " type of deal. Couple that with Sterns famous Olympia,Wa experience with Frank Chopp, he had disdain for WA politics and Seattle used as an example of how not to treat the great Stern. Plus as you mentioned the NBA doesnt want a team in SJ , which was Ellisons stipulation, that he could move right away. Bennett at least had to pretend for a year to keep them in Seattle per sales agreement. He of course went to the state only asking for 500 million in the last week of the legislative session w/o any public committment of his own cash to contribute, yeah that had a good chance of passing.

 

[WALTtheWIZ]

uhh how about Seattle in 2008

This is where I believe you and the majority of the public is mistaken. The city of Seattle had legislation prohibiting a city subsidy for another sports team as layed out by Stern recently.

A last ditch effort was made at the time by the mayor and a Balmer group to save the team. They proposed a private-public partnership that would require a vote in Olympia, Wa to ensure the public finance portion. In order for that proposal to be put forth to a vote it needed to be passed by a Frank Chopp- speaker of the house. Chopp did NOT allow the measure to be put for a vote and killed the deal. The city did not have a plan and were out of options. They didnt approve for a new arena, and couldnt come up with a plan for one either.

Not sure how that is the same as our situation...actually, it seems like it is very, very different.

 

[nbaFan]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Clippers were to be sold in the near future. Their owner may be worse than the Maloofs, lawsuits for being a slumlord, a racist and a misogynist.

btw... I have no sympathy for Seattle, if they want to know how an NBA team was stolen, look at how the Buffalo Braves became the Clippers

really? thats great. Buffalo sucked, then they sucked after the move to SD, compare that to a 41 year history with success and a title with the fact the best young, unselfish,loyal,stand up, most professional superstar in Durrant leaving to possibly and very likely winning a world championship in OKC, arguably the funnest team to watch in the nba right now. Yes that hurts, hurts real bad. Thank you very much. no sympathy, please.................... come on man, it hurts right this second . Best record in the NBA ouch,. We was robbed!!!!!! by a lying scumbag

 

[nbaFan]

This is where I believe you and the majority of the public is mistaken. The city of Seattle had legislation prohibiting a city subsidy for another sports team as layed out by Stern recently.

A last ditch effort was made at the time by the mayor and a Balmer group to save the team. They proposed a private-public partnership that would require a vote in Olympia, Wa to ensure the public finance portion. In order for that proposal to be put forth to a vote it needed to be passed by a Frank Chopp- speaker of the house. Chopp did NOT allow the measure to be put for a vote and killed the deal. The city did not have a plan and were out of options. They didnt approve for a new arena, and couldnt come up with a plan for one either.

Not sure how that is the same as our situation...actually, it seems like it is very, very different.

mistaken??????? first that last ditch effort you mention was for 75 mill from the state,after 150 mill came from Ballmer and 75 mil ALREADY came from the city. This was towards your mentioned last ditch effort in April 08 for a 300 million remodel. The i-91 law you mention had nothing to do with the effort you and i are referring to. i-91 simply states the city had to receive a 3% return on any public money that was being doled out. That was for the city only. Bennetts fake effort in Olympia was for Renton Wa, outside of seattle and no effect on that fake effort.Yes Chopp as you mention prevented it from going to a vote. BUT what youre not mentioning is the NBA already had voted 27-2 to allow Bennet to move the team. Even if Chopp allowed a vote and it passed it wouldnt have changed anything. Bennett had already signed a 15 year lease in OKC and the NBA approved the move. My point was to OP on the likely hood of the nba letting a team leave a deserving city, i said Seattle cuz we are deserving and were deserving. Just like Sac is. Clearly Sac is very deserving and a proven NBA market that speaks for itself no question. This is the ugly process that the NBA plays by. Its sickening cuz it proves the NBA doesnt truly care about the fans, just about helping thier own. Sorry for being bitter about 08 in Sea, but it hurts everyday and everytime i think about the NBA

 

[whozit]

mistaken??????? first that last ditch effort you mention was for 75 mill from the state,after 150 mill came from Ballmer and 75 mil ALREADY came from the city. This was towards your mentioned last ditch effort in April 08 for a 300 million remodel. The i-91 law you mention had nothing to do with the effort you and i are referring to. i-91 simply states the city had to receive a 3% return on any public money that was being doled out. That was for the city only. Bennetts fake effort in Olympia was for Renton Wa, outside of seattle and no effect on that fake effort.Yes Chopp as you mention prevented it from going to a vote. BUT what youre not mentioning is the NBA already had voted 27-2 to allow Bennet to move the team. Even if Chopp allowed a vote and it passed it wouldnt have changed anything. Bennett had already signed a 15 year lease in OKC and the NBA approved the move. My point was to OP on the likely hood of the nba letting a team leave a deserving city, i said Seattle cuz we are deserving and were deserving. Just like Sac is. Clearly Sac is very deserving and a proven NBA market that speaks for itself no question. This is the ugly process that the NBA plays by. Its sickening cuz it proves the NBA doesnt truly care about the fans, just about helping thier own. Sorry for being bitter about 08 in Sea, but it hurts everyday and everytime i think about the NBA

Because it hurts so bad and was so sickening, Seattle fans want to do it to another city? Not all, but enough.

 

[Trueblood]

A black eye is a black eye. I don't think Indiana falls into the category of "not as loyal as Sacramento." I don't think we want to go down the Seattle road of self-righteousness.

I'm just looking at this realistically. We can say to hell with Seattle all we want but the unfortunate reality is that the league wants back in Seattle and for whatever reason, they are hell bent against expansion so I'm merely looking for the weakest link in the league.

We know that the league wants to stay in top 15-20 markets and that it's in their best interest to stay loyal to the one sport markets that would otherwise have nothing to fall back on if the NBA left.

That leaves Charlotte, New Orleans, Indiana and Milwaukee. I don't want to see anyone of them lose their team. I don't want to go to pacer digest or any other forum to talk about them leaving which is why I make those comments here. If it were up to me, the league would expand to Seattle and Vancouver and be done with it. But that may not be what we wind up with.

So we have the league professing their undying loyalty to New Orleans which leaves us with Indy, Milwaukee and Charlotte. If the BOG wants to go to Seattle so badly, any perceived notion that one of the aformentioned can be had or will not want to be in position to support the NBA in the near future, it could work in our favor. Meaning we'll roll the dice and let the whales take over the Kings knowing that Seattle may land someone else soon.

OTOH, if those markets come to the NBA and say they are ready to build an arena, sign a long term lease or whatever and the BOG thinks that moving the Kings is Seattle's only hope, then that's another notch against us.

 

[D13]

Because it hurts so bad and was so sickening, Seattle fans want to do it to another city? Not all, but enough.

+1000000

 

[nbaFan]

Because it hurts so bad and was so sickening, Seattle fans want to do it to another city? Not all, but enough.

not by choice. If a poll were taken ,Seattle overwhelmingly would choose expansion to right that wrong from a few years ago. Im sure you were consoling to KC fans back in 85 right???? Interesting how some turn a blind eye............

 

[Brac-o-matic]

not by choice. If a poll were taken ,Seattle overwhelmingly would choose expansion to right that wrong from a few years ago. Im sure you were consoling to KC fans back in 85 right???? Interesting how some turn a blind eye............

I know this argument is popular with the Seattle crowd, and I understand why that makes you feel justified. But the reality is that KC didn't have the support to keep them there. They left, and the fans didn't care.

To quote one site, regarding KC Kings: "Their final season, 1984–85, resulted in a dismal 31–51 record as fans stayed away from Kemper Arena in droves, with average attendance of just 6,410." 6,410????? Even our weakest season, our attendance was double that. And it has grown considerably since the deal with Hanson/Ballmer. Considering how the Maloofs have raped the team, and its' fans for many seasons, it is amazing that we have the hardcore fans that we do. So that argument doesn't hold water..

 

[nbaFan]

I know this argument is popular with the Seattle crowd, and I understand why that makes you feel justified. But the reality is that KC didn't have the support to keep them there. They left, and the fans didn't care.

To quote one site, regarding KC Kings: "Their final season, 1984–85, resulted in a dismal 31–51 record as fans stayed away from Kemper Arena in droves, with average attendance of just 6,410." 6,410????? Even our weakest season, our attendance was double that. And it has grown considerably since the deal with Hanson/Ballmer. Considering how the Maloofs have raped the team, and its' fans for many seasons, it is amazing that we have the hardcore fans that we do. So that argument doesn't hold water. .

i wonder if this had anything to do with the 6k attendance




http://deadspin.com/5978111/a-history-lesson-for-sacramento-how-kansas-city-lost-the-kings

 

[Tetsujin]

not by choice. If a poll were taken ,Seattle overwhelmingly would choose expansion to right that wrong from a few years ago. Im sure you were consoling to KC fans back in 85 right???? Interesting how some turn a blind eye............

Look, pal. You're coming onto a SACRAMENTO Kings fan site and arguing with us about our damn team. What do you expect to come out of this? Are we supposed to read your half-baked posts and change our minds? Is that your end goal?

If, at the end of the day, you're looking to have us all throw up our hands and go "Well, ****. I guess you are right. Seattle deserves our team wayyyy more than us and we were blind to it the entire time.", you've come to the wrong damn place.

I don't like playing the hard*** but I've had it up to here with Seattle dudes deciding to take the patronizing tone with our community, with our city.

At the end of the day, when it comes to our team and your city, I hope you guys are left in the cold. Tough luck. Have fun with your rain and crappy baseball team.

When the Kings are firmly where they belong in a brand new ESC, then, maybe then, can I go back to supporting your efforts for a replacement for the Sonics. Until then, I say good freaking day.

 

[nbaFan]

Look, pal. You're coming onto a SACRAMENTO Kings fan site and arguing with us about our damn team. What do you expect to come out of this? Are we supposed to read your half-baked posts and change our minds? Is that your end goal?

If, at the end of the day, you're looking to have us all throw up our hands and go "Well, ****. I guess you are right. Seattle deserves our team wayyyy more than us and we were blind to it the entire time.", you've come to the wrong damn place.

I don't like playing the hard*** but I've had it up to here with Seattle dudes deciding to take the patronizing tone with out community, with our city.

At the end of the day, when it comes to our team and your city, I hope you guys are left in the cold. Tough luck. Have fun with your rain and crappy baseball team.

When the Kings are firmly back where they belong in a brand new ESC, then, maybe then, can I go back to supporting your efforts for a a replacement for the Sonics. Until then, I say good freaking day.

ouch! settle down francis, just responding to an inaccurate post

 

[Section 101]

mistaken??????? first that last ditch effort you mention was for 75 mill from the state,after 150 mill came from Ballmer and 75 mil ALREADY came from the city. This was towards your mentioned last ditch effort in April 08 for a 300 million remodel. The i-91 law you mention had nothing to do with the effort you and i are referring to. i-91 simply states the city had to receive a 3% return on any public money that was being doled out. That was for the city only. Bennetts fake effort in Olympia was for Renton Wa, outside of seattle and no effect on that fake effort.Yes Chopp as you mention prevented it from going to a vote. BUT what youre not mentioning is the NBA already had voted 27-2 to allow Bennet to move the team. Even if Chopp allowed a vote and it passed it wouldnt have changed anything. Bennett had already signed a 15 year lease in OKC and the NBA approved the move. My point was to OP on the likely hood of the nba letting a team leave a deserving city, i said Seattle cuz we are deserving and were deserving. Just like Sac is. Clearly Sac is very deserving and a proven NBA market that speaks for itself no question. This is the ugly process that the NBA plays by. Its sickening cuz it proves the NBA doesnt truly care about the fans, just about helping thier own. Sorry for being bitter about 08 in Sea, but it hurts everyday and everytime i think about the NBA

Balmer should have stepped up in 2006 when the team was for sale. And like Stern said, they ponied up for the NFL and MLB, but not the NBA.

 

[VF21]

FYI - This thread has been closed. The troll has left the building.

I reopened the thread, but I think it's pretty much run it's course. Please refer to our ongoing "latest rumors, news" threads for discussion relating to the future of the Kings IN SACRAMENTO.

 

[bajaden]

FYI - This thread has been closed. The troll has left the building.

I reopened the thread, but I think it's pretty much run it's course. Please refer to our ongoing "latest rumors, news" threads for discussion relating to the future of the Kings IN SACRAMENTO.

This particular poster has been on my ignore list for some time, and its a good thing for him that I'm not a mod, because he would have been banned a long time ago. Which is exactly why I'm not a mod. Good thing too!

 

[Chupacabra]

Nbafan isnt able to come to grips with the fact that as long as sacramento actually makes a competitive offer the kings will stay in sacramento. Seattle has no more say in the matter.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

Regardless of what Bennett did, the blame still rests on the Seattle city council, mayor and voters. They voted against building an arena after building new ones for NFL and MLB. Bennett had 2 years in Seattle and an arena ready to go in OKC. They should have worried more when he wanted to buy the team not afterwards.

So whats your point? I said the Sonics moving to OKC had nothing to do with TV money at that time which is correct.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The league is always going to say expansion is off the table while a current team is on the market. Otherwise it diminishes market value. Don't believe for a minute that if all teams are on solid ownership footing that they won't expand at record setting expansion fees.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

And that needs to be remembered. The Sonics stayed in Seattle for two years after Bennett purchased them. When he made his relocation request to the BoG, he would not have been approved IF there was any definitive movement towards a new arena with the partnership of the city. Moving the team to OKC was, at that point, very much CLEARLY in the best interests of the league as the OKC crowd had welcomed the Hornets with open arms and shown themselves to be more than willing and able to support an NBA franchise (which they have done since the day the Thunder arrived).

The thing that needs to be remembered is that CB never really tried to do anything to work things out with the Seattle folks like he originally claimed. He told the public he would try all he can to work with them but he did the opposite and it was all proven later via their ownership group's emails that surfaced . He had the nerves to tell Stern that he and his ownership group never thought about relocation even one bit when they purchased the team. It was later shown that they were talking about relocation even before the purchase. Yes, Seattle did not give any support for the arena up to the sale. But CB was suppose to buy the team and really really try to re-work and come up with a deal which he never tried with good faith. (check the amount of public contribution he asked for). So, would they have worked out a deal for sure if CB really tried hard? Who knows. But he never did try.

This is really off topic as this is about the profitability of the current Seattle deal and Sac. But it should be noted that the OKC situation was not exactly as what section was claiming.