What the relocation committee will be looking at?

[VF21]

David Aldridge wrote an interesting piece that includes what the Relocation Committee will be considering:

...the relocation committee must, as detailed in Article VII, make its decision on specific criteria. This includes:

1. What is the support of the team in the existing location?
2. What is the ability of the existing location to continue to support the team?
3. What is the demographic breakdown of the existing location -- the population, age, income, market size for cable or other television?
4. Conversely, what are the same conditions like in the city to which the owners want to move?
5. What would be the effect of relocation on the overall ability to market the league? How would it affect the league's television partners, if at all?
6. Would there be a particular disadvantage to travel and/or scheduling by allowing the move? (Interestingly, Article VII also allows for this possibility: are there any other owners who might want to move their teams to that market? This allows for the possibility that there could be an owner willing to spend even more to move there, allowing the league to max out the financial possibilities of a given market.)
------------------------------------------
How do you think they'll respond to the criteria above?

 

[Glenn]

The relocation committee deals only with moving, right? It takes over a 50% vote to move. We were able to block a move to Anaheim although it didn't come to a vote. I'd like to hear standards on the sale of a team although if it comes down only to money, both cities have potential ownership groups that have plenty of money.

If they want owners with past experience in running pro teams, Ranadive and Burkle have experience. Burkle salvaged the Pittsburgh Penguins and Ranadive is a vice president of the Warriors. If they are concerned also with opening up the league to other countries, Ranadive opens up India as do the Jacobs brothers as Qualcomm does a lot of business in India. The intangible status of having a team, the only pro team, in the capital city of the 7th or 8th largest economy in the world, the odds begin to shift towards Sacto. Now our group has to figure out what a proper bid is as I understand they are not absolutely sure what the $525 mil. represents as there are extra expenses tacked onto a team that is moving. In this case, I have a feeling a little birdie has told them what to bid.

I don't think this vote will follow any standards although will be guided by the standards.

 

[Jose]

Now our group has to figure out what a proper bid is as I understand they are not absolutely sure what the $525 mil. represents...

That's what I thought too... but in a recent interview KJ said that they know EXACTLY what the bid is, as they've seen it.

 

[Trueblood]

This is how I would answer...

1. The support has been great. Sold out every game for 19 of 27 seasons.

2. Ability is great to continue to support. In fact, with the Maloofs gone, it will be even greater.

3. Not sure but the tv market is ranked even higher on a national level than the metropolitan area population is which is great for the NBA since it's a televised entertainment option.

4. Seattle has good conditions but the popularity of soccer and the possibility of adding the NHL makes for the possibility of over saturation. It could very well be MLB and NHL that get the short end of the stick but nobody can say for sure. In Sacramento, the Kings are the only show in town so you don't have that risk factor.

5. Relocation would be a wash for the league. Therefore, why go through the hassle unless the owners are really that hard up for a relocation fee?

6. Both markets are on the west coast. Sacramento actually has a travel advantage in that teams don't have to fly when doing a Sacramento/Golden State back to back. Portland to Seattle is twice the distance as Sacramento to the bay area.

But that's just me. I imagine the committee is going to give Seattle some advantages here and there given that there will be more than just 6 items to go over but that's the arguments I would make in favor of Sacramento.

OTOH, Aldridge seems to be over analyzing things a bit. At the end of the day, the league would prefer to not relocate so that's the HUGE advantage that Sacramento has. No matter how many advantages the Seattle market has, I just don't see the league leaving a market that has an ownership and arena plan in place.

 

[VF21]

The relocation committee deals only with moving, right? It takes over a 50% vote to move. We were able to block a move to Anaheim although it didn't come to a vote. I'd like to hear standards on the sale of a team although if it comes down only to money, both cities have potential ownership groups that have plenty of money.

If they want owners with past experience in running pro teams, Ranadive and Burkle have experience. Burkle salvaged the Pittsburgh Penguins and Ranadive is a vice president of the Warriors. If they are concerned also with opening up the league to other countries, Ranadive opens up India as do the Jacobs brothers as Qualcomm does a lot of business in India. The intangible status of having a team, the only pro team, in the capital city of the 7th or 8th largest economy in the world, the odds begin to shift towards Sacto. Now our group has to figure out what a proper bid is as I understand they are not absolutely sure what the $525 mil. represents as there are extra expenses tacked onto a team that is moving. In this case, I have a feeling a little birdie has told them what to bid.

I don't think this vote will follow any standards although will be guided by the standards.

The relocation committee deals with the moving portion and the finance committee deals with the sale. Stern has combined the two committees for expediency.

 

[VF21]

OTOH, Aldridge seems to be over analyzing things a bit. At the end of the day, the league would prefer to not relocate so that's the HUGE advantage that Sacramento has. No matter how many advantages the Seattle market has, I just don't see the league leaving a market that has an ownership and arena plan in place.

Especially with everything the city of Sacramento and the fans have done in spite of the best efforts of the Maloofs to poison the well. I'm absolutely certain that the BoG will be suitably impressed by the number of sponsors willing to commit to a new ownership group and the 10,000 pledges for season tickets for the new arena is also impressive. In addition, the attendance at our games even after the announced sale shows that the fan base is NOT going to let their team "go gently into that good night" without one helluva fight.

HereWeStay, Carmichael Dave, CrownDowntown, HereWeBuy and PlayingToWin are huge indicators of just how good the market is here in Sacramento. And when you add in the interest of FOUR mega-whales in helping to promote the NBA and grow Sacramento into a city with a vital and vibrant downtown, you're looking at a dream scenario for the league.

Seattle has put all their cards on the table. KJ has played this to perfection. In fact, I would not be at all surprised to find out on April 3 that he still has a surprise or two up his sleeve.

 

[uolj]

The relocation committee deals with the moving portion and the finance committee deals with the sale. Stern has combined the two committees for expediency.

It's likely both ownership groups will be deemed acceptable, if not desirable. So the finance questions will mostly be moot and it's the relocation questions you posted above that will really determine the outcome. Lucky for Sacramento, though, because the owners will be considering them together, the 75% level required for sale approval will be required for the relocation questions, too. So while normally only 16 owners had to consider the points above to favor the new location, now 23 do for the team to move.

 

[Gary]

Here is the HUGE part that we have done as fans..

Question 1 and question 2.

1. Sell outs 19/27 years. We as fans controlled this, and we have ourselves to thank for this one.

2. The future looks bright, and the support from grass root efforts down to CD's road trip shows that this is a market that loves our team. With a new arena look for sellouts again for years to come. Not to mention we will be able to fit more in the arena (I am thinking about 19k people?)

 

[pdxKingsFan]

6. Both markets are on the west coast. Sacramento actually has a travel advantage in that teams don't have to fly when doing a Sacramento/Golden State back to back. Portland to Seattle is twice the distance as Sacramento to the bay area.

I don't really think they'll even consider this, but I think Sacramento actually has a huge travel advantage in this area. Seattle becomes the NW most part of the map. I know in MLS they said the miles logged for the NW teams was significantly higher compared to the other clubs. With more NBA cities this may balance out slightly, but the NW is still a bit of an outpost, and not every team will be able to do Seattle and Portland on the same west coast trip. Most teams that come to CA can always do 2 of the 4 teams.

But, I really don't think they even consider this in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Trueblood]

I don't really think they'll even consider this, but I think Sacramento actually has a huge travel advantage in this area. Seattle becomes the NW most part of the map. I know in MLS they said the miles logged for the NW teams was significantly higher compared to the other clubs. With more NBA cities this may balance out slightly, but the NW is still a bit of an outpost, and not every team will be able to do Seattle and Portland on the same west coast trip. Most teams that come to CA can always do 2 of the 4 teams.

But, I really don't think they even consider this in the grand scheme of things.

Agreed but I figured that since question 6 had a Sacramento advantage, I'd throw in my 2 cents.

 

[Kingster]

The relocation committee deals only with moving, right? It takes over a 50% vote to move. We were able to block a move to Anaheim although it didn't come to a vote. I'd like to hear standards on the sale of a team although if it comes down only to money, both cities have potential ownership groups that have plenty of money.

If they want owners with past experience in running pro teams, Ranadive and Burkle have experience. Burkle salvaged the Pittsburgh Penguins and Ranadive is a vice president of the Warriors. If they are concerned also with opening up the league to other countries, Ranadive opens up India as do the Jacobs brothers as Qualcomm does a lot of business in India. The intangible status of having a team, the only pro team, in the capital city of the 7th or 8th largest economy in the world, the odds begin to shift towards Sacto. Now our group has to figure out what a proper bid is as I understand they are not absolutely sure what the $525 mil. represents as there are extra expenses tacked onto a team that is moving. In this case, I have a feeling a little birdie has told them what to bid.

I don't think this vote will follow any standards although will be guided by the standards.

I think these factors are going to be weighed heavily. The only thing that concerns me is the unknown unknown, something we haven't even thought of that would come out of left field.

 

[Section 101]

Great info here !

http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2013/...sale-seattle-sonics-committee-nba-david-stern

So the committee members are :

Micky Arison, Heat
Clay Bennett, Thunder
Jim Buss, Lakers
Jim Dolan, Knicks
Wyc Grousbeck, Celtics
Robert Sarver, Suns
Herb Simon, Pacers
Larry Tanenbaum, Raptors
Glen Taylor, Timberwolves
Peter Holt, Spurs
Ted Leonsis, Wizards
Greg Miller, Jazz

I can't help but think this group will be on Sacramento's side with these small market teams.

 

[funkykingston]

You could go down that list and make arguments for why each owner might swing one way or another (and not surprisingly I'm sure Sonics and Kings fans would reach some different conclusions) but I keep coming back to the simplest factor that favors Sacramento - what has the city done to lose its team?

As I've said before if this were a competition to add an expansion team to the NBA between Sacramento and Seattle the latter would win pretty easily. But it isn't. It's a decision of whether or not to strip a team from a market that has supported it completely and a city who has a term sheet to build a new arena. I just don't see that happening.

 

[HndsmCelt]

I don't really think they'll even consider this, but I think Sacramento actually has a huge travel advantage in this area. Seattle becomes the NW most part of the map. I know in MLS they said the miles logged for the NW teams was significantly higher compared to the other clubs. With more NBA cities this may balance out slightly, but the NW is still a bit of an outpost, and not every team will be able to do Seattle and Portland on the same west coast trip. Most teams that come to CA can always do 2 of the 4 teams.

But, I really don't think they even consider this in the grand scheme of things.

Think FANS not teams. Fans from one part of the sate rottenly travel to away games. How many GSW, Laker and Clipper fans are going to fly up Seattle for games? Sure Portalnd fans might make the trip unless Flannel outlet is having a sale that day.

 

[VF21]

I brought this thread back as a reminder of what topics are being considered by the committee.

 

[Kingsfan23]

I brought this thread back as a reminder of what topics are being considered by the committee.

Who contributes more money to the pot will also be of lesser significance compared to the other pertinent issues of community support, unfortunately most national articles I read bring up 'makers'/'takers' in revenue sharing.

 

[The Hammer]

David Aldridge wrote an interesting piece that includes what the Relocation Committee will be considering:

...the relocation committee must, as detailed in Article VII, make its decision on specific criteria. This includes:

1. What is the support of the team in the existing location?
2. What is the ability of the existing location to continue to support the team?
3. What is the demographic breakdown of the existing location -- the population, age, income, market size for cable or other television?
4. Conversely, what are the same conditions like in the city to which the owners want to move?
5. What would be the effect of relocation on the overall ability to market the league? How would it affect the league's television partners, if at all?
6. Would there be a particular disadvantage to travel and/or scheduling by allowing the move? (Interestingly, Article VII also allows for this possibility: are there any other owners who might want to move their teams to that market? This allows for the possibility that there could be an owner willing to spend even more to move there, allowing the league to max out the financial possibilities of a given market.)
------------------------------------------
How do you think they'll respond to the criteria above?

Thanks VF for bringing this back.

If people have read the article in the Bee today, what's interesting in light of Vivek's plans and this list is that with globalization he is aiming to completely redefine what is meant by the word market, almost to the point where you have to rethink #3 altogether. I wonder if the person or people who wrote this would anticipate a day when that would happen, and if they thought it would come so soon?

Another thought to consider, and think it's no small thing: Vivek's presence will help sell tickets to the 3 million Indian natives living in the US. Generally these are not poor people, and could probably spend money on NBA tickets. I think that's a significant thing to consider.

 

[kennadog]

Who contributes more money to the pot will also be of lesser significance compared to the other pertinent issues of community support, unfortunately most national articles I read bring up 'makers'/'takers' in revenue sharing.

Well, Seattle is using that in their argument. They've said they will be makers of revenue for the league, unlike Sacramento who has been a taker.