Agreed.
Where are the 8 votes?
- Thread starter HndsmCelt
- Start date
Agreed.
curitibagarrett
G-League
How is it a loan if the city is going to own the arena? Here is the big difference between SEA and SAC arena deals
SEA:
City giving a loan to Hansen for a max of 140m for arena
Hansen OWNs the arena
SAC:
City giving 258m towards arena building
City OWNs the arena
Its more like Burkle is giving the city the rest of the money to build the arena where SEA is giving Hansen the money to build it as in Hansen will pay the city back.
Last edited:
Move was rejected for different ownership group due to suspect financing. I would put them as default "YAY".
Warriors may want Sacramento area for themselves, unless Vivek was a significant part of GS purchase and is in a position to ask for a favor. So I would say it's a tentative "NO" at best.
Paul Allen is a "NO": he will have to get rid of either Seahawks or Blazers due to restrictions put by NFL.
There's another reason: if Seattle gets NBA team before new season starts, they get Sonics history back for free. If not, they have to negotiate for it, which means a few million for Bennett.
Agree with HndsmCelt that big market owners will provide more support, though Seattle used for leveraging the best deal out of Sacramento might be of service to small market as well: give us the best deal< or we go find our own Seattle and then you will have to pony up anyway.
whozit
Starter
I'm surprised that the change from 3 million cash maximum per trade to 3 million cash maximum per year restriction hasn't become widely known as the "Maloof rule." They were notorious about it and I don't think it has helped their standing at all among fellow owners.
kennadog
Dog On It!
I apologize and you are right. I don't know where my head was at, but it definitely wasn't attached when I wrote that. I blame it on old age (one advantage of getting older) and an extreme lack of sleep. The bond money will be loaned to the city for an arena the city will own and lease to the team. It'll be awhile, but I'm really curious about what the actual terms will be in the deal and what exactly the collateral for the loan will be. The arena and the lease will be collateral, but I'm thinking it could be more than that.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
I see the financials of this deal favoring the Sacto group, not Seattle. How many owners are there who find it important to sell their team to 1) an ownership in another city for 2) the same price as the home team? Why exacly is that a high priority for them? If they are looking strictly at the financials, then it's not important because they are earning the same $ in each city. For the Maloofs it may be an important issue for one reason and one reason only - spite.
Also, in this particular case, if the sale price of X is the same for the Sacto group or the Seattle group, then which sale confers more value to the owners of other franchises around the league? Answer: Sacramento, the smaller market. If Sacramento can get X for the smaller market, then that would imply >X for large market teams, so that means the larger markets should want the sale price to be for Sacramento, not Seattle.
Also, in this particular case, if the sale price of X is the same for the Sacto group or the Seattle group, then which sale confers more value to the owners of other franchises around the league? Answer: Sacramento, the smaller market. If Sacramento can get X for the smaller market, then that would imply >X for large market teams, so that means the larger markets should want the sale price to be for Sacramento, not Seattle.
LPKingsFan
All-Star
I agree the Warriors could be eyeing a NorCal monopoly if the Kings leave, but I think it's more complicated than that. First, if Vivek's bid is rejected, he goes back to being a minority owner and someone Lacob would have to work with... could be a bit awkward if Lacob votes the wrong way. Also, if the Warriors are the only NorCal team, would the league be more willing to consider a SJ team down the road?
As for Allen, that's a good point. There's also supposedly some bad blood between Allen and Ballmer that came out a couple years ago....
curitibagarrett
G-League
This is true. I don't see how the NBA owners can say "Sacramento I know we told you to do A, B, and C and you would be able to keep the Kings in Sacramento and we know you guys did that but we have to let the Kings move now." Now SEA will say the owners have never rejected a owner sale, which is true (I don't count the MIN one since the ownership grp didn't have the financial backing) but there is always one ownership group for the sale and they always stay in the city. Saying NO to Hansen will not affect the owners in the future at all since the Maloofs will be getting the same amount of money from Vivek's group. BY saying no to the current maloofs deal will NOT affect the money the maloofs get if they are smart and accept vivek's offer. Who knows maybe the maloofs are as dumb as we think
Allen (clandestinely) fought a minor league baseball stadium in the Rose Quarter. I think he would fight similar competition to his sporting interests in Seattle. Not to mention there's more than a few people who think if he ever got mad enough at Portland he might want the Seattle NBA market for himself.
Most likely a Seattle team would screw up his TV deal too. Portland has an exclusive deal with Comcast for at least half of the Blazers games. This deal extends into Seattle. So he's got the Seattle market right now plus if a Seattle team came back on the scene they'd likely be seen regularly in Portland (the Timbers and Sounders for example are on the same sports network, which also has the Mariners deal).
My guess Allen has a ton of selfish reasons to be a no.
Most likely a Seattle team would screw up his TV deal too. Portland has an exclusive deal with Comcast for at least half of the Blazers games. This deal extends into Seattle. So he's got the Seattle market right now plus if a Seattle team came back on the scene they'd likely be seen regularly in Portland (the Timbers and Sounders for example are on the same sports network, which also has the Mariners deal).
My guess Allen has a ton of selfish reasons to be a no.
SCKingsfan
Bench
I can't help but think that part of the Maloof's reason for backing the Sea deal so heavily (and the secrecy that surrounding the sale) is that there's something in it for them that we haven't been told. Is there any word about whether the Maloofs will keep (or be sold) a minority share in SEA team? Or who knows, there may be other considerations being made to keep them connected to the team if moved - ones they would not have been able to finagle or enjoy if they sold in Sac, and they are trying to hold on to the last remnants of team owner glory.
The Hammer
All-Star
I agree, but it wouldn't be ownership, especially not for the glory of it, since that's not part of the public deal. It might be cash on the side. Something not included in the $341 million. Maybe Microsoft stock? Anyway, it does seem all very fishy, as if there is something in the deal not being reported to the NBA.
Or maybe George is just the pathetic vindictive jerkwad we've all thought he was for years.
I think this is more likely correct.
Circa_1985_Fan
All-Star
8 Votes:
GSW
Utah
Wash
PHX
LAL
LAC
Orl
Ind
Wildcards:
SA
Mil
Port
Cha
Minn
GSW
Utah
Wash
PHX
LAL
LAC
Orl
Ind
Wildcards:
SA
Mil
Port
Cha
Minn
Last edited:
Section 101
All-Star
Well if the rumor that the Bucks are next on their stealing list this could be interesting if the owner doesn't care if the team moves.
Darth Divac
Bench
Yes's:
Toronto
Memphis
Orlando
San Antonio
OKC
Phoenix
Indy
Utah
Milwaukee
Cleveland
GSW
Maybes:
Washington
Minny
Houston
Philly
Portland
Charlotte
No's:
Boston
Miami
LAL
LAC
Detroit
Denver
New Orleans
Atlanta
Brooklyn
Chicago
Dallas
New York
Toronto
Memphis
Orlando
San Antonio
OKC
Phoenix
Indy
Utah
Milwaukee
Cleveland
GSW
Maybes:
Washington
Minny
Houston
Philly
Portland
Charlotte
No's:
Boston
Miami
LAL
LAC
Detroit
Denver
New Orleans
Atlanta
Brooklyn
Chicago
Dallas
New York
SCKingsfan
Bench
YES, this angle deserves serious consideration...
Glenn
Hall of Famer
Herb Kohl cares if the team moves. He is trying to come up with a Green Bay model of public ownership for the Bucks.
Whether or not that is the absolute truth, this idea that rich people can come to a small market team and simply buy it and take it from their long time fans because they have the money is what cities like Sacramento should be afraid of. Heck, we are fighting a signed contract. That's bad enough. Now we think that Hansen should just steal a team from the Milwaukee fans. Where's the empathy?
Herb Kohl is old and has no heirs. If and when he passes on, does that mean the Bucks are up for grabs to be sold to anyone who wants to move the team? I hope not. I don't know if the fans are supporting the Bucks with attendance and purchase of goodies but this idea that Hansen can simply go cherry picking to demolish a franchise to recreate the Sonics from a list of vulnerable teams sends shudders down my spine because that's what's happening here. Why don't the fans have the same rights elsewhere as we think we do?
I suspect Kohl's team will be taken over by the league if no owner is found. I think the league will then find people in the Milwaukee area to purchase it. Take a peek at a map and you will see it's part of a huge urban area sprawling around Chicago. SOMEBODY in that huge Chicago extended area has money and wants to buy a team. Just don't expect an aging Herb Kohl to seek one out. I doubt if he has the energy of a KJ.
This may seem off topic but isn't the topic centered around the rights of a city to retain its team? Isn't that the underlying issue that motivates us? We don't want the right of an owner to sell a team to whoever they wish and move the team to be more important that the rights of fans to maintain a long time franchise. I understand that satisfying Hansen with another piece of property takes pressure off us but ... but ...
Maybe I'm being as inarticulate as when I tried to say the NBA wants partial public financing as opposed to total private ownership financing went astray.
One is a philosophical issue that bothers us (happiness of long time fans) and the other is a major financial issue that bothers owners (who pays for an arena?).
I can't envision a scenario where this comes to a vote and the BOG members are split on their decision.
I think whatever the committee recommends will be pretty much how the BOG votes with perhaps two or maybe three votes the other way. That's simply the way these things always seem to go. In fact I think it's more likely that (should things go Sacramento's way) that Hansen backs out before the issue ever actually comes up for a vote than it is that the vote is split.
I think whatever the committee recommends will be pretty much how the BOG votes with perhaps two or maybe three votes the other way. That's simply the way these things always seem to go. In fact I think it's more likely that (should things go Sacramento's way) that Hansen backs out before the issue ever actually comes up for a vote than it is that the vote is split.
whozit
Starter
I agree. Are we just being NIMBY's? Yes, it is the system (and not just the NBA but the business world in general) but still.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
Let me throw out the word "subsidy" and replace it with the word "investment." I think it is fair for a city to invest in an arena as the arena brings money to the city. The league has a huge interest that ALL arenas be at least partially paid for by the public. The logic of that seems simple. As an example, should owners pay half for an arena or 100%? Which is easiest for the owners? We look at billionaires and #1 think they grow on trees and #2 think that their billion is sitting in a bank to be used in whatever way they wish. These people are worth a lot of money certainly. I'd rather be them than me. But let us use Burkle as an example. Should he sell off a few supermarkets to build an arena? Should he sell off what made him a billionaire to take a flyer on making a similar return on investment by owning an arena? I am sure he doesn't want to risk $500 mil on an arena when he has a sure thing in keeping his supermarkets or investing in more supermarkets. Billionaires are more like us than we may think. How many of us have oodles of cash laying about? The lucky among us have most of our worth tied up in our homes. We can claim to be worth a $100,000 but that doesn't mean we can write a check for $100,000. We would either need to sell our homes to write that check or take a loan with the home as collateral.
In other words, to answer kupman, all owners/teams will be seeking public money and the league does not want the precedent set that an owner will pay 100%. This is a major advantage for our potential owners and us in this battle between Ranadive/Burkle/Mastrov/Jacobs and Hansen/Ballmer/Nordstrom.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
One more note.
1) The owners have a huge investment in the idea that owners should be able to sell to whoever they wish. Granted as a fact, I am sure.
2) The owners also have a huge investment in wanting public money to be used at least partially in building arenas. Granted as a fact, I am sure.
So, what is most important in our issue? Our issue isn't as difficult as it may seem as seen through my purple hued glasses. The issue isn't really 1) vs 2) but the unique situation where we have 3). There is another ownership group that will pay a similar amount of money and therefore making item 1) less painful if not followed and this 2nd ownership group is all over 2).
Advantage: Sacto!!!!!
1) The owners have a huge investment in the idea that owners should be able to sell to whoever they wish. Granted as a fact, I am sure.
2) The owners also have a huge investment in wanting public money to be used at least partially in building arenas. Granted as a fact, I am sure.
So, what is most important in our issue? Our issue isn't as difficult as it may seem as seen through my purple hued glasses. The issue isn't really 1) vs 2) but the unique situation where we have 3). There is another ownership group that will pay a similar amount of money and therefore making item 1) less painful if not followed and this 2nd ownership group is all over 2).
Advantage: Sacto!!!!!
I agree with #3 wholeheartedly!!!!
I don't quite agree, however, that #1 is "granted as a fact" for the simple reason that owners have to submit their buyers to the BoG for approval.
Bottom line, I totally agree with your conclusion.
Section 101
All-Star
It's my understanding after the Celtics shares were purchased from the public the NBA changed the bylaws to not allow this type of model.
If he's looking to maximize his sale then he votes no to moving the Kings then tells Hansen he will take the $525. If he doesn't want Hansens money then he could vote to move the Kings.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
I think you are correct at least about the NBA axing the Green Bay model.
