OC Register: NBA deal or no deal: Which will Maloofs choose?

[Section 101]

Yes, it has seemed from reports that they are not thrilled about Samueli as an owner. Burkle apparently doesn't have a stellar history either, but the league seems to view him more favorable. Of course, the fact that he says he want to keep the Kings in Sac would help his cause with the league, I'm sure. Since he, so far, has kept the Penguins in Pittsburgh and turned that franchise around, I accept his desire to keep the Kings here at face value.

I'm refering to Samueli being an admitted felon and banned from running the Ducks. Yes the charges were dropped, but I don't think the NBA wants the bad pub right now.

 

[kennadog]

Kenna, that was an exceptionally good post.

Thank you.

(Numerous typos. I'm the world's best typo-ist. )

 

[Bricklayer]

Thank you.

(Numerous typos. I'm the world's best typo-ist. )

ahme.

 

[kennadog]

ahme.

I can type one word per minute with no mistakes.

 

[swisshh]

I don't think that the NBA is looking kindly upon Samueli's attempt to wrest control of the team the way he is (apparently) going about it. Just my $0.02 on it.....

And on that note, Napear repeatedly stated today that the Maloofs are not selling the team. On the third or fourth repetition, he added "maybe in a couple years they will."

Right now, thats as close as you'll get to a confirmation of the Maloofs intending to hand the team over to Samueli.

 

[Löwenherz]

And on that note, Napear repeatedly stated today that the Maloofs are not selling the team. On the third or fourth repetition, he added "maybe in a couple years they will."

Right now, thats as close as you'll get to a confirmation of the Maloofs intending to hand the team over to Samueli.

I question whether it's their intention. I actually wonder if they're too naive to realize that's what's going to happen.

 

[SacTownKid]

I'm refering to Samueli being an admitted felon and banned from running the Ducks. Yes the charges were dropped, but I don't think the NBA wants the bad pub right now.

If I am remembering correctly they weren't dropped, they were reduced and he got probation.

 

[Glenn]

Might as well deal with fact.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/10/business/la-fi-samueli10-2009dec10

 

[Trueblood]

Might as well deal with fact.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/10/business/la-fi-samueli10-2009dec10

Yeah, I've posted that link a few times myself. He's not the bad guy here. He's doing what he thinks is best for his building. If the Maloofs are dead set against coming back to Sac, he wants to be the guy to make the best offer. Nothing wrong with that. I just wish that the league would figure out a way to broker a deal for him and the Clippers. Maybe have he and Sterling have joint ownership of the team. With Blake in the mix, Anaheim would be willing to forgive Sterling thumbing his nose at them in the past, especially with Samueli in line to take over majority in the event that Sterling were to pass away or decide to finally sell.

More importantly, that would get rid of the 3rd team in socal option for the Kings, once and for all. The Maloofs would pretty much have to sell or stay in Sac. Nobody else is going to give them sweetheart loans like Samueli did and nobody else is that close to Vegas and LA.

 

[Aenadin]

They will not move.. says the league(upon advise) but they cannot stay, in SAC so they say, they can't wait for years for an arena because it will bleed their pockets dry.... The league needs to do something With these so called owners. I don't see them SPENDING on a competitive or even an exciting team...and it is a MUST that they will spend more to gain the fans trust and love back (not that it matters to some but knowing how emotional these guys are).. not only on free agency, but also with other stuff.

they have gone cheap on the fans and the product for far too long. and if they sell like their part of the ownership (150mil at least or an estimate) they'd have to pay the city 77 mil and the league 75 which leaves them less than 10 mil or so for themselves. that's how I see it. unless i calculated it wrong.

the fans will do their part, i know sell out games if the price and the product is reasonable. and the drop in fans watching isn't only because of their product. but also how they jacked up the price of tix. unbelievable. I don't want them back... as owners.

and it is questionable how capable they can be to contribute or even entertain an arena plan... I will hate them even more if the league bails them out or they don't do jack and the city does all the work for an arena..

 

[macadocious]

they have gone cheap on the fans and the product for far too long. and if they sell like their part of the ownership (150mil at least or an estimate) they'd have to pay the city 77 mil and the league 75 which leaves them less than 10 mil or so for themselves. that's how I see it. unless i calculated it wrong.


.

Ya, that is not accurate. First off, if the debt was forced to be paid off during a sale, they would only have to pay the percentage associated with their ownership. Most likely any sale, the debt would stay with the company. It really depends on how it was structured. The loan from the city and the NBA loan as far as I can tell, were to the Kings partnership, not the Maloof Sports and Entertainment group, which owns 50+% of the Kings.

 

[Glenn]

Yeah, I've posted that link a few times myself. He's not the bad guy here. He's doing what he thinks is best for his building. If the Maloofs are dead set against coming back to Sac, he wants to be the guy to make the best offer. Nothing wrong with that. I just wish that the league would figure out a way to broker a deal for him and the Clippers. Maybe have he and Sterling have joint ownership of the team. With Blake in the mix, Anaheim would be willing to forgive Sterling thumbing his nose at them in the past, especially with Samueli in line to take over majority in the event that Sterling were to pass away or decide to finally sell.

More importantly, that would get rid of the 3rd team in socal option for the Kings, once and for all. The Maloofs would pretty much have to sell or stay in Sac. Nobody else is going to give them sweetheart loans like Samueli did and nobody else is that close to Vegas and LA.

This is a quote I found you had posted. I used Google and it went directly to the thread I started on the degree of Samueli's involvement. Nobody seemed concerned Samulei seemed to be the total monetery sponsor in the Anaheim deal with Anaheim contributing next to nothing AT THAT TIME, but I think that very fact is important. Do you move a team whose primary beneficiary is one man, criminal mischief, implied criminial mischief or not? One man as opposed to a city represented by an Anaheim mayor whose job is to be a cheer leader?

BTW, it's cool to have a kingsfan.com thread pop up #1 on the Google search - search "Samueli legal problems" if you want the same thrill.

 

[Glenn]

They have gone cheap on the fans and the product for far too long. and if they sell like their part of the ownership (150mil at least or an estimate) they'd have to pay the city 77 mil and the league 75 which leaves them less than 10 mil or so for themselves. that's how I see it. unless i calculated it wrong.

This gets complicated. We generically use the trem "Maloofs" in two ways: one, to indicate the family and the other to indicate the team. For instance, if the Maloofs sell for $150 mil, does that mean they sell their interest or are they selling part of the team? Get the possibility of confusion? Is a personal loan to the Maloofs a personal loan to the family or the team?

In this instance, the team is in the hook for repaying the bond issue at $77 mil with that prepayment penality if they move and not the Maloofs personally. It is the moving that triggers the payback and the penalty and not the selling.

Is that correct?

 

[Trueblood]

This is a quote I found you had posted. I used Google and it went directly to the thread I started on the degree of Samueli's involvement. Nobody seemed concerned Samulei seemed to be the total monetery sponsor in the Anaheim deal with Anaheim contributing next to nothing AT THAT TIME, but I think that very fact is important. Do you move a team whose primary beneficiary is one man, criminal mischief, implied criminial mischief or not? One man as opposed to a city represented by an Anaheim mayor whose job is to be a cheer leader?

BTW, it's cool to have a kingsfan.com thread pop up #1 on the Google search - search "Samueli legal problems" if you want the same thrill.

That is cool. I'll do that.

I do find it VERY disconcerting that this potential move would be a huge negative for a large fan base and would benefit only a few rich folks but that's why I like what the league is doing. Just give us one last shot at financing an arena and if it doesn't work, then the Maloofs have a much more justifiable reason to leave. The negated fan base will have nobody to point at other than the jokers who run the city. Obviously, I don't include KJ as one of the jokers.

As for Samueli, I think the fact that he got off the hook is good. The fact that it's just "implied criminal mischief" makes a big difference in my book. Of course, if you're the league, you probably have to devote a certain amount of media time and press conferences detailing why Samueli isn't the bad guy some think he is and he would probably have to issue an apology for getting in over his head without doing more research on what he was getting into. But legally speaking, he's clear of wrong doing for the most part and the league would make sure to spin him in the most positive light possible.