NBA returning to Seattle?

[pinksheets]

Stern isn't even really retiring, he's going to remain in a consultant role. Probably kind of like how Putin wasn't president of Russia for a while.

 

[hawkcrazzed]

lol on sonicsrising.com they are talking about how this could mess with the cba they just signed huge.

 

[pinksheets]

lol on sonicsrising.com they are talking about how this could mess with the cba they just signed huge.

It's tough for owners to claim that they're struggling to make any money and then deny a move from a weak market to a strong, growing market, first of all. They have chosen "less money" as their option here, even though they're supposedly so hard up for cash.

Secondly, this $18m that is being "waived" by the Sac group as a part of this deal? That goes to the players. That's less money for Sacramento to spend on free agents, signing their own, etc. etc. So not only has the league selected Podunk, CA as the market they'd like to reside, they're actually making their players pay for it, in a sense.

 

[hawkcrazzed]

I can see the players go bat shit crazy over this. But might be too late for are guys buying it. But with setting the president of we will sell to who we want and when. That last cba did not go so well for the nba. And I can see it hurting them years down the road. Forgetting about sac and adding so much more fuel to the fire for the players to hold out for more.

 

[Laloosh]

Hansen might make it worth their while to kick up a big stink.

With all of the hand holding that the league has done w/ Sac, I can only imagine how that would play in court.

Judge: "So, tell me again why you chose the offer from the Sacramento group?"

NBA: "Well, they offered less of their own money, while offering to take less of our money (in revenue sharing) and at the same time give more money (from their tax payers)."

Judge: "But based on these numbers, they can't afford to do that..."

NBA: "*shrug* It's public money. They'll just have to raise some taxes and cut back on a few of 'the extras' for a while."

 

[HansGruber]

Actually, I think the Sacramento revenue-sharing kickback is going to blow up in the NBA's face. It's just too blatant of a violation of the Sherman Act. There is ZERO chance that any federal court would allow any business to price-fix one of its franchises by handicapping or fixing future earnings, especially in an obvious attempt to thwart an existing transaction that establishes a "market value", regardless of whatever exemption the NBA believes would entitle it to such an arrangement. Any conflict with the CBA would be a separate issue, and I don't believe it would be seen as harshly in a federal court as the price-fixing and revenue agreement.

The Sherman Act was written to prevent EXACTLY the type of situation that is currently happening with the NBA. The only anti-trust exemption given to professional sports leagues pertain to marketing, player contracts (covered by CBA) and other operational aspects of its franchises WITHIN the law. For instance, the NBA is allowed to negotiate exclusive broadcast deals as a single body, and enforce that deal with all of its member franchises. But you still can not blatantly price-fix your franchises in order to manipulate the market, and you most definitely CAN NOT fix the earnings of your franchises.

That is clearly spelled out in the Sherman Act, and Stern is a goddam idiot for thinking he could side-step that. Not even Ma Bell was that brazen. Not even Microsoft was that stupid.

At this point, I think an anti-trust lawsuit would be devastating to the NBA. And I think the revenue-sharing agreement would be Exhibit A from the Hansen/Maloof attorneys. If the Hansen/Ballmer group can convince the Maloofs to join their suit, I don't see any possible way the NBA comes out a winner. I think things will get very ugly for the NBA, especially if the NBAPA piles on.

However, I will be bummed if the Sonics return. I find the NBA disgusting and want nothing to do with it. It is a league of fixed officials, fixed games, fixed outcomes. You know that no matter what happens in the next 5 years, it's going to be all Miami for a while. You knew at the beginning of the season it was going to be the Heat in the Finals. That's just the reality of the NBA. In my mind, it is the least interesting of any professional sport because there is zero "chance" at any level. Even the draft lottery is fixed. And towns who somehow find the right players to draft - those players just go play where they want once their guaranteed contract is up, they all get together and decide to play in LA or Miami and that's it, no other team stands a chance for the next decade. It's worse than the pre-cap NFL.

So why do we want that back again?

 

[Throwdown]

Why would you be down if they come back? No ones making you go or watch. It's nothing to just ignore it, it's so easy to ignore things. I do it all the time with the Mariners, I don't even know who plays on the team this year aside from Felix. So why would you be bummed?

 

[Sports Hernia]

Actually, I think the Sacramento revenue-sharing kickback is going to blow up in the NBA's face. It's just too blatant of a violation of the Sherman Act. There is ZERO chance that any federal court would allow any business to price-fix one of its franchises by handicapping or fixing future earnings, especially in an obvious attempt to thwart an existing transaction that establishes a "market value", regardless of whatever exemption the NBA believes would entitle it to such an arrangement. Any conflict with the CBA would be a separate issue, and I don't believe it would be seen as harshly in a federal court as the price-fixing and revenue agreement.

The Sherman Act was written to prevent EXACTLY the type of situation that is currently happening with the NBA. The only anti-trust exemption given to professional sports leagues pertain to marketing, player contracts (covered by CBA) and other operational aspects of its franchises WITHIN the law. For instance, the NBA is allowed to negotiate exclusive broadcast deals as a single body, and enforce that deal with all of its member franchises. But you still can not blatantly price-fix your franchises in order to manipulate the market, and you most definitely CAN NOT fix the earnings of your franchises.

That is clearly spelled out in the Sherman Act, and Stern is a goddam idiot for thinking he could side-step that. Not even Ma Bell was that brazen. Not even Microsoft was that stupid.

At this point, I think an anti-trust lawsuit would be devastating to the NBA. And I think the revenue-sharing agreement would be Exhibit A from the Hansen/Maloof attorneys. If the Hansen/Ballmer group can convince the Maloofs to join their suit, I don't see any possible way the NBA comes out a winner. I think things will get very ugly for the NBA, especially if the NBAPA piles on.

However, I will be bummed if the Sonics return. I find the NBA disgusting and want nothing to do with it. It is a league of fixed officials, fixed games, fixed outcomes. You know that no matter what happens in the next 5 years, it's going to be all Miami for a while. You knew at the beginning of the season it was going to be the Heat in the Finals. That's just the reality of the NBA. In my mind, it is the least interesting of any professional sport because there is zero "chance" at any level. Even the draft lottery is fixed. And towns who somehow find the right players to draft - those players just go play where they want once their guaranteed contract is up, they all get together and decide to play in LA or Miami and that's it, no other team stands a chance for the next decade. It's worse than the pre-cap NFL.

So why do we want that back again?

the main reason I want them back is I want an NHL team, which won't come unless we get a new arena. Though I think a Hansen owned team would be interesting to watch!

 

[dunceface]

100 pages??!!! Can't imagine what will happen once these lawsuits start flying! :stirthepot:

 

[Hawkfan77]

This whole ordeal is just ridiculous and the NBA has egg on their face.

Seriously, they ripped out our team in Seattle and gave it to the shitty market OKC. Now they are denying a move from Sacramento to Seattle. The league is crap, losing tons of money and is denying what would be the richest ownership group. F them...(but yes I want the Kings BADLY! )

 

[JOz56]

Per Chris Daniels:

Sources close to #NBASeattle group tell me they had, months ago, agreed to revenue sharing cap w/NBA.

Those same sources say #NBASeattle team would not be a revenue sharing recipient, and that was part of their original deal with NBA.

This issue had flared up after yesterday’s @SBJSBD report Sacramento group was willing to forgo rev sharing, if NBA chooses to stay in Sac

How in the hell did these idiots make all their money? This type of crap is going to get the league sued! And I see that KJ is asking Chris Hansen and CO. to "take the high road and be gracious..."

This is all a circus. Unreal.

 

[jhawk91]

Is anyone else just done with this to the point they don't care if it comes back or not?. A couple days back I realized what Hans just pointed out. The NBA is a huge joke, fixed worse then the WWE probably. Close to everything associated with the NBA is corrupt. The playing field is completly unbalanced with bigger market teams usually doing better than small markets making it predictable and boring to fallow unless your really into it.

 

[JOz56]

Is anyone else just done with this to the point they don't care if it comes back or not?. A couple days back I realized what Hans just pointed out. The NBA is a huge joke, fixed worse then the WWE probably. Close to everything associated with the NBA is corrupt. The playing field is completly unbalanced with bigger market teams usually doing better than small markets making it predictable and boring to fallow unless your really into it.

Like I said, at this point I am perfectly content airing their dirty laundry. I'm done with the threats and the circus that has gone on. Bring the bastards down.

 

[jhawk91]

Per Chris Daniels:

Sources close to #NBASeattle group tell me they had, months ago, agreed to revenue sharing cap w/NBA.

Those same sources say #NBASeattle team would not be a revenue sharing recipient, and that was part of their original deal with NBA.

This issue had flared up after yesterday’s @SBJSBD report Sacramento group was willing to forgo rev sharing, if NBA chooses to stay in Sac

How in the hell did these idiots make all their money? This type of crap is going to get the league sued! And I see that KJ is asking Chris Hansen and CO. to "take the high road and be gracious..."

This is all a circus. Unreal.

I wish Hansen would just smack the crap out of that smug little son of $&@$. No he won't bow out graciously and watch as Seattle gets screwed again. As much as I said I don't care. I hope we do get them just in spite of KJ and that whole Sac group.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

From my brief read on things, the possible ~$18M/yr the perspective Kings owners are forfeiting is money that was intended to be used for player acquisition (eventually). Sacramento wouldn't get any of that one way or the other (unless it is taxable by the city), so this doesn't overtly impact Sacramento one way or the other, correct?

The new Kings owners are rolling in dough, just not all tied up in owning the club, so taking losses for awhile until the new arena is complete most likely doesn't put them in a panic.

The part I don't understand is how this doesn't shaft the Maloofs? What is their motivation to sell to these guys when the NBA turns down Hansen? Allowing the potential owners to leverage a promise of not taking funds from the NBA seems like an unfair advantage unless the NBA allowed the Hansen group the same opportunity. Confusing detail in this saga. There must be an understanding with the Maloofs that when the Hansen deal is rejected that they are willing to accept the offer from the local investors.

Does the NBA turn around and approve the alternate deal May 15th or do they have to go through this process all over again as far as filing for sale of the club to the NBA? Thereby restarting the clock before it becomes official?

What happens is Stern preemtively grants ownership, by Emperial fiat, instantly to the Sac group.

 

[vedthree]

At this point, I don't know what excites me more - the thought of getting the Sonics back, or the thought of watching H/B/N unleash a lawsuit that could fundamentally alter and/or cripple the NBA as a whole.

As plenty of others have mentioned, the NBA was in my doghouse even before the Sonics were stolen. All pro sports leagues operate as cartels/monopolies, do plenty of underhanded shit, and serve as tax $$ funnels to help build private real estate empires for certain owners .... but the NBA has definitely been the most brazen, corrupt & ruthless of the Big 4.

If Seattle could be the city that smacks the NBA down in court - airs the dirty laundry, stains Stern's reputation forever, and costs the other Owners millions ... that's a victory I would personally relish as much as any on-field win or Championship.

 

[JOz56]

At this point, I don't know what excites me more - the thought of getting the Sonics back, or the thought of watching H/B/N unleash a lawsuit that could fundamentally alter and/or cripple the NBA as a whole.

If Seattle could be the city that smacks the NBA down in court - airs the dirty laundry, stains Stern's reputation forever, and costs the other Owners millions ... that's a victory I would personally relish as much as any on-field win or Championship.[/quote]

Yup. All of this. I'm curious to the thought process of when they realized H/B/N weren't going to back down.

 

[The Outfield]

At this point, I don't know what excites me more - the thought of getting the Sonics back, or the thought of watching H/B/N unleash a lawsuit that could fundamentally alter and/or cripple the NBA as a whole.

If Seattle could be the city that smacks the NBA down in court - airs the dirty laundry, stains Stern's reputation forever, and costs the other Owners millions ... that's a victory I would personally relish as much as any on-field win or Championship.[/quote]

Yup. All of this. I'm curious to the thought process of when they realized H/B/N weren't going to back down.

Was your sig from after the 42-13 beatdown? Because, that might have been what gave him the headache - not the noise :lol:

 

[HansGruber]

Had an interesting chat with an attorney buddy this afternoon, all about anti trust law in sports. He mentioned some very interesting facts that I haven't heard in the media to this point, and he strongly believes the NBA has exposed itself to some major liability. In fact, he believes that I'd Hansen chooses to fight, we might very well be seeing the end of the NBA as we know it.

I'm typing on my phone so I'm going to try to summarize quickly.

Historically, leeway is given to"natural"monopolies as long as they don't engage in anti competitive practices and/or market fixing.

The majority of anti trust cases in America since the Sherman Act was written have primarily focused on employment issues and the feds have been clear that they don't want to intervene there and strongly prefer CBAs. Arbitration has been the primary resolution with the courts choosing to avoid ruling against cbas. Very few awards or punitive actions have been taken here, with the general result being that both sides are strongly "encouraged" to establish a CBA, often under the stern glare of the feds.

However, the courts have taken the opposite approach when there is evidence of market manipulation or price fixing. That is the main focus of the Sherman Act and the federal courts have shown an intensely negative response when there is evidence of this. No CBA or any contract or franchise agreements have succeeded in protecting businesses in this case and the federal courts have handed down their most severe punitive awards and even broken up businesses like Ma Bell when shown persuasive evidence that price fixing had occurred. Price fixing and market manipulation are defined within the Sherman Act and one of the main definitions is when a franchise colludes among its operators to manipulate the cost of a member franchise or inhibit the free market sale or operation of a franchise. The Sherman Act specifically points out that artificially handicapping the cost/valuation of a franchise to benefit one party or harm another is especially harmful to the idea of free enterprise and is forbidden in any instance, no matter the reason.

 

[vedthree]

My buddy also tells me there is word in the legal community that Ballmer is on a warpath and has retained multiple firms who specialize in anti trust. He said an "army" is being put together with the full intention of going nuclear on the NBA. *Edited because my friend asked me not to share some specific data* Apparently, it ain't so hush hush, busy tells me there are multiple firms and attorneys trying to get in on the action as it could be landmark and nobody in the community believes the NBA stand a chance.

All rumor, take out for what it's worth. I found the anti trust stuff interesting.

It may be rumor, but I definitely WANT TO BELIEVE! :twisted:

I simply can't imagine what's going through Stern's head. I haven't dealt with Anti-Trust since a basic class that I barely passed in law school almost 10 years ago ... that's why it simply blows my mind what the NBA is doing. I mean, if it's enough to set off alarm bells in MY head, then WTF is someone like Stern (who's supposedly an expert in the subject) doing playing with fire like this? And the second thought that immediately crossed my mind is why is he doing this to someone like Steve Ballmer, who 1) has a notorious temper, and 2) deals in the world's biggest anti-trust cases on a daily basis?