Anti-trust is actually a very bipartisan issue, if this goes to court, if there is a major case made about anti-trust, seems to me whatever state its taken to will be against monopolistic practices. Monopolistic ways of doing business are just not the American way.
No issue with Maloofs, but if its team Ballmer & Hansen along with the Maloofs.....Ballmer is definitely not an idiot. If Stern backs Ballmer into a corner, Ballmer has a lot more to gain through litigation while Stern and the NBA have everything to lose. Seems like a dumb idea all around to play a game of chicken with one of the world's wealthiest men, and a guy whose been fighting the EU and the US govt on antitrust for the last 15 years. Ballmer is as much of a bully as Stern is, which makes him a real challenge to Stern's authority.
Stern gave Seattle an ultimatum several years ago to get the Sonics a new arena or lose the team forever. Stern does not want a team back in Seattle which is why I have said all along that I think the Kings will stay in Sac.
Win the lawsuit that the folks in Seattle say they will not file? Well, sources. Can we at least recognize that everything out there at the moment says Seattle is not going to sue the league?
What's the issue here? that a league can't veto a relocation effort? Seems to me that a league that already has collective labor bargaining and revenue sharing at the very least has the right to determine where its franchises will be situated. But i'm not a judge on the ninth circuit.
This is the result of Los Angeles Memorial Colesium v. NFL, 726 F.2d 1381 (9th Cir. 1984). I have not read the full opinion, but the 9th Circuit upheld a jury verdict that the NFL refusing the Raiders move to LA violated the antitrust laws. Subsequently, they moved to LA. In American Needle v. NFL, 130 S.Ct. 2202 (2010), the NFL argued that it should be treated as a single entity and not subject to antitrust. The Court rejected that argument, holding that they are multiple entities in a joint venture. In NBA v. San Diego Clipper Basketball Club, 815 F.2d 562 (9th Cir. 1987), the Court held that a rule of reason analysis should be applied to rules regulating franchise relocation. Part of that analysis is to determine whether the rule merely regulates and promotes competiton or if it destroys competiton. In the matter of the Kings, I think it is a tough sell to convince a court that the league assisting Sacramento with a bid and denying a much higher bid is for e purpose of promoting, rather than destroying competiton.
At this point, I almost hope that they reject the Seattle bid again and then the arena and funding in Sacramento falls apart (from what I read, still a very strong possibility). Then we let Stern/Silver figure out the cluster**** that they could have solved a while ago.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OBt808ua_g0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Maybe, maybe not. But if it is on point and the controlling authority, then why didn't the Maloofs move to Anaheim like they wanted and and sue the NBA when they refused to approve that move?
Tim Montemayor @TheMontyShow H&B news: This conversation started yesterday and continued in to this evening after a contact asked me about expansion in #Seattle. As I have prev. reported, I was again told H&B have been aware of 2014-15 season but have not been willing to engage in that condo while the #NBAKings were still "in play". They have been aware of expansion for two months, in that time they have fought hard "to keep Sac alive". However the tone and subject of NBA conversations changed this week after H&B where plainly told their relationship with the #Maloofs had damaged any good will they had built up with other owners in the league who have made it clear to H&B that the #Maloofs are not good partners for them and the "side deal" hurt them. H&B were told Monday that their chances of any #NBA ownership was fading fast because they continue to be aggressive and take steps that go directly against #NBA protocol in this situation. Late Monday H&B began a conversation that was "concessionary" in nature and have "seemingly woken up to the reality of the situation" that the #Maloofs have made them look "foolish" and it appears the #Maloofs "are directing the H&B groups direction. They were told in no uncertain terms that it was now or nvr. It was conveyed to me that H&B have told the #Maloofs that they needed to take a few days to reconsider their position ahead of Wednesday and that discussions surrounding expansion have now become a two way communication with H&B shifting their tone to returning the #NBA to #Seattle by any available means. The #Maloofs responded by reaching out to media member who they had previously ignored. My sources tell me that H&B took the day today to reach out and talk to #NBA people they trust who made it clear they were rapidly losing the chance to own an #NBA team, they were told expansion is a real option, they were told the #Maloofs appear to be manipulating them. H&B were told that the #NBA was "shocked" at how the situation played out and disappointed that it appear H&B were "tone deaf to the "…reality of the situation". "How could they not know money was not the leading factor or consideration in any committee vote?" The #Maloofs made such a poor showing at the NY presentation that the #Seattle H&B group were warned in committee and in private that continuing relationship with "that family" would substantially damage their efforts. They did not heed that warning until this week. My sources tell me the #NBA has been talking about how to "shake Chris Hanson out of this trance" for a month and that the Monday conference call focused heavily on how to salvage H&B as an ownership group. While I do not know who did what specifically it was made clear to me several #NBA owners and executives put a lot of effort in to opening a new dialogue with Hansen and it worked. A couple of other notes: Any one saying Hansen would own the #NBAKings in Sac and build an arena there is "in outer space". H&B is solely focused on returning the #NBA to #Seattle. Also the #Maloofs were so bad around the NY presentations that it not only made the vote a formality but served 2 enhance what KJ presented. I was told then and now that #Seattle was almost dead on arrival in NYC b/c of the #Maloofs. I do not know what the next vote will bring as my sources say there is a lot of conversations to be had before any vote or decision but it is likely the next vote will bring some clarity and a path forward. That's all I have on the situation. The #NBA is working hard to cap source leaks and my sources have said they need to be very careful. The #NBA has said any leak of information will be met harshly. For everyone saying I am a #NBAKings fan or apologist: everyone I know in Sac knows I am not a fan, I covered the team for a few yrs. I only report what I am told, I am not paid to source or break news. My sources have been rock solid and accurate and I stand by my reporting 100%.
Not to go on a tangent, but the Nets only played in Newark their last two seasons in New Jersey, and as a former Jersey resident let me just add: the team had a very limited and dispassionate fanbase in NJ. I was happy for them when they moved to Brooklyn, to be honest.
Seattle and Vancouver are more deserving markets than many teams in the league now. Sacramento, Memphis, Charlotte all need to be relocated. Maybe Milwaukee too.
Read the LA Memorial Coliseum v. NFL (i.e. Raiders) 1984 decision, a few thoughts: 1. The "Rule of Reason" applied by the court is not a bright-line black-and-white type rule, but one that balances factors such as the anti-competitive harms of a rule on the relevant marketplaces and the reasonable necessity of such a rule to regulate and maybe even promote competition within a certain field. This balancing is a question of fact that requires the fact-finder to examine how the specific rule is structured, the particular business and market in question, and the actual impact of such a rule. So, the 9th Circuit precedent does not say that any and all restraints by a sports league on team relocation violates the Sherman Act. 2. Also, the 9th Circuit did not balance these facts for itself, it is an appellate court and merely reviewed the facts to confirm that there were sufficient facts so that a reasonable jury could have found that, under the "rule of reason" the restraint in question was not justified under the Sherman Act. In other words, the 9th Circuit merely said that it wasn't crazy for the jury to find that way under the circumstances. If a jury had decided the other way, the court may well have confirmed that finding, too. Again, in applying the "rule of reason," the case law at most suggests that there is a chance that a court/jury could find that denying relocation violates the Sherman Act, nothing near certainty. 3. On the "anti-competitive effect" side of the balance, one fact noted by the 9th Circuit was that the Raiders situation involved the team moving into the "territory" of another team, the LA Rams. So, one aspect of that case was that, within the pro-football "market" of the city of Los Angeles, denying the Raiders move would allow the Rams to have monopoly power. This is not an issue in the Kings situation, given that we are not looking at a team moving into another team's home city (Portland is not that close to Seattle). While there is still a matter of a possible anti-competitive effect that a relocation restraint would have on the "marketplace" of cities and/or arena operators being able to compete for the residence of teams, the lack of the "territorial" factor lessens the amount of anti-competitive effect. Also, it would seem that the whole marketplace of cities and/or arena operators factor would carry less weight than the marketplace of NFL fans within a city. Sure, the NBA/NFL can use the threat of relocation to extract concessions from cities, but this can be done with or without having a league approval process for relocation. For example, this is exactly what Al Davis did without the NFL's help-- he threatened to move to try and extract concessions from Oakland, and then sued the NFL to move into LA. Not sure whether cities will be better off in terms of having to pay teams to stay in or move into them if leagues have no approval authority over relocation. 4. One significant factor that the 9th Circuit considered in confirming the jury's decision is that the NFL's relocation rule simply required a straight up-and-down vote and the approval of 3/4 of the NFL team. The court noted that the NFL had legitimate reasons (i.e. non-anti-competitive reasons) for regulating team location (such as maintaining the good will of host cities and fans, league stability, making sure teams have a chance to succeed in their respective markets). However, the court found that there are reasons to find that the NFL's rule was not "reasonably necessary" for achieving such a purpose. Specifically, the 9th Circuit noted that NFL's rule did not require that each voting team to actually examine the relevant factors and the rule allows a team that didn't want someone butting into their city to simply find 7 allies (or 7 teams that don't like Al Davis as a human being) willing to vote against relocation whether or not approving relocation would actually be for the greater benefit of the league. As far as I know (i.e. as far as I've read on the internet), the NBA's process actually requires the Relocation Committee and the Board of Governors to address and consider the relevant "impact on the league" factors before making a recommendation/decision and the approval process is not a 3/4 vote. It is not surprising that the NBA would structure its rules in light of the Raiders decision to conform to the "reasonably necessary" analysis of the 9th Circuit.
I don't entirely understand this argument. With the growth of the game into Europe, South America and other places, one could argue that talent dilution is not the issue. The teams that are consistently terrible are not so because they can't draft any good players - it's because they're terribly mismanaged. Charlotte, Washington, Sacramento, Detroit, etc. have been awful because they banked on the wrong players, overpaid overrated veterans and have poor scouting operations compared to other clubs. If basketball is destined to become the second most popular sport on earth, behind soccer, shouldn't it follow that the best players will come to the NBA?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Very high level source: "Sac's got this"</p>— Bryan May (@BMayNews10) <a href="https://twitter.com/BMayNews10/status/334787699275882496">May 15, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>High source says, "Sac's got this."</p>— nickmonacelli (@nickmonacelli) <a href="https://twitter.com/nickmonacelli/status/334787987944652800">May 15, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>The NBA Board of Governors has voted down the relocation bid to move the Kings to Seattle, @<a href="https://twitter.com/usatodaysports">usatodaysports</a> has learned</p>— Sam Amick (@sam_amick) <a href="https://twitter.com/sam_amick/status/334789018812309506">May 15, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
