It actually is a pretty interesting (and possibly risky) position that the NBA has put itself in. I think the purpose of the vote used to be more about the quality of the prospective owner. This vote seems to be shaping up, at least in the public eye, about which city is more deserving. If the NBA owners veto the Seattle deal, the financially fragile Maloofs could be left in a bad place. No definitive docs signed for the sale of the team, no arena docs signed, not even a binding term sheet signed for the arena, none of the land purchased, and no real leverage to accomplish any of that if the Seattle offer is refected and the Sac offer is the only one on the table. If the Sac offer is lower than the Seattle offer, then the Maloofs are out cash in addition to the risk and delay that they're being hit with. Hansen would be out the $30M he already paid plus potentially the $15M for the minority shares and who knows what other expenses. I don't think he could claim anything for the arena land that he's already purchased. Bottomline, I can see why the Maloofs would want some cash upfront from the Sac group if Seattle gets nixed and I can see why they'd want it before the vote. No doubt they could make out like bandits on it though. If Seattle wins the day, that $30M from the Sac group would be free money to them and it's possible they also get a big win if the two sides get in a bidding war. Sucks that a pretty crappy ownership group is getting a windfall out of this.
If Paul wanted a NHL team here we would have already had one about 3 years ago. I don't think he wants another pro team in Portland which is sad.
3 years ago? It was longer ago than that (and very frequent in the last 15 years). I don't think it's that Paul Allen doesn't want another pro team here, I think it's that he like the NBA and NFL, and doesn't care much about the other sports. A bigger reason why Portland doesn't have another pro sports team (of the big 4) is that no one in Portland has any vision for that.
So is it up to the Maloofs who they sell to? What are the other owners even voting on? Sent from HCPs Baller-Ass iPhone 5.......FAMS!
In real estate rentals, the only way to lose your deposit is to change your mind and back out of the deal. The 2 bidders should have specified that the loser's $30M be refundable.
Yep, each team is individually owned and it's up to the owner selling a team to find a buyer and negotiate the deal. Once a deal is reached, the other owners then have to approve/reject the proposed new owner (it's a high threshhold -- something like 22 yes votes required). Historically, they have voted on the merits of the proposed new owner (mainly seems to be about deep pockets, but I think it could also be general quality.) If that's the main focus, then the Seattle group would be in good shape. This case is slightly more aggressive than some because it's also coupled with a franchise move. In alternate reality world, it'd be interesting to know how Seattle/OKC would've gone down if Bennett hadn't taken the two step dance approach (own the team first, then move several years later.) At the time of the sale to Bennett, all the talk was how Bennett & crew wanted the Sonics to succeed and stay in Seattle; although, they later admitted their plan had been to sink the Sonics and move them to OKC from start. If the owners focus more on the move, then Sac might be in good shape. Most likely it'll come down to the owners voting out of self interest. If the Sac offer is less than the Seattle offer, I'd think the team goes to Seattle. No owner would want to think they get should get less cash when it comes time for them to sell. They may also focus on how the relocation fee gets divvied up and they might try to assess which city is more likely to be successful over the long haul. I know Sac has been drawing on an owner's slush fund for financially underperforming teams and the owners that pay money into that fund are getting tired of Sac being a money drain. Both prospective ownership groups will be trying to convince the other owners that their long term plans are the best. Guessing that concern for the fans, whether in Seattle or Sac, won't really be much of a consideration, except for Cuban, who will likely vote to keep the team in Sac because he actually is more focused on the fans. He was one of the few votes against the OKC relocation for that very reason.
I think only Paul Allen and Mark Cuban voted against it. Mark for the reasons you stated (imho) and Paul Allen because he ain't no dummy. Why piss off your Seahawks fanbase needlessly?
Well, it was reported as non-refundable. I thought they turned around and sent all or a portion of that $30M to the NBA for relocation, but I did a quick google search and didn't find anything about that. I've also heard on sports talk in Seattle that it's possible that it was to set up a legal claim if their bid is denied (loss of $30M is obviously substantial) or interfered with.
Just confirmed the company I'm with is already on the waiting list for Sonics season tickets. The last time the Blazers played in Seattle, I got the seats and they were 2nd row midcourt. As a directv customer/Blazer fan in Seattle, I'm definitely hoping the Sonics come back.
While I agree Mark is often an advocate for the fan (as much or more so than any other owner in the NBA)...... You guys are forgetting a VERY GLARING reason Cuban voted against the Sonics' move to OKC: OKC was part of the Dallas territory. OKC and Dallas are 3 hours apart by auto, if that. I can't imagine there's a single team closer to OKC than Dallas. Losing that territory for Dallas takes money out of the Mavs' wallet. Let's be real. This has to be a much bigger factor in Cuban's vote. Cuban already has to compete with the other Texas teams for revenue. You think he wanted another team locally to compete with?
Lol -- dang it! I bought Cuban's story hook, line and sinker. I guess we'll have a better idea this vote because both cities are distant to Dallas; although, he would make a little cash if Seattle is chosen because of the relocation fee.
LOL. I was wondering if anyone else noticed the real reason behind Cuban's voting. OKC is closer to Dallas than either San Antonio or Houston are, actually. Not by much, but OKC is actually closer. So not only did Dallas get another team to compete with when OKC moved to town, they actually became the closest team to Dallas. To make matters worse, if you look at a map, Dallas is actually in the center of those other three cities. I'm sure Cuban looked at the map and wondering how he'd draw fans from outside a small radius around Dallas. I could see Allen voting against this one again (for the same reason Cuban voted down the move to OKC). Not that I believe the rumors, but it'd end the discussion of Portland ever moving to Seattle. And two, until Seattle gets a team, the Blazers are the closest thing they have. I'm sure a lot of fans up in Seattle don't have a team, or follow a team other than the Blazers, but I do know quite a few former Sonic fans that are Blazers fans because it's the closest thing they have (and it didn't hurt to get Seattle's attention that we brought in guys like Nate and Roy).
I have read this theory before (the Mavs lost Kansas, Nebraska, etc.) but I had forgotten it, so thanks for reminding me. But I never quite believed it was Cuban's dominant reason because-- The vote was merely symbolic, since the outcome was pre-known. Cuban and Allen just played their roles as iconoclasts. This vote kept them popular with the rebel fan faction like me, and unpopular with the corporate conformist fan faction. I think that Cuban played to his audience.
Sac and Seattle present to the NBA soon and I think both groups are on their way to NYC. Seattle PI website has a pretty cool rendition of how the cheap seats will be set up and it rocks... http://blog.seattlepi.com/sonics/20...r-proposed-seattle-arena-and-its-sonic-rings/
Battling billionaires set for showdown on Sacramento Kings Posted by Inside Hoops APR 2 Dueling teams of billionaires and mayors are heading to New York for a pivotal Wednesday showdown over the future of the Sacramento Kings. Before an elite committee of NBA owners, delegations from Sacramento and Seattle will present their arguments on the issue that’s been making headlines for weeks: Should the Kings stay put or be allowed to move to the Pacific Northwest? The meeting, to be held at a Manhattan hotel, comes a week after the Sacramento City Council approved a non-binding term sheet for a new $448 million arena at Downtown Plaza - a crucial piece in the city’s attempt to keep the team. The committee is likely to make a recommendation sometime this month. A final decision is expected April 18 or 19, when the league’s Board of Governors, consisting of all the team owners, convenes in New York. NBA Commissioner David Stern has said deciding between Sacramento and Seattle will be tough. Seattle offers a larger and wealthier population, but Sacramento has had a strong track record of supporting the league. Both cities are offering to build new arenas. – Reported by Dale Kasler and Tony Bizjak of the Sacramento Bee Read more: http://www.insidehoops.com/blog/?p=12926#ixzz2PLpkau50 Sent from HCPs Baller-Ass iPhone 5.......FAMS!
