Mega whale pods and latest news, rumors, etc.

Status
Not open for further replies.
UK_King said:
Expansion was ruled out by Stern yesterday.

At least in the near future.
Click to expand...

In his latest comment, he said that it could change in 2014 after he retires. If the BOG rules in Sacramento's favor, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a wink/wink involved, and expansion is mentioned. I know there are those that don't think expansion is something the league will look at, but I disagree. I think it needs to be done carefully, but I do think at some point it will happen. This whole contraction thing was nothing more than a negotiation ploy to get what they wanted from the players association.

There are some very good markets out there that don't have NBA teams. What are they going to do? Just play musical chairs with the teams they have, and leave a trail of unhappy cities behind? Thats lousy marketing anyway you look at it. My old hometown of St. Louis was a great basketball town, and a town that has no problem getting city money to build new baseball and football stadiums. They would love to get another NBA team, since the team they supported left, not because of bad attendance, but because the owner saw bigger dollars in Atlanta. kansas city already has a new arena, and wants a team. There are other major cities that at some point might want a team. Cincinnati, one of the original homes for the Kings springs to mind.

At some point the league is going to have to address this, and the best way is through expansion. The players association would readily endorse it, because it means more jobs for NBA players. The league gets richer because of the expansion fee of a team, which I think is around 300 mil, or was. But before you go to expansion, you have to get all your ducks in a row. Sacramento is part of that. Just my opinion..
 
Section 101 said:
It was not ruled out. He said it's up to the owners and there hasn't been any discussion on it.
Click to expand...

“I haven’t heard anything about expansion from our owners. They have discussed contraction in conjunction with the last Collective Bargaining Agreement. I don’t think (expansion) is an option.

was the exact quote.

so yeah not ruled out, but didn't sound too optimistic. But hey, things change overnight.
 
butteredbiscuit said:
They think it is done because of the signed agreement. Most people go by the court system.
Click to expand...

The signed agreement is an agreement, in principal, between two parties -- the seller and a potential buyer. However, for the sale to be finalized (and legal), a 3rd party -- the NBA -- must approve and sign off on it. Unless that happens, the signed agreement doesn't mean jack .. even in the courts.
 
Do our "whales" (annoying term :)) definitively have to match or beat Seattle's offer? Basic question that I never really understood
 
From Crown Downtown on Facebook:

HUGE UPDATE: According to @nickmonacelli, NBA execs impressed with @KJ_MayorJohnson and that Sac HAS APPROVED ARENA PLAN. #playingtowin
 
bajaden said:
In his latest comment, he said that it could change in 2014 after he retires. If the BOG rules in Sacramento's favor, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a wink/wink involved, and expansion is mentioned. I know there are those that don't think expansion is something the league will look at, but I disagree. I think it needs to be done carefully, but I do think at some point it will happen. This whole contraction thing was nothing more than a negotiation ploy to get what they wanted from the players association.

There are some very good markets out there that don't have NBA teams. What are they going to do? Just play musical chairs with the teams they have, and leave a trail of unhappy cities behind? Thats lousy marketing anyway you look at it. My old hometown of St. Louis was a great basketball town, and a town that has no problem getting city money to build new baseball and football stadiums. They would love to get another NBA team, since the team they supported left, not because of bad attendance, but because the owner saw bigger dollars in Atlanta. kansas city already has a new arena, and wants a team. There are other major cities that at some point might want a team. Cincinnati, one of the original homes for the Kings springs to mind.

At some point the league is going to have to address this, and the best way is through expansion. The players association would readily endorse it, because it means more jobs for NBA players. The league gets richer because of the expansion fee of a team, which I think is around 300 mil, or was. But before you go to expansion, you have to get all your ducks in a row. Sacramento is part of that. Just my opinion..
Click to expand...

I don't think St. Louis happens merely because it's a mid sized market that already has 3 teams. A 4th would be one too many. I'd love to see it but everything I hear is that they are off the table.

Same with KC. 3 teams in KC would over saturate the market. The arena is great but AEG seems to be happy without an anchor tenant.

The market that the league is eyeing is Vancouver. They already gave Charlotte an expansion team. By adding teams in Vancouver and Seattle, they would essentially be taking care of the last 3 markets that the league abandoned through relocation.
 
................. and Seattle has no arena plan.





BTW, in my continuing attempt to enter the 21st Century, how could I follow this on Twitter?
 
Last edited:
Glenn said:
................. and Seattle has no arena plan.





BTW, in my continuing attempt to enter the 21st Century, how could I follow this on Twitter?
Click to expand...

Sign up on twitter.com and "follow" anyone you want what they tweet. If you have a name or two, start there and as you hear of more names just add them. You'll get some interesting bits of information.

But beware, it ain't all correct.
 
D-Mass said:
From Crown Downtown on Facebook:

HUGE UPDATE: According to @nickmonacelli, NBA execs impressed with @KJ_MayorJohnson and that Sac HAS APPROVED ARENA PLAN. #playingtowin
Click to expand...

Does changing location impact the "approved" part? I ask because there have been reports that putting the arena at the downtown mall may limit what the City can do (since it is on private land).

Never mind, clarified by tweets:

Crown Downtown ‏@CrownDowntown
So it looks like we have clarification on "an approved arena plan." (see next tweet)

Crown Downtown ‏@CrownDowntown
According to @dakasler, "the financing package negotiated a year ago, blessed by the NBA and later approved by the City Council before...

also in this Bee article:

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/15/5194413/kevin-johnson-in-houston-with.html
 
Last edited:
D-Mass said:
From Crown Downtown on Facebook:

HUGE UPDATE: According to @nickmonacelli, NBA execs impressed with @KJ_MayorJohnson and that Sac HAS APPROVED ARENA PLAN. #playingtowin
Click to expand...

I am very excited about this! They must have the Burkle's Plaza approved. I mean it makes sense. You had the owner who actually offered it. Sounds like to me, how coud you turn them down?
 
Trueblood said:
I don't think St. Louis happens merely because it's a mid sized market that already has 3 teams. A 4th would be one too many. I'd love to see it but everything I hear is that they are off the table.

Same with KC. 3 teams in KC would over saturate the market. The arena is great but AEG seems to be happy without an anchor tenant.

The market that the league is eyeing is Vancouver. They already gave Charlotte an expansion team. By adding teams in Vancouver and Seattle, they would essentially be taking care of the last 3 markets that the league abandoned through relocation.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing about Vancouver. I know the canucks owner was at one time wanting to own the team. You know if you add Seattle to the NBA through expansion and then add Vancouver, Does that mean you have to add 5 more teams to make it even all across the board thorough all divisions?
 
Everybody hold your horses.

From Crown Downtown's facebook:

So it looks like we have clarification on "an approved arena plan."

According to Dale Kasler:

"The source, who declined to be identified, said the NBA officials seemed to appreciate that Sacramento has "an approved arena plan" - the financing package negotiated a year ago, blessed by the NBA and later approved by the City Council before it was renounced by the Maloofs."
Click to expand...

More tidbits from Dale Kasler:

"Johnson may be operating under a bit of a handicap in Houston. Although it's known that ultrawealthy investors Ron Burkle and Mark Mastrov are assembling a counteroffer to keep the Kings in Sacramento, the mayor probably won't announce their partnership until around March 1. He also doesn't have a formal proposal yet for a new arena - a critical piece in his campaign to persuade the NBA - although he says that, too, will be in place by March 1."
Click to expand...
 
D-Mass said:
From Crown Downtown on Facebook:

HUGE UPDATE: According to @nickmonacelli, NBA execs impressed with @KJ_MayorJohnson and that Sac HAS APPROVED ARENA PLAN. #playingtowin
Click to expand...

OHHHH, maybe the plan is for Stern to announce the whales and arena plan at tomorrows state of the NBA. Now that would be something if the owners already voted to stay.
 
Warhawk said:
If you could, can you donate to the Crown Downtown organization? We are making t-shirts, etc., for the City Council meetings and games to raise awareness of the arena issue. The cost adds up quickly!

Obviously donating tickets, etc., would also be great. I don't know if those details have been released yet.
Click to expand...

Contributed! ;)
 
do we have any indication on what the owners will vote???

i mean surley the Thunder owner will want a new team for seatlle because it will deflect some of the heat from him....and the Portland owner wil lvote with us because it increases there fan base not having a team so close... what about small market teams which is better for them?? and lakers, wariors and jazz are close to us so might want us gone?? does hanson have any close freinds in the owners and likewise KJ????
 
Uk kings fan said:
do we have any indication on what the owners will vote???

i mean surley the Thunder owner will want a new team for seatlle because it will deflect some of the heat from him....and the Portland owner wil lvote with us because it increases there fan base not having a team so close... what about small market teams which is better for them?? and lakers, wariors and jazz are close to us so might want us gone?? does hanson have any close freinds in the owners and likewise KJ????
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Paul Allen is also a Seattle guy who owns 2/3 of that city's major sports teams (The immensely popular Seahawks and Sounders) and has spoken up about having NBA basketball return to Seattle in the past (according to Seattle folk) and how a rivalry between the Blazers and Sonics is beneficial to both teams.

The Jazz are nowhere near us, so I don't see geography being that large of a factor. Nor are the Lakers or Clippers. Golden State's vote will be interesting in that Lacob may either see the Central Valley as a potential market for his team (Hell, we already latch onto the Bay Area NFL and MLB teams) or as a potential buffer against a future expansion franchise in San Jose, which, for whatever reason, is the greatest nightmare for all Bay Area sports owners not named Lew Wolff.

Another thing to keep in mind here is that Burkle and AEG hold considerable clout in the NBA, with AEG operating almost a third of NBA facilities and Burkle being widely well regarded for his model operation of the previously floundering Pittsburgh Penguins hockey franchise.
 
All I know is they need 3/4 of the owners to vote yes to approve a sale to Seattle. So it will only take 8 "no" votes to block. There are 10 NBA markets smaller than Sacramento. I would think a smaller market team losing their team when they have done everything required, would be seen as a negative by these smaller market teams.

Also, other owners must surely know that the Maloofs have been scumbags in this and approving a sale to Seattle that was negotiated behind Sacramento's back, can't be good for the league's image. Especially if theMaloof's can net as much money out of a sale to Sacramento's buyers.
 
Last edited:
There's no "approved deal" if they are wanting an arena in a different site than the last "deal" right?

Maybe Burkle changed his mind and wants to run with the "old" deal.

sounds like more speculation to me. Can't wait for some actual concrete facts about this sitch, instead of all the back and forth on twitter/media
 
I canvsee why small market fans vote against but why do the owners do it. It decreases revenue sharing.


kennadog said:
All I know is they need 3/4 of the owners to vote yes to approve a sale to Seattle. So it will only take 8 "no" votes to block. There are 10 NBA markets smaller than Sacramento. I would think a smaller market team losing their team when they have done everything required, would be seen as a negative by these smaller market teams.

Also, other owners must surely know that the Maloofs have been scumbags in this and approving a sale to Seattle that was negotiated behind Sacramento's back, can't be good for the league's image. Especially if theMaloof's can net as much money out of a sale to Sacramento's buyers.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
butteredbiscuit said:
I was thinking the same thing about Vancouver. I know the canucks owner was at one time wanting to own the team. You know if you add Seattle to the NBA through expansion and then add Vancouver, Does that mean you have to add 5 more teams to make it even all across the board thorough all divisions?
Click to expand...

I doubt they would add 5 teams. They really don't want to add any but if they felt that they were being backed into a corner to keep both Seattle and Sacramento in the game together, then I could see them adding a 2nd team and Vancouver is the best market.

5 teams would be bad because it would give them an odd amount again. With just 2 you keep it even.

You could do it like the NFL and have four different 4 team divisions in each league although I think it would make more sense to just have a 6 team division in each conference.

The NW division of the Western conference would have 6 teams in Vancouver, Portland, Seattle, Denver, Utah and Minnesota.

The SW division would have OKC take New Orleans' spot. You'd have to move New Orleans to the EC to even out the conferences at 16 and 16.

The new SE division could be Atlanta, Charlotte, Orlando, Miami and New Orleans taking Washington's spot.

The Atlantic would then become the 6 team division in the EC with DC joining the current 5.

The pacific and central would stay as is.
 
Trueblood said:
I doubt they would add 5 teams. They really don't want to add any but if they felt that they were being backed into a corner to keep both Seattle and Sacramento in the game together, then I could see them adding a 2nd team and Vancouver is the best market.

5 teams would be bad because it would give them an odd amount again. With just 2 you keep it even.

You could do it like the NFL and have four different 4 team divisions in each league although I think it would make more sense to just have a 6 team division in each conference.

The NW division of the Western conference would have 6 teams in Vancouver, Portland, Seattle, Denver, Utah and Minnesota.

The SW division would have OKC take New Orleans' spot. You'd have to move New Orleans to the EC to even out the conferences at 16 and 16.

The new SE division could be Atlanta, Charlotte, Orlando, Miami and New Orleans taking Washington's spot.

The Atlantic would then become the 6 team division in the EC with DC joining the current 5.

The pacific and central would stay as is.
Click to expand...

Why not Memphis to the Eastern Conference?
 
Watched a nearly 30 minute interview/discussion with one of the Seattle stations up there. It had Art Thiel, the guy from Sonicsgate and the President of the Seattle Port along with the moderator from the station.

Thiel gave the Seattle odds at just over 50%. He said he wasn't as optimistic as others and said the ball is in Sacramento's court.

I don't remember who said it, but it was interesting. For all the talk of the corporate dollars up there, it was stated they don't spend like they do in other cities.

http://www.seattlechannel.org/videos/video.asp?ID=3061307
 
Last edited:
Yeah, two economic points mentioned in that discussion are very important:
1) One of the point of attraction of Seattle that's constantly brought up is corporate support and local guys agree that it doesn't have much of an impact,
2) With real possibility of attracting NHL franchise to be a co-tenant Thiel asked a good question "Who's gonna be the 6th team?" They will have all 4 majors plus MLS and college hoops. New York or LA can support that, can 12th market?
And it seems the need for NHL franchise is an absolute necessity to comply with local legislation that publicly funded arenas must generate income for public entity that put money into the project. One of two anti-arena lawsuits is based on possible violation of this piece of legislation.
 
kennadog said:
All I know is they need 3/4 of the owners to vote yes to approve a sale to Seattle. So it will only take 8 "no" votes to block. There are 10 NBA markets smaller than Sacramento. I would think a smaller market team losing their team when they have done everything required, would be seen as a negative by these smaller market teams.

Also, other owners must surely know that the Maloofs have been scumbags in this and approving a sale to Seattle that was negotiated behind Sacramento's back, can't be good for the league's image. Especially if theMaloof's can net as much money out of a sale to Sacramento's buyers.
Click to expand...

That would be true for the fans, but the owners? It may be just the opposite, small market owners might like the idea that if they were going to sell they could sell to a "bigger market" and receive a much bigger payoff. The big markets might not like the idea of the smaller markets encroaching on their territory. Two bay area teams? Two Chicago teams?
 
whozit said:
That would be true for the fans, but the owners? It may be just the opposite, small market owners might like the idea that if they were going to sell they could sell to a "bigger market" and receive a much bigger payoff. The big markets might not like the idea of the smaller markets encroaching on their territory. Two bay area teams? Two Chicago teams?
Click to expand...

But if, as expected, the Sac offer is competitive with Seattle's, then the payoff from the bigger market would be the same as the smaller one...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
New whale, higher Seattle bid and other news, rumors. etc.
5 6 7
Replies
201
Views
39K
Glenn
Glenn
Back
Top