NEWS10: New documents detail failed Sacramento arena negotiations

[Jose]

Only one flaw in that plan. They need the permission of the league to move the team...

They don't. Ask Donald Sterling.

However, I didn't say it was a flawless plan. Just meant to say that, based on their behavior, that's probably what they've been thinking all along.

 

[TyFreak Evans]

You are all wrong. They are looking out for the best interests of Sacramento and the community by stopping the City from engaging in this horrible, bad deal that will hurt the City's finances. The City can't afford it. Like George said, "Where's the money?" All hail the Maloofs, saviors of the City's economy!

<end sarcasm>

Now that I got that out of the way... it's obvious that they're going to sell. It's inevitable. It's more profitable to sell a team in Anaheim than a team in Sacramento. Staying here does not fit into their exit strategy. Neither does paying off their loans, by the way...

This is going to be a mess unless the NBA intervenes.

Apologies for having to put a damper in your hopes, but I do not think it's obvious, or inevitable, that they're going to sell. It's speculation. And I do not like speculation. I hope they sell, but I don't think it's obvious, or inevitable, that they will sell...

IMO...

 

[Section 101]

The only flaw here is that operates under the assumption that all the other deals in the 350-500mil range the owners bought clubs that were 100% debt free and also 100% of the shares. I don't think we can actually make those assumptions, but I may be wrong. I also don't think the NBA would approve a sale that low because externally it makes all the other franchises appear cheaper.

They negotiate the sale value of the team. That's what gets reported. It just sets the price per share. So if $300 mil is the sale price and you own half the shares you sell them for $150 mil.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...f2aa1-20120413_1_tom-benson-new-owner-hornets

Says Benson assumed $125 mil in debts from the team.

The Maloofs should look at what the league did to increase the value too. They already have the payroll in order what they need is fans back on board to increase the value.

 

[jpsls]

They don't. Ask Donald Sterling.

However, I didn't say it was a flawless plan. Just meant to say that, based on their behavior, that's probably what they've been thinking all along.

They do need permission to move the team. After Sterling moved the Clippers, the NBA altered by-laws so that teams cannot relocate whenever they want, which is why their is a relocation committee that must approve a move before a team can actually relocate.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

They negotiate the sale value of the team. That's what gets reported. It just sets the price per share. So if $300 mil is the sale price and you own half the shares you sell them for $150 mil.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...f2aa1-20120413_1_tom-benson-new-owner-hornets

Says Benson assumed $125 mil in debts from the team.

The Maloofs should look at what the league did to increase the value too. They already have the payroll in order what they need is fans back on board to increase the value.

We also know that the Maloofs shares are a different class than those of the other owners and that when they sold shares in the past they were reclassified as non-controlling. Same thing with Benson, we can take him at face value that he is the "only owner" or it could be that he owns 100% of the control shares.

 

[The Hammer]

They don't. Ask Donald Sterling.

However, I didn't say it was a flawless plan. Just meant to say that, based on their behavior, that's probably what they've been thinking all along.

There have been a lot of changes in the league since Sterling pulled his stunt. Would not be surprised if the by laws have been ratified to prevent such a thing from happening again. Stern's done a lot of things to standardize the NBA, improve it's image, and make it more marketable. Owners still having that leverage I would think would not be in his plans. I could be wrong.

They do need permission to move the team. After Sterling moved the Clippers, the NBA altered by-laws so that teams cannot relocate whenever they want, which is why their is a relocation committee that must approve a move before a team can actually relocate.

Oh ok, well there ya go.

 

[The Hammer]

Keep in mind that the Maloofs only own a bit over 50%, so their share is about half of the "sale value" of the team.



Well, I'm not sure I would say the Dodgers' attendance is that poor. Last year they averaged about 36,200 (#11 in MLB) in spite of the McCourt mess and ended up over 2.9M on the season. This year they're up a bit at almost 38,800 per game (#6 in MLB), which is a pace for over 3.1M. In the past several years before that they've been in the 3.7M attendance range so the McCourt fiasco did cause a bit of a dropoff, but it's not like their attendance was terrible or they didn't have a history of massive success in the market.

I think everybody was a bit surprised by the $2B bid on the team anyway. What this really goes to show is that franchise value is what somebody will pay for it, not what Forbes thinks it is. The group that bought the Dodgers obviously thought that they could make it work at $2B, and a lot of that probably has to do with TV rights. For the Kings, well, the debt on the team (ARCO, NBA) looks like its in the $150M+ range, and even shared across all the minority owners that leaves $80M+ of debt on the Maloofs' share. Seeing as the debt goes with the team, I guess they'd be lucky to get $150M for their shares (translates to about $425-450 total debt-free value of the franchise).

I want you all to know that I just got an A this semester in Intermediate Algebra. I want you all to also know that I'm glad the Cap'm just went though all that math for everybody, cause I think it clears up a lot of confusion for people here.

To my credit, however, yeah my 425M number was a roughshod estimate at total (debt-free) value of the team.

The Maloofs aren't as underwater on this thing as people think, no? They're either just super greedy, or they're underwater on some other stuff. Who knows. This doesn't account of course for what they paid for the team, and I don't have that figure and am too lazy to look it up.

 

[Section 101]

We also know that the Maloofs shares are a different class than those of the other owners and that when they sold shares in the past they were reclassified as non-controlling. Same thing with Benson, we can take him at face value that he is the "only owner" or it could be that he owns 100% of the control shares.

I believe they are voting shares.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The Maloofs aren't as underwater on this thing as people realize. They're either just super greedy, or they're underwater on some other stuff. Who knows.

I agree with this. Which is the sad thing because they are running the franchise into the ground as some kind of vanity project while at the same time the Maloof name has been tarnished forever. They could sell and the whole family would be set for life though maybe not famous. Being anonymously wealthy has a whole lot of advantages they are too stupid to see while fame whoring it up.