The wait continues and other news, rumors, etc.

[ParniValjak]

Don't know if this was posted but this is what Paul Allen had to say.

http://www.blazersedge.com/2013/4/17/4237256/transcript-blazers-owner-paul-allen-meets-with-media

"I think the league announced that there wasn't going to be a decision at this owners meeting. If there was, I'd be back in New York talking to people, forming my opinion. I think it's a tough call. While I supported the Sonics staying in Seattle when they ended up leaving, I think in general there's some feeling that if there's good fan support and there's good political support sufficient to have a state of the art facility, that's more than enough reason to keep a franchise in the same place.

Then you can get into all the parameters of who has made the best offer, who hasn't made the best offer. It's a very difficult thing. Steve Ballmer is a very good friend of mine and I think he would be a great owner. I reserve my final decision."

Nice find and very telling about general feeling amongst the owners! I always thought Allen would be in favor of the sale to Hansen/ Ballmer but sound like he is leaning towards Sacramento!

The comments from Holt are encouraging. While I don't think the expansion has been discussed yet, it does sound like it's a consideration. Rewind back to Stern's presser in Oakland and his quote of how he cannot see a scenario in which both cities come out happy. Compare that to Holt's comments and the league has gone to a flat out NO to a maybe we can look at it type mood.

Holt's comments regarding China and India is also a little gem that can be drawn from his comments to the press.

 

[Flopi]

Jonathan Santiago ‏@itsjonsantiago

Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson is indeed on his way to NYC for NBA BOG meeting. Took the Delta red eye after the game. #SacKings

 

[Kingster]

I can only assume that this, in light of expansion comment by head of BOG, is to hash out the details of expansion.

Yes, that's the only conclusion I've come up with. What else is so complicated about this deal that would take three weeks to figure out? If anybody has any ideas on what else could be the complicating factor(s), please let us know. To me, it seems pretty simple. The decision may be hard, but it doesn't seem that complicated, at least if you leave out expansion.

 

[hoopster]

I think its going to be an expansion team to one city or the other, which will make everyone happy, although I'm sure Sacramento will be much happier if the Kings are kept in Sacramento, however it may not logistically or legally work out that way since the Maloofs DO need to get paid.

I think it will be expansion because now that there are two absolute deals on the table, the NBA now really can say expansion is at least a possibility. Prior to this, to what advantage is it for Stern or the NBA to come out and say "expansion is on the table" as this would result in a lower price tag for a new franchise, or it would result in either Sacramento or Seattle falling short politically on a new arena, would it not? In many ways the current scenario is the absolute ideal scenario for the NBA to expand, because it A) maximizes value for a new franchise, and B) gets arena deals done in two cities. Back in 2005/06 both Seattle and Sacramento were the two cities with the worst arenas. Fast forward to 2013, now the two cities have brand new deals on the table in two tough political environments, with a lot of frickin money behind two investment groups. How is this not ideal for the NBA? 8 years later, Stern got exactly what he wanted. I mean now that there are two firm offers on the table, this signals to me that the intent and commitment is now available to allow the league to expand, which previously did not exist until this very moment.

And to even sweeten the deal for the NBA, they get rid of one of their worst ownership groups while replacing them with two fantastic ownership groups. Expansion is win, win, win, win.

Question for everyone here, a lot of you have alluded to the fact that the price of $525 million is way too high for the size of Sacramento's, would you be happier keeping the current Kings team sold at $525 or $550 million with an arena plan that isn't 100% finalized (permits not ready, land unpurchased) or would you rather get the expansion team with the current investment group, which could be sold at a lower valuation (perhaps $450 million), which ideally would play as soon as next year (along with time to perfect the new arena plan)? I guess the price of sale of the team is of no interest to the fans (other than the fact that ticket prices may be affected), but if expansion is in fact the way the league goes, do you think it would be better to get the new expansion team at a fair market valuation to Sacramento's market, or keep the current team at the $525 million price tag?

 

[funkykingston]

If there is to be an expansion team, I can't see how it would possibly be to Sacramento. Why on Earth would you uproot a franchise, roster and all, move it to a new city (who also won't have a new arena for at least a couple years), deprive the first market of basketball for 2 or 3 years only to start over with an expansion draft? It just doesn't make sense. The Sacramento group has given their offer. David Stern sees it as sufficient and obviously Ranadive, Mastrov et al feel comfortable offering it. Given that the people with the money seem content with the valuation, I can say unequivocally that I'd vastly prefer that MY team stay put and Seattle get an expansion franchise.

My guess is that if expansion is offered the team would start play in the season that their arena is completed. So a minimum of two years from now. Again, I just don't see the logic of taking a team from Sacramento just to turn around and offer them an expansion franchise.

And I'm not worried about the Maloofs "getting paid". They'll be getting a record amount for their percentage of the franchise regardless.

 

[Jose]

Question for everyone here, a lot of you have alluded to the fact that the price of $525 million is way too high for the size of Sacramento's, would you be happier keeping the current Kings team sold at $525 or $550 million with an arena plan that isn't 100% finalized (permits not ready, land unpurchased) or would you rather get the expansion team with the current investment group, which could be sold at a lower valuation (perhaps $450 million), which ideally would play as soon as next year (along with time to perfect the new arena plan)? I guess the price of sale of the team is of no interest to the fans (other than the fact that ticket prices may be affected), but if expansion is in fact the way the league goes, do you think it would be better to get the new expansion team at a fair market valuation to Sacramento's market, or keep the current team at the $525 million price tag?

The question works both ways, as the situation is the same on both sides. Seattle's plan isn't 100%, permits and reviews not ready, still some land to purchase, facing numerous potential lawsuits, etc... If anything, Sacramento is slightly ahead as there is no threat of lawsuits and the land/location is pretty much settled. Still, neither side has a clear advantage on the arena situation.

If you're going to grant a team to both cities, it would be silly to uproot the existing one so they can be replaced immediately by a new one.

 

[Prophetess]

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/...s-rally-for-team-to-stay-in-emotional-season/

 

[hoopster]

The question works both ways, as the situation is the same on both sides. Seattle's plan isn't 100%, permits and reviews not ready, still some land to purchase, facing numerous potential lawsuits, etc... If anything, Sacramento is slightly ahead as there is no threat of lawsuits and the land/location is pretty much settled. Still, neither side has a clear advantage on the arena situation.

If you're going to grant a team to both cities, it would be silly to uproot the existing one so they can be replaced immediately by a new one.

I agree the Seattle plan isn't complete, it is however a bit further along than the Sacramento plan, not that I'm using this as an argument point, it just seems that from everything I've read, the Seattle plan is perhaps 50-60% of the way done while Sacramento is perhaps 20-30%. Don't disregard the fact that the land for the Sacramento deal isn't in Ranadive's control, everyone whose involved in the Downtown Plaza deal is going to want to get a piece, or they're going to drive up their price since there is a major construction project. Or if the Sacramento group chooses to purchase the land, its a real financial challenge to have to secure land AFTER an arena proposal has been pushed through because then the owner of the land has control over the price of the sale, and if this proves to be difficult and there is indeed a plan B that has to be pursued, thats going to take a lot more time. Again, from everything I've read, this is a huge point that has to be settled for Sacramento. The lawsuits need to be settled for Seattle, but the land being secured is huge on Seattle's end.

I completely agree and understand this, but the league NEEDS the Maloofs gone. Legally the league cannot afford to turn down the Maloofs deal at the valuation of $550 million in order to force a sale for say $450-$500 million to the Sacramento group, the NBA is setting themselves up for a massive anti-trust litigation from the Maloofs, who can pay for their legal fees with their $30 million deposit from Hansen. Remember Al Davis? He sued the NFL for anti-trust and won, the NBA from what I have read does not have an anti-trust clause. If the league turns down Hansen's offer, and then if the Maloofs choose to sell to the Sacramento group (which is still legally in their power to choose who they can and can't sell to), they can only do it for the $550 current valuation.

Obviously in an ideal world Sacramento keeps its team and Seattle is given the expansion, but I don't really know how you do this unless the sale is approved to Hansen, who then turns around and sells to Vivek, but even under this circumstance Hansen has to get all of his money out of the deal, no businessman sells for less than what he bought particularly when Hansen could be a dick and even drive up the price (which I doubt he does, I'm just talking from a business sense, Hansen has to get paid if this is the process which secures him an expansion team). Which brings up the point of how much does Sacramento value the team in their city? If there are two teams on the table, expansion at say $450 million or whatever the figure out there may be, and the current Kings at $550 million which is the value of the Kings from Hansen's perspective, which would all of you prefer. Plus, lets take into consideration the relocation fees, which would be paid to the owners. If they're approving an expansion team out of all of this to one of our two cities, it seems to me they'd want to squeeze Hansen for the $75 million if given the option since the expansion price will get spread around to all of them anyway, thats just the way business works. Again, as a Seattle fan, I would honestly prefer the expansion team, but the reality of how that happens doesn't add up.

 

[curitibagarrett]

I agree the Seattle plan isn't complete, it is however a bit further along than the Sacramento plan, not that I'm using this as an argument point, it just seems that from everything I've read, the Seattle plan is perhaps 50-60% of the way done while Sacramento is perhaps 20-30%. Don't disregard the fact that the land for the Sacramento deal isn't in Ranadive's control, everyone whose involved in the Downtown Plaza deal is going to want to get a piece, or they're going to drive up their price since there is a major construction project. Or if the Sacramento group chooses to purchase the land, its a real financial challenge to have to secure land AFTER an arena proposal has been pushed through because then the owner of the land has control over the price of the sale, and if this proves to be difficult and there is indeed a plan B that has to be pursued, thats going to take a lot more time. Again, from everything I've read, this is a huge point that has to be settled for Sacramento. The lawsuits need to be settled for Seattle, but the land being secured is huge on Seattle's end.

I completely agree and understand this, but the league NEEDS the Maloofs gone. Legally the league cannot afford to turn down the Maloofs deal at the valuation of $550 million in order to force a sale for say $450-$500 million to the Sacramento group, the NBA is setting themselves up for a massive anti-trust litigation from the Maloofs, who can pay for their legal fees with their $30 million deposit from Hansen. Remember Al Davis? He sued the NFL for anti-trust and won, the NBA from what I have read does not have an anti-trust clause. If the league turns down Hansen's offer, and then if the Maloofs choose to sell to the Sacramento group (which is still legally in their power to choose who they can and can't sell to), they can only do it for the $550 current valuation.

Obviously in an ideal world Sacramento keeps its team and Seattle is given the expansion, but I don't really know how you do this unless the sale is approved to Hansen, who then turns around and sells to Vivek, but even under this circumstance Hansen has to get all of his money out of the deal, no businessman sells for less than what he bought particularly when Hansen could be a dick and even drive up the price (which I doubt he does, I'm just talking from a business sense, Hansen has to get paid if this is the process which secures him an expansion team). Which brings up the point of how much does Sacramento value the team in their city? If there are two teams on the table, expansion at say $450 million or whatever the figure out there may be, and the current Kings at $550 million which is the value of the Kings from Hansen's perspective, which would all of you prefer. Plus, lets take into consideration the relocation fees, which would be paid to the owners. If they're approving an expansion team out of all of this to one of our two cities, it seems to me they'd want to squeeze Hansen for the $75 million if given the option since the expansion price will get spread around to all of them anyway, thats just the way business works. Again, as a Seattle fan, I would honestly prefer the expansion team, but the reality of how that happens doesn't add up.

Aaron Bruski broke down the timelines for the two cities

 

[hoopster]

If there is to be an expansion team, I can't see how it would possibly be to Sacramento. Why on Earth would you uproot a franchise, roster and all, move it to a new city (who also won't have a new arena for at least a couple years), deprive the first market of basketball for 2 or 3 years only to start over with an expansion draft? It just doesn't make sense. The Sacramento group has given their offer. David Stern sees it as sufficient and obviously Ranadive, Mastrov et al feel comfortable offering it. Given that the people with the money seem content with the valuation, I can say unequivocally that I'd vastly prefer that MY team stay put and Seattle get an expansion franchise.

My guess is that if expansion is offered the team would start play in the season that their arena is completed. So a minimum of two years from now. Again, I just don't see the logic of taking a team from Sacramento just to turn around and offer them an expansion franchise.

And I'm not worried about the Maloofs "getting paid". They'll be getting a record amount for their percentage of the franchise regardless.

Of course you prefer that result, and I would too from my end. I want the expansion team in Seattle. Read my previous post, I just don't see how we get to that, this is an immensely complicated deal. The three week pushback from the BOG is going to be because of an expansion announcement, how the league gets to that point is what everyone is figuring out now. I think the NBA finally has accepted both of our cities, its just a matter of how it happens with the Maloofs being gone for good.

And I know you're not worried by the Maloofs getting paid, but they certainly are. They also have the backing up US law to really screw everything up. And everyone here knows if given an opportunity to screw up this whole deal, the Maloofs are certainly capable of choosing that outcome.

 

[hoopster]

Aaron Bruski broke down the timelines for the two cities

I don't quite understand the legal technicalities, but I can say from personal experience, you cannot disqualify how challenging a complicated real estate deal can be. Securing land, or getting people who control the Downtown Plaza, all on the same page, is going to be a tricky, tricky process no matter how you spin it. And I'm not trying to be a dick here, if your team can get that done sooner than later more power to you. But businessmen do not want to get screwed out of money on a half a billion project. So the fact that Seattle already jumped over this hurdle is a big deal, and while the legal process can be expedited in Sacramento's case, until the land is secured nothing in the Sacramento deal is 100%.

 

[funkykingston]

I completely agree and understand this, but the league NEEDS the Maloofs gone. Legally the league cannot afford to turn down the Maloofs deal at the valuation of $550 million in order to force a sale for say $450-$500 million to the Sacramento group, the NBA is setting themselves up for a massive anti-trust litigation from the Maloofs, who can pay for their legal fees with their $30 million deposit from Hansen. Remember Al Davis? He sued the NFL for anti-trust and won, the NBA from what I have read does not have an anti-trust clause. If the league turns down Hansen's offer, and then if the Maloofs choose to sell to the Sacramento group (which is still legally in their power to choose who they can and can't sell to), they can only do it for the $550 current valuation.

I know as a Seattle fan you want an NBA team and want it now, but this logic simply isn't consistent with the reality of the situation.

If the NBA decides that they'd rather have the Kings stay in Sacramento then they simply vote no on the sale to Hansen which is the right of the BOG. If that deal is indeed voted down, then there is no offer of $550 million. Only the offer from the Sacramento group.

At that point one of three things would happen

1) The Maloofs would sell to the Sacramento group, which by definition would eliminate the chance of an anti-trust suit
2) The Maloofs would hold on to the team and possibly sue the league.
3) The NBA would use the "best interest of the league" clause to seize control of the franchise, buy out the Maloofs at the originally negotiated price and sell to the Sacramento group. Again the Maloofs could choose to sue the league.

In scenario 2, the Maloofs would find themselves once again hemorrhaging money for at least a year (because the fans would stay away in droves) while also spending millions on a lawsuit attempt that would likely fail. Besides, why would they sue the league for what amounts to somewhere between $16 million and (at most) $32.5 million when they'd likely lose at least that much after holding onto the team for a year AND paying legal fees? The third scenario probably puts them in the best position for a lawsuit but when the details are that (1) the league preferred not to approve an out of town sale and (2) the Maloofs STILL sold a franchise for way above what would be considered market value, I don't see them having a leg to stand on. When the Maloofs seemed to be hinting at an anti-trust suit when the league said no to Anaheim David Stern brushed that aside and has made subsequent comments about the league not being worried about lawsuits.

I think you can let go of the notion that Seattle is getting the Kings and Sacramento is getting an expansion team. It makes no sense on too many levels. Either there won't be expansion and either Seattle or Sacramento will get the Kings OR they will stay in Sacramento and Seattle will get an expansion team.

 

[Prophetess]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nb...ento-kings-final-game/?sct=hp_wr_a2&eref=sihp

 

[Gary]

I know as a Seattle fan you want an NBA team and want it now, but this logic simply isn't consistent with the reality of the situation.

If the NBA decides that they'd rather have the Kings stay in Sacramento then they simply vote no on the sale to Hansen which is the right of the BOG. If that deal is indeed voted down, then there is no offer of $550 million. Only the offer from the Sacramento group.

At that point one of three things would happen

1) The Maloofs would sell to the Sacramento group, which by definition would eliminate the chance of an anti-trust suit
2) The Maloofs would hold on to the team and possibly sue the league.
3) The NBA would use the "best interest of the league" clause to seize control of the franchise, buy out the Maloofs at the originally negotiated price and sell to the Sacramento group. Again the Maloofs could choose to sue the league.

In scenario 2, the Maloofs would find themselves once again hemorrhaging money for at least a year (because the fans would stay away in droves) while also spending millions on a lawsuit attempt that would likely fail. Besides, why would they sue the league for what amounts to somewhere between $16 million and (at most) $32.5 million when they'd likely lose at least that much after holding onto the team for a year AND paying legal fees? The third scenario probably puts them in the best position for a lawsuit but when the details are that (1) the league preferred not to approve an out of town sale and (2) the Maloofs STILL sold a franchise for way above what would be considered market value, I don't see them having a leg to stand on. When the Maloofs seemed to be hinting at an anti-trust suit when the league said no to Anaheim David Stern brushed that aside and has made subsequent comments about the league not being worried about lawsuits.

I think you can let go of the notion that Seattle is getting the Kings and Sacramento is getting an expansion team. It makes no sense on too many levels. Either there won't be expansion and either Seattle or Sacramento will get the Kings OR they will stay in Sacramento and Seattle will get an expansion team.

Very much agree.

 

[Bricklayer]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nb...ento-kings-final-game/?sct=hp_wr_a2&eref=sihp

Excellent.

 

[VF21]

I think its going to be an expansion team to one city or the other, which will make everyone happy, although I'm sure Sacramento will be much happier if the Kings are kept in Sacramento, however it may not logistically or legally work out that way since the Maloofs DO need to get paid.

I think it will be expansion because now that there are two absolute deals on the table, the NBA now really can say expansion is at least a possibility. Prior to this, to what advantage is it for Stern or the NBA to come out and say "expansion is on the table" as this would result in a lower price tag for a new franchise, or it would result in either Sacramento or Seattle falling short politically on a new arena, would it not? In many ways the current scenario is the absolute ideal scenario for the NBA to expand, because it A) maximizes value for a new franchise, and B) gets arena deals done in two cities. Back in 2005/06 both Seattle and Sacramento were the two cities with the worst arenas. Fast forward to 2013, now the two cities have brand new deals on the table in two tough political environments, with a lot of frickin money behind two investment groups. How is this not ideal for the NBA? 8 years later, Stern got exactly what he wanted. I mean now that there are two firm offers on the table, this signals to me that the intent and commitment is now available to allow the league to expand, which previously did not exist until this very moment.

And to even sweeten the deal for the NBA, they get rid of one of their worst ownership groups while replacing them with two fantastic ownership groups. Expansion is win, win, win, win.

Question for everyone here, a lot of you have alluded to the fact that the price of $525 million is way too high for the size of Sacramento's, would you be happier keeping the current Kings team sold at $525 or $550 million with an arena plan that isn't 100% finalized (permits not ready, land unpurchased) or would you rather get the expansion team with the current investment group, which could be sold at a lower valuation (perhaps $450 million), which ideally would play as soon as next year (along with time to perfect the new arena plan)? I guess the price of sale of the team is of no interest to the fans (other than the fact that ticket prices may be affected), but if expansion is in fact the way the league goes, do you think it would be better to get the new expansion team at a fair market valuation to Sacramento's market, or keep the current team at the $525 million price tag?

The Maloofs will get paid either way.

As far as your question, there is NO question. I totally agree with what funkykingston has said.

 

[Jose]

Legally the league cannot afford to turn down the Maloofs deal at the valuation of $550 million in order to force a sale for say $450-$500 million to the Sacramento group...

There's been MANY instances where the highest bidder doesn't get to buy the team, but instead a lower bid with intent to keep the team in its current market keeps the team. You should know - this happened in Seattle when Bennet bought the team with a lower bid than Ellison because Bennet promised a "good faith" effort to keep the team in Seattle, which was promptly shut down by Chopp and gave him the excuse he needed to take the team to OKC.

As much as i want (and hope) that Seattle gets a team, I don't understand Seattle's obsession with getting the Kings over an expansion team. The folks in Seattle have ZERO emotional investment in this team. What's the difference? You still get a team. Why would Seattle fans prefer to do to others what was done to them?

 

[Section 101]

I don't quite understand the legal technicalities, but I can say from personal experience, you cannot disqualify how challenging a complicated real estate deal can be. Securing land, or getting people who control the Downtown Plaza, all on the same page, is going to be a tricky, tricky process no matter how you spin it. And I'm not trying to be a dick here, if your team can get that done sooner than later more power to you. But businessmen do not want to get screwed out of money on a half a billion project. So the fact that Seattle already jumped over this hurdle is a big deal, and while the legal process can be expedited in Sacramento's case, until the land is secured nothing in the Sacramento deal is 100%.

It's already done. That was part of the negotiations between the city and the investors. JMA ventures the owner of the downtown plaza was part of it. They are the ones who came forward and said put it here. Burkle is invested in JMA and is the reason he is still on board in the project.

In fact, Seattle has not jumped this hurdle and this is the biggest obstacle in their arena. The lawsuits are due to the location in SODO. If the arena was going in downtown they would not have the longshoreman lawsuits.

 

[uolj]

Yes, that's the only conclusion I've come up with. What else is so complicated about this deal that would take three weeks to figure out? If anybody has any ideas on what else could be the complicating factor(s), please let us know. To me, it seems pretty simple. The decision may be hard, but it doesn't seem that complicated, at least if you leave out expansion.

Reports seem to indicate that they aren't talking about expansion (yet), they're really focusing on whether the arena and ownership deals will hold up. Remember, these guys aren't spending weeks on this, they have other things to do with their lives. They're spending a few hours for a few days going over the proposals, and maybe some of them are doing work outside the meetings.

Also, they really want to make sure that they don't make a decision that backfires when an arena deal falls through. If they ok the move to Seattle and the team is forced to play in Key Arena for 5-6 years, they will not be happy. Likewise if they reject the move and the team stays at Arco/Sleep Train, and worse if it stays in the Maloofs' control, then that would not be good.

Then there's all the technicalities about whether it's appropriate/legal/feasible to reject the sale and/or force the sale to the Ranadive group. That also has to be discussed and hashed out even if many people have ideas on what they think the right answer is.

Finally, remember that the Sacramento bid has been very much in flux over the last few months. There have been a lot of changing parts and adjustments, and a final bid wasn't presented until Tuesday night. Saying, "oh, we'll match the original $525 million deal" is different than submitting a specific proposal, including all the investors and how much they will contribute and what kind of say they'll have, etc. The league vets every single investor, and there are quite a few in the Sac bid.

This stuff takes time. I wouldn't read much into it beyond the fact that they are giving Sacramento a real chance.

 

[VF21]

There's been MANY instances where the highest bidder doesn't get to buy the team, but instead a lower bid with intent to keep the team in its current market keeps the team. You should know - this happened in Seattle when Bennet bought the team with a lower bid than Ellison because Bennet promised a "good faith" effort to keep the team in Seattle, which was promptly shut down by Chopp and gave him the excuse he needed to take the team to OKC.

As much as i want (and hope) that Seattle gets a team, I don't understand Seattle's obsession with getting the Kings over an expansion team. The folks in Seattle have ZERO emotional investment in this team. What's the difference? You still get a team. Why would Seattle fans prefer to do to others what was done to them?

Exactly!

 

[ninjabiscuit]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nb...ento-kings-final-game/?sct=hp_wr_a2&eref=sihp

That's a great article, with a great photo to boot.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

As much as i want (and hope) that Seattle gets a team, I don't understand Seattle's obsession with getting the Kings over an expansion team. The folks in Seattle have ZERO emotional investment in this team. What's the difference? You still get a team. Why would Seattle fans prefer to do to others what was done to them?

While I haven't been to * Rising in some time, last time I was there there was a vocal contingent demanding the Kings just to stick it to KJ. Seems that our fight really took them off guard. Jealousy I'd guess given that their city did nothing tangible to keep the team and quite a bit to drive them away.

 

[funkykingston]

While I haven't been to * Rising in some time, last time I was there there was a vocal contingent demanding the Kings just to stick it to KJ. Seems that our fight really took them off guard. Jealousy I'd guess given that their city did nothing tangible to keep the team and quite a bit to drive them away.

Yeah, I was really struck by how vitriolic they got with regards to our mayor. I suppose any struggle needs an enemy and I guess KJ became theirs. But to vilify a guy for fighting hard for his city and that city's sports franchise seemed odd to me. For a while I was visiting there to see if there was any news from their side or just to view their perspective, but honestly I reached a point where it just wasn't worth it to me and the posts I read were making me resent the notion of Seattle getting an NBA team back at all. Of course that was a kneejerk, emotional response to a very small but vocal minority of Sonics fans. But that's what the stress of this situation has done to people.

I don't need to read people's posts trashing the city I grew up in or the mayor I'm proud of. Or dissecting the roster as if it was already theirs to rip apart. Life's too short for that sort of unnecessary aggravation.

 

[Warhawk]

It's already done. That was part of the negotiations between the city and the investors. JMA ventures the owner of the downtown plaza was part of it. They are the ones who came forward and said put it here. Burkle is invested in JMA and is the reason he is still on board in the project.

In fact, Seattle has not jumped this hurdle and this is the biggest obstacle in their arena. The lawsuits are due to the location in SODO. If the arena was going in downtown they would not have the longshoreman lawsuits.

My understanding is that Hansen just finished buying the last land he needed while JMA/TeamSactown would still need to pick up a couple smaller properties for the arena site on top of what JMA currently owns. I don't think this is a big deal, but i think we still have a bit to do to get all the land acquired.

 

[Bibbilicious]

Michael McCann ‏@McCannSportsLaw 19m
NBA source tells me, as Stern publicly stated, expansion truly has NOT been discussed & NOT an option. Discussion re: Kings only about Kings
Retweeted by Carmichael Dave

 

[ninjabiscuit]

Michael McCann ‏@McCannSportsLaw 19m
NBA source tells me, as Stern publicly stated, expansion truly has NOT been discussed & NOT an option. Discussion re: Kings only about Kings
Retweeted by Carmichael Dave

Damn.

 

[Kingsfan23]

So much for Paul Allen taking our side

Jason Puckett‏@JasonPuckettKJR1h
Exclusiveeter McLoughlin , Prez of Hawks rep. 4 Paul Alllen at BOG on if Allen would vote no on Hansen: "I don't see that occurring, no."

 

[Kingster]

Michael McCann ‏@McCannSportsLaw 19m
NBA source tells me, as Stern publicly stated, expansion truly has NOT been discussed & NOT an option. Discussion re: Kings only about Kings
Retweeted by Carmichael Dave

So then what takes three weeks to figure out?

 

[NewKingsFan916]

This thing is starting to fall apart. I told you guys. KJ's team really dropped the ball on the bid. I'm very worried now. He has a lot of explaining to do.

 

[uolj]

So then what takes three weeks to figure out?

http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/sho...ews-rumors-etc&p=973771&viewfull=1#post973771

This thing is starting to fall apart. I told you guys. KJ's team really dropped the ball on the bid. I'm very worried now. He has a lot of explaining to do.

This post doesn't make sense given what we have learned recently. There hasn't been any new information that says something bad about Sacramento's chances.