Sacramento/Seattle Kings Update

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
From what Stern said during all star weekend.... it's Seattle team to lose.
 
This shit is getting crazy! So the city of Sacramento voted to build a new arena last night and were all talking about how now the kings will stay in Sac...... This morning this news drops!!!!


In a bit of disconcerting news, it appears Seattle's Chris Hansen has circumvented the bidding process on minority owner Bob Cook's 7% share of the team. Cook's shares are being held by a bankruptcy court and bids were expected to come in later this month. News10's Nick Monacelli reports that as of Tuesday, Hansen's $15.1 million offer was the only serious one on the table and that the lawyers have agreed to sell to him pending judge approval, thus preventing the auction process.

If approved, this deal will give Hansen control of 72% of the Kings franchise pending league approval. Hansen already has a sale agreement with the Maloof Family and Bob Hernreich for 65% of the team at a reported franchise valuation of $525 million. Hansen did not pay the same valuation for Cook's 7%. That would have been about $36.75 million.

At last month's state of the city address, Mayor Kevin Johnson stated a desire for the 20+ local investors who had pledged $1 million to keeping the Kings in Sacramento to bid on Cook's shares. It's unknown what will happen with regard to the local investors now as there is a no shop clause on the current deal with Hansen.

UPDATE: Monacelli tweets that Mayor Kevin Johnson's local group will submit an offer in the next few days. The no shop clause prevents solicitation of offers, but not their review.

Monacelli also reports that the trustee seeks to have the sale haring on April 15-16th, shortly before the NBA's Board of Governors meeting on April 18th, where a vote to either approve the sale and relocation of the Kings or not will take place. Both Sacramento and Seattle will present their cases to the NBA relocation committee next week on April 3rd.


Sent from HCPs Baller-Ass iPhone 5.......FAMS!
 
This guys Hansen isn't fucking around!


Sent from HCPs Baller-Ass iPhone 5.......FAMS!
 
I'd love for Seattle to not get a franchise because of the EFFORTS of local investors and local government, something sorely lacking when the Sonics were jacked by OKC.
 
I just skimmed all that stuff and it said that 20 Sacramento investors promised $1M each. Is there a contract holding them to the rest?

EL PRESIDENTE said:
I'd love for Seattle to not get a franchise because of the EFFORTS of local investors and local government, something sorely lacking when the Sonics were jacked by OKC.
Click to expand...

You can criticize both Sacramento and Seattle for the same thing. Both had years of lead time.

But Seattle had just built a new stadium, KeyArena, and was looking at many years of debt repayment on that, plus the new stadium. Also, Bennett refused to put in any private money, requiring a $500M arena all paid by taxpayers (Hansen is now paying most of it himself, which is why Seattle politicians have changed their positions), while the Maloofs have been willing to put in some of their own money.

Seattle had a better reason to say no than Sacramento.
 
The facts are pretty different when you compare Sacramento now to Seattle then. Arguably, the Sonics were done the second that Clay and the OKC group bought the Sonics...it was just a matter of time before they blew things up and moved the team back to OKC. After the move, the OKC owners admitted their plan from the beginning was to take the Sonics to OKC. Not that it makes up for the crappy work done by Seattle/State of Washington politicians.

The three things I'd love to know are (1) how comparable are the offers made by the two groups, (2) are the two groups escalating/planning to escalate offers as April 3 nears, and (3) how much stock do the owners place in the fact that definitive documents (both for sale of the team and construction of the arena) are complete in Seattle and only at the non-binding term sheet stage in Sac? I'd think (3) might tip the scale in Seattle's favor if the deals are similar because a lot could unravel during the process of negotiating final agreements.

News in Seattle today is that Chris Hansen just bought the 7% share of the Kings that was in bankruptcy court and that no other material offer was made for it. Not sure what it means from an NBA approval perspective, but it does make the Sac group look a little disorganized.
 
To say there is bad blood between the city of Sacramento and the Maloofs is putting it mildly. The Maloofs dealt with the city in total bad faith. The reason no local Sac group stepped up earlier is because Kevin Johnson negotiated a deal just last year to keep the Kings in Sac with the new stadium the Maloofs demanded. The brothers signed the MOU and then at the last second backed out of the deal.

So this counter-offer to buy the team is the city's response to the Maloofs being double-crossing, lying douchbags.
 
Ric Bucher


Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson has gathered a strong contingent to bid for keeping the Kings where they are, but

their level of commitment won't be certified until they make the same non-refundable payment of $30 million to the Maloofs that the group from Seattle already has made, a source said. Should the league's owners reject the Seattle group in favor of the Sacramento group without meeting that term, the source said, the Maloofs are almost certain to file an anti-trust suit against the league. The Sacramento group also has to deal with several different entities owning parcels of the land upon which the proposed arena would be built. Working through how much the land is worth and a sale price for each parcel is not a quick process; nor is the required cash-out by Warriors part-owner Vivek Ranadive to join the Kings' group. I also have to wonder, considering the potential benefit for the Warriors in having all of Northern California to themselves, how motivated they'll be to expedite the process if doing so enhances the chance of the Kings staying. For what it's worth, the league office is playing this "straight down the middle," according to one source, showing no preference toward either side.


Sent from HCPs Baller-Ass iPhone 5.......FAMS!
 
Well played Maloofs. Getting 2 non refundable $30M payments. They should invite more cities to join in and get a few more of those.
 
It actually is a pretty interesting (and possibly risky) position that the NBA has put itself in. I think the purpose of the vote used to be more about the quality of the prospective owner. This vote seems to be shaping up, at least in the public eye, about which city is more deserving.

If the NBA owners veto the Seattle deal, the financially fragile Maloofs could be left in a bad place. No definitive docs signed for the sale of the team, no arena docs signed, not even a binding term sheet signed for the arena, none of the land purchased, and no real leverage to accomplish any of that if the Seattle offer is refected and the Sac offer is the only one on the table. If the Sac offer is lower than the Seattle offer, then the Maloofs are out cash in addition to the risk and delay that they're being hit with.

Hansen would be out the $30M he already paid plus potentially the $15M for the minority shares and who knows what other expenses. I don't think he could claim anything for the arena land that he's already purchased.

Bottomline, I can see why the Maloofs would want some cash upfront from the Sac group if Seattle gets nixed and I can see why they'd want it before the vote. No doubt they could make out like bandits on it though. If Seattle wins the day, that $30M from the Sac group would be free money to them and it's possible they also get a big win if the two sides get in a bidding war. Sucks that a pretty crappy ownership group is getting a windfall out of this.
 
HCP said:
The RG was built with the Penguins coming here in mind. It is NHL ready.
Click to expand...

If Paul wanted a NHL team here we would have already had one about 3 years ago. I don't think he wants another pro team in Portland which is sad.
 
BigGameDamian said:
If Paul wanted a NHL team here we would have already had one about 3 years ago. I don't think he wants another pro team in Portland which is sad.
Click to expand...

3 years ago? It was longer ago than that (and very frequent in the last 15 years).

I don't think it's that Paul Allen doesn't want another pro team here, I think it's that he like the NBA and NFL, and doesn't care much about the other sports.

A bigger reason why Portland doesn't have another pro sports team (of the big 4) is that no one in Portland has any vision for that.
 
So is it up to the Maloofs who they sell to? What are the other owners even voting on?


Sent from HCPs Baller-Ass iPhone 5.......FAMS!
 
mobes23 said:
Bottomline, I can see why the Maloofs would want some cash upfront from the Sac group if Seattle gets nixed and I can see why they'd want it before the vote. No doubt they could make out like bandits on it though. If Seattle wins the day, that $30M from the Sac group would be free money to them and it's possible they also get a big win if the two sides get in a bidding war. Sucks that a pretty crappy ownership group is getting a windfall out of this.
Click to expand...

In real estate rentals, the only way to lose your deposit is to change your mind and back out of the deal. The 2 bidders should have specified that the loser's $30M be refundable.
 
HCP said:
So is it up to the Maloofs who they sell to? What are the other owners even voting on?


Sent from HCPs Baller-Ass iPhone 5.......FAMS!
Click to expand...

Yep, each team is individually owned and it's up to the owner selling a team to find a buyer and negotiate the deal. Once a deal is reached, the other owners then have to approve/reject the proposed new owner (it's a high threshhold -- something like 22 yes votes required). Historically, they have voted on the merits of the proposed new owner (mainly seems to be about deep pockets, but I think it could also be general quality.) If that's the main focus, then the Seattle group would be in good shape. This case is slightly more aggressive than some because it's also coupled with a franchise move. In alternate reality world, it'd be interesting to know how Seattle/OKC would've gone down if Bennett hadn't taken the two step dance approach (own the team first, then move several years later.) At the time of the sale to Bennett, all the talk was how Bennett & crew wanted the Sonics to succeed and stay in Seattle; although, they later admitted their plan had been to sink the Sonics and move them to OKC from start. If the owners focus more on the move, then Sac might be in good shape.

Most likely it'll come down to the owners voting out of self interest. If the Sac offer is less than the Seattle offer, I'd think the team goes to Seattle. No owner would want to think they get should get less cash when it comes time for them to sell. They may also focus on how the relocation fee gets divvied up and they might try to assess which city is more likely to be successful over the long haul. I know Sac has been drawing on an owner's slush fund for financially underperforming teams and the owners that pay money into that fund are getting tired of Sac being a money drain. Both prospective ownership groups will be trying to convince the other owners that their long term plans are the best.

Guessing that concern for the fans, whether in Seattle or Sac, won't really be much of a consideration, except for Cuban, who will likely vote to keep the team in Sac because he actually is more focused on the fans. He was one of the few votes against the OKC relocation for that very reason.
 
mobes23 said:
Guessing that concern for the fans, whether in Seattle or Sac, won't really be much of a consideration, except for Cuban, who will likely vote to keep the team in Sac because he actually is more focused on the fans. He was one of the few votes against the OKC relocation for that very reason.
Click to expand...

I think only Paul Allen and Mark Cuban voted against it. Mark for the reasons you stated (imho) and Paul Allen because he ain't no dummy. Why piss off your Seahawks fanbase needlessly?
 
jlprk said:
In real estate rentals, the only way to lose your deposit is to change your mind and back out of the deal. The 2 bidders should have specified that the loser's $30M be refundable.
Click to expand...

Well, it was reported as non-refundable. I thought they turned around and sent all or a portion of that $30M to the NBA for relocation, but I did a quick google search and didn't find anything about that. I've also heard on sports talk in Seattle that it's possible that it was to set up a legal claim if their bid is denied (loss of $30M is obviously substantial) or interfered with.
 
julius said:
I think only Paul Allen and Mark Cuban voted against it. Mark for the reasons you stated (imho) and Paul Allen because he ain't no dummy. Why piss off your Seahawks fanbase needlessly?
Click to expand...

He is a closet sonics fan!

LEARN THE GAME, THEN POST!

Lol
 
Just confirmed the company I'm with is already on the waiting list for Sonics season tickets. The last time the Blazers played in Seattle, I got the seats and they were 2nd row midcourt. As a directv customer/Blazer fan in Seattle, I'm definitely hoping the Sonics come back.
 
mobes23 said:
Just confirmed the company I'm with is already on the waiting list for Sonics season tickets. The last time the Blazers played in Seattle, I got the seats and they were 2nd row midcourt. As a directv customer/Blazer fan in Seattle, I'm definitely hoping the Sonics come back.
Click to expand...

Do they show the Blazers on Comcast up there right now?
 
julius said:
I think only Paul Allen and Mark Cuban voted against it. Mark for the reasons you stated (imho) and Paul Allen because he ain't no dummy. Why piss off your Seahawks fanbase needlessly?
Click to expand...

While I agree Mark is often an advocate for the fan (as much or more so than any other owner in the NBA)......

You guys are forgetting a VERY GLARING reason Cuban voted against the Sonics' move to OKC: OKC was part of the Dallas territory. OKC and Dallas are 3 hours apart by auto, if that. I can't imagine there's a single team closer to OKC than Dallas. Losing that territory for Dallas takes money out of the Mavs' wallet. Let's be real. This has to be a much bigger factor in Cuban's vote.

Cuban already has to compete with the other Texas teams for revenue. You think he wanted another team locally to compete with?
 
Last edited:
BLAZINGGIANTS said:
While I agree Mark is often an advocate for the fan (as much or more so than any other owner in the NBA)......

You guys are forgetting a VERY GLARING reason Cuban voted against the Sonics' move to OKC: OKC was part of the Dallas territory. OKC and Dallas are 3 hours apart by auto, if that. I can't imagine there's a single team closer to OKC than Dallas. Losing that territory for Dallas takes money out of the Mavs' wallet. Let's be real. This has to be a much bigger factor in Cuban's vote.

Cuban already has to compete with the other Texas teams for revenue. You think he wanted another team locally to compete with?
Click to expand...

good point
 
Lol -- dang it! I bought Cuban's story hook, line and sinker.

I guess we'll have a better idea this vote because both cities are distant to Dallas; although, he would make a little cash if Seattle is chosen because of the relocation fee.
 
mobes23 said:
Lol -- dang it! I bought Cuban's story hook, line and sinker.

I guess we'll have a better idea this vote because both cities are distant to Dallas; although, he would make a little cash if Seattle is chosen because of the relocation fee.
Click to expand...

LOL. I was wondering if anyone else noticed the real reason behind Cuban's voting. OKC is closer to Dallas than either San Antonio or Houston are, actually. Not by much, but OKC is actually closer. So not only did Dallas get another team to compete with when OKC moved to town, they actually became the closest team to Dallas.

To make matters worse, if you look at a map, Dallas is actually in the center of those other three cities. I'm sure Cuban looked at the map and wondering how he'd draw fans from outside a small radius around Dallas.

I could see Allen voting against this one again (for the same reason Cuban voted down the move to OKC). Not that I believe the rumors, but it'd end the discussion of Portland ever moving to Seattle. And two, until Seattle gets a team, the Blazers are the closest thing they have. I'm sure a lot of fans up in Seattle don't have a team, or follow a team other than the Blazers, but I do know quite a few former Sonic fans that are Blazers fans because it's the closest thing they have (and it didn't hurt to get Seattle's attention that we brought in guys like Nate and Roy).
 
I have read this theory before (the Mavs lost Kansas, Nebraska, etc.) but I had forgotten it, so thanks for reminding me. But I never quite believed it was Cuban's dominant reason because--

The vote was merely symbolic, since the outcome was pre-known. Cuban and Allen just played their roles as iconoclasts. This vote kept them popular with the rebel fan faction like me, and unpopular with the corporate conformist fan faction. I think that Cuban played to his audience.
 
Battling billionaires set for showdown on Sacramento Kings

Posted by Inside Hoops
APR
2
Dueling teams of billionaires and mayors are heading to New York for a pivotal Wednesday showdown over the future of the Sacramento Kings.

Before an elite committee of NBA owners, delegations from Sacramento and Seattle will present their arguments on the issue that’s been making headlines for weeks: Should the Kings stay put or be allowed to move to the Pacific Northwest?

The meeting, to be held at a Manhattan hotel, comes a week after the Sacramento City Council approved a non-binding term sheet for a new $448 million arena at Downtown Plaza - a crucial piece in the city’s attempt to keep the team.

The committee is likely to make a recommendation sometime this month. A final decision is expected April 18 or 19, when the league’s Board of Governors, consisting of all the team owners, convenes in New York.

NBA Commissioner David Stern has said deciding between Sacramento and Seattle will be tough. Seattle offers a larger and wealthier population, but Sacramento has had a strong track record of supporting the league. Both cities are offering to build new arenas.

– Reported by Dale Kasler and Tony Bizjak of the Sacramento Bee



Read more: http://www.insidehoops.com/blog/?p=12926#ixzz2PLpkau50


Sent from HCPs Baller-Ass iPhone 5.......FAMS!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

THE HCP
Sacramento/Seattle Kings Update
Replies
5
Views
477
ponderguy
ponderguy
chris_in_pdx
Semi-OT: Kings to Anaheim.... not so fast?
Replies
22
Views
2K
Fez Hammersticks
Fez Hammersticks
THE HCP
OT:Kings Moving
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Nate Dogg
Nate Dogg
MickZagger
OT- The Kings to Seattle?
Replies
20
Views
1K
MickZagger
MickZagger
Boise Blazer
OT: Kings Become First Pro Sports Franchise To Accept Bitcoin
Replies
7
Views
803
The_Lillard_King
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top