Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

NBA votes unanimously for Sac Kings to STAY!


King Taharqa

Recommended Posts

2013%5C03%5C13%5C163645564.jpg

NEW YORK -- Three months ago the Sacramento Kings seemed on the verge of a move to Seattle after the team's majority owners secretly executed a deal that would land a record sale price to a deep-pocketed and respected group that promised a glittering new downtown arena.

On Monday, Sacramento overcame those long odds when an NBA ownership committee studying the situation unanimously voted against relocating the Kings. A formal vote of all 30 owners is scheduled for May 13 but sources told ESPN.com the full body is expected to ratify the recommendation of the 12 owners from the relocation and finance committees.

The move is a victory for Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson. In January, he had no competing ownership bid, no plan for a new arena after years of trying and no working relationship with the team's owners, the Maloof family.

But Johnson, who successfully staved off a bid to move the Kings to Anaheim in 2011, hastily assembled a strong counter-proposal that ended up winning over skeptical owners.

Moments after the league announced the committee's recommendation, Johnson wrote on Twitter: "That's what I'm talking about SACRAMENTO!!!!! WE DID IT!!!!!"

A group led by Bay Area software magnate Vivek Ranadive, who currently is a part owner of the Golden State Warriors, now appears to be in the drivers' seat to make a deal to purchase 65 percent of the Kings for $341 million. That overall evaluation of $525 million would make the Kings the largest sale in league history.

That purchase would have to be approved by 75 percent of owners. But the committee's vote on Monday will effectively clear the way for Ranadive's group to buy the Kings and keep them in Sacramento.

Sacramento also has funding and government approval to build a new downtown arena to be open in 2015 or 2016.

The decision is a loss for Seattle businessmen Chris Hansen and Steve Ballmer, who had bid $365 million for 65 percent of the team and had made a separate deal with a bankruptcy court to pay $15 million for another seven percent. They were also willing to pay millions more in relocation fees and arena development in a larger market.

The Maloofs had urged their fellow NBA owners to accept the Hansen deal and allow a move to Seattle through personal lobbying and a letter that attacked the merits of the Sacramento bid that was sent to all owners two weeks ago.

NBA commissioner David Stern, deputy commissioner Adam Silver and a legion of league attorneys had studied the two offers for the last two months. A vote that was expected to be taken at the annual spring owners' meetings was pushed back to allow further study.

Those delays helped Johnson and Sacramento firm up their offer. As recently as last week, there were some doubts among NBA owners that the Sacramento group would be able to assemble all the financing and clear all the government hurdles to truly compete with the Seattle offer, which was much more developed.

Stern called the decision "wrenching" recently. But in the end, it appears the league favored supporting a city that stepped up and fought to keep its team.

"I've never been prouder of this city," Johnson tweeted. "I thank the ownership group, city leaders, but most of all the BEST FANS IN THE NBA!!!"

The mayor also commended Seattle for its effort and wrote that the Pacific Northwest city "no doubt deserves a team in the future."

http://espn.go.com/n...-kings-stay-put

Sorry Sonics fans. Looks like the Kings are staying put in Sac-Town, CA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Maloof's doing what they said they'd do all along have fought the NBA on this decision and have refused to sell it to any one in Sacramento at all. 

 

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/9265605/sources-maloof-family-cuts-new-deal-sacramento-kings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Two sources told ESPN.com the Maloofs have informed their fellow owners that if their deal to sell and relocate the Kings to Seattle is not approved by league owners next week, they will not sell the team to a Sacramento-based group that promises to keep the Kings in Sacramento.

 

 

Instead, the cash-strapped Maloofs have made a "backup" agreement with the Hansen-Ballmer group to sell it 20 percent of the team for $125 million to allow the Maloofs to continue to operate the franchise.

 

 

That new "backup" plan comes on the heels of Hansen's announcement on Friday that he had upped his offer to buy the Maloofs' 65 percent of the Kings to $409 million (from $358 million) for a total valuation of $625 million.

 

 

Sources said that new proposal also included a $115 million offer to owners as a relocation fee, which would amount to about $4 million per team. By comparison, in 2008 when theOklahoma City Thunder moved from Seattle, they paid a $30 million total fee to the other owners.

 

To consider these incredible new figures, the NBA relocation committee is planning to re-evaluate the Hansen-Ballmer offer and has scheduled another meeting ahead of next Tuesday's full owners meeting in Dallas, sources said.

 

 

 

 

 

 


So no new King's owner in Sacramento is going to happen, so it's either the Sonics in Seattle or a messed up franchise in Sacramento.  The NBA"s decision to back Sacramento is also being revisited with this new offer from the Seattle group.  The Seattle group is basically throwing money at the other NBA owners to back this group.  I'd say that Sacramento has officially lost the Kings. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...