When's the last time you felt good about anything though? Lol

#donttripblitzer

The Sacramento group not matching the offer is a death knell. The Maloofs gave them the opportunity to do so and Sacramento is even requesting that the PSA be voided just so they can buy the team at a price that isn't inflated. The owners are not going to force the Maloofs to take less money, Sacramento needed to match. Stern can make whatever push he wants, but clearly even Sac's group knows the deal.

The scenarios in order of likelihood:

1) Seattle gets the Kings
2) Seattle gets the Kings, Sacramento is told they will get an expansion team if they can get their arena completed
3) Sacramento keeps the Kings, Seattle is promised expansion
4) Sacramento keeps the Kings, Seattle gets nothing

We have gotten this far in and Sacramento is still not matching the offer, they never will. The PSA will be approved.

We get mandated the name. Sonic Kings?

One thing I have learned during this whole process......deadlines mean nothing.

And secondly, does it not concern you guys a bit that Stern said the the Sac group would be willing to match the 30mil deposit? If they do match that than that changes things dramatically. Plus Mitch Levy, who is pretty well plugged in, is even saying that the ;longer this drags on, the less likely that we will get the NBA back per his twitter account.

He said they would be willing to put down a deposit.

I never heard match or $30 million.

And, the new Sac bid includes a clause to entirely walk away from the Hansen negotiations/contract. It requires the Maloofs to do that BEFORE the new Sac group offers up a final offer.

Sounds fishy.

I mentioned this twitter quote earlier, but this thinking by Michael McCann really really bugs that crap out of me:

Michael McCann ‏@McCannSportsLaw 3h
@lildeac2 Hansen might have this, but his closing argument clearly didn't seal the deal. The jury is still deliberating under Judge Stern.
Hide conversation

Per Chris Daniels: A source with knowledge of the negotiations told KING5 on Wednesday that the Sacramento bid was “non-binding,” did not include a deposit, and did not match the offer from Hansen. The source also told KING 5 that the Sacramento group wants the Maloof family to terminate the deal with Hansen before entering into any binding agreement. The source suggested the Maloofs have rejected that request. The same source said the Sacramento group, led by Golden State Warriors owner Vivek Ranadive, was having trouble coming up with the money to solidify their counter bid, and had asked for more time to close the deal.

Just what I thought, Stern giving the Sac group more time to get the money to get the Kings...........

And comments from Paul Allen:
I think the league announced that there wasn’t going to be a decision at this owners meeting. If there was, I’d be back in New York talking to people, forming my opinion. I think it’s a tough call. While I supported the Sonics staying in Seattle when they ended up leaving, I think in general there’s some feeling that if there’s good fan support and there’s good political support sufficient to have a state of the art facility, that’s more than enough reason to keep a franchise in the same place. Then you can get into all the parameters of who has made the best offer, who hasn’t made the best offer. It’s a very difficult thing. Steve Ballmer is a very good friend of mine and I think he would be a great owner. I reserve my final decision.

And man.......the people at Sonicsrising are up in arms too. Lots of confusion and belief that things are changing in favor of the Kings. So a high earlier today from the news of Sacs bid or lack there of and now to see the complete 180 that has occurred since the meetings ended is quite worrisome to see.

Here's a link to where the paul allen quote came from. Most of it is Blazer related, just that one question about the Kings/Sonics:

I think the league announced that there wasn't going to be a decision at this owners meeting. If there was, I'd be back in New York talking to people, forming my opinion. I think it's a tough call. While I supported the Sonics staying in Seattle when they ended up leaving, I think in general there's some feeling that if there's good fan support and there's good political support sufficient to have a state of the art facility, that's more than enough reason to keep a franchise in the same place.

Then you can get into all the parameters of who has made the best offer, who hasn't made the best offer. It's a very difficult thing. Steve Ballmer is a very good friend of mine and I think he would be a great owner. I reserve my final decision.

http://www.blazersedge.com/2013/4/17/42 ... with-media

He votes against us he'll forever be a bitch in my eyes, saving the Seahawks gets anulled

Stern is going to do everything he can to keep Seattle from getting a team.

Throwdown wrote:He votes against us he'll forever be a bitch in my eyes, saving the Seahawks gets anulled

He'll voted or Seattle.

SeatownJay wrote:Stern is going to do everything he can to keep Seattle from getting a team.

Appears that way, but money talks and sac don't have enough

I thought the Seattle group had a clause in their agreement with the Maloofs to keep them from negotiating with the Sac group?

Throwdown wrote:He votes against us he'll forever be a bitch in my eyes, saving the Seahawks gets anulled

I sure hope Paul Allen does not betray this city

CPHawk wrote:I thought the Seattle group had a clause in their agreement with the Maloofs to keep them from negotiating with the Sac group?

They do, this is why the sac group is dealing with the nba and bypassing the Maloofs.

Throwdown wrote:

CPHawk wrote:I thought the Seattle group had a clause in their agreement with the Maloofs to keep them from negotiating with the Sac group?

They do, this is why the sac group is dealing with the nba and bypassing the Maloofs.

Which is an entirely different discussion because the NBA cannot force the Maloofs to sell to the Sac group if the BOG votes down Hansen (which should not even be a possibility but this is Stern's NBA we are talking about)

The fact that Sac has a seat at this table is beyond ridiculous. They have a non binding term sheet that only the city voted on for the arena. They have yet to vote on financing for the arena. They don't have the land for the arena. They submitted a lesser bid than Hansen just TWO days ago AND they have not come up with the same $30 mil downpayment for the Kings. Sac has not invested a cent into acquiring the Kings yet Stern is doing everything possible to screw Seattle again.

Hansen has put in the time and money (95 mil in land and downpayment to the Maloofs). Our MOU is legally bound for 5 years, the arena WILL be built. This has been an aggravating story to follow from a Sonics perspective.

Seattle wouldve had the same shot in 2008 if the state and local government had approved what Ballmer was offering then, they didn't so the team left.

NBA is going to give Sacramento a chance to fight for its team, it'd be awful not to.

But like its been said earlier, if the sac group is asking the Maloofs to tear up the agreement with Hansen, they know they don't have their 8 votes to stop Hansen.

Chris Daniels ‏@ChrisDaniels5 2m
Pacers Owner Simon on #NBAKings decision timeline: “it’s up to the Commissioner”

Looks like Stern is still the straw that stirs the drink for the owners......smh.

Throwdown wrote:Seattle wouldve had the same shot in 2008 if the state and local government had approved what Ballmer was offering then, they didn't so the team left.

NBA is going to give Sacramento a chance to fight for its team, it'd be awful not to.

But like its been said earlier, if the sac group is asking the Maloofs to tear up the agreement with Hansen, they know they don't have their 8 votes to stop Hansen.

I think I disagree too a point with your first two statements. For the BOG to deny the sale to Hansen they are basically saying that when they want to sell their own teams, they really don't have the right to seek out the highest bidder. By voting down Hansen they are putting future restrictions on themselves when they choose to sell their teams. I understand the difference between what's happening here and a normal sale but honestly the owners would be taking the power of sale out of their own hands and giving it the other owners.

The NBA is going to set the precedent for potential owners to lie and then get a relocation vote a year after owning the team if they vote Hansen down.

But I 100% agree with your last statement. That clause wreaks of weakness on their part. They offer no downpayment yet are trying to make a power play with NOTHING to back them up. I mean the Sac group didn't even bring a knife to a gun a fight.

Blitzer88 wrote:Chris Daniels ‏@ChrisDaniels5 2m
Pacers Owner Simon on #NBAKings decision timeline: “it’s up to the Commissioner”

Looks like Stern is still the straw that stirs the drink for the owners......smh.

Shut up Blitzer, they pay stern he's not doing a damn thing. IMO there's a huge rift between Stern and the Owners and that's why we are where we are.

Peter McLoughlin (Seahawks President) is at the BOG meetings for Allen

Exclusive:Peter McLoughlin , Prez of Hawks rep. 4 Paul Alllen at BOG on if Allen would vote no on Hansen: “I don’t see that occurring, no.”

— Jason Puckett (@JasonPuckettKJR) April 18, 2013

Throwdown wrote:Peter McLoughlin (Seahawks President) is at the BOG meetings for Allen

Exclusive:Peter McLoughlin , Prez of Hawks rep. 4 Paul Alllen at BOG on if Allen would vote no on Hansen: “I don’t see that occurring, no.”

— Jason Puckett (@JasonPuckettKJR) April 18, 2013

Yep, just saw that. Well there's that, haha I was getting upset for no reason. Sorry Paul for doubting you!

Hawkfan77 wrote:

Throwdown wrote:Peter McLoughlin (Seahawks President) is at the BOG meetings for Allen

Exclusive:Peter McLoughlin , Prez of Hawks rep. 4 Paul Alllen at BOG on if Allen would vote no on Hansen: “I don’t see that occurring, no.”

— Jason Puckett (@JasonPuckettKJR) April 18, 2013

Yep, just saw that. Well there's that, haha I was getting upset for no reason. Sorry Paul for doubting you!

Me too, i was on the verge of calling the man a bitch lol

Hawkfan77 wrote:

Throwdown wrote:Seattle wouldve had the same shot in 2008 if the state and local government had approved what Ballmer was offering then, they didn't so the team left.

NBA is going to give Sacramento a chance to fight for its team, it'd be awful not to.

But like its been said earlier, if the sac group is asking the Maloofs to tear up the agreement with Hansen, they know they don't have their 8 votes to stop Hansen.

I think I disagree too a point with your first two statements. For the BOG to deny the sale to Hansen they are basically saying that when they want to sell their own teams, they really don't have the right to seek out the highest bidder. By voting down Hansen they are putting future restrictions on themselves when they choose to sell their teams. I understand the difference between what's happening here and a normal sale but honestly the owners would be taking the power of sale out of their own hands and giving it the other owners.

The NBA is going to set the precedent for potential owners to lie and then get a relocation vote a year after owning the team if they vote Hansen down.

But I 100% agree with your last statement. That clause wreaks of weakness on their part. They offer no downpayment yet are trying to make a power play with NOTHING to back them up. I mean the Sac group didn't even bring a knife to a gun a fight.[/quote]

They have a much more dangerous weapon, and politician as the front man, why he is leading this I have no idea since he has no personal stake other then getting re elected. We seen the bad having politicians involved here, or maybe the lack of involvement and dodgeing the issue, KJ is the extreme opposite but that extreme could damage both sides involved. Again do you trust what a politician says on camera or in a interview?

Press conference w/ Stern about to start:

http://livewire.kcra.com/Event/Monument ... ento_Kings

Probably won't hear anything useful.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/91902 ... ento-kings

Good to hear the details come out that the Sac group is basically pitching smoke and mirrors. I'm feeling pretty good about this right now.

According to my calculations, May 9th is the day we get the Sonics back?

Throwdown wrote:According to my calculations, May 9th is the day we get the Sonics back?

Shut up

seahawk2k wrote:http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/9190217/letter-maloofs-favor-seattle-deal-sacramento-kings

Good to hear the details come out that the Sac group is basically pitching smoke and mirrors. I'm feeling pretty good about this right now.

From that article:

"Based on these factors ... we and our advisors see no reason to continue any dialogue with the Sacramento group or to give any further consideration to negotiating back-up offers based on its latest non-binding proposal," the letter said.

SacHawk2.0 wrote:

Throwdown wrote:According to my calculations, May 9th is the day we get the Sonics back?

Shut up

Thats what the Maloofs just said to Vivek Ranadive

Throwdown wrote:

SacHawk2.0 wrote:

Throwdown wrote:According to my calculations, May 9th is the day we get the Sonics back?

Shut up

Thats what the Maloofs just said to Vivek Ranadive

I hate your face

SacHawk2.0 wrote:I hate your face

Said George Maloof to Kevin Johnson.

I will cut you.

SacHawk2.0 wrote:I will cut you.

Said Throwdown the future GM of the Sonics 2.0 (effective May 6th) to Jimmer Freddette.

...how dare you 2.0 me...

No more sensual back rubs for you!

Hey I love backrubs but seriously would be great to have a basketball team in Seattle as it has been like forever!

Well it's happening in may, and I'll see you people at the key this fall & winter!

Interesting exchange between Chris Daniels and Stern during his presser here:

Q. Question for both of you. Commissioner Stern, are you trying to influence this decision one way or the other or trying to push the owners of the NBA one way or the other in making this decision?

STERN: Actually, despite what you’ve written and said, the answer is no.

Q. Well, I’m glad to know that you do read our website and watch our TV station so I appreciate that.

STERN: I’m waiting to see something accurate.

Throwdown wrote:He votes against us he'll forever be a bitch in my eyes, saving the Seahawks gets anulled

Come on. Paul Allen is just covering his ass via PR. He'll vote enthusiastically for the Sonics and his "very good friend" Steve Ballmer. Are you kidding me? THese guys have barbecues together while enjoying bondage performance-art. I wish this was the Shack and I coulda said what I wanted.

Blitzer88 wrote:Interesting exchange between Chris Daniels and Stern during his presser here:

Q. Question for both of you. Commissioner Stern, are you trying to influence this decision one way or the other or trying to push the owners of the NBA one way or the other in making this decision?

STERN: Actually, despite what you’ve written and said, the answer is no.

Q. Well, I’m glad to know that you do read our website and watch our TV station so I appreciate that.

STERN: I’m waiting to see something accurate.

Stern has a beef with Daniels, its awkward as hell.

Throwdown wrote:

Blitzer88 wrote:Interesting exchange between Chris Daniels and Stern during his presser here:

Q. Question for both of you. Commissioner Stern, are you trying to influence this decision one way or the other or trying to push the owners of the NBA one way or the other in making this decision?

STERN: Actually, despite what you’ve written and said, the answer is no.

Q. Well, I’m glad to know that you do read our website and watch our TV station so I appreciate that.

STERN: I’m waiting to see something accurate.

Stern has a beef with Daniels, its awkward as hell.

If Stern thinks that Seattle is spewing false info or propaganda against him that just adds another piece to why he favors Sacramento. Stern definitely wasn't as brash when it came to sac-Town reporters.

Stern wants our ownership group in the NBA, the rest of the owners want them as well. Stern is still butt hurt about being told to take a number when he came to Seattle, I'm sure the reporters that covered that as in Daniels probably also wrote some not so flattering stories since the Sonics were put on the fast track out of Seattle to Okie town versus this slow crawl to Seattle from Sacramento.

Blitzer88 wrote:

Throwdown wrote:

Blitzer88 wrote:Interesting exchange between Chris Daniels and Stern during his presser here:

Q. Question for both of you. Commissioner Stern, are you trying to influence this decision one way or the other or trying to push the owners of the NBA one way or the other in making this decision?

STERN: Actually, despite what you’ve written and said, the answer is no.

Q. Well, I’m glad to know that you do read our website and watch our TV station so I appreciate that.

STERN: I’m waiting to see something accurate.

Stern has a beef with Daniels, its awkward as hell.

If Stern thinks that Seattle is spewing false info or propaganda against him that just adds another piece to why he favors Sacramento. Stern definitely wasn't as brash when it came to sac-Town reporters.

Dear god man, you read into this too much. He gave them as many non answers as he did us.

Throwdown wrote:

Blitzer88 wrote:

Throwdown wrote:Stern has a beef with Daniels, its awkward as hell.

If Stern thinks that Seattle is spewing false info or propaganda against him that just adds another piece to why he favors Sacramento. Stern definitely wasn't as brash when it came to sac-Town reporters.

Dear god man, you read into this too much. He gave them as many non answers as he did us.

Not really. Many on sonicsrising have similar concerns like this.

Also many on Sonicsrising look at the fact that the Relocation vote will now come before the vote for sale approval as a major bad point for us and I tend to agree. Reasoning be it that if this relocation vote goes against the HBN group many believe that they would drop out and the NBA would not have to technically vote on the sale approval thus opening the door for the Sac group to come in and basically have a great shot to get the Maloofs to sell to them, basically getting the Maloofs to back out of the Hansen bid without really backing out. Which is what Sac's bid is based on. Seems very fishy to me.

What about the fact that relocation is an up or down majority vote, and if that passes, the ownership vote, which only required 8 votes to nix, would then be a formality?

pinksheets wrote:What about the fact that relocation is an up or down majority vote, and if that passes, the ownership vote, which only required 8 votes to nix, would then be a formality?

That is true, but again it does seem fishy that they have decided to have the relo vote before the sale approval vote. Just seems like an easy way for Stern and the NBA to say no to the Hansen offer without having to really say no. Plus if they do vote no on the relocation vote than its over. I just see this decision as fishy.

Blitzer88 wrote:

pinksheets wrote:What about the fact that relocation is an up or down majority vote, and if that passes, the ownership vote, which only required 8 votes to nix, would then be a formality?

That is true, but again it does seem fishy that they have decided to have the relo vote before the sale approval vote. Just seems like an easy way for Stern and the NBA to say no to the Hansen offer without having to really say no. Plus if they do vote no on the relocation vote than its over. I just see this decision as fishy.

That doesn't make sense.

If the relocation vote doesn't have enough backing for even 50%, there's no reason to hold a sales vote. Do you really think anyone who votes "no" to relocation would vote yes for an owner who has no intention of keeping the team in Sacramento? If we can't get 50% of the vote, how do you imagine we'll get 75% of the vote?

it bodes well for us that the relocation vote is first, IMO.