Seattle Slew

[lethalweapon3]

@SportsCenter

ESPN & media reports: NBA owners' committee examining future of Sacramento Kings recommends that the franchise not be moved to Seattle.

~lw3

[lethalweapon3]

What kind of martini do you suppose KJ is enjoying right about now?

Between all the NBA-related news and Tebowmania, the vein down the middle of my forehead is throbbing today.

~lw3

[Admin]

Seattle deserves to have their own brand new franchise. And I'd really like to see Sacramento not lose theirs either. They've really stuck behind that team a lot better than most cities would considering how bad they've been for a while.

[Guest]

This is totally not surprising and is completely in the interest of the NBA. One thing that immediately jumps out to me is that all incumbent owners who wish to get upgrades to their facilities now have a legitimate threat to move their team. All they have to do is point out Seattle to their local officials to let them know they mean business. This has almost put a minimum value for a franchise that is not attached to a long-term lease with an arena.

What made Sacramento so attractive to perspective buyers is that they could easily be moved. The team itself? It is crap, there aren't many assets on the team that cost less than their market value (Demarcus maybe?). So when Milwaukee has their lease expire in 2017 (http://www.fieldofschemes.com/category/milwaukee-bucks/) you can bet they will have a sweet arena coming in Milwaukee or it is hello Seattle $uperBuck$.

One thing that you can bank on being total baloney is any argument that the NBA will look towards expansion. No they won't, that decreases the current value of teams. Someone is going to come up with a feasibility study and point out "hey Seattle can support a team!" But that completely misses the issue. The NBA Owners control who gets into their club and they can benefit greatly from a viable location to support a franchise without actually having one there. It helps leverage arena subsidies.

[PSSSHHHRRR87]

Seattle deserves to have their own brand new franchise. And I'd really like to see Sacramento not lose theirs either. They've really stuck behind that team a lot better than most cities would considering how bad they've been for a while.

I just don't understand why the league just expands to 32 teams like the NFL. One reason I heard is that the league wants teams in places that can support them and have an interest in basketball. Well, I can think of two cities that just recently lost their teams due to relocation. Seattle and Newark. Just expand the league Stern.

[niremetal]

/ / / / / / / / / loves the horse-racing reference.

I'm still smarting over Smarty Jones.

Edited April 30, 2013 by niremetal

[Guest]

I just don't understand why the league just expands to 32 teams like the NFL. One reason I heard is that the league wants teams in places that can support them and have an interest in basketball. Well, I can think of two cities that just recently lost their teams due to relocation. Seattle and Newark. Just expand the league Stern.

The NBA is just the collection of owners. The NBA is not some separate entity, David Stern is employed by all 30 of the owners and acts in their interest. If you expand by 2 teams, you reduce the threat of relocation which reduces the amount of public subsidies a team can garner from a local government. That, and you also reduce the number of potential buyers of your club which will have the effect of reducing the value of your team.

[bird_dirt]

The NBA is just the collection of owners. The NBA is not some separate entity, David Stern is employed by all 30 of the owners and acts in their interest. If you expand by 2 teams, you reduce the threat of relocation which reduces the amount of public subsidies a team can garner from a local government. That, and you also reduce the number of potential buyers of your club which will have the effect of reducing the value of your team.

It's Possible

The value of each team may decrease (temporarily, as their values continually go up), but the value and strength of the league would go up as more money from more markets opens up. Stern has always played with the idea of expanding the league, as has the NFL, into other markets like Europe. Seeing as that isn't as feasible right now doesn't mean expansion wouldn't work still in the states. Speaking of NFL, they have 32 teams yet can still relocate. There are plenty of places wanting a team, so the NBA will still be able to have the threat of relocation -- VA Beach, Las Vegas, St. Louis, Newark, etc. I'm personally biased and hope for the league to expand to 32 and somehow get lucky enough that my town gets a team (Louisville).

[AHF]

How much do you hate Clay Bennett today if you are a fan in Seattle?

First, he pulls the crap he pulled to relocate the Sonics which included bald faced lies to the people of Seattle.

Second, he is the chairman of the committee that just denied you a new team even though your ownership group was willing to pay a higher price and pay relocation fees to the league. (The biggest purchaser in the Sacramento deal will buy 65% of the team for $341M while the main Seattle buyer was purchasing 65% of the team for $365M).

I think hawkfanatic's post about the value to other owners of using Seattle as a tool to extort concessions under threat of relocating is probably on point. So it has to feel good that Clay Bennett steals your team, denies you a new one, and then uses you as bargaining leverage against other cities (knowing that if that bargaining leverage works according to plan you still won't get a team, the team will just get more valuable concessions to stay ala Sacramento stepping up with a new deal).

[AHF]

Are you sure on those numbers? I believe the Hansen group wants to buy 65% of the Kings and has increased their valuation of the team to $550 million (so purchasing them at $357.5 million: http://news.yahoo.com/hansen-no-plans-fight-kings-073539878.html). For the Sacramento group, I have a hard time finding details on what they are purchasing. I was under the impression that the Sacramento group was purchasing 100% of the team and valued the franchise at $525m. I can't find this anywhere though.

I think you are right in that the Maloofs will be retaining a minority stake in the team under the last reports I saw but that still translates to a higher dollar figure for total franchise value than the Seattle offer. The $550M to $525M you use supports that.

In addition, they would have to pay relocation fees which were reportedly in the range of an additional $75M. That adds up to roughly $440M for ownership of 65% of the team compared to $525M for 100% ownership.

Either way, I am hating Clay Bennett if I am a Sonics fan today.

[ag82]

Not over yet. They just raised the valuation by $75m, plus a $115m relocation fee for the other owners, and have a backup plan to buy a smaller stake to help out the maloofs.so they don't have to sell as quickly.Maloofs have no plans to sell to the local investment group.

[AHF]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20130511/sacramento-kings-maloof-hansen-seattle.ap/?sct=hp_t2_a5&eref=sihp

[AHF]

It is pretty laughable that he completely ignores the impact of variation in valuations between $625M and $525M. Ehh...same ballpark, right?

[AHF]

It is getting very interesting. Having Clay Bennett as the spokesperson remains such a disaster move -- especially comparing the package the Hansen group is offering compared to what Bennett paid to move the team to a smaller market.

[AHF]

If it isn't obvious that the NBA wants to maintain 1) an open attractive option and 2) precedent for public funding instead of private funding, then you aren't paying attention.

It is interesting to watch, but at the same time I get pissed off at how the NBA is just royally screwing over the consumers and using local governments as ATMs. And I don't think that public subsidies for stadiums are necessarily a bad thing!

Agreed. It is a very hard message for the people in Seattle and one that is even harder to stomach coming from Bennett.

Ironically, the Maloofs could probably sell and move the team to a less desirable area more easily than they are finding it to move to a desirable market like Seattle. If, say, OKC was offering this type of $625M, $100+M in relo fees, etc. package then the NBA could have its cake (the high offer) and eat it too (keeping Seattle as a relocation threat to use to leverage governments and consumers).

[lethalweapon3]

Sounds like it's all over but the shouting over in California Raisin Country. The NBA has made the Maloofs "free to see other people" (Vivek Ranadive and company, in particular; the pro-Sacramento contingent) now that the Board o' Governors rejected Seattle's final proposal. Stern this afternoon said something about expecting a deal in the next 24-48 hours in which the Maloofs sell.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/15/5422295/sacramento-kings-nba-dallas.html

DALLAS--With a deal to move the Kings to Seattle struck down by the NBA today, the focus now turns to an effort by a Sacramento-based group to buy the franchise from the Maloof family.

That process will take place “around the clock for the next two days,” Mayor Kevin Johnson said, soon after the NBA Board of Governors voted 22-8 to keep the Kings in Sacramento.

While the proposed move by the team to Seattle was turned down, the issue of who will own the team has not been settled. In a press conference following the meeting of the league's 30 owners, NBA Commissioner David Stern said the league would encourage the Maloofs, who own the Kings, to sell to an investor group led by Silicon Valley tech entrepreneur Vivek Ranadive.

"We will talk to the Maloofs and seek in the next 24 to 48 hours whether we can help facilitate a deal between the Ranadive group and the Maloofs for the sale of the franchise in Sacramento," Stern said.

Johnson said he was confident a deal would happen.

Ranadive said he “fully expects we’ll be able to work with (the Maloofs)” and that “we believe we can get this done very quickly.” He said his lawyers and the Maloof family’s attorneys have already been talking.

“Sacramento will be changed forever – for good – because of what’s transpired the last couple of days,” the mayor said.

Read more he

re

~lw3: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/15/5422295/sacramento-kings-nba-dallas.html#storylink=cpy

And, as for The E-word...

Of Seattle's prospects for getting an NBA expansion team, Stern said there was nothing to announce. "We look forward to continuing a dialogue of some type with the citizens and the (Seattle) investors," he said.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/15/5422295/sacramento-kings-nba-dallas.html#storylink=cpy

~lw3

[Guest]

Oh hey Seattle...f*** YOU!

Love,

David J. Stern

P.S. People of Sacramento, thanks for throwing money at us!

[AHF]

"This is going to be short for me. I have a game to get to in Oklahoma City."
-- David Stern addressing the media after the Board of Governors voted against the Kings relocating to Seattle.

David Stern winning more love from Seattle by making Seattle fans feel like they are totally unimportant to the league and then jabbing them in the ribs by talking about OKC (a move that was approved after overt lies from Bennett for much less money and without any real effort from the league to help out the incumbent Seattle).

On the plus side, hopefully this is precedent that helps Atlanta keep the Hawks long-term.

[Guest]

Chris Hansen hitting the radio circuit.

Hansen Group Won't Go After Another City's Team Again

May 28, 2013 6:26 PM EDT

Chris Hansen had a candid interview with KJR in Seattle where he discussed his ownership group's future plans to bring an NBA team to the area.

Hansen reached an agreement to purchase the Sacramento Kings from the Maloof family with the intention of moving them to Seattle.

"We're not going to be going to another city as a predator again," said Hansen. "The last thing we want is people in other cities fearing our group, 'if you don't get this done we're taking your team.'"

Hansen was surprised by the way in which Sacramento brought together a viable ownership group to keep the Kings from moving.

"If we'd known that there would have been such strong support to keep the team in Sacramento, we'd have approached it differently," said Hansen.

Hansen also expressed support for David Stern and that he doesn't hold a grudge against Seattle.

"I don't think that David Stern has it out for Seattle," said Hansen.

And here is a link to the ~40 minute interview: http://www.sportsradiokjr.com/pages/softy_page.html?article=11330217

What I find so refreshing is that Hansen is giving a nice middle-finger to the NBA Owners. It is obvious the owners want to use Seattle as a way to extort public funding for stadiums. So does Hansen plan to make Seattle an attractive place for teams to move to? Nope. He is reversing the exact effect the NBA wants to achieve by siding with the Kings in the past deal. Way to go Chris!

[lethalweapon3]

"To Catch a Franchise Predator," starring...

A volunteer group known as STOP (Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork) has been trying to force a public referendum on the construction of a new arena that is a necessity for the Kings to stay in Sacramento. About a month after the NBA turned down Chris Hansen's bid to move the Kings to Seattle, STOP received a mysterious $80,000 donation from a Los Angeles law firm.

Yesterday, a California watchdog group filed suit to force the firm to reveal the identity of the donor, something it had been fighting for weeks. Today, the identity leaked. It was Chris Hansen.

(Aside: the L.A. law firm, Loeb & Loeb, are also the attorneys for the Maloofs. And, did you catch the "month after" part?)

So, Chris Hansen, have a seat. Made you a fresh pitcher of iced tea. Do you have anything more to say before your personal dreams of NBA ownership in Seattle are dashed forever?

I made a mistake I regret.

When our binding agreement to purchase the Sacramento Kings became a competitive situation and we were faced with both the prospect of seeing our transaction fail and losing our $30 million deposit, I engaged Loeb & Loeb to canvas the various opposition groups to gain an understanding of their efforts and the prospects of their success.

During this time I was approached through Loeb by the opposition about making a contribution to the opposition's efforts as part of a broader group and agreed to make a donation.

In this regard I would just like to highlight that I have never directly engaged with or even had any conversations or contact with STOP, Taxpayers For Safer Neighborhoods, or any the various consultants engaged in the Sacramento Arena opposition. It was also not my intent to be the primary financial sponsor of the opposition's efforts. I merely agreed to make a donation to the opposition in what had become a competitive and heated process.

I have not agreed to provide any further political contributions and do not intend to make any further contributions.

I would also just point out that the contribution was made in my personal capacity and not on behalf of our ownership group or my partners. In fact, I have never discussed the contribution with them to date.

While I'm sure everyone can appreciate how easy it is to get caught up the heat of battle, with the benefit of hindsight, this is clearly a decision I regret. I wish the city of Sacramento and Kings fans the best in their efforts and they have my commitment not to have any involvement in their arena efforts in the future."

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/16/5657567/statement-from-chris-hansen.html

Alright, Chris. There's the door.

~lw3

Edited August 17, 2013 by lethalweapon3