The NBA is going to side with Sacramento, as the city has done everything asked to keep the Kings and Seattle blew their chance to keep the Sonics. Could the Balmer-Hansen tactic be directed at trying to force the NBA give them an expansion team? I don't think this tactic will work and I think the NBA will sit down with them and advise them to stop their attempt at a hostile takeover with the unscrupulous MaGoofs of they will delay their chance of getting an expansion team for years.
Monday will be crazy and other news, rumors, etc.
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
Lol... Gavin Maloof directly replied to a fan by message - https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/941921_4997349008266_907609149_n.jpg
New York Times
"...However, a person with knowledge of the negotiations said the Maloofs were also talking to the other group, led by the software mogul Vivek Ranadive..."
Interesting!
"...However, a person with knowledge of the negotiations said the Maloofs were also talking to the other group, led by the software mogul Vivek Ranadive..."
Interesting!
Yah after diner I went over their but it looked like more than enough Kings fans were representing, but I'll keep and eye on it. And Brick is dead on about not even bothering with Stomachs-rising. I hate my self a little every time look over there. But it will good reading on Wed. 
They know, the NBA is going to deny every sale from 1% to 65% and they wont see a dime. They know suing won't be cheap. They damn well know that if the decide to keep the team, they will possibly go broke. The bluff tactic seems to be falling apart according to two NATIONAL media outlets and they have no choice. I can't wait till the 15th.
If I were in Seattle watching Ballmer throw more and more money to buy the team and bribe the league, I'd say, "Its apparent that you can build an arena with no public subsidy whatsoever. So no public money here. If you want a new arena throw some more money at it." Of course, maybe Ballmer already bribed the public officials.
It's official. There is no life form known to man that is lower than the Maloofs.
The rules governing relocation and/or sale were made much more specific to enable the process to stand up in court. Also, one answer about the monopoly issue for any league is the fact that anybody can start their own league with their own rules. The fact that it would be difficult financially doesn't mean people are barred from doing just that. Ballmer can go start his own league and the NBA can't stop that.
My hope now is that the other owners are so insulted by and tired of the Maloofs and the Seattle group that they don't want any of them to win anything.
Although my biggest regret is that the Maloofs probably come out with more money than they ever deserved.
I could post over at CBS, but I get tired of explaining the facts over and over on multiple sites and still seeing the same BS posted the next day by the same people. They don't want to know the facts, because it doesn't serve their purpose or their delusion.
It's official. There is no life form known to man that is lower than the Maloofs.
The rules governing relocation and/or sale were made much more specific to enable the process to stand up in court. Also, one answer about the monopoly issue for any league is the fact that anybody can start their own league with their own rules. The fact that it would be difficult financially doesn't mean people are barred from doing just that. Ballmer can go start his own league and the NBA can't stop that.
My hope now is that the other owners are so insulted by and tired of the Maloofs and the Seattle group that they don't want any of them to win anything.
Although my biggest regret is that the Maloofs probably come out with more money than they ever deserved.
I could post over at CBS, but I get tired of explaining the facts over and over on multiple sites and still seeing the same BS posted the next day by the same people. They don't want to know the facts, because it doesn't serve their purpose or their delusion.
That might be true, but we can all take solace in the certain knowledge that no matter how much they get, they won't have it for long.
I'm waiting for the announcement of a Ballmer V. Maloof lawsuit, once it becomes clear to everyone that the Maloofs have been playing Ballmer all along to leverage the highest possible payoff from Vivek and Co.
I'm waiting for the announcement of a Ballmer V. Maloof lawsuit, once it becomes clear to everyone that the Maloofs have been playing Ballmer all along to leverage the highest possible payoff from Vivek and Co.
Gotta say that I LOVE this site. So many informed people cutting through all of the BS. I really thought the Kings were toast after H/B raised the bid. Instead, I'm now more confident than ever that the team will stay in Sacramento. By reading all of the info on this site, I've seen that it's not just an emotional argument, but one based on solid logic and reasoning. Here's another good quote from the NY Times article:
Sports industry experts said Ranadive’s group had the upper hand. The Hansen group’s latest bid “reeks of desperation,” said Marc Ganis, who brokers team ownership sales. “They may have concluded this was their one shot at a team,” he said. “But if so, they should not have lowballed their original offer. As they say in the N.B.A., they should have gone strong to the hoop.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/s...roup-eager-to-move-team-to-seattle.html?_r=2&
Sports industry experts said Ranadive’s group had the upper hand. The Hansen group’s latest bid “reeks of desperation,” said Marc Ganis, who brokers team ownership sales. “They may have concluded this was their one shot at a team,” he said. “But if so, they should not have lowballed their original offer. As they say in the N.B.A., they should have gone strong to the hoop.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/s...roup-eager-to-move-team-to-seattle.html?_r=2&
From you lips to Gods ear! My wife is certain they are actually voting to strip the Maloofs of the team tomorrow. II personally think it's a vote to recommend it and lay out the game plan for Wed to lay out carrots and sticks to make sure the Maloofs walk out of the meeting as ex-owners. I also suspect the legal strategy will be finalized as well.
Very interesting post.
I will say, any suit carried out by Ballmer will be damaging to the league as it would required a lot of information the NBA considers to be secret to be revealed. They'd have to open up their books to the public, and remember, the last CBA deal was considered to be one that could be up for re-negotiation after only 4 years (so 2015, I believe). Even if Ballmer only has a 10% chance of winning, is it really worth it for the league to pursue? Do you really want to add more leverage for the NBAPA in the upcoming rounds of negotiations, setting up another potential lockout if too much important information gets out? All of this for what, to service Stern's massive ego?
Give Seattle expansion, be done with all of this. It hardly is diminishing the profitability of the league by awarding a new team in Seattle.
NBA should have used its best interest clause to kick out George Shinn after he was accused of sexual harassment in Charlotte in the early 2000s.
Hornets would have never moved to New Orleans.
New Orleans Hornets would have never gone to OKC post-Katrina.
Sonics would have never been moved to OKC.
And a group of Seattle investors would have never been involved with the Kings.
Maybe the Maloofs would have been gone by now, had the league put the pressure on past NBA villains (same goes for Sterling).
Hornets would have never moved to New Orleans.
New Orleans Hornets would have never gone to OKC post-Katrina.
Sonics would have never been moved to OKC.
And a group of Seattle investors would have never been involved with the Kings.
Maybe the Maloofs would have been gone by now, had the league put the pressure on past NBA villains (same goes for Sterling).
What can Ballmer really sue for? He knows that he has to be accepted before entering the NBA and he signed paperwork to that effect.
I am kind of at a loss though. He knew what he was getting into before he got into it. He just made the mistake of choosing the Maloofs/Kings to do business with when he should have known KJ and the NBA would do everything they could to keep the team in Sac.
I am kind of at a loss though. He knew what he was getting into before he got into it. He just made the mistake of choosing the Maloofs/Kings to do business with when he should have known KJ and the NBA would do everything they could to keep the team in Sac.
There were HUGE issues when Seattle back before it was sold to Bennett in regards to the former owners having a hard time making Salary ect ect. The Sonics had been operating at a loss for years. I am not sure if anyone woul dhave stepped up in time to claim the Sonics when all this was happening back in 2006. It was obvious back then that Seattle wouldn't give the Sonics a new arena and Ballmer came around two years too late so from 2006-2008 what would have happened to the Sonics? Would they have folded?
Exactly. One of many points the Seattle folk continue to gloss over.
I'll reiterate that none of this has come as a surprise to Stern or the NBA. As has been pointed out somewhere else, there's a reason the BoG is meeting in Dallas and not in NYC. Every possible contingency has been provided for...
At this point, I seriously hope Ballmer, Hansen and Seattle walk away with absolutely freaking nothing. They are trying to lay waste to a sport I have loved since 1963. They deserve nothing.
And if that gets the Seattle people all upset, I couldn't possibly care less. I'm tired of finger pointing victims who cannot seem to accept ANY responsibility or culpability in what has happened before. It's always someone else's fault because their excrement couldn't possibly be odiferous.
Bah humbug.
I'll reiterate that none of this has come as a surprise to Stern or the NBA. As has been pointed out somewhere else, there's a reason the BoG is meeting in Dallas and not in NYC. Every possible contingency has been provided for...
At this point, I seriously hope Ballmer, Hansen and Seattle walk away with absolutely freaking nothing. They are trying to lay waste to a sport I have loved since 1963. They deserve nothing.
And if that gets the Seattle people all upset, I couldn't possibly care less. I'm tired of finger pointing victims who cannot seem to accept ANY responsibility or culpability in what has happened before. It's always someone else's fault because their excrement couldn't possibly be odiferous.
Bah humbug.
Well first off, don't get the wrong idea by this point, I'm trying to be objective and not trying to offend anyone.
I think Maloofs are scum and you guys deserve better owners. And I do think one way or another the NBA won't give up on Sacramento, even if it takes several years to sort out this mess.
But the language to me does seem thin that A) Owners would allow Stern to take a team away from another owner and B) Stern has powers to strip away a multi-million asset away from an owner would hold up in court. Owners want Maloofs out, but setting a precedent where Stern can just force a team into accepting an offer that wasn't negotiated on between two parties to me doesn't seem legal by any means, and also doesn't seem like the best interest for other owners, who are one day going to sell themselves. From an entire legal perspective (and McCann Sports Law guy is the one I've been reading just to preface), it seems the league cannot force the Maloofs to sell.
So if they were to do such a thing invoking a clause where Stern could take the team away for the best interest of the league, it just seems to me they are setting themselves up for a massive anti-trust suit. I do think the NBA will coerce the Maloofs into selling locally by revoking sponsorships and whatnot, but there isn't anything legal they can do to force them to sell. Stern never stripped Shinn or Sterling because I think the power that Stern actually has is still limited in a US court of law. Just my opinion.
Which is why still, the most logical answer to all of this is to offer expansion to Seattle now, to allow Hansen & Ballmer to back out of the offer, putting the Maloofs into a corner where their only option is Ranadive.
I think Maloofs are scum and you guys deserve better owners. And I do think one way or another the NBA won't give up on Sacramento, even if it takes several years to sort out this mess.
But the language to me does seem thin that A) Owners would allow Stern to take a team away from another owner and B) Stern has powers to strip away a multi-million asset away from an owner would hold up in court. Owners want Maloofs out, but setting a precedent where Stern can just force a team into accepting an offer that wasn't negotiated on between two parties to me doesn't seem legal by any means, and also doesn't seem like the best interest for other owners, who are one day going to sell themselves. From an entire legal perspective (and McCann Sports Law guy is the one I've been reading just to preface), it seems the league cannot force the Maloofs to sell.
So if they were to do such a thing invoking a clause where Stern could take the team away for the best interest of the league, it just seems to me they are setting themselves up for a massive anti-trust suit. I do think the NBA will coerce the Maloofs into selling locally by revoking sponsorships and whatnot, but there isn't anything legal they can do to force them to sell. Stern never stripped Shinn or Sterling because I think the power that Stern actually has is still limited in a US court of law. Just my opinion.
Which is why still, the most logical answer to all of this is to offer expansion to Seattle now, to allow Hansen & Ballmer to back out of the offer, putting the Maloofs into a corner where their only option is Ranadive.
The Ballmer suit would mean the NBA no longer really controls where the teams play or who gets in the club (The suit would be, I didn't waive those rights or even if I did the monopoly can't enforce it.
I doubt the owners want to waive those rights. Plus, the league would be sued. They aren't brining the fight ... just not rolling over.
Stern knows what's up. If he thinks there is a 10% or less chance Ballmer sues, he probably plays this out. There is a gray area. But if I'm Stern, and I think there is more than a 25% chance Ballmer sues the league, I jgrab the Kings. More of a chance I get sued ... but a higher chance I win.
I doubt they will expand. If Ballmer backs off ASAP, they will help push a team to Seattle. If not ... they are the NBA boggie man and Seattle gets a team when the next city won't pay
I doubt the owners want to waive those rights. Plus, the league would be sued. They aren't brining the fight ... just not rolling over.
Stern knows what's up. If he thinks there is a 10% or less chance Ballmer sues, he probably plays this out. There is a gray area. But if I'm Stern, and I think there is more than a 25% chance Ballmer sues the league, I jgrab the Kings. More of a chance I get sued ... but a higher chance I win.
I doubt they will expand. If Ballmer backs off ASAP, they will help push a team to Seattle. If not ... they are the NBA boggie man and Seattle gets a team when the next city won't pay
The best interest clause is already on the books. The power isn't well defined in the law, but that cuts both ways. It's viable. Here, it's the defense to the anti trust, not the grounds.
You aren't getting expansion. It makes more sense for you to fight for the bad teams. They would have pushed you one, but Baller is acting like an ***. Now you have to hunt and make the other owners more money.
You aren't getting expansion. It makes more sense for you to fight for the bad teams. They would have pushed you one, but Baller is acting like an ***. Now you have to hunt and make the other owners more money.