NBA returning to Seattle?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blitzer88

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
12,820
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle, WA
Throwdown":2e2oees0 said:
Blitzer88":2e2oees0 said:
Throwdown":2e2oees0 said:
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.
 

pinksheets

Active member
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
3,254
Reaction score
19
Location
Seattle
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?
 

Blitzer88

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
12,820
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle, WA
pinksheets":3pgl4i0v said:
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.
 

Snohomie

New member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
3,595
Reaction score
0
Location
Behind enemy lines
Blitzer88":145snzth said:
pinksheets":145snzth said:
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?
 

pinksheets

Active member
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
3,254
Reaction score
19
Location
Seattle
I think it's neutral. It depends on who made that maneuver. It can be bad or good, for both Blitzer's reason or mine.
 

Blitzer88

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
12,820
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle, WA
pinksheets":1xjpvre7 said:
I think it's neutral. It depends on who made that maneuver. It can be bad or good, for both Blitzer's reason or mine.

See I hate seeing you say that! Your supposed to help me step away from the ledge. Now I feel :pukeface:
 

pinksheets

Active member
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
3,254
Reaction score
19
Location
Seattle
I don't want to spin anything, just look at it as rationally as possible. I don't know why they want to vote on relocation first, so it's hard to make a judgment on it.

The thing you need to remember most is this: Are these guys really going to make a financial decision this bad just to appease Stern or out of sentiment?

I still really doubt it.

The Sacramento group has no intention to match the Seattle offer. Franchise valuations fall back to earth.

While Sacramento is a top 20 market in terms of TV households, it also has no potential for an RSN, and tends to fall out of the top 50 metropolitan areas when you look at important variables like spending power. There is very little money to be made in that market, it's also a fairly irrelevant market when it comes to negotiating the next national television deal.

The Sacramento arena plan is still terrible. It's not unrealistic that if the Sac group somehow got a hold of this franchise that the arena deal completely falls apart. There is essentially zero chance a building in Sacramento could be done before one in Seattle, or even within a year. The process moves slower in California even than it does here. The other important factor is that Sacramento is barely getting by as a city. They have overextended themselves in terms of debt and now our attempting to work around the fact that their credit rating is awful by setting up a separate non-profit that can take on more debt on their behalf, except all of this money is really coming out of the city's general fund, which will likely take a nasty hit, and when the high interest bond payments aren't even made up by new arena revenue, that's going to come from the city as well. They want to go all in on a sports arena revitalizing their local economy, except it's make or break move with a huge emphasis on the break. It could wind up being a total disaster. It's really hard to say, since their arena plan has no actual details or hard numbers, just rosy projections that have been pulled out of thin air that don't seem to have any basis in reality. It's a disaster of a plan that could be derailed very easily.

The Sacramento ownership group is cobbled together, does not have the spending power that the Seattle group has, and is constantly in flux. We're talking about guys who openly came out and said they'd want to go for a "moneyball" type approach to building a basketball team, so in other words, more crap product, more revenue sharing going towards this team. The Seattle group will likely be a contributor into the revenue sharing pot and also has the potential to be a team that ends up paying money into the league via the luxury tax. Not a chance in Sacramento.

The two things Sacramento's hopes are relying on: sentimentality (well we know that doesn't matter) and Stern's ability to pull the owners' strings as a lame duck. The latter might be a threat, I've detailed in other posts why I think he could very well not be, as well. If Sacramento does keep the team, it will be both hard and funny seeing that fanbase delude itself into thinking that they fought hard and won, when it really was all Stern backroom politicking.

We have Sacramento beat in every facet of this. They did what they could, but it's not enough to beat Seattle in any area where it counts. They just aren't capable. They need the game to be rigged in their favor, because they can't win it otherwise. I don't put nefarious dealings past the NBA, obviously, so it's all possible. It'd just be a bonehead move.

I've often seen Sacramento fans claiming, similarly to Seattle fans, that if they don't come out of this with a team, they will be done with the NBA. Seattle fans say this because spurning a fanbase twice will alienate them from the league for a generation. Sacramento fans say this, openly, because they know that once the NBA is gone, they will be just like any other professional sports league, in that they will have no interest in Sacramento beyond letting the TV households trickle towards other markets' teams. "We're such a great market, you should stay. We're such a bad market, once you leave, you'll never want to come back."
 

pinksheets

Active member
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
3,254
Reaction score
19
Location
Seattle
It's also worth noting that the team is valued so highly largely because of its mobility. It has no lease its locked into, etc., and Hansen obviously thinks that the team is worth that or more in Seattle. It's not in Sacramento. Part of their new arena plan includes a 30 year lease, as well. What will that team be worth then? Nothing. Not close to what Hansen was offering. It'll be a bad team in a weak economy that's being outpaced by other markets AND the team will be stuck there for at least 3 decades. Who in their right mind would ever pay top dollar for that team in the future? Then what happens if things don't go well? Nobody is going to want to buy that team. Would the league have to buy the team at some point? This is where the NBA's little love affairs with fledgling markets start to bite them.
 

Blitzer88

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
12,820
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle, WA
Man....reading through the comments on Sonicsrising is sooooo depressing today. Lots of negativity today to fuel my negativity.........uh.
 

RealDeal

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2012
Messages
157
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle, WA
I love this part from stern today.

Stern said Seattle investors have done a lot of work and are well funded. He said the Sacramento bid is "in the ballpark." The Sacramento contingent shows a strong group of support and has stepped up. 

Lol in the ballpark my a** they do not have half of what they say. I have said it from the start it is all a show, make it look like they are giving them a chance but trust Hansen, think of what we have in hand right now.

1. Cash down (30 mill)

2. Land paid for in full lots of it, ( and can get more in the drop of a dime.)

3. Arena deal ready to go.

4. And are you readdy for it..... A SIGNED DEAL TO BUY THE TEAM.
 

Throwdown

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
24,042
Reaction score
1,325
Location
Tacoma, WA
SacHawk2.0":x8sghvbg said:
Throwdown":x8sghvbg said:
Get a girlfriend lol

Imma choke half my Facebook friends for acting like bitches

Imma choke a certain .Net friend for actually being a bitch.

Hey what Roland does on the board has nothing to do with me
 

Laloosh

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
8,688
Reaction score
0
Location
WA
Blitzer88":6x80zj6u said:
...That is true, but again it does seem fishy that they have decided to have the relo vote before the sale approval...

I disagree. I think a majority will approve relocation, making it that much more difficult to blow off Hansen's group on the sale with 8 votes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top