Sacramento/Seattle Kings Update

[THE HCP]

http://www.hoopsworld.com/sacramento-arena-financing-has-minor-hiccup

a direct link would've been better.

Damn copy and paste on the iPhone!

 

[huevonkiller]

I was thinking that the obvious team to relocate should be the Clippers. You wouldn't be leaving an empty stadium or a city without a team. So: Kings stay put, warm fuzzies, Clippers move to Seattle. The only person upset would be Billy Crystal. Oh, and maybe Chris Paul.

There are lots of people that don't want to watch the Kings play. Businesses go bankrupt all the time you don't need a team in every current city.

 

[THE HCP]

uh oh Sacramento

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Billionaire Ron Burkle will not be part of Sacramento's bid to keep the Kings after all.

Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson said Monday that a conflict of interest forced Burkle to back out. Instead, Johnson said the Southern California businessman and co-owner of the NHL's Pittsburgh Penguins will focus on the development around a proposed new downtown arena -- and not the arena itself.

Burkle is part-owner of Relativity Sports, which manages some NBA players' careers. Johnson said the conflict surfaced during a meeting with NBA commissioner David Stern and league owners in New York last week and "it won't slow us up."

Burkle had been expected to lead the development of a Sacramento arena. He also planned to join other wealthy investors trying to block a bid from a group that is hoping to buy and move the Kings to Seattle next season.

 

[THE HCP]

Their group definitely isn't as rock solid as Seattle's.

 

[jlprk]

They don't have the wealthiest people in Sacramento. Why don't they add some lobbyists and legislators?

 

[huevonkiller]

They don't have the wealthiest people in Sacramento. Why don't they add some lobbyists and legislators?

Sure, if they're willing to put up their own money.

 

[Sedatedfork]

New investor pops up for Sacramento

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2013/04/developer-joins-effort-to-keep-kings-in-sacramento/

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/09/5325689/mark-friedman-sacramento-kings.html

Not sure what to believe about the Sacramento proposal. Everything just seems so fluid over there. If I were the owners I think I would go with the more stable group. Who's to say whether EIS lawsuits threaten the Sacramento proposal or that the ownership group knows what they are doing.

 

[Rhal]

New investor pops up for Sacramento

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2013/04/developer-joins-effort-to-keep-kings-in-sacramento/

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/09/5325689/mark-friedman-sacramento-kings.html

Not sure what to believe about the Sacramento proposal. Everything just seems so fluid over there. If I were the owners I think I would go with the more stable group. Who's to say whether EIS lawsuits threaten the Sacramento proposal or that the ownership group knows what they are doing.

Its kinda weird that these investors weren't around when the maloofs tried to move the teams before.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[mobes23]

Basically all the Seattle sports talk radio guys think this wins it for Seattle. The talk is that the binding agreement for the arena is signed and the land already bought in Seattle. Meanwhile, they're still figuring out the ownership team in Sac. Gonna be a major blow to Seattle if they don't get it because they're starting to bank on it up here.

 

[Sedatedfork]

Speculation about expansion for Seattle

Greg Crawford ‏@wchoops 12h
THE LATEST: Some #NBA owners want Sacramento back and pushing hard for Seattle expansion team, big bucks to them if it happens #smartmove

 

[KeepOnRollin]

Speculation about expansion for Seattle

It seems everytime there is expansion in sports they bring two teams on for a reason. It keeps things balanced. I think you throw a monkey in a lot of things (usually scheduling-wise) if you don't have the same amount of teams in each conference.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Speculation about expansion for Seattle

The league desperately needs to contract, not expand. But good for them either way

 

[Natebishop3]

The league should be contracting New Orleans, Charlotte, and any other city that has consistently shown poor attendance/interest in the team. Not adding more teams.

 

[RR7]

It seems everytime there is expansion in sports they bring two teams on for a reason. It keeps things balanced. I think you throw a monkey in a lot of things (usually scheduling-wise) if you don't have the same amount of teams in each conference.

I think it's a bigg issue in NFL and MLB because of the make up of their seasons. If you had an odd number of teams in the NFL, you'd always have one team with a bye week, which doesn't work. If you had an odd number of teams in MLB, you'd have teams consistently having three days off in a row, because of the series schedule. In the NBA, it wouldn't matter as much, because their scheduling is so different. You don't have all the teams playing every night, or on the same nights.

They would, however, need to likely do away with divisions or something

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

The league should be contracting New Orleans, Charlotte, and any other city that has consistently shown poor attendance/interest in the team. Not adding more teams.

atlanta hawks?

washington wizards?

seattle supersonics when they were bad?

 

[santeesioux]

Don't forget the Pacers, they're pretty much near the bottom in attendance even though their team is one of the best in the league.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

Just let the Kings go. They are near the bottom of attendance as well. SEA wasn't in the bottom 5 when they left (if I recall correctly) and we know the new team will probably have sellouts for the first two years at least (at which point they move into the new arena).

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

yeah, until they suck and everyone realizes what a bandwagon fan base they were to begin with.

 

[santeesioux]

yeah, until they suck and everyone realizes what a bandwagon fan base they were to begin with.

The Mariners are setting record attendance as well.

Smallest crowd ever at Safeco: 10,745

 

[Natebishop3]

atlanta hawks?

washington wizards?

seattle supersonics when they were bad?

I said consistently. When has Charlotte or New Orleans EVER been successful at drawing a crowd? Both of those cities have lost a franchise once before, and yet they still do not support their teams. They do not deserve an NBA team.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

Maloof's give investors Friday deadline.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/9...s-sacramento-investors-friday-deadline-report

According to the report, the Maloofs have given investors until 5 p.m. PT Friday to submit a written, binding "back-up" offer that matches the deal the family has in place to sell the franchise to a group in Seattle, sources close to the deal told the newspaper.

 

[oldguy]

I said consistently. When has Charlotte or New Orleans EVER been successful at drawing a crowd? Both of those cities have lost a franchise once before, and yet they still do not support their teams. They do not deserve an NBA team.

Word!

Go Blazers

 

[jlprk]

I said consistently. When has Charlotte or New Orleans EVER been successful at drawing a crowd? Both of those cities have lost a franchise once before, and yet they still do not support their teams. They do not deserve an NBA team.

Huh? In their first incarnation, Charlotte was near the top every year in attendace.

 

[jlprk]

It seems everytime there is expansion in sports they bring two teams on for a reason. It keeps things balanced. I think you throw a monkey in a lot of things (usually scheduling-wise) if you don't have the same amount of teams in each conference.

I think it's a bigg issue in NFL and MLB because of the make up of their seasons. If you had an odd number of teams in the NFL, you'd always have one team with a bye week, which doesn't work. If you had an odd number of teams in MLB, you'd have teams consistently having three days off in a row, because of the series schedule. In the NBA, it wouldn't matter as much, because their scheduling is so different. You don't have all the teams playing every night, or on the same nights.

They would, however, need to likely do away with divisions or something

Huh? You haven't seen my posts about the abhorrence to 31 because it's such an odd number?

 

[mobes23]

I think that things might be going in favor of Sac. First, either the NBA or Maloofs (not clear which) has required that the Sac group give a binding offer to the Maloofs by close of business tomorrow/Friday. Second, the Sac Bee is reporting that the NBA is asking that the Sac group make Seattle whole for the $30M nonrefundable deposit it paid to the Maloofs. I'm actually surprised a binding offer hasn't already been made, but this means that the Sac group has to put up or shut up. If they put up, it's just another example where the NBA asks for something and Sac gives it. The more this happens, the more difficult it'll be to walk away from Sac. The Maloofs lose all leverage the second that the NBA rejects Seattle, so this allows the Maloofs to get the deal they need while they still have leverage.

It seems like Sac is somewhat in the drivers seat for keeping the team, assuming they continue to comply with the NBA demands. Of course, it's going to be pretty costly. On the other hand, if they balk at any NBA demands, then they're giving the NBA an excuse for allowing the team to move to Seattle.

Anxiety is pretty high in Seattle right now, that's for sure.

 

[RR7]

I said consistently. When has Charlotte or New Orleans EVER been successful at drawing a crowd? Both of those cities have lost a franchise once before, and yet they still do not support their teams. They do not deserve an NBA team.

Charlotte fans basically tuned out the team the last few years because of a terrible owner. They came into the league in 88/89 season. Their ranking in overall attendance:
1,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,6,11,21,29. And then they left. The year they were ranked 6 was the lockout shortened year, which was also I believe when Shinn went through a rape trial and started to become a cheap prick. So the fans said fuck you. But a decade of being #1 or 2 in the league in attendance is when they were very, very successful at drawing a crowd.

 

[jlprk]

the NBA is asking that the Sac group make Seattle whole for the $30M nonrefundable deposit it paid to the Maloofs...The Maloofs lose all leverage the second that the NBA rejects Seattle

Another simplification they should require: the Maloofs will not continue on as minority owners.

 

[THE HCP]

I think that things might be going in favor of Sac. First, either the NBA or Maloofs (not clear which) has required that the Sac group give a binding offer to the Maloofs by close of business tomorrow/Friday. Second, the Sac Bee is reporting that the NBA is asking that the Sac group make Seattle whole for the $30M nonrefundable deposit it paid to the Maloofs. I'm actually surprised a binding offer hasn't already been made, but this means that the Sac group has to put up or shut up. If they put up, it's just another example where the NBA asks for something and Sac gives it. The more this happens, the more difficult it'll be to walk away from Sac. The Maloofs lose all leverage the second that the NBA rejects Seattle, so this allows the Maloofs to get the deal they need while they still have leverage.

It seems like Sac is somewhat in the drivers seat for keeping the team, assuming they continue to comply with the NBA demands. Of course, it's going to be pretty costly. On the other hand, if they balk at any NBA demands, then they're giving the NBA an excuse for allowing the team to move to Seattle.

Anxiety is pretty high in Seattle right now, that's for sure.

The Maloofs have already said they want to sell to the Seattle group. How can the NBA tell them who they CAN or CAN'T sell to? It's ridiculous.All I know is the Seattle group seems 10X more solid and stable.

 

[mobes23]

The Maloofs have already said they want to sell to the Seattle group. How can the NBA tell them who they CAN or CAN'T sell to? It's ridiculous.All I know is the Seattle group seems 10X more solid and stable.

It's actually a really good question. The NBA only has the power to approve/reject the deal on the table...they can't require that the Maloofs sell to someone else. The other owners know they'll need/want to sell at some point and they have pretty good incentive not to railroad the Maloofs. Setting precedent here could cause big problems down the road. On the other hand, if a solid alternative with absolutely equivalent financial return to the selling owner is also on the table, then they might not worry about creating new precedent.

The key to this approach is that the alternative offer is (1) absolutely equivalent financially in terms of cash to the Maloofs and (2) that it's binding. If the Maloofs walk away with the same sizable check, then the other owners won't be too worried about the impact on themselves down the road.

In this case, the nonrefundable $30M that the Hansen group paid is also a big deal. If the Hansen group loses out on that $30M, then the NBA has completely alienated one of the strongest prospective ownership groups they'll ever see and they'd also be prime for a tortious interference claim. Tortious interference happens when someone disrupts the ability of a party to perform their obligations under a contract. In this case, it would be the NBA (and possibly others, including the Sac ownership group and local politicians) interfering with the purchase agreement between the Maloofs and Hansen's group. It would be a pretty strong case for the Hansen group and it's why they want the Sac group to pay that $30M to Hansen.

Bottomline, it just seems like the NBA is making a lot of effort to set things up so that Sac can keep the team, if they're willing to pay the price. The NBA could just as easily kick back and approve the Hansen group. All these extra steps show the NBA is trying hard to keep the team in Sac; although, I guess it's possible the Maloofs and owners are hoping that the extra drama ignites a bidding war.

 

[THE HCP]

So check this shit out! Seattle isn't messing around!


We would like to announce that we have reached an agreement with the Maloofs to raise the price we are offering to purchase the controlling interest in the Sacramento Kings NBA franchise by $25 million — from an enterprise value of $525 million to an enterprise value of $550 million.
While we already have a binding purchase agreement to purchase the controlling interest in the team, the Seattle Ownership Group has elected to voluntarily raise its purchase price as a sign of our commitment to bring basketball back to our City and our high degree of confidence in our Arena plan, our financing plan, the economic strength of the Seattle market, individual and corporate support for the team and, most importantly, the future of the NBA.
— Chris Hansen



Sent from HCPs Baller-Ass iPhone 5...FAMS!