ImageImageImageImageImage

Mark Mastrov

Moderators: ICMTM, Wolfay

User avatar
wiff
Head Coach
Posts: 6,902
And1: 5
Joined: Jul 22, 2006
Location: Gettin da boot!

Re: Mark Mastrov 

Post#41 » by wiff » Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:12 am

eagereyez wrote:The city of Seattle was still paying for two new stadiums for the Mariners and Seahawks at the time Bennett demanded a new one for the Sonics. It was ridiculous to expect the city to cover most of the costs for a new arena during a recession, while still paying off two other arenas. You can't ask us to throw the entire city into even greater debt when our public utilities needed revamping as well. Seattle is a very sensible and environmentally conscious place. The only way a new arena would be approved at this time in Seattle is if a group fronted most of the costs, which is what Hansens group has promised. We have enough billionaires in Washington that finding someone to do this shouldn't have been difficult, going back to 2008. It wouldn't have been hard for Bennett to find other investors to help him meet the costs for a new arena, but he had every intention to move the Sonics to OKC and never gave anyone else a chance. David Stern seemed to be compliant in that as well. As much as I loved our Sonics my hate for the NBA is almost equivalent in scale. If the Kings didn't come to Seattle I wouldn't be sad for a second because **** David Stern and Clay Bennett, it should be Durant and Westbrook leading the Sonics to the NBA finals, not the Thunder.


Bennett showed up to state legislation with an arena offer that was laughable and incomplete. There are high schoolers who work harder on their homeworks than what Clay Bennett was offering up. Basically it said you build us a 500mil state of the art arena". As owner(s) of the team we will put in ZERO dollars for a new arena and cover ZERO percent of any over costs.

Well hell, where does the general public sign the dotted line on this great bargain? His offer and effort was laughable in keeping the Sonics in Seattle. There were plenty of options up here if he was willing to work with someone, ANYONE. Not once did he ever make contact with a group who was committed to keeping the Sonics in Seattle called "Save Our Sonics".

In fact if you watch the first interview where he buys the team someone asks ""what is going to happen if you can't get a new arena deal"? He replies with, "well then we'll m.... ah look at other options in keeping them here".

He fully caught himself from letting the cat out of the bag.

Any as much as I want a new NBA team I do hope you guys can figure out a way to keep your team in Sacramento. It's sucks to lose you team.
User avatar
SacTown Kings
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,659
And1: 35
Joined: May 12, 2003

Re: Mark Mastrov 

Post#42 » by SacTown Kings » Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:51 am

I lived in Seattle during those times and the Sonics were my 2nd favorite team. I obviously want the Kings to stay in Sacramento and I'm sure that if they do Seattle will eventually get a team within the next couple years. If the Kings move I doubt Sacramento will ever get an NBA team. We'd probably have better luck getting the Raiders or A's. So if the Kings stay I think it will work out best for everyone. And nobody here hates Seattle or it's fans we all know it's the Maloofs fault. Sacramento has done everything they have been asked to do. Why should we get burned because of a bunch of spiteful irrational people like the Maloofs.
VeeJay24
Starter
Posts: 2,053
And1: 5
Joined: Feb 19, 2002
Location: Washington DC
     

Re: Mark Mastrov 

Post#43 » by VeeJay24 » Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:01 pm

wiff wrote:
eagereyez wrote:The city of Seattle was still paying for two new stadiums for the Mariners and Seahawks at the time Bennett demanded a new one for the Sonics. It was ridiculous to expect the city to cover most of the costs for a new arena during a recession, while still paying off two other arenas. You can't ask us to throw the entire city into even greater debt when our public utilities needed revamping as well. Seattle is a very sensible and environmentally conscious place. The only way a new arena would be approved at this time in Seattle is if a group fronted most of the costs, which is what Hansens group has promised. We have enough billionaires in Washington that finding someone to do this shouldn't have been difficult, going back to 2008. It wouldn't have been hard for Bennett to find other investors to help him meet the costs for a new arena, but he had every intention to move the Sonics to OKC and never gave anyone else a chance. David Stern seemed to be compliant in that as well. As much as I loved our Sonics my hate for the NBA is almost equivalent in scale. If the Kings didn't come to Seattle I wouldn't be sad for a second because **** David Stern and Clay Bennett, it should be Durant and Westbrook leading the Sonics to the NBA finals, not the Thunder.


Bennett showed up to state legislation with an arena offer that was laughable and incomplete. There are high schoolers who work harder on their homeworks than what Clay Bennett was offering up. Basically it said you build us a 500mil state of the art arena". As owner(s) of the team we will put in ZERO dollars for a new arena and cover ZERO percent of any over costs.

Well hell, where does the general public sign the dotted line on this great bargain? His offer and effort was laughable in keeping the Sonics in Seattle. There were plenty of options up here if he was willing to work with someone, ANYONE. Not once did he ever make contact with a group who was committed to keeping the Sonics in Seattle called "Save Our Sonics".

In fact if you watch the first interview where he buys the team someone asks ""what is going to happen if you can't get a new arena deal"? He replies with, "well then we'll m.... ah look at other options in keeping them here".

He fully caught himself from letting the cat out of the bag.

Any as much as I want a new NBA team I do hope you guys can figure out a way to keep your team in Sacramento. It's sucks to lose you team.


Well, why did Howard Schultz sell the team? I thought he sold due to the fact that he couldn't get a deal done to build an arena?
Sportz Gza
User avatar
boogie-reke
Head Coach
Posts: 6,914
And1: 235
Joined: Nov 05, 2010
   

Re: Mark Mastrov 

Post#44 » by boogie-reke » Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:19 am

Burkle is back in action per Amick, and he's favoring the downtown plaza arena.

There's also reports about another billionaire "whale" potentially in the mix - alot of people suggesting it's Eli Broad(Carmichael Dave has his picture as his twitter avatar) - which if true, is freaking amazing.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nb ... a/1843587/
“Its my 2nd year of losing and Im not trying to get used to this.I didnt want to get use to it last year.I had enough of it. Its time to turn it around”
-DeMarcus Cousins

“Rookie or not- Im not letting anybody relax"
-Thomas Robinson
VeeJay24
Starter
Posts: 2,053
And1: 5
Joined: Feb 19, 2002
Location: Washington DC
     

Re: Mark Mastrov 

Post#45 » by VeeJay24 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:29 pm

That's good news!!!!
Sportz Gza
User avatar
pillwenney
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 47,245
And1: 953
Joined: Sep 19, 2004
Location: Avidly reading pstyousuck.blogspot.com/
Contact:
 

Re: Mark Mastrov 

Post#46 » by pillwenney » Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:36 pm

I'm not so sure how it is. The league can't make the Maloofs sell to Burkle, who we already know they don't want to sell to.

I mean, right?
User avatar
boogie-reke
Head Coach
Posts: 6,914
And1: 235
Joined: Nov 05, 2010
   

Re: Mark Mastrov 

Post#47 » by boogie-reke » Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:38 am

They can do whatever they want, in theory - iirc there's the "for the good of the league" thing that is basically a "do whatever we want" rule.

Question is will they want to do that.
“Its my 2nd year of losing and Im not trying to get used to this.I didnt want to get use to it last year.I had enough of it. Its time to turn it around”
-DeMarcus Cousins

“Rookie or not- Im not letting anybody relax"
-Thomas Robinson
kevin44
Senior
Posts: 674
And1: 3
Joined: Dec 17, 2003

Re: Mark Mastrov 

Post#48 » by kevin44 » Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:42 pm

It's too late now. The deal is done & locals would be crazy to pay 525 million for 65% of this team. The whole team is only worth 300 million. We need to get local buyers together & start planning a new arena in hopes of getting the next expansion team.
Inigo_Montoya
Pro Prospect
Posts: 865
And1: 42
Joined: Jun 07, 2012
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Mark Mastrov 

Post#49 » by Inigo_Montoya » Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:56 pm

The offer was 341 million for 65% of the team.
OGSactownballer
Analyst
Posts: 3,142
And1: 28
Joined: Oct 02, 2005

Re: Mark Mastrov 

Post#50 » by OGSactownballer » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:06 am

See, this is what I have been trying to point out over and over again.

The Maloofs are NOT getting 525 million for 65%.

They ARE getting more than hey should and this just goes to prove that they are underhanded gutless crooks. The difference to the full 525 million is the nearly two hundred million dollars owed to Sacramento and the NBA that is due upon sale. They have hooked the Ballmer group into ponying up that cash just to have a shot at a team, and essentially letting the Magoofs off Scott free.

Local ownership would be able to work a new deal for the money owed the city and also pay off the NBA loan at their regular rate so basically the only thing that needs to be met is an arena deal and beating the 341 price for their and Bob Whatshisnames shares.
Inigo_Montoya
Pro Prospect
Posts: 865
And1: 42
Joined: Jun 07, 2012
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Mark Mastrov 

Post#51 » by Inigo_Montoya » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:43 am

User avatar
ADoaN17
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,984
And1: 298
Joined: Feb 11, 2010
   

Re: Mark Mastrov 

Post#52 » by ADoaN17 » Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:39 am

Nice. Hopefully KJ can get 1 more big investor.
Image
kevin44
Senior
Posts: 674
And1: 3
Joined: Dec 17, 2003

Re: Mark Mastrov 

Post#53 » by kevin44 » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:22 pm

If the Maloofs receive the 30 million deposit on Feb 1 as planned it's over. Stern knows he has to be careful because he doesn't want a lawsuit. If Stern can delay or stop the 30 million non refundable payment we have a chance still. Watching the news last night they talking about a chance the Maloofs will walk away from Arco & the 77 million they owe to the bond holders.
jdbraver
Ballboy
Posts: 18
And1: 0
Joined: Feb 22, 2005
Contact:

Re: Mark Mastrov 

Post#54 » by jdbraver » Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:12 pm

kevin44 wrote:If the Maloofs receive the 30 million deposit on Feb 1 as planned it's over. Stern knows he has to be careful because he doesn't want a lawsuit. If Stern can delay or stop the 30 million non refundable payment we have a chance still. Watching the news last night they talking about a chance the Maloofs will walk away from Arco & the 77 million they owe to the bond holders.


Says who? You? And you are?
User avatar
Dustin5566
Veteran
Posts: 2,777
And1: 7
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: Mark Mastrov 

Post#55 » by Dustin5566 » Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:14 pm

kevin44 wrote:If the Maloofs receive the 30 million deposit on Feb 1 as planned it's over. Stern knows he has to be careful because he doesn't want a lawsuit. If Stern can delay or stop the 30 million non refundable payment we have a chance still. Watching the news last night they talking about a chance the Maloofs will walk away from Arco & the 77 million they owe to the bond holders.


So wrong...

To simplify..Think about buying a house from the owner. Owners agree and sale you the house, however, it is up to the bank to approve the sale or not. If you give the owners $5,000 as a "down-payment" do you think the bank gives a s**t about your personal agreement? NOPE!

Same goes with the NBA, Hanson can give the Maloofs whatever they want in a contract, doesn't matter, that is his bad. He knows the rules. The sale is CONTINGENT UPON....NBA approval.

My guess is the 30 million was just to get the Maloofs to stop complaining and sign.
Image
VeeJay24
Starter
Posts: 2,053
And1: 5
Joined: Feb 19, 2002
Location: Washington DC
     

Re: Mark Mastrov 

Post#56 » by VeeJay24 » Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:57 pm

kevin44 wrote:It's too late now. The deal is done & locals would be crazy to pay 525 million for 65% of this team. The whole team is only worth 300 million. We need to get local buyers together & start planning a new arena in hopes of getting the next expansion team.


Hey kevin 44, I don't know who you are but you can't be a resident of Sacramento or a fan of the Kings! Please stop posting negativity and trying to get people to give up and think this is hopeless!!

Your negativity and doubt is an indicator that you are really on the other side of this and I personally think it does a disservice to the residents of Sacramento.
Sportz Gza
User avatar
SacTown Kings
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,659
And1: 35
Joined: May 12, 2003

Re: Mark Mastrov 

Post#57 » by SacTown Kings » Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:51 am

kevin44 wrote:If the Maloofs receive the 30 million deposit on Feb 1 as planned it's over. Stern knows he has to be careful because he doesn't want a lawsuit. If Stern can delay or stop the 30 million non refundable payment we have a chance still. Watching the news last night they talking about a chance the Maloofs will walk away from Arco & the 77 million they owe to the bond holders.


Kevin Stern isn't concerned about a lawsuit.The Maloofs threaten a lawsuit last year and Stern politely replied that some of his best friends are anti trust lawyers. If there is any lawsuits it would be between the Maloofs and the Seattle group, if the Seattle wants to give the Maloofs 30 million dollars thats on them, not the nba. The BOG is not going to base their decision on whether the Seattle group pissed away $30 million.
ICMTM
Forum Mod - Kings
Forum Mod - Kings
Posts: 16,180
And1: 126
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Location: Sacramento, Ca
     

Re: Mark Mastrov 

Post#58 » by ICMTM » Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:46 pm

It's painfully obvious the Sacramento Kings have been neglected by their current owners.

The thing about Basketball is that people tune in to watch good teams. Kevin Durant in Oklahoma City is popular. He has the 2nd highest selling jersey (small market). Jason Williams at one point was the best selling jersey in the league (small market). It's not like baseball where when the Rays and the Blue Jays are playing people check out. Basketball is marketed by star power. I think Tim Duncan (Spurs) is the exception to the rule, but generally speaking when star players or good teams are in town or on TV people watch.

With that being said your audience goes far beyond your city when your team is good, and therefore the size of your market can mean something, however the ability to have a city embrace your team is invaluable.

IF (and I think KJ is far ahead of the curve here) there is an ownership team in place to keep the Kings in Sacramento and get an arena deal done then the NBA will keep them here. While Seattle is a great market etc etc the only thing wrong with Sacramento is the Maloofs and Sleep Train Arena. Removing the Maloofs and getting a new facility is the only thing preventing this team from being viable. Moving them to another city causes more issues.

Please correct me if I am wrong but Seattle drew a line in the sand after both the Seahawks and Mariners got new facilities that they weren't interested in any kind of new building and that's when the Sonics left? We have several models of new building. The Maloofs have just blocked them all. ALL OF THEM.

Anyway thinking about this objectively it just seems like the NBA would be just as happy removing the Maloof brothers and also keeping the team put. Stern has said on numerous occasions moving is not good. If this were a done deal why even entertain talking to Burkle or KJ at this point?
New owners here, new building on the way, new haters everyday. #KingsAllDay
User avatar
pillwenney
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 47,245
And1: 953
Joined: Sep 19, 2004
Location: Avidly reading pstyousuck.blogspot.com/
Contact:
 

Re: Mark Mastrov 

Post#59 » by pillwenney » Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:39 pm

Yeah, for those reasons, I really don't think it's over yet.

One thing though, Seattle does now have a plan for a new arena. It's happening because it's getting a ton of private funding.
ICMTM
Forum Mod - Kings
Forum Mod - Kings
Posts: 16,180
And1: 126
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Location: Sacramento, Ca
     

Re: Mark Mastrov 

Post#60 » by ICMTM » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:01 pm

pillwenney wrote:Yeah, for those reasons, I really don't think it's over yet.

One thing though, Seattle does now have a plan for a new arena. It's happening because it's getting a ton of private funding.


From an article I read so do the Kings/Sacramento. It appears the railyard deal is still there. The Downtown plaza deal is new, and IMO it's THE place the arena should go. Making the railyards its own community is something that is not a good idea in its own right, but that is a different discussion.

The main thing is there is an arena proposal in place and AEG is still on board with it.
http://www.cowbellkingdom.com/2013/01/1 ... rena-deal/

So when I read between the lines the issue is how can the NBA get the Maloofs to sell to Sacramento. The simple answer is they cannot. They can only block a sale to Seattle. If the city can prove it has a team in place to run a good operation locally why would it move them? What city, when ownership is on the up and up, represents their team like we do? We rival maybe the Packers?
New owners here, new building on the way, new haters everyday. #KingsAllDay

Return to Sacramento Kings