I do agree that the NBA tends to favor being in one-market cities and being the only game in town: Portland, Sacramento, Oklahoma City, Memphis, San Antonio, Salt Lake City and Orlando. And it does suck to see a city get hosed. But, if Sacramento is still trying to line up investors and build a publicly-financed arena in a city hit incredibly hard by the economic collapse, it doesn't seem like they have as solid of a plan as Seattle. Yes, Seattle is basically trying to outbid Sacramento for this team - but, the proposed Sacramento ownership group agreed to a kickback by forgoing revenue sharing. Then again, this could all be smoke and mirrors. The Maloofs have done it before. For all we know, they're secretly hammering out a deal with Ranadive now. A lot of people seem to hate the expansion idea, but it really would solve this. The NBA has had an odd number of teams before and the "dilution of talent" argument doesn't hold water, given the small number of players on a team and the growth of the sport internationally. Thinking of bad teams now, their problems can likely be traced to an ownership/management (Charlotte, Milwaukee, Phoenix, etc.) level with bad contracts given to veterans, poor scouting and fan indifference. Why is it that Charlotte was promised an expansion team the moment the Hornets left but Stern has a raging vendetta against the same thing in Seattle?
A load of excuses. Look back in the thread and you'll find a video of attendance records from Seattle before the move compared to the attendance records of Sacremento. You'll see that the "better market" didnt contribute to a losing product in Seattle. They had their chance and the majority of citizens and government failed to do anything to dismay a move until it was too late. Remember iniciative 91? seattle residents PASSED THAT. Seattle have been breaking their backs to keep the team and fight the ownership while still going to the games this past season. You argue that this is about business but if that's the case there shouldn't be teams in San Antonio or Memphis or Orlando. That's straight bull ****. Seattle had a team. Seattle voted that they shouldn't help pay for a team's arena. In 2006 the Seattle Sonics were losing $60 million a year. They didnt seem like a big market them but now they are huh? Now they have a right to get a team when they put up no fight to keep it? Horse ****.
Alright, I'll play. Seattle had publicly-funded both Safeco Field and Qwest Field less than 10 years after funding renovations to Key Arena. Remember how, less than 10 years before the Sonics left, David Stern said that Key Arena was one of the best buildings in the NBA? Do you not think that there was a sour taste in their mouths being asked to publicly-fund another brand new building less than a decade after paying for three stadiums? Clay Bennett and his group did not want to stay in Seattle and the residents saw through their transparency. They wanted a 100% publicly-funded arena in Renton which would've been the most expensive arena ever built. But, you wonder why the city didn't "step up" to appease a man who in leaked emails said he was a "man possessed" to moving the team to Oklahoma City from the get-go. Sacramento fans have not been going to games this past season while "breaking their backs" - the Kings had the worst attendance in the league this season. And, with the morally-questionable practice of publicly-funded arenas, there is already pushback in a cash-strapped city like Sacramento. Is it in the best public interest of the city to appease a group of billionaires by building their arena when that same group has already agreed to forego revenue sharing dollars as a kickback to the NBA? If the precedent of strong-arming municipalities into paying for stadiums is truly at the heart of the NBA's decision here, I really hope Seattle wins out to stop this trend in every sport. 2008 was a different CBA than what we have now - you're, again, comparing apples to oranges. The same owners who cried poverty back then are now making money hand over fist. With the next round of television contracts coming up, why do you think that the most mismanaged, poorly funded team in the NBA is about to sell for a record price?
Oh, and your point about "San Antonio, Memphis and Orlando" is erroneous. San Antonio is the 7th most populated city in the country; Orlando is a market that got an expansion team and supported it (remember how Sacramento "stole" the Kings from Kansas City?); you should be upset at Memphis' existence in memory of Vancouver, right? The Grizzlies left Vancouver less than 10 years after the city built a brand new arena and were never terrible in terms of attendance. Each situation is unique. You're allowing emotion to impede your stance.
Clay Bennett wasnt the owner when Seattle passed I-91. That's what drove Howard Schultz to eventually sell to Bennett. You seem to want to try your hardest to blame Sacramento for something but you obviously can't find anything. Their fans have been lied to by ownership and they've had tearful goodbyes twice in the last 3 years because of it. You obviously don't care about the fans and what they've achieved without the help of the owners of the team they're trying to save? I guess it's all about money to you. That's cool but Sports teams are emotional and they are emotional because they ask fans to INVEST emotion in them. Not just money. If it were all about money then fans should only support playoff teams right?
Yeah, now doing more research I'm wrong on that. Still doesn't discredit the fact that Seattle didnt do all it could to keep the Kings.
Having a few friends in Seattle during Clay Bennett's rape and pillage operation, it really didn't matter what Seattle did, the team was going to find a legal loophole to get out of its lease no matter what. Loosely following the proceedings back then, Clay Bennett was every bit the "negotiator/hostage taker" that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are in our dysfunctional political system. His $500M, suburban arena certainly seemed like an offer in bad faith that was never to be taken seriously; a huge upfront cost to a city which had already financed 3 arenas, and furthermore placing it in a suburb far away from the downtown area, so the city would see no benefit from redevelopment. It says a lot about how completely unfeasible his proposal was in that Chris Hansen got a better deal done WITHOUT a team, in a better location, 5 years later, and it's half the cost of Bennett's ludicrous plan. As for his reported losses of $60M per annum, I don't know a single basketball fan who still believes in the NBA's books anymore; the tax depreciation on the $350M purchase price alone would mean that the Sonics would have had to be one of the most mismanaged franchises in the history of professional sport to actually be a bad investment. Look, if Seattle was truly a loser without a new arena, he could have easily sold to a local investor after a year, it's obvious that he tanked their books to plead poverty, a real life Rachel Phelps. The main difference between Seattle back then and Sacramento now is that David Stern is Bennett's butt buddy, and while the Commish set a long precedent for going above and beyond to keep franchises in place, he instead became the other side of the eiffel tower in screwing Seattle out of it's team. In many ways, Sacramento is what we would expect Stern to do; use every power enumerated to him to find legal, and not-so-legal ways to keep a team in place. It's inexcusable what he did to Seattle, and to people who remember what actually happened, it's infuriating to see people dismiss Seattle as a basketball town, and are so brainwashed by the commissioner's office to believe they drove the Sonics out of town. They showed up to a knife fight with a knife, only to have their backup shoot them in the back with a .44.
I agree with you on several points. Seattle was screwed out of the Sonics years ago. However, that does not make it acceptable to screw Sacramento out of their team.
I think there are a lot of people who were responsible for the Sonics leaving Seattle. Stern, Bennett, Shultz,... But don't forget also that initiative 91 was enforced by Frank Chopp, the gate keeper from the WA state legislature. Chopp was hostile to Stern and in turn Stern was pissed at them and Seattle and decided he allow the move.
You love revisionist history. Bennett asked for a completely publicly funded $500M arena in Renton because he KNEW it would never happen. He threw it out there for it to get denied and run to OKC. If Les had demanded a $500M publicly funded arena in Cypress or The Woodlands, the Rockets would not be here anymore. It simply did not make sense for Renton. Blame it on Seattle all you'd like. The fact is that it was Renton, not Seattle that balked at the deal.
Looks like the league didn't change their mind, even with the Seattle group trying to buy their way in:
The league won't be punked on this one. They are rumored to have no issue seeing the Maloof's in court.
I want the Sonics back damnit. Jordan should just up and move for Seattle and hire Phil Jackson as president of operations and call it a day.
How does it not discredit that? Bennett was ALWAYS as transparent as a concrete wall during those proceedings. He created the most bogus proposal he could put together so he would have a "NO" vote in his back pocket when he moved the team to OKC like he always planned. Seattle had no choice but to shoot it down because Renton was NEVER a feasible location for a $500m stadium.
Brian May @BMayNews10 Just had the longest talk I've had with George Maloof in over a year. He said they've never said they wouldn't sell to Sac group George also told me Chris Hansen "still has a shot at this. A very real shot." When I asked him how he thinks tomorrow's meetings will go, he said quick. "It's going to be a lot to talk about, bap, bap, bap." George said he has only met Vivek once, and still hasn't talked to Sacramento ownership group. George said what all of NBA has been saying, that expansion is not likely. "It's very complicated. Very, very complicated." I asked George why they agreed to 20% backup offer. "It's a way for them (H/B) to get into the league." I asked George, if BoG votes down 65%, wouldn't they also vote down 20%. "I can sell to whoever I want to." George said he doesn't think he will sit in on Sacramento presentation during BoG tomorrow. George: "If it's only a matter of a few million, that's one thing, but if the offers are far apart it's a different story." Bottom line from my conversation with George Maloof, I don't think this thing is over tomorrow. Maybe some resolution, but not all. Let me say again, George was very adamant that they never said they wouldn't sell to Sacramento ownership group. ______________________________ Ken Berger @KBergCBS New twist in Kings saga: Political action committee has launched campaign to oppose public funding of a new Sacramento arena. Two taxpayer groups call Sac's arena plan "financially irresponsible" and are starting a ballot initiative to put it to a public vote. “This comes at a time when the City simply does not have the funds to waste,” said Julian Camacho, chairman of one of the taxpayer groups. Sacramento arena deal calls for $258 million in public funds to be paid back with parking revenues, and if that's not enough, a hotel tax.
After learning how the Ninth Circuit has ruled on antitrust issues in sports, I can't imagine that the NBA would think they'd win.
