Oh God no. Sold to Seattle owners?

AnDrOiDKing4 · Post #341 » by **AnDrOiDKing4** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:39 am

If anything the 30 million non refundable was important because, both sides know that some **** could go down and the sale couldn't end up going through.

I am starting to think the Maloofs had this planned all along to jack up the price that only one desperate city would pay (Seattle) then turn around and have Sacramento pay for it. They get a free 30 million and probably the same price that Seattle paid/would have paid for the team.

Inigo_Montoya · Post #342 » by **Inigo_Montoya** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:19 am

There is some interesting stuff from sports law guru Michael McCann coming out now: https://twitter.com/McCannSportsLaw.

Spark notes- minority owners do have the right to match. They can match individually or pool their resources. Potential problems: doesn't look like they would be able to go into debt to match, they probably won't be able to be the face of a larger investment group. Any right to match will probably be a mess that is solved in courts.

AnDrOiDKing4 · Post #343 » by **AnDrOiDKing4** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:36 am

Inigo_Montoya wrote:There is some interesting stuff from sports law guru Michael McCann coming out now: https://twitter.com/McCannSportsLaw.

Spark notes- minority owners do have the right to match. They can match individually or pool their resources. Potential problems: doesn't look like they would be able to go into debt to match, they probably won't be able to be the face of a larger investment group. Any right to match will probably be a mess that is solved in courts.

The last series of response's were really interesting.

Q: Let me ask annoying ?: doesn't this mean at a min.Maloof's can't do binding K w/o offer to min,owners?

A: More or less, but it's worded as a Transfer Notice - basically telling other owners we're selling, you can match.

Q: Does it give a time limit for response from minority owners?

A: CarmichaelDave I don't see a time limit, so presumption would be a "reasonable" one.

Q: What is considered the "industry norm?"

A: Court would look at other sales of stakes in NBA/sports teams w/similar contracts.

Chali2Na · Post #344 » by **Chali2Na** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:13 am

AnDrOiDKing4 wrote:
Inigo_Montoya wrote:There is some interesting stuff from sports law guru Michael McCann coming out now: https://twitter.com/McCannSportsLaw.

Spark notes- minority owners do have the right to match. They can match individually or pool their resources. Potential problems: doesn't look like they would be able to go into debt to match, they probably won't be able to be the face of a larger investment group. Any right to match will probably be a mess that is solved in courts.

The last series of response's were really interesting.

Q: Let me ask annoying ?: doesn't this mean at a min.Maloof's can't do binding K w/o offer to min,owners?

A: More or less, but it's worded as a Transfer Notice - basically telling other owners we're selling, you can match.

Q: Does it give a time limit for response from minority owners?

A: CarmichaelDave I don't see a time limit, so presumption would be a "reasonable" one.

Q: What is considered the "industry norm?"

A: Court would look at other sales of stakes in NBA/sports teams w/similar contracts.

Unfortunately, the "industry norm" consists of not informing any potential local buyer of your intent to sell you majority stake, selling said majority stake to an out-of-town group for way over the value of the franchise, not telling your minority owners, then telling them to screw themselves when they can't match the exorbitant buy-out price. It's called the Howard Schultz Model.

Inigo_Montoya · Post #345 » by **Inigo_Montoya** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:19 pm

interview with McCann going on right now: http://www.thecdnetworks.com/

Inigo_Montoya · Post #346 » by **Inigo_Montoya** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:29 pm

Possible that a minority owner could sue Maloofs for breach of contract for making sale without notification of minority owners.

ADoaN17 · Post #347 » by **ADoaN17** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:45 pm

The Ellison news is great.

dozencousins · Post #348 » by **dozencousins** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:44 pm

KINGS FANS : Read below some good news !

Updated: January 25, 2013, 6:30 pm

Billionaire meets with Stern about Kings

by Sam Amick, USA TODAY Sports

Los Angeles-based billionaire and prospective owner of the Sacramento Kings, Ron Burkle, met with NBA Commissioner David Stern on Thursday in New York City, according to two people with knowledge of the situation.

The people spoke to USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity because it was a private meeting. While the Maloof family that currently owns the team has an agreement with the Seattle-based group led by hedge fund manager Chris Hansen and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to sell 65% of the team for approximately $341 million, the deal must still be approved by the NBA’s Board of Governors.

Burkle — the supermarket mogul who is part owner of the NHL’s Pittsburgh Penguins — has been planning to make a competing bid with fellow money man Mark Mastrov, the Northern California-based founder of 24-Hour Fitness, in an attempt to convince the NBA to keep the team in Sacramento. The goal all along from the Sacramento side has been to force the NBA into a tough decision by putting together an arena plan and a bid that’s competitive with the Hansen-Ballmer group.

Stern has had consistent communication with Sacramento mayor and former NBA point guard Kevin Johnson during this situation, but his decision to grant Burkle a meeting is seen by Johnson’s camp as the latest sign that — despite the widely held belief the team will wind up in Seattle — their effort is being legitimized by the league. Stern has already indicated publicly that he will allow Johnson to make his case to the Board of Governors before they decide on the Seattle bid.

In that regard, it’s a similar situation to two years ago, when Johnson made his case at an April Board of Governors meeting to keep the team in Sacramento and the Maloofs’ attempts to move the team to Anaheim were thwarted. Burkle first entered this scene at that time, as Johnson spoke publicly about his interest in buying the team, and he was seen as a possible savior of sorts for Kings fans who wanted to keep their franchise.

Read more at http://www.hoopsworld.com/billionaire-m ... JQkEget.99

boogie-reke · Post #349 » by **boogie-reke** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:18 am

That's awesome. Burkle bomb

Inigo_Montoya · Post #350 » by **Inigo_Montoya** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:49 am

That's good news. I do wonder if the talks were about an expansion to Sacramento though?

deNIEd · Post #351 » by **deNIEd** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:32 am

Here is a question (99.9999999999999999999999999% hypothetical)...but if you could choose between

a) keep the same roster, but new management/ownership

b) start fresh as an expansion team (every team protects top 8) and Sacramento given a top 4 pick in 2013...which do you choose?

ADoaN17 · Post #352 » by **ADoaN17** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:46 am

I'd choose A. We have yet to see what these core players can do with good management. Cousins would be better than anyone they could get in the expansion/2013 draft.

Inigo_Montoya · Post #353 » by **Inigo_Montoya** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:00 am

option A by far

AnDrOiDKing4 · Post #354 » by **AnDrOiDKing4** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:23 am

Dialogue is good. Even if its for a couple of days to make some of those **** Sonics fan quit posting stupid ****.

SacKingZZZ · Post #355 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:23 am

F no to expansion. I don't see a Cousins level talent coming out in the next 2-3 years at least. This town is already invested in this team and players, no way should the NBA strip it back down. Although with a new GM, new ownership, etc. that may happen anyway.

RIPskaterdude · Post #356 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:31 am

All I want is to keep the NBA in Sacramento and to get a new damn coach.

Post #357 » by **Wolfay** » Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:41 am

xx_skaterdude_xx wrote:All I want is to keep the NBA in Sacramento and to get a new damn coach.

This. Hell, Smart can stay on if it means the NBA remains in Sacramento. I ain't greedy, but if we really did have a choice...

Option A. I'd like to see what Cousins and the gang can do under sane and competent ownership/management/coaching. After the top 8 are protected on each team, the talent gets thin or they're major projects. Pretty much the only asset you'll have to get better is that top 4 pick.

Post #358 » by **KF10** » Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:56 am

Remove current management and coaching staff and keep same roster?

Yes please!

Most likely, Burkle and co will have ACTUAL brains to run and manage this team.

Post #359 » by **KingInExile** » Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:51 am

So, there's a recent article in the Seattle Times that really should highlight why a Kings move to Seattle should not be considered a done-deal..and why the NBA might not want it. The article looked at how popular different sports are to fans in the market. The NBA finished a dismal 10th...behind such attractions as figure skating, the PGA and gymnastics. Granted, the ranking might be skewed some by the lack of a team in this market, but it is also a good indication of how fans feel about the game.

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/fyi-guy/2 ... n-seattle/

Post #360 » by **pillwenney** » Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:59 am

Yeah, it definitely isn't fair to compare it given what Seattle has been through, but it being THAT low is pretty alarming.