Page 21 of 22 FirstFirst ... 111516171819202122 LastLast
Results 401 to 420 of 437

Thread: Sacramento Kings sold to Seattle?

  1. #401
    Administrator Eze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    4,122
    messy, messy, messy.











  2. #402
    Super Moderator nuraman00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    29,586
    Quote Originally Posted by ctba View Post
    Add another point to KJ's offer.
    What does that mean, "they could see Seattle deal before crafting counter offer"?













  3. #403
    Administrator Eze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    4,122
    Quote Originally Posted by nuraman00 View Post
    What does that mean, "they could see Seattle deal before crafting counter offer"?
    They'd be able to view the Seattle offer in the paperwork of the sale assuming they were to put a bid in on the 7%.











  4. #404
    Moderator ctbaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Eze View Post
    They'd be able to view the Seattle offer in the paperwork of the sale assuming they were to put a bid in on the 7%.
    I think that would be no brainer move.











  5. #405
    Moderator ctbaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,242
    So if the minority owners truly do have First right of refusal, I have heard they have 60 days from the time they receive the certified deal. They still haven't gotten the certified deal yet according to some minority owners. Doesn't that kind of screw Seattle from even getting a deal even voted upon on April 19th?











  6. #406
    Super Moderator nuraman00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    29,586
    Quote Originally Posted by ctba View Post
    So if the minority owners truly do have First right of refusal, I have heard they have 60 days from the time they receive the certified deal. They still haven't gotten the certified deal yet according to some minority owners. Doesn't that kind of screw Seattle from even getting a deal even voted upon on April 19th?
    Do the minority partners even have enough money for it to matter and to buy the 65% that's for sale?






  7. #407
    Moderator ctbaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by nuraman00 View Post
    Do the minority partners even have enough money for it to matter and to buy the 65% that's for sale?
    I don't see why they can't bring someone in like Burkle/Mastrov to help pay for it. Jordan did it with Charlotte.











  8. #408
    Super Moderator nuraman00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    29,586
    Quote Originally Posted by ctba View Post
    I don't see why they can't bring someone in like Burkle/Mastrov to help pay for it. Jordan did it with Charlotte.
    I didn't know you could bring someone in.

    1. Who did Jordan bring in?

    2. Do all of the current minority owners have to be in the group that buys the 65%? What if only 80% of them want to do it, can those 80% still be used to exercise the right of first refusal?

    Could you literally have only one existing minority partner, and then everyone else is new?






  9. #409
    Administrator Eze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    4,122
    They'd just bid on the 7% - the issue being, first right of refusal. Bruski and Ham essentially confirmed they do indeed have it, so, they'll have the right to bid on it (all the minority owners will) before Seattle would. Now, if that wasn't the case, there would be a bidding war between Sacramento and Seattle, which Seattle would probably win.











  10. #410
    Moderator ctbaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Eze View Post
    They'd just bid on the 7% - the issue being, first right of refusal. Bruski and Ham essentially confirmed they do indeed have it, so, they'll have the right to bid on it (all the minority owners will) before Seattle would. Now, if that wasn't the case, there would be a bidding war between Sacramento and Seattle, which Seattle would probably win.
    I am pretty sure the 7% won't be able to use FROR.











  11. #411
    Administrator Eze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    4,122
    With minutes to go until his exclusive negotiating window was to expire, Jordan struck a deal late Friday night to buy controlling interest of the Charlotte Bobcats, putting the six-time NBA champion in charge of the money-losing team in his home state.

    Owner Bob Johnson announced in a statement that he's agreed to sell the Bobcats to Jordan, who has been a part-owner of the team since 2006. Jordan has been running the team's basketball operations.

    The purchase price and details of Jordan's ownership group -- called MJ Basketball Holdings LLC -- weren't immediately available. A spokeswoman for Johnson and a spokesman for Jordan said neither was available for comment early Saturday.

    The league's owners must approve the purchase.

    Jordan was in competition with former Houston Rockets executive George Postolos, who also had an ownership group together to buy the team. But Postolos said Jordan had the exclusive right to buy the club until just before midnight Friday night.
    Jordan just brought along investors, but, he used the right of first refusal to buy the team.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4951410











  12. #412
    Administrator Eze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    4,122
    Quote Originally Posted by ctba View Post
    I am pretty sure the 7% won't be able to use FROR.
    Really? Then it's just a bidding war, no?











  13. #413
    Moderator ctbaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Eze View Post
    Really? Then it's just a bidding war, no?
    I wouldn't think they could since the sale is already in the process. If it were before the process I would think it would be okay. I don't see why one of the current minority owners doesn't team up with Burkle.











  14. #414
    Super Moderator nuraman00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    29,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Eze View Post
    They'd just bid on the 7% - the issue being, first right of refusal. Bruski and Ham essentially confirmed they do indeed have it, so, they'll have the right to bid on it (all the minority owners will) before Seattle would. Now, if that wasn't the case, there would be a bidding war between Sacramento and Seattle, which Seattle would probably win.
    I'm still confused about the 7%.

    * 52% of the team owned by the Maloofs is up for sale.

    * 12% is owned by Bob Hernreich (he was once arrested for domestic violence, but charges weren't filed).

    * Why does the 7% owed by Bob Cook matter if it's not for sale? Why is it being bid on?













  15. #415
    Moderator ctbaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by nuraman00 View Post
    I'm still confused about the 7%.

    * 52% of the team owned by the Maloofs is up for sale.

    * 12% is owned by Bob Hernreich (he was once arrested for domestic violence, but charges weren't filed).

    * Why does the 7% owed by Bob Cook matter if it's not for sale? Why is it being bid on?
    Anyone know the breakdown of the ownership?











  16. #416
    Administrator Eze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    4,122
    Quote Originally Posted by nuraman00 View Post
    I'm still confused about the 7%.

    * 52% of the team owned by the Maloofs is up for sale.

    * 12% is owned by Bob Hernreich (he was once arrested for domestic violence, but charges weren't filed).

    * Why does the 7% owed by Bob Cook matter if it's not for sale? Why is it being bid on?
    It's in bankruptcy court, since Cook filed for bankruptcy. If somebody in the Kings group gets it - it allows them to become part owner, which would give them right of first refusal - at least that's how it's being suggested.











  17. #417

  18. #418
    Super Moderator nuraman00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    29,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Eze View Post
    It's in bankruptcy court, since Cook filed for bankruptcy. If somebody in the Kings group gets it - it allows them to become part owner, which would give them right of first refusal - at least that's how it's being suggested.
    Oh, ok.

    And the Kings minority owners can have the first right of refusal to bid on that?













  19. #419
    Moderator ctbaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Eze View Post
    It's in bankruptcy court, since Cook filed for bankruptcy. If somebody in the Kings group gets it - it allows them to become part owner, which would give them right of first refusal - at least that's how it's being suggested.
    I would think since the auction of that 7% happens after the offer and deal were made with Hansen, I don't see whoever buys that 7% can use FROR. That's why I don't think that 7% is actually that important. If FROR is valid, then one of the minority owners needs to be engaged with BURKLE/MASTROV to invest.











  20. #420
    Administrator Eze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    4,122
    Quote Originally Posted by ctba View Post
    I would think since the auction of that 7% happens after the offer and deal were made with Hansen, I don't see whoever buys that 7% can use FROR. That's why I don't think that 7% is actually that important. If FROR is valid, then one of the minority owners needs to be engaged with BURKLE/MASTROV to invest.
    But haven't the minority owners repeatedly said they weren't given that right? Because the Maloofs didn't read their own contract? Maloofs came out and said that there was no FROR, but, the original purchase agreement was brought to light and it does indeed include it, which the Maloofs - at least according to them - weren't even aware of, thus that's why they never informed any minority owners of the sale.

    But I don't buy that the Maloofs didn't know - they asked for that non-refundable $30 million for a reason.

    There are also some things in there that Seattle says there is no ROFR so it's looking like a court issue, and no way this gets sorted out by April.











Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •