Press conference and other latest news, rumors, etc.

[VF21]

The announcement at the 2 p.m. press conference is that FILA is bringing back their first athlete's shoe - the KJ7. Kevin Johnson will donate all his royalties to Think Big Sacramento!

In addition, a video competition is being held - "Why Sacramento should be the final resting place (I HATE that phrase since the Kings aren't dying) for the Kings instead of Seattle.

 

[VF21]

Also lots of talk about the Burkle announcement but since it's being discussed in another thread I won't duplicate it here. Suffice to say this is NOT bad news, as it removes a possible "conflict of interest" stumbling block.

 

[VF21]

From Twitter:

Think Big Sacramento ‏@ThinkBigSacto 2m

Make your closing argument on why the Kings should stay! Send a 60 sec video to http://thinkbigsacramento.org/thelastword for the chance to win $500 frm Fila.

 

[VF21]

The mayor says that Vivek Ranadive will take more of a lead role in the ownership group. Vivek is in Sacramento today meeting with minority owners.

(Aside - wonder if this has to do with the possibility of exercising the ROFR clause?)

KJ says there could be another wrinkle or two in the ownership group and there might be another announcement in the next couple of days.

(Aside - so Burkle concentrates on arena and downtown development, leaving room for Larry Ellison to step up? Just a thought...)

 

[Purple Reign]

Mayor mentioned April 18 and 19 decision. You think maybe that means that this thing will finally come to an end next week? MAN, I HOPE SO!!!

 

[kennadog]

The announcement at the 2 p.m. press conference is that FILA is bringing back their first athlete's shoe - the KJ7. Kevin Johnson will donate all his royalties to Think Big Sacramento!

In addition, a video competition is being held - "Why Sacramento should be the final resting place (I HATE that phrase since the Kings aren't dying) for the Kings instead of Seattle.

I wince every time he says that, too. I feel like yelling, "We aren't burying them, KJ!" How about Sacramento should be the final home of the Kings?

 

[kennadog]

I wince every time he says that, too. I feel like yelling, "We aren't burying them, KJ!" How about Sacramento should be the final home of the Kings?

On the other hand, I think Sacramento would be an apt final resting place for the remains of Maloof empire. (I'm so bad. )

 

[VF21]

I don't like the word "final". It's so ... well ... ending-sounding. How about "lasting" or "permanent" or "forever"?

 

[Sac.1989]

Great news !who else is excited for the FILA Kevin Johnson KJ7 Retro. I hear they'll drop next year in time for the all star game. Gotta get mine

 

[kennadog]

I don't like the word "final". It's so ... well ... ending-sounding. How about "lasting" or "permanent" or "forever"?

Much better choices. Excellent.

I may actually need to buy a pair of those shoes.

 

[Sac.1989]

"its goota be the shoes"

 

[kupman]

At this point, it is up to the NBA and if we lose our beloved team I will place 100% of the blame at the feet of the league. I will not hold the Maloofs responsible for what happened and I will not hold Seattle/Hansen-Balmer responsible. I centainly will not hold the city of Sacramento or the great fans responsible as we have done everything possible.

The league has a golden opportunity to do the right thing here.

 

[Vlade4GM]

http://basketball.realgm.com/blog/227127/Sacramento-Seattle-And-The-Kings-–-What-Now

What do you guys think of this article?

 

[Jose]

http://basketball.realgm.com/blog/227127/Sacramento-Seattle-And-The-Kings-–-What-Now

What do you guys think of this article?

This:

Also an important, but much less discussed danger in turning down the Maloof-Hansen deal is the potential for an antitrust lawsuit. The NBA, unlike Major League Baseball, does not have an antitrust exemption, and as such, vetoing the Maloof-Hansen deal could lead to a nasty, lengthy lawsuit against the NBA.

Is really not an issue. Stern was incredibly smart in combining the Sale and Relocation committees. Rejecting the Seattle deal doesn't mean they're rejecting the sale. They're rejecting MOVING the team to Seattle. At which point, the sales agreement becomes invalid. The only possibility of going to court is if either side loses money. They won't. Hansen gets his deposit back, the league presents the Clowns with an offer from the Sacramento group where they don't lose money. If they turn it down, it's their problem and not the league's.

 

[Fear the Putin]

http://basketball.realgm.com/blog/227127/Sacramento-Seattle-And-The-Kings-–-What-Now

What do you guys think of this article?

the solution is mind boggling

They believe Sac shouldn't lose the Kings, but is completely fine with uprooting the Kings franchise and awarding them an expansion team at a guaranteed date if Sac's arena isn't quicker than Seattle's.

 

[HndsmCelt]

http://basketball.realgm.com/blog/227127/Sacramento-Seattle-And-The-Kings-–-What-Now

What do you guys think of this article?

If you are going to shoot at the King you better kill him. Hansen/Balmer can kiss good-bye any hope of ever getting any sports team if they try an anti-trust law suite. On the other hand having this "good offer" declined could be seen a a green light to go after a team team that IS ripe for relocation or getting an expansion team when ever the NBA decides to add a team or two.

 

[Kingster]

http://basketball.realgm.com/blog/227127/Sacramento-Seattle-And-The-Kings-–-What-Now

What do you guys think of this article?

I don't think this paragraph is nuanced enough:
To examine the second point in greater detail, let’s take a closer look at
Seattle’s situation first. If the NBA owners deny the sale by the Maloofs to
Chris Hansen and his Seattle group, they will set a precedent for denying sales
of their own teams once they are ready to sell. No owner wants to be restricted
with respect to whom they can sell their team. Reject this sale now, and risk
having your own sale rejected down the line.

The average Joe is reading this and thinking that it's outrageous that the NBA should dictate the sale price and terms of a team. It implies that the "owner" could be selling for less money just because the NBA says so. That's not the case. The "franchisee" is going to get the same $ regardless of who the buyer is. That fact puts an entirely different slant on things. To be accurate, the article should read: the decision will set a precedent on denying sales to certain buyers *if* the compensation to the selling team is the same regardless of the particular purchasing party.

Also, I find it hard to believe that the date the new arena is going to be built is that important. If the dates are different in months, not years, it shouldn't be a big deal. I do think it's going to be important though to have teeth in the term sheet to assure that everything is in place for the construction to occur in a timely manner.

 

[macadocious]

My son who is 7 asked me last night why KJ can't just tell the Kings they can't leave. So I had to explain to him how selling a business works, but then had to explain how a franchise works. I used McDonalds as the easiest explanation. If you want to own and then sell a McDonalds franchise you have to meet their requirements. Not only does the location have to be approved but so do the owners. It's really the same thing. The only difference here is that all of the owners collectively make the decisions, not the parent company.

 

[Section 101]

I don't think this paragraph is nuanced enough:
To examine the second point in greater detail, let’s take a closer look at
Seattle’s situation first. If the NBA owners deny the sale by the Maloofs to
Chris Hansen and his Seattle group, they will set a precedent for denying sales
of their own teams once they are ready to sell. No owner wants to be restricted
with respect to whom they can sell their team. Reject this sale now, and risk
having your own sale rejected down the line.

The average Joe is reading this and thinking that it's outrageous that the NBA should dictate the sale price and terms of a team. It implies that the "owner" could be selling for less money just because the NBA says so. That's not the case. The "franchisee" is going to get the same $ regardless of who the buyer is. That fact puts an entirely different slant on things. To be accurate, the article should read: the decision will set a precedent on denying sales to certain buyers *if* the compensation to the selling team is the same regardless of the particular purchasing party.

Also, I find it hard to believe that the date the new arena is going to be built is that important. If the dates are different in months, not years, it shouldn't be a big deal. I do think it's going to be important though to have teeth in the term sheet to assure that everything is in place for the construction to occur in a timely manner.

they already did this with the Hornets when they bought them. Ellison wanted to buy them and move them to SJ.

 

[Fear the Putin]

Sac's offer is match. As Stern said, money isn't an issue.

David Bienick ‏@kcrabienick
Sen. Steinberg: "...Sacramento has made not only a fully competitive offer, but an offer that matches dollar-for-dollar the Seattle offer."

 

[Warhawk]

Sac's offer is match. As Stern said, money isn't an issue.

Good to have confirmation. Thanks!

 

[Jose]

The average Joe is reading this and thinking that it's outrageous that the NBA should dictate the sale price and terms of a team. It implies that the "owner" could be selling for less money just because the NBA says so. That's not the case. The "franchisee" is going to get the same $ regardless of who the buyer is. That fact puts an entirely different slant on things. To be accurate, the article should read: the decision will set a precedent on denying sales to certain buyers *if* the compensation to the selling team is the same regardless of the particular purchasing party.

The league will not reject the SALE of the team to the Hansen group. They will reject the application for relocation, citing a very viable market (strong fan support, sellout streaks, history, etc.), city support (been ready to support an arena for 3 years) and the availability of buyers willing to keep the team here. At which point, the sales contract between the Clowns and the Hansen group will become void (assuming part of the deal is the approval of relocation) or Hansen will be basically told "you can buy the team but you cannot move it", which will be quickly be followed by a "No thank you, I'll go steal another team".

 

[Mojo]

Strike that.

Kelly Johnson ‏@KellyJohnsonBiz
Steinberg did NOT say #Sacramento matched #Seattle’s bid for #Kings, only that Sac made a competitive bid, his spokesman says

 

[HndsmCelt]

My understanding (admittedly based on a tweet) was that the Sac offer was 30 mill less than Seattle's offer assuming the Maloofs would either keep or forfeit the deposit as the cos of doing business. But Stern did say that money is not a consideration.