think of it this way. Say I had $50 billion dollars. I wanted to buy the L*kers and move them to Akron, Ohio...should I be able to just because I simply have the funds to do so and can outbid any buyer in LA who will keep them there? (ok, not the best example but you get the point)
Bad example. Going from Sacramento to Seattle is equivalent to Seattle moving to OKC, but in reverse. In other words, it would have been a massive upgrade in that regard.
How could the league force the Maloofs to sell? All I can think of is, Stern threatened to call in their loans. But I would think that the Maloof lawyers had written some protection into the contract.
So every smaller team MUST be sold if there is a higher bidder to a larger city, repercussions be damned? The Spurs should be forced to be sold to San Diego if they put in a higher bid than anyone else? The Blazers should be forced to be moved to seattle if the Hansen group, in 10 years, outbids any local bidders if Allen sells the team? I'm just being consistent here. If in 10 years, the Hansen group comes a knocking (or some larger city) when Paul Allen sells the Blazers.....you don't think preference should be given to an ownership group that will keep the Blazers in Portland? If you were to oppose this later, you would be hypocritical.
They don't have to force them to sell. The Maloofs are broke though so they need to take the money and run.
So if they offer to buy the Blazers right now and move them to Seattle, the NBA should allow it? The NBA isn't a bunch of independant franchises, they function cohesively as a unit. Factors such as franchise cities affect every team in the league. The simple moving of franchises around as chess pieces isn't a recipe for a stable league.
Disagree. Hansen doesn't seem like a bluffer at all. I think he was good to go, but the Maloofs didn't pursue it. I'd love to know the true scoop.
All this means is that groups will buy teams not announcing that they want to move the team. Like clay bennet.
Well. .. that's why moves have to be approved by ownership committees. In theory. ..is a check and balance. hoop fam
How did Stern force the Maloofs to sell? The only answer I can think of is that he threatened to call in the loans, which are $100-150 million. But Hansen already offered him 20% of the purchase price, which wound up being only $535 million but Hansen had offered more. Hansen would have covered Maloof's cash flow problems until buying more than 20%. But the league must approve even the 20% sale, right? The league could stall that process. But meanwhile, Hansen could loan the $100-150M himself to the Maloofs if Stern reneged on the league loans. So I just walked in a circle. I'm back to the question at the top.
Seattle sports radio read a twitter from a usatoday NBA writer and it basically said the owners were leaning to Seattle and then Stern turned the owners to Seattle. It'd be interesting to know what the straight scoop is, but guessing we'll never know for sure.
No, during the heart of the attempts to build a new arena, the new and supposedly modern Key Arena was approx. 10 years old. It dragged on long enough that it was getting older...I think it was approx. 12/13 years old by the time the Sonics left. Shoot, even if it was 15 years old, my point is the same. People are surprised the Rose Garden is being called into question now. Imagine if that discussion happened 10 years ago and we lost the Blazers 5 years ago. The point is that it's pretty difficult to rally the support when the "old" stadium ain't that old.
Presidente, I actually like the world you live in (I seriously do), but I don't think it's that simple. I don't think the decision to keep the Kings in Sacramento was mainly about respecting and treating the fans well. It might have been a factor, but it was a relatively small factor. I think the two more important factors were: - Sending the message to other cities, that building an arena means you keep the team. Don't build one, you lose it. Guessing that part of Stern's argument was that enhanced arenas would do to more to increase franchise value over the long haul than the $100MM larger offer that Hansen made. - It was Stern's agenda. He seems to have crazy power and he gets what he wants. It's great if your interests are aligned with his and game over if they're not. - I'd put fan consideration in third place behind the other two. That all said, I'm still really surprised that the owners made another owner group take $100MM less. So maybe there is something to your world or maybe they just hated the Maloofs for siphoning money from them for so long.
