Ron Burkle
Ron Burkle
-
- Freshman
- Posts: 56
- And1: 0
- Joined: Feb 26, 2012
Ron Burkle
Wouln't it make more sense if he was the owner of the Kings instead of Mastrov? Forbes has him estimated at $3.1 Billion. Does this mean Burkle will only own the new arena?
Re: Ron Burkle
- RIPskaterdude
- RealGM
- Posts: 92,818
- And1: 37,039
- Joined: Jul 10, 2003
- Location: #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
-
Re: Ron Burkle
He'll be part owner, but Mastrov will be the face behind the franchise. Why would he just put up $$$ for the arena and have no stake in the team?

Re: Ron Burkle
- wiff
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,887
- And1: 21
- Joined: Jul 22, 2006
- Location: Gettin da boot!
Re: Ron Burkle
I didn't realize the Maloofs were in a contract with Burkle and Mastrov? Last I knew the Maloofs and Hansen had a signed agreement the BOG was voting on.
Re: Ron Burkle
- RIPskaterdude
- RealGM
- Posts: 92,818
- And1: 37,039
- Joined: Jul 10, 2003
- Location: #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
-
Re: Ron Burkle
- tru6playa
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 905
- And1: 103
- Joined: Aug 09, 2008
- Location: San Francisco, CA
-
Re: Ron Burkle
I read an article about burkles bid for AEG, which owns a percentage of the Lakers (30% I believe?), would be a reason why he couldn't own the Kings. You can't own percentage in different teams.
bennith13 wrote:We are going to win. Sac can not compete with our offer our or owners or our arena plan. They just don't have their act together like we do at this point in time.
Supersonics41 wrote:This thing is over for Sacramento! Well they might get the return of the Monarch's.
Re: Ron Burkle
-
- Freshman
- Posts: 56
- And1: 0
- Joined: Feb 26, 2012
Re: Ron Burkle
RIPskaterdude wrote:He'll be part owner, but Mastrov will be the face behind the franchise. Why would he just put up $$$ for the arena and have no stake in the team?
So we'll have two owners? Why not just one like most others?
Re: Ron Burkle
- longfellow44
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,034
- And1: 244
- Joined: May 04, 2007
- Location: Washinton DC
Re: Ron Burkle
^^most teams have minority owners, the person who owns the largest pieces of the pie is generally viewed as the face of the ownership group. Currently the maloofs only own something like 65% of the kings franchise but it's the controlling interest so they are the face of the owners.
Re: Ron Burkle
-
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 760
- And1: 25
- Joined: Dec 17, 2003
Re: Ron Burkle
Will the Maloofs sell to this group? They said they wouldn't & with a smaller offer than Seattle I see trouble brewing. The damn Maloofs might just keep the team. Will find out in April, but I have a feeling the Kings are gone.
Re: Ron Burkle
- Wolfay
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 7,656
- And1: 649
- Joined: Aug 13, 2005
- Location: Sacramento, CA
-
Re: Ron Burkle
kevin44 wrote:Will the Maloofs sell to this group? They said they wouldn't & with a smaller offer than Seattle I see trouble brewing. The damn Maloofs might just keep the team. Will find out in April, but I have a feeling the Kings are gone.
The Maloofs have said that they would entertain "backup" offers.
Anyway, I have a feeling that there'll be a lot of Sonics fans crying that Stern screwed them again come April.
Re: Ron Burkle
- blind prophet
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,574
- And1: 3,306
- Joined: Dec 08, 2011
-
Re: Ron Burkle
No matter what role Burkle ends up having, glad he is still part of this process.
Re: Ron Burkle
-
- Freshman
- Posts: 56
- And1: 0
- Joined: Feb 26, 2012
Re: Ron Burkle
Burkle should have a bigger role
Re: Ron Burkle
-
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 865
- And1: 42
- Joined: Jun 07, 2012
- Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Ron Burkle
Sacballer916 wrote:Burkle should have a bigger role
I don't know, considering how much the Maloofs reportedly hate Burkle, keeping him in the background is probably a good thing.
Re: Ron Burkle
- tru6playa
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 905
- And1: 103
- Joined: Aug 09, 2008
- Location: San Francisco, CA
-
Re: Ron Burkle
Inigo_Montoya wrote:Sacballer916 wrote:Burkle should have a bigger role
I don't know, considering how much the Maloofs reportedly hate Burkle, keeping him in the background is probably a good thing.
Plus, Burkle seems to be a behind-the-scenes type of owner. Mastrov has the ultimate basketball fan personality that all fans hope for in their owner (Mark Cuban).
bennith13 wrote:We are going to win. Sac can not compete with our offer our or owners or our arena plan. They just don't have their act together like we do at this point in time.
Supersonics41 wrote:This thing is over for Sacramento! Well they might get the return of the Monarch's.
Re: Ron Burkle
- Cruel_Ruin
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,091
- And1: 767
- Joined: Nov 05, 2006
- Location: The intersection of intellect, imagination and insanity
-
Re: Ron Burkle
It doesn't really matter who has the bigger share in the team, they are both contributing to both ownership and the arena.
Re: Ron Burkle
-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 16,347
- And1: 176
- Joined: Jun 20, 2004
- Location: Sacramento, Ca
-
Re: Ron Burkle
I like that they are split and am just as much interested in the downtown plan as I am keeping the Kings. Lets face it. Downtown sucks!
KANGZZZZZ!
Re: Ron Burkle
- boogie-reke
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,919
- And1: 244
- Joined: Nov 05, 2010
-
Re: Ron Burkle
Burkle to Mastrov is like Ballmer is to Hansen.
Re: Ron Burkle
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,654
- And1: 507
- Joined: Feb 15, 2008
-
Re: Ron Burkle
I think that the reason Burkle is heading up the arena charge is because he sees the arena as his most likely place to make money. We won't know for sure until details come out, but I bet Burkle is going to be in charge of running the arena on a day to day basis and will make money from that. I don't think he sees any profit to be made from buying the Kings at the price they are going to have to pay. Burkle is a smart business man and I think taking charge on the arena is a business decision.