KJ keeping the Kings in Sacramento

ComboGuardCity · Post #81 » by **ComboGuardCity** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:17 pm

OK, I'm through walking on egg shells for this situation. I have no interest in either team so I'm not coming in with Bias. The Kings are moving to Seattle. Get over it. A deal was agreed upon and has been sent to the BOG. Who brings more money to the NBA? Sacramento or Seattle? Easy answer. Anything killing the deal would lead to anti-trust lawsuits coming from a billionaire backing. KJ is just blowing smoke. After all, what is he supposed to do? This is all a show because its good publicity. He knows theres no chance they don't move.

Shock Defeat · Post #82 » by **Shock Defeat** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:24 pm

well, if the Kings do get enough investors, Seattle can just turn around and bid more money. Seattle has more money than Sactown does.

tyguy · Post #83 » by **tyguy** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:40 pm

ComboGuardCity wrote:OK, I'm through walking on egg shells for this situation. I have no interest in either team so I'm not coming in with Bias. The Kings are moving to Seattle. Get over it. A deal was agreed upon and has been sent to the BOG. Who brings more money to the NBA? Sacramento or Seattle? Easy answer. Anything killing the deal would lead to anti-trust lawsuits coming from a billionaire backing. KJ is just blowing smoke. After all, what is he supposed to do? This is all a show because its good publicity. He knows theres no chance they don't move.

Its not like you have been pulling any punches.

Han Solo · Post #84 » by **Han Solo** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:40 pm

Sorry to Kings fans. But happy for the Sonics fans getting their team back. No "true" fan should ever have to go through what Sac-Town fans are going through right now.

I've been a fan of my favorite teams for over 30 years (Pistons, Tigers, Lions). I would be upset too if one of them were to leave. Feel for ya Sac fans..

OzSonic · Post #85 » by **OzSonic** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:42 pm

BBall Loyalty wrote:well, if the Kings do get enough investors, Seattle can just turn around and bid more money. Seattle has more money than Sactown does.

It's not about that at all. The whole decision comes down to the BOG, Sacramento can raise enough money to buy the team and build an arena but if the BOG say yes to the sale then it's all in vain. I'd find it hard to think of the reasons why they would vote no to the sale.

P.D.B.E. · Post #86 » by **P.D.B.E.** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:03 am

It is unprecedented for a team to be relocated from a city that has done everything that Sacramento has done for 28 years. And arena issue isn't an issue because there's an arena plan active on the table with Stern, city, AEG signatures, deal collapsed only for Maloofs idiocy.

Winsome Gerbil · Post #87 » by **Winsome Gerbil** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:04 am

OzSonic wrote:
BBall Loyalty wrote:well, if the Kings do get enough investors, Seattle can just turn around and bid more money. Seattle has more money than Sactown does.

It's not about that at all. The whole decision comes down to the BOG, Sacramento can raise enough money to buy the team and build an arena but if the BOG say yes to the sale then it's all in vain. I'd find it hard to think of the reasons why they would vote no to the sale.

You would find it hard to think of the reasons why the BOG might say no to the sale if the exisitng long term NBA city walked in there with an arena deal and wealthy owner willing to keep the team in place? Really?

Would you have found it hard to think of the reasons why the BOG might have said no to Bennett if Seattle had walked into the BOG meeting that year with a new arena plan and alternate owner in hand?

OF COURSE there are reasons to say no. You are blowing up an established fanbase, losing a Top 20 media market, snubbing an NBA mayor, ending the history of one of the most ancient teams in the league, and setting a very dangerous precedent that could have represussions for every other smaller market in the league. I have no idea how the voting will fall out, but I would virtually guarantee you its not going to be unanimous if Sacramento walks in there with Burkle or Ellison.

beerbrewer · Post #88 » by **beerbrewer** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:09 am

The FANS of Sacramento filled the arena even when the Kings were crappy, I'm talking from 1986 until 1999 when they became good. To suggest that they did not support the team is ignorant. The attendance and support waned when the Mafools started fiddling with the people's emotions, circa 2006. Do some research.

ComboGuardCity · Post #89 » by **ComboGuardCity** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:10 am

Winsome Gerbil wrote:
OzSonic wrote:
BBall Loyalty wrote:well, if the Kings do get enough investors, Seattle can just turn around and bid more money. Seattle has more money than Sactown does.

It's not about that at all. The whole decision comes down to the BOG, Sacramento can raise enough money to buy the team and build an arena but if the BOG say yes to the sale then it's all in vain. I'd find it hard to think of the reasons why they would vote no to the sale.

You would find it hard to think of the reasons why the BOG might say no to the sale if the exisitng long term NBA city walked in there with an arena deal and wealthy owner willing to keep the team in place? Really?

Um, yes they will say no because they cannot force the Maloofs to sell to a group. The job of the BOG is to check the financial integrity of the purchasing group, not to play hero from a 1980s movie.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:Would you have found it hard to think of the reasons why the BOG might have said no to Bennett if Seattle had walked into the BOG meeting that year with a new arena plan and alternate owner in hand?

Well, Benett would have said F* you. I own this team and its not for sale....you don't understand that situation. Sorry.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:OF COURSE there are reasons to say no. You are blowing up an established fanbase, losing a Top 20 media market, snubbing an NBA mayor, ending the history of one of the most ancient teams in the league, and setting a very dangerous precedent that could have represussions for every other smaller market in the league. I have no idea how the voting will fall out, but I would virtually guarantee you its not going to be unanimous if Sacramento walks in there with Burkle or Ellison.

There is no precedent here and nobody is "walking in." That's not how it works. There are not many large markets left where a team can move and it would be viable. Anaheim? Cuts into laker/clip profits. So, no.

The Kings are gone. Nothing can stop it from happening. The NBA is a business and Seattle Revenue > Sac Revenue and this is a revenue driven league.

USA · Post #90 » by **USA** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:11 am

I don't see how having so many investors can be a good thing. I can only see bad things happening when certain investors want more say or they have different ideas or direction they want to take the team. What happens when a few of them want out? Just to many things can potentially go wrong. They need one person or group (like the Guggenheim group did with the Dodgers) to step up.

ComboGuardCity · Post #91 » by **ComboGuardCity** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:11 am

beerbrewer wrote:The FANS of Sacramento filled the arena even when the Kings were crappy, I'm talking from 1986 until 1999 when they became good. To suggest that they did not support the team is ignorant. The attendance and support waned when the Mafools started fiddling with the people's emotions, circa 2006. Do some research.

Nobody is blaming the fans...

Winsome Gerbil · Post #92 » by **Winsome Gerbil** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:30 am

Apparently you don't know the history of the NBA or its BOG that well. They routinely, and I do mean routinely, deny ownership offers for a wide variety of reasons. They are constantly telling their owners who they can and cannot sell too. Heck, in New Orleans they went so far as to actually buy the team themselves rather than let the owner sell it to VERY rich outside interests (Ellison) who would have taken it out of New Orleans. Goes on all the time. The owners, rich as they are, are in the end just franchisees of the larger organization called the NBA.

beerbrewer · Post #93 » by **beerbrewer** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:31 am

NYK_89 wrote:San Fran is a hour and a halfs drive away lets face it there is a reason that SAC only has one pro sports and is almost guranteed to lose it as well... Just because the team had support when they were one of the best few in the NBA does not make it a viable city, this isn't even OKC where at least it is the only pro sports team for a good 500 miles, im sure half the people in the area identify as fans of another cali sports team anyways.

@ComboGuardCity

This guy sure did....

Post #94 » by **KF10** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:33 am

There is no precedent? What baloney.

What does this tell other teams around the NBA?

- It does not matter if a city and the local community who has done everything in their power to keep a NBA team from moving and it does not matter if you fulfill every demand from the NBA, you still lose your team.

In this case, Sacramento and their community has done EVERYTHING in their power to keep the Kings there and has done EVERYTHING the NBA has asked them to do....and there's a good chance that the Kings are moving to Seattle.

JDRochholz · Post #95 » by **JDRochholz** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:38 am

@ OP

tundraknight · Post #96 » by **tundraknight** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:41 am

KF10 wrote:Kevin Johnson is going to announce his big money player at the end of the week. Today's conference is only the beginning.

We are not giving up until the very end.

Sac fans should be praying to god for a miracle instead of hoping Kevin Johnson will pull a magical rabbit out of his ass to come up with that money.

ComboGuardCity · Post #97 » by **ComboGuardCity** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:44 am

Winsome Gerbil wrote:Apparently you don't know the history of the NBA or its BOG that well. They routinely, and I do mean routinely, deny ownership offers for a wide variety of reasons. They are constantly telling their owners who they can and cannot sell too. Heck, in New Orleans they went so far as to actually buy the team themselves rather than let the owner sell it to VERY rich outside interests (Ellison) who would have taken it out of New Orleans. Goes on all the time. The owners, rich as they are, are in the end just franchisees of the larger organization called the NBA.

There was conflicts of interest in that sale to Ellison. He wanted to move it to a market that would directly compete with a recently sold team, the Golden State Warriors. Further, he was buying the team for under market value, something the NBA did not want to happen. It also never got to the BOG because they were outbid.

ComboGuardCity · Post #98 » by **ComboGuardCity** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:44 am

KF10 wrote:There is no precedent? What baloney.

What does this tell other teams around the NBA?

- It does not matter if a city and the local community who has done everything in their power to keep a NBA team from moving and it does not matter if you fulfill every demand from the NBA, you still lose your team.

In this case, Sacramento and their community has done EVERYTHING in their power to keep the Kings there and has done EVERYTHING the NBA has asked them to do....and there's a good chance that the Kings are moving to Seattle.

Please give me a market that a team can move to that is substantially untapped.

AnDrOiDKing4 · Post #99 » by **AnDrOiDKing4** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:57 am

Well I do think the Kings will be gone, I have learned two things, many of the Seattle seem to act like ****, should of never felt bad when they had those crocodile tears. Alot of small market or struggling teams fan's that are "happy" for Sonics need to wake up, if a city that does everything it can to keep a team and they still move, its not going to look good for a lot of those teams in the future.

MrBigShot · Post #100 » by **MrBigShot** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:59 am

catch22 wrote:What's this guy's deal? Has some huge grudge against Seattle for some reason.

You should change your title to KJ TRYING to keep the Kings in Sacramento.

No he doesn't. He clearly just wants to keep the Kings in the Sac town. It doesn't have to do with Seattle specifically.