Why the heck does Stern have the Maloof's back?

RookieOfTheDay

RookieOfTheDay

Starter
#1
#1
What can he or the league possibly gain by letting the Maloofs take their crumbling finances to Anaheim? That's preferable to persuading them to sell to a multi billionaire who wants to buy the team and build an arena in Sacramento? Really? I just don't get it. It doesn't even make sense from a business perspective.
 
pdxKingsFan

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#2
#2
Stern is an employee of the owners. So right now he is going to protect ownership. If the other owners turn on the Maloofs so will he. The important thing is the Sacramento group making a better presentation than the Maloofs/Anaheim. I think they beat them yesterday which is why the extension was pushed. In the meantime Taylor/ICON/Burkle can put something solid together while Anaheim is likely to just be a shell game with bonds and loans. Steinberg can also try and push his bill through to take that away. So just wait, in two weeks the shoe may be on the other foot.
 
ArcoKings

ArcoKings

Starter
#3
#3
This newest extension isn't just for the Maloofs. The BOG want clarity with the Anaheim lease and they probably want to learn more about ICON/Taylor and Burkle. Stern owes the Maloofs for 2002. :p
 
RookieOfTheDay

RookieOfTheDay

Starter
#4
#4
[/b]
pdxKingsFan said:
Stern is an employee of the owners. So right now he is going to protect ownership. If the other owners turn on the Maloofs so will he. The important thing is the Sacramento group making a better presentation than the Maloofs/Anaheim. I think they beat them yesterday which is why the extension was pushed. In the meantime Taylor/ICON/Burkle can put something solid together while Anaheim is likely to just be a shell game with bonds and loans. Steinberg can also try and push his bill through to take that away. So just wait, in two weeks the shoe may be on the other foot.
Click to expand...


Yeah but endorsing the Anaheim relocation of the Kings conflicts with protecting the Lakers. the Lakers could lose 10% of a multi billions dollar TV deal if the Kings encroach on their territory. It seems like that would take precedent over the Maloofs.
 
pdxKingsFan

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#5
#5
RookieOfTheDay said:
[/b]Yeah but endorsing the Anaheim relocation of the Kings conflicts with protecting the Lakers. the Lakers could lose 10% of a multi billions dollar TV deal if the Kings encroach on their territory. It seems like that would take precedent over the Maloofs.
Click to expand...
Has he endorsed it? He told them they were incomplete and to come back in two weeks. That doesn't seem like an endorsement. While the Maloofs do appear to be serious about this move and not using it as a negotiation tactic, I am not so sure we can be sure what Stern's motivations are at this point. Except that he isn't going to humiliate an existing owner in public, which a complete rebuke would do at this point.
 
RookieOfTheDay

RookieOfTheDay

Starter
#6
#6
pdxKingsFan said:
Has he endorsed it? He told them they were incomplete and to come back in two weeks. That doesn't seem like an endorsement. While the Maloofs do appear to be serious about this move and not using it as a negotiation tactic, I am not so sure we can be sure what Stern's motivations are at this point. Except that he isn't going to humiliate an existing owner in public, which a complete rebuke would do at this point.
Click to expand...
He did say he thinks 3 teams will work in L.A. which is most definitely not protecting the Lakers and Clippers.
 
pdxKingsFan

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#7
#7
RookieOfTheDay said:
He did say he thinks 3 teams will work in L.A. which is most definitely not protecting the Lakers and Clippers.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, that is also sort of his job. To believe that his product is so awesome it won't cannibalize itself. 3 teams working in LA not only means that the Kings would be successful, but that their success would not harm the other two team's existing operations. I think everyone on the outside that believes the Kings can work also thinks that much of that success will come at the Clips' expense.

Just keep in mind his job is being vague and a cheerleader for everyone and appearing impartial. He may be a calculating, scheming, evil SOB too. Which is why I don't think we have a clear read on him, yet.
 
RookieOfTheDay

RookieOfTheDay

Starter
#8
#8
pdxKingsFan said:
On the other hand, that is also sort of his job. To believe that his product is so awesome it won't cannibalize itself. 3 teams working in LA not only means that the Kings would be successful, but that their success would not harm the other two team's existing operations. I think everyone on the outside that believes the Kings can work also thinks that much of that success will come at the Clips' expense.

Just keep in mind his job is being vague and a cheerleader for everyone and appearing impartial. He may be a calculating, scheming, evil SOB too. Which is why I don't think we have a clear read on him, yet.
Click to expand...
Fair points. It just seems to me that the Lakers losing 10% of a huge TV deal alone should be reason enough to keep them the heck out of there. The Lakers are his #1 team, you do what it takes to keep them happy. You don't let small time players like the Maloofs leech off their TV deal.
 
TehSwimGuy

TehSwimGuy

Bench
#9
#9
In reality it doesn't make much business sense. You have the Maloofs--inherited millionaires who have squandered their father's fortune, and don't know how to run a sustainable business model. On the other hand, you have Burkle, a self-made billionaire who is incredibly successful. It would be in Stern's best interest to force the Maloofs to sell the team to someone who would have a much better future investing in the NBA.
 
Bricklayer

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#10
#10
Maloofs were once golden boys of the NBA. They are also one of 30 ownership gorups that efectively ARE th NBA, and theefore are Stern's employers. Finally and probably most importantly, after trying to work with Sacramento himself, I think Stern came to agree with the Maloofs that the city gov and culture was borken, and nothing would ever get done. As much as anything KJ is in NY right now trying to undo the years of trashing its own iimage/reputation that Sacramento has been engaged in for the last decade.
 
Bricklayer

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#11
#11
TehSwimGuy said:
In reality it doesn't make much business sense. You have the Maloofs--inherited millionaires who have squandered their father's fortune, and don't know how to run a sustainable business model. On the other hand, you have Burkle, a self-made billionaire who is incredibly successful. It would be in Stern's best interest to force the Maloofs to sell the team to someone who would have a much better future investing in the NBA.
Click to expand...
He may in the end do that, wlthough there are limits to his power ot make the Maloofs sell. But the Burkle thing was sprung upon him 24 hrs ago -- a bit quick to suddenly drop one of your current owners and hop on the new guy's bandwagon. I'm sure they'll be talking about it the next few weeks though.
 
CruzDude

CruzDude

Senior Member sharing a brew with bajaden
#12
#12
Passionate fans won't keep the Kings in Sacramento but $300-400 million for a new arena/entertainment complex might do the job. ThenNBA is a business and businesses have to make a profit. Stern has the right question, "can Sacramento support an NBA team in the current and near future economic climate" in general and in hNor Cal I might add. I have been a passionate Sacramento Kings fan all along. As a 22-year business/corporate owner (in the Sacramento area in Auburn for 15 years) I know first hand how the economic climate of an area affected my business. When I could not get business loans or incentives
to expand my business I had to move to where I could, in my case Santa Cruz.

If the Kings franchise has suffered for a number of years in the reality of the poor business climate in Sacramento which directly affected the fans ability to pay for tickets which in turn were affected by the rebuilding process needed after the CWebb injury resulting in 5 losing seasons, we can begin to see the Catch-22 the Kings have been in for 6+ years compounded by lack of city support for the one thing that would do the most to keep the Kings in the same environment, a new downtown arena and entertainment complex. If the business commercial climate stays down in Sacramento, compounded by a nearly broke state government, a new arena may not be enough to keep the Kings there. The further from Sacramento one gets the greater is the memory loss of the budget problems in Sacramento. I hope they stay but am also a realist about business climate to support a pro sports team.
 
pdxKingsFan

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#15
#15
I think Stern is playing it straight. He rightfully has reservations about Sac's ability to get things done, and he has some deal of good will with the Maloofs over the years. We don't know what's all gone on in private conversations. He may also ask the Maloofs to prove this is an NBA move and not a Maloof move. He may ask them to prove that their deal doesn't infringe on any other deals. I mean the Anaheim proposal was all there, so obviously something didn't quite add up in it.

On the other hand if in 2 weeks Burkle shows up in NY and says "Here is our plan to break ground in September, the money is here" it's game over.
 
S

swisshh

Starter
#16
#16
True intentions sometimes reveal themselves by what people do. Stern hasn't done anything to make people really believe he believes in Sacramento other than hallow political words. But 2002, wasting time with a Arena proposal study that came up with the worst proposal so far and having Clay Bennet behind the relocation group says a lot.
 
SacTownKid

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#17
#17
Another thing you have to remember is Stern and the NBA did step in and were blown off just like the Maloofs have been for the last 10 years. I said it at the time while not believing this would all happen within the time frame of the same season but I did say that when Stern made those comments about the NBA stepping out and the Maloofs would have to figure it out that it was the day Sac was on the clock.

Stern is a queen, and if you pee him off, he'll become a total diva.
 
pdxKingsFan

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#18
#18
They were blown off? Didn't they all settle together that the convergence plan would be the one to run with only to have it shot down by a power outside of city control?
 
K

kpm308

G-League
#20
#20
Stern is all about trying to get public financing for arenas. What he cares about is that the owners don't have to pay out of their own pockets when the current arenas become outdated. He is willing to sacrifice a few small market teams to make that happen. He did it with Seattle and is willing to do it with Sacramento to prove his point. In his mind these small market cities have the financial means to build the arenas they just need to realize that if they don't they will lose their team. In reality there aren't enough people in these cities that care about the NBA enough to pony up tax dollars to build these arenas. Basically the business model of the NBA doesn't allow for the owners to pay for it on their own and still be able to make money. He would be much better off focusing his efforts on changing the business model because trying to get the cities to pay for it is just banging his head against a brick wall, the problem is Stern will end up giving himself brain damage before he actually realizes he's going about it the wrong way.
 
RookieOfTheDay

RookieOfTheDay

Starter
#21
#21
kpm308 said:
Stern is all about trying to get public financing for arenas. What he cares about is that the owners don't have to pay out of their own pockets when the current arenas become outdated. He is willing to sacrifice a few small market teams to make that happen. He did it with Seattle and is willing to do it with Sacramento to prove his point. In his mind these small market cities have the financial means to build the arenas they just need to realize that if they don't they will lose their team. In reality there aren't enough people in these cities that care about the NBA enough to pony up tax dollars to build these arenas. Basically the business model of the NBA doesn't allow for the owners to pay for it on their own and still be able to make money. He would be much better off focusing his efforts on changing the business model because trying to get the cities to pay for it is just banging his head against a brick wall, the problem is Stern will end up giving himself brain damage before he actually realizes he's going about it the wrong way.
Click to expand...
Very wise post. You should be the NBA commissioner.
 
Bricklayer

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#22
#22
SacTownKid said:
Another thing you have to remember is Stern and the NBA did step in and were blown off just like the Maloofs have been for the last 10 years. I said it at the time while not believing this would all happen within the time frame of the same season but I did say that when Stern made those comments about the NBA stepping out and the Maloofs would have to figure it out that it was the day Sac was on the clock.

Stern is a queen, and if you pee him off, he'll become a total diva.
Click to expand...
Think that is about it. You could feel the chill in the air after that.
 
Capt. Factorial

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#23
#23
kpm308 said:
Stern is all about trying to get public financing for arenas. What he cares about is that the owners don't have to pay out of their own pockets when the current arenas become outdated. He is willing to sacrifice a few small market teams to make that happen. He did it with Seattle and is willing to do it with Sacramento to prove his point.
Click to expand...
Let's assume this is true. Then if we can show that we're dead serious about putting shovels in the ground, he won't let the team move. No way. If Stern's line is that small markets have to pony up for arenas or risk losing their franchises, a small market ponies up for an arena to save its franchise, and the franchise leaves anyway, you know what will happen. No small market will EVER build an arena again. Stern played hardball with Seattle and Seattle explicitly wrote legislation outlawing public funding for an arena. Sorry, Seattle, game over. Stern plays hardball with Sacramento and Sacramento, even belatedly, comes forward with a real plan to build? He has to reward that. HAS TO.
 
pdxKingsFan

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#24
#24
Capt. Factorial said:
He has to reward that. HAS TO.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and I think he has indicated he will. I just think he is still unconvinced it will get done. Then the Burkle-bomb went off and he knew he had to delay it. But he won't throw the Maloofs under the bus unless they make it clear they won't work with the city even if they show up 2 weeks from now with shovels in hand.
 
T

twosomeca

G-League
#25
#25
ArcoKings said:
This newest extension isn't just for the Maloofs. The BOG want clarity with the Anaheim lease and they probably want to learn more about ICON/Taylor and Burkle. Stern owes the Maloofs for 2002. :p
Click to expand...
There has been a ton of talk up here about Mr. Ralphs, but I just don't see it. One of the articles today in the Bee had it right: "in case the deal to Anaheim doesn't go through," then Burkle is there. Right now, he is a non-factor and he still wants a "public/private" arena. The only way he becomes a factor is if the Maloofs decide to sell. The Bee is reporting late this afternoon that they are adamant that they will not sell. Certainly, circumstances change. But my feeling is that the deadline was delayed because the Maloofs don't have everything done yet, or less likely, they don't have the votes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.