This Hansen guy reminds me a lot of Paul Allen, and David Stern is Darius Miles. Fortunately, there was a lot less money at stake in the Miles fiasco.
It's all about the game - I couldn't care less about the "amenities". I think it's lame, and a farce, that team's need to build new arenas, with all the bells and whistles and 3-ring circuses, just to "remain viable". A new jumbo-tron isn't going to bring in more fans - just put a good team on the floor. And this is where contraction comes in - cut 4 teams and the remaining teams will all improve and you won't need to build new, wasteful arenas every decade.
So tomorrow's vote appears to solely focus on relocation...the finance committee has not given any recommendations and there's a 7 business day period that the BoG must have to consider committee recommendations before it can vote. Stern seems to have it set up so that the disparity in the Ranadive and Hansen offers are not considered as a factor, which is surprising given that the offers are no longer in the same ballpark, but also not surprising because it's Stern and his agenda generally trumps facts. The good news for Hansen is that he only needs a simple majority (16 owners) to win that vote. Yesterday's vote was neither affirmed or changed, which makes me think a majority of the committee is against relocation (otherwise the recommendation would have changed), but that it is no longer unanimous (becuase they likely would have affirmed the prior vote if it remained unanimous.) Unlike prior votes which have usually been landslides, it's possible this one could be closer. If relocation to Seattle is approved, Hansen, Balmer, and the Nordstroms would very likely be approved by the finance committee and the team would move to Seattle. This result is pretty clear cut. If relocation to Seattle is rejected, then things get interesting. The relocation committee would then toss the hot potato to the finance committee. Apparently, a memo sent by the Hansen group to the NBA said their purchase agreement with the Maloofs is terminated if Seattle relocation is rejected. Obviously, the finance committee wouldn't have to review that deal because it would then be dead. However, the Maloof/Hansen 20% sale (aka the "backup deal") would then be on the table for the NBA to review and the finance committee would have to recommend approval/rejection of it. The Ranadive offer would only be considered by the NBA if the Maloofs put it on the table...and by all appearances the Maloofs don't intend to do that and they can't put both offers up to NBA review simultaneously. It would be interesting to know if the backup deal has the same no shop/dilligence requirements on the Maloofs that would stop them from engaging Ranadive.
Fyi, earlier there had been talk that Hansen and Ranadive groups would present their case today, but that's apparently happening tomorrow. Theoretically, today should be quiet and tomorrow will have all the fireworks. From a procedural standpoint, I still think it's weird that Ranadive is presenting when the Maloofs have not put it on the table. I get that the relocation committee focuses on Sacramento and what it's done to keep the team, both in terms of supporting the new arena and historical attendance, but it seems really odd to consider a purchase offer when the selling owners repeatedly have said they don't want to sell and don't intend to sell to the Ranadive group.
From sports talk radio at lunch: -A seattle journalist interviewed one of the Maloofs and the Maloofs solidly want the Hansen deal to happen. Add link: http://blog.seattlepi.com/sonics/20...e-desire-to-sell-nbas-kings-to-seattle-group/ -The same journalist ran into one of the owners (not sure which one) and that owner said the increased Hansen offer had no impact on relocation, but that owner also had no idea about the backup deal. I get that these guys are busy, but don't the owners read the newspaper? -The expectation is that an announcement or leaked news will probably happen between noon and 3pm PDX time tomorrow. -An antitrust attorney was interviewed and he thought the Maloofs would probably have fairly strong litigations claims, the Hansen group would have less strong claims and that there would be no sure victory, but any victory would likely involve payment of cash rather than sending the team to Seattle.
I'm convinced we're either going to have to pony up for a new arena or lose the team. It sucks, but that's the reality.
Best guess is that Seattle is resolved well before PDX would be impacted. There's no doubt some public money would be needed for an arena...it's just a matter of how much. Seattle gets badmouthed because it didn't get an arena built for Clayton Bennett and Bennett's contribution to the $500 million proposed arena (proposed by Bennett) was exactly $0. He wanted all public money. Times have changed and the public contribution amounts are no longer so crazy. In other news, Ballmer is supposedly making enemies at an inopportune time... “You don’t get into a knife fight with the NBA and then ask you if you can come hang out in the clubhouse,” one source told Bruski. “Ballmer is playing a game of Russian Roulette with (Seattle’s) NBA future. He can’t throw money at the problem like this is Microsoft.” Link: http://blog.seattlepi.com/sonics/20...llmer-is-on-a-rampage-to-snag-the-nbas-kings/
I wonder if the NBA kills the Hansen deal if the Maloofs would move ahead with the sale to Ranadive and then turn around and sue the NBA for the $65 million they lost due to the NBA's hijinx. "Maloof told reporters that he stands by his agreement to sell the Kings to Hansen’s group. Maloof wouldn’t comment on whether he and his family, who own a controlling 65 percent of the NBA franchise, would take the Sacramento group’s counteroffer if the league rejects Hansen’s acquisition Wednesday." Link: http://blog.seattlepi.com/sonics/20...e-desire-to-sell-nbas-kings-to-seattle-group/
Why on earth would we need to build a new arena? How is it that buildings have gone from permanent structures, to disposable objects that only last 15-20 years?
Could be worse, Key Arena was finished about the same time as the Rose Garden and it was deemed outdated 10 years ago.
It was renovated in '94 but broke ground in 1960. The RG needs both exterior/interior renovations. The exterior is aging horribly.
The only thing left from the 1960 version are the two huge crisscross beams on top. They gutted everything else and dug deeper. Except for those beams, everything else is '94 inside and out. I saw it during during the recontruction and it was a sight. Edit: apparently the acoustic panels were re-used. Everything else was gutted. From wikipedia: The remodeled arena maintained the architectural integrity of the original roofline by using the existing steel trusses in combination with four new main diagonal trusses. The wood, steel and concrete from the demolition was either reused in construction of the new arena or sold to recyclers. The original acoustical panels, the panels attached to the roof that keep the space from echoing, were refurbished and reused.
You need to check out some other NBA arenas FAMS........ the RG is probably one of the top 10 nicest and well kept in the league.
