Thanks! I don't think I can rep you again, but maybe someone else will. Don't spend your rep points all in one place.
I think both of those scenarios are pretty unlikely, but it's also a whacky world. If they approve the Hansen group's purchase but not the relocation, then I'd guess that Hansen and group will tank the arena deal so that Seattle relocation is eventually approved. It'd be hard to imagine rejection of the Seattle ownership group, but if they rejected the ownership group and approved the move, then the Maloofs would likely be getting to know the Emerald City. Given the long amount of time to put together yet another ownership group, negotiate a purchase agreement and go through the NBA approval process (3 months at the minimum), there's a decent chance the Maloofs would own the team when the new Seattle team starts play in the fall. Potentially the Maloofs could try to sell to the Sac ownership group at a much faster pace, which could result in the Sac group tanking a Seattle arena deal so that they could return the Kings to Sac. Talk about a soap opera. The funny thing is that relocation requires only simple majority and approval of ownership is 2/3 or something like that, so the second scenario would be more likely to accidentally occur. Still, it would be a pretty big surprise if ownership and location aren't approved lockstep with the winning group.
Any bets on whether the finance/relocation committee recommendation is made public? I'm guessing no announcement of it is made by the NBA, but that word leaks out during the 7 business day waiting period for the BoG vote. If the committee recommendation somehow is made public, it'll be pretty interesting to see if the th BoG follows the recommendation. If Sac is the recommendation, the BoG is almost certain to fall in line because it only takes 8 owners to vote no on the Hansen group to kill the deal and the committee members alone could carry the vote. At this point, I think the outcome will depend on how much influence Stern has over the owners. If he still has hand, the team stays in Sac. If the owners make the call, Seattle wins.
Totally agreed. You have to think, aside from maybe Paul Allen, owners would prefer the team in Seattle over Sacto. One, the higher offer helps the value of every other franchise, even if it is only $25MM. Plus, one would have to think a team in Seattle will generate more revenue than in Sacto (especially those first few years, as the team is "back in production" and there will be a lot of new hoopla). More revenue is what every owner wants. So, unless David Stern really gets his hands dirty, this team is going to Seattle (didn't Stern once say that he doesn't think the NBA would ever return to Seattle if they allowed the Sonics to leave??).
Yeah, I think the interests of the owners are very different from the interests of Stern. Changes in overall value of franchises and liquidity of franchises (meaning how easy it is to sell a franchise when an owner decides to sell) aren't as important to Stern as they are to owners...by a long shot. All the Stern theatrics around the Kings sale has likely had a bad impact on future sales...the only positive around this is the $25MM increased bid, but I'm guessing the mess will cause any future buyer wanting to relocate to have second thoughts about approaching the NBA. On the other hand, Stern is very focused on the precedent of getting locals to pay for new arenas. State and local politicians have bent over backwards to receive Stern and complied with anything he's demanded. He's worried about turning his back when the locals have genuinely tried to build an arena and keep the NBA happy (although, I do think Sac is using smoke and mirrors to make the downtown arena feasible for the $ they're talking...land is a little more expensive downtown than it is next to the railroad tracks.)
Lol, Stern is apparently pushing the decision date back yet another week so that it's now slated to come some time during the week of May 13. He must not be liking the answers he's getting from the owners. The deals aren't so complicated that they need this much time to review; although, I'd understand that owners might be a little more focused on the playoffs rather than this drama. Link: http://mynorthwest.com/27/2260634/Stern-expects-final-Kings-vote-within-next-three-weeks
Kevin Johnson is the mayor of Sacramento. Plus, he and Stern both have a lot in common politically, because Stern contributes almost exclusively to Democrats during campaigns. Losing the Kings would essentially end KJ's run at governor of CA in a few years. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/02/nba.html
It's a conspiracy to make Johnson the Governor? Stern contributes to Democrats to keep his job in a mostly black league. He is bosom buddies with creationist Clay Bennett and the biggest Swift Boat funder, the crooked fake billionaire Audrey McClendon or whatever his name is. As soon as Stern helped them hijack the Sonics, they sold the Storm because it has lesbians on the team. Stern brought the disciplinarian model of leadership to the league in the 1980s and is no liberal.
I knew you'd fall for it!! LOL Bennett has nothing to do with the Swift Boat thing, but facts have never really mattered to you. Stern is a stauch Democrat. Nothing wrong with that, by the way.
What exactly did I fall for? I said that Audrey McClendon was the biggest donor to Swift Boat for Truth, the racist pack of liars who tore down Kerry's war medals. I didn't say Bennett did, but truth never matters to you. By the way, we're in my territory, so if you'd like to argue with me about the Thunder ownership, please do. If I shot down every dumb Okie who tried to take over the ESPN Sonic board, I can certainly handle an easier challenge like you. I got a whole repertoire of tricks I learned back then for the dumb Okies. Heh heh heh. Those were the days.
I don't think Stern is trying to screw Seattle over here, seems more like he is trying to make it as fare as possible to Sacramento so that when they do leave for Seattle its not the uproar that it was when the Sonics moved. Stern is on record saying he regrets what happened in Seattle and there has been rumors that one of the last things he wanted to accomplish as commissioner was to bring a team back to Seattle.
I disagree, because Stern has repeatedly changed/extended the process in order to give the Sac owners an opportunity to increase or change their offer. If Stern is unbiased, he sets the process and then keeps to it. Altering the process in favor of one party is the same as harming the other party. You can't really separate the two.
Rhal brings up an interesting point though. In order for any current NBA city to feel like it's been treated fairly, there would need to be some sort of process that would require a current owner to notify the locals of the intent to sell so that the local big pockets have a chance to get in on the bidding from the start. Of course, the owners have not wanted to add any barricades to their ability to sell. One way or another, the NBA really needs to establish a clear process for this. The approach has been very ad hoc and sloppy. They need to either commit to a process that encourages teams to remain in cities or back off and let the owners sell teams as they wish. The Sac/Sea saga is largely about the attempt to do both and it's not possible.
I should have worded that better. The vote has been pushed back multiple times and everything Stern has said is media mumbo jumbo so I never really believe it. We don't know whos decision it was to actually push the dating decisions back, his or the committees.
I agree with this. Teams aren't just a sports team they are part an identity of that city. To just have someone come in and buy them then move them is an atrocity that should never happen unless real problems have risen, like lack of attendance and the cities over disinterest of the team has turned into dislike. I could see adding something like "Owners of a team need to notify locals 60 days before a deal can be reached that a bid has been placed on the team and the owner is interested in selling the team" 60 days isn't a ton of time but its also not to little of a time frame that it makes it impossible to get another group together to place a bid and it doesn't really inhibit a owner from selling his or potential buyers from buying them.
