If read a lot of articles on it, both pro relocation and con relocation, and personally I would rather the team stay in Sacramento. What's been going on is rather over the top with the extra time and help the nba has given the Kevin Johnson group. A group trying to keep their team in town should have every advantage but the advantages given to the Sacro group is like a pro MLB slugger getting to use one of those ball Ts instead of a pitcher throwing it, seems above and beyond what should be allowed. The big shocker to me is that in every aspect of the offer Hansens group has out done the sacromento groups. If its a close offer then homecourt should win but by every estimate its not a close offer and if the maloofs up and decide to not sell to the Johnson group then its left the NBA in a very bad situation for current owners thinking of selling and investors thinking of buying. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
I dunno if I'd agree here. On one hand, you're saying that Sacto should be given the chance to keep their team.... but then where do you draw the line between the extra advantage being provided and it becoming excessive help? From what I've seen, they have followed the structure that they generally follow when selling and moving teams. Sure, it seems like there's been more help allowed than when Seattle moved to OKC, but that could be, in part, because the team sold and then waited to move. Personally, I think that may have been Hansen's one misstep thus far. He should have purchased the team and then made his desires known that he would move without a new arena, after the fact. He should have learned from the Seattle-OKC saga and followed suit. When cities with existing teams step up to the plate and show a willingness to build an arena, Stern does he can to keep the team in its' existing city. Sacto is saying they'll build an arena, so Stern and the owners should do what they can to keep the team in Sacto. Seattle wasn't budging on the Sonics, and Schultz said he'd sell the team, and Stern said if they can't get a new arena, that they'd likely move (at the time, he even said there was a significant chance that if the Sonics left, they'd never get another team). None of that was enough to get a new arena in Seattle. The fact that Bennett never made much, if any, effort to get an arena after taking over really shouldn't matter - the previous efforts were fruitless despite the threats of relocation. So, I think Stern is doing what he can to help Sacto keep their team because they say they'll get a new arena. I can't blame Stern for helping cities that will step up and build arenas to keep their teams, especially when they have public dollars coming in to help assist (instead of the team owner footing the bill).
I read/heard some day that there are those that feel Stern believes Seattle is arguably more valuable to the NBA without a franchise than it is with a franchise. Why? Because every time someone wants to buy a team and potentially move it, with Seattle a candidate for relocation, cities that want to keep their franchises will step up to the plate and provide a new arena with the help of taxpayer funds (and again, preventing owners from contributing 100% of the bill). Stern works for the owners, and they are happy when he is able to work out these kinds of deals. Dunno if I totally buy it, but it seems plausible, and it's an interesting theory. Seattle is the biggest metro area without an NBA team, right? Are there any other potential NBA cities out there (excluding places like NJ, who saw their team travel a few miles away)?
As I've said for years, Seattle should not give Stern the satisfaction of begging for a team. Wait until he dies painfully in a fire, then go after a team. This proves I was right. Seattle will get nowhere until their enemy is gone.
Agreed. But does the jilted stripper turn down the paying customer who originally wanted, and received, the lap dance from a different stripper? No, she shakes and grinds like never before and pretends like she was first choice all the way.
Except Stern is making this particular owner take the worse deal...which is not beneficial. Stern is essentially forcing the SAC deal over the SEA deal, which is better for the Maloofs.
Uh.... no? Stern isn't forcing the SAC deal, but they're saying (at this time) that the Kings cannot move. So he's forcing them to stay in Sacto. That puts the ball in Hansen's court, and Hansen is still said to be trying to buy the team, and as long as the arena deal continues forward, he'd keep them in Sacto (and if it fails, he'd move them to Seattle). Hansen may still very well end up owning the team. He may not be able to move the team, but he still may end up as owner. This situation is not ideal and has been very odd, but I'm not quite sure how you feel Stern is forcing the Maloofs to take the worse deal.
Actually from what I have read Stern is trying to get the Maloofs to only deal with the SAC investment group on a sale and not take Hansen's higher bid.
I've heard PO'd fans in Seattle say that Hansen should help prop up the Maloofs so that they retain ownership longer. I'm sure it probably doesn't pencil out for Hansen or the Maloofs, but I guarantee you that the Maloofs continuing to own the Kings would be the worst possible result for Stern.
I dunno if I buy that, though. I've read that, but I've also read the complete opposite. I've read that Stern wants the Sacto group to buy them because then he knows they'll stay in Sacto. But I've also read that Stern thinks Hansen buying the team and planning to keep them there as long as the arena gets built forces Sacto's hand and makes them step up and build the arena, or otherwise, he'll take them to Seattle, where they will certainly get a new arena and a city ready to embrace the NBA (again). Not saying you're wrong..... Just saying there's so much info going both ways, it's kinda hard to skim through the bullshit.
Not a bad idea, actually. Not bad at all. Tactics like this are what could potentially keep the NBA playing honest with Hansen (as honest as they possibly could, anyway).
Actually, I don't think they followed a similar process to other transactions. The number of times that Stern delayed the process to allow Sac to play catch up was pretty crazy. By all reports, he was heavily lobbying for Sac throughout. He also repeatedly tipped the NBA's hand and told Sac how they needed to alter their offer. Obviously, we don't know all the conversations that have happened, but it was pretty one-sided when looking at publicly known info. That's what makes me wonder if Hansen might go hardball here and now. I'd think that he'd probably feel like he'd been used a tool to get Sac a new arena and new ownership. Couple that with the a pretty strong inclination that trying to purchase another team would involve the same deck stacked against him. The only silver lining is that Stern's gone soon, but Silver doesn't seem much different. Ugh, that pun was unintentional, but I'm too lazy to change it. If the takeaway from all craziness involved with the Hansen attempted purchase is that it's best to lie to get a franchise, then the NBA needs to seriously re-examine the process that it's created. It's messy, divisive, and doesn't increase the value of its franchises. They either need to create a sales process that involves (1) soliciting offers from local ownership before or simultaneously with offers from non-locals or (2) let the free market rule and accept that teams may move. Right now, they act like they're doing both at the same time despite the fact that it's fundamentally impossible.
I wasn't necessarily comparing the strategy/approach in each step of the way between the Seattle/OKC deal and the Sacto/Seattle deal. I was merely referring to the fact that Stern, on several occasions, has stepped in and tried to keep teams in their current cities. He pleaded with Seattle (after Schultz had been doing so) to build an arena so Schultz wouldn't sell, or would have an easier time finding a local buyer in the event he still sold. Stern was pretty heavily involved in trying to get something done, get a new arena, and keep the team where it is. Now, he's doing the same thing again in Sacramento. As for needing to potentially re-examine the process of this all..... I don't disagree. But we're talking millionaires, billionaires, and major corporations. They all operate on a different level than most of us. It's pretty clear that Stern's main job is protecting the interests of the 30 franchises that put him in his position of power. I do think Hansen should be given every chance to purchase the team, but with the understanding that he cannot move the team at this time (as it's been voted against).
Hmmm. More info coming in regarding Sac's offer. Here's a link: http://mynorthwest.com/27/2268143/Report-Sacramento-group-promised-major-givebacks The most interesting part: "Sports Business Journal estimates the Kings would have been owed approximately $18 million under the new (revenue sharing) formula. The agreement also includes sharing TV revenue, which is reported to be worth $30 million a year for the Kings. If the Sacramento group is indeed willing to forgo nearly $50 million per year, the concessions could have been a key factor in last week's 7-0 vote by the NBA's relocation committee to recommend denying investor Chris Hansen's bid to move the Kings to Seattle." In other words, Sac agreed to sweeten the deal for the NBA by declining to receive revenue sharing and by giving a cut of TV revenue. Maybe Hansen's worst decision was negotiating terms with the Maloofs rather than the NBA. Apparently, it was the NBA that Hansen needed to pay off.
I'm telling you, I'd love it if this went to court. Seems like a lot of juicy issues floating around and I'd love to see Stern have to deal with the mess.
If SEA loses out then I am almost positive they will take it to court. Hansen/Balmer has basically hinted as much last I read.
It's hard to know what's posturing and what's real. That said, Hansen doesn't seem like the posturing type, so maybe it's real.
Yes this would be interesting, lots of craziness and back room negotiations. BLAZINGGIANTS is about where I am on this. If Sacramento doesn't keep the team, the NBA could fear that cities in the future will not step up to build arenas, because Sacramento did and they didn't keep the team. On the other hand, you would think that if you did relocate the team, cities would know that they can not take their sweet time to get a deal done. Also, you have the Hansen/Balmer group as a negotiating piece when other arenas need built. Build the arena or Hansen/Balmer will step in. I kind of think the Maloofs are being treated as pariahs amongst the other owners, and all the other owners care about is what is good for their pocketbooks (not what is good for a disgruntled NBA owner). I would love to see this all end up in court. Maybe Hansen will bide his time, but if he gets no assurances for a team within the next season, maybe he will sue.
