New whale, higher Seattle bid and other news, rumors. etc.

[Kingsfan23]

The NBA doesn't want to allow this precedent. The problem is the legal system. I've asked the question since before Hansen put in a bid for the team and Stern pretty much answered it at the Oakland press conference. Forcing the Maloofs to take a lower bid will open up an anti trust case against the league that the NBA wants no part of. This is squarely on the Maloofs for being greedy and threatening lawsuits.

Then, if you need to block the wealthy outsider thiefs (how I consider them, whether legally or not) on the relocation if you can't on the sale. Allow em to buy the teams and make a good faith go of it here - which is the norm everywhere else in pro sports. Somehow, the sale of the team and the relocation of the team became fused in this case, which they shouldn't be - two distinct processes

 

[bajaden]

I agree, they all view the Maloofs as a joke. But when we're talking about loyalty to Sac, who has it? No one really cares for that angle but us. Likewise, my non Kings friends are very ho hum about it all. The rhetoric has already been written. Sac/Maloofs were lousy. Seattle wants a team again. If Sac gets shafted here, only Sacramento will care. No one really cared about the Bennett saga until the emails came out. Don't make the mistake of projecting our hopes as the rest of the nation. We aren't clear cut good guys here. If Seattle gets a team, the story won't be about Maloofs running us into the ground then selling to Seattle, it will be how the Kings were horrible for too long and Seattle finally got a team back after getting screwed by Bennett. There will be no outrage or animosity outside of Sacramento. And if you think otherwise, well, I'm glad you think anyone else cares about us. This isn't the Kings going to a new city with no history, this is the Kings turning into the Sonics. A black eye isn't the only spin. Some will herald Stern as bringing basketball back to Seattle as well.

I think your dead wrong on the loyality issue. If you don't think the NBA cares about fan loyality, then your nuts. If fans aren't loyal, they don't go to games. If they don't go to games the owners don't make money. The fans in Sacramento have always supported the team, whereas the fans in Seattle haven't. Now that may not be an issue with you, but it is a consideration to the owners. What I'm really wondering is what is the point of your posts? To destroy any opptimism the fans have here? All your arguements are borderline negative! You say we aren't the clear cut good guys here. Really, then what are we, the bad guys? I believe it was Seattle that told the NBA to go take a flyer, not Sacramento.

Now morality may not play a part in this issue. But if the right thing is done, the team will stay in Sacramento, and I don't doubt for a moment that there are owners that could care less about the feelings of the Sacramento fans. But I also believe that there are owners that are loyal to Stern, and that he has some chips he can call in from favors past. And I believe that Stern wants the Kings to stay right where they are. I also believe that there are owners that appreciate the history of the NBA, and the Kings are a large part of the history, that will be wiped from the books if the team is sold and moved. They go all the way back to the Rochester Royals, one of the orginal teams in the NBA. Oscar Robertson is part of that history.

There is an easy answer to this problem, and its the one that I believe will eventually prevail, despite the denials by the League. I think Seattle will get an expansion team. It makes both cities happy, the NBA gets an immediate influx of money for the expansion team, and bites the bullet on revenue sharing in lieu of the black eye it would get otherwise. Yes, I know all the arguments against it, but I don't believe them. This is a mess, and the best way to clean up this mess is through expansion. The Kings stay put, and a new Sonics team is reborn, with new solid ownership for both franchises. The players association is happy because it means more jobs for potential NBA players. Its the best answer, with the only drawback being, the current owners have to share the pie with one more owner. A small price to pay for the return of sanity to the league.

 

[VF21]

I agree, they all view the Maloofs as a joke. But when we're talking about loyalty to Sac, who has it? No one really cares for that angle but us. Likewise, my non Kings friends are very ho hum about it all. The rhetoric has already been written. Sac/Maloofs were lousy. Seattle wants a team again. If Sac gets shafted here, only Sacramento will care. No one really cared about the Bennett saga until the emails came out. Don't make the mistake of projecting our hopes as the rest of the nation. We aren't clear cut good guys here. If Seattle gets a team, the story won't be about Maloofs running us into the ground then selling to Seattle, it will be how the Kings were horrible for too long and Seattle finally got a team back after getting screwed by Bennett. There will be no outrage or animosity outside of Sacramento. And if you think otherwise, well, I'm glad you think anyone else cares about us. This isn't the Kings going to a new city with no history, this is the Kings turning into the Sonics. A black eye isn't the only spin. Some will herald Stern as bringing basketball back to Seattle as well.

You are entitled to your opinion but I don't understand why you have to act as though mine has no merit. You may not know anyone outside of Sacramento that cares, but I do. And you can go to PacersDigest to see how Pacer fans feel about the whole issue. (Look for a thread I started called "Whales spotted in Sacramento."

We aren't the good guys? I don't think it boils down to good guys and bad guys. I think it boils down to which city has done everything asked of it. It's like reversing a call made on the court. Unless there is clear evidence the call was wrong, it stands. Well, we're the call on the court. We HAVE the Kings. Unless there is clear evidence that Seattle will be a better city for OUR KINGS, then they should stay...

Stern has said it's not going to be a bidding war and it's not just about the money. The Maloofs are going to get their money and be out of the picture. It boils down to what ownership group brings the most to the table as far as the future of the NBA goes AND what city will make the best partner with the NBA. In that regard, people all over the country with any idea of the situation are saying Sacramento deserves to keep their team.

You want to think we're isolated and I've seen comments that prove otherwise, so we're just going to continue to view things differently, at least for now. It will all be settled one way or the other before too much longer. If you're right, our team is gone. If I'm right, the Sacramento Kings will be here the rest of my life. If you don't mind, I'm going to stick with my scenario.

 

[Bricklayer]

There is an easy answer to this problem, and its the one that I believe will eventually prevail, despite the denials by the League. I think Seattle will get an expansion team. It makes both cities happy, the NBA gets an immediate influx of money for the expansion team, and bites the bullet on revenue sharing in lieu of the black eye it would get otherwise. Yes, I know all the arguments against it, but I don't believe them. This is a mess, and the best way to clean up this mess is through expansion. The Kings stay put, and a new Sonics team is reborn, with new solid ownership for both franchises. The players association is happy because it means more jobs for potential NBA players. Its the best answer, with the only drawback being, the current owners have to share the pie with one more owner. A small price to pay for the return of sanity to the league.

My argument from the very beginning of this thing.

 

[Jose]

There is an easy answer to this problem, and its the one that I believe will eventually prevail, despite the denials by the League. I think Seattle will get an expansion team. It makes both cities happy... A small price to pay for the return of sanity to the league.

PERCEIVED sanity. The precedent has been set, and the next time an owner wants out he can gouge the city and drive up his sale price by looking for an outside buyer. Of, the next time a multi-billionaire wants a team, all he has to do is steal another city's team by overpaying. If the city fights, then he gets an expansion team?

What's the NBA going to do in a year or two if Samueli signs a sales agreement with the Bucks, to buy the team and move it to Anaheim?

This is a really bad precedent, no matter how you look at it. The only way out is for the NBA to say "no" to the Seattle relocation and tell the Clowns "you have some local buyers interested, go negotiate".

 

[Gary]

I get what you're trying to do with the Lakers example, but one of the biggest reasons that the Lakers have had such success is because they are in LA. No one is going to buy the Lakers to move them. LA is a premiere market, has excellent weather, celebrities, nightlife, huge TV deal, sponsors, blah blah. Pick a different team. Someone can bid 2B for the Lakers, but they sure as hell won't move them.

We had a short window of success in SPITE of our location. And then promptly returned to the doormats of the NBA. That is why we are vulnerable. And that is why LA is not.

Ok, would they do it to the Spurs then? Nope... It's about the Kings being branded with Sacramento, and the market works fine here for the Kings. The team isn't going anywhere. And the talks about Indiana moving? That's never going to happen either. Not even sure why there would be discussion about that.

 

[Gary]

My argument from the very beginning of this thing.

Not to mention that "piece of the pie" they share is a percentage of a percentage so in the end we look at less than 1% net loss with another team IF that.

 

[kennadog]

Yes, I know all the arguments against it, but I don't believe them. This is a mess, and the best way to clean up this mess is through expansion. The Kings stay put, and a new Sonics team is reborn, with new solid ownership for both franchises. The players association is happy because it means more jobs for potential NBA players. Its the best answer, with the only drawback being, the current owners have to share the pie with one more owner. A small price to pay for the return of sanity to the league.

It would also be a larger pie with the 12th largest media market in the league wouldn't it?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

It would also be a larger pie with the 12th largest media market in the league wouldn't it?

Yes, eventually. Presumably once the national TV contract is renegotiated (I think there are two more years) then the pie gets bigger. In the meantime, the share of the pie that each team would lose is about $1M per year. Given that a $300M expansion fee would give each team $10M, expansion really looks like a no-brainer to me.

 

[jpsls]

PERCEIVED sanity. The precedent has been set, and the next time an owner wants out he can gouge the city and drive up his sale price by looking for an outside buyer. Of, the next time a multi-billionaire wants a team, all he has to do is steal another city's team by overpaying. If the city fights, then he gets an expansion team?

What's the NBA going to do in a year or two if Samueli signs a sales agreement with the Bucks, to buy the team and move it to Anaheim?

This is a really bad precedent, no matter how you look at it. The only way out is for the NBA to say "no" to the Seattle relocation and tell the Clowns "you have some local buyers interested, go negotiate".

The owners don't want a team in Anaheim or any city that infringes on the territories of other owners. I also don't think they would favor expansion in unproven markets, so an owner buying a team and saying he wants to move the team to City A won't be as easy as you think. The Maloofs were very vindictive in how they went about this entire situation, which only complicated matters. For the most part, the Maloofs and their stupidity are the source of this predicament, so as long as there aren't any future Maloof-type owners, I think the NBA should be fine, or at least the revise their current by laws on team purchases.

 

[kennadog]

Yes. I think the rules should state that the league won't approve a sale that involves a city losing its team, unless a good faith effort has been made to find a buyer to keep the team in the current city. Obviously it would need a bunch of qualifiers, but I think a city (their buyer) should have the right of first refusal.

 

[Glenn]

Yes. I think the rules should state that the league won't approve a sale that involves a city losing its team, unless a good faith effort has been made to find a buyer to keep the team in the current city. Obviously it would need a bunch of qualifiers, but I think a city (their buyer) should have the right of first refusal.

I suspect the fact that the BOG gets to vote on moves addresses this. It is not explicit but the efforts of the city certainly are some of the issues to be considered when voting.

As a comment on other issues, I hope the BOG holds the people bidding for this team to stand by the deal that was presented April 3. If the league cannot set a cut off date then a bidding war could go on forever with no lip service being paid at all to the needs of the NBA. If April 3 is not a cut-off date, then why should April 18-19 be a cut-off date? You could ask who is more important, the owner and their desire to sell or the NBA itself.

I think Hansen and the Maloofs are showing a disregard for the NBA by what they are doing and requiring. April 3 was not an arbitrary deadline but a deadline set so that the BOG could have questions answered before April 18-19. I think the raise of Hansen's bid, the Maloofs demand that the Sacto ownership group present an offer by late last Friday, and whatever else is going on between the Maloofs and Hansen has created more questions to be answered. Character issues have been highlighted.

 

[kennadog]

Well, that could be used to say Sacramento should have presented their bid by April 3rd, but they didn't. However, Sacramento started behind, becasue the Maloofs never gave the city a chance. Also, moves only require a 51% vote,making it much easier to get a yes vote through.

 

[Gilles]

Actually sale requires 50+%(16 votes), but you need 75% to relocate(23 votes).

 

[HndsmCelt]

Actually sale requires 50+%(16 votes), but you need 75% to relocate(23 votes).

Are you sure on this? I thought it was the other way arround, 50+% to sell but 75% to move? I would make more sense the way you have it, but I thought read it was other way around.

 

[Kingster]

James Ham ‏@James_Ham 1m

Honestly, the Maloofs reputation just took another huge blow. They clearly tried to vet Sacs offer to green light an increase from Hansen.

Agreed. It now seems clear why the Maloofs set the ultimatum for the Sacramento group.

 

[Kingster]

Agree with the last few comments.

Increasing the offer after the presentation at the BOG and less than a week before the vote is a little bit disrespectful to Stern and the process he is trying to facilitate. Especially after the comment re this will not turn into a bidding war. In addition, the public comments re the Friday deadline seemed to be off the script (well... off Stern's script but consistent with the Maloofs body of work).

The Maloofs behaviour has not just been an f you to Sacramento, but now also an f you to Stern and the NBA. No doubt Stern will be as happy to have this over as anyone else.

There is also the view that the increase, and the timing of the increase, was a disrespectful move by the Seattle group. They present the move as if 'we have voluntarily increased our offer because we love the NBA so much...' But really- after both sides had made their presentations and the BOG was considering the verdict...

I agree with this also. The Seattle offer is meant to to screw up the process that the NBA has defined and that the Sacramento group appears to be diligently and methodically following. I think it's meant more to slow the Sacramento group down in finalizing everything that needs to be finalized with the partners and the NBA rather than to kill the deal outright because Sacramento can't come up with the money.

 

[ParniValjak]

Agreed. It now seems clear why the Maloofs set the ultimatum for the Sacramento group.

Anyone with any sense of reality new that Magoofs were up to something but no one quite could pick whqt it was until Hansen upped the offer. All of a sudden it made a great deal of sense and even our reasoning not to match the offer for Cook's 7% also made sense.

As long as this doesn't escalate into a bidding war we should keep our team. If this goes to the highest bidder the. We might be up a proverbial without a canoe!

Not long now until we are free of the scum but before then, expect more of the dirty little tricks from the self made failures (Magoofs)

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Are you sure on this? I thought it was the other way arround, 50+% to sell but 75% to sell? I would make more sense the way you have it, but I thought read it was other way around.

This is correct.

 

[whozit]

Quote Originally Posted by HndsmCelt View Post
Are you sure on this? I thought it was the other way arround, 50+% to sell but 75% to sell? I would make more sense the way you have it, but I thought read it was other way around.

This is correct.

50+% to sell and 75% to sell? I think you meant 75% to sell and 50+% to move.

 

[HndsmCelt]

my bad Capt copied my post before I corrected it.

 

[LWP777]

50+% to sell and 75% to sell? I think you meant 75% to sell and 50+% to move.

Wait....it's 50% approval to sell, 75% approval to relocate, correct? Just want to get that straight since that's very important to us.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Wait....it's 50% approval to sell, 75% approval to relocate, correct? Just want to get that straight since that's very important to us.

No. A simple majority is needed to relocate a team but a three fourth is need to transfer ownership. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/s...acramento-kings-to-seattle-investor.html?_r=0

 

[Kingster]

Anyone with any sense of reality new that Magoofs were up to something but no one quite could pick whqt it was until Hansen upped the offer. All of a sudden it made a great deal of sense and even our reasoning not to match the offer for Cook's 7% also made sense.

As long as this doesn't escalate into a bidding war we should keep our team. If this goes to the highest bidder the. We might be up a proverbial without a canoe!

Not long now until we are free of the scum but before then, expect more of the dirty little tricks from the self made failures (Magoofs)

As others have said, the Seattle group/Maloofs are jerking the NBA around just as much as they are jerking around the Sacto group. It's hard for me to believe that many within the NBA organization don't have a lot of animosity toward the Maloofs at this point, going all the way back to the previous failed arena deal. And the Seattle group better watch it. They seem to be on the very edge of really pi**ing off the NBA to the point where they won't even consider them for an expansion team in the future. Stern let it be known to them that he didn't want a bidding war and they threw it in his face with a higher bid.

 

[funkykingston]

No. A simple majority is needed to relocate a team but a three fourth is need to transfer ownership. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/s...acramento-kings-to-seattle-investor.html?_r=0

This seems a bit backwards until you think about it from the view of the NBA owners. If fan support is very low and/or the city won't help build a new arena then owners want to make it fairly easy for other owners (and possibly themselves down the line) to move. On the other hand, a sale brings a new member to the BOG and they want to be relatively exclusive as to whom they allow to join their club.

The interesting thing here is that I think this situation sort of turned these votes on their head a bit. I'm sure the league would have zero qualms about a Hansen/Ballmer/Nordstrom ownership group but should absolutely have an issue with moving a team from a city that has both historically shown great fan support AND has offered more than significant public money towards a new arena.

As others have said, the Seattle group/Maloofs are jerking the NBA around just as much as they are jerking around the Sacto group. It's hard for me to believe that many within the NBA organization don't have a lot of animosity toward the Maloofs at this point, going all the way back to the previous failed arena deal. And the Seattle group better watch it. They seem to be on the very edge of really pi**ing off the NBA to the point where they won't even consider them for an expansion team in the future. Stern let it be known to them that he didn't want a bidding war and they threw it in his face with a higher bid.

Yeah, that's very much what I was thinking. It makes me wonder what Hansen thinks the endgame of all of this is.

I just want my team to stay where it belongs and will be very happy if this gets settled this week with that as the outcome.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Funkykingston, your rational for the relocation being simpler makes sense and yes in this case it is different, Hansens and gang might well be welcomed into the NBA but their reason for moving is just not there and that has to do with the dam BM (brothers Maloof). The BM did NOTHING to try to keep the team and EVERYTHING to try to move it for a big payday. I'd like to see the NBA institute a policy that new owners can not move a team for 2-3 years after purchase. The Maloofs would have NEVER gotten permission to move the Kings to Seattle on their own because everyone knew they were not honest brokers in their efforts with the city. But now that "Good Owners" are looking to step in some people think they ought to be allowed to move the team... just bad policy.

 

[Gary]

Funkykingston, your rational for the relocation being simpler makes sense and yes in this case it is different, Hansens and gang might well be welcomed into the NBA but their reason for moving is just not there and that has to do with the dam BM (brothers Maloof). The BM did NOTHING to try to keep the team and EVERYTHING to try to move it for a big payday. I'd like to see the NBA institute a policy that new owners can not move a team for 2-3 years after purchase. The Maloofs would have NEVER gotten permission to move the Kings to Seattle on their own because everyone knew they were not honest brokers in their efforts with the city. But now that "Good Owners" are looking to step in some people think they ought to be allowed to move the team... just bad policy.

And that's why it's not going to happen (moving the team). The owners aren't dumb, and you cannot spin this any which way that shows the Maloofs were looking out for Sacramento's best interest. The owners know it's not as if Sacramento was a failing market or that we don't have an arena deal in place, or that we don't have owners willing to match and keep the team where it belongs or anything. They know this, and the Kings will stay put.

Where are all the Maloof apologists that were here late last week? People that "didn't understand where all the hate from the Maloofs came from" ect ect. Are you still singing the same tune?

The Maloofs are garbage. The Maloofs are slime. I hate them so much that I would laugh if one of them were to have an "accident".

 

[whozit]

....

Where are all the Maloof apologists that were here late last week? People that "didn't understand where all the hate from the Maloofs came from" ect ect. Are you still singing the same tune?

The Maloofs are garbage. The Maloofs are slime. I hate them so much that I would laugh if one of them were to have an "accident".

I may be calling me one of the ones your calling apologists. If so, there is a difference between giving an explanation for something and being an "apologist" or excusing their behavior.

As far as the names your calling them, you won't get an argument from me.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

my bad Capt copied my post before I corrected it.

I just love how I said "this is correct" and bolded a typo. Yay, early mornings!

 

[whozit]

I just love how I said "this is correct" and bolded a typo. Yay, early mornings!

Hey, at least you proved you were human. I was beginning to wonder.