Comments on: Report: Billionaire who wants to keep Kings in Sacramento met with Stern

By: liddogg33

liddogg33 — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 05:31:26 +0000

Btw mr educated. The agreement is between the Malloofs and Chris Hansen and mr Balmer. Howard Shultz sold the original sonics to clay Bennett. And just like when clay Bennett reached an AGREEMENT with mr Shultz and he took the sonics to okc mr Hansen will be bringing the kings to seattle. I’m not saying its fair just that its going to happen!!

By: toewsingkaner

toewsingkaner — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 01:29:52 +0000

Seattle has a metro area which is more populated by 1.4 million residents (3.5m vs. 2.1m), has a per-capita income of approximately $6,500 higher in a year, and a median adjusted income of approximately $14,000 higher then Sacramento. During the winter months there would be little competition for the Seattle sports fan dollar as the Mariners play mainly in the summer and the Seahawks in the fall. To summarize, there are more people with more money with little competition for that money in a sport that has historically done well in the Seattle area. Your argument doesn’t hold water.

By: liddogg33

liddogg33 — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 00:15:53 +0000

well lets see how stupid it becomes.. i remember thinking when clay bought the sonics how it would never happen.. Well i have news for you moron.. The nba board would never block the sale and move considering one day they might want to sell and move. Say all you want.. Toss as many insults as you think you can… Truth is the sale is OVER!!! BOOK IT CLOWN!!!!

By: toewsingkaner

toewsingkaner — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:49:54 +0000

YOUR team? I wonder if this is what Kansas City Kings fans thought back in the mid 1980′s?

By: drago2012

drago2012 — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:22:35 +0000

Who cares about this franchise and these two cities? Not too many people. Both of these cities are a small market teams in the first place. DAAAA BUUUUUULLLLSSSSS!!!!

By: rollteal

rollteal — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:15:29 +0000

Go Sacramento keep fighting for your keep fighting for your team and show your civic pride.
Both Seattle & Sacramento were wrong in this by the NBA.

By: Kurt Helin

Kurt Helin — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 18:27:46 +0000

To be correct, they were selling a portion of the team to the man that owns the arena in Anaheim (and the Ducks) with that guy having the right to buy more under specific circumstances. But the Maloofs would have had majority control.

By: jrd8523

jrd8523 — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 17:14:01 +0000

Hate to break it to you, but until the NBA board approves the sale there is no sale. The sale agreement doesn’t mean a thing until the NBA board approves it, the CBA is abundantly clear on that. An unapproved sale is just that. Typing in caps and asserting that the reader should “trust me” is cute, but it doesn’t mean your logic on why the sale is complete “MEANING THEY HAVE A RECEIPT!” overrules the CBA in which the NBA operates.

The Kings are very likely headed to Seattle but your rant on how it’s over and done because the Maloofs and Schultz agreed to terms is taking a complicated situation and dumbing it down so it’s blatantly stupid.

By: jrd8523

jrd8523 — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 17:01:38 +0000

The difference between the two markets becomes even smaller when you consider that Seattle has ticket and viewer competition from NFL, MLB, and MLS… Sacramento is all NBA. You’re biggest competition are the non-televised, non-major league RiverCats.

By: mazblast

mazblast — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 16:34:49 +0000

Try this scenario–

1. Mastrov makes a bid without Burkle. Maloofs see a way to get just as much money as the Hansen/Ballmer bid and with far less negative publicity. They accept the bid. The Board of Governors quickly ratifies it.
2. As part of the bid, the Maloofs are completely out. “You got your money, go piss it away like you did the rest of the old man’s empire”.
3. Mastrov turns around and sells the biggest piece to Burkle. The Board of Governors quickly approves the deal.

Result? Maloofs get their money and are completely out, Sacramento keeps its team, Burkle gets majority ownership, Mastrov gets a piece of the action, Stern pretends to be the hero. Seattle still wouldn’t have a team, but Stern will find a way to remedy that, probably at another city’s expense (Toronto?).

By: liddogg33

liddogg33 — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 16:05:48 +0000

Well the last comment by “pyscho” (name says it all) was just about as STUPID A COMMENT AS I HAVE EVER SEEN POSTED. Truth is wether Kevin Johnson or the city of Sacramento wants to admit it the Sacramento kings have been SOLD!! PERIOD END OF STORY. Trust me when I say that when clay Bennett bought the sonics the city of seattle held rally’s and protests and we all thought Balmer would swoop on and save the day. Well guess what??? THAT NEVE HAPPENED!!!! Burke is simply now trying to save face. Hansen and Balmer have a purchase and sale AGREEMENT. MEANING THEY HAVE A RECEIPT. MEANING THEY ARE THE MAJORITY OWNERS. MEANING THAT THE KNLY THING THE NBA BOARD HAS TO APPROVE IS THE MOVE TO A BIGGER AND BRIGHTER CITY!!! Truth is all that’s happening now is a side show. Next year the Seattle Supersonics will be playing in key arena while their palace is being constructed and kevin Johnson and the Sacramento fans will have to face what we had to face 5 years ago which will be their team playing for another city. The longer it takes for all of you to realize the reality if this situation the harder it’s going to be. Trust me. Take it from someone who has lived through this. It’s game over and the kings belong to seattle. I wish everything could go back to normal but it just can’t and its Howard Shultz and mr Malloofs fault. END OF STORY

By: srgpsycho

srgpsycho — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:49:55 +0000

Why should this franchise stay in Sac. or move back to Sea.? Seattle dumped on their franchise so why do they get a 2nd chance? Sacramento hasn’t had decent attendance for quite a while so why stay there? Go to somewhere where the public rewards the franchise & as I see it these two cities haven’t for quite some time. Having the public sell out Arco thinking that this will convince management to stay? If they sell out the rest of the season maybe but to me reality is let’s see what the attendance is come the next home game.

By: nomorsacbball

nomorsacbball — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:33:54 +0000

to daddyghi. the magoofs weren’t selling the team before. they were still trying to own the team and move them Anaheim. I love people commenting on something they know very little about. and to the bozo saying why does Cali need four teams? this is a huge state that is spread out unlike east coast states. if anything move one of the la teams to Seattle.

By: bert1913

bert1913 — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 06:45:50 +0000

if seattle did half of what sac is doing, they necer would have left.

By: daddyghi

daddyghi — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 06:44:57 +0000

why just try to buy the team now when the sale to Seattle is almost a done deal? it should have been done years back if they really want to buy the franchise.

By: phillyphannn83

phillyphannn83 — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 05:53:35 +0000

FYI kinggw, look at a map. If you put Californian the East Coast, it would envelope an area that includes the Celtics, Knicks, Nets, 76ers, Wizards, and Bobcats. 6 to 4. Cali is only 1 state, but its a big state. There’s more of a problem with the Maloofs trying to be the 3rd NBA team in LA. Now THAT is unreasonable.

By: harper2

harper2 — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 03:55:15 +0000

What did you think we were going to do, just sit back and watch them take OUR team?

By: kinggw

kinggw — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 03:49:41 +0000

I understand why the Sacramento faithful are fighting the good fight, but the NBA needs to put a team back in Seattle. Does there really need to be 4 teams in California anyway?

By: mnwildfan15

mnwildfan15 — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 03:09:49 +0000

I think it’s about time to end the Canadian experiment. bad team in a hockey city

By: mashoaf

mashoaf — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:13:39 +0000

King Stern did the same thing to the Sonics when they moved. (They had an arena financed in South Seattle) He is always looking for a quick buck!

By: smcgaels1997

smcgaels1997 — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:05:11 +0000

Keeping the Kings is a serious issue. Loss of jobs lost plus jobs lost that would be to build the previously agreed upon arena. He’d have time to do more for Sac if the Maloofs haven taken 2 years to drag this out

By: packfaninca

packfaninca — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 00:38:03 +0000

According to gls24, the potential loss of billions of dollars in future revenue the Kings and a new arena/ entertainment center would bring to Sacramento over the next 10+ years isn’t a “real” issue facing the city.

Also, the NBA BOG has to sign off on the contract before it is binding (which is stated in the article above). That’s what needs to be said.

#herewebuy

By: gls24

gls24 — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 00:15:38 +0000

I am not sure what the contract for the sale of the team between the Maloofs and the Seattle group states . . . but it is a contract for the sale of the team. What more needs to be said?

I just wish Mayor KJ would put as much effort into other “real” issues facing our city as he has with the Kings retention situation.

By: bigsuede

bigsuede — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 00:06:26 +0000

It makes more sense for the NBA to keep the kings in sac- as long as Seattle is out there- there will be leverage for other owners to get financing from their home city. I think that is worth more than a million dollars to each team.]

Further- the difference between the 16th market and the 20th is VERY small. There are many other teams in the NBA who are worse off than the kings and would be better prospects to move to Seattle.

It is hilarious how the Maloofs just want to do a spite sale-