That law would certainly be applicable. The NBA does not have an antitrust exemption and the applicable opinions were rendered by the 9th Circuit which encompasses both states involving the Kings (CA and WA).
The plot thickens... As it stands: Hansen and Ballmer are offering nearly $100 million more than the group from Sacramento is to the Maloofs, who refuse to sell to the latter; Seattle is offering to pay a $125 million relocation fee, nearly $100 million more than Oklahoma City's fee, which would directly enrich all NBA owners; the land is secured for an arena in a much larger city that would directly contribute to revenue sharing; the Maloofs will sell a minority interest to Hansen and Ballmer, if the NBA denies the sale, with an option to buy a majority share within two years; Sacramento is still trying to line up investors and the NBA is risking anti-trust litigation for its direct role in price-fixing the franchise; and one of the most successful coaches and dominant personalities in NBA history wants to return to the fold if the Kings are relocated to Seattle. And David Stern is still so swollen that he can't see all of this? I hope the owners stage a mutiny and vote in favor of their long-term interest (Seattle) than one more year of Stern's good graces (Sacramento).
An expansion team would solve the whole thing. If they never put the stupid bobcats they could just give Seattle a new "sonics". Or, you know, let the hornets move to OKC from the beginning.
Seattle's offer is just too much better than the Kings offer to pass up. Economically it makes the most sense but it screws over Sacramento. I feel bad for those fans but then again they have the Warriors who are about 90 minutes away driving. Not to mention they represent "Golden State" anyway. There is no reason Sacramento fans can't support the Warriors and still go to games if they want.
Even if Sacramento stays, Seattle will get a team. They have a committed ownership group and there will be other owners that will be happy to sell to them. 99% of cities don't have a mayor like Kevin Johnson that will do anything to keep the team.
Ok. A NBA sale is not binding until the NBA approves it, and it has always been that way. If it weren't then anyone could buy into the league. If the Maloof's agree to sell the Kings to Kim Jong-un then is it binding?
Red herring, this doesn't apply to the Sacramento vs. Seattle situation. Since when has the NBA ever acted against the interest of money? Which side do you believe has the best chance to contribute financially to the NBA in the long-term?
The team will move to Seattle. The increased offer and the secondary plan is the nail in the coffin for Sacramento. The right thing will happen.
That's not exactly how contracts work. Unless there is a provision in the contract that lets the Maloofs out if the NBA denies the sale, they are bound. League denial may make performance impossible, but it does not necessarily relieve the Maloofs of liability. I find it incredibly odd that they would not make the contract contingent upon league approval, but the Maloofs have publicly stated that they are bound. I can't imagine that they would make such a statement without the advice of counsel. Their attorneys have read every word of the contract. You and I have not. An NBA sale may be binding from a contractual perspective between buyer and seller, but cannot be completed without league approval. It's a pretty big distinction.
Refman If the Maloof's agree to sell the Kings to Kim Jong-un then is it binding, as far as the NBA is concerned?
You don't get it. The NBA is not a party to the sales contract. They have to approve the sale before the sale can be completed, but they DO NOT have to approve the sale for the Maloofs to be bound. If the Maloofs signed a sales contract without a contingency clause for league approval, the Maloofs are bound. If the Maloofs cannot secure league approval, the Maloofs cannot complete the sale and can be held in breach of contract by Hansen. That appears to be what the Maloofs are saying the situation is. Nowhere on that contract is there a signature block for David Stern. It was signed by the Maloofs and Hansen. If you agree to sell me your car and I will assume your car note, your lender must approve of the assumption. If you cannot secure your lender's approval, I can hold you in breach. It's really simple. Oh...Kim Jong-Un may be an exception as there may be about under the laws regarding trading with hostile governments.
I just can not imagine a situation where there's not a clause in a contract for the sale of an NBA franchise making it clear that the entire transaction is subject to league approval. These are franchises of a larger organization.
No, I don't get it. The reason I don't get it is because all sales have to be approved by the NBA, don't they? These guys just can't sell their teams to whoever they want because this private group of owners gets to decide who can be in their league. Correct? If not correct, then what is the purpose of the rule stating 75% of the other owners must approve a sale before it can go through? How can the NBA not be a party to a sales contract for one of their franchises, which they must allow to exist?
I understand what you are saying, but both Maloof and Hansen have stated publicly that the agreement is binding between the parties. So, either: 1. They are both lying, or 2. It is binding between the parties and the Maloofs left themselves wide open for a lawsuit. I believe the latter. I also believe that the parties did so intentionally to put pressure on the league to approve the sale and relocation. I also believe that the parties did so to provide the basis to get this into court where the league could be drawn in as a third party and face discovery and an expensive legal battle. The binding nature of the contract between the Maloofs and Hansen may have been orchestrated to give the parties the contingency of legal action.
There are all kinds of binding contracts entered into in business that require the approval of or action by a third party. If the conditions are not met, the selling party is liable for breach due to their inability to perform under the terms of the contract. It really isn't that complex.
I haven't read where they've said anything about it being binding...though I get why they want to say that...but there is absolutely zero chance you can sell an NBA franchise without first getting league approval.
