I think the issue here is that there was never a binding agreement, because all contracts have to be approved by the NBA and (I believe) they can reject sales for pretty much whatever reason they choose. So until/unless the NBA approved it, no agreement was binding. The two parties (Maloof and Hansen) may have come to terms, but they don't have the authority to finalize a sale. At least, I know that was the case with the MLB/Astros, but not sure about the NBA. If they simply thought Crane's past was a little too shady, they had the ability to reject that sale.
Everything I have read indicates that the agreement is binding. The executed contract has been filed with the league office and the Maloofs have advised the league that failure to approve the sale will place them in breach.
Maloofs wont sell to Sacramento, repeat wont sell to anyone in that city. So if the league doesn't approve the Kings to Hansen sale, Maloofs could burn down Sacramento. Maybe they'll trade away a bunch of decent players to New York and take back the Amare contract. Then sign a bunch of random ass European players to fill out the team. Maybe they apply pressure for the team to go 0-82. All of this ahead of a major TV deal for the NBA will put tremendous stress on their ability to negotiate with one blackhole organization underperforming. Plus sponsorships will go out the door. Maloofs can accept money from Hansen and Ballmer to cover their expenses. Maloofs can make life hell for the NBA if they don't want this deal to go through. The most rationale decision now is to let the team leave and award an expansion team. Stern could have avoided all of this if he allowed the league to expand in 2010 when Hansen announced his plans to bring basketball back to Seattle.
Now if the league was assisting Sac with their bid to get it together then that would be completely different.
How can it be binding if a sale and relocation can't go through until the league approves it? I can agree to marry my wife but it's not legally binding until the state approves it.
If the league forces the Maloofs to accept a lower valuation, then we enter anti-trust territory. Rejecting the Seattle bid, then using NBA legal jargon to force the Maloofs into taking Sacramento offer is 100% anti-trust lawsuit, the Sherman Act would back up Hansen/Ballmer, I don't think the NBA would have a shot in hell. That is called price fixing. Its one thing to reject Hansen/Ballmer, its another to create a lower team valuation undermining the original offer, then to force the ownership group to accept that lower offer. I actually think the anti-trust suit is much stronger than interference suit. Anti-trust suit is also much scarier, Stern/Silver could be facing the total breakup of the NBA. Is that really a risk they want to take? Is that really a risk the owners want to take? And all of this for what, to service Stern's massive ego? Makes no sense.
I am not privy to the terms of the contract. However, if Hansen's lawyers are telling him it is binding, and the Maloof's lawyers are tells them at it is binding...I'm thinking there is a pretty good chance it is binding in some way.
That had been what I have been reading all along. Today, I came across the ESPN article to back it up. I really wanted to use a source that was not the Seattle Times or Seattle Post-Intelligencer. I'm telling you that something about the process here is fishy.
While there is something monopolistic about not approving a higher Seattle offer, it would seems that the very nature of sports leagues require a degree of monopoly. The 30 teams agree that there will be 30 teams in the NBA, that they will only play against each other and the Board of Governors gets to approve the location of each team and the sale of equity in each team. Investors can't just form a team, sign some NBA caliber players, and force the 30 NBA teams to play their team by arguing that not doing so would be an exercise of monopoly power. I am not exactly sure how a sports league can operate without these "monopoly powers." You said that Stern and Silver risk "the total breakup of the NBA"-- so it seems that you recognize that the impact of such a ruling would be huge (perhaps even fatal?) to the NBA business, or even to the business of pro sports. So, to clarify, how far do you think a court will go, or will have to go, in order to force the NBA to approve the Seattle sale? Will a court take away all of NBA's monopoly powers, and force them to accept, say, all new teams what want to join the NBA and be a part of the NBA schedule? Will a court take away the NBA's ability to approve relocation so that each franchise can independently decide where it wants to go? Will it take away the NBA's ability to approve sales to new investors? Could a court draw a line somewhere (and if so, where?) as to limit, but not eliminate the NBA's monopoly power so that the Seattle group can get their team but the NBA somehow still gets to control the number of teams, schedules, locations, etc.?
But they aren't forcing them. They never said Seattle can't but the team. They just can't move the team. I don't see NBA legal jargon. I see a situation where everyone knew upfront that a sale could be denied or relocation could be denied. Now the whole issue about the league helping to put a Sac bid together may make a difference.
As another poster mentioned, just because an owner and a buyer agree on a sale doesn't make it binding. All sales have to be approved by the NBA. I don't see how that is debatable.
Even the idea of an anti-trust suit going to court seems insane when all the NBA has to do is approve the sale, let the team go to Seattle, and offer Sacramento an expansion. Done deal. However, US courts dont take kindly to monopolies. Its actually a very bipartisan issue. Mind you, there is only a case if the NBA somehow strips the Maloofs of their franchise without being compensated fairly. But Al Davis has set a precedent for anti-trust suit against a major American sports league. And the case against the NBA here is much stronger. Why the NBA would even risk an anti-trust suit to go to court, over a freaking relocation battle, is beyond me. But Ballmer & Hansen have set themselves up to win such a suit if it gets to that point.
There is a "best interest clause" written in the NBA bylaws that give them special preference to take teams away from owners. However the language is so thin, it would never hold up in court. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the NBA rejecting Hansen. Its the NBA rejecting Hansen but before being rejected, NBA undermined the free market offer, and then coerced Maloofs into accepting offer. Maloofs still own the team, but they will not sell to Sacramento. So the NBA is forced into two options, keeping team with Maloofs or moving to Seattle. The other option is to use NBA bylaws to somehow strip Maloofs of their team. Thats where an anti-trust suit gets going. Its not in rejecting Hansen, its in forcing the Maloofs out of the league through non-free market means. Maloofs are hardly as bad as Donald Sterling (certified racist and slumlord) or George Shinn (accused of kidnapping and sexually harassing a woman). NBA never used such a clause to force them out.
It is debatable because both sides have stated that it is binding. That leads me to believe that there is something in the contract that makes it bj ding. Unless you have seen the cntract and know that to not be the case, then you are just speculating also.
There is significant case law from the 9th Circuit (California, Oregon and Washington) stating that interfering with the sale of a team or the relocation of a team may violate the antitrust laws. I would post the case cites, but I cannot readily do that from my iPad. One of those cases resulted in the Oakland Raiders moving to LA.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Latest on unending Kings saga/Hansen-Maloof secondary agreement to sell 20 percent of team: http://<a href="http://t.co/uMUWNZwfAT" title="http://on.nba.com/160pZNp">on.nba.com/160pZNp</a></p>— David Aldridge (@daldridgetnt) <a href="https://twitter.com/daldridgetnt/status/333404535408177153">May 12, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Both sides as in the owner/buyer and the NBA or both sides as in the owner and the buyer? A NBA sale goes like this: 1) Current owner and buyer agree to terms. 2) NBA approves the sale. If #2 does not happen then a sale is not binding. Again, I can agree to marry any woman I choose. Until a court in Texas signs off on it, our marriage is not legally binding. The Maloof's can agree to sale their team to whoever they want, for whatever price they want. The sale is not binding until the league approves it. Has the league approved a sale?
This I believe. In one of my earlier posts I mentioned Al Davis suing the NFL to relocate. That law could be applicable here.
