The Maloofs have a contract to sell the Kings to Hanson/Ballmer. One could presume that it is contingent on moving the team to Seattle. The NBA has stepped in and killed the purchase agreement. Now the league has essentially made it a decision to keep the team or take a lesser offer than that contracted for. The interesting legal question here is whether the league's requirement that they approve all sales and relocations immunizes them from liability for killing a contracted sale. I don't know the answer to that question.
Word is within my legal circles that there is gonna be a real nasty lawsuit that could really bone the NBA if they pursue. I actually hope they do. This is sterns final middle finger to his fans.
I also hope this is true and want it to happen just for the theatrics. Or the NBA could wink at the Seattle group and guarantee them a team in the near future.
I honestly thnk they are going to get the Hanson/Ballmer group a team (maybe expansion). I don't think the league wants to go through discovery.
I'm not a lawyer so forgive me if my questions sound dumb. How can the league get in trouble for not allowing a sale that is contingent on relocation to go through when they have the power to deny the requests to relocate a team (something they have done before, even to this ownership group)? They aren't saying the group can't buy them. Going in wouldn't you know there is a chance that the board that votes on relocation may deny relocation?
I'm with you, and I am a lawyer, though I admittedly don't work with anti-trust issues. I'm assuming there are a lot more facts to this than I know right now...because from what I know so far, we're talking about whether or not the NBA is within its rights to block a franchise relocation. I'd say it's absolutely in its rights to do so...and that any purchaser or potential purchaser of an NBA franchise knows that going in.
I think a lot of it hinges on how involved the league was in helping the Sacramento group put together their bid. It sure does seem like once the sale to Hansen was agreed, the league started working with Kevin Johnson to put together a bid. Now reports have surfaced that the league is urging the Maloofs to sell to the Sacramento group. How could that not be interference with contract?
It does seem pretty wrong to me. I can understand blocking a move (funny that the guy who took the Sonics was head of the relocation committee, in a sense, screwing Seattle twice), but the effort being put forth to have them sell to their preferred buyer really bothers me.
In an effort to further demonstrate the extent of our commitment to bring basketball back to Seattle, we have elected to voluntarily increase our proposed purchase price for the Sacramento Kings NBA Franchise by $75 million — from an enterprise value of $550 million to $625 million. In conjunction with our revised offer, we have also guaranteed to the NBA that the Franchise would be a revenue sharing payer in all years in Seattle. We would also like to take the opportunity to again point out just how far ahead our Arena project is: -The ownership group has acquired 100% of the property necessary to construct the Arena. -We have 100% of our private financing for the Arena committed and in place. -After being approved by the City and County Councils the Arena MOU/legislation was signed into law by the Seattle Mayor and King County Executive on October 16, 2012. The referendum period expired 30 days later. -We engaged our Arena architects two years ago and have completed our detailed design schematics and costing. -We have filed for our Master Use Permit and are well underway with the Environmental Review Process, which we expect to conclude late this year. While we appreciate that this is a very difficult decision for the league and owners, we hope it is understood that we really believe the time is now to bring the NBA back to Seattle, and that it is paramount that we do everything we can to put Seattle’s best foot forward in this process. — Chris Hansen
^^ say no to that, NBA.. .say no to that... mother f'ers!!! If you live in Seattle, you owe this guy a cup of coffee at the minimum.
It's really only baseball with a major immunity to antitrust litigation. I would say that this whole situation could be subject to such but to my knowledge, generally the arbitrators are going to err on the side of letting the leagues decisions stand.
Wait...was there already a real contract inked to sell the team to the Hansen group? I thought there wasn't a real contract in place to sell to either. They're still negotiating purchase price...how is there a contract to be interfered with in the first place? These are just offers as I understand it...no acceptance either way.
If there's some agreement that in place that includes an arbitration agreement in place of the courts, then I would agree entirely.
Chris Hansen and Steve Ballmer have upped the valuation of the Kings to $625 million, which puts them on a Miami Heat level (per Forbes). This seems like Seattle is daring the NBA to reject them. $625 million would be, by far, the highest price ever for a franchise and could set a precedent that the money-loving NBA would be loathe to turn down. Considering that the Sacramento group also promised to opt out of revenue sharing - given that they would almost certainly be a team that receives cash - after the team was used as an example of the benefits of revenue sharing by Adam Silver, the NBA is venturing into dangerous territory. They can't force the Maloofs to sell, but are pressuring them to take an offer that is nearly $100 million less than what Seattle is offering.
There is a binding purchase agreement in place. The NBA is pressuring the Maloofs to sell to the Sacramento group, which came together in a fallback position. There is a binding agreement in place and the league is doing everything it can to interfere with it. Stern may end up being served a giant turd burger to eat on this one.
I hear what you are saying but it seems like you are claiming the league is being shady with comments like trying to help Sac with their bid or interfering with the binding agreement the Maloof's have in place with Seattle. How is the league helping Sac with their bid? Everything I have read notes they allowed Sac to put a bid in. As far as interfering, I don't see how going through the process that any buyer trying to relocate a team would have to go through is interfering. Purchases have to be approved by the league. Requests to relocate have to be approved by the league. This is not new. It's not new for this franchise, as they had to go through the same process when they tried to move the team to Anaheim. This happens for every sale or attempt to move a team (the approval process). I completely understand that the league can kill a sale by denying relocation, but I don't think it's right to say they are interfering by doing a routine procedure. If the league says every buyer must pass a background check and Les sells the Rockets to a billionaire drug kingpen, and the league says well we gotta check into this owner like we do any other owner, that's a procedure and not interfering if they deny the sale.
