Relocation only required 50% approval...sale to Hansen requires more votes. If relocation went down, Hansen probably will too.
I don't think the NBA has ever turned down a viable sale deal though. They may require less votes on moving but they are more worried about teams moving then they are about owners getting as much money as they can in a sale. This one is more complicated of course since they know Hansen wants to move but if he guaranteed that he would stay if the city of SAC really did step up to the plate then they would likely approve him and his higher bid. A lot of ifs however and maybe something Hansen isn't prepared to promise.
The NBA doesn't want a Seattle owner group to control the Sacramento team -- they're working it behind the scenes to try and make that not happen. Probably, they are trying to convince Hansen and Balmer to play nice if they ever want to get a team and retract the offer. We don't know exactly what is on the table with Sac's offer...is it the same or ballpark? I'm guessing the NBA, when all is said and done, will want to be sure that the Maloof and Hansen are not out of pocket, which mean: 1. Hansen gets his $30M back. It could be that Stern convinces the Maloofs to refund it and the Sac group simultaneously agrees to pay $30M to the Maloofs. The Maloofs don't have to do this, strictly speaking. Somehow the NBA will need to make the Hansen group whole and it'll be interesting to see how they do it. 2. Maloofs make the same return from Sac as they would have from the Seattle offer. Did Sac exactly match? If not, how will the Maloofs get trued up?
Anyone think expansion was part of the discussion? My gut says no, but that would be the easy way out.
Wouldn't there need to be another expansion team to like Vancouver or Kansas City? Having an odd number of teams would be weird.
On PTI they just said that the 'chatter' is that the Bucks could be next to potentially move to Seattle. Not sure where this chatter was coming from, so this could be a whole lot of nothing.
Ballpark is exactly the word the NBA used. The SAC offer is in the same "ballpark" as the SEA offer Stern said. However that was based off of the original offer SEA proposed. Then SEA went up something like 35 MIL voluntarily and SAC declined to match. So SAC is at least 35 MIL under the SEA offer and maybe more depending on what you consider in the same "ballpark". 35 MIL (or more) is nothing to sniff at especially to the cash-strapped Maloofs.
Stern said it is "not even in the discuss for the foreseeable future". He did backtrack and say it wasn't discussed "yet" though.
This is what I wanted. Only via expansion, and only after Stern's gone. If Seattle steals a team, it loses all credibility in complaining about Bennett. I listened Saturday to a cofounder of Save Our Sonics criticizing all owners, politicians, etc. He was pretty boring, but I want to preserve that energy.
It can be done with odd teams but it is very rare. It screws up schedules to no end. I think if there is expansion it will be when two teams are ready to come in.
Seattle sports talk radio guys have interviewed columnist/writers in Minnesota, Milwaukee and Charlotte and none of those think Seattle was even a remote possiblity. Of course, you never know what the owners are thinking and those press guys might be off base. Heck with it, let's get things fired up for the T-wolves to move...that'd get the forum fired up lol
Seattle got screwed last time. But two wrongs don't make a right. Good for the NBA. The greedy move by the owners would have let them relocate.....again. They need to stop the migration unless a city just does not support the team.
Interesting but that's not really anti-arena at all. It sounds like these neo-mercantilists are very "pro"-arena. Pro as in Seattle is a left-wing city and left-wingers have decided I need to make a loan to the Sonics, and I have no choice in the matter. Is this not true? Also I don't want to do anything with the taxpayer's money, except return it to the taxpayer. Well that's not true at all, considering tax liabilities. NEXT. ;] Seriously, your argument isn't very statistically sound at all. From what I've read, the Seattle Mariners and local businesses agree that traffic congestion will cost the city millions, probably billions in the long-run. That doesn't sound like a limited liability. As I said I'm not interested in "limited" anyway, I'm interested in zero compromise. It isn't your money at all. No, cost is an economic term which includes opportunity cost. Try to define this word again. Ok, now tell me what the real cost is now that I've had to drag you through the mud in these definitions. Calculate opportunity cost Mr. Central Planner. Yes I read a recent article, there are some smart anti-arena people. They seem to be a minority. But at the very least you need to give me academically sound definitions for basic economic concepts. I'll give you another chance before I correct you, how do you define cost? Look at the first few chapters of any Economics University textbook. Cost has various components.
While I agree with your overall point you could also say that SAC doesn't support the team. One of the lowest attendances in all of the NBA and the city did not even try to step up to the plate with a new arena deal until they knew that the Kings could be moving.
Hah nice but I was forced to be specific, I don't like long posts but it is what it is. Not Intentional on my part bro. :O
Allen sells the Blazers to Hansen and Ballmer. Those two pay off the city of Portland to get out of the lease agreement and move to Seattle.
Portland's city officials wouldn't put half the fight to keep the team that Sactown and Kevin Johnson just did.
