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

[LooseCannon]

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.

Even if the league thinks it will prevail in any lawsuit, it is unlikely they can ever be 100% sure they will win.  Maybe the Maloofs/Hansen have a 10-20% chance of winning.  Maybe only 5%.  But that's still more than zero.

[Fafnir]

Beyond the owner's preference for a publically financed arenas, they also want to keep the carrot of if a town comes up with an arena solution that the city won't lose the team.

Otherwise cities are going to balk at the public pain and expensive process of crafting arena's for the NBA if a billionaire can just come in and outbid them.

[D.o.s.]

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.

I seem I'm not the only CelticsBlogger that reads SonicsRising and SacTown Royalty, but you might want to use some quotation marks and sources, or at least some attribution if you're going to plagiarize. 

[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.

I seem I'm not the only CelticsBlogger that reads SonicsRising and SacTown Royalty, but you might want to use some quotation marks and sources if you're going to plagiarize. 

I was just trying to sum up the drama from what I have read.  Yeah, i've definitely gotten most of my information from those sites... but you will probably agree that it's like following two different propaganda campaigns.  No idea what the truth is here.

FYI, according to ‏@ChrisDaniels5 the SEattle group just finished their presentation and Kevin Johnson/Sacramento just walked into the room.  That seems quicker than I expected.  Maybe we'll have an announcement in a couple hours.

[D.o.s.]

Just busting balls dude. No harm meant.

[Eja117]

It's sorta confusing because Americans don't think of businesses in the context of cartels and clubs.

It would strike me that the Maloofs should have known the deal/rules/limitations when they bought the Kings and when they're trying to sell it. Trying to change rules in the middle of the game wouldn't seem to work that well.

On some level I think in the back of their heads Stern and his cronies are thinking "I am not going to have another fudging renegade owner that doesn't do what I tell him"

Prediction.  The NBA buys the team, keeps it in Sacramento, it "wins" Andrew Wiggins in the lottery, then they sell it to a London group and Wiggins never gets a foul called on him ever again, except in games against LeBron.

Euro refs decide to give extra points for flopping.

That's how I see this playing out.

[Chris]

It's sorta confusing because Americans don't think of businesses in the context of cartels and clubs.

It would strike me that the Maloofs should have known the deal/rules/limitations when they bought the Kings and when they're trying to sell it. Trying to change rules in the middle of the game wouldn't seem to work that well.

On some level I think in the back of their heads Stern and his cronies are thinking "I am not going to have another fudging renegade owner that doesn't do what I tell him"

Prediction.  The NBA buys the team, keeps it in Sacramento, it "wins" Andrew Wiggins in the lottery, then they sell it to a London group and Wiggins never gets a foul called on him ever again, except in games against LeBron.

Euro refs decide to give extra points for flopping.

That's how I see this playing out.

Stern really isn't involved in this.  This is the other owners.

And there is zero chance the league buys the team.  They only did that in NOH, because there were no other bidders who were offering anything close to what they felt was market value, due to the timing, and an owner that they needed to get out. 

In this case, there are two groups bidding pretty insane amounts for a franchise like the Kings.  The owners certainly aren't going to decide to pay out of their own pockets to make these groups with deep pockets walk away. 

[Bombastic Jones]

Live stream: http://www.king5.com/live-stream/pop-up-no-ads/NWCN-Live-Stream-205420931.html

[nickagneta]

Still don't get how the owners can change the rules about the revenue sharing and accept an offer from a team never to accept revenue sharing.

As soon as someone buys the team, agrees to that, keeps the team in Sactown and can't get a new stadium deal that is fair to them, the new owners are going to be screaming to move their team to a larger market that can support the team because, unfortunately, they are being penalized by not getting revenue sharing.

Seems contrary to everything that is in the CBA.

[KGs Knee]

Looks like Seattle is out.  NBA rejected the move.

So now the Maloofs are basically gong to be forced to sell to the group with the "lesser offer".  Very hypocritical of the NBA of you ask me.  Why didn't they take this stance when Clay Bennett bought the Sonics?

[CelticConcourse]

No Seattle, no problem

[Fafnir]

Looks like Seattle is out.  NBA rejected the move.

So now the Maloofs are basically gong to be forced to sell to the group with the "lesser offer".  Very hypocritical of the NBA of you ask me.  Why didn't they take this stance when Clay Bennett bought the Sonics?

Seattle didn't have a deal to build a new arena for the team, that's the difference.

[KGs Knee]

Yeah, I get that Seattle lost their team because they refused to publicly finance an arena, while Sacramento supposedly is.

Seattle didn't have an overly outdated arena though.  Key Arena wasn't that old.  Clay Bennett just happened to be friends with Stern.  The arena part always seemed a bit trumped up.

Anyways, good for Sacramento for getting to keep their team.  Just seems like the league is undermining the Maloofs attempt to get the best deal for themselves.  I could understand it if there were already rules in place that made it necessary to first attempt to sell locally, but no such rules exist.  The NBA is basically making it up as they go.