Board of Governers set to vote on the Seattle/Sacramento ownership debacle.

[D.o.s.]

Word on the internet is they're all getting together sometime today to talk about it, at least.

So I'm curious to see what my fellow Celtics fans have to say about it, especially since we're all safe in the knowledge that Larry Bird will walk through that door before our franchise is relocated.


Personally, I'm glad that the league has changed its stance from 2008 and (apparently) begun to fall on the side of incumbent cities and encouraging ethical attempts to exhaust every opportunity for local sales.

On the other hand, I think that the way it was handled by the Sacramento ownership has really put the screws into a Seattle fanbase that was all but promised a team by the Hansen/Balmer group... who made that promise after being prepped by the league (I assume) in the general and perhaps the specific and had already made a deal to buy the Kings... before the Kings had been offered to any prospective owners that wanted to keep the Kings in Sacramento.

That's how I see it, anyway. Very interesting to watch this all play out.

What do you think?
Is Seattle getting another angry end of a vindictive Stern beatstick as he dashes off into the sunset of retirement? Did SacTown pull off a publicly financed arena grassroots miracle? Why are the Maloofs so (apparently) unfriendly toward the city of Sacramento? Who is John Galt? Westbrook & Durant > Payton & Kemp?

[Roy H.]

I'm glad that the league has changed its stance from 2008 and (apparently) begun to fall on the side of incumbent cities and encouraging ethical attempts to exhaust every opportunity for local sales.

I don't think this has much to do with incumbent cities and ethics.

Instead, like almost everything else, it comes down to money.  What led the NBA's initial decision to keep the team in Sacramento?  The new ownership group's decision to forego revenue sharing, which would mean money in the pockets of the other owners.  If the Board ultimately approves Seattle, it will be because the potential Seattle owners agreed to pay a ridiculous relocation fee, which will distribute money to the owners.

This decision isn't about what's best for the fans, or the league as a whole.  Rather, it's about which choice will directly enrich the other owners the most.  I think that's hilarious, that the owners of the team (the Maloofs) can't sell to the highest bidder, but the league can hold out for whichever ownership group bribes them the most.

[D.o.s.]

See, that's a wrinkle in the timeline I hadn't seen ironed out yet--I thought fairly sure that the promise to forego revenue sharing came after the relocation board's vote.

I'm basing the incumbent city slant mostly on the Arison tweets/messages from a few days ago. Which, of course, when read between the lines, equates to "hey, they're paying for a new arena. You wouldn't."

To my eye, the visibility of the public financing seems more important to the league (and any future expansion) than a 4 million dollar bribe (the most common figure I've seen for breaking down the relocation fee per owner).

(twitter things here: http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2013/5/9/4315020/micky-arison-sacramento-kings-relocation-seattle-supersonics-twitter)

[Fafnir]

I'm glad that the league has changed its stance from 2008 and (apparently) begun to fall on the side of incumbent cities and encouraging ethical attempts to exhaust every opportunity for local sales.

I don't think this has much to do with incumbent cities and ethics.

Instead, like almost everything else, it comes down to money.  What led the NBA's initial decision to keep the team in Sacramento?  The new ownership group's decision to forego revenue sharing, which would mean money in the pockets of the other owners.  If the Board ultimately approves Seattle, it will be because the potential Seattle owners agreed to pay a ridiculous relocation fee, which will distribute money to the owners.

This decision isn't about what's best for the fans, or the league as a whole.  Rather, it's about which choice will directly enrich the other owners the most.  I think that's hilarious, that the owners of the team (the Maloofs) can't sell to the highest bidder, but the league can hold out for whichever ownership group bribes them the most.

I think the league wants to show its power over individual owners who go rogue more than anything. The league wants the Maloofs out and wants them out on the leagues terms at this point.

The Maloofs have been that embarrassing for the league. There are reports the league is currently dangling expansion in front of the Hansen group and trying to separate them from the Maloofs.

Additionally the league wants cities to know if they provide arenas they are "safe". When a city comes up with a credible subsidized arena it doesn't serve the league's long term bargaining position for the city to still lose the team. Only when the city doesn't cave does the NBA want the team to leave, otherwise it makes convincing the public to finance things more difficult.

[Eja117]

After reading what you all wrote....I have to begin to think....this is headed to court...possibly for years...right?

[KGs Knee]

Yep, sounds to me like the Maloofs have a legitimate case to sue the league.

[nickagneta]

Does the league allow for teams to not accept revenue sharing? That seems contrary to the CBA in which, I thought, all teams were represented equally and had to abide by it. If you have to pay into revenue sharing you don't get any revenue sharing and if you didn't participate, you got revenue sharing.

Seems fairly ridiculous to handicap a small market team by forcing the new owners to be unable to get the revenue sharing, even if they offer to do so.

I mean if you can't alter a player's contract and a player can't just give money back to his team, why should a team be able to turn down money that is legally due them. Seems contrary to the internal laws the league set up to protect every player and EVERY owner.

[Eja117]

All I know is if the Kings break the league sale price record...especially if it's by a lot...then I don't ever want to hear another owner say they're losing money ever again and I will immediately take the player's side in any future lock outs. 

[nickagneta]

All I know is if the Kings break the league sale price record...especially if it's by a lot...then I don't ever want to hear another owner say they're losing money ever again and I will immediately take the player's side in any future lock outs.

This is the reason why I supported the players last time, that and I think the owners fudged their numbers big time.

[Eja117]

All I know is if the Kings break the league sale price record...especially if it's by a lot...then I don't ever want to hear another owner say they're losing money ever again and I will immediately take the player's side in any future lock outs.

This is the reason why I supported the players last time, that and I think the owners fudged their numbers big time.

I definitely think the player's strongest argument was "Open the books" which made me lean towards them but I also thought Jemele Hill had a point that sometimes a system can become unsustainable and used her Detroit background in terms of the major auto makers vs the auto union as an example

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I'm not really into the politics of the situation, but as far as the team, I'll be disappointed if Seattle gets jobbed again. I like the idea of Sacramento having a team, but that city's fan base doesn't seem nearly as devoted as Seattle's.

The ideal situation, in my view, would be for the Kings to stay in Sacto, and a crappy team that has a crappy fan base (see: Charlotte) move to Seattle and become the Sonics.

And I'll again put in a plug for renaming New Orleans the Jazz, and Utah the Grizzlies, and Memphis the whatevers (something Memphis-related).

[Lucky17]

Memphis Blues.

[D.o.s.]

Yep, sounds to me like the Maloofs have a legitimate case to sue the league.

There's a metric ton of "internet lawyer" talk over on SacTownRoyalty and SonicsRising, but the idea that the Maloofs/Hansen have a chance of winning a lawsuit in light of the league's actions (when we know the league employs a small army of real-life lawyers) doesn't pass the smell test. I don't think the league would put themselves in a position to lose a lawsuit over something that'll make their product more valuable.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Memphis Blues.

I like it. TP.

[LarBrd33]

i've been following the story a lot.  I wish I could tell you what is going to happen in this meeting, but nobody knows.

The problem is, news from the Seattle side and news from the Sacramento side are completely different.  I've never seen such a disconnect in how a story is being reported.  It's insane.  If you follow Seattle reporters, they'll tell you that the Sacramento group offer is incredibly fragile and that there is a "binding" agreement between Hansen and the Maloofs that can't be broken and will be voted on today.  Meanwhile, if you follow the Sacramento side they'll tell you that the "binding" agreement is worthless, the Hansens are trying to undermine the league and that the NBA bylaws favor the Kings.

At the moment, it does indeed seem like Sacramento will "win" this (meaning the owners will reject the sale of the team to the Seattle group).  But today is a big day.  THey officially vote on relocation first, then vote on the sale of the team to Hansen.  THen if that is rejected, they then vote on a "backup" offer that the Maloofs made with Hansen to sell him 20% of the team.  Then if ALL those scenarios are rejected, the Maloofs might consider selling the team to that Sacramento group... but they don't "have" to sell the team to them.  There is no agreement between them and the Sacramento group.  So the NBA (supposedly) is hoping to reject relocation, the two signed hansen/maloof deals... and then will try to use leverage to FORCE the Maloofs to sell to the Sacramento group.

The one thing that stands out about this (from my perspective)..

#1 - Seattle has a far better offer.  They are willing to pay $625 million for the team.  They are willing to pay $100+ million for relocation (as opposed to $30 million).  They are willing to be a payee in revenue sharing (which counteracts the Sacramento group giving up their revenue sharing rights... which seems like a disaster, but it's not really relevant) ... ALso, the Maloofs already agreed to sell to the Seattle group.  That's the purpose of this meeting... to vote on that sale.  The Sacramento reporters make it sound like both groups are in the running... the Sacramento group is only in the running if the NBA rejects that February sale of the team to Seattle group.  And at that point, they can't force the Maloofs to sell to the Sacramento group... there's just this expectation that the NBA will use leverage to convince the Maloofs it's their only option.

#2 - Going with the Seattle offer probably increases the value all the franchises in the league and puts money in the other owners pockets.   

#3 - The chief reason the NBA apparently wants the Maloofs to sell to the Sacramento group as opposed to the Seattle group appears to be that the Sacramento group has a plan for a publicly financed arena (which FYI, could still completely fall apart.  There was a lawsuit filed today against the city for potentially fraudulent activity here with their Arena plan)... meanwhile the Seattle group is agreeing to build a mostly privately financed arena.  Apparently, this would set a bad precedent for the rest of the owners... if they agree to let Hansen/Balmer buy the team and build their own arena... that means in the future when they want to build a new state-of-the-art arena in their own cities, they will have trouble forcing the public tax payers to pay for it.  They want nothing to do with that. 

In other words, the way this is sounding to me (and again, it's incredibly difficult with all the misinformation) ... Steve Balmer and Chris Hansen have billions of dollars.  They want to pay a ridiculous amount for the team.  They want to pay for their own arena.  And the NBA is telling them, "woah woah woah.. that's not how we do things here... we get the public to pay for the arena" to which Hansen/Balmer respond, "But why?... we have billions... we'll pay for it ourselves" and the NBA is trying to prevent that from happening... and the rest of the owners will likely side with the Sacramento group that is trying to force tax payers to build the new arena. 

They can spin it however they want... but that's the one clear thing I'm getting from all of this.  If Seattle had a plan for a publicly financed arena, this would probably be an easy decision for the league.