Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 1216171819202122
Results 421 to 437 of 437

Thread: Sacramento Kings sold to Seattle?

  1. #421
    Moderator ctbaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Eze View Post
    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.
    I am sure Maloofs know. They just knew getting a deal with Hansen they were going to get the most amount of money out of anyone that would buy the team. There are a lot of flaws with this deal with Hansen. Anyone who says it wasn't a back room deal needs to get checked.

    How the NBA has worked sales with the past two teams (Pelicans and Grizzlies), they have told the owners to find someone that will keep the team in that city. Since the Maloofs decided to do a backroom deal instead of coming out publicly and saying they were for sale, they never gave the NBA a chance to tell them to find someone locally that will agree to the arena deal. Everyone knows, more importantly the NBA knows that the Maloofs could have found someone to keep the kings in Sacramento and to agree to an arena deal.

    The issue really comes down to the Maloofs were looking at trying to get as much money as possible and they found a sucker. We all know that if they would have found someone to keep the kings here first there is no way in hell they would have gotten a valuation of 525 million. By doing this back room deal they were able to bypass the NBA and Sacramento and get the most money possible. I am sure the NBA isn't too happy with the Maloofs. At this point I don't think the Maloofs give a fuck. They already have put into place a way that they will get Max dollars from the sale one way or another.











  2. #422
    Moderator ctbaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Eze View Post
    no way this gets sorted out by April.
    And this is why the NBA would have to reject the Hansen deal and tell the Maloofs to find a local buyer. No way the NBA is going to let there be a lame duck season in Sacramento.











  3. #423
    Administrator Eze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    4,110
    I think Hansen was out of opportunities - Grizz and Hornets were off the market and it looks like the Bucks have an investor locally who want to keep the team in Milwaukee, so, there really weren't any other options out there. Add in the fact that Sacramento was having attendance issues and they were the lone team essentially on the market, it was a no brainer for the Seattle group. And the fact they did the $30 million thing was a) them trying to rush it and b) the Maloofs finding their desired sucker.

    There are just WAY too many legal hurdles for this to get done in a timely fashion.











  4. #424
    Moderator ctbaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Eze View Post
    I think Hansen was out of opportunities - Grizz and Hornets were off the market and it looks like the Bucks have an investor locally who want to keep the team in Milwaukee, so, there really weren't any other options out there. Add in the fact that Sacramento was having attendance issues and they were the lone team essentially on the market, it was a no brainer for the Seattle group. And the fact they did the $30 million thing was a) them trying to rush it and b) the Maloofs finding their desired sucker.

    There are just WAY too many legal hurdles for this to get done in a timely fashion.
    I think the 30 million was to try and get the NBA to approve the sale before any challenges could come up.











  5. #425
    Moderator ctbaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,235
    Plus I don't see how they will be able to get 3/4 vote from the owners for the sale. I would think they have a better chance of getting an expansion than winning that vote.











  6. #426
    Administrator Eze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    4,110
    "We are concerned" that the partners' legal rights are being ignored, Fitzgerald told U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein.

    If he's right, it would make Cook's share dramatically more valuable – and could create a major obstacle to the Maloofs' attempt to sell their controlling interest to hedge fund manager Chris Hansen's group. Hansen plans to move the team to Seattle next season.

    Financiers Ron Burkle and Mark Mastrov are assembling a counteroffer to keep the team in Sacramento. While their offer would be presented directly to the NBA, they could get a leg up on Hansen simply by purchasing the 7 percent share at the bankruptcy auction.

    If the bankruptcy judge agrees with the trustee's assertion, Burkle and Mastrov could invoke their limited partner rights and buy out the Maloofs.
    Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/12/518...#storylink=cpy











  7. #427
    Forum Master GoKings2010's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,772
    Well when is this auction suppose to happen? We just got to hope our guys purchase it and not Hanson. If Hanson wins it it looks like theyll be going to Seattle. I think I read something about April but is that for the auction or is that when well find out if there staying or leaving?






  8. #428
    Forum Master DCKingsFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,627
    At this point, should we be resigned that the team is moving or should we still have some hope?










    Have a plan, don't suck!

  9. #429
    Forum Master bloatedmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    12,428
    Quote Originally Posted by DCKingsFan View Post
    At this point, should we be resigned that the team is moving or should we still have some hope?
    The Kings will stay. The Maloofs will lose. There will be cake. Lots of moist delicious cake.






  10. #430
    Forum Master DCKingsFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by bloatedmaniac View Post
    The Kings will stay. The Maloofs will lose. There will be cake. Lots of moist delicious cake.
    And the spiked punch will be good too!










    Have a plan, don't suck!

  11. #431
    Forum Master GoKings2010's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,772
    Im always down to celebrate with a drink. U Supplying the punch ;)






  12. #432
    Moderator ctbaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,235
    So with the lawsuit yesterday being thrown out (expected), Seattle still has a long way to go. Here are the reasons why:
    1) They still do not have an arena deal. All the lawyers yesterday made it emphatically clear they do not have one and that they couldn't until after the EIS is done. The earliest that will be done is this Fall. All the lawyers said the city and county can back out of the MOU at anytime.
    2) This lawsuit will be back after EIS is done. It will have alot more merit then if the city and county approve the deal after that. The judge basically said that Hansen is stringing this deal along and is pushing all the buttons. This is a big no no for a private entity to being pushing all the buttons on a govt deal.
    3)Still need to do EIS on other alternate locations This is where the lawsuit from yesterday will have merit. I haven't seen anything that shows they are doing EIS reviews on other sites which are required by law up there. This will delay the deal even longer.
    4)I95 The way the deal is setup, the city really isn't giving any public subsidy for the arena. It is setup to be a loan that hansens group will pay back. I am not sure if this is legal with I95. The NBA likes arena deals to be a true Public/Private partnership (like Kings will have). This isn't one.

    I don't see any chance in Hell the NBA liking how that is going. There are too many what if's. Especially since there still isn't 100% guarantee that the city/county will actually do the deal. No one can know until after the EIS and lawsuits. There is no way in hell the NBA will send the Kings up there with no 100% guarantee. This could just be a big ploy by the city/county to get a team back up there and then say no to any money. Then what NBA? Let the Kings play in key arena until it falls down? NBA already condemned key arena.

    SO if KJ comes up with this ownership grp and they have signed up on an arena deal, there is no way in Hell the NBA can say NO to that having 100% guarantee that the arena will be built. I have heard that once the arena deal is signed they could have shovels in ground in 30 day. (At least at the RR. Not sure about plaza)





    Last edited by ctbaz; 02-23-2013 at 09:46 AM.






  13. #433
    Administrator Eze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    4,110
    Don't tell Bucher - Burkle people say Kings staying is iffy. lol











  14. #434
    Moderator ctbaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Eze View Post
    Don't tell Bucher - Burkle people say Kings staying is iffy. lol
    Bucher also said Sacramento was following exactly what Seattle did back in 2008 to save the Sonics.











  15. #435
    Administrator Eze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    4,110
    Just like Webber was going to sign with the Knicks and the Kings were moving to Vancouver. lol











  16. #436
    Super Moderator nuraman00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    28,401
    Quote Originally Posted by ctba View Post
    So with the lawsuit yesterday being thrown out (expected), Seattle still has a long way to go. Here are the reasons why:
    1) They still do not have an arena deal. All the lawyers yesterday made it emphatically clear they do not have one and that they couldn't until after the EIS is done. The earliest that will be done is this Fall. All the lawyers said the city and county can back out of the MOU at anytime.
    Environmental Impact Study?

    Why is that taking so long?













  17. #437
    Super Moderator nuraman00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    28,401
    Quote Originally Posted by ctba View Post
    So with the lawsuit yesterday being thrown out (expected), Seattle still has a long way to go. Here are the reasons why:
    1) They still do not have an arena deal. All the lawyers yesterday made it emphatically clear they do not have one and that they couldn't until after the EIS is done. The earliest that will be done is this Fall. All the lawyers said the city and county can back out of the MOU at anytime.
    2) This lawsuit will be back after EIS is done. It will have alot more merit then if the city and county approve the deal after that. The judge basically said that Hansen is stringing this deal along and is pushing all the buttons. This is a big no no for a private entity to being pushing all the buttons on a govt deal.
    3)Still need to do EIS on other alternate locations This is where the lawsuit from yesterday will have merit. I haven't seen anything that shows they are doing EIS reviews on other sites which are required by law up there. This will delay the deal even longer.
    4)I95 The way the deal is setup, the city really isn't giving any public subsidy for the arena. It is setup to be a loan that hansens group will pay back. I am not sure if this is legal with I95. The NBA likes arena deals to be a true Public/Private partnership (like Kings will have). This isn't one.

    I don't see any chance in Hell the NBA liking how that is going. There are too many what if's. Especially since there still isn't 100% guarantee that the city/county will actually do the deal. No one can know until after the EIS and lawsuits. There is no way in hell the NBA will send the Kings up there with no 100% guarantee. This could just be a big ploy by the city/county to get a team back up there and then say no to any money. Then what NBA? Let the Kings play in key arena until it falls down? NBA already condemned key arena.

    SO if KJ comes up with this ownership grp and they have signed up on an arena deal, there is no way in Hell the NBA can say NO to that having 100% guarantee that the arena will be built. I have heard that once the arena deal is signed they could have shovels in ground in 30 day. (At least at the RR. Not sure about plaza)
    What's I95?













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
  •