The wait continues and other news, rumors, etc.
- Thread starter ParniValjak
- Start date
if no constitution or bylaws existed the maloofs would have sued already for the delay or someother reason, the maloofs are at the mercy of the by-laws that they agreed to as owners. I believe those by-laws are what are empowering the league right now and why multiple people have come out and said the maloofs basically have no say in this matter, they have signed an agreement to exit the league and the rest is up to the owners, the only one who could sue maybe is hansen, but he can kiss an NBA team goodbye if he does.
In my mind the last thing the league is worried about is litigation from the maloofs, didnt shultz have to take less money from bennett over ellison because he promised to try to stay local? also the warriors group bid less than ellison and won as well, so their have been instances where a smaller bid wins if a local buyer is committed.
as i said before i think this delay is most likely not because the league is worried about the maloofs and what they might do, its that they are really torn between sac and seattle, both sides have excellent cases and proposals that dont come the NBA's way very often.
In my mind the last thing the league is worried about is litigation from the maloofs, didnt shultz have to take less money from bennett over ellison because he promised to try to stay local? also the warriors group bid less than ellison and won as well, so their have been instances where a smaller bid wins if a local buyer is committed.
as i said before i think this delay is most likely not because the league is worried about the maloofs and what they might do, its that they are really torn between sac and seattle, both sides have excellent cases and proposals that dont come the NBA's way very often.
I just don't think the NBA fears a potential lawsuit from the Maloofs as a threat. In talking about the failed sale/move of the Timberwolves Stern said, "Sometimes we have lawsuits in a drawer for special occasions – birthdays, weddings and franchise transfers" the reality here is that there will almost certainly be legal action against the NBA no matter how this shakes out. Whether it's from Sacramento or the potential Kings ownership group if the team is sold to Seattle, or Chris Hansen if his bid is rejected or the Maloofs because they feel they didn't get what they should have from the sale. The NBA knows it's legal team will be billing quite a few hours resolving things regardless of what the final decision from the BOG is. Litigation is just a fact of life for Stern and the league, especially when it comes to franchise sales.
Here's the full Sac Bee article which has that quote from Stern and some other interesting reading about the Minnesota situation and how it relates to the Kings: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/20/5126810/nba-rarely-blocks-teams-from-moving.html#storylink=cpy
As for market value, this is where things get fuzzy. If the league declines the sale to Hansen (because they'd prefer not to move the team) then the only approved offer would be from the Sacramento group which again would be a valuation of the franchise of $50-$75 million more than what the Warriors sold for just a couple years ago which is what I was getting at. Hansen's offer may be higher, but the NBA has the right to dictate sales and relocations of its franchises. Otherwise a BOG vote wouldn't be required. And again, the only way the Maloofs can challenge that is by refusing to sell the team to the Sacramento group and creating a lawsuit and AGAIN, that would mean losing as much money next year in terms of the team's revenue and legal fees as they'd stand to gain in a lawsuit. I just don't see it happening. Quite honestly I think the Maloofs will get their money either way and be done.
Here's the full Sac Bee article which has that quote from Stern and some other interesting reading about the Minnesota situation and how it relates to the Kings: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/20/5126810/nba-rarely-blocks-teams-from-moving.html#storylink=cpy
As for market value, this is where things get fuzzy. If the league declines the sale to Hansen (because they'd prefer not to move the team) then the only approved offer would be from the Sacramento group which again would be a valuation of the franchise of $50-$75 million more than what the Warriors sold for just a couple years ago which is what I was getting at. Hansen's offer may be higher, but the NBA has the right to dictate sales and relocations of its franchises. Otherwise a BOG vote wouldn't be required. And again, the only way the Maloofs can challenge that is by refusing to sell the team to the Sacramento group and creating a lawsuit and AGAIN, that would mean losing as much money next year in terms of the team's revenue and legal fees as they'd stand to gain in a lawsuit. I just don't see it happening. Quite honestly I think the Maloofs will get their money either way and be done.
Not everybody hated Hawes. He had political views that turned off a lot of fans. In addition, a lot of criticism was leveled his way by those who just didn't believe he was putting forth a maximum effort (something which his current contract year performance might support).
He's from Seattle, just like Isaiah Thomas. He also knows how very much the Kings mean to Sacramento. He could have shown some class and made a non-committal comment about the possibility of the Kings leaving, but he chose to pretty much spit in the face of the fanbase. And now? Checking into the St. Regis for a vacation while the fate of the Kings is decided? As if the BoG would make their decision or even consider the presence of a second-rate talent in their midst as sonething worthy of a second glance? I think it's classless and I think Spencer Hawes is a fraud.
Good luck to whatever team gets him next. I hope they look at his non-contract year performance before making an offer.
He's from Seattle, just like Isaiah Thomas. He also knows how very much the Kings mean to Sacramento. He could have shown some class and made a non-committal comment about the possibility of the Kings leaving, but he chose to pretty much spit in the face of the fanbase. And now? Checking into the St. Regis for a vacation while the fate of the Kings is decided? As if the BoG would make their decision or even consider the presence of a second-rate talent in their midst as sonething worthy of a second glance? I think it's classless and I think Spencer Hawes is a fraud.
Good luck to whatever team gets him next. I hope they look at his non-contract year performance before making an offer.
More importantly the NBA has changed significantly from when Donald Sterling just up and moved the Clippers from San Diego to L.A. The NBA actually sued and won that case with the end result being Sterling paying (I believe) $6 million to the league.
I don't believe the NBA is scared of an anti-trust suit. More importantly, I don't think the NBA would lose an anti-trust suit.
I don't believe the NBA is scared of an anti-trust suit. More importantly, I don't think the NBA would lose an anti-trust suit.
I thought the delay had to do with arenas. They want an assurance that the city who gets the team can build an arena. They may be waiting for parcels of land to be purchased or law suits settled.
As to law suits against the league, I presume the by-laws anticipate that. When you join a club or buy a franchise, you agree to go along with the rules.
As to law suits against the league, I presume the by-laws anticipate that. When you join a club or buy a franchise, you agree to go along with the rules.
But the Schultz sale wasn't the same since he chose to sell to Bennett over Ellison, Schultz was the owner. The scenario here is that the Maloofs are the owners, they chose the sale, and the NBA is rejecting it. The two situations aren't the same.
I agree too that the delay has nothing to do with the Maloofs. Again I'll say I think the league is exploring expansion, and someone can come back with a tweet from someone who says they're in the know, but actually don't know anything. I've been following this whole thing from Seattle's end basically since the team was sold in 2006, and I honestly thinking back on this whole saga, I think the NBA has kind of been orchestrating a lot of this in order to get two new arenas done in two politically difficult NBA cities. Both our cities have had problems building an arena for a long, long time now, so it seems to me that expansion is the logical conclusion to a decade long battle for Stern. One thing is for certain, Hurricane Katrina screwed it up for everyone, cause I doubt the league would have ever allowed the Sonics to go to Oklahoma had that market not been thoroughly tested.
I'll never quite understand Stern's insistance to keep an NBA team in New Orleans, even when they had Chris Paul and were in the playoffs, you'd see that arena half empty. Now that is a city which is undeserving of professional basketball.
Last edited:
Hansen was hoping to create or buy ROOT NW to start the network up there. Mariners beat him to the punch. So now the mariners own ROOT NW and all the broadcasting rights to basically all the other sports teams up there now. Hansen can now try to still create his own network and try to compete against ROOT NW or sell the broadcasting rights to ROOT NW.
The sale wasn't the same in another way. The Maloofs tried to ice out any potential sale to Sacramento. They consistently spoke publicly of their desire to always stay here while they were busy romancing Anaheim, Virginia Beach, Henderson, NV and then Seattle. If the agent's daughter hadn't made that late-night tweet (that was later rebuked and removed), we might not have known about the pending sale to Seattle until Hansen and the Maloofs presented to the BoG on March 1 with a relocation request.
While that was a jab at Sacramento and especially Kevin Johnson, it was also a very big slap in the face to David Stern. Stern does not take those things lightly. And do not even underestimate the power of David Stern.
While that was a jab at Sacramento and especially Kevin Johnson, it was also a very big slap in the face to David Stern. Stern does not take those things lightly. And do not even underestimate the power of David Stern.
Yeah the schultz situation was different but it also didnt require relocation as this one does. even before this whole saga stern was quoted as saying that they dont like to relocate teams.
I dont think the other owners want expansion at all, dilution of talent, revenue split, and after the new team smell wears off attendance could dip in seattle, same goes for sac if the team doesnt perform well, these are all real issues for the owners and although the infusion of cash would be welcomed at first, they would take a huge hit long term if the team became a revenue taker. (see the charlotte bobcats mess).
I diagree with you on the arena deal front, we had argueably the best arena deal ever offered by a city to the NBA in 2011, the magic owner was even saying how much better it was than his deal in orlando, but it was the maloofs who basically killed the deal because they were NBA broke. our city went thru alot to get that done and it didnt go unoticed by the nba, which is why we are getting so much consideration and will probably end up with the team. I dont expect the sonics fans to know the entire arena saga that went on here but i firmly believe it was seen as amazing(public subsidy wise) in the leagues eyes and the main reason we will most likely keep the team.
I dont think the other owners want expansion at all, dilution of talent, revenue split, and after the new team smell wears off attendance could dip in seattle, same goes for sac if the team doesnt perform well, these are all real issues for the owners and although the infusion of cash would be welcomed at first, they would take a huge hit long term if the team became a revenue taker. (see the charlotte bobcats mess).
I diagree with you on the arena deal front, we had argueably the best arena deal ever offered by a city to the NBA in 2011, the magic owner was even saying how much better it was than his deal in orlando, but it was the maloofs who basically killed the deal because they were NBA broke. our city went thru alot to get that done and it didnt go unoticed by the nba, which is why we are getting so much consideration and will probably end up with the team. I dont expect the sonics fans to know the entire arena saga that went on here but i firmly believe it was seen as amazing(public subsidy wise) in the leagues eyes and the main reason we will most likely keep the team.
As I posted earlier, there are MANY precedents to this. You should know, the Seattle sale to Bennett is one of them. Ellison had a higher bid to buy the team and move it to San Jose. Bennet had a lower bid and promised to make an effort to keep the team in Seattle. Chopp ended that effort, the team moved.
You're right, KJ did a great job to get that deal for your city, and as an outsider I thought that would go through. Terrible owners got in the way. I guess I meant the NBA was orchestrating a way for a new arena deal plus new owners that weren't engaging in shady business practices. Fill me in, prior to KJ, is Sacramento known as a tough political city to get a public subsidy done? I guess I'm just basing assumptions on my impression of Californian politics.
Prior to KJ, Sacramento managed to put forth various efforts to subsidize an arena. The most famous one being a effort that went to public vote and, just a couple of weeks prior to the vote the Maloofs came out publicly and stated that they didn't endorse that deal, that it was not good for the city. Then their $6 million dollar burger ad came out and sealed the deal - the measure was defeated 80% to 20%.
All along the way they have rejected and sabotaged any attempt to build an arena or do anything that would bind them to a long term deal.
All along the way they have rejected and sabotaged any attempt to build an arena or do anything that would bind them to a long term deal.
Last edited: