League profitability Seattle V Sacramento

[Sac.1989]

ive read a few comments from differing unofficial sources who claim that the League stands to gain greater profits from the team relocating to Seattle in terms of TV agreements etc.

I was wondering if anyone knows more about this rumor or if its just mud slinging. I hope its unjustifiable rubbish as unfortunately we all know money rules all these days and i hope the League making a few extra million (if this is the case) doesnt tint the boards glasses when reviewing our fight to keep the team

 

[Section 101]

ive read a few comments from differing unofficial sources who claim that the League stands to gain greater profits from the team relocating to Seattle in terms of TV agreements etc.

I was wondering if anyone knows more about this rumor or if its just mud slinging. I hope its unjustifiable rubbish as unfortunately we all know money rules all these days and i hope the League making a few extra million (if this is the case) doesnt tint the boards glasses when reviewing our fight to keep the team

Do you think OKC is a better TV Market than Seattle? It's not going to come down to TV Market money.

 

[kennadog]

Do you think OKC is a better TV Market than Seattle? It's not going to come down to TV Market money.

That's why I laughed at a Sonics fan who said Sacramento will lose, because its all about money.

"Oh really? Is that why the Sonics moved to OKC?" *snicker*

Yes, there are advantages financially. It's the 12th biggest media market compared to Sacramento region at 20th. There is certainly far more corporate presence there. I suspect the TV deal that can be struck there would be more lucrative. Actually, Kings have almost always had one of the worst TV deals in the league, although Comcast said something about renegotiating the deal to keep the Kings here last year amidst the arena dealing.

Finally, the other owners get to split the relocation fee. A one-time gain, but maybe at the cost of another black eye for the league.

Still, the fan base here is great, especially if the product is improved. Sacramento is a one pro-team market, not to be split 4 ways like it would be in Seattle. The TV deal could be improved with a commitment to stay in Sacramento. We're not devoid of corporate presence and the business community has stepped up here when called upon. Finally, the league wouldn't be ripping a team away from a city that's done everything the league has asked for, which is not insignificant for the image of the league. They also wouldn't be ending one of the original 8 franchises with a 70 year history.

This isn't going to be an easy decision, though, but its not a slam dunk for either city. The national media has practically called the team in Seattle already. However, its also true that I've read very few national media that have gotten the facts right yet, especially about what has gone on here in Sacramento.

 

[Gilles]

Maloofs refused to signed long-term TV deal for obvious reasons. It's up for renewal this summer or next, I think, so potential new TV deal should also be negotiated tentatively. Of course, it won't be close to Lakers deal, but it should be solid money if it's a long one. More money from TV deal affects revenue sharing but at the same time there's some predetermined number for expected TV revenue and team "underperforming" in this department automatically gets less revenue sharing money. Since Sacramento is a reciever in revenue sharing system, I don't see, how this affects Sacramento's offer much.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

I'm interested in finding out what some realistic estimates are as well regarding the OP's questions. I don't think it will matter that much to each individual owner but its good to have the figures ready.

The Sonics moving to OKC has nothing to do with TV money and we all know that. Clay Bennett lied and cheated his way into moving the team which had nothing to do with making the most money. Go back and read the details about that. He made a lot of lies to various sides in order to move the team to his hometown. The fact that CB is now buddy buddy with Stern always makes me have reasonable doubt about anything Stern says. Bennett lied directly to Stern and this was proven. But somehow they are buddies now with CB in charge of the relocation committee.

 

[Ryan]

Why did the BOG approve the move to OKC in the first place?

 

[bajaden]

It strikes me that if the league was purely interested in just money, it would just give Seattle an expansion team. That would be a huge chunk of change going to the league, and a hell of a lot more than a relocation fee. I know one of the items they look at, is how much of the market will be shared with other teams. In Sacramento that number is zero, and that includes no major college programs. In Seattle you have football, baseball and I believe a pro soccer league, as well a major college programs. Ultimately, it comes down to whether the city can support a team, and does it have an appropiate facility. At the moment, neither city can claim the latter, but both are claiming that they will in the immediate future.

However, it appears there are some pending lawsuits coming in Seattle in regards to the new arena. My opinion, is that if all things are equal, then the team stays in Sacramento. I don't think the league fixes one black eye by creating another one. They've already absorbed the damage from the Sonics leaving town, and to a large extent, they've reflected most of the blame back at the city. It would be hard to do that with Sacramento, especially since Stern himself had a hand in putting together a plan to keep the Kings here. So I firmly believe that if Kevin Johnson dots all his I's and crosses all his T's, the BOG will rule in his favor. Of course my opinion doesn't count for anything, and no one can predict for sure. But I'm extremely hopeful!

 

[bajaden]

Why did the BOG approve the move to OKC in the first place?

In short, the city of Seattle and the Mayor at that time basicly flipped the bird at Stern and the League. So at that point, the league turned its back on the city of Seattle. So what you have now, is the city coming back, hat in hand, and trying to do everything that the league asked of them in the first place. Compare that against the backdrop of how the city of Sacramento responded.

 

[Section 101]

I'm interested in finding out what some realistic estimates are as well regarding the OP's questions. I don't think it will matter that much to each individual owner but its good to have the figures ready.

The Sonics moving to OKC has nothing to do with TV money and we all know that. Clay Bennett lied and cheated his way into moving the team which had nothing to do with making the most money. Go back and read the details about that. He made a lot of lies to various sides in order to move the team to his hometown. The fact that CB is now buddy buddy with Stern always makes me have reasonable doubt about anything Stern says. Bennett lied directly to Stern and this was proven. But somehow they are buddies now with CB in charge of the relocation committee.

Regardless of what Bennett did, the blame still rests on the Seattle city council, mayor and voters. They voted against building an arena after building new ones for NFL and MLB. Bennett had 2 years in Seattle and an arena ready to go in OKC. They should have worried more when he wanted to buy the team not afterwards.

 

[Gilles]

I'm interested in finding out what some realistic estimates are as well regarding the OP's questions. I don't think it will matter that much to each individual owner but its good to have the figures ready.
The Sonics moving to OKC has nothing to do with TV money and we all know that. Clay Bennett lied and cheated his way into moving the team which had nothing to do with making the most money. Go back and read the details about that. He made a lot of lies to various sides in order to move the team to his hometown. The fact that CB is now buddy buddy with Stern always makes me have reasonable doubt about anything Stern says. Bennett lied directly to Stern and this was proven. But somehow they are buddies now with CB in charge of the relocation committee.

I don't think Stern has any say in who gets to be the chairman of relocation committee. Bennett got into the club of thirty and he can do anything other owners have a right to do.
Speaking of Seattle, there was some movement to get state money involved as well since they were involved in both football and baseball arenas before, I believe, but exactly because of that there were no state money for basketball, and city participated in renovating Key Arena a few years back, so they felt they've done enough to keep team at Seattle. With no public money for a new arena Bennett argued he had to move from city with crumbling arena to the city that supported Hornets with moderate success.

 

[VF21]

...With no public money for a new arena Bennett argued he had to move from city with crumbling arena to the city that supported Hornets with moderate success.

And that needs to be remembered. The Sonics stayed in Seattle for two years after Bennett purchased them. When he made his relocation request to the BoG, he would not have been approved IF there was any definitive movement towards a new arena with the partnership of the city. Moving the team to OKC was, at that point, very much CLEARLY in the best interests of the league as the OKC crowd had welcomed the Hornets with open arms and shown themselves to be more than willing and able to support an NBA franchise (which they have done since the day the Thunder arrived).

 

[nbaFan]

That's why I laughed at a Sonics fan who said Sacramento will lose, because its all about money.

"Oh really? Is that why the Sonics moved to OKC?" *snicker*

Yes, there are advantages financially. It's the 12th biggest media market compared to Sacramento region at 20th. There is certainly far more corporate presence there. I suspect the TV deal that can be struck there would be more lucrative. Actually, Kings have almost always had one of the worst TV deals in the league, although Comcast said something about renegotiating the deal to keep the Kings here last year amidst the arena dealing.

Finally, the other owners get to split the relocation fee. A one-time gain, but maybe at the cost of another black eye for the league.

Still, the fan base here is great, especially if the product is improved. Sacramento is a one pro-team market, not to be split 4 ways like it would be in Seattle. The TV deal could be improved with a commitment to stay in Sacramento. We're not devoid of corporate presence and the business community has stepped up here when called upon. Finally, the league wouldn't be ripping a team away from a city that's done everything the league has asked for, which is not insignificant for the image of the league. They also wouldn't be ending one of the original 8 franchises with a 70 year history.

This isn't going to be an easy decision, though, but its not a slam dunk for either city. The national media has practically called the team in Seattle already. However, its also true that I've read very few national media that have gotten the facts right yet, especially about what has gone on here in Sacramento.

Of course its about money, its why the original owners of Sonics were sold, they couldnt make money with out an injection of some public money to renovate the Key and increase revenue!!! therefor they sold.

 

[nbaFan]

In short, the city of Seattle and the Mayor at that time basicly flipped the bird at Stern and the League. So at that point, the league turned its back on the city of Seattle. So what you have now, is the city coming back, hat in hand, and trying to do everything that the league asked of them in the first place. Compare that against the backdrop of how the city of Sacramento responded.

Wrong by a lot. It wasnt the city, it was the state of Wa, Stern is pissed at Frank Chopp, speaker of the house. He appeared with Shultz for public funding in 06 and was shot down and embarrassed by Chopp. Since Shultz wasnt going to receive funding he sold the team to Bennett. Who obviously was to move them and did. He applied for relocation and was approved with still two years remaining on a lease.NBA basically said screw you Seattle and the lease. That is when the City sued Clay Bennett but ultimately settled for 40 mill and let them leave. So Seattle never ever came back hat in hand, it was all Chris Hansen. In the several initial council meetings, its members very apprehensive in even considering the NBA again,eventually Hansens amazing offer of 290 mill out of pocket and 200 mil in revenue generating taxes by the arena going back to pay the bonds on the city backed bonds(200 mill) they couldn't turn it down. So Hansen went to the NBA hat in hand not the city of Seattle. In fact the city was going to pay 75 million in 08 of 300 milion needed to renovate the arena in a last ditch effort to keep the Sonics after Ballmer gifted 150 million if the state would pay 75 mil and decided not to.

 

[nbaFan]

Regardless of what Bennett did, the blame still rests on the Seattle city council, mayor and voters. They voted against building an arena after building new ones for NFL and MLB. Bennett had 2 years in Seattle and an arena ready to go in OKC. They should have worried more when he wanted to buy the team not afterwards.

wrong again, there was never any vote of any kind in which the city council ever "voted down an arena". your facts are all wrong, in fact both the stadiums you mention for the M's and Seahawks had absolutely nothing to do with the city of seattle, the mayor, or the council. Both of those were state money, not city. And until the day that team sold there was no and i mean no rumor or article or anything that the Sonics were for sale. The actual fault of the whole thing is the fact Schultz couldnt make money because half of all the suite and club seat revenue went to the city to pay off bonds for the 1995 remodel. When shultz approached the state two years in a row for extension of taxes for Key arena renos , he was declined. Initially he approached the city for funds to renovate to no avail, but there was never any vote.

 

[Glenn]

I suggest we stop discussing why Seattle is stuck where it is. I doubt if anyone in Sacramento or any Kings' follower can know the complete details and in some sense, what difference does it make? If it makes a difference, carry on.

 

[Section 101]

wrong again, there was never any vote of any kind in which the city council ever "voted down an arena". your facts are all wrong, in fact both the stadiums you mention for the M's and Seahawks had absolutely nothing to do with the city of seattle, the mayor, or the council. Both of those were state money, not city. And until the day that team sold there was no and i mean no rumor or article or anything that the Sonics were for sale. The actual fault of the whole thing is the fact Schultz couldnt make money because half of all the suite and club seat revenue went to the city to pay off bonds for the 1995 remodel. When shultz approached the state two years in a row for extension of taxes for Key arena renos , he was declined. Initially he approached the city for funds to renovate to no avail, but there was never any vote.

My point is the mayor and city council didnt step up to build an arena. There was the I 91 vote that basically squashed any arena at the time.

 

[Trueblood]

And that needs to be remembered. The Sonics stayed in Seattle for two years after Bennett purchased them. When he made his relocation request to the BoG, he would not have been approved IF there was any definitive movement towards a new arena with the partnership of the city. Moving the team to OKC was, at that point, very much CLEARLY in the best interests of the league as the OKC crowd had welcomed the Hornets with open arms and shown themselves to be more than willing and able to support an NBA franchise (which they have done since the day the Thunder arrived).

Spot on and correct. Standing ovation.

 

[Trueblood]

I suggest we stop discussing why Seattle is stuck where it is. I doubt if anyone in Sacramento or any Kings' follower can know the complete details and in some sense, what difference does it make? If it makes a difference, carry on.

It makes a difference because there are people on the Seattle side of things who keep saying that Stern "owes them" for screwing them over last time. As long as they feel that way, they will justify taking the Kings. By having the actual facts correct on the OKC relocation, we are able to squash those "Stern owes us...screw Sacramento" claims. And this is coming from someone who wants to see Seattle with a new team, as long as it doesn't come from Sac.

 

[Trueblood]

wrong again, there was never any vote of any kind in which the city council ever "voted down an arena". your facts are all wrong, in fact both the stadiums you mention for the M's and Seahawks had absolutely nothing to do with the city of seattle, the mayor, or the council. Both of those were state money, not city. And until the day that team sold there was no and i mean no rumor or article or anything that the Sonics were for sale. The actual fault of the whole thing is the fact Schultz couldnt make money because half of all the suite and club seat revenue went to the city to pay off bonds for the 1995 remodel. When shultz approached the state two years in a row for extension of taxes for Key arena renos , he was declined. Initially he approached the city for funds to renovate to no avail, but there was never any vote.

Bold face part is very much true but that's basically what Section 101 was getting at. Regardless of whether or not the rejection was from the city or state level, it was the politicians and the authors of the Key Arena remodel finances that made things tough on Schultz and the lack of effort in getting a replacement building made for an inevitable relocation.

 

[Trueblood]

Wrong by a lot. It wasnt the city, it was the state of Wa, Stern is pissed at Frank Chopp, speaker of the house. He appeared with Shultz for public funding in 06 and was shot down and embarrassed by Chopp. Since Shultz wasnt going to receive funding he sold the team to Bennett. Who obviously was to move them and did. He applied for relocation and was approved with still two years remaining on a lease.NBA basically said screw you Seattle and the lease. That is when the City sued Clay Bennett but ultimately settled for 40 mill and let them leave. So Seattle never ever came back hat in hand, it was all Chris Hansen. In the several initial council meetings, its members very apprehensive in even considering the NBA again,eventually Hansens amazing offer of 290 mill out of pocket and 200 mil in revenue generating taxes by the arena going back to pay the bonds on the city backed bonds(200 mill) they couldn't turn it down. So Hansen went to the NBA hat in hand not the city of Seattle. In fact the city was going to pay 75 million in 08 of 300 milion needed to renovate the arena in a last ditch effort to keep the Sonics after Ballmer gifted 150 million if the state would pay 75 mil and decided not to.

You know your stuff. That's refreshing but I think Bajaden's point was that the NBA is less at fault than the politicians for the OKC relocation. Whether or not they come from the city or the state is irrelevant in the OKC saga.

 

[Trueblood]

And to prove that the league isn't all about money, just look at the Sonic sale and relocation as proof. They had an offer of $425 million from Larry Ellison to move the team to San Jose but they chose the $350 million from Bennett because OKC was a desireable market due to the Hornet support. Plus, the NBA didn't want to anger the Warriors and face possible lawsuits that would come about due to territorial rights in the Bay Area.

Heck, the league sold the Hornets for $338 million. If they wanted money, it would've made more sense to take $525 from Hansen instead. But for whatever reason, the league is committed to New Orleans and they took a huge cut to keep them there.

 

[ParniValjak]

And to prove that the league isn't all about money, just look at the Sonic sale and relocation as proof. They had an offer of $425 million from Larry Ellison to move the team to San Jose but they chose the $350 million from Bennett because OKC was a desireable market due to the Hornet support. Plus, the NBA didn't want to anger the Warriors and face possible lawsuits that would come about due to territorial rights in the Bay Area.

Heck, the league sold the Hornets for $338 million. If they wanted money, it would've made more sense to take $525 from Hansen instead. But for whatever reason, the league is committed to New Orleans and they took a huge cut to keep them there.

Our situation is a bit more complex than either of those. We have owners who want the most money they can get and they will cry foul if they don't get it. Our offer needs to at least equal that of the Hansen group.

I am sure that if we can match the offer (Maloofs get their $341 million) and we have an iron clad arena plan that will result in arena getting built quicker than it would in Seattle, then the NBA will favour us over Seattle (especially if Burkle is part of our bid because Stern and other owners have a great deal of respect for the man).

However, if Maloofs don't get the same money and we do not have iron clad arena deal, then we are toast. These are the key here. Its part of the reason why I am a bit apprehensive about Burkle's intention to get the arena at downtown plaza site. This is the site that has a bit more red tape than the railyards which is just about signed sealed and delivered.

I am hoping that by the end of this month, the downtown plaza site is a confirmed goer or we might actually not be as advanced in our arena effort as we thought and that would bring us down a notch to Seattle's level at which point its anybody's game.

Its going to be interesting 10 days or so. Hopefully we come out with flying colors and keep the team where it belongs.

 

[Trueblood]

Our situation is a bit more complex than either of those. We have owners who want the most money they can get and they will cry foul if they don't get it. Our offer needs to at least equal that of the Hansen group.

I am sure that if we can match the offer (Maloofs get their $341 million) and we have an iron clad arena plan that will result in arena getting built quicker than it would in Seattle, then the NBA will favour us over Seattle (especially if Burkle is part of our bid because Stern and other owners have a great deal of respect for the man).

However, if Maloofs don't get the same money and we do not have iron clad arena deal, then we are toast. These are the key here. Its part of the reason why I am a bit apprehensive about Burkle's intention to get the arena at downtown plaza site. This is the site that has a bit more red tape than the railyards which is just about signed sealed and delivered.

I am hoping that by the end of this month, the downtown plaza site is a confirmed goer or we might actually not be as advanced in our arena effort as we thought and that would bring us down a notch to Seattle's level at which point its anybody's game.

Its going to be interesting 10 days or so. Hopefully we come out with flying colors and keep the team where it belongs.

You bring up some good points and I've brought them up before Hansen's purchase when I was speculating about the possibility of Hansen buying the team.

You say Sacramento is toast if the whales don't make a matching offer but what if the league differs and sticks with Sacramento because the intangibles make up for a hypothetical sale shortfall?

I've always feared what the Maloofs would do in that situation. What legal recourse would they have against the league and would it stick? Is that enough to scare off the BOG and give Hansen the benefit of the doubt?

Another thing that the Seattle people keep bringing up is the possibility of Maloofian vidictiveness. I know that everyone here is thinking that the league can force them to sell to Mastrov/Burkle but what if they flat out refuse to? What legal standing do they have here?

There are a ton of things that the BOG has to weight while deciding the fate of the team but I have to think that they are talking with lawyers 24/7 to try and limit and get a read on what options the Maloofs have.

 

[Glenn]

I have never thought the league can force owners to sell to people they don't want to. What kind of precedent would that set? Could the NBA force Buss to sell to someone else, etc.?

 

[Gilles]

Our situation is a bit more complex than either of those. We have owners who want the most money they can get and they will cry foul if they don't get it. Our offer needs to at least equal that of the Hansen group...

And Stern comments about avoiding "$525 million!, "$526 million!, who's more?" mean that it ends at $525 million or to be more correct at $341 million.
I think, most fans after suffering abuse from Maloofs over the years, feel that Maloofs just enjoy the torture and don't care about anything else, if there's a chance to stick it to city of Sacramento. My understanding of the situation is that they want the most money since they like to spend it so much. Maloofs went the route that guaranteed them most money, and that is searching for a deep pocket that is most desperate and thus is willing to overpay to move the team(and you can't argue that ability to move increases the price by adding out of town buyers into the mix). Well, technically that most desperate and deepest pocket would be Ellison, but even Maloofs knew that was a non-starter for the League.
P.S. It's a very long shot, but so much increased valuation of NBA franchise may bring one or two other owners with hemorrhaging teams out, who may want to get with profit out of the business, if there was an offer in place like Seattle's. So without expanding Seattle can still get their team.

 

[whozit]

I have never thought the league can force owners to sell to people they don't want to. What kind of precedent would that set? Could the NBA force Buss to sell to someone else, etc.?

I've wondered that perhaps with the signed purchase agreement, the league would have the ability to simply replace the buyers with ones of their choosing and be done with it. The price has been set.

 

[Trueblood]

And Stern comments about avoiding "$525 million!, "$526 million!, who's more?" mean that it ends at $525 million or to be more correct at $341 million.
I think, most fans after suffering abuse from Maloofs over the years, feel that Maloofs just enjoy the torture and don't care about anything else, if there's a chance to stick it to city of Sacramento. My understanding of the situation is that they want the most money since they like to spend it so much. Maloofs went the route that guaranteed them most money, and that is searching for a deep pocket that is most desperate and thus is willing to overpay to move the team(and you can't argue that ability to move increases the price by adding out of town buyers into the mix). Well, technically that most desperate and deepest pocket would be Ellison, but even Maloofs knew that was a non-starter for the League.
P.S. It's a very long shot, but so much increased valuation of NBA franchise may bring one or two other owners with hemorrhaging teams out, who may want to get with profit out of the business, if there was an offer in place like Seattle's. So without expanding Seattle can still get their team.

I've thought of that as well. I have to think that there are other franchises for Seattle that would make more sense than the Kings. Losing Sacramento would give the league a black eye. OTOH, Milwaukee, Indiana or Charlotte would put up less of a fight due to already having major sports (Brewers, Colts and Panthers respectively).

 

[Glenn]

whozit, I have wondered the same thing. I'll leave that to the lawyers. I would suspect that the BOG would not only want to simply change the name of the buyers but also bump up the purchase price a little bit so there was no argument about the Maloofs losing money.

Does anyone wonder about the Sacramento based minority owners? The Maloofs are only selling their portion plus the bankrupt portion, right? I have been involved in a partnership before and the managing partners were spelled out in the partnership agreement. This isn't like buying stocks and majority rules. In fact, I think the Maloofs wanted a deal with Hansen where they could maintain 2% ownership AND be the managing partners.

Anyway, back to the minority owners. Let us say the managing partners are spelled out in the partnership agreemnt. Can they simply substitute the name Hansen? I doubt it unless THAT is spelled out in the partnership agreement. I was the managing partner in a partnership of three where we all invested the same amount. What happens to the minority owners? If I were a minority owner I would want a way out as no way in hell would I want to be a part owner of a team in Seattle unless it is simply a money thing with them which I doubt. As the sale only needs the approval of the BOG maybe everything is settled but I would suspect any self respecting lawyer writing up a partnership agreement would give the minority owners some rights as to who the managing partner is.

Complicated, eh? I can't imagine all this being solved April 18 in one meeting.

Easiest solution is to sell to Burkle/Mastrov. I doubt if any minority owner would quibble about leaving either of the two in charge.



Milwaukee's owner, Herb Kohl is very old and I don't know who runs that team.

 

[ParniValjak]

You bring up some good points and I've brought them up before Hansen's purchase when I was speculating about the possibility of Hansen buying the team.

You say Sacramento is toast if the whales don't make a matching offer but what if the league differs and sticks with Sacramento because the intangibles make up for a hypothetical sale shortfall?

I've always feared what the Maloofs would do in that situation. What legal recourse would they have against the league and would it stick? Is that enough to scare off the BOG and give Hansen the benefit of the doubt?

Another thing that the Seattle people keep bringing up is the possibility of Maloofian vidictiveness. I know that everyone here is thinking that the league can force them to sell to Mastrov/Burkle but what if they flat out refuse to? What legal standing do they have here?

There are a ton of things that the BOG has to weight while deciding the fate of the team but I have to think that they are talking with lawyers 24/7 to try and limit and get a read on what options the Maloofs have.

I do think that Maloofs have become irrelevant in this whole story provided that they get the same amount of money in the end. If they say no to Burkle/Mastrov, NBA has the ability to invoke the "in the best interest of the league" clause and take over the ownership of the team while paying the Maloofs out for $341 million. Then sell the team to the ownership group of their choice. They did take over the Hornets from Shinn, albeit under different circumstances but the principle was the same.

Provided that KJ comes up with an ironclad arena deal where the shovels are ready to hit the ground just about immediately, and Maloofs get their $341 million, the NBA will not want to set the precedent in leaving small market city when the arena deal is in place and an ownership group offering same money and willing to sign on the arena deal to keeping the team in the small market. That would be a HUGE back eye for the league. Bigger than anything else in the last 30 years. Its a PR disaster for the league that claims strives to be equitable and fair for all teams regardless of the market. Its one of the main reasons for revenue sharing under the new CBA. Walk away from Sacramento when they have delivered everything asked would be a PR disaster that would be difficult for the NBA to recover from. I doubt Stern would want to leave on those terms and I am sure that Silver would be reluctant to pick up that mess right at the start of his term.

 

[Warhawk]

I do think that Maloofs have become irrelevant in this whole story provided that they get the same amount of money in the end. If they say no to Burkle/Mastrov, NBA has the ability to invoke the "in the best interest of the league" clause and take over the ownership of the team while paying the Maloofs out for $341 million. Then sell the team to the ownership group of their choice. They did take over the Hornets from Shinn, albeit under different circumstances but the principle was the same.

While none of us know for sure (we'd have to be owners and have copies of contracts, etc.), I think this is the alternative that can take place if they turn down the relocation.