Oh wow. You're butthurt that a couple of fans, who paid for the seats, aren't rooting for your team? Not to mention with the Blazers' lack of success on the court, I highly doubt their games are sellouts, so it's not like they're taking up precious seats.
Sonics are coming back soon, and will once again be the best NBA team in the PNW. Accept it and move along.
I don't think you watch enough NBA, SE...the Blazers sell out regularly.
Don't get me wrong- I want the NBA back in Seattle, no matter how it happens. Seattle is a great basketball city and deserves a team. Clay Bennett should pay for what he did to SuperSonics fans years ago...total highway robbery, licensed and abetted by David Stern and Howard Schultz. Absolutely pathetic. But to say the Blazers suck is pretty baseless. Sure, they aren't the Lakers, but they have been above-average for most of the last 20 years. They've had a few rough years, sure, but they've done well for themselves compared to the rest of the NBA teams with similar-sized markets. I for one cannot wait for the return of the PNW basketball rivalry.
No, I don't pay much attention to the Blazers. They aren't my team, and they haven't been relevent in ages. Regardless, to bitch about a handful of paying Sonics fans taking up seats and rooting against the team you're playing for a couple games a year is pretty petty. Jalmond should enjoy tomorrow night when OKC visits though, in light of the deal being as close to a sure thing as you can get.
rkwittem wrote:
I don't think you watch enough NBA, SE...the Blazers sell out regularly.
Don't get me wrong- I want the NBA back in Seattle, no matter how it happens. Seattle is a great basketball city and deserves a team. Clay Bennett should pay for what he did to SuperSonics fans years ago...total highway robbery, licensed and abetted by David Stern and Howard Schultz. Absolutely pathetic. But to say the Blazers suck is pretty baseless. Sure, they aren't the Lakers, but they have been above-average for most of the last 20 years. They've had a few rough years, sure, but they've done well for themselves compared to the rest of the NBA teams with similar-sized markets. I for one cannot wait for the return of the PNW basketball rivalry.
No, I don't pay much attention to the Blazers. They aren't my team, and they haven't been relevent in ages. Regardless, to bitch about a handful of paying Sonics fans taking up seats and rooting against the team you're playing for a couple games a year is pretty petty. Jalmond should enjoy tomorrow night when OKC visits though, in light of the deal being as close to a sure thing as you can get.
Just like I enjoyed Thursday night's TNT game against the Heat.
What seems "petty" to me is listening to the Sonic fans whine and cry about the injustice the NBA did having the Sonics leave for Oklahoma City, then turn around and do the same thing to the fans in Sacramento, yet saying that is "fine".
Sonic fans were even trying to claim partial ownership for the Thunder's success last year.
Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:
No, I don't pay much attention to the Blazers. They aren't my team, and they haven't been relevent in ages. Regardless, to bitch about a handful of paying Sonics fans taking up seats and rooting against the team you're playing for a couple games a year is pretty petty. Jalmond should enjoy tomorrow night when OKC visits though, in light of the deal being as close to a sure thing as you can get.
Just like I enjoyed Thursday night's TNT game against the Heat.
What seems "petty" to me is listening to the Sonic fans whine and cry about the injustice the NBA did having the Sonics leave for Oklahoma City, then turn around and do the same thing to the fans in Sacramento, yet saying that is "fine".
Sonic fans were even trying to claim partial ownership for the Thunder's success last year.
The Kings were twice transplanted; they weren't native to Sacramento.
I also didn't realize that the Thunder drafted Durant and Westbrook...
JALMOND wrote:
Just like I enjoyed Thursday night's TNT game against the Heat.
What seems "petty" to me is listening to the Sonic fans whine and cry about the injustice the NBA did having the Sonics leave for Oklahoma City, then turn around and do the same thing to the fans in Sacramento, yet saying that is "fine".
Sonic fans were even trying to claim partial ownership for the Thunder's success last year.
The Kings were twice transplanted; they weren't native to Sacramento.
I also didn't realize that the Thunder drafted Durant and Westbrook...
The Kings have been in Sac since the early-mid 80's and had/have some of the longest consecutive sellout streaks in the NBA. The Kings may have come from somewhere else but the city really got behind them and showed support. Whatever happens, it's sad to see a city that has shown great NBA support lose its team.
Also announced this week is the possibility that the Milwaukee Bucks are for sale, reportedly cheaper than the Kings. It sounds like KJ may have a couple local buyers in line in case the Maloofs want to sell. Also the league said that it is in the best interest to see if a Sacramento group could match the Seattle offer and keep the team in Sacramento. Its going to get interesting in the weeks to come.
An issue coming up in all this is everyone in the league knows Seattle's intentions, and if they purchase your team, your team will be moving to Seattle, regardless of who you are. The way it usually works is they buy the team, say they will stay in the old city, you schmooz the fans, then say you're moving your team to Seattle. The NBA, like any pro league, is first and foremost a business and all financial decisions are usually based on what is good for business, not what is good for the fans.
JALMOND wrote:Also announced this week is the possibility that the Milwaukee Bucks are for sale, reportedly cheaper than the Kings. It sounds like KJ may have a couple local buyers in line in case the Maloofs want to sell. Also the league said that it is in the best interest to see if a Sacramento group could match the Seattle offer and keep the team in Sacramento. Its going to get interesting in the weeks to come.
An issue coming up in all this is everyone in the league knows Seattle's intentions, and if they purchase your team, your team will be moving to Seattle, regardless of who you are. The way it usually works is they buy the team, say they will stay in the old city, you schmooz the fans, then say you're moving your team to Seattle. The NBA, like any pro league, is first and foremost a business and all financial decisions are usually based on what is good for business, not what is good for the fans.
I've seen articles indicating that there are others interested in buying the Kings that would like to keep the team in Sac. I have no idea how the NBA would handle this other than letting a new owner do whatever he wants so long as he pays all the required fees and complies with whatever NBA regs are in place regarding this type of deal.
A buddy of mine was telling me that a $450M deal to a buyer intent on keeping the Kings in Sac would net the Maloofs about $35M more than the $525M deal with the Seattle contingent. I guess all the relocation fees and debt owed to the city really makes it advantageous for the Maloofs to sell local...granted these are the Maloofs and know nothing about running a business effectively...
Next step is the Kings will file for relocation by March 1st and then the deal is presented in front of the NBA’s Board of Governors (the owners) and voted on. Sac Mayor Kevin Johnson has a meeting at that meeting to present their case to keep the Kings in Sac. He is going to announce the local group of interested buyers this week (there are multiple local groups in the running) who will also present at the BOG meeting. Also the City still has a downtown arena deal on the table to any owner who buys the Kings and decides to keep them in town. This will be interesting.
Next step is the Kings will file for relocation by March 1st and then the deal is presented in front of the NBA’s Board of Governors (the owners) and voted on. Sac Mayor Kevin Johnson has a meeting at that meeting to present their case to keep the Kings in Sac. He is going to announce the local group of interested buyers this week (there are multiple local groups in the running) who will also present at the BOG meeting. Also the City still has a downtown arena deal on the table to any owner who buys the Kings and decides to keep them in town. This will be interesting.
Not quite correct. The sale of the team to the Ballmer/Hanson/Nordstrom group is final; 525M for the franchise and the Maloof's 65% ownership which is the voting majority. A 30M nonrefundable down payment has already changed hands. No Sac local investors will be able to purchase the majority needed to decide where the franchise calls home. The only remaining barrier to the Kings moving to Seattle is the relocation committee/NBA, which isn't going to overrule the NBA returning to the NBA's 12th largest market with a new 500M+ arena already approved.
Does it suck for Kings fans and Sacramento community? Of course. Would Seattle fans rather the NBA give us an expansion franchise? Most definitely. Unfortunately, fans don't get a say, and at the end of the day, the NBA is a business.
Um...that is WRONG, SE. The NBA hasn't approved that yet. Sac still has an offer on the table. There is precedent for a league vetoing a move...look no farther than the SF Giants proposed 1992 move to St. Petersburg.
Seattle is starting to pile up the aces, though. Rumor has it that they're planning to sign Larry Bird and Phil Jackson to their front office. That COULD tip the scales in their favor with the league.
SuperHornet's Athletics Hall of Fame includes Jacksonville State kicker Ashley Martin, the first girl to score in a Division I football game. She kicked 3 PATs in a 2001 game for J-State.
SuperHornet wrote:Um...that is WRONG, SE. The NBA hasn't approved that yet. Sac still has an offer on the table. There is precedent for a league vetoing a move...look no farther than the SF Giants proposed 1992 move to St. Petersburg.
Seattle is starting to pile up the aces, though. Rumor has it that they're planning to sign Larry Bird and Phil Jackson to their front office. That COULD tip the scales in their favor with the league.
Papers have been signed, and money has changed hands. If the league vetoes the deal, they'll be facing some hefty lawsuits from some very deep pockets. Not to mention the revenue losses the league will incur by not having a team in the larger media market when the new tv rights kick in 2016. So no, the moving of the Kings to Seattle isn't 100% final, but it is about 99% final.
Be thankful the NBA has/is at least making a concerted effort to keep the team in place, which they didn't bother to do with Seattle. Hansen and company have also been very upfront with their intentions, unlike Bennett who lied through his teeth about keeping the Sonics in Seattle until the team was his.
Right now, I'd say the scales are tipped 80-20 towards the Kings moving. The deal is signed, but it had to be signed by Feburary 1. The deposit has reportedly been given (unable to get absolute confirmation about that). The Seattle offer is contingent on the new arena being up and functioning within two years, of which there are two lawsuits pending against the arena site that will need to be resolved, as well as an environmental study that needs to be completed before groundbreaking can begin (people in the NW do love the environment). The relocation committee is, ironically, headed by Clay Bennett who is Public Enemy #1 in Seattle and will he throw a wrench into the whole thing (highly unlikely).
The only thing Sacramento has right now is that the Kings are there. KJ may have investors, but they don't have a plan and time is running out. They also don't have an adequate arena and nothing on the horizon. But they still have the Kings and KJ saved them from Anaheim. Also, the Maloofs have shown, too, that handshake agreements and signed contracts do not really mean much to them. They could accept an offer from the Sacramento investors (whatever that may be), thumb their noses at Seattle and take it all to the (judicial) courts. If that happens, chances are the Kings would stay in Sacramento until all legal hurdles are clear.
I still say it is about 80-20 in favor of them moving.
The thing I don't get is THIS: the group headed up by the guy being named in all the reports is only getting 65% for this record price (if, indeed it DOES go through; it can still be vetoed). Reports are sketchy on whether or not the Maloofs are still involved after this sale. If they're NOT, what is happening to the other 35%?
Also remember that the Kings are an NBA FRANCHISE. Like any other franchise owners, the Maloofs "own" at the discretion of the overarching organization. If the league doesn't like what the Maloofs are doing, they can easily revoke that franchise and grant a new one (or not) to whomever they please, including the Johnson-backed investor group. Would they do that? Probably not, as the threat of lawsuits does exist, but it COULD happen.
SuperHornet's Athletics Hall of Fame includes Jacksonville State kicker Ashley Martin, the first girl to score in a Division I football game. She kicked 3 PATs in a 2001 game for J-State.
SuperHornet wrote:The thing I don't get is THIS: the group headed up by the guy being named in all the reports is only getting 65% for this record price (if, indeed it DOES go through; it can still be vetoed). Reports are sketchy on whether or not the Maloofs are still involved after this sale. If they're NOT, what is happening to the other 35%?
Also remember that the Kings are an NBA FRANCHISE. Like any other franchise owners, the Maloofs "own" at the discretion of the overarching organization. If the league doesn't like what the Maloofs are doing, they can easily revoke that franchise and grant a new one (or not) to whomever they please, including the Johnson-backed investor group. Would they do that? Probably not, as the threat of lawsuits does exist, but it COULD happen.
The Maloof's only owned a 65% share, which of course is a majority and gave them full authority in regards to franchise decisions. The rest is owned by a group of minority investors. What I don't understand is how the Maloof's can sell for the full value of the franchise, instead of only 65%.
And no, I don't think the league can easily(or at all) revoke ownership of a franchise. I'm sure there are considerable limitations written into the contracts on both sides.
SuperHornet wrote:The thing I don't get is THIS: the group headed up by the guy being named in all the reports is only getting 65% for this record price (if, indeed it DOES go through; it can still be vetoed). Reports are sketchy on whether or not the Maloofs are still involved after this sale. If they're NOT, what is happening to the other 35%?
Also remember that the Kings are an NBA FRANCHISE. Like any other franchise owners, the Maloofs "own" at the discretion of the overarching organization. If the league doesn't like what the Maloofs are doing, they can easily revoke that franchise and grant a new one (or not) to whomever they please, including the Johnson-backed investor group. Would they do that? Probably not, as the threat of lawsuits does exist, but it COULD happen.
The Maloof's only owned a 65% share, which of course is a majority and gave them full authority in regards to franchise decisions. The rest is owned by a group of minority investors. What I don't understand is how the Maloof's can sell for the full value of the franchise, instead of only 65%.
And no, I don't think the league can easily(or at all) revoke ownership of a franchise. I'm sure there are considerable limitations written into the contracts on both sides.
My understanding is that the two "faces" of ownership, Gavin and the other one, own 65%. The "minority investors" are other members of the Maloof family who really could care less about owning a pro team. I don't think there are other owners outside of the Maloofs, but I could be wrong. What I can't understand is why pay $525 million for a franchise that last year was valued at $300 million. Plus they have relocation fees (among other NBA fees) to leave Sacramento. Not to mention the hefty price tag to build the new arena in Seattle and also to rent Key Arena for two years.
Minus the new arena issue, these are the very things (plus the double territorrial rights fees they would have had to pay to the Lake Show and the Clippers) that killed the proposed move to Anaheim.
They may STILL have to pay territorial rights fees (in THIS case, to Portland only, so it would be cheaper) to make this move, but the arena issue is huge. Key Arena is OLD.
SuperHornet's Athletics Hall of Fame includes Jacksonville State kicker Ashley Martin, the first girl to score in a Division I football game. She kicked 3 PATs in a 2001 game for J-State.
SuperHornet wrote:Minus the new arena issue, these are the very things (plus the double territorrial rights fees they would have had to pay to the Lake Show and the Clippers) that killed the proposed move to Anaheim.
They may STILL have to pay territorial rights fees (in THIS case, to Portland only, so it would be cheaper) to make this move, but the arena issue is huge. Key Arena is OLD.
I think territorial rights only stretch out 100 miles. The Rose Garden is 175 miles from Key Arena.
Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:
The Maloof's only owned a 65% share, which of course is a majority and gave them full authority in regards to franchise decisions. The rest is owned by a group of minority investors. What I don't understand is how the Maloof's can sell for the full value of the franchise, instead of only 65%.
And no, I don't think the league can easily(or at all) revoke ownership of a franchise. I'm sure there are considerable limitations written into the contracts on both sides.
My understanding is that the two "faces" of ownership, Gavin and the other one, own 65%. The "minority investors" are other members of the Maloof family who really could care less about owning a pro team. I don't think there are other owners outside of the Maloofs, but I could be wrong. What I can't understand is why pay $525 million for a franchise that last year was valued at $300 million. Plus they have relocation fees (among other NBA fees) to leave Sacramento. Not to mention the hefty price tag to build the new arena in Seattle and also to rent Key Arena for two years.
The $70M relocation fee is included in that $525M valuation. Granted the asking price was $500M before the Maloof's finagled another $25M by no longer stipulating a say in front office decisions after the sale. Money/power hungry assholes.
But to answer your question, Hansen and co. are PNW natives who love basketball and want to see the Sonics back in Seattle.
SuperHornet wrote:Minus the new arena issue, these are the very things (plus the double territorrial rights fees they would have had to pay to the Lake Show and the Clippers) that killed the proposed move to Anaheim.
They may STILL have to pay territorial rights fees (in THIS case, to Portland only, so it would be cheaper) to make this move, but the arena issue is huge. Key Arena is OLD.
It is old, but it was renovated in the mid 90's I believe.
JALMOND wrote:
My understanding is that the two "faces" of ownership, Gavin and the other one, own 65%. The "minority investors" are other members of the Maloof family who really could care less about owning a pro team. I don't think there are other owners outside of the Maloofs, but I could be wrong. What I can't understand is why pay $525 million for a franchise that last year was valued at $300 million. Plus they have relocation fees (among other NBA fees) to leave Sacramento. Not to mention the hefty price tag to build the new arena in Seattle and also to rent Key Arena for two years.
The $70M relocation fee is included in that $525M valuation. Granted the asking price was $500M before the Maloof's finagled another $25M by no longer stipulating a say in front office decisions after the sale. Money/power hungry assholes.
But to answer your question, Hansen and co. are PNW natives who love basketball and want to see the Sonics back in Seattle.
But for almost double what the team is currently worth? Also, keep in mind it is the Kings who haven't seen success since the days of Webber and Divac. Currently their best player is a big head case who can't seem to avoid trouble and has been suspended by both the league and the Kings more than once this season. Not really the best option to build a team around. There are other more attractive franchises out there, why the hurry?
Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:
The $70M relocation fee is included in that $525M valuation. Granted the asking price was $500M before the Maloof's finagled another $25M by no longer stipulating a say in front office decisions after the sale. Money/power hungry assholes.
But to answer your question, Hansen and co. are PNW natives who love basketball and want to see the Sonics back in Seattle.
But for almost double what the team is currently worth? Also, keep in mind it is the Kings who haven't seen success since the days of Webber and Divac. Currently their best player is a big head case who can't seem to avoid trouble and has been suspended by both the league and the Kings more than once this season. Not really the best option to build a team around. There are other more attractive franchises out there, why the hurry?
525 = 2 x 350 ?
That's some OSBF math right there. NBA franchises don't go on the market very often...
Seattle is a great basketball city and deserves a team. Clay Bennett should pay for what he did to SuperSonics fans years ago...total highway robbery, licensed and abetted by David Stern and Howard Schultz. Absolutely pathetic. But to say the Blazers suck is pretty baseless. Sure, they aren't the Lakers, but they have been above-average for most of the last 20 years. They've had a few rough years, sure, but they've done well for themselves compared to the rest of the NBA teams with similar-sized markets. I for one cannot wait for the return of the PNW basketball rivalry.
about the injustice the NBA did having the Sonics leave for Oklahoma City, then turn around and do the same thing to the fans in Sacramento, yet saying that is "fine". 
