Sacramento/Seattle Kings Update (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Stern says that Expansion has not been discussed at all YET. Not an option at this point. He left a small out on this saying yet but sounds like it won't happen.
 
Owners are going to meet late next week to finalize discussions and then from that date they have 7 days to vote. So 14 days or so from now before a decision.
 
Stern says both offers are in the same ballpark. Sounds like SEAs offer is higher however (this part is just me speculating though).
 
Stern says nothing wrong with SAC's offer but then says it isn't as complete as he would like yet.
 
No doubt about it, Stern wants the Kings to stay in Sacramento. Again, the timeline shifts to allow Sac to catch up to Seattle. I'd be pulling out my hair right now if I were a Sonics fan.

If the Kings stay in Sac and the NBA gives no expansion promise to Seattle, I actually wonder if the NBA will return to Seattle. The "process" that Stern and Silver keep talking about is so anti-Seattle that I could imagine they give up. If I were on the Hansen/Balmer squad, I'd either give up or I'd keep upping the bid just to make Stern miserable. Man, I'd love to be in a place to make Stern squirm. I think if I were Balmer, I'd increase the bid on Monday just to watch Stern continue to be in an awkward position.
 
Stern says nothing wrong with SAC's offer but then says it isn't as complete as he would like yet.

Stern also apparently said that Sac's offer would be complete by the close of business today or tomorrow. In other words, they're not putting the two deals on the table and making a decision. They're putting them on the table, identifying the Sac shortfall, calling Sac to lobby for improvement and waiting while Sac gets it's ducks in a row.

Could be just a way to fire up a bidding war, but it seems more like he's trying for a Sac win.
 
According to ESPN, the Maloofs favor deal with Seattle and have sent a letter out to other NBA owners


NEW YORK -- The battle for the future of the Sacramento Kings has evolved into a struggle between the team's current ownership and NBA commissioner David Stern.

The Maloof family, which has owned the majority of the team since 1999, is attempting to force through a deal that would move the Kings to Seattle and land them the most money in selling their shares.

Stern isn't openly on the opposite side of the issue. However, the powerful commissioner is holding the Maloofs to league procedures, and in the process, he's buying a competing bid from Sacramento valuable time to fill in gaps in its plan.

The Maloof family, which has owned the majority of the [Kings] since 1999, is attempting to force through a deal that would move the Kings to Seattle and land them the most money in selling their shares.
Several league ownership sources told ESPN.com there remain serious questions about the Sacramento group's financing for the team and for a new arena. Both were hastily put together in the past two months after the Maloofs caught everyone by surprise -- the league office and the city of Sacramento included -- when they announced a deal to sell the team to Seattle investors in January.

A rival Sacramento ownership group has changed its makeup several times but is now led by respected software magnate Vivek Ranadive. The Seattle group has deeper pockets and is led by billionaires Chris Hansen and Steve Ballmer, who is one of the richest men in the world. They have an arena deal that was approved by city and county officials last fall.

After the NBA owners completed their end-of-season meetings at a Manhattan hotel Friday, Stern said a final vote on the Kings' future would take place the week of May 6. A committee of 12 owners will make their recommendation on which way to vote after meetings next week. Originally, the owners had planned to finalize the Kings' situation on Friday, but the vote has been pushed back so the owners could further study the offers.

The jockeying ahead of that vote is in full swing.

The Maloofs sent a letter to NBA owners this week urging them to approve their deal with the Seattle group. The letter was obtained Friday by ESPN.com.




For many of the key points the Maloofs made in the letter, Stern had a counter.

• The Maloofs said the Seattle deal was richer, offering to pay $357 million for 65 percent of the team. The Sacramento offer is $341 million after the group did not match a recent higher bid by Hansen. Also, the Maloofs said they have not been given documentation that the Sacramento group has the money to execute the transaction. The Maloofs wrote the Seattle group has already put down a $30 million deposit. The Maloofs said the Sacramento group is offering a $15 million deposit but only after the Seattle offer was officially rejected.

Stern admitted Friday the Sacramento offer was not yet complete. But he downplayed the differences in the offers and said it was "in the ballpark" of the Seattle offer.

"I think it's not as complete as it probably is going to be by the close of business today or tomorrow," Stern said. "There is a down payment. ... We have had assurances of funding support and that has been documented to something in the neighborhood of 80 percent to our satisfaction."

• The Maloofs say the Sacramento offer is not legally binding and could leave them without a true backup plan if the Seattle offer is rejected by owners.

"It is binding," Stern said.

• Hansen has told owners he believes he could get his arena in Seattle completed by 2015 and potentially beat Sacramento's arena plan, which is in earlier stages. Owners could consider which city could get its arena operating more quickly -- thus generating more income that could be shared by the league -- in the vote.

Stern downplayed it, citing the league's longtime knowledge of arena deals.

"We have a fair amount of experience with arenas being built ... and so for us there's almost always a built-in slippage of some kind or another in most arena situations," Stern said. "We just have been focusing more on the fact that whether we're in Seattle or we're in Sacramento, we're going to be in a temporary building that is not adequate fully by NBA current standards for some period of time."

• In addition to writing the letter, George Maloof spoke to a small group of owners at a previous meeting in New York two weeks ago to appeal to it to accept the Seattle deal.

Stern made it clear Friday that the future of the Kings is up to all the owners, not the sellers of a single franchise.

"When a team wants to move, it becomes the province of the board, rather than ownership," Stern said. "That's why we have this constitutional provision, which has this rather labor-intensive process that is sort of weighing down on all of us as we go down the checklist, we get everything together."

Stern also denied he was taking sides in the matter. Recently, a Seattle television station reported Stern was working behind the scenes to block the Kings' move.

"There's no lobbying or campaigning going on by the league office," said Adam Silver, the league's deputy commissioner who will take over for Stern next year. "We are presenting the facts in a most full way we can to the owners."

What isn't in dispute is how challenging of an issue this is for the NBA. Stern described it as wrenching. With all the moving parts and the endless rounds of public and private maneuvering by all the parties, it still remains unclear as to which group has the edge.

"I think it's a huge decision for the league," Silver said. "It's two fantastic cities and it's a very difficult position that the owners find themselves in."
 
Sure seems like the NBA have given a LOT of extra time to the kings for reason that don't make a lot of sense. Sounds like Hansen is either going to have to up the amount he wants to pay by a decent amount if he wants to make sure the owners vote for the Seattle deal.
 
I still think Seattle wins this battle. Front office putting on a show to make it appear they gave Sacramento all the opportunities to keep the Kings. A lot of backlash in the media for letting the Sonics leave to OKC. Alot of people felt he didn't stand up whatsoever for them to stay in the 206!
 
Boy, the Maloofs better plan on never coming back to Sacramento...

(Of course, why would they? Why would anybody who doesn't actually work there?)
 
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.
 
Sure seems like the NBA have given a LOT of extra time to the kings for reason that don't make a lot of sense. Sounds like Hansen is either going to have to up the amount he wants to pay by a decent amount if he wants to make sure the owners vote for the Seattle deal.

Why would Hansen paying the Maloofs more influence the other owners in deciding the most profitable city to the league, long-term?
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

did you mean Sacremento?
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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
 
SEA is going to get the team. It is just going to take longer for everyone to get the answer.
 
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.
 
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.

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?
 
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/
 
Last edited:
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top