RealGM

http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/ ... -for-sale/

I don't know how true this is, and I honest would expect such a story to come from the NY Post moreso than the NY Times.

But if true....get the ASG outta here and bring back Ted Turner!

That would be great news! Get these clowns out.

If true, not a surprise at all, but who would be a buyer? Seems like Ted has moved on to other interests in his life. Look around the league and you see that selling a franchise isn't that easy. The Grizzlies potential sale has been going on a long time without success. The Warriors are also supposed on the market, but aren't priced to move. Are the ASG just desperate to dump it and are willing to take a loss? Do they just want to get out breaking even?

Even is there was a clear buyer, how long would a sale take to close? We're talking a bundle of 2 franchises and an arena if all is for sale. Won't be able to fast track it like the NBA promises with MJ buying the Bobcats. Would they be able to complete it prior to 2011 lockout? How much would a transition affect on-going operations?

Let's get a billionaire Russian/Chinese owner.

Don't they say only about 7 teams in the NBA are profitable? Why in the world would anyone want to get in this business? There's only a few M. Cubans in the country. I doubt any of them could have any interest in those 2 franchises.

Great; just great. We've had problems finding a good buyer for years, we finally find a decent team of owners, THEN they tie themselves up in litigation. Now, to top it all off, we might have to go through the "finding owners" stuff again. I wanna cry. This team looks as if it's bound for another city.''

Just when it's getting good. We get to join Seattle Supersonic fans.

Does this mean theres a chance that the teams will move?

parson wrote:Great; just great. We've had problems finding a good buyer for years, we finally find a decent team of owners, THEN they tie themselves up in litigation. Now, to top it all off, we might have to go through the "finding owners" stuff again. I wanna cry. This team looks as if it's bound for another city.''
Just when it's getting good. We get to join Seattle Supersonic fans.

If i remember right the lease with Phillips prohibits the Hawks from moving for another 20 years or so.

I wouldn't think there is any chance the Hawks move. The NBA pulling out of Atlanta? Hard to fathom. The Thrashers though, I could see that. There are a set of die hard hockey fans in Atlanta, but they aren't a large enough group to support a non-winner consistently. Also the NHL has split before.

The other thought is that Hockey would work in a decent sized market that doesn't also have basketball. Nashville, Columbus, and Raleigh (or is it Greensboro) only have hockey which is optimal for hockey. San Antonio and Oklahoma City only have basketball. Cities like St. Louis and Tampa have baseball, football and hockey. That's as much overlap as I think hockey can handle because it means only 2 at a time. I don't think hockey is strong enough here to thrive with other concurrent sports options because basketball makes it 3 at a time. I would think Kansas City would work as a large enough market with only 2 sports competing at a time. I can't think of a city that fits the no competition model that is large enough to be attractive (OKC was the last). Vegas has too many competing non-sports alternatives.

Sorry hockey fans, but I don't think a competitive franchise can be operated here financially.

^^^ Good list. Samuel Cathy might refuse to play on Sundays. While Blank would be interesting I thought there was an NFL rule against owners owning franchises in other major sports? I can't find any confirmation on that rule, but I'm sure I heard that years ago.

evildallas wrote:^^^ Good list. Samuel Cathy might refuse to play on Sundays. While Blank would be interesting I thought there was an NFL rule against owners owning franchises in other major sports? I can't find any confirmation on that rule, but I'm sure I heard that years ago.

I completely forgot about that rule, but the exception is Arena Football.

I think soccer is an exception as well. I know he made a run at an MLS expansion team.

evildallas wrote:^^^ Good list. Samuel Cathy might refuse to play on Sundays. While Blank would be interesting I thought there was an NFL rule against owners owning franchises in other major sports? I can't find any confirmation on that rule, but I'm sure I heard that years ago.

How recent was that rule Dallas? Didn't Blank try to buy the Braves a few years ago?

"Blank has expressed serious interest in purchasing other Atlanta franchises. In early 2006, he temporarily withdrew from contention as a potential buyer of the Major League Baseball team Atlanta Braves. Some months later, Blank re-entered serious talks with Time Warner and a report indicated that a sale was imminent.[1] However, in February 2007, the Braves completed the sale of the team to Liberty Media. Blank has also spoke of purchasing an expansion franchise in Major League Soccer. Atlanta is currently being considered for MLS expansion." Cut from Wikipedia.

Skyhawk1 wrote:Don't they say only about 7 teams in the NBA are profitable? Why in the world would anyone want to get in this business? There's only a few M. Cubans in the country. I doubt any of them could have any interest in those 2 franchises.

I wouldn't be concerned about the team being sold, at least until after the new Collective Bargaining Agreement is in place in 2011.

I don't think an owner wants to spend that much money to jump in blind now, when waiting a year would reduce so much risk.

First off, don't believe any of the reports that talk about 7 teams being profitable or that the league is losing $400 million on the whole. That's what owners do in order to gain leverage for collective bargaining.

As for the Hawks, they aren't going anywhere. The Arena is awesome and the team can be profitable if they become the lone tenant as they won't have to share the valuable luxury suite revenue. Yes, the Thrashers need to split asap. In fact, an instant cash grab for ownership will buy them some time on selling the Hawks and they can wait til they get a favorable collective bargaining agreement in order to sell at a higher rate.

NY Media is absolutely ridiculous. They report a fabricated story of some FA going to the Knicks everyday so I wouldn't trust them about franchises being for sale, especially ones located 1000 miles away from them.

If you had the income and financial backing to purchase an NBA organization, would you prefer to buy the Atlanta Hawks or Golden State Warriors? The Hawks are valued around $300 million and Golden State $400 million.

I'd probably go with Golden State.

HMFFL wrote:If you had the income and financial backing to purchase an NBA organization, would you prefer to buy the Atlanta Hawks or Golden State Warriors? The Hawks are valued around $300 million and Golden State $400 million.

I'd probably go with Golden State.

Good question. Warriors for me. I love the Hawks, but I've seen how passionate the Warriors fan base can be. If you give them a good product it should succeed. The Hawks were able to fire up the fan base for a playoff series, but the Warriors carried that over to regular season sellouts. The Hawks might not be able to sustain revenues even with success. There are plenty of theories as to why this is the case, but my personal favorite is the importance of college sports with a large percentage of the fan base.