Key may have been a little small (17,000 is nothing like Portland's 12,000 Memorial) but the Sonics couldn't fill it with attendance. So it was just the right size for a mediocre team. If they'd had full houses, then you'd have a valid complaint about its size.
Weird. Hansen declined refund from the league of the $30 million deposit. http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/227720/Hansen-Ballmer-Decline-Refund-Of-$30M-Non-Refundable-Deposit-From-NBAs-Other-Owners
Odd. Trying to figure that one out... possibly a sign of forthcoming litigation, or maybe the deposit is just a general ownership deposit (they weren't specific about it in the article), and the group would like to buy another franchise?
Stranger still is Ranadive passing up even more, tens of millions of dollars in revenue sharing that small market teams get from big market teams. http://m.espn.go.com/nba/story?storyId=9248685&src=desktop Sacramento taxpayers, who must pay for a stadium, must just love that article.
This was an amount the other owners were offering to pay. All I can think is that Hansen is being the good guy, hoping the owners will remember this in the next go round, whenever that is.
God, this deal was dirty. The next time a franchise like this is sold, they should just claim that it can't be moved for "x" years beforehand. That way, you're bidding on the same entity. A Seattle franchise is worth more than one in Sacramento. The valuations from each party showed it.
My take on Seattle losing it's team -- you can't fault the state and city government for rejecting Bennett's ridiculous deal. And you could only partially fault them for not stepping up for Howard Schultz. The timing was pretty bad and Schultz was hemorrhaging. Economy's in the tank and he wants a new arena despite the fact that the renovation was less than 10 years old. He bought the team 6 years after the rebuild had happened. If he thought he was going to need a new arena, he should have factored that into his purchase price. That's primarily Schultz's fault (a CEO of a huge corporation who should know better) for not realizing what he was buying. Now, why did Stern bend over backwards for an ownership group that the owner did not want to sell to in the Sacramento situation, but would not revive efforts to keep the Sonics in Seattle when Ballmer stepped up in March of 2006?? Kevin Johnson was given every extension and benefit of the doubt. Face it. Stern is two-faced and only cares about people who owe him favors. He basically is the godfather/puppet master and it's a good idea for him to retire. There only three ways out of the mob-life. Retirement, prison, or getting whacked.
I suppose, of course there's also great danger in using real estate as a piggy bank, as recent history has shown us.
The Zen master discusses joining Hansen if SEA got the Kings: http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/sto...ays-best-offer-was-brooklyn-nets-coaching-job
My theory, which likely will never be confirmed or denied, is that the NBA helped the Sac deal happen by forgiving some of the debt that the Maloofs owed the NBA. It's total conjecture founded in zero fact, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to me. I have pretty strong faith in the owners preserving their financial returns when it comes time to sell...more so than I believe in their concern for the fans.
I believed Stern's explanation last night when they showed the interview with him and Heather Cox. Only because his answer was almost exactly what I posted here several weeks ago. It made the most sense in the long term for the NBA. And that was they should vote to keep teams in their current city as long as the city has a history of supporting the team, AND they are willing to build a new arena. Sac town met those requirements even though their bid was less money. I still agree Seattle got screwed before, (and that Key arena was fine for a while) but the precedent established this time, was for the best. As Long as they keep to it.
I agree that there is a lot to be said for stability...but I'm surprised the owners would make a decision that had pretty strong repurcussions on the selling owner. That's why I think there was some extra engineering going on. It could be that they encourage Ranadive to increase his offer (which he did by $10MM) and that they figured the Hansen $30MM nonrefundable deposit also helped make up some of the $65MM lower initial offer. It's possible they decided that this additional $40MM was close enough to $65MM. Of course, it's also come out that the owners were willing to reimburse Hansen for that $30MM and he refused it.
At the May 15 owners' vote, Sam Amick pulled an owner's notesheet from a wastebasket. http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/05/these-are-an-nba-owners-notes-from-the-kings-sale-meeting/
Interesting. I'd sure like to know what's in the bylaws because that (or possibly Stern) framed the vote so that Hansen was pretty much doomed from the start. There were some KJ quotes in the last couple days that Stern told KJ to read the bylaws, build his case off what the bylaws said, and Sac would likely keep the team. I tried google and bing to find the bylaws and failed. Big time rep for anyone who posts a link to those bylaws.
Just listened to a Chris Hansen interview and it had a few interesting things... -Hansen and crew never refused the return of their $30MM deposit...they'd like to get the money back. He didn't go into the likelihood of that happening, but I'd say it's a pretty low likelihood. [Purely my opinon: I'm guessing that the $30MM was part of the rationale of the owners approving the Ranadive deal because it upped the total amount that the Maloofs received...so in a way Hansen funded his opponent in the deal.] -Hansen said he didn't want to be a predator and take a team from another city unless the franchise AND the league had already approved the move. In the interview, multiple times he talked about doing things the right/honorable way and he also said he didn't like being in the role of doing to another city what had been done to Seattle. So, it could be that and nothing more, but it could also be that he doesn't want to be a tool used by existing owners to get arena deals. Either way, he was pretty clear that he wouldn't be a predator going forward. -Hansen doesn't think Stern has it in for Seattle. -Hansen thought it would be another year before they knew more about next steps. He thought adding larger market Seattle would add value to a TV deal and thought that would help their chances at expansion. He also said that several franchises were struggling and might want to sell. He also thought the size of their offer to Sacramento might get some owners thinking about selling. Again, he emphasized that they would purchase an existing team only if they were essentially already approved to be moved. -Hansen said that when they made the offer to the Maloofs the group thought it was just a matter of time before Sac relocated. All the failed arena attempts coupled with the multiple attempts by the Maloofs to move the team made them think Sac was kaput as an NBA city. [Personal opinion: I actually think Hansen was probably right in thinking that...in alternate reality world where Hansen didn't make the offer, I'd guess the Kings would be out of Sac in 1-2 years. The Hansen offer galvanized the city to keep the team and, weird as it is to say it, Kings fans should be glad that Hansen came along when he did.] -Hansen said that he'd never sued anyone and wouldn't start by suing the NBA. -Hansen was very positive and upbeat throughout the interview. He didn't badmouth the NBA or the owners in the slightest and seemed to speak highly of them, if anything. [Personal opinion: it took him awhile to speak publicly and I wonder if he was waiting for himself to cool down before agreeing to an interview. Guessing that the high school wrestler in him was fired up initially, but that he's easing back into hedge fund manager mode as he waits for the next franchise opportunity.] Edit: add link: http://www.geekwire.com/2013/hansen-ballmer-sonics-stay-intact/
Of course not--he only catches them. (sorry, couldn't resist) Couldn't agree more. Hansen basically ended up being Stern's patsy. Seattle is to the NBA what Portland has been for MLB and what LA is for the NFL--the leverage needed to make cities do what the league wants them to do.
I'd love to have MLB in Portland, but has Portland ever been a real enough option to even be used as a tool?
