Will this work?

[Konj157]

http://www.fox40.com/videobeta/bc035021-d612-4459-8784-e4ee02c0f5f6/Sports/FRI-10PM-NEWS



This would be amazing

 

[BMiller52]

This is stupid and it wont work. Why would anyone buy 500 million dollars worth of stock that contains no benefits? I can see people chipping in here and there but not enough to make a difference. Our best bet is to make the county thing work.

 

[Dr. Spaceman]

http://www.fox40.com/videobeta/bc035021-d612-4459-8784-e4ee02c0f5f6/Sports/FRI-10PM-NEWS



This would be amazing

Is this report really from last Friday? I ask because this idea was thrown around here a couple of weeks ago, and I hadn't heard any progress made on that non-profit being established yet.

It's an interesting idea, but it seems like a movement that is divergent from the main group heading up the arena effort at the moment, namely the county joint board that was established today. Maybe that board will consider this proposal when it gets moving on its own planning. The one thing that seems a bit iffy is the issue of dividends for shareholders. The first report I read said that there would be no dividends, even in the form of free event tickets, while Crandall's report says dividends are on the table. How does it work in Green Bay?

 

[Gary]

nah was a couple fridays ago.

 

[Larry David]

If its true "stock" then the Maloofs would be selling part of the team, and so far they don't want to do that.

If it's just donating money to an arena fund, then that's what Dave kicked around doing. Right now he just has pledges, which doesn't mean nearly as much to the leaders that will vote to fund this. It's time to turn Here We Build into a real money drive.

 

[Siranthony]

If it's good enough for GB it's good enough here. My question is, would the shares be for the team, arena or both?

 

[Warhawk]

If it's good enough for GB it's good enough here. My question is, would the shares be for the team, arena or both?

We discussed this before. You can't have more than 32 (I think) owners of a team. The idea that the public could own a team (like GB is owned) just cannot be done.

 

[Section 101]

We discussed this before. You can't have more than 32 (I think) owners of a team. The idea that the public could own a team (like GB is owned) just cannot be done.

So has this changed since the celtics were publicly traded? It was only a few years ago.

 

[Dr. Spaceman]

I think people are a little confused on the scope of the proposed non-profit's control. It would not involve shares of the Sacramento Kings being made available to the public. Any monetary contribution would go towards a piece of ownership of the arena only. The only income made from the Kings would be from a lease agreement. Any profit made after accounting for operational costs for ALL events at the arena, not just NBA games, would be donated to charity, at least as its been proposed. I personally think you need to offer potential shareholders much more incentive, in the form of substantial dividends. As much passion as there is for the Kings in this town, with things as bad as they are economically, you need to sell this as a sound financial investment, not just as a "We Love the Kings!" charity case. We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars here, not the $700,000 that HereWeBuild generated.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

there will be one individual that gets paid iirc. who would that person be? there will be a BOD that volunteers their time? the proceeds are going to charities? which charities? will there be a vote on where it goes?

i had a police affiliate calling for donations for their charity.. i asked how much was going to the cause? 15%, where was the rest of it going? "admin fees". lol, 15%! shady? hell yeah-

these are elaborate ways to launder money imo.

i'll never be on board for this type of crap.

 

[Warhawk]

So has this changed since the celtics were publicly traded? It was only a few years ago.

My understanding is that all the individual owners had to sell their stock back to the Boston Basketball Partnership. That was in 2002.

In looking around a bit I find this:

The NBA likewise fosters a team’s ability to sell shares to the public. Thus,
MLB, the NHL, and the NBA provide sports team owners the opportunity
to go public, but impose restrictions that ensure that a one-man decision
remains without public shareholder interference.

Lastly, the Boston Celtics, like the Panthers, went public in 1986, offering
their fans the opportunity to purchase an interest in the team. Much
like the stock of the other professional teams that have gone public, the
Boston Celtics’ stock came with few privileges. Notably, however, the
Boston Celtics were one of the few teams who actually paid dividends to
their shareholders. Like the Florida Panthers and the Cleveland Indians,
the Boston Celtics provided their investors access to the secondary market.
Like the others, in 2002, the Boston Celtics was sold to private investors.
As of now, with the exception of the Green Bay Packers, who are
not considered to be a true sports team corporation, no professional sports
team in the United States currently sells shares of stock to the public.

http://www.niu.edu/law/organizations/law_review/pdfs/full_issues/31_1/Green 69-93.pdf

 

[Section 101]

My understanding is that all the individual owners had to sell their stock back to the Boston Basketball Partnership. That was in 2002.

In looking around a bit I find this:



http://www.niu.edu/law/organizations/law_review/pdfs/full_issues/31_1/Green 69-93.pdf

Correct. I had to sell my shares. But that doesn't mean a team couldn't do it again. It just has to have an ownership group in control of the team. They dont want shareholders having to vote on team decisions.