In the NBA's press conference, Stern said it might not be decided by the Board of Governor's meeting in two weeks. Wonder if that means that expansion might actually be a possibility. From a travel standpoint, it'd be cool to keep Sac and add Seattle to the West.
I wonder if, in order to secure an NBA team, the Seattle ownership group would retract their offer IF they were promised an expansion team (like Charlotte was after the Hornets were moved)? If I was the Seattle ownership group, that's the only way I'd accept not having the Kings move there.
I don't get the expansion talk because I think to make it feasible you have to have two new teams coming in. That and Stern's (now Silver's) next expansion wants to be overseas.
Everyone I know despises the number 31. The next expansion will be 2 teams to 32. 2 to the 5th is one of the most beautiful numbers in the English language.
Recap of today's events...... http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2050043 Sent from HCPs Baller-Ass iPhone 5...FAMS!
If people don't want to go to the games, and this trend is increasing in sports, then Sac leaving would be a good thing. Spending hundreds of millions on a stadium that is only used a few days a year is not smart financially anymore.
I was thinking that the obvious team to relocate should be the Clippers. You wouldn't be leaving an empty stadium or a city without a team. So: Kings stay put, warm fuzzies, Clippers move to Seattle. The only person upset would be Billy Crystal. Oh, and maybe Chris Paul.
Oops http://m.hoopsworld.com/hoopsworld/...ing-has-minor-hiccup,51617119d7fc7b56709f27be Sent from HCPs Baller-Ass iPhone 5...FAMS!
http://www.hoopsworld.com/sacramento-arena-financing-has-minor-hiccup a direct link would've been better.
Thinking outside the box as usual, I have a RADICAL solution: Admit both ownership groups. Keep a Sacramento team and create a Seattle expansion team. Wow! Grooovy! I have overcome my repulsion to the number 31! You can, too, if you meditate! Our collective antipathy to that prime number is our only obstacle to easily resolving the "problem."
There are lots of people that don't want to watch the Kings play. Businesses go bankrupt all the time you don't need a team in every current city.
They don't have the wealthiest people in Sacramento. Why don't they add some lobbyists and legislators?
New investor pops up for Sacramento http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2013/04/developer-joins-effort-to-keep-kings-in-sacramento/ http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/09/5325689/mark-friedman-sacramento-kings.html Not sure what to believe about the Sacramento proposal. Everything just seems so fluid over there. If I were the owners I think I would go with the more stable group. Who's to say whether EIS lawsuits threaten the Sacramento proposal or that the ownership group knows what they are doing.
Its kinda weird that these investors weren't around when the maloofs tried to move the teams before. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
Basically all the Seattle sports talk radio guys think this wins it for Seattle. The talk is that the binding agreement for the arena is signed and the land already bought in Seattle. Meanwhile, they're still figuring out the ownership team in Sac. Gonna be a major blow to Seattle if they don't get it because they're starting to bank on it up here.
