Hawkfan77 wrote:It has nothing to do with their support for us. It has everything to do with not wanting to be forced to accept a low ball offer more than 65+ million less than what's currently on the table. You think the Maloofs will say, "well we tried Chris but that offer for 65+ million less sure looks appealing" because I don't. I think 65+ million is worth fighting the NBA over. They would never sue the NBA out of obligation to Hansen, they will sue the NBA to get that 65+ million that they NBA is preventing them from receiving.
The NBA can force them to take a lower offer. It happened with the Oracle CEO Larry Ellison and GoldenState potential deal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 42570.html
I don't think the Malloofs can sue the league due to agreements. I think that was the point of the Hansen and 20% deal, to work it as some sort of leverage. Maybe as a minority owner he could then buy up other minority owners and get control of the team and do pretty much as he wishes
The outgoing owner of the Warriors opted for the lower offer to keep the team from moving to San Jose, it was not a forced move by the NBA. If it was, it's not public knowledge nor was it done officially, which is how the NBA gets people to do things they legally can't, scare tactics, not legal arguments.
And agreements to not sue are null and void in antitrust cases pretty much all of the time. If an entity is monopolizing an industry (professional basketball in this case) and you want to get into that industry, you have no choice but to agree to whatever conditions put out there by the monopolistic force because that is the ONLY gate of entry, essentially. By nature, most of these agreements tend to be under some semblance of coercion for that reason and rarely hold up. The only exemptions from antitrust litigation are granted by the government, not permitted by an entity in violation of antitrust laws through their own private bylaws.