I think Stern fears what'll happen if Seattle gets an NBA team after what he allowed to happen there. Kind of like a reminder of how much of a fuck up that was.
Why would Hansen paying the Maloofs more influence the other owners in deciding the most profitable city to the league, long-term?
The espn articals have made it sound like the Sacramento ownership group has to have a bid in the same ball park as Hansens otherwise it won't be considered a relevant bid by the Board. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
Now this is interesting.... they will vote on relocation before voting on the sale. http://q13fox.com/2013/04/21/commentary-nba-vote-order-helps-sacramento-highlights-morals-over-money/
that seems to be counterintuitive. And imho, it was done just so David Stern could thumb his nose at Seattle. He's done a lot more to save the Kings (in a much worse situation than the Sonics were) than he did the Sonics..or Grizzlies.
I think a sale requires a supermajority and relocation is just a majority. I may have those reversed. Hansen has no interest in keeping the kings in Seattle. So in a way it makes some sense.
Sports talk radio says that they're delaying an additional week, meaning the committee won't even meet this week. That means the earliest a decision could happen would be May 6, but that would mean the committee meets next Monday and they schedule the BoG vote in the minimum 7 days, neither of which is probably very likely. I'm guessing it's mid-May, unless Stern pulls a few more tricks. Pretty weird about them changing the order of the vote and it does seem like another Stern maneuver to keep things in Sac (it takes away the Seattle advantage in terms of better owner group and larger $ offer). That said, it could backfire. The approval threshhold is much lower (only a simple majority required for approval) and the arena deal in Sac is on much shakier ground with a longer timeline to completion. Seattle also has a larger market with a much stronger corporate presence to buy suites and club seats. I've heard KJ talk about how Sac had higher attendance. Clearly, a big reason for that was the tiny arena Seattle played in -- the Sonics were selling out during a chunk of those years. It'd be interesting to know how ticket revenue compared -- I'm guessing Seattle might've made some of the difference up with more expensive suits and club seats. Any ticket price comparison I could find backed out suite and club seats and those would be key in comparing prospects of the two cities. One thing is for sure, on his way to the exit door, Stern sure is creating bad precedent that will be a headache to Silver and the NBA owners for years to come. It's got to have a chilling effect on anyone looking to buy a team, which can only hurt future offer $ amounts. It also sets in motion the Bennett approach to team relocation: buy the team, claim you want to make a go of it in the current city, make the team fail on the court, make outrageous stadium demands and then relocate the team 2-3 agonizing years later. Open and clear intentions are not very well met. I bet Hansen regrets that he didn't follow the Bennett model. Living in SF, he would've been viewed as more of a local.
In 3 or 4 years, Silver will be out and the economics of this country will have deteriorated. So the league will be different anyway.
These are excellent points. Unless Seattle is given a firm promise of an expansion team I agree 100% with you. Why put all the effort in to trying to buy a team when after providing a good ownership, basically the NBA will try to leverage your work and favor the city that hasn't done anything for years?
Lol -- yeah, my gut says Silver will be out soon too, but I can't exactly say why. He seems like Stern's yes man, but I'm not sure if it's the role he's in now or just the way he is. Until Stern is gone and we can see how he handles things, won't know for sure. One thing I do know, is that I won't miss Stern.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned too much is the 7% Kings ownership that Hansen picked up out of bankruptcy. I'm not sure if ownership has been transferred to Hansen yet or not, but at some point I would think that Hansen & crew would also get the right of first refusal (ROFR). The ROFR mechanism is in ownership docs that I don't think are public, but the more things drag on, the more likely it is that the ROFR will kick in. If the ROFR applies, it could mean that Hansen gets the opportunity to purchase the team before anyone else. If relocation is denied, it could result in a weird situation where Hansen exercises the ROFR and purchases the Kings to stay in Sac. He could then follow the Bennett model, tank the Kings in Sac and move the team to Seattle in a couple years. LOL, it's messy.
He wouldn't have to tank the Kings. They are doing an amazing job of that themselves. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
He'd have to tank things on the arena front, which would mean making demands around the arena that are extravagant enough not to be obtained. The funny thing is that the current proposed arena in Sac might fit that bill -- the likelihood of Sac being able to build a downtown arena at the dollars they're saying is probably pretty low. If Sac is the winner and keeps the team, the actual arena that gets built will be a far cry from what they're claiming today. Failure to build an arena would be the ticket to move the team. Team success would be irrelevant.
I thought there was a ROFR for the 7% that Hansen bid on. Do you know if that ROFR was exercised or if there even was an ROFR on the 7% bid?
There was a ROFR on it and no one exercised it. The court approved transfer of that 7% to Hansen. Up until the court set deadline, one of the current Sac owners claimed that they were going to exercise the ROFR, but they ended up not exercising. Edit: here's a link: http://blog.seattlepi.com/sonics/20...ris-hansens-purchase-of-7-stake-in-nba-kings/
Generally a ROFR like this is in a shareholders agreement and it applies any time one owner wants to sell shares. I'd be surprised if it weren't forward-looking and I'd expect that Hansen is subject to the same rights and responsibilities, as if he'd signed the original agreement. Of course, it's impossible to know for sure without revieiwng that agreement or doc.
