Meeting Day - April 3, 2013

[butteredbiscuit]

I honestly believe expansion is not on the table, dillution of talent is a major issue to the existing owners and was discussed at length a few years ago at how contraction may be benficial. They already went down this road when the were trying to make amends with charlotte by giving them an expansion team, sure at the time everyone was happy, attendance was great at first, huge cash infusion to the owners, but long term the owners will end up paying more in revenue splits and revenue sharing than the benefit they recieved from putting a team in charlotte. the league took a big hit with the bobcats and I get the vibe that they just dont want to deal expansion anytime in the near future.

I dont know why people think if you had 1 new team that all of a sudden , there is a dillution of talent? I can understand if you added the Vancouver Louisville, Pittsburgh and Kansas City markets at the same time but adding 12 more players that are actually on the free agent market doesnt dilute (at least to me) the talent level. Now to me, when the City of Sacramento gets to keep their team and there is no expansion, means that all available owners know that money is about to be made. I mentioned before many teams available to move, they see 525 as a starting point. The point is that moving the Bobcats to another place especially Seattle makes uneven divisons unless you move over New Orleans to Eastern conference. The NBA says it hates franchises moving but if the #13 market is available, teams with less cash flow intake will look at that market to get an infusion of cash into their team.

The Bobcats eerrr Sonics did a horrible job of drafting. Michael Jordan just used the Bobcats to be a hero to the people of Charlotte.. With Jordan being a billionaire, he should have had better people with him to do it. They havent improved and the people of Charlotte are running from the best arena in the NBA. Because of this, Charlotte will have a great arena but wont have an NBA team.

 

[kingjatt]

I dont know why people think if you had 1 new team that all of a sudden , there is a dillution of talent? I can understand if you added the Vancouver Louisville, Pittsburgh and Kansas City markets at the same time but adding 12 more players that are actually on the free agent market doesnt dilute (at least to me) the talent level. Now to me, when the City of Sacramento gets to keep their team and there is no expansion, means that all available owners know that money is about to be made. I mentioned before many teams available to move, they see 525 as a starting point. The point is that moving the Bobcats to another place especially Seattle makes uneven divisons unless you move over New Orleans to Eastern conference. The NBA says it hates franchises moving but if the #13 market is available, teams with less cash flow intake will look at that market to get an infusion of cash into their team.

Its not most people who feel that way.in fact i think most people on both sides would welcome expansion. its the owners who have said in the past that they are frustrated with talent being spread to so many teams and in this case they are the ones who will call the ultimate shots. sure 12 more players doesnt sound like alot but what happens 6-7 years down the road in seattle when they still suck and all of the fan hoopla is gone. you get the current bobcats all over again and the league just doesnt seem to want to take that kind of chance again. at least not right now regardless of market size and espcially given the way seattle drew in its last few years when the team sucked. Yes hansen and Balmer are loaded but the team will be a seperate entity, the league knows that if they dont draw fans later on that they will HAVE to pay out in revenue sharing under the CBA. The owners individual wealth doesnt come into play. Some of the richest owners take Rev. Sharing money. the last thing the big boys want is another bottom-feeder taking a slice of their pie. they groan at paying out with the current number of teams.

 

[Kingster]

Which would look worse? Team staying and having delays on a new arena or moving a team and having delays or having the longshoreman win their suit and have to find a new location.

I'm sure they will be looking at both arena plans and the ability of both to perform. The term sheet is a general document of points that will be detailed in the contract. The last snafu occurred in the transition of the term sheet to the contract; that's when the Maloofs backed out. It makes sense for the NBA to look carefully at the generalized language of the term sheet so that there is no misunderstanding caused by the general language. My question is: if there are ambiguities in the term sheet, may then Burkle and the city of Sacramento agree to a memorandum of understanding in which they detail in more specific language the areas of the term sheet that are ambiguous? Would that MOU have to go back to city council for approval, or would the city manager be able to sign off on those specifics on his own authority? It would make it a lot simpler if this didn't have to go back to city council if there are in fact ambiguities in the term sheet that the NBA wants resolved.

 

[ArcoKings]

For those us us, like me, who did not have the opportunity to watch the presser live, here is the link

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/vide...ce-from-sacramento-group-on-nba-presentation/

I have to say, the confidence and chemistry in that presser was unbelievable! Let's get this done Sacramento! This is the final stretch and we need to bring it home! Not long to go now!

Finally watched the presser completely for the very first time. The team looked very upbeat and very confident. I feel good about our chances. Go Sacramento! Go Kings!

 

[Sac.1989]

thanks VF, bodes well i hope.

The uncertainty which silver and stern are showing in public isn’t helping my stress levels. That being said I guess that relates as much to Seattle as it does to us. There is a lot of red tape here and its all surrounded around who can build an arena quicker.

 

[Jose]

... its all surrounded around who can build an arena quicker.

I don't see this. I see a lot of people here saying that it may come down to who can build an arena quicker, but I don't see it. Stern himself said that under both proposals, the team would have to play in a sub-optimal arena for the short term. I don't think it matters if it's 2 years vs 3 years, or 3 years vs 4. They're not going to base the relocation decision on such a small difference. As long as there is a shovel-ready, approved arena deal, the NBA should be OK with it.

I tend to think that they're really looking for a win-win here. They can't take the Kings from Sacramento and they know it. I honestly think they're taking the time to:

- Explore expansion. I know they keep saying "not an option right now", but there's just too much money on the table and a great city, fans and ownership in Seattle ready for this.

or

- Explore alternatives with other struggling franchises. If all signs point to another team coming up for sale/relocation and they can tell Hansen "not the Kings, but xxx team will become available and you have dibs", it may make things easier.

I'm usually not the most optimistic person in this forum, but I think they're really trying to have an option to present to Seattle when they reject the current deal. If you're the NBA, you don't just turn away a $1 billion investment (team purchase + arena). You find a way to make the correct decision on both sides (keep the Kings in Sac, and get the ball rolling on a team for Seattle).

 

[Turgenev]

Re expansion team-

Although it would make the BOG decision easier, it doesn't seem to be an immediate option. I think it was Adam Silver who said it would dilute the talent pool. David Stern disagreed saying the potential to find new talent is limitless. Mark Cuban made the point that it would cut into the current owners TV revenue.

Re BOG decision-

It will be a nervous wait.

Sacramento has done everything it can do to keep the team. The community has supported the kings since 85 and again stepped up their support now, as they have for previous potential disasters. The city and the state have both shown the political will to meet the needs of the NBA. There is significant financial backing from four individuals who are all highly motivated and qualified to run a team and arena.

Seattle obviously has made a good pitch. Lots of money and an arena plan.

When Seattle lost the Sonics, it did not have the political support needed to satisfy the NBA. Sacramento has this. When considering the other professional sports teams in Seattle, and when comparing the fan support that existed when the two franchises experienced when competing, Sacramento comes out on top. Sacramento is the better basketball market. Seattle might be home to more twitter accounts though.

The biggest villains in all of this are the Maloofs. Yes they have the right to seek a good return from the sale of their business, but their behaviour has been consistently poor. Such a shame. While I do not believe in karma, I do believe their lack of business savy and maturity will make it hard for them to find anything more than limited success moving forward.

...

My two cents. I doubt I have added anything new- but a nice opportunity to say good luck.

 

[Jose]

Re expansion team ... Mark Cuban made the point that it would cut into the current owners TV revenue.

The current deal with ESPN/Turner expires at the end of the 2015-2016 season. I'm sure Hansen will take an expansion team to start on the 2014-2015 season and take only local TV revenue for 2 years until it comes time to cut a new deal. Perhaps even work something out with ESPN/Turner to add Seattle into the mix. Having the 12th largest market (Seattle) on board is a good thing for the NBA when the time comes for a new TV deal.

 

[Turgenev]

To expand or not to expand.

I don't really care.

As long as Chris Hansen does not get the Kings.

 

[Dreamtiger]

I tend to think that they're really looking for a win-win here. They can't take the Kings from Sacramento and they know it. I honestly think they're taking the time to:

- Explore expansion. I know they keep saying "not an option right now", but there's just too much money on the table and a great city, fans and ownership in Seattle ready for this.

or

- Explore alternatives with other struggling franchises. If all signs point to another team coming up for sale/relocation and they can tell Hansen "not the Kings, but xxx team will become available and you have dibs", it may make things easier.

I'm usually not the most optimistic person in this forum, but I think they're really trying to have an option to present to Seattle when they reject the current deal. If you're the NBA, you don't just turn away a $1 billion investment (team purchase + arena). You find a way to make the correct decision on both sides (keep the Kings in Sac, and get the ball rolling on a team for Seattle).

These are my thoughts on this as well. Both Sacramento & Seattle are too good to pass up. Toss-up goes to Sacramento because the team is already here and the Maloofs have undermined the process and the team for years here. I think the league will tell Seattle that they'll get a team within the next four years. If all else fails, it will be an expansion team. But first Milwaukee gets put on the hot seat with the unspoken but understood threat of sale and relocation. See if they can get an arena in the works. See if they can pull off what Sacramento has done. If they do, the NBA's happy and they can move on to the expansion option. If they don't, then Seattle puts an offer in comparable to what they did for the Kings. One way or another, Seattle would get a team. They would have to move forward on an arena without an anchor tennant at first but unlike what happened in Kansas City they would prettty much be assured of getting an NBA team. The NBA will look much more favorably on expansion in three or four years. But even if expansion was an option right now, why would they grant Seattle a new team just to have them play in Key Arena for several years without even knowing for certain that the new arena is going to happen? Oklahama City wouldn't have gotten the Sonics if they didn't already have a relatively new arena already built. I think at this point the owners are just making sure that everything in Sacramento is as legit as it looks. Once they're convinced of it, they'll try to work something out with Seattle.

 

[Gilles]

Current TV deal is $930 million so each franchise will lose exactly $1 million per year if there's 31 team instead of 30.
Hansen is telling everyone who is willing to listen that Seattle franchise is worth those $525 million. Plus new Seattle franchise will pay in RS program, and with the attitude of Ballmer it seems like they will be willing to pay LT to some extent for winning product. So you magnanimously charge them $450 million or $15 million per each existing franchise. That should offset the pain of every owner.

 

[kupman]

I am keep wondering to myself, if Seattle is such a great market why did the NBA let the Sonics leave so easily when everyone could see a mile away what Bennet was planning?

If the NBA really feels that it made a mistake with the Seattle situation, why would they double their mistake by having Sacramento (which has supported the association for 25 years) pay for their sins and effectively end one of the longest lasting franchises in the league.

It is makes no sense and is completely unjust.

 

[HndsmCelt]

I am keep wondering to myself, if Seattle is such a great market why did the NBA let the Sonics leave so easily when everyone could see a mile away what Bennet was planning?

If the NBA really feels that it made a mistake with the Seattle situation, why would they double their mistake by having Sacramento (which has supported the association for 25 years) pay for their sins and effectively end one of the longest lasting franchises in the league.

It is makes no sense and is completely unjust.

You ask great questions bu your confusion is premature. The NBA has NOT approved the move yet. I think on it's face the Seattle offer and Arena deal were very good and the money was over the top, meanwhile Sacramento has had the worst attendance in the league this year (we were like 5th worse last season) So if you do not look beyond those facts on it's face the deal was a slam dunk. But as we all know there is a LOT more beyond those facts.

 

[Jose]

I am keep wondering to myself, if Seattle is such a great market why did the NBA let the Sonics leave so easily when everyone could see a mile away what Bennet was planning?

Because the Sonics were in dire need of a new arena and the City wouldn't back them up. They approved a $300M subsidy for the Mariners, and a $300M subsidy for the Seahawks. Then turned around and passed legislation to forbid a subsidy to the Sonics. They went as far as to say that they should take the money from the players instead. That, of course, didn't sit well with the boss...

Somewhere in this forum is a segment of daddy Stern spanking Chris Daniels with that answer after asking your (nearly) exact same question.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Key Arena is crap by modern standards but it's no Arco. There was nothing dire about the arena situation, it was merely putting Seattle on notice that if they buy new facilities for other major league teams the NBA better damn well get in on the action too. And Stern has not been shy about reminding Seattle and their backers about this on multiple occasions during this adventure.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Key Arena is crap by modern standards but it's no Arco. There was nothing dire about the arena situation, it was merely putting Seattle on notice that if they buy new facilities for other major league teams the NBA better damn well get in on the action too. And Stern has not been shy about reminding Seattle and their backers about this on multiple occasions during this adventure.

Well it certainly seems that Benet used the arena as more of a justification for moving the team, while the real reasons were a desire to move them to OK for better attendance, sweet arena deal and his personal preference. The Washington State legislature refused the funds telling the NBA to take it out of player salaries and the city of Seattle had no interest in building a replacement for Key (and given ticket sales it was hard to justify) This is a totally different kettle of fish from the Arco/Sacramento situation.

 

[Uk kings fan]

Hi Guys... just read through the entire thread... so happy to be a kings fan

i have always felt in life its when you expect somthing it hits you the hardest so im not expecting the kings to stay even now but im so happy that KJ and the lads are giving it such as good go

Tear in my eye to the video at the start of the thread... amazing

 

[kennadog]

Well it certainly seems that Benet used the arena as more of a justification for moving the team, while the real reasons were a desire to move them to OK for better attendance, sweet arena deal and his personal preference. The Washington State legislature refused the funds telling the NBA to take it out of player salaries and the city of Seattle had no interest in building a replacement for Key (and given ticket sales it was hard to justify) This is a totally different kettle of fish from the Arco/Sacramento situation.

Yes, but my understanding is Schultz sold the team, because he couldn't get a deal for a new arena. Hansen or someone else could have bought the team back then, too, but didn't.

I know Sonics fans had no control and the city just flat out said they wouldn't pay anything to an arena. There was no political will. So now, they justify taking our team, when Sacramento has had both a potential buyer since 2011 and the political will to do an arena deal. Seattle didn't do everything they could to save the Sonics, but Sacramento has done everything asked of it in trying to keep the Kings.

Seattle may get our team, but it would be a far worse screwing over of fans and a city than the Sonics leaving Seattle.

 

[Gary]

Yes, but my understanding is Schultz sold the team, because he couldn't get a deal for a new arena. Hansen or someone else could have bought the team back then, too, but didn't.

I know Sonics fans had no control and the city just flat out said they wouldn't pay anything to an arena. There was no political sill. So now, they justify taking our team, when Sacramento has had both a potential buyer since 2011 and the political will to do an arena deal. Seattle didn't do everything they could to save the Sonics, but Sacramento has done everything asked of it in trying to keep the Kings.

Seattle may get our team, but it would be a far worse screwing over of a fan and city than the Sonics leaving Seattle.

Agree... Seattle (not the fans) did a lot wrong in dealing with the Sonics, and because of that they left... Now they feel that they can take a team from a city that has done everything possible to keep their team? Yah, we are definitely more screwed over then they ever would have been if they took our team.


Bottom line is hat Sonics to OKC you could at least argue, because the city really dropped the ball even after numerous warnings from the NBA.

Sacramento has done everything the NBA has asked of it and if we still lose the team we both support and have an arena ready to be built for a city that lost their team because they would get an arena for their own team before the left then there is something MAJORLY WRONG HERE.

That's why Sacramento keeps the Kings. Unless the BOG are a bunch of Maloofs in disguise.

 

[VF21]

Agree... Seattle (not the fans) did a lot wrong in dealing with the Sonics, and because of that they left... Now they feel that they can take a team from a city that has done everything possible to keep their team? Yah, we are definitely more screwed over then they ever would have been if they took our team.


Bottom line is hat Sonics to OKC you could at least argue, because the city really dropped the ball even after numerous warnings from the NBA.

Sacramento has done everything the NBA has asked of it and if we still lose the team we both support and have an arena ready to be built for a city that lost their team because they would get an arena for their own team before the left then there is something MAJORLY WRONG HERE.

That's why Sacramento keeps the Kings. Unless the BOG are a bunch of Maloofs in disguise.

Remember, the Maloofs took the help of the NBA and David Stern and then threw it in their faces when they backed out of the deal. That is not going to be forgotten by David Stern. He may say he isn't going to influence the vote but I'm pretty sure he's going to point out that the CITY wasn't to blame for the lies and misdeeds of the Maloofs.

 

[Kingsfan23]

We can do without sabotaging reports/issues like that in the Bee today about the County's support

 

[Warhawk]

Looks like there is some talk from the editor of the Seattle Times about Seattle going after the Bucks if they don't get the Kings. Tide may be turning here, folks!!!

 

[JB_kings]

Looks like there is some talk from the editor of the Seattle Times about Seattle going after the Bucks if they don't get the Kings. Tide may be turning here, folks!!!

And the Sport Business Journal article that stated that Hansen/Ballmer's deal has a lot more debt than the Vivek/Mastrov/Burkle offer. Mastrov was quoted as saying

"We don't like debt in my business, and the same will go for the Kings''

 

[Section 101]

Looks like there is some talk from the editor of the Seattle Times about Seattle going after the Bucks if they don't get the Kings. Tide may be turning here, folks!!!

And reports Hansen's offer has the max of $175 mil financed for the team where Vek's is mostly equity. Also, their debt on their new building is more.

 

[Jose]

Just a quick side note that daddy Stern attended his first event in India earlier today...

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Looks like there is some talk from the editor of the Seattle Times about Seattle going after the Bucks if they don't get the Kings. Tide may be turning here, folks!!!

Good to know that Chris Hansen is sticking with his policy of not trying to steal anybody else's team.

 

[Trueblood]

Yes, but my understanding is Schultz sold the team, because he couldn't get a deal for a new arena. Hansen or someone else could have bought the team back then, too, but didn't.

I know Sonics fans had no control and the city just flat out said they wouldn't pay anything to an arena. There was no political will. So now, they justify taking our team, when Sacramento has had both a potential buyer since 2011 and the political will to do an arena deal. Seattle didn't do everything they could to save the Sonics, but Sacramento has done everything asked of it in trying to keep the Kings.

Seattle may get our team, but it would be a far worse screwing over of fans and a city than the Sonics leaving Seattle.

Not only did they not do everything, they practically did nothing. As you mentioned, they not only didn't have an arena but nobody came close to matching Bennett and Ellison's offers for the team. Yet people like to say that the team was "hijacked". That was Bill Simmons I believe. In all fairness to him, he is saying that the Kings shouldn't move since the city and whales are stepping up.