Staying or going? Latest rumors, thoughts, etc.

[VF21]

I'm starting this thread so we can end the duplication and cross posting that's going on in the current two threads. If we post ALL our thoughts, observations, etc. about the future of the Kings in Sacramento in this one convenient thread it will make things a lot easier. At least that's my hope...

Carry on.

 

[Bricklayer]

Wait...in order to cut down on the duplication you are providing an opportunity for triplication?

 

[VF21]

One more thing? If you're quoting something you read somewhere else, please be sure to include a link back so the rest of us can read it, too. There's tons of stuff floating around out there.

Thanks again!

 

[VF21]

Wait...in order to cut down on the duplication you are providing an opportunity for triplication?

Well, that might happen unless I close the other two threads.

 

[HereWeBoogie]

good idea, those 2 threads were confusing me.

 

[jdbraver]

Sea losing at the last moment to Atl a good sign?

 

[Spike]

good idea, those 2 threads were confusing me.

I dunno. Two threads are better than one.

 

[nebs]

A lot of good info in this new thread.

 

[kupman]

A lot of good info in this new thread.

So far, this thread contains all the information that has actually been confirmed.

 

[Livinthedream]

So far, this thread contains all the information that has actually been confirmed.

I confirm this statement.

 

[GoGoGadget]

Wait...in order to cut down on the duplication you are providing an opportunity for triplication?

... But I thought lawyers liked triplicate?

 

[Ryan]

I need to start an internet diet. All I do is refresh Sacbee.com every 5 minutes.

 

[Fear the Putin]

... But I thought lawyers liked triplicate?

triplicate billing

 

[funkykingston]

It would seem to me that the Seattle group is buying complete ownership of the team. But wouldn't it be the case that a local buyer would only need to purchase the Maloofs' share assuming that current minority owners would elect to hold onto their portion?

 

[Chupacabra]

It would seem to me that the Seattle group is buying complete ownership of the team. But wouldn't it be the case that a local buyer would only need to purchase the Maloofs' share assuming that current minority owners would elect to hold onto their portion?

This is a very interesting thought! Whos to say that the current minority owners wouldnt elect to hold onto their shares if the team is sold to the seattle group?

 

[spudfan]

This is a very interesting thought! Whos to say that the current minority owners wouldnt elect to hold onto their shares if the team is sold to the seattle group?

I am sure it is written into the contract that incase of sale the minority owners don't have a say about holding onto their shares.

 

[ParniValjak]

I am sure it is written into the contract that incase of sale the minority owners don't have a say about holding onto their shares.

That would be a bit unusual. Who has the right to tell me whether I have to sell my investments whether I like it or not? What if I am making a loss or I simply do not want to sell. I wouldn't think it would be any different that owning shares in companies.

 

[jpsls]

I remember reading last year that the city gets a 7% (I think) stake in the team if they move. Where does this 7% come from?

 

[kupman]

I confirm this statement.

An unconfirmed source with ties to George's barber also agrees.

 

[kupman]

I need to start an internet diet. All I do is refresh Sacbee.com every 5 minutes.

I have heard you say this before. I think that you are a yo-yo internet dieter.

 

[Ryan]

I have heard you say this before. I think that you are a yo-yo internet dieter.

Wow, did I already say this? My brain is deteriorating.

 

[pshn80]

I gather there's been no news today. Go, stay, KJ buys it out of pocket. I paid for apair of tickets for tomorrow's Cleveland game. I understand that Smart has adopted Brick's game plan. Stay Kings!!!!!

 

[spudfan]

That would be a bit unusual. Who has the right to tell me whether I have to sell my investments whether I like it or not? What if I am making a loss or I simply do not want to sell. I wouldn't think it would be any different that owning shares in companies.

It wouldn't be unusual at all. The sale of shares often contain some kind of agreement that outlines the valuation of an investment incase of a sale.

A couple of years ago there were issues when one of the Kings minority owners needed to sell his stake after using it for collateral. Issues came up regarding if he had the ability to sell or if the Maloofs had chance at ownership first. If they have something in their contract about that, it should be safe to assume they have something in the contract incase of sale of the team.

 

[kennadog]

I remember reading last year that the city gets a 7% (I think) stake in the team if they move. Where does this 7% come from?

Not exactly. If the Maloofs default on the terms of the city loan/lease, the city could foreclose and get ownership of the collateral for the loan. The collateral the city holds is the arena land and all improvements on it, plus a $25 million stake in the team ownership.

Technically the loan/lease terms require immediate repayment of the loan, if the team leaves Sacramento. That is the outstanding principal, interest due, plus a prepayment penalty. The Hansen offer to buy supposedly includes the pay of of the city loan. Payoff would be much better for the city than having to initiate legal proceedings to collect.

If a local buyer gets the team, they are not required to payoff the city loan immediately. They would just assume the city loan and continue making the lease payments. If a new buyer keeps the team in Sacramento, I would think they would assume the loan, but likely it would be refinanced by the city as part of an arena deal, because it would lower the annual payments a lot due to re-amortization of a lower principal amount (spreading payments over a new 30-year term) and much lower interest rates available right now compared to the interest rate on the current loan.

Of course, even a local buyer could just choose to pay it off, but city financing almost always has more favorable terms than borrowing from a private commercial lender. And they can write-off the interest portion of their payments as an expense. Another plus from the owner's perspective. It reduces taxable income. And for quite a while their payments would be almost all interest payment.

 

[Entity]

I gather there's been no news today. Go, stay, KJ buys it out of pocket. I paid for apair of tickets for tomorrow's Cleveland game. I understand that Smart has adopted Brick's game plan. Stay Kings!!!!!

anybody care to elaborate. I must have missed Smarts game plan. whats up?

 

[UK_King]

http://www.nba.com/2013/news/featur...l-early-struggles/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt6f

Alrdrige's latest take on the issue.

 

[Warhawk]

Some bits came out today that fill in some knowledge gaps:

The NBA held a conference call with members of the league's relocation committee to outline deal points on the proposed sale of majority ownership of the Sacramento Kings to a Seattle-based ownership group, league sources told Yahoo! Sports.

The call took place on Tuesday – one day before Yahoo! Sports reported the finalizing of a deal – and informed several league owners that the Hansen-Ballmer Seattle group would purchase 65 percent of the Kings, sources said. The league office told members of the relocation committee that the non-binding agreement would constitute 53 percent of the franchise owned by the Maloof family and an additional 12 percent from minority owner Bob Hernreich.

The sale price of $525 million is considered an overall valuation of the franchise.

It is unclear if the selling of 53 percent of the Maloof's share would leave them with any future stake in the franchise, but sources have told Yahoo! Sports that there's no circumstance where which the Maloofs would keep any real input or governance over day-to-day team operations.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--n...proposed-sale-to-seattle-group-183116508.html

 

[HereWeBoogie]

http://www.nba.com/2013/news/featur...l-early-struggles/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt6f

Alrdrige's latest take on the issue.

Not good!

 

[Bricklayer]

Not good!

Just one man's take, and not even a man directly connected locally. The points there that would be relevant are the revenue sharing points nd how that might effect votes. The rest of them can be countered by other arguments fairly easily. He hints at but breezes over that the NBA has to approve the sale. He mentioned relocation fee money...but that's dwarfed by potential expansion fee money. Mentions the bump from the #20 to #12 media market, without mentioning how dmaaging to the #20 market it would be to rip the team up and move it, nor how unprecedented eliminating a 70 year old original 8 franchise would be to redecorate it the Sonics, or mention that the NBA actually bought the New Orleans Hornets themselves ratehr than let them be bought nad moved in order to save the #27 media market (or whatever New Orleans is now).

There is danger all around here quite obviously. But other than the revenue sharing point, the rest is already known. Just depends on what side of the argument they take.

 

[Section 101]

Some bits came out today that fill in some knowledge gaps:


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--n...proposed-sale-to-seattle-group-183116508.html

So lets do some math. According to the reports the relocation fee, city payoff and nba debt are part of the sales price. So lets just say that adds up to $200 million a conservative number. That leaves $325 million for the actual purchase price. 53% of that is $172,250,000. They paid $158 million so a ruff net capitol gains of $14 million plus the money they got from selling shares to Heinreich.. Now factor in the money they lost over the years and it seems to be a net negative.