Comments on: Update: Judge rejects first lawsuit against Seattle arena

By: dans761

dans761 — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:44:45 +0000

Moving a team is wrong. It was wrong in 2008 and it is wrong today. That’s said, this is the NBA’s business model we are simply pawns in all this? Do I want the Kings to move? No. Do I want the Sonics back? Yes. Is this selfish of me? Sure! Hansen did EVERYTHING the NBA told us to do to get an arena. Hansen spent 2 years working on this project. He’s spent his own money 60 million on land. He gathered the support from city and county councils via votes to move on with this project. Hansen has been working closely with the NBA on this, I can’t see how they can say no after all this work Hansen/Ballmer have done! Sacramento still doesn’t have an arena, no investors all while KJ is feeding his own ego while relying on whatever relationship he thinks he has with the NBA. It’s sad to see the Kings go but that’s the NBA for you. If Sacramento wants to have a NBA team in the future theyll have to do what Seattle did. If David Stern had a soul he would find a way to have both cities have a team. Giving Seattle the dignity of expansion and the Kings staying in Sacramento (if they have a real plan in place). That would be the right thing but the NBA usually doesn’t do what’s right

By: Kurt Helin

Kurt Helin — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:23:44 +0000

To be honest, Sacramento is not the first city to make that claim and will not be the last.

By: pmangarola

pmangarola — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 23:32:18 +0000

doesn’t matter they’ll get it eventually

By: brianspider

brianspider — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 14:46:35 +0000

But, don’t forget if the Kings move a different precedent is set. Over the last few decades, the NBA has received over 3 billion dollars in public subsidies to aid in arena efforts. We all know they rely on the threat of relocation to hold cities hostage. A move could drastically damage this tactic. When considering public subsidy in the future, cities could ask the question “Why waste city resources to even try to move forward on a project? Look what happened in Sacramento. They jumped through every hoop that was asked to them, put together what the NBA itself called a “model” for public subsidy in developing an arena, and the team still moved. Maybe we shouldn’t even waste our time.” You have a valid point, but we now have to ask which precedent is more damaging financially to each individual owner.

By: echech88

echech88 — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 14:30:00 +0000

Hard to imagine the other owners throwing themselves in front of something that could set a precedent for them to have their own potential moves or sales blocked. Even if they have no intention to move, they will always want that threat available to them when extorting local governments.

The Kings leaving can be the next greedy owner’s first argument: “Look what happened in Sacramento when they refused to approve an arena for over a decade and only jumped in at the last minute”

By: davidly

davidly — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 09:57:38 +0000

Whether the longshoremen’s rep’s concerns are taken at face value or not, the issue is definitely legit, as Kurt lays out in this post.

Nevertheless, this whole thing stinks to all-high-holy-hell and has from the beginning. From the Maloofs to some hedge-fund manager, to whoever else can whack-a-mole the fastest, the spoils go to the winner, and the winner is not the greater of the greater good– whoever wins the rights to employ the schmo who’ll man the cheese-jerk stand, notwithstanding.

Bottom line is what it’ll come down to, and what it’ll come down to is who greases the other owners “and associates” the most. We can pretend it ain’t so, but it is.

By: davidly

davidly — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 09:42:21 +0000

Kurt–reownin’ the sport metaphor!

By: seattlenative57

seattlenative57 — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 09:14:48 +0000

Owners are unlikely to vote against one of their own and an agreed upon sale … highly unlikely. Any one of them could be in the same position, needing to sell, and would expect the blessing of their brethren. Rejecting this sale would create a precedent no present owner wants to face in the future. Get the moving vans ready.

By: allidoiswin55

allidoiswin55 — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 08:42:17 +0000

This deal is done let’s move past it. The other owners would do nothing but benefit if they allow it.

Not many owners will disapprove the sale just because they will at some point want to sell their own franchise and also they will each get a nice little check for a relocation fee. And the nba gets a fee.

Sign it up Sonics are back. Not fair not nice and messed up but definitely going to happen. Sorry sac fans I feel your pain but I swear there’s no spite in me saying that you should do your best to get over it asap won’t do any good.

By: badintent

badintent — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:00:57 +0000

My company just did a party for port officials on a new tanker. 6 Longshornmen stood around, did nothing to help us bring our food and supplies on board. And went out of their way to complain and come up with phony excuses not to help us with a cargo net. They work maybe an hour and get paid for 8. Sound like Teamsters ? Damn right ! REally happy the judge threw out their BS suit.

By: saint1997

saint1997 — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 06:58:13 +0000

I’m sick of this. Move or don’t move but right now the NBA is playing with 29 franchises and 1 extra team to fill in the schedule. This team has the ability to get better and if it had any idea of its future could start making good moves to improve the team. It doesn’t look like that is happening however