NBA returning to Seattle?

Blitzer88":1zlfsffm said:

What is what with this report from someone in Sacramento that Stern already has 5 owners ready to vote no and at the drop of a hat could call others and get 5 more? I hate Stern!

Click to expand...

You mean from Amick, the Sac based reporter? If that were true, it's game over, it'd have been game over for a long while. So what would we be doing here?

If Hansen hires a front office and coaching staff that does business like him the league better watch out. This up the bid was nothing less then setting up Sac with the Maloofs making a statement about a deadline to match and then putting the knife to their throat with oh were going to throw in another 25 million just because in case your even thinking about it.

I'd advise people not to take what they read seriously unless its from Daniels or that Kasler dude from Sac. They seem to be the least bias'd out of everyone else.

Just this week though, it's gonna go down this week.

It's

Gonna

Go

Down!

Stay confident boys.

If the rollercoaster is too much for you, I say take a backseat this week. I have a feeling the next 2 or 3 days will be an accelerated version of what we have seen, lots of PR, lots of spin, lots of propaganda fed media pieces, etc. etc. Prepare for things to seem crazy and very up and down.

Just remember, that this isn't about that. If it's not definitive news, it's just noise. We've had a lot of "scary" news come out over the past couple of months and look at where we are right now.....cool, calm, collected, confident, just like our boy Chris Hansen....some may be exaggerated, sweaty, and fidgety like Ballmer (Blitzer), but now is our time. Our group has delivered every time they have set a goal, they have delivered in the face of doubt time and time again. Trust that they will close this out like the suave businessmen they are, especially going against an underpaying, unorganized group like Sac has put together, a group arguing sentimentality and emotion over market size, market strength, purchase price, revenue sharing, quality of building, timeline of a building going up, etc.

JSeahawks":eal4a3ek said:

So I have a basketball question for Sonics fans that i'm curious about, rather then a politics question. Assuming you get to start next season either way, would you rather inherit the Kings roster, or get an expansion team and start with a brand new roster?

Click to expand...

For me that's a no brainer -- expansion team. I say that for a couple of different reasons:

1) As I've said repeatedly, I have no desire to do to another city and fanbase what was done to ours. Yes I understand that in the case of the Kings that they have moved around some in their history. They were the Cincinnati Royals, then the Kansas City Kings, and now the Sacramento Kings. However, they've been the Sacramento Kings since 1985 -- so it's going on 28 years that they've been there. Many in that community are attached to the Kings just like fans up here were attached to the Sonics for 41 years. That's one thing that I honestly don't get with many former Sonics fans I've talked to -- many seemingly feel absolutely no remorse at the prospect of ripping the Kings out of Sacramento. If there were honestly another way to get a franchise up here in Seattle again (other than relocation), I would jump at the opportunity. If the buzz in NBA circles is honestly that expansion might be an option in this case, I think that the ownership group in Seattle should seriously explore that.

2) Secondly, if the Kings were to be moved up here, I would have a really hard time thinking of them as the new Sonics. To me, there’s a part of me that would always think of them as the Kings. On Saturday, I was over at Alderwood Mall and happened to pass by Champs Sports there. In the window there of the store – right front and center – was an Oklahoma City Thunder jersey of Kevin Durant. To me, every time I see that jersey (and I see them every now and then from teens I work with) … it’s like a dagger in the heart. Every mention of the Thunder is a constant reminder of what we once had and how it was taken away from us. I personally will never be able to look at that Thunder team without thinking, “that’s our Sonics! That’s OUR team!” There’s a big piece of me that will always associate the Thunder with the Sonics. Likewise, if the Kings are relocated to Seattle, every time I look at them, I’m not going to see the new “Sonics” team … I’m going to see the Kings. And I personally think a lot of people will see the same thing. Do we really and truly want someone else’s team?

If expansion were honestly an option in this case for Seattle, then to me that’s the best case scenario for both cities. Yes, I understand that Seattle is far more along in the process than Sacramento – yada, yada, yada. I get all that. But if it means that we can get a team that’s totally free of any attachments, hard feelings/controversy, and is really and truly only Seattle’s … then sign me up.

And if expansion for Seattle means that we don’t get a team until the 2014-2015 season at the earliest … so what? What’s everybody in such a hurry for? It’s been 5 years since the Sonics have been gone … what’s another year or even two – IF this thing could potentially be done the right way?

It does suck to take another cities team and I would have a hard time too accepting them as the Sonics too, but expansion would only hurt NBA talent further. Talent in the NBA is already slim as it is, adding more teams just makes it even harder. Also, it would mean the Sonics would probably suck for a while since we would be left with the bottom feeders of the NBA to fill up the roster. Unless we're lucky enough to get Andrew Wiggins in 2014.

pinksheets":t0br10xj said:

The Outfield":t0br10xj said:

Lords of Scythia":t0br10xj said:

The bidding war sure turned out to be wonderful for the Maloofs. You'd almost think they orchestrated it with the demand to get an offer in writing from the Sac group.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure they did. They claimed they'd accept the same offer from Sacramento so that HBN would feel the pressure to up their offer. They also gained the additional bonus of looking a little bit less evil in the eyes of Sacramento.

It's aggravating, but hopefully the "bidding war" will end here so that the Maloofs don't benefit any more.

Click to expand...

I stand by my belief that the Maloof "put or shut up, come match and put your name on the dotted line" statement was done, if not by the direction of, with the full consent of Hansen. I also believe the $25m increase in valuation isn't a responsive move, but more or less a preemptive one. We are in the final stretch and Hansen basically fired a huge shot (and keep in mind he is under a gag order so his PR moves are limited) that made the statement that the Seattle group was going to outpay Sacramento no matter what. That trying to go dollar for dollar with this group is not going to be a successful strategy for Sac. He also showed "Maloofs told Sac to put money in the game, they didn't, I put even more." That's a big statement reaffirming that one side is invested and the other has just been talking about the idea of possibly considering toying with the thought of potentially maybe putting some money down if the right conditions arise, perhaps.

Click to expand...

That scenario seems very possible. Hanson sure was ready with the increased bid as soon as Sac told the NBA (although without submitting the offer in writing to the Maloofs) they were matching the original offer. Hanson and the Maloofs are at least operating in close conjunction.

The Kings are not worth 550m in Sacramento.

I was reading this new article and this part caught my eye:

"As a private association that sets its own rules, the NBA has the capacity to evaluate bids as they see it," he [Michael McCann, an on-air legal analyst for NBA-TV] said. "Bidders are not guaranteed having the highest bids means they win the bidding. But I suspect some owners would be uncomfortable voting for a lesser offer. Also the Maloofs (the current controlling owners) would have to agree to take a lesser offer."

Click to expand...

What happens if the Maloofs don't accept a lesser offer? Here it is sounding like it is mandatory.

The Outfield":129nyq3h said:

I was reading this new article and this part caught my eye:

"As a private association that sets its own rules, the NBA has the capacity to evaluate bids as they see it," he [Michael McCann, an on-air legal analyst for NBA-TV] said. "Bidders are not guaranteed having the highest bids means they win the bidding. But I suspect some owners would be uncomfortable voting for a lesser offer. Also the Maloofs (the current controlling owners) would have to agree to take a lesser offer."

Click to expand...

What happens if the Maloofs don't accept a lesser offer? Here it is sounding like it is mandatory.

Click to expand...

They shouldn't be expected to. There shouldn't be a mandatory hometown discount. That's why the Maloofs solicited Sacramento to put pen to paper and get into a binding agreement as a fall back. They want to get paid the same either way, Sacramento doesn't think it should have to pay full price, apparently.

pinksheets":2vdi7vgg said:

The Outfield":2vdi7vgg said:

I was reading this new article and this part caught my eye:

"As a private association that sets its own rules, the NBA has the capacity to evaluate bids as they see it," he [Michael McCann, an on-air legal analyst for NBA-TV] said. "Bidders are not guaranteed having the highest bids means they win the bidding. But I suspect some owners would be uncomfortable voting for a lesser offer. Also the Maloofs (the current controlling owners) would have to agree to take a lesser offer."

Click to expand...

What happens if the Maloofs don't accept a lesser offer? Here it is sounding like it is mandatory.

Click to expand...

They shouldn't be expected to. There shouldn't be a mandatory hometown discount. That's why the Maloofs solicited Sacramento to put pen to paper and get into a binding agreement as a fall back. They want to get paid the same either way, Sacramento doesn't think it should have to pay full price, apparently.

Click to expand...

But I mean, what if the BOG votes for Sacramento's offer but the Maloofs absolutely refuse to accept that offer. What would happen then?

The Outfield":1kdq5pf1 said:

But I mean, what if the BOG votes for Sacramento's offer but the Maloofs absolutely refuse to accept that offer. What would happen then?

Click to expand...

Sacramento's hope and the NBA's (if they were to vote down Hansen) is that the Maloofs are in such financial dire straits that they would just take the lesser offer. That's assuming a lot.

I don't think it's unfair of the Maloofs to have come out with the "put it on paper, match it, and be a fair back up" proposal was crazy. They are entitled to a matching offer if the BoG is going to vote down a PSA for reasons that have nothing to do with the PSA itself or the buyers. I've said before, if I were the Maloofs, I'd either sue the crap out of the NBA for antitrust violations or tell them "here's the deal, if you want to go with Sacramento, you, the NBA, pay us the full amount Hansen offered by the end of the day you make that vote and it can be your problem to get the matching price from the Sacramento group."

That's why I think it'd be really hard for owners to vote down Seattle. They'd be denying owners' rights to sell to who they want to sell to for the best price they can, so long as that buying party is in good standing and is financially viable. They'd be giving hosting cities right of first refusal in a way that doesn't even mean "match this offer and they're yours", just "put up any respectable offer and it's yours". That sounds counter-intuitive as a business move. They would also be turning down an ownership group that IS strong and has a set arena plan that could potentially see ground broken in November, at least according to Hansen's projections. They'd then be left with a Sacramento ownership group that's been in a constant state of flux, built up of more than 30 owners now that the $1 million pledge guys are in, and with an arena plan that still needs to go through the process of actually, you know, being completed. Adding details to the financing plan, getting actual, sourced projections, and putting the ownership group (who no longer has the key player who negotiated the term sheet involved) into negotiations with a city council that no longer is looking down the barrel of a gun to get a plan done. Why not take all the time you need? Whose to say that agreement just doesn't fall apart entirely?

None of it adds up.

It can happen, sure, but it'd be a bizarre move.

:salute:

Heard this am the Hansen group won 7 percent for 15 million bid in bankruptcy court. Kjr.

KJ and the whales are going to have a press conference today at 1:30

The Outfield":3eh6q504 said:

KJ and the whales are going to have a press conference today at 1:30

Click to expand...

Probably to announce their bid has been sent in.

The Outfield":1zsgutub said:

KJ and the whales are going to have a press conference today at 1:30

Click to expand...

Can i get my temporary moderator-ship before then?

SacHawk2.0":ur90m46l said:

The Outfield":ur90m46l said:

KJ and the whales are going to have a press conference today at 1:30

Click to expand...

Can i get my temporary moderator-ship before then?

Click to expand...

Only if I can get mine

Throwdown":ftc1f2co said:

SacHawk2.0":ftc1f2co said:

The Outfield":ftc1f2co said:

KJ and the whales are going to have a press conference today at 1:30

Click to expand...

Can i get my temporary moderator-ship before then?

Click to expand...

Only if I can get mine

Click to expand...

:x

SacHawk2.0":2c4npb28 said:

:x

Click to expand...

It'll all be better by Friday... Well for us in Seattle it is, dunno bout y'all in Sactown.



love ya booboo!

If its any consolation, after Friday we'll send you Blitzer to be THAT guy in your group of friends.