It isn't that complex because you'd put those terms in the agreement. It's a chartered organization from the NBA...not a stand-alone entity.
I would. You would. Both sides are essentially saying that they didn't. Being that these guys aren't stupid, I can only imagine that they did so is to have the looming threat of litigation.
I don't believe that it is off the table until Hansen announces so. I believe that they will seek to complete the backup 20% purchase. If the league denies that...all bets are off.
Just want to make clear the league did approve Prokhorov for a team. No way that guy is clean, no way anyone grew their wealth from zero to $13 billion in the freaking Russian mining & gas sector under the era of Soviet privatization without assassinations, corruption, and theft along the way. Maybe he kept it quiet, but to become a Russian oligarch in the 1990s meant a lot of blood was spilled along the way. Just saying.....
There's millions of dollars here in play with very sophisticated parties and attorneys. The Maloofs have an NBA charter to sell...you can't sell it without league approval...and you know as well as I do that there's no way any attorneys for the Seattle group wouldn't be reviewing that charter as well... like any other agreement with clauses about assignability...except even more strenuous because the league has a cohesive product to protect. You can not sell an NBA franchise without league approval...same is true of most franchises in any business...and all in major pro sports. There is next to no chance in the world that these parties and their attorneys don't know that. That falls outside of the pale of believability. Every story covering the subject has every two-bit reporter across the nation repeating the fact that there has to be league approval to sell a franchise. You can't sell a McDonald's franchise without corporate approval...that goes even more so for the NBA.
I hear you. I cannot think of any other explanation of why both Maloof and Hansen have stated that their agreement is binding. Unless you think they are lying, can you come up with another explanation? Maybe you can think of something I haven't. What we do know is that Hansen has said he has a binding agreement to buy the team and Maloof has told the league that they are going to put him in breach.
Because they want the deal to happen..because the Maloofs want to stick it to SAC, and they're doing whatever they can to create the air of appearance for that. Because they're disappointed that the NBA didn't approve their sale. Do you have a link to the Maloofs' statement about breach? I haven't seen that. Do they give any other explanation about it? We represent a restaurant chain that has about 20 franchises around the state...no way you could sell one of their franchises without corporate approval. You're stepping into a franchise agreement that already exists...that has all sorts of prohibitions on assignment without their approval. That's all you have to sell...so any buyer is reviewing that document to determine what it is he/she is actually buying...and they're seeing the same prohibitions on assignment.
IIRC, it was in a letter sent to the NBA by the Maloofs stating that their insistence that the Maloofs sell to a Sacramento group would put them in breach. I do not have the link at this point, but it became public right around the time of the vote by the relocation committee. Hansen's comments are on the Sonics website he created. Either it is binding, or they are lying. Sounds like you think they are lying to create pressure. Maybe you are right...but maybe not.
I don't know if they're lying...I know that a contract is nothing more than a meeting of the minds...and there's no way in the world that either party (Maloofs or Hansen) thought that the Maloofs could sell an NBA franchise without league approval. I don't care what they say now...there is absolutely no chance in the world that these parties didn't know that selling a team requires league approval.
http://www.nba.com/2013/news/04/19/maloofs-favor-seattle.ap/index.html Found this article...sheds some light on the breach of contract discussion. The Seattle offer contemplates backup offers pending league approval...but Maloofs can only get out of the deal (which is still subject to league approval) if the backup offer is a binding one as well. At least initially, the SAC group wasn't willing to do that. But league failing to approve the deal still kills it....it becomes impossible for Maloofs to perform...can't be a breach of contract if it's impossible to perform...they can't sell anything more than they have...and all they have is subject to the league saying okie-dokie. I googled Kings Seattle breach of contract, and this is all I can come up with
True, but between the parties, part of the meeting of the minds is who bears the responsibility for obtaining the approval. If they agreed that Maloof is responsible and he fails to obtain the approval, he could be liable to Hansen. It would be a very dumb deal, but certainly one Maloof could make.
looking over the articles on this situation, i don't see the potential breach being discussed in this context at all. i didn't find an article later than about april 21 talking about breach of contract at all....and it was all about issues prior to league approval relative to the nature of sacramento's offer.
Actually, that would be precisely the time to make a quick fortune; land- and mining-based industry in largest chunk of previously non-private and still largely uninhabitable batch of real estate on the planet. Don't forget the price of oil hextupling over a five- or six-year stretch a while back. That's probably peanuts in comparison to the tens of trillions that Soviets left on the table while the entire modern, global banking and refined products industries were being invented.
Maybe you are right. Maybe I completely misconstrued the Maloof statement. If that is the case, I wonder what makes Hansen (and presumably his attorneys) believe their agreement is binding.
Posturing. It's all they have left. Make an argument...it's all you can do. If they believed they're deal was so binding, they wouldn't have increased their offer so significantly.
Right thing will happen? That's a load of ****. Hope The NBA rejects the move and Hansen is stuck in a lease in Sac for 20 years.
Reeko, which market do you think has the best chance to contribute financially to the NBA in the future? Which market has a longer history of sustaining professional basketball? I keep asking because I'm honestly intrigued. You repeatedly approach this from an emotional standpoint, which is admirable. I've pointed out that I wish I could see things from your perspective. But, if David Stern's tenure has shown us anything, it's that emotion has nothing to do with the management and relocation of NBA franchises. Where is your outrage for the people of Vancouver, pre-Bobcats (and, arguably, current) Charlotte, Kansas City, San Diego and Newark? This isn't Barcelona, man. As much as we wish it were true, we aren't shareholders in our teams. At the end of the day, modern-day American sports are governed by money, markets and TV contracts. Seattle beats Sacramento on all three of those fronts.
It also beats San Antonio and Salt Lake City...but as much as it pains me to admit it, those are great NBA markets too. Sacramento is to be compared to the one-team cities...not to Seattle which is already home to NFL and MLB clubs. I don't have any real stake in this...I don't really care either way. But I think Seattle got hosed years ago...and I don't want to see Sacramento get hosed either. Having lived through having my favorite football team stripped from my hometown, I wouldn't wish that on someone.
