Sacramento Kings sold , moving to Seattle

[herbert henry1908]

Also worth pointing out the NBA can't force any owners into certain sale agreements. They can only vote on a proposed sale.

Typically sales are only rejected if the proper financing isn't in place. If there was a genuine potential buyer that would keep the team in SAC they would have made an offer by now. The maloofs have been shopping the team to other cities for at least 2 years. They're in serious financial trouble.

Relocations are rarely rejected either because again they are voted on by the other owners. One day they may want to move their team as well.

 

[Haffa]

It sucks , I know. But that's the NBA.

Fact is SAC took the team from Kansas city. Kansas city took the team from rochester.


When the SAC consortium bought the team in the 80s they did the same thing clay Bennett did to Seattle. They tried to make out all the time they were gong to keep the team in KC , then without notice announced they were moving to SAC.

Maybe only a small difference but at least the Seattle consortium has been up front about its intentions from day one.

Some of the moust famous clubs in american sports have moved cities.

The Yankess were originally the Baltimore orioles.

The lakers were from Minnesota

The SF Giants from new York

The LA dodgers from brooklyn

The Baltimore colts moved to Indianapolis. Now they have the ravens in the super bowl.



The Seattle Supersonics drafted a player who may one day be amongst the top 10 of all time. Then we had our team rippped away.

It's just the way American sport is.

KC didn't even bat an eye-lid when the Kings left. It's hardly the same thing. Outside of the ravens/colts/browns All those teams moved for expansion years ago.

 

[herbert henry1908]

KC didn't even bat an eye-lid when the Kings left. It's hardly the same thing. Outside of the ravens/colts/browns All those teams moved for expansion years ago.

So that makes it ok that Sac took the kings? Honestly what goes around comes around.


And there are heaps of recent examples of teams moving.

Hornets to NO
Oilers to Tennessee
Sonics to OKC
Rams to st loius ( after 50+ years in LA)
Raiders to LA then back to Oakland
Grizz to Memphis
Expos to Washington
Nets to brooklyn


It's just the way in America.

 

[Haffa]

Typically sales are only rejected if the proper financing isn't in place. If there was a genuine potential buyer that would keep the team in SAC they would have made an offer by now. The maloofs have been shopping the team to other cities for at least 2 years. They're in serious financial trouble.

This isn't true at all. The Maloufs have maintained that the Kings aren't for sale until they sold them. Ron Burkle a SAC billionaire offered to buy them last year.

David Stern, the SAC mayor and the Maloufs agreed to a stadium deal last year but it was pulled at the last minute by the Maloufs due bullshit reasons. Burkle looked at the deal and said he'd buy the Kings and take the deal. The Maloufs insisted the Kings weren't for sale.

 

[Haffa]

So that makes it ok that Sac took the kings? Honestly what goes around comes around.


And there are heaps of recent examples of teams moving.

Hornets to NO
Oilers to Tennessee
Sonics to OKC
Rams to st loius ( after 50+ years in LA)
Raiders to LA then back to Oakland
Grizz to Memphis
Expos to Washington
Nets to brooklyn


It's just the way in America.

No, but that makes it ok for Seattle to take them? Especially after the way they've lobbied since the move to OKC?

:roll: what goes around comes around? You do realise we are talking about different owners.

40 years old 4 towns. 28 years in one of them.

 

[herbert henry1908]

This isn't true at all. The Maloufs have maintained that the Kings aren't for sale until they sold them. Ron Burkle a SAC billionaire offered to buy them last year.

David Stern, the SAC mayor and the Maloufs agreed to a stadium deal last year but it was pulled at the last minute by the Maloufs due bullshit reasons. Burkle looked at the deal and said he'd buy the Kings and take the deal. The Maloufs insisted the Kings weren't for sale.

We don't know what the burkle offer was though.

Clearly the maloufs are in financial trouble and need the most money possible. They are entitled to sell their share of the business to the highest bidder.

 

[herbert henry1908]

No, but that makes it ok for Seattle to take them? Especially after the way they've lobbied since the move to OKC?

:roll: what goes around comes around? You do realise we are talking about different owners.

40 years old 4 towns. 28 years in one of them.

What makes it ok is that's the rules. The owner decides where a team will play subject to NBA approval. I know it sucks for the fans but as I've said repeatedly that's the way of American pro sports.

In regards to Seattle taking them Chris Hansen has been 100% up front about his intentions. Unlike the group who initially bought the kings from KC and unlike clay Bennett who bought the sonics.

And I realise the owners are different but you're the one talking about the 28 year history in the city of SAC. Fact is the supporters that are pissed off now got their team by taking it from another city.


And the team is 68 years old not 40.

 

[Haffa]

We don't know what the burkle offer was though.

Clearly the maloufs are in financial trouble and need the most money possible. They are entitled to sell their share of the business to the highest bidder.

Either do the Maloofs. They've denied the team are for sale and are only selling to a Seattle bidder to get back at SAC for the Anaheim failed move.

They are. But that's not what they're doing.

David Stern met with Burkle Thursday . I guess we will see what happens when the governors meet. It's not a done deal yet.

 

[Haffa]

What makes it ok is that's the rules. The owner decides where a team will play subject to NBA approval. I know it sucks for the fans but as I've said repeatedly that's the way of American pro sports.

In regards to Seattle taking them Chris Hansen has been 100% up front about his intentions. Unlike the group who initially bought the kings from KC and unlike clay Bennett who bought the sonics.

And I realise the owners are different but you're the one talking about the 28 year history in the city of SAC. Fact is the supporters that are pissed off now got their team by taking it from another city.


And the team is 68 years old not 40.

Ok, I guess you're ok with OKC then. Most Seattle fans I've spoken to have said "not like this" or expansion team instead of taking a team from another city.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Either do the Maloofs. They've denied the team are for sale and are only selling to a Seattle bidder to get back at SAC for the Anaheim failed move.

They are. But that's not what they're doing.

David Stern met with Burkle Thursday . I guess we will see what happens when the governors meet. It's not a done deal yet.

At the time the maloufs we're still exploring other options for moving the team. ( to Virginia)

And just because they said something publicly doesn't make it so. Who knows how many people approached them behind the scenes.


Burkles meeting with stern was supposedly about the future for the NBA iN sac. Not specifically about the kings.

It isn't a 100% done deal but it's as close to that as possible. There is a signed agreement between the Seattle group and the maloufs. The Seattle buyers have serious money so they won't be rejected on those grounds.

The NBA can reject the Seattle group but they can't force the maloufs to sell to anyone else.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Ok, I guess you're ok with OKC then. Most Seattle fans I've spoken to have said "not like this" or expansion team instead of taking a team from another city.

It sucked , but as I've said over and over it's a reality in American sports.

Obviously my preferred option would be to get an expansion team. But with the American economy the way it is expansion is a long way off.

And there is the issue of the 5 year agreement between the city and Bennett in terms of bringing the supersonics name & shared history back. That is due to expire very shortly.

And again this whole 'not like this' issue is BS. Hansen was openly shopping for a team to move to Seattle. Nothing cloak and dagger about it.

 

[skeepe]

At the time the maloufs we're still exploring other options for moving the team. ( to Virginia)

And just because they said something publicly doesn't make it so. Who knows how many people approached them behind the scenes.


Burkles meeting with stern was supposedly about the future for the NBA iN sac. Not specifically about the kings.

It isn't a 100% done deal but it's as close to that as possible. There is a signed agreement between the Seattle group and the maloufs. The Seattle buyers have serious money so they won't be rejected on those grounds.

The NBA can reject the Seattle group but they can't force the maloufs to sell to anyone else.

Not quite done yet....

A bankruptcy trustee who controls 7 percent of the Sacramento Kings says the team's limited partners are being denied their legal right to match a Seattle investment group's purchase offer for the team.

The assertion by trustee David Flemmer could present a major legal challenge to the Maloof family as it attempts to complete its just-announced sale of the team to a group that intends to move it to Seattle.

Flemmer, the court-appointed trustee overseeing the 7 percent share of the Kings owned by team limited partner Bob Cook, said Cook and other minority owners have "first right of refusal" to buy the club. He said that right is guaranteed in the partnership agreements governing ownership of the team.

That means the limited partners should be allowed to match the deal that the majority owners, the Maloofs, have struck with the group headed by hedge fund manager Chris Hansen.

Flemmer wouldn't go into details on legal strategy but said he plans to assert the limited partners' rights at a hearing next Thursday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Sacramento.

http://www.sportsbusinessnews.com/c...-buy-sacramento-kings-bankruptcy-trustee-says

 

[Haffa]

:lol:

 

[herbert henry1908]

:lol:

Well , the descion has nothing to do with the maloofs. They favoured selling the team to the Seattle group.


Disappointing , but Sacramento put up a good fight to keep their team. Well done to them.


I'm confident Seattle will have a team in the near future.

 

[Haffa]

If you've got the Maloofs in your corner, it was never going to end well. Everything they touch turns to shit.

I expect you'll have an expansion team in the next year or two. It's inevitable.

 

[herbert henry1908]

It's hard to say on expansion. There are a lot of teams struggling already , will they want to add more teams to that?


Btw , the Sacramento deal isn't quite over yet. The relocation committee has voted in favour of sac , however they are yet to vote on the proposed sale to the Seattle group.

Traditionally sales have only been refused on financial grounds. Something which isn't an issue with the Seattle group.

We could still end up with a situation where the seattle group get ownership of the kings and file for relocation again in 12 months.

Alternatively the Sac group may not pony up the money required to buy the team.

Don't get me wrong Sac are in a strong position , but this isn't quite over.

 

[herbert henry1908]

statement from the lead owner of the seattle group,

While we are disappointed with the relocation committee’s recommendation, we just wanted to let you all know that we remain fully committed to seeing this transaction through. As you are all well aware, we have a binding transaction to purchase the Kings for what would be a record price for an NBA franchise, have one of the best ownership groups ever assembled to purchase a professional sports team in the US, have clearly demonstrated that we have a much more solid Arena plan, have offered a much higher price than the yet to be finalized Sacramento Group, and have placed all of the funds to close the transaction into escrow. As such, we plan to unequivocally state our case for both relocation and our plan to move forward with the transaction to the league and owners at the upcoming Board of Governor’s Meeting in Mid-May.

When we started this process everyone thought it was impossible. While this represents yet another obstacle to achieving our goal, I just wanted to reassure all of you that we have numerous options at our disposal and have absolutely no plans to give up. Impossible is nothing but a state of mind.
“Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.” ―Muhammad Ali
[FONT=New Century Schoolbook, Century Schoolbook, Georgia, serif]—Chris Hansen[/FONT]

[FONT=New Century Schoolbook, Century Schoolbook, Georgia, serif]

[/FONT][FONT=New Century Schoolbook, Century Schoolbook, Georgia, serif]http://www.sonicsarena.com/news/to-the-sonics-faithful[/FONT]

 

[Haffa]

No one knows what to say in the loser’s locker room.

When Hansen says its a record price that’s not really true. He keeps touting the big valuation in an attempt to make his deal look perfect, but he’s not writing a check anywhere near the size of what Lacob paid out for GSW. He’s not even paying as much out of pocket as Pera/Memphis. All PR talk meant to mislead.

 

[herbert henry1908]

When Hansen says its a record price that?s not really true. He keeps touting the big valuation in an attempt to make his deal look perfect, but he?s not writing a check anywhere near the size of what Lacob paid out for GSW. He?s not even paying as much out of pocket as Pera/Memphis. All PR talk meant to mislead.

Well the price he's paying makes it a record valuation. Ie. he's only buying 65% or so.


The thing about it is tough , he's willing to pay that amount. If the maloofs can't sell to him they'll lose money. I doubt they're happy about that.

Hansen also has paid a $30 million non refundable deposit. He has a contract to buy the majority of the club.

The issues arise if the NBA step in to reject that contract.

 

[Haffa]

Well the price he's paying makes it a record valuation. Ie. he's only buying 65% or so.


The thing about it is tough , he's willing to pay that amount. If the maloofs can't sell to him they'll lose money. I doubt they're happy about that.

Hansen also has paid a $30 million non refundable deposit. He has a contract to buy the majority of the club.

The issues arise if the NBA step in to reject that contract.

But it's still not the record amount paid. Vivek and co have said they'll match his offer, and will put 50% into escrow (more than Hanson) by friday.

The $30 million non-refundable means what to the NBA? Sac bid has already said they'll match.