NBA returning to Seattle?

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheRealDTM

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle
CurryStopstheRuns":18n4dcea said:
You are arguing hearsay, squirt.

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.


I'm taking information gathered by a sacramento reporter (who had direct experience, as result of his interview) and posting it here. So not really hearsay.
 

Happypuppy

New member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
1,975
Reaction score
0
Hawkfan77":1g42jflp said:
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
 

CurryStopstheRuns

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
3,092
Reaction score
0
TheRealDTM":2f8t5566 said:
CurryStopstheRuns":2f8t5566 said:
You are arguing hearsay, squirt.

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.


I'm taking information gathered by a sacramento reporter (who had direct experience, as result of his interview) and posting it here. So not really hearsay.

Think about your original post and then think about the definition that you just gave.
 

Hawkfan77

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
3,280
Reaction score
0
Happypuppy":nst04vmk said:
Hawkfan77":nst04vmk said:
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
Nope, that was ownership who didn't take the Ellison bid, not the BOG rejecting Ellison. And yes the Maloofs can sue the NBA even though there is a clause that "prevents" basically every legal analyst who's weighed in has said there are work arounds and the clause is pretty much meaningless.
 

pinksheets

Active member
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
3,254
Reaction score
19
Location
Seattle
Happypuppy":23bekvlc said:
Hawkfan77":23bekvlc said:
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.
 

Hawkfan77

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
3,280
Reaction score
0
pinksheets":38i3ca6l said:
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.
You explained this much better than I did, thanks. Ha
 

pinksheets

Active member
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
3,254
Reaction score
19
Location
Seattle
You explained it more concisely, so kudos to you as well.


But when our powers combine.......
 

TheRealDTM

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle
CurryStopstheRuns":x7bydsxm said:
TheRealDTM":x7bydsxm said:
CurryStopstheRuns":x7bydsxm said:
You are arguing hearsay, squirt.

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.


I'm taking information gathered by a sacramento reporter (who had direct experience, as result of his interview) and posting it here. So not really hearsay.

Think about your original post and then think about the definition that you just gave.

Oh feel free to disagree with my interpretation of the quote. I think it means the maloofs are getting cold feet. What upset me was when you said my comment was baseless vomit. And then argued that the links I posted were hearsay.
 

AbsolutNET

New member
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
8,974
Reaction score
1
Location
PNW
pinksheets":26027146 said:
Some of you are the sorriest pussies I've ever seen. FYI.

Yeah, but Throwdown means well.


seriously though, the rest of you need to stop bickering. This is an awesome thread that needs to be maintained as such
 

Throwdown

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
24,042
Reaction score
1,325
Location
Tacoma, WA
AbsolutNET":167uiogy said:
pinksheets":167uiogy said:
Some of you are the sorriest pussies I've ever seen. FYI.

Yeah, but Throwdown means well.


seriously though, the rest of you need to stop bickering. This is an awesome thread that needs to be maintained as such

Well I never!
 

TheRealDTM

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle
Chris Daniels":35vhs5wy said:
George Maloof says he would work “in good faith” to get Sac Arena done, and so would H/B if they held 20%. #NBAKings

Have to say i'm glad to see this. you can disagree but it seems like HBN and Maloofs realized the relocation isn't happening and are changing their percieved "threats" into good faith offers. The maloofs also said they would do the 20% so H/B/N could "get in the league". Which would help us get an expansion soon (see nba discussing TV rights sooner).

I was all for the nuclear option but if we can stomache a year we may have better options ahead of us. Although Sacramento is going to hate us forever and that's Stern's fault (one last punch to Seattle before Silver gives us expansion in 2014)

edit: If you want to go real conspiracy theorist: The nba can say a new seattle team would mean a crazy Sac-Sea rivalry.
 

pinksheets

Active member
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
3,254
Reaction score
19
Location
Seattle
Here's the whole series of tweets referenced above:

Chris Daniels ‏@ChrisDaniels5 2m
George Maloof – if we went back to Sacramento – we would try to get an arena done. #NBAKings

Chris Daniels ‏@ChrisDaniels5 2m
George Maloof says he would work “in good faith” to get Sac Arena done, and so would H/B if they held 20%. #NBAKings

Chris Daniels ‏@ChrisDaniels5 38s
Maloof says H/B want into league, and references Vivek’s buying into Warriors. #NBAKings

I don't want to Bennett Sacramento, but it seems that's the only method acceptable to the NBA.
 

TheRealDTM

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle
pinksheets":1e6mi6ek said:
I don't want to Bennett Sacramento, but it seems that's the only method acceptable to the NBA.

I'd say with the TV deal leak they're angling towards expansion, if the TV numbers come back favorably of course. Do you disagree?
 

pinksheets

Active member
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
3,254
Reaction score
19
Location
Seattle
TheRealDTM":1k9qzb6p said:
pinksheets":1k9qzb6p said:
I don't want to Bennett Sacramento, but it seems that's the only method acceptable to the NBA.

I'd say with the TV deal leak they're angling towards expansion, if the TV numbers come back favorably of course. Do you disagree?
Yeah, but Hansen and Ballmer aren't going to back down just because the NBA says "see we moved up the negotiations, so we'll consider it even sooner." Anything from the NBA that has the word "consider" as a key element is not going to be enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top