Could both Seattle and Sacramento end up with NBA teams?

This is apparently pecked-to-death-by-ducks week for the Sacramento Kings arena proponents: After a series of minor setbacks over the previous few days, yesterday it was learned that one of the prospective purchasers of the team, Pittsburgh Penguins co-owner Ron Burkle, will have to back out because his film studio owns a player agency that represents several NBA players, which represents an unacceptable conflict of interest according to league rules.

Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson was quick to say, “We’re comfortable where we are” in terms of remaining prospective investors in the team, and as Burkle’s exit was apparently in response to questions raised at last week’s NBA meeting, you could interpret this as a positive move for Sacramento, clearing an obstacle to the city’s plan, albeit one that nobody was aware of. (Though anybody with Wikipedia should have been aware of it.) As with the previous news, it depends on what the mood of the room is around the Kings sale talks: If NBA owners are looking for an excuse to let the team go to Seattle, this can be pointed to as evidence of a shaky and ever-changing Sacramento plan; if they’re looking for an excuse to reject the move, this can be seen as a willingness on Sacramento’s part to do whatever it takes to win league approval.

At this point, the NBA is sitting pretty, with no bad answer to its problem of two cities battling over one team. Unless, of course, the losing city decides to sue, as Stanford economist Roger Noll says they’d have grounds to do:

“Whichever city is going to lose has an antitrust case against the NBA for not having a team in that city,” Noll said.

Noll says either city would have a case to make because both cities are viable locations for the team and either one could argue the league is illegally restricting the number of teams. He says it’s kind of like the railroad cartels more than a century ago.

“The crucial issue is whether the purpose and effect of the restriction is simply to enhance the monopoly power of the existing set of teams,” Noll said.

It would be a risky move on the one hand, as threatening to sue the people who you’re hoping will grant you a franchise isn’t usually the best way to get them on your side. On the other hand, it worked for Florida when the San Francisco Giants were denied the chance to move to Tampa Bay in the early 1990s — incidentally, do you think the team’s current owners are thrilled now that that never happened? — and the mere hint of an antitrust suit was enough to get MLB to create the expansion Devil Rays as compensation.

Noll, who knows a little something about antitrust law, says he expects expansion to be the ultimate result here as well, and he has a pretty good case: While MLB is more defensive of antitrust suits thanks to wanting to protect its special antitrust exemption, the NBA is going to want to have this resolved out of court as well. Which means that in the long run, we could be going through all this sturm und drang around the fate of the Kings for nothing. Well, nothing except getting both sides to up the ante as far as possible before the NBA decides who gets an existing crappy team and who gets a new one.

Share this post:

52 comments on “Could both Seattle and Sacramento end up with NBA teams?

  1. Sacramento can’t afford to put the Oakland Bay Bombers up for a night in the Motel 6.

    Sacramento is BROKE.

    Savemart a grocery chain from MODESTO had to run a campaign to raise money to keep the swimming pools open in Sacramento so the kids would have a place in the summer…that’s the quality of Sacramento government…

    Anybody who believes one word out of the mouth of liars and con men like Kevin Johnson and Dangberg deserves every swindle and con they end up with…

  2. So, wikipedia is writing it as Burkle investing in Relativity’s film division in late 2011. He’s on the board of the whole shebang. It’s kind of a distant connection for the conflict of interest, but because the NBA league rulebook isn’t exactly public, we’ll just have to believe what they say as far as predictability.

    Ballmer is on the board for Accenture, which is probably connected to half the NBA ownership groups via consulting in some capacity.

  3. I really think the reason they gave is bullshit. Sorry to use such harsh language this early in the day.

    I can definitely see them keeping him out as a team owner, but as a building owner? You mean, he can own the luxury hotel, the Fila-Town, the ESPN Zone, the fishing store and the SWAG store across the street, but he can’t own the actual arena, since he’d have ALL THIS SWAY over the team’s personnel moves?

    As I said, BULLSHIT.

    Burkle is just looking for a graceful way out, and he’ll be all the way out soon.

    On a more technical note, the term sheets have Burkle’s name all over it. He is specifically named. Doesn’t that kind of mess those up?

    This really isn’t the kind of thing that should be happening right now. I told you Seattle had a lead.

    And I respect Noll, but I think he’s wrong here. Leagues really do have the right to limit the number of teams. If there was such a suit, what’s to stop KC, Cincinnati, Omaha, Tampa, San Diego and Chicago (for a second team; why not?) from doing the same thing? Can’t they all prove they’d be able to support a team?

  4. Yeah, this is nonsense. Burkle’s departure has very little, if anything, to do with Relativity. Burkle is a shady character and most people were waiting for him to duck out this thing. He just wanted to get some notoriety. But when it came time to actually put a dime into the deal, he is saying goodbye.

    To those interested and like reading, here is an interesting article from a few years ago that comes to mind. It is about how shady this guy is and what even fellow investors think of him. It is a long article. If you don’t want to read the whole thing, you can just scroll to the mid point or cntrl + F and type Burkle.

    http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/03/news/companies/investorsguide_lampert/index.htm

  5. The NBA likes the fact that Sacramento is ready to throw everything and the kitchen sink to build an arena. But we’re only at term sheet and have had arena proposals for most, if not all of the last decade. The NBA would have the grounds to reject Sacramento on arena uncertainty and if KJ filed an anti-trust suit (I doubt it), the NBA could argue that it’s a weak market. I still think Sacramento has a chance but cobbling together an unset ownership group this late in the game plus budding arena opposition hasn’t made things look good in the last week.

  6. Tell it like it is, M. Why not Chicago? They have two baseball teams, and there has been fairly recent talk about a second NFL team. If Toronto can have two NHL teams, then why can’t Chicago have two NBA teams? I’m starting to think the Kings moving to Anaheim wasn’t such a bad idea. Then, the league could expand two more teams to L.A., and give them the odd five. It’s a big area. Kidding aside, I think that Sac is going to get screwed, but expansion is in the future. Of all the leagues, the NBA has always been the one that I thought would get to 32 first. Stern used to say all through the 90s, “….we’re talking about a 32 team league here….that’s the maximum…..yadda yadda.” I was reading somewhere yesterday, probably on this site, about people wanting the Expos to come back. I could see an NBA team there, more likely. Then a team for Missouri, or Kentucky or Virginia. Where do the real Virginians live? You have the Chesapeake region, with its large number of military people spread out in the area that seemed to lack a center, or one worth noting. Norfolk was like a smaller Richmond, and then you have the northern burbs that are serviced by the teams in the District and Maryland.

  7. If you’re in last place in league attendance, the league probably can show that the market is too weak.

    If you can’t kick out last place, who CAN you kick out?

  8. Did you catch any Sonics games, M, the year before they moved? Or a 2001 Charlotte Hornets home game? I think the Kings are last in attendance, because of the threats to move the team. I like the Nuggets, if Kroenke was selling the team to some weasel in Seattle, that would be a major turn-off. I watch the Nugs on the road, and the crowd for the Sacramento games in Sac, was larger than the crowd the Nuggets played in front of in Milwaukee and for sure Detroit. Detroit is last in attendance from what I’ve seen.

  9. It really is obvious that a number of teams, including the Kings, inflate their attendance numbers, so I have to stick with number of tickets accounted for (which is really all those attendance numbers are).

    Yes, there are probably more butts in seats in Sac than there are in Detroit.

    But you can’t really play that game, because I can’t watch up to 15 games per night to determine who is telling the biggest lie. That’s too subjective. They leave us with no choice but to accept their statistics.

    For the one game I went to this year (Phoenix on a Friday night), I estimate the arena was 50%-60% full.

    I’d like to see some sort of a Federal law that requires that pro teams disclose the actual number of people in attendance… But the feds really do have bigger fish to fry.

  10. There is a choice, M. You just said so yourself. I don’t like the NBA, a lot of the time, but I freaking love it. So, I watch a lot of the games. Almost, every night, unless American Idol is on (daughter), or Project Runway (wife), or Degrassi (both—don’t wanna talk about it). I’ve seen the attendance figures on ESPN, and I know that Sac is in last. But, ass cheeks in seats, Sac is not last. They are, in my opinion, and look I’m not Einstein, but I’m not such a total idiot that I can’t look at an arena, and know that if the capacity is 17-20,000, and then see that about 60% or more, (hell sometimes 90% of the upper-deck) is empty…Well, then it doesn’t really matter what they tell me, because I’m not blind. The Pistons are getting about 4,000-5,000 for the weekday games, especially games against unsexy opponents. The whole building is basically empty, the league is no better than Baghdad Bob.

  11. Despite the hoopla on the Internets, the Sacramento Kings have not sold out either #HereWeBuy night. I only go to the games now if I could get a free ticket. I just spend money on the Jimboy’s Tacos sold at the game. It seems to me that all the people in Sacramento that really want the arena are all on Twitter- where they pose in their white t-shirts, make a lot of noise, trashtalk Seattle fans, and watch Carmichael Dave videos.

  12. New investor.

    http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/09/5325689/mark-friedman-sacramento-kings.html

    He looks more like a good-sized minority investor to me, though. It’s always helpful to have people throw in $20M-$50M, but it won’t be easy to replace someone with $5B in assets.

  13. Chef Joe: I think the ‘concept’ the NBA is trying to sell is that Burkle would (or could) have some control over things and therefore is in a CoI situation. If Ballmer is (as you say) on the board of various companies but is not a controlling shareholder, the situation might be different.

    Having said that, I tend to agree w MikeM’s 11:57 post. I don’t know if Burkle is looking for a way out, but if so he certainly has one.

  14. With all due respect to Noll’s history, I think he’s incorrect here.

    It is certainly true that any team refused the ability to move (or any location refused an expansion team) can claim (and sue) for antitrust ‘reasons’. Then again, any employee passed over for promotion (or those passed over in the initial hiring phase) can also claim discrimination. They don’t all win, of course. In fact, most of them never even make it to court.

    Surely, using Noll’s logic here, I can sue the Catholic Church for discrimination because they would not allow me to be a candidate for Pope because I am not Catholic?

    And the PGA tour has also wrongly refused me the right to earn a living as a golfer simply because I am not skilled enough. What clearer case of discrimination could their be?

    Noll is right about modern sports leagues operating exactly like cartels. But it isn’t as though no-one has noticed that before… and the ditches of history are not littered with expansions produced as a result of antitrust claims. For whatever reason, the US court system has operated largely to protect the special interests of sports cartels. It is certainly ‘wrong’ that this happens, but as Noll well knows, it has happened.

    Pretty much everything about how sports leagues work is based on artificial scarcity. They decide how many outlets they will operate and where each will be. Neither consumer demand nor any other documentable market condition has any bearing on when or if they expand. They alone decide the price of expansion (and, curiously, of late that price is not “fixed” at a given time as it used to be, but varies with the league’s view of the value of the potential market… which is pretty much a dead giveaway you’d think…).

    Sports cartels are the Standard Oil of our day. Only not nearly as profitable, of course.

    BTW, Toronto still doesn’t have two NHL teams.

  15. LOL. This is a good thread. Some of you people desperately need a daily radio show, or something. I know, John, I was just screwing around. Or, talking about the talk. We have a team in Denver, that is both god-awful and lacking in fan interest. Kinda like the Rapids. You can have ’em.

  16. If I remember right, the likelihood of a successful antitrust suit varies a lot from state to state — one reason that Florida was successful in threatening MLB was that whatever federal district that is had a lot of judges who were tough on antitrust, and the league didn’t want to risk it. For that matter, they didn’t want to risk having to open up their books for an antitrust suit even if it was unsuccessful.

    In any case, though, it’d be stupid for the NBA not to try to take advantage of both arena projects that are being offered at this point. Unless you think that Seattle’s is going to crash and burn from its debt load (in which case I don’t really understand why Hansen and Ballmer are pursuing it) or Sacramento’s is going to crash and burn from the hand-wavy parking projections (though it looks like if that happens, it’d be Sacramento’s problem, not the NBA’s). But the league is in the “getting people to help us build arenas” business, so they should want to keep both cities on the hook.

  17. In KJ’s press conference today, he claimed that both cities are on track for opening new arenas in 2016. I don’t buy it. Sacramento hasn’t started its EIR yet; that will take 12-18 months. 18 months gets us almost to 2015, if there are no challenges to it.

    Even with all this, though, the NBA still needs to find a reason to reject Hansen. Still awaiting word on why that should happen.

    I wonder if the Maloofs told the BOG that the only possible way they’d consider staying in Sac is if Burkle stayed away from the deal completely. “Ancillary Development” was the compromise, and now they’re waiting for the Maloofs to respond. I still think they want to go to Seattle. The deal there probably includes some small role with the team.

    If Burkle is out of the deal completely, maybe the Maloofs listen. But I doubt it.

  18. The NBA would be foolish to expand; the quality of play would drop down (yet again), and worse basketball would turn more people off, both in terms of attendance and ratings, and Stern + Silver know this. Plus, where’s the 32nd market to expand to?
    I think the NBA’s hope is that both cities build new arenas, and the first city gets the Kings, and the second gets the Bucks, because I just can’t see them getting a new arena. The fact is Kohl doesn’t have the money to pay for a new arena, and with him being out of politics he doesn’t need to worry about the team moving (which would pretty much guarantee he’d lose any election for the rest of his career), and he’s poised to make a lot of money on selling the team now. I wouldn’t be surprised if the NBA simply whispers to the losing group “Just wait and keep building this arena; when the Bucks can’t get a new arena in the next year or two, swoop in, buy the Bucks and bring them to your city”.
    Considering the Bucks have had less success and a weaker, smaller fanbase then Seattle, the claim of “the NBA would NEVER move them” is invalid. The only team I can’t see the NBA moving thanks to success that has bad attendance recently is the Pistons, and thats because they had great attendance in a huge arena for many years until their struggles in the last 3, and because a new arena somewhere in the Detroit metro area is a distinct possibility in the near future, even with the city of Detroit’s horrifying finances.
    Plus, the worst case is that Milwaukee moves to the top of the list of cities without a team, and the Timberwolves become the team next in line to move, and etc etc etc. This is a never ending pattern, and it will go on forever.
    Also, for those of you saying “Second team in Chicago”, if that ever happens, it will be the Bobcats, no doubt about it. Hell, Jordan would probably blackmail the NBA to make sure his team gets to move there before anyone else does.

  19. The best scenario would be Sacramento keeps the team, and builds an arena. Sacramento deserves the team. Then Seattle dumps its MOU for a tax sucking welfare arena, and tells the NBA that if it wants to be back in Seattle it needs to pay its own way, and that means paying for its own arena with its own money, and with no tax exemption/preference/benefit. Then if the NBA whines about that Seattle then tells the NBA “You owe us 150 million dollars for Key Arena, You must pay that before we will give you a business license to operate in Seattle; also it appears your 100% privately financed arena proposal will have extensive mitigation costs; so we need 180 million dollars in mitigation money up-front. So, NBA if you wish to operate in Seattle you need to build your own arena with your own money, and you need to come across with 330 million dollars cash up-front for Key Arena and mitigation”.

  20. The best scenario is that America’s state and cities tell these leagues to take a hike and to build their own buildings. I don’t like it that my city government decides to operate under David Stern and the NBA BOG’s deadlines. Also, the Feds could chip in with some limits on how much to write off luxury boxes and seats as a business expense. Maybe cutting off anti-trust exemptions for American sports would be good too. There’s no reason for any city to put this much money into these deals as we drive on crappy roads, have all kinds of outdated utility infrastructure, and as we become one of the most socioeconomically stagnant countries in the western world. In Sacramento, this is a game really played by developers for developers to win. The average person in Sacramento is not going to see their life fall apart if the Kings left and if we had the same arena in Natomas. I never read Seattle’s I-91. I have no idea what it says but there’s a silent majority that doesn’t blog, tweet, or jam city council meetings that believe enough is enough.

  21. The best-case scenario is that if you’re a for-profit private company that doesn’t really deliver anything of value to the American consumer, the taxpayers stop subsidizing you.

    Give ’em 5 years. If they can’t make a profit, they’re done.

    Stop pushing losses off on to people who aren’t allowed to vote on these stupid things.

  22. http://www2.seattle.gov/ethics/vg/20061107/sportsct.htm I-91, passed by 74.1% in 2006. They then decided that the term “cash on cash” is a specialized financial term for liquid capital invested and so bonds repaid with future revenue don’t count. And then Hansen makes some hand-wavy arguments about the value of the land 30 years from now (although the land will be transferred to the city before the arena is built) and how his LLC promises to buy the arena/land for $200 million if they wish (nevermind that his current arena LLC will have no reason to continue to exist at the end of the lease).

  23. How do leagues go about determining the price of expansion franchises?

    It kind of seems to me that they could justify setting the price to whatever was paid for the last one, plus the relocation fees associated with that team.

    So, yes, I can easily see the next expansion NBA team costing $600M. And if anyone asks them to show the work that lead to that price, they’d have it right in front of them.

  24. The NBA is not going to charge less to expand than what the final price of this deal will be. Hansen’s offer values the Kings at $540M plus $75M for relocation so $600M is a reasonable estimate. Maybe the NBA will up its relo fee to $100M to get that unanimous vote to relocate the Kings. But then again, after hearing the NBA cry poverty during the lockout- if they get $600M for expansion (maybe for two teams), the next negotiations should be interesting.

  25. “The best scenario would be Sacramento keeps the team, and builds an arena. Sacramento deserves the team.”

    Oh please. I posted a comment in another thread recently expressing how tired I am of people analyzing this situation with their own biases and hearts instead of their heads. “Deserves the team”? Are you serious? The Sacramento Kings are a business asset and have increased in value to $525 million based on the H/B/N offer. No city “deserves” a team. The only entity which “deserves” the team is the one which is willing to pay the most for it.

    The BoG isn’t going to make this decision based on sentiment. They will do it based on profitability and the overall benefit it will be to the NBA. Sac’s had their chance for many years now to close an arena deal, and they have failed. Time’s up. The H/B/N Seattle group “deserves” the team because they’re willing to pay a record price for it.

  26. Sacramento is nothing more tha Topeka without snow. Flatland and over 100 degrees every day in the Summer, and no personality along with the majority of residents from some other part of the country.

    And the other parts of the country these people come from usually is Generic-Ville.

    Nobody in the Bay Area would every attach itself to anything Sacramento because it is an embarassment to the state. Watching Mayor Rukus brag and boast about Sacramento and keeping the Kings is worse than a dog and pony show.

    Succession talks having been mounting into dividing the state into three parts, hopefully Sacramento gets it’s own state away from the Bay Area.

    The sophistication and the beauty and the intelligence of the Bay Area can never be matched by anything in the Valley.

    If Seattle loses to these feeble dweebs, it doesn’t deserve a NBA team.

    Meantime, The Warriors will be playing in San Francisco by a Pier in a few years. Gee -would I attend a Warriors game in the City(with a team that goes to playoffs more than once a decade) or would I drive 2 hours to go to Downtown to watch the Kings at Valero Arena?

  27. I hope you own stock in the Haterade, SFsanta. Sure hope my city never becomes as sophisticated as yours.

  28. Here’s a good article that nicely encapsulates where we are so far with L Affaire’ Sacramento Kings. Nice quotes from Carmichael Dave and a certain Brooklyn-based journalist: http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/long-live-the-kings/content?oid=9545687

  29. Maloofs throw down the gauntlet.

    http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/10/5332154/source-maloof-family-sets-deadline.html

  30. And to the latest news, there’s more spinning on both sides. I read it as the NBA wanting to make a decision next week and giving Sacramento another chance to beef up their offer. I think this story is hitting its home stretch right now. The NBA has a 2013-14 schedule to make and season tickets to sell.

  31. Ok MikeM…

    What is the “or else” the Maloofs have in play with this deadline? Are they going to take the team off the market and continue to operate it in Sacramento forever in the existing arena???

    They are still acting like they alone decide if they move to Seattle or not. They don’t. Pissing in the league’s cornflakes isn’t the wise move at this point in time… then again, this is the Maloof clownshow we are talking about…

    Man, is it ever time the NBA got rid of those idiots…

  32. “What is the ‘or else’ the Maloofs have in play with this deadline? Are they going to take the team off the market and continue to operate it in Sacramento forever in the existing arena???”

    That’s the threat, yes. Presumably the plan is to either get the Sacramento group to up their offer, or to pressure the NBA to approve the Seattle sale for fear that they’ll be stuck with the Maloofs forever otherwise. Which is pretty dumb, yes, but there’s a reason you see the Maloofs’ picture in finer dictionaries when you look up “assclown.”

  33. Simple, John: If the BOG rejects Hansen’s offer, and Sac’s offer isn’t deemed good enough, then the team goes back on the market.

    I’m sure they will be glad when the Maloofs are gone, but they still have enough assets to run the team in the same way they have for the last 3 years.

    Run-down arena (but only because they refuse to maintain it);
    Enough ticket sales and a TV contract;
    Minimum payroll, cheap front-office.

    Done. $10M/year. Cha-ching!

  34. I personally think throwing down the gauntlet like this is genius. Don’t these guys have to incorporate or something before they can make an offer?

    There are technical points that make throwing this contract together in the next 48 hours very near impossible.

    Of course, the NBA can now say, “Yeah, you can’t do that, guys. Sorry.”

    I can definitely see that. Kind of a short deadline.

  35. The problem here is simple.

    The value of the Kings the Hansen-Ballmer group are paying for is based the worth of the team if it was based in Seattle playing in Key Arena right now. Not playing in Sleep Train Pavilion in small market Sacramento.

    The offer from the Sacramento group is far lower (about 50M-100M less) than the Seattle offer because of this. The Kings are not worth 525M if based in Sacramento period…..This is a big reason why the Maloofs want to sell to Seattle.

    Stern at first glance was like “that is too low” and that is because he did not realize what the final price was based on….Now he has backed off understanding the difference, hence why he states the price “is no longer an issue”.

    In the end you cannot expect any group trying to keep the Kings in Sacramento to pay the Seattle price that is much higher due to it being a larger market which would entail a far larger TV deal with corporations who will pay top dollar.

    I still say the Kings are gone and the NBA has been orchestrating this from the get go. If not, they would have had an open bidding process like the Warriors in 2010…..

  36. All I have seen that is somewhat factual is some really rich folks in Seattle have offered the Magoofs a lot of money for their franchise and these really rich Seattle folks have the cash to build an arena on land they now presumably own. Seattle has promised to kick in this or that, maybe.

    There is now an Agreement between the parties with some 30 million bucks put up front as earnest money.

    Everything else that has been printed is nothing more than BS and hot air, including all the crap spewed by the Pedophile Mayor of Sacramento. who has promised a ton of stuff, some of which Sacramento does not even own.

    There has not been any real journalism about this deal only wild speculation, innuendo, feelings, thoughts, wet dreams, bogus pie fillings and plenty of cow pies from Sacramento.

  37. Now we’re getting contradictory reports:

    http://www.kcra.com/news/Source-Maloofs-set-deadline-for-Sacramento-Kings-group/-/11797728/19698940/-/item/0/-/aw7iejz/-/index.html

    Who did not see that coming?

    Further into the report, it says the variance is between $50M-$100M.

  38. I hope you own stock in the Haterade, SFsanta. Sure hope my city never becomes as sophisticated as yours.

    *********************************

    Yes, because staying generic and having no culture and no personaility or intelligence is what is attractive.

    Your city will become as sophisticated as Oklahoma City. As far as ‘Haterade” motiff, Truth is never hatred.

    Sacramento is the complete opposite of San Francisco in all aspects. We are tired of your region trying share glory that doesn’t belong to you. Your area degrades and brings the rest of Northern Ca down the toliet.

    Wannebees.

    Even the suburbs blow –such culture meccas as Elk Grove, Roseville and Folsom! Where’s Wally Clever? Am I in California or Kentucky?

  39. I do find it funny how the Seattle fans on the Internets are laughing about how we haven’t heard a peep from KJ today. What’s been interesting is that the Seattle group has been consistently quiet throughout this whole process. A quiet KJ means something is amiss in Sactown. Either way, I think the NBA will find a resolution by next week- it may be one that makes nobody happy (Maloof Sports and Entertainment Presents your 2013-14 Sacramento Kings) but there are tickets to sell and schedules to make and David Stern probably has a mansion in Palm Beach to build for this retirement life.

  40. SBSJ: There are many traits one can attribute to David Stern. Some of them are negative traits, true, but sheer stupidity is not one of them. He knows exactly what the Kings should be worth in Sacramento and what the new Sonics will be worth in Seattle.

    He also knows he really doesn’t have to choose between having one or the other… the old parable about the young and old bull looking down from the hill at the waiting cows seems apt here, if a bit boorish…

  41. Oh Snap! Neil. When I looked at the pic of the aforementioned ownership group in the Sacbee story Mike linked, that was the word that immediately came to mind…

  42. I could have sworn I’d seen people saying that the $30 mil deposit to the Maloofs also capped their ability to examine other offers, which is why Johnson had to take it to NY rather than try to pitch a deal with the Maloofs.

  43. Wow, interesting stuff from Chris Daniels. His sources certainly seem to be from the Seattle camp. But there is a loooooooot of new info. here.

    Also, Stern better not ever visit WA state if this is true.

    http://www.king5.com/news/Growing-rift-between-NBA-commish-and-league-owners-202429701.html

  44. Griffin, DS is retiring, so what does he care?

    Yeah, Stern thinks one thing, the BOG thinks something else. How can that be good for Sac? Does Stern get a vote? Nope. His role is to advise, and right now the BOG is saying, “Say, Dave! Aren’t you Mr Short Time around here?”.

  45. Yeah, I read where they said they have “some votes from the owners,” after the meeting in NYC. They are usually pretty vague. Now we have this Friday deadline for the so-called sharks and KJ. Tomorrow, they will probably say they have decided to delay the Friday deadline, until sometime in May. This stuff is out of control, and gets weirder by the day.

  46. SF 49ers Not Santa Clara, the only thing I can agree with is your user name. Otherwise, I think it’s time for you to leave this site.

    DeMause, I suggest you get rid of this “SF 49ers Not Santa Clara” guy, as he has quite obviously not learned his lesson from last time.

  47. Okay, new commenting rule: Personal attacks by proxy — i.e., saying “your city smells” instead of “you smell” — are likewise off-limits, and will land you in the penalty box.

  48. Thank you!

    Oh and my opinion on this, Sacramento will find a way to get the Maloofs to sell to them, just like my Phoenix Coyotes are not going anywhere either as the Jerry Weiers regime will change their “Glendale is not your cash register” stance. Because dogs rule!

    Sorry Seattle, but you will never get a basketball and hockey team ever again. Nothing personal.

    deMause, if your interested you can find my Coyote articles over at thehockeywriters.

Comments are closed.