in my view, this is good news. it means the BoG recognizes that sacramento's case is as compelling as advertised. remember, a sale such as the one inked by the maloofs and hansen/ballmer is ordinarily fast-tracked through to completion by season's end. the owners like to get things done simply, and they prefer not to vote against their own. but they're presented with a tremendously difficult decision this time around, and kevin johnson has forced their hand. if they need more time, it's because KJ's been so convincing...
Meeting Day - April 3, 2013
- Thread starter kennadog
- Start date
Totally agree. There were a couple of times during Stern's very carefully worded presser that I thought he gave a couple of hints about Sacramento's changes. He did mention our incredible support of the NBA and the city's cooperation. Those are huge. If this draws out past the original date, it can only mean that Sacramento has, as you pointed out, made it very difficult for the owners to vote to move the team.
For those us us, like me, who did not have the opportunity to watch the presser live, here is the link
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/vide...ce-from-sacramento-group-on-nba-presentation/
I have to say, the confidence and chemistry in that presser was unbelievable! Let's get this done Sacramento! This is the final stretch and we need to bring it home! Not long to go now!
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/vide...ce-from-sacramento-group-on-nba-presentation/
I have to say, the confidence and chemistry in that presser was unbelievable! Let's get this done Sacramento! This is the final stretch and we need to bring it home! Not long to go now!
As much as I want to get this thing over with, I'm not surprised that they are going to let this extend a bit. With Seattle, there are way too many question marks to approve of them this early. There is still an appeal, another lawsuit and an EIS review that isn't finished until November. How can they approve of a move to Seattle when the arena might be thwarted?
We have our hurdles to cross as well. There will unfortunately be a lawsuit or two plus some NIMBY will try to gather 30,000 signatures or whatever. None of this will be answered in the next 2 weeks.
We have our hurdles to cross as well. There will unfortunately be a lawsuit or two plus some NIMBY will try to gather 30,000 signatures or whatever. None of this will be answered in the next 2 weeks.
Very bland presser by the Seattle folks; not controversial in the least. EXCEPT, when asked about George's comments, they deferred to George. I doubt George's comments were just as bland. Undoubtedly, the question was asked: so what would be so bad about taking the Sacramento offer? My guess: he raised questions of performance. It seems that the NBA is focused on performance, especially about the arena deal for both Seattle and Sacto. That is where the complexities are found. They don't want to decide in favor of Sacto or Seattle, only to be holding the bag two years from now when there is no construction for some unforeseen reason. If the NBA is positive that Sacto has at least as much chance to perform on the arena as Seattle, then it seems Sacto's game. If Georgie can raise some doubts and issues with Sacto that can't be resolved, then it's probably Seattle.
Wouldnt your end scenario require that Seattle have a solid arena plan with little to no about seattles ability to follow through with it IN ADDITION to Sacramento seeming incapable of actually building the arena? This would be the only way the advantage could go to Seattle in my opinion, and it aint gon happen.
I can't help but wonder if Stren and Co plan to extend the timeline for decision for the very purpose of offering Seattle expansion. He made it clear that you don't do this on "horseback," but also that it could be considered in the "future." Interesting that he played around with the concept of when is "now" in the pressor and smiled. He discussed how a lot of research needed to be done to figure out the best home for the Kings but why wouldn't they review the terms for expansion during this period?
I honestly believe expansion is not on the table, dillution of talent is a major issue to the existing owners and was discussed at length a few years ago at how contraction may be benficial. They already went down this road when the were trying to make amends with charlotte by giving them an expansion team, sure at the time everyone was happy, attendance was great at first, huge cash infusion to the owners, but long term the owners will end up paying more in revenue splits and revenue sharing than the benefit they recieved from putting a team in charlotte. the league took a big hit with the bobcats and I get the vibe that they just dont want to deal expansion anytime in the near future.
I don't have much Kings gear these days. An old bibby jersey that doesnt fit me anymore, a warmup from the Richmond era, some throw back blue and red t-shirts and an old kings hat. I rocked my purple tie at work yesterday, then afterwards I went home and changed and put on the Kings hat. I had to run a handful of errands and everywhere I went I got asked: "So what's going on with the Kings today?" "Is there any news" "Are they staying"
You could tell these were all barely fans, probably watch a handful of games on tv each year, go to a game if a friend invites them type person.
That being said, they all wanted to know what was going on and if the Kings are staying.
You could tell these were all barely fans, probably watch a handful of games on tv each year, go to a game if a friend invites them type person.
That being said, they all wanted to know what was going on and if the Kings are staying.
I tend to agree with you. While I believe that it IS possible to bring in 12 more players in the draft with out seriously diluting the talent pool, and that a team in Seattle will not hurt the the over all profitability of the NBA, the league has taken some hard knocks with the most recent expansions. Given the questionable success of the Bobcats, Griz and Raptors no one can blame owners from being gun shy, and the truth is the most logical solution is to allow the move of an existing team to Seattle and of course this is the current problem. The Kings do have the worst attendance in the NBA at this point, now other cities may have owners willing to sell and fans that will not put up as much of a fight, but if we can try to be objective for a moment this is the problem the BOG faces. They have to decide if a failing franchise with owners willing to sell should be moved to a lager market that was less than supportive when it had a team and if not the Kings then what do they say next time Seattle buyers turn up with a similar offer for another team, and it will happen now that Hansen has essentially taken out an ad on Crag's list offering to grossly over pay for an NBA franchise provided it can be moved to Seattle.
Yet they also need to consider why the franchise is failing (intentional sabotage by current owners), the history of that franchise when it wasn't being mismanaged (sellout streaks), the support from the city (arena plans approved over and over, just to see the owners back out), and the fact that there are FOUR billionaires putting their money where their mouth is and saying they can make this a success.
With that said, I'm sure Stern absolutely *LOVES* Hansen. He has singlehandedly raised the price of every NBA franchise out there. As a matter of fact, it may be better for the NBA to leave the team in Sacramento. If Hansen is out of the market, the franchise prices will drop like a rock. With him in the hunt, the King's record sale price will soon be broken.
With that said, I'm sure Stern absolutely *LOVES* Hansen. He has singlehandedly raised the price of every NBA franchise out there. As a matter of fact, it may be better for the NBA to leave the team in Sacramento. If Hansen is out of the market, the franchise prices will drop like a rock. With him in the hunt, the King's record sale price will soon be broken.
This is a very relevant point and I have to assume that the Board will be asking themselves the same question. If the real deciding factor is who can build the arena first, then we have the edge. Bringing Senator Steinberg to the presentation was brilliant. His presence reassures the committee that red tape or lawsuits will not get in the way of building the arena. We may not have all the details ironed out but we will not have any major obstacles delaying the project.
That's what struck me, too. They have an aura that radiates confidence and it's really clear they've spent quite a bit of time together because they are clearly very comfortable with each other. If the same feeling came through in the meeting, the committee couldn't help but be drawn to those confident, competent individuals.
That's how I see it, too. The BoG is completely aware of why the franchise has been tumbling in a downward spiral. When the NBA sends a marketing staff to a team because the owners can't be trusted to properly market their team, it's pretty clear that the problem doesn't lie with the fans or the potential corporate sponsors. The market is here and viable, IF the salesmen aren't greasy snakes more interested in Las Vegas than Sacramento.