NBA returning to Seattle?

[Throwdown]

Sac group can win, but the Maloofs already said they won't sell to 'em.

 

[pinksheets]

I also just read in the sac bee that the Sacramento group plans to put half of the 341 million in escrow account by Friday. Seattle's bid is higher but that is also due to the fact that the magoofs owe the City of Sacramento 70 million. If the Sacramento group wins they will then owe the money.

This is a silly assumption made by Sacramento fans that has never been shown to be true.

The Maloofs do not owe the money to the city, the Kings organization does. The Maloofs inherited that debt as Kings owners, did they not? From all we can tell, the Hansen group would be paying that loan off after buying the team, not subtracting it from the Maloofs' cut. The only way Sacramento can use that loan to their advantage would be to forgive it if a group keeping the team in Sacramento gained control. I'm not even sure KJ has the power to do so, as the bondholders want their money.

And it will be interesting to see your "whales" actually put some money into the game for the first time. If I'm the Maloofs, I wouldn't take notice until 100% of a fully matching offer were in escrow.

 

[dunceface]

Seeing as they have put up exactly $0 so far it will be interesting indeed...

 

[topdog]

I also just read in the sac bee that the Sacramento group plans to put half of the 341 million in escrow account by Friday. Seattle's bid is higher but that is also due to the fact that the magoofs owe the City of Sacramento 70 million. If the Sacramento group wins they will then owe the money.

This is a silly assumption made by Sacramento fans that has never been shown to be true.

The Maloofs do not owe the money to the city, the Kings organization does. The Maloofs inherited that debt as Kings owners, did they not? From all we can tell, the Hansen group would be paying that loan off after buying the team, not subtracting it from the Maloofs' cut. The only way Sacramento can use that loan to their advantage would be to forgive it if a group keeping the team in Sacramento gained control. I'm not even sure KJ has the power to do so, as the bondholders want their money.

No this is money the magoofs own the City of Sacramento which is to be paid in full if the Kings were to ever leave.

 

[pinksheets]

You don't even know your own team or city's situation.

That loan was taken out by Sacramento on behalf of the Kings organization, the Maloofs weren't even the owners at the time. The loan must be paid back if the team relocates, yes, but it is the organization that owes the money, not the Maloofs personally. The loan is the Kings' debt, not the Maloofs'.

 

[Throwdown]

Any team by any means necessary! And if we don't get one, we go out legendary!!!

Do or Die time is right now!

Yeah I'm pumped right now.

 

[pinksheets]

There seems to be rumblings that Ballmer wants to throw more money down. Make the offer's vastly different and give the Maloofs all the incentive to stick it out, not to mention give them a cut and dry lawsuit.

 

[topdog]

Maybe you should look again the magoofs owe the city of sacramento for money they borrowed for the current arena. It has nothing to do with past owners. Then the magoofs have borrowed more than 75 million from the NBA

 

[Throwdown]

I don't like your tone, when speaking about the wonderful Maloofs like that, topdog.

 

[pinksheets]

You're clueless. The loan is from 1997 and the debt is owed by the Kings.

The team owes $64 million. According to city officials, the day the moving trucks pull onto Interstate 5 headed north, team owners must pay that amount plus a $13 million prepayment penalty – $77 million in all.

The city issued the loan to the Kings under duress in 1997. Then-team owner Jim Thomas told City Hall he would move the Kings if Sacramento didn't help him restructure his finances to improve his cash flow here.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/27/514367 ... wners.html

If you can't get the facts straight, don't waste my time.

 

[Throwdown]

There seems to be rumblings that Ballmer wants to throw more money down. Make the offer's vastly different and give the Maloofs all the incentive to stick it out, not to mention give them a cut and dry lawsuit.

Might as well, the way I see it, this is our only shot. No one will sell H/B/N their team after this, they know what it entails and I don't see an ownership group in the league as vindictive as the Maloofs, maybe Jordan if he's really worried about the bottom line. NBA obviously isn't going to expand to appease us and our group of heavy hitters.

Go down swinging, and if we go down? drop a bomb on the bridge! This way we don't get played with again and us Sonics fans can move the hell on.

 

[pinksheets]

There seems to be rumblings that Ballmer wants to throw more money down. Make the offer's vastly different and give the Maloofs all the incentive to stick it out, not to mention give them a cut and dry lawsuit.

Might as well, the way I see it, this is our only shot. No one will sell H/B/N their team after this, they know what it entails and I don't see an ownership group in the league as vindictive as the Maloofs, maybe Jordan if he's really worried about the bottom line. NBA obviously isn't going to expand to appease us and our group of heavy hitters.

Go down swinging, and if we go down? drop a bomb on the bridge! This way we don't get played with again and us Sonics fans can move the hell on.

There's no team this mobile, that's the real issue.

This team had no lease agreement for a reason, the Maloofs wanted to get out to a market where there was real money to be made.

 

[dunceface]

You're clueless. The loan is from 1997 and the debt is owed by the Kings.

The team owes $64 million. According to city officials, the day the moving trucks pull onto Interstate 5 headed north, team owners must pay that amount plus a $13 million prepayment penalty – $77 million in all.

The city issued the loan to the Kings under duress in 1997. Then-team owner Jim Thomas told City Hall he would move the Kings if Sacramento didn't help him restructure his finances to improve his cash flow here.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/27/514367 ... wners.html

If you can't get the facts straight, don't waste my time.

*crickets*

 

[dontbelikethat]

The thing is why would they come to the NBA now after the expansion when they could've came before and played?

Because up until the mid/late 90's those international players didn't exist and NBA teams didn't bother looking for them.

The international reach of the game has changed significantly in the last 20 years. One main reason is NBA marketing - starting with the Dream Team of the 90's Olympics. The other reason (good or bad) is that the style of play in the NBA has changed. The international game has a slightly different set of rules & style (more like NCAA) - more emphasis on playing in space, ball movement, jump shots, etc. In the 80's/90's in was possible for perimeter players to make the transition (the wave of Eastern Euro swingmen like Petrovic, Kukoc, Marciulionis). Since then, the style of the NBA has adapted even further - players like Nowitski, Ginobli, Parker, etc - can now thrive.

There are currently 30 teams in the NBA. Everyone freaks out about expansion and "diluting the product" because in 1990 there were only 22. First wave of NBA expansion was 1990 (Heat, Hornets) then 2 more a year later (Magic, Timberwolves) then 2 more in 1995 (Raptors, Grizzlies). Finally the Bobcats were added in '04 to make it an even 30. However - in the "Golden Age" of the 60's & 70's, when the NBA & ABA were both in action, there was also a total of 30 teams (18 in the NBA, 12 in the ABA).

Basically, you're only looking at a 10 year stretch in the 80's where there were not about 30 professional basketball teams playing in the US. (and the ABA did not fold because of lack of talent - it was like the USFL and folded because of a mish-mash of good/bad owners, no TV deal and small markets).

Bottom line, there's more than enough talent to support 31/32 Pro teams in the US. Expansion is not going to destroy the product. The NBA's issues have always been with bad/restrictive CBA's, no hard salary cap, guaranteed contracts, and the difficulty of trades. That's what allowed "powerhouse" big market teams to hoard talent in the 80's/90's while small market teams suffered. And it meant that if a team made one bad trade/investment it could trap them in cap hell for 3-4 seasons. Supposedly those issues were improved a bit in the latest CBA.

Well why would they come now, when they could've came like 5 years ago? What has changed since then? I wasn't trying to refer back to like the 80's, but like what has changed in the past few years to make them come now instead of then.

 

[topdog]

Yes 1997 the year they bought the kings and borrowed money from the city.

 

[pinksheets]

Read.

 

[Shaz]

Yes 1997 the year they bought the kings and borrowed money from the city.

You're getting destroyed. Either come up with facts or stop talking

 

[seahawk2k]

TopDog has really swallowed the company line pushed by KJ and friends.

This current arena plan will never happen. When it doesn't, come back here and own up.

 

[topdog]

http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2012/9/11 ... o-and-well

 

[Shaz]

http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2012/9/11/3317762/the-maloofs-owe-about-70-million-to-the-city-of-sacramento-and-well

That's not a viable source other than a Pro Sacramento Kings forum

Stop it, you're really reaching for conclusions here