pinksheets
Active member
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.
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.hawkcrazzed":27hidhzd said:lol on sonicsrising.com they are talking about how this could mess with the cba they just signed huge.
pinksheets":vhnhofqp said:Hansen might make it worth their while to kick up a big stink.
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!HansGruber":234tq8am said: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?
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
jhawk91":1sondgnz said: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":1sjppufr said: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.
drdiags":eszim1n3 said: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?
vedthree said: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.
JOz56":30yw3iqd said:vedthree":30yw3iqd said: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.
HansGruber":7thcqw3e said: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.