ICMTM wrote:
According to Stern the Sacramento offer is the same with regards to the net take away of the owners.
He didn't, actually. When asked about the offer, he's repeatedly said that it isn't an issue. He's never said anything about the offers being equal. The closest he's said was 'in the ballpark', which isn't equal. The Maloofs, however, have disagreed, and have been very obvious about who they've wanted to sell to the entire time. One would think that since the Maloofs are selling their entire stock in the Kings, that they wouldnt care where the money came from, just that it was green. The 30m add-on, the 7% that judges ruled for Seattle, and the additional 25m vaulation all count to them, and should to all owners as well.
As for the stadium plans, the Sonics group has at least outlined a plan that, barring setback, would be ready for 2015. That's a big deal. Meanwhile, Sacramento threw out a 2016 date that was immediately panned by a California judge, citing that skirting our environmental processes was unfair. They are likely to be ready in 2017 according to all sources that aren't based in Sacramento.
And to editorialize on that, the reporting out of Sacramento vs Seattle vs parties w/nothing to gain has been crazy different. Its shameful, really, what some journalists are posting out there, on both sides. To be fair though, I've seen a lot more on the Seattle side as far as being supported by netural party journalists. And there's a lot more evidence in their favor as far as arena plans, advertising revenue, paying into the revenue sharing instead of taking out like Sacramento is likely to do... etc etc. To put it simply, if this is a business decision, Seattle is dominating. If this has some sentimentality to it, Sacramento absolutely has a chance.
Yet in a press conference he states that he has no personal basis on the situation. GTFO.
