KJ keeping the Kings in Sacramento

boogie-reke · Post #161 » by **boogie-reke** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:11 am

WhamBamSlamm wrote:Haha, with this right of first refusal deal, and the fact Ellison might join Burkle and Mastrov, looks like the tide is turning and the deserving and great fans of Sacramento will keep their team in the end.

Hope this leads Seattle to stop trolling the NBA for a team...

There will be no expansion in tnhe league, and no other team will move.

Bye bye

Seriously, what's your problem? :-?

deNIEd · Post #162 » by **deNIEd** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:09 am

WhamBamSlamm wrote:Haha, with this right of first refusal deal, and the fact Ellison might join Burkle and Mastrov, looks like the tide is turning and the deserving and great fans of Sacramento will keep their team in the end.

Hope this leads Seattle to stop trolling the NBA for a team...

There will be no expansion in tnhe league, and no other team will move.

Bye bye

I really hope you are not rooting or Sacramento, because this is a terrible attitude to have.

Supporters o both side should be very sensitive towards the other. One side is going to lose and get hurt very badly. Seattle is simply trying to do everything they can to obtain a team. Sacramento is trying to do everything they can in keeping their team. The only blame that should be going around is the NBA for being negligent in approving sh**y and slimy owners who led both cities into this mess.

The59Sound · Post #163 » by **The59Sound** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:53 am

OP needs a hobby... at least, a better one.

Mamba Venom · Post #164 » by **Mamba Venom** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:04 am

That was some serious Seattle trolling by WhamBammSlamm

KJ should have done this years ago. But thats how politicians are. They put stuff off until there is a crisis.

boogie-reke · Post #165 » by **boogie-reke** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:05 am

What are you talking about?

AnDrOiDKing4 · Post #166 » by **AnDrOiDKing4** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:09 am

First right of refusal is a huge deal. I doubt someone overlooked this detail but if they did, it makes the Maloofs look like bigger clowns than usual. Unless they were using the Seattle group to get a free 30 million and ocerall increase the value of the team and then turn around get the exact price they wanted from Sacramento.

AnDrOiDKing4 · Post #167 » by **AnDrOiDKing4** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:27 am

Mamba Venom wrote:That was some serious Seattle trolling by WhamBammSlamm

KJ should have done this years ago. But thats how politicians are. They put stuff off until there is a crisis.

Lol, see this is what I laugh at. Majority of other NBA fans have been saying crazy stuff about this. KJ has bent over backwards to appease the NBA and the Magoofs. The only thing is the Magoofs have acted like complete **** in the entire situation.

I mean the Magoofs tried to sneak into Anaheim last year without any conversation with the city, KJ finds out they get to work keep the team and get a arena approved by the city and the NBA. Magoofs back out right as work on the area is about to start.

KJ tries to then ask the Magoofs to sell the team, they say the team isnt for sale. Magoofs then try to move the team to Virgina Beach, it fails, they say team still not for sale. All of a sudden, Magoofs say "JK team is for sale and we have already sold it to Seattle group." KJ finds out and in about 3 days of notice he has some buyers lined up.

I would hope fans who have no idea about the situation, educate themselves before they put in their two cents.

return to glory · Post #168 » by **return to glory** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:38 am

AnDrOiDKing4 wrote:Lol, see this is what I laugh at. Majority of other NBA fans have been saying crazy stuff about this. KJ has bent over backwards to appease the NBA and the Magoofs. The only thing is the Magoofs have acted like complete **** in the entire situation.

I mean the Magoofs tried to sneak into Anaheim last year without any conversation with the city, KJ finds out they get to work keep the team and get a arena approved by the city and the NBA. Magoofs back out right as work on the area is about to start.

KJ tries to then ask the Magoofs to sell the team, they say the team isnt for sale. Magoofs then try to move the team to Virgina Beach, it fails, they say team still not for sale. All of a sudden, Magoofs say "JK team is for sale and we have already sold it to Seattle group." KJ finds out and in about 3 days of notice he has some buyers lined up.

I would hope fans who have no idea about hte situation, educate themselves before they put in thier two cents.

QFT.

ComboGuardCity · Post #169 » by **ComboGuardCity** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:01 am

Again, I'm going to look like a Kings hater , but a ROFR is not usually used to stop a sale. Its used to stop from dilluting a share in the asset. If any of you who own stock know what this is, then you know that before more shares are issued and publicly up for sale, you as an initial investor can purchase the stock in order to keep the same percent of equity within the company. In this situation, the ownership percentage of equity is not changing for the minority owners. If, however, this ROFR includes the right to majority sale, usually sales will not reversed in this situation and the minority owners can sue for any "loss" they feel came out of the transaction. I'm thinking its a money grab on Cook's part as he's bankrupt.

SacTown Kings · Post #170 » by **SacTown Kings** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:44 am

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/24/513847 ... right.html

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/24/513935 ... acles.html

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlat ... etter.html

A few good articles about the 7% shares/right of first refusal, Darrell Steinberg, and Larry Ellison meeting with KJ.

Lakeshow2417 · Post #171 » by **Lakeshow2417** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:25 am

While NBA is a business first and foremost.

maloofs have mishandled this situation and the SAC Kings this year.

gold_leader64 · Post #172 » by **gold_leader64** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:36 am

Mamba Venom wrote:That was some serious Seattle trolling by WhamBammSlamm

KJ should have done this years ago. But thats how politicians are. They put stuff off until there is a crisis.

Um...the team wasn't even for sale (as far as everybody knew) until we heard talks of a deal already being discussed.

And last year when the team was looking like they were moving to Anaheim, KJ put together a huge movement to get an arena deal, so...idk wtf you are talking about. KJ hasn't been sitting on his hands this entire time.

HotRocks34 · Post #173 » by **HotRocks34** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:29 am

SacTown Kings wrote:
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlat ... etter.html

They're trying to bully Ballmer!

NekiEcko · Post #174 » by **NekiEcko** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:58 pm

WhamBammSlamm is not trolling, he is a freaking tool.

I am glad that Sacto is fighting for tooth and nail to keep this team there. I think that they are 50/50 now, then I put down 80/20 when the rumors first start it. But I had a thought, after all of this, does this move make the team better. Right now, they are at the bottom of the Pacific with Lakers and they dont get any marque FA or any stars except Cousins and there is a high possibility that he is going to be gone to another team. I know that its going to be hard to outdo the other three team in California. I hope that Kings stay there but they need a plan after that, spend almost billions and billions of dollars while being Lottery year after year takes its toll after a while.

DanTown8587 · Post #175 » by **DanTown8587** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:18 pm

I don't know if anyone has answered the question that is most important: can someone buy Cook's 7% and THEN be allowed to match the Seattle offer or does Cook himself have to be the person who matches the offer? I have no idea how the wording in the contract goes so simply saying that Cook can sell his 7% and then anyone can match isn't 100% true.

Weird that the Maloofs wouldn't figure this out, but not weird if they didn't know that the minority owners at least had right of first refusal (the article listed implied that the Maloof's source said they didn't).

UrbanLegend · Post #176 » by **UrbanLegend** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:50 pm

Just move the real Sonics back from Oklahoma City to Seattle.... OKC shouldn't even have a team.

boogie-reke · Post #177 » by **boogie-reke** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:21 pm

DanTown8587 wrote:I don't know if anyone has answered the question that is most important: can someone buy Cook's 7% and THEN be allowed to match the Seattle offer or does Cook himself have to be the person who matches the offer? I have no idea how the wording in the contract goes so simply saying that Cook can sell his 7% and then anyone can match isn't 100% true.

Weird that the Maloofs wouldn't figure this out, but not weird if they didn't know that the minority owners at least had right of first refusal (the article listed implied that the Maloof's source said they didn't).

Or if a different minority owner can be partnered with a group of investors to match the bid.(Other minority owners have told they were not informed or given the right to first refusal aswell, and iirc MJ when he activated that right was backed by a group of investors)

It seems like worst comes to worst, Sacramento will take this matter to court to stall as much time as they can, in hope of denying the move to Seattle for next year and forcing the Maloofs hands to sell local.

ComboGuardCity · Post #178 » by **ComboGuardCity** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:28 pm

Everyone including the sacbee are now saying the ROFR is a non issue.

SacTown Kings · Post #179 » by **SacTown Kings** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:05 pm

ComboGuardCity wrote:Everyone including the sacbee are now saying the ROFR is a non issue.

Here is what the Bee said today:

The Maloofs are already running into interference from their own limited partners, including Cook.

David Flemmer, a court-appointed bankruptcy trustee who controls Cook's 7 percent share of the team, said Thursday the limited partners are being denied their legal rights to match the Seattle offer.

Don Fitzgerald, Flemmer's lawyer, said litigation is possible over the issue.

Flemmer said he thinks the minority owners have "first right of refusal" to buy the Maloofs' controlling interest. The right, guaranteed in the partnership agreement governing team ownership, means the limited partners should be allowed to match the Seattle deal, he said.

"We feel our rights are being trodden upon," Flemmer said. "If they're trying to bypass (the limited partners) on the deal with Seattle, we're going to have issues."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/25/514001 ... rylink=cpy

Doesn't sound like a non issue to me, and it doesn't sound like the Bee is saying it's a non issue, try again!

boogie-reke · Post #180 » by **boogie-reke** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:43 pm

That's not an accurate quote though, as just 1 line under it reads :

"A source connected to the Seattle deal said lawyers for the Maloofs and Hansen's group have reviewed the partnership agreements and believe Flemmer's protests "are a nonissue."

So it seems the Maloof/Hansen side are aware and confident about being right in that subject. But I'd guess the option to take this to court is still possible if again worst comes to worst.