Sacramento/Seattle Kings Update (2 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Rhal said:
@WojYahooNBA: The NBA committees have voted no to relocation of Kings to Seattle, sources tell Y! Sports.



Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

WOWSERS! This is crazy. Stern strikes again!
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Marc Stein ‏@ESPNSteinLine

https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine/status/328977951871860737 Sources say today's NBA committee vote against moving Kings out of Sacramento was unanimous

Adrian Wojnarowski ‏@WojYahooNBAhttps://twitter.com/WojYahooNBA/status/328978192624930816

https://twitter.com/WojYahooNBA/status/328978192624930816
Combined relocation and finance committees will pass on recommendation to overall ownership body and they will honor vote. The Kings stay.
Click to expand...

In theory couldn't Hansen and the SEA group still buy the Kings yet keep them in SAC for the foreseeable future? Their NBA bid was still the best one for the Maloofs.
 
KeepOnRollin said:
In theory couldn't Hansen and the SEA group still buy the Kings yet keep them in SAC for the foreseeable future? Their NBA bid was still the best one for the Maloofs.
Click to expand...

They could and they could keep applyng for relocation every year

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
 
westnob said:
What do you mean? all of these are appropriate. Especially this one. I'm educating and I'm informing... on the mob. I bet you didn't see that one coming. that's what she said. Well now... How is the weather in Idaho? Do you guys get tired of that joke about you guys being hoes? I know we don't here.poop/fart.doodie.
Click to expand...

Hmmm interesting response. I dont have a problem with any of it nor agree or disagree. Simply an observation. Carry on.
 
huevonkiller said:
I commend your input Zybot.

Let me just ask a few questions, and make a few comments, if you don't mind.
Click to expand...


huevonkiller said:
Define "personal guarantee".
Click to expand...
As I understand it, if the bond defaults the City can collect the default against Hansen and maybe others personally. Also, if there are cost overruns, that is Hansen's problem too.

http://www.seattlepi.com/sports/article/Chris-Hansen-personally-guarantees-Sodo-arena-3856793.php

Also, there are several protections in place.

http://www.sonicsarena.com/info/sonics-arena-faq

Several layers of protection exist for the City and County throughout the term of the bonds. The Investor Group is responsible for any shortfalls in Arena tax revenue, and is obligated to protect the City and County General Funds from any exposure to Arena-related debt obligations. To supplement this guarantee, the Investor Group will fund a reserve account equal to one year’s worth of City/County debt service payments, and will increase the reserve amount any time the Arena does not generate at least double the revenue necessary to pay one year’s debt service. Furthermore, the Investor Group’s equity investment in the Arena and NBA franchise will serve as collateral against the City’s contribution
Click to expand...

huevonkiller said:
Similar sure, but not the same.

Your hypothetical case involves my money, which is very different. I get to do what I want with my money.
Click to expand...
My point is that there has to be an investor who wants to make the partnership with the City and make the personal guarantee for there to be a comparable situation. They will usually only do this if there is money to be made. I don't think there is any money to be made in the public oriented goals you are talking about, but I could be wrong. I am not a billionaire either, so I have never really looked into it.

huevonkiller said:
Just to clear up any confusion, please define opportunity cost.

I certainly agree that there are no other opportunities currently to extend credit by billionaires.... Or are there? You tell me, are you sure?
Click to expand...

Well, I mean that the odds that these portions of the city's credit were going to be used are extremely minimal. By the city extending this credit, they are not losing out on any realistic opportunities that I can conceive of. This credit is more akin to rainy day credit that is never used. They are still leaving additional rainy day credit so even if something extraordinary happens, there should not be any major problems for the City. So there is not any realistic lost opportunity for the city to have used their credit for some other worthwhile goal. It was never going to be used. I think I heard on the radio some months ago that there is $900 million in available credit, and the City is using $200 million for this deal. I could be wrong, but that is what I recall.
 
KeepOnRollin said:
In theory couldn't Hansen and the SEA group still buy the Kings yet keep them in SAC for the foreseeable future? Their NBA bid was still the best one for the Maloofs.
Click to expand...
I guess so. Then they could pull a Clay Bennett. If I were Hansen though I would just say no.
 
Zybot said:
I guess so. Then they could pull a Clay Bennett. If I were Hansen though I would just say no.
Click to expand...

Most say that there is no hope of expansion for at least 5 years. So another team would have to apply for relocation if Hansen passes on this deal to buy the Kings.

Will another team bother to try to relocate, in the near future, to SEA after this vote was so unanimous? I don't think so.
 
KeepOnRollin said:
Most say that there is no hope of expansion for at least 5 years. So another team would have to apply for relocation if Hansen passes on this deal to buy the Kings.

Will another team bother to try to relocate, in the near future, to SEA after this vote was so unanimous? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
But Sacramento says they are going to build a new arena. If the Kings don't relocate this year, there is no way they relocate after building a new arena. Maybe he will buy the team and see if Sacramento makes good on their arena deal.
 
Zybot said:
But Sacramento says they are going to build a new arena. If the Kings don't relocate this year, there is no way they relocate after building a new arena. Maybe he will buy the team and see if Sacramento makes good on their arena deal.
Click to expand...

Besides bowing out that is the only other option I see for them. The SAC arena deal is not perfect according to a lot of reports. So maybe they gamble that it will fall through with the city.
 
So what happens if new final proposal is seen as a joke and they reject that as well? Now that the Seattle group is essentially out of it (unless he wants to look like Bennett) they don't have any real incentive to solidify/increase their offer. Could this mean 1 more year of shitty Maloof ownership?
 
porkchopexpress said:
So what happens if new final proposal is seen as a joke and they reject that as well? Now that the Seattle group is essentially out of it (unless he wants to look like Bennett) they don't have any real incentive to solidify/increase their offer. Could this mean 1 more year of shitty Maloof ownership?
Click to expand...

And what happens to the 30 MIL nonrefundable deposit that SEA paid to the Maloofs? I think someone (maybe even the NBA themselves) should have to pay Hansen back for that. And yes I know what nonrefundable means however this seems almost like collusion to undermine SEAs bid.
 
Last edited:
You are not going to be able to make both cities happy. Why don't they just disband the Kings? Problem solved.
 
Wow, this is going to get pretty interesting. Wonder if Hansen will stay level headed or get PO'd and blow things up. He's got some interesting decisions to make...
 
Buy the Kings, trade everyone for table scraps, and tank until nobody wants to watch the team anymore.

It worked in Charlotte.

It worked in Seattle.

It will work in Sacramento.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Buy the Kings, trade everyone for table scraps, and tank until nobody wants to watch the team anymore.

It worked in Charlotte.

It worked in Seattle.

It will work in Sacramento.
Click to expand...

DeMarcus Cousins for the 10th pick!
 
Relocation only required 50% approval...sale to Hansen requires more votes. If relocation went down, Hansen probably will too.
 
I'd love to know what will happen to that $30M deposit.
 
mobes23 said:
Relocation only required 50% approval...sale to Hansen requires more votes. If relocation went down, Hansen probably will too.
Click to expand...

I don't think the NBA has ever turned down a viable sale deal though. They may require less votes on moving but they are more worried about teams moving then they are about owners getting as much money as they can in a sale.

This one is more complicated of course since they know Hansen wants to move but if he guaranteed that he would stay if the city of SAC really did step up to the plate then they would likely approve him and his higher bid. A lot of ifs however and maybe something Hansen isn't prepared to promise.
 
KeepOnRollin said:
I don't think the NBA has ever turned down a viable sale deal though. They may require less votes on moving but they are more worried about teams moving then they are about owners getting as much money as they can in a sale.

This one is more complicated of course since they know Hansen wants to move but if he guaranteed that he would stay if the city of SAC really did step up to the plate then they would likely approve him and his higher bid. A lot of ifs however and maybe something Hansen isn't prepared to promise.
Click to expand...

The NBA doesn't want a Seattle owner group to control the Sacramento team -- they're working it behind the scenes to try and make that not happen. Probably, they are trying to convince Hansen and Balmer to play nice if they ever want to get a team and retract the offer. We don't know exactly what is on the table with Sac's offer...is it the same or ballpark? I'm guessing the NBA, when all is said and done, will want to be sure that the Maloof and Hansen are not out of pocket, which mean:

1. Hansen gets his $30M back. It could be that Stern convinces the Maloofs to refund it and the Sac group simultaneously agrees to pay $30M to the Maloofs. The Maloofs don't have to do this, strictly speaking. Somehow the NBA will need to make the Hansen group whole and it'll be interesting to see how they do it.

2. Maloofs make the same return from Sac as they would have from the Seattle offer. Did Sac exactly match? If not, how will the Maloofs get trued up?
 
Anyone think expansion was part of the discussion? My gut says no, but that would be the easy way out.
 
mobes23 said:
Anyone think expansion was part of the discussion? My gut says no, but that would be the easy way out.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't there need to be another expansion team to like Vancouver or Kansas City? Having an odd number of teams would be weird.
 
On PTI they just said that the 'chatter' is that the Bucks could be next to potentially move to Seattle. Not sure where this chatter was coming from, so this could be a whole lot of nothing.
 
mobes23 said:
The NBA doesn't want a Seattle owner group to control the Sacramento team -- they're working it behind the scenes to try and make that not happen. Probably, they are trying to convince Hansen and Balmer to play nice if they ever want to get a team and retract the offer. We don't know exactly what is on the table with Sac's offer...is it the same or ballpark? I'm guessing the NBA, when all is said and done, will want to be sure that the Maloof and Hansen are not out of pocket, which mean:

1. Hansen gets his $30M back. It could be that Stern convinces the Maloofs to refund it and the Sac group simultaneously agrees to pay $30M to the Maloofs. The Maloofs don't have to do this, strictly speaking. Somehow the NBA will need to make the Hansen group whole and it'll be interesting to see how they do it.

2. Maloofs make the same return from Sac as they would have from the Seattle offer. Did Sac exactly match? If not, how will the Maloofs get trued up?
Click to expand...

Ballpark is exactly the word the NBA used. The SAC offer is in the same "ballpark" as the SEA offer Stern said. However that was based off of the original offer SEA proposed. Then SEA went up something like 35 MIL voluntarily and SAC declined to match. So SAC is at least 35 MIL under the SEA offer and maybe more depending on what you consider in the same "ballpark".

35 MIL (or more) is nothing to sniff at especially to the cash-strapped Maloofs.
 
mobes23 said:
Anyone think expansion was part of the discussion? My gut says no, but that would be the easy way out.
Click to expand...

Stern said it is "not even in the discuss for the foreseeable future". He did backtrack and say it wasn't discussed "yet" though.
 
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: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top