The wait continues and other news, rumors, etc.

[Gary]

Has anyone been in the discussion over at sonicsrising? There is a Sac/Seattle thread where both sides can discuss the issue civilly.

Pretty compelling arguments both ways, but the bottom line they needed to figure out that this is not about NOT being able to sell who you want to, but it is about selling who you want to then moving the franchise from a loyal fanbase. But never the less, there is some decent discussion there and posts that are harsh on either side are removed.

 

[HndsmCelt]

I gathered that, but I wanted to illustrate how the BOG COULD handle the situation in order to save the Kings and get Hansen/Maloofs out of the picture with out denying the sale.

 

[Gary]

That is my understanding as well. But the BOG can certainly vote down relocation then call Hansen to see if he is till interested.

A) Seattle ownership group is contingent on the relocation happening.

B) no relocation, no Hansen/Balmer.

C) Second binding offer is Sacramento's. That's where it will go after the relocation is denied.

d) Sacramento keeps its team and the NBA works something out with Hansen/Balmer to get them an expansion by 2017 as long as their arena is on pace to open by then.

 

[VF21]

Has anyone been in the discussion over at sonicsrising? There is a Sac/Seattle thread where both sides can discuss the issue civilly.

Pretty compelling arguments both ways, but the bottom line they needed to figure out that this is not about NOT being able to sell who you want to, but it is about selling who you want to then moving the franchise from a loyal fanbase. But never the less, there is some decent discussion there and posts that are harsh on either side are removed.

I would sooner post at a certain Lakers forum (except I was banned from there years ago. )

 

[Gary]

I gathered that, but I wanted to illustrate how the BOG COULD handle the situation in order to save the Kings and get Hansen/Maloofs out of the picture with out denying the sale.

Because their deal (hansen-Maloof) is no longer binding once the relocation is denied. That's why the relocation vote is first.... Deny the relocation and then the only offer left is Sacramentos! EZ-PZ.

The only binding deal that will be left is the Sacramento group so why on earth would the NBA renegotiate with Hansen when they have a binding offer, in sacramentos, already there?

 

[Glenn]

A) Seattle ownership group is contingent on the relocation happening.

B) no relocation, no Hansen/Balmer.

C) Second binding offer is Sacramento's. That's where it will go after the relocation is denied.

d) Sacramento keeps its team and the NBA works something out with Hansen/Balmer to get them an expansion by 2017 as long as their arena is on pace to open by then.

Item d is up to Silver as Stern moves to Florida and works on his tan. I wonder if the two have figured out how to handle this already. I presume so and while Stern can say expansion is not on the table, he is not speaking for Silver and may just be playing word games.

 

[Gary]

Item d is up to Silver as Stern moves to Florida and works on his tan. I wonder if the two have figured out how to handle this already. I presume so and while Stern can say expansion is not on the table, he is not speaking for Silver and may just be playing word games.

*Stern's LAST act as commish - Keeping the team in Sacramento and scoring one for all the small market teams/cities out there.

*Silver's FIRST act as commish - Get a team back in Seattle.

Makes perfect sense, but in this world who knows lol.

 

[uolj]

My impression of the expansion discussion is that the standard answer is, "We're not going to even consider expansion until after the next TV deal" (which I think is in a couple years). My impression of the unofficial addendum to that is, "but when we do consider expansion you'll be first in line, Seattle, if you don't win this vote."

So, Seattle will still try very hard to win this to guarantee themselves a team, now, which will push their arena plans along. But a very likely scenario is that Sac wins this vote but Hansen/Ballmer reappear in a couple years if they haven't poached another team in the meantime.

 

[Kingsfan23]

A reason the NBA doesn't want expansion, aside from a lack of evenness which 31 teams will create, is because there will be other lame duck franchises coming up in the next 5 years or so... Why expand, when Seattle is going to have another opportunity to poach in the near future.. There will be too many teams and not enough economically supportive markets as is

 

[Section 101]

That is my understanding as well. But the BOG can certainly vote down relocation then call Hansen to see if he is till interested.

If it's in the contract with the Maloofs then the deal would be off.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Which would NOT necessarily have a direct impact on the NBA procedure. Besides it would be polite and smart to give the hedge fund pirate a chance to pull his offer before a vote on ownership.

 

[Section 101]

A reason the NBA doesn't want expansion, aside from a lack of evenness which 31 teams will create, is because there will be other lame duck franchises coming up in the next 5 years or so... Why expand, when Seattle is going to have another opportunity to poach in the near future.. There will be too many teams and not enough economically supportive markets as is

Because they would add 2 teams and make it 32. 32 works out better then 30 for scheduling and divisions.

Hansen should just say if we get an expansion team we will make up or not take the current TV revenues until the new contract.

 

[Gary]

Which would NOT necessarily have a direct impact on the NBA procedure. Besides it would be polite and smart to give the hedge fund pirate a chance to pull his offer before a vote on ownership.

They won't have to when the relocation is voted down. They will automatically be pulled because their deal will be nullified. There wont even have to be a break between the two votes for them to pull the offer. It's automatically pulled. I assume though that the league will still so the right thing and allow Hansen to publicly pull the offer just as a courtesy though even though at that point their offer wouldn't be any good anyway.

That's why they are voting relocation first so that they won't have to vote for the sale unless the relocation goes ahead, and if the Kings are relocated then the sale will be approved.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

if the Kings are relocated then the sale will be approved.

This doesn't make sense to me considering the differences between the number of votes needed to approve. For example, only a simple majority is needed to approve relocation - which they could well get - while a 3/4 majority (I think) is required to approve the sale.


So, let's say the relocation vote has 8 owners against and the same 8 owners also vote against approving the sale. In that scenario, relocation would be a yes while the sale would be a no.

 

[Gary]

This doesn't make sense to me considering the differences between the number of votes needed to approve. For example, only a simple majority is needed to approve relocation - which they could well get - while a 3/4 majority (I think) is required to approve the sale.


So, let's say the relocation vote has 8 owners against and the same 8 owners also vote against approving the sale. In that scenario, relocation would be a yes while the sale would be a no.

It wouldn't happen though. If the relocation is approved the sale will be. I know we could bring "what if this" or "what if that" but the simple answer is that it wouldn't happen. If the relocation is approved then the sale will be approved. That's why they combined the two.

As for the vote, I see it going down as the relocation voted down - the agreement between Maloofs and Balmer nullified - then the Maloofs going to plan B which is Sacramento where they will get the same amount in their pockets.

The BOG though will not approve one thing (move or sale) and not approve the other. That makes zero sense, and I assume that's what all these meetings are for.

 

[Kingsfan23]

It wouldn't happen though. If the relocation is approved the sale will be. I know we could bring "what if this" or "what if that" but the simple answer is that it wouldn't happen. If the relocation is approved then the sale will be approved. That's why they combined the two.

As for the vote, I see it going down as the relocation voted down - the agreement between Maloofs and Balmer nullified - then the Maloofs going to plan B which is Sacramento where they will get the same amount in their pockets.

The BOG though will not approve one thing (move or sale) and not approve the other. That makes zero sense, and I assume that's what all these meetings are for.

As KingsFanSince85 said, that doesn't make sense. Given that only 8 owners are needed to deny the sale, denying the sale should be much easier to do

 

[ninjabiscuit]

This doesn't make sense to me considering the differences between the number of votes needed to approve. For example, only a simple majority is needed to approve relocation - which they could well get - while a 3/4 majority (I think) is required to approve the sale.


So, let's say the relocation vote has 8 owners against and the same 8 owners also vote against approving the sale. In that scenario, relocation would be a yes while the sale would be a no.

What I think everyone needs to realize is that Stern is not going to allow that to happen, because obviously it would be silly. This isn't a "vote" in the strictest sense of the word, where everyone votes privately and blindly, and whatever happens, happens. Stern will make sure that they all talk to each other openly about which overall result would be best for the league, they'll reach a consensus on what the NBA owners as a whole want to do, and then they'll vote accordingly. So any untenable scenario where the team is relocated but not sold, or sold and not relocated, to pick two examples, just isn't going to happen.

In fact, I'll take it a step further: I think the once the decision is made but not formally announced, someone (maybe Stern himself) will call all parties (KJ, Hansen/Ballmer, Sac potential ownership group) and tell them what the decision is, and get their feedback on it. Assuming that all parties understand and will abide by the formal decision, the official "voting" proceeds.

That's always been impression, anyway. I've also seen a few different reports (Bucher, I think, among others) that Stern is going to make sure that the BoG appears fairly unified on the decision, to avoid any unpleasantness and/or finger-pointing later.

 

[Kingsfan23]

What I think everyone needs to realize is that Stern is not going to allow that to happen, because obviously it would be silly. This isn't a "vote" in the strictest sense of the word, where everyone votes privately and blindly, and whatever happens, happens. Stern will make sure that they all talk to each other openly about which overall result would be best for the league, they'll reach a consensus on what the NBA owners as a whole want to do, and then they'll vote accordingly. So any untenable scenario where the team is relocated but not sold, or sold and not relocated, to pick two examples, just isn't going to happen.

In fact, I'll take it a step further: I think the once the decision is made but not formally announced, someone (maybe Stern himself) will call all parties (KJ, Hansen/Ballmer, Sac potential ownership group) and tell them what the decision is, and get their feedback on it. Assuming that all parties understand and will abide by the formal decision, the official "voting" proceeds.

That's always been impression, anyway. I've also seen a few different reports (Bucher, I think, among others) that Stern is going to make sure that the BoG appears fairly unified on the decision, to avoid any unpleasantness and/or finger-pointing later.

During Stern's press conference he made mention to the fact that there is no need for everyone to reach a consensus... On this unprecedented issue, I highly doubt there will be one. This decision is in my opinion going to split the BOG..

It would be untenable for the owners to approve the sale but not the relocation, however it wouldn't be to approve the relocation and not the sale - as it is Hansen's bid that the relocation is a part of

 

[ninjabiscuit]

During Stern's press conference he made mention to the fact that there is no need for everyone to reach a consensus... On this unprecedented issue, I highly doubt there will be one. This decision is in my opinion going to split the BOG.

I shouldn't have used the word "consensus," I should have used the word "decision." And I'm sure it will be hotly debated, yes.

It would be untenable for the owners to approve the sale but not the relocation, however it wouldn't be to approve the relocation and not the sale - as it is Hansen's bid that the relocation is a part of

I apologize for my confusion...but if the relocation is approved, and the sale is not, does that mean that the team is moving to Seattle, but under current ownership? To me, that seems like the one thing no one wants (except Sonics fans), but maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Kingsfan23]

I shouldn't have used the word "consensus," I should have used the word "decision." And I'm sure it will be hotly debated, yes.



I apologize for my confusion...but if the relocation is approved, and the sale is not, does that mean that the team is moving to Seattle, but under current ownership? To me, that seems like the one thing no one wants (except Sonics fans), but maybe I'm missing something.

Wow. I think that is where the confusion lies, between what I was saying, Gary and you. I should learn not to engage in a conversation without knowing 100% what I'm talking about. I was under the impression that since Hansen/Ballmer filed the relocation that it was only going to be granted under their ownership.. It didn't cross my mind that the relocation would still be effective without them owning the team. I'll refer that to someone who knows better

 

[ninjabiscuit]

Wow. I think that is where the confusion lies, between what I was saying, Gary and you. I should learn not to engage in a conversation without knowing 100% what I'm talking about. I was under the impression that since Hansen/Ballmer filed the relocation that it was only going to be granted under their ownership. It didn't cross my mind that the relocation would still be effective without them owning the team. I'll refer that to someone who knows better

Yeah, we definitely lost something in the exchange there. I must have misunderstood your original question. Sorry about that. I think we all agree that it would be silly for Hansen to be awarded the team, but be forced to keep them here, and it would also be silly to block the sale, but move the team to Seattle.

All I'm saying is that I don't think an "impossible to implement" result is going to come out of this. I'm confident that in the end, either the new Sacramento ownership group will own the Kings in Sacramento (after the Maloofs realize that there is no other choice except for them to sell to the new group) or the Hansen/Ballmer group is going to own the team in Seattle. I'm not worried about any other permutation, personally, because I don't think the NBA would allow it.

Just my two cents.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

I was under the impression that since Hansen/Ballmer filed the relocation that it was only going to be granted under their ownership.. It didn't cross my mind that the relocation would still be effective without them owning the team.

Since the seller's still hold majority ownership of the team, they had to file for relocation on the Seattle groups behalf.

That's precisely why I don't understand why the NBA is voting on relocation first. If relocation was approved because only 8 owners voted against it and the same 8 owners voted against the sale - thus denying it - then we'd be left with a situation where the seller's would still own the team with a green light to move to Seattle.

I would think the NBA was smart enough to see that possibility, but, again, it doesn't make sense why they've decided to vote on relocation first, which has a higher likelihood of being approved over the sale of the team based upon the number of votes needed.

 

[VF21]

The relocation is contingent upon the arena deal. If the relocation was approved but the sale denied, the Maloofs wouldn't have a place to play. They have no deal in place with Seattle for the use of Key Arena and they do not have an agreement with the City of Seattle to build an arena. In other words, that's not a possible alternative. In fact, the idea that the board would vote to allow the relocation while denying the sale is just an exercise in "what if" that is just not going to happen. People need to quit trying to think of all the possible scenarios as equally probable. They aren't.

The only real options are:

1. The committee recommends that the move be allowed. The only way they will do this is if they also recommend the approval of the sale. They aren't going to approve the relocation but not the sale for the simple reason if would create even more of a problem than they have now.
2. The committee recommends that the move not be allowed. If they do this, they are also indicating that they believe the Maloofs should sell to the Sacramento group. Remember, the Maloofs want to sell. They just want to get as much money as possible when they do so.

I think Stern wants the relocation vote first for the simple reason, as others have stated, that he likes the idea of a Hansen/Ballmer ownership group, just not of the Kings. If it boils down to the BoG just saying they do not want to take a team away from our city and our fans, H/B is first in line for either the next team that might decide to move OR an expansion team should Adam Silver promote that after this is settled. (I linked to a pretty good article earlier today that talks about why they cannot consider expansion at this point.)

This is in the hands of the committee. From everything that's been said, and some stuff that hasn't been said, it's fairly clear at least to me that the board will, for the most part, go along with the recommendations of the committee.

Am I 100% sure I'm right? Nope. But I am becoming more and more convinced that the committee just isn't going to be able to find enough weight on the Seattle side of the scale to take our team away. If, as Carmichael Dave has mentioned a few times, this was solely about an expansion team, it would be game over in favor of Seattle. BUT IT'S NOT. It's about taking a viable team from a viable market because the current owners are buffoons and, despite all their neglect and abuse, the fans and the city STILL want to keep our team. In that case, it's all about possession. We have the team and there just aren't good enough reasons to take it away.

 

[ninjabiscuit]

Since the seller's still hold majority ownership of the team, they had to file for relocation on the Seattle groups behalf.

That's precisely why I don't understand why the NBA is voting on relocation first. If relocation was approved because only 8 owners voted against it and the same 8 owners voted against the sale - thus denying it - then we'd be left with a situation where the seller's would still own the team with a green light to move to Seattle.

I would think the NBA was smart enough to see that possibility, but, again, it doesn't make sense why they've decided to vote on relocation first, which has a higher likelihood of being approved over the sale of the team based upon the number of votes needed.

I just don't think that's going to happen for the reason that I stated earlier: Stern won't allow anything like that to occur. The image of the NBA is just about the most important thing in world to him, and that means two things, in my opinion:

1. He will go completely out of his way to make sure that the NBA doesn't do anything that makes them look foolish.

2. As commissioner, he has broad powers that allow him to do a LOT of things if necessary to accomplish No. 1 above.​

If the vote was in the opposite order, wouldn't that present the same problem the other way around (i.e. sale approved, relocation not approved)? Either way there are potential issues. This is the way that he feels makes the most sense, and like KJ's team, I have faith in Stern's ability to guide the process in a way that takes all of the variables into account.

 

[Kingsfan23]

The order works in Seattles favor then, unfortunately... With a simple majority needed for the relocation, and a full 23 votes for the sale, the fact that relocation goes first makes our fate a simple majority unfortunately.. if the sale will follow that decision.

 

[VF21]

The order works in Seattles favor then, unfortunately... With a simple majority needed for the relocation, and a full 23 votes for the sale, the fact that relocation goes first makes our fate a simple majority unfortunately.. if the sale will follow that decision.

NO IT DOESN'T. As I tried to explain above, it is the committee recommendation that will carry the most weight. The relocation and finance committees have been combined and they will present a combined report and recommendation to the entire BoG. They aren't going to recommend a split decision. It will be all or nothing for either Sacramento or Seattle. At that point, IF the recommendation goes against Seattle, it doesn't take too much to figure out the logic of having the relocation vote first.

Outcome A: The BoG votes against the move, saying to Hansen/Ballmer that they would love to have them as owners in the NBA, but that they just do not have sufficient grounds to vote to move the Kings from Sacramento. Result: Sacramento is happy, the Maloofs are happy because they will still get their money, the NBA is happy because the Maloofs are finally gone and Hansen/Ballmer are pretty much guaranteed either the next available team or an expansion team.

Outcome B: The BoG votes for the move, which validates the Hansen/Ballmer sale. Result: Sacramento is unhappy, the Maloofs are happy because they got their money AND stuck it to KJ, the NBA is happy because the Maloofs are finally gone until they have to start dealing with the negative impact their actions will have in regards to trying to get ANY future arena deal done with public/private financing. And, Stern leaves the NBA with another black mark, this one a lot more recent and possibly a defining (in a bad way) end to his legacy.

 

[Brac-o-matic]

The order works in Seattles favor then, unfortunately... With a simple majority needed for the relocation, and a full 23 votes for the sale, the fact that relocation goes first makes our fate a simple majority unfortunately.. if the sale will follow that decision.

I don't think it matters either way. As long as the relocation committee favors us, then there is no way that over half of the owners will go against them. If they don't, then we probably wouldn't have gotten it anyways...

 

[eflat]

As KingsFanSince85 said, that doesn't make sense. Given that only 8 owners are needed to deny the sale, denying the sale should be much easier to do

Another way to look at it is that relocation is easier for the board to decide because they have constitutional guidelines to follow (was it Article VII?). I think since they're spelled out more specifically than say the approval of new ownership, they are less likely to run into legal issues with them.

 

[wazzups]

here is all i have to say i think the team is staying
the vote is on relocation first for the simple fact that the league does not want teams to be sold to new owners that may try to move a team from a market where the community and the local govt is 100% behind keeping an NBA team both emotionally and monetarily......

 

[wazzups]

remember this..... the govt in seattle was not in support of the new arena when the sonics left..... i am pretty sure that came straight from the commissioners mouth