The NBA is taking a low bid here because they are acting as a cartel. The maloof brothers take the "hit" (Most cartels disintegrate over time for this reason, but the NBA is in a unique circumstance in that they are more likely to hold it together)
I wonder how much the NBA (or even NFL or MLB) business model is predicated on public subsidies. I mean, if the public got full access to the financials of these leagues, how much of the profit/revenue is explained by the subsidies from tax payers. How many teams would be profitable (or in what form would they exist) if they had to fund their own stadiums?
Sure, they could make money without public subsidies - so could NFL, MLB - they're super-profitable businesses. But they make more money with them, and cities aren't a well organized cartel and are instead willing to give them, so until that changes...
Looks like Hasen and co. Are working with the Maloofs and are going to take a page out of Clay Bennett's book and just lie to steal the team now. Shameful Seattle if you really want to do that.
Maybe, but they didn't really step up. The proposed Sacramento price for the team is about $50 million less than the Seattle group's contracted price. The Maloofs have not accepted the Sacramento group offer. So essentially the league is setting a precedent of telling a team owner who they can sell their team to and for how much. This also puts the Maloofs in the awkward position of having accepted a $30 million deposit and now not being able to close the deal. If I was a team owner, this development would make me very nervous.
At this point, Hansen/Ballmer have invested so much time and money that they almost cannot sue the league. $100 million sunk into this project for the NBA to come back and say "sorry, maybe next time". The fact that the league isn't even considering expansion is insulting to this team of investors (which by the way would be the wealthiest in perhaps all of professional sports). If anyone is geared and ready to go anti-trust lawsuit/unfair business practices on the NBA, its Steve Ballmer, his $15 billion in net worth, and his team of Microsoft lawyers.
Not to mention the potential suit for intentional interference with a business relationship. The Hanson/Ballmer group has contracted to buy the Kings and has paid a $30 million non-refundable deposit. Now the league is interfering with the transaction and they stand to lose that deposit. It seems to me that the deposit, at least partly, was designed to give a cause for legal action in the event the league interfered. I also believe that the league knows this. That may be why Stern has softened his comments regarding expansion recently.
It probably wasn't the same. The Rockets were in San Diego for four seasons. Not a lot of history. When the Rockets moved, an ABA team was located in San Diego. When the ABA folded, the NBA expanded and the Clippers were put in San Diego.
When you take into account, that they probably need to build a new stadium every 20-25 years or so, from the owners perspective, $50m less for the franchise, but a cpl hundred million in public money for a stadium is a more valuable asset.
I don't see why this would make any owner who wasn't trying to relocate the team nervous. The league isn't telling the Seattle group they can't buy the team. They are telling them they can't move the team and I have no issue with that. Besides, the league has always had the ability to deny certain folks buying teams, so this is nothing new. It's why the other owners have to approve a sale in the first place. Didn't we just go through this with the Astros (sale had to be approved)?
Name me the last time that the league: 1. Actually denied a relocation application, and/or 2. Essentially killed an agreed purchase agreement in favor of an offer that is $50 million less. I can't think of one. The league knows that denying relocation will kill the sale to Hanson/Ballmer. So, in essence, the league is forcing the Maloofs to either keep the team or sell for a much lower price than what they had on the table. Also, the example of the Astros is a little different in that baseball has an antitrust exemption that the NBA does not have.
The NBA has always had the power to approve and deny both the sale and the relocation of a team. Not sure this is anything that should surprise anyone, especially sophisticated businessmen like the Seattle group. In fact, didn't the Kings' attempt to move to Anaheim fall apart because they couldn't get NBA approval. IIRC, the process didn't proceed to a formal vote but it was the Lakers and Clippers who opposed the move (encroachment into their market) and they had enough allies in the league willing to support them.
I can't think of one either. I also can't think of a situation where all signs point to an owner not trying to work with the current city, that owner selling to someone whose intention is to move the team and the city doing everything they can to keep it. This is unique. But none of that matters. The league has to approve all sales. The other owners can deny a sale if they want to. There is nothing wrong with not allowing a new owner to move a team from a city that has supported your league for years. How is there something wrong with that? If you want in the NBA you play by their rules. No different than a rich country club.
All of this matters. Typically sales are denied by the league due to financial reasons. If the new owner is not capitalized enough to be able to operate the team without significant debt. That is not the case here. In this instance, the league is essentially reducing the sales price that the current owner is going to receive. They are treading on intentional interference with a business relationship. In the process, the proposed buyer has been injured by the $30 million deposit. This could get interesting...
You are spinning this. The leagues motivation is not to reduce the sales price. The leagues motivation in this case is to keep the team in a market that has stepped up and been supportive of the league. The byproduct is a reduced sales price. And this wouldn't be the first time the league didn't allow a team to be sold and moved. The Hornets had buyers who wanted the team but the league mandates that they stay in NO, and ultimately wound up having to buy the team. Relocation is the main issue, not sales price. The Seattle group can still buy the team. They just can't relocate them.
The 30 million dollar deposit was a stupid thing. Everyone (including Hansen and the Maloofs) knew that the NBA gets final approval on sales. To suggest that the NBA owes him anything when he knew damn well that the sale was subject to NBA approval is silly.
I am not spinning anything. If anything, you are spinning it by throwing out the line of "they can still buy the team, but not move it." Anybody discussing this has to look at the practical implications. The reality is that now the Maloofs are out $50 million plus whatever part of the $30 million deposit they may have to pay as breach of contract damages. You bring up the league's motivation. That is simply irrelevant. If you have a deal to sell your car for $50,000 and I hit you while driving to the grocery store, I have damaged you by impairing the value of your car. It doesn't matter that I did not intend to damage your car. All that matters is that I did. That the league could make a capricious decision that cost a team owner between $50 million to $80 million would give me cause for concern if I owned a team. I am floored that you can't see the logic in that concern.
