To suggest that Chris Hansen and Steve Ballmer will just give up on a business transaction that has a signed purchase agreement, a $30 million down payment, a $60 million in land acquisition and two years of planning is offensive. A “hint” from an unnamed source is not the type of support I would like backing up my claims.

I have a hard time believing the NBA is going to turn down the highest offer for a franchise from the what-would-be the richest ownership group in the league. Sacramento is framing their proposal to pull at the hearts of the owners. They are a one team town with great fans; no body is questioning that. Seattle saw how much fan support meant when they they had their team taken away.

The owners will make a decision based on what is best for the league over all in terms of money. Why not replace a team that is maxed out on the leagues line of credit and bring back a team to a larger media market with over 40 years of history to an ownership group to will likely be paying into the luxury tax. Washington has eight Fortune 500 companies and serves as a solid gateway to the Asian market (think Ichiro) that the NBA would like to continue to grow in.

There is one thing I would like to point out regarding the $30 million non-refundable payment. When that payment from the Hansen group to the Maloof group was made, that established a business relationship that has elements that are beneficial for both parties involved. If another group is to interfere with that deal, Hansen/Ballmer can bring up “Tortious interference” in court. I’m not going to act like I know it so go to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference). The NBA wants to avoid court and Hansen has a solid case if another group is to come in and try to break up the existing deal.

Moral of the story is that the fans don’t really matter. The Kings, Sonics, Cha. Hornets and Van. Grizzlies are all victims of crappy owners. Owners so crappy that they run a team out of town. Its sad but its now becoming more transparent in the world of professional sports. From a fans point of view, neither Sacramento or Seattle should find themselves having to fight for the existence of the home team. But it is out of the fans hands at this point and it all comes down to money. With that said, I believe Seattle is in a better position to acquire a team given their progress on an arena, ownership group and the political process required to get deals like this done.

However public funding in a bankrupt state doesn’t make sense. The city can’t really afford a new arena and their ” big players ” are really the small players in this situation.

Seattle fans could care less about who has more money but we’ll point out quickly that our ownership group has far more if someone from Sacramento tries to say that their moguls will save the team because of finances.

This deal is done. Always have to wait until the fat lady sings but this notion of it not being all but done is absurd.

Like the previous writer, the seattle group even spoke on how writers would try to manipulate a competitive edge to the city of Sac with the ” sources ” saying they wouldn’t agree to the sell. I’m hopes to make them think twice about it, but we all know and expect them gone.

There’s too much money for the NBA to not move and although this seems really shady, Sterns biggest blemish is the Seattle to OKC deal. He wants to right that and it’s stupid to think this will but that deal he made with his personal friends wasn’t even close to lawful it was a total sham that even as fishy as this might be wouldn’t ever come close to as shady.

Also before the nba and okc group didn’t ever really propose a viable arena solution before and drove ticket sales down to manipulate the #s. He was picking areas totally out of the blue who everyone knew would never work and buildings that would never get approved.

SEATTLE had a legitimate court case which our past mayor didn’t even realize put him in the position of power and he gave it up for literally pennies on the promised dollar from the NBA and OKC group.

But it’s not, sorry.

supersonicsconspiracy.blogspot.com/

supersonicsconspiracy.blogspot.com/

Don’t blame the city of Seattle and don’t claim to know what happened better than those who live here. Truth be told, we did the right thing in telling the NBA to get bent.

And besides, the comment about doing everything right refers to the here and now.

And if the parking and other tax revenues don’t pay off those Sacramento financing bonds, as happens in many cities who use similar mechanisms to fund development projects (not just arenas)…. There are a lot of things in play here.

Expansion is dead, btw.

The Maloofs will be made whole regardless of which offer they accept. And they have already said they are fine taking either. They want the money. The NBA will consider a multitude of factors when making this decision. It should be an interesting few months.

Sorry, but you are grasping at straws here. The Seattle money is essentially a loan to the Hansen-Ballmer group. The Sacramento financing is going to be made up by the city with revenue from parking and other use taxes. This is the model the NBA wants to show other cities over the next few years when several other teams will need new arenas. Having the next city point to Seattle and how their group privately financed the arena, while the previous city spent millions of taxpayer and agreed to a deal with the NBA before losing the team after following the NBA’s instructions would be bad for negotiations.

I am not guaranteeing the final outcome will go one way or another. There’s a lot of factors and a lot of gray area (and personally I am still hoping expansion is the answer). However, the arena subsidy issue definitely works in Sacramento’s favor.

Sorry, but this isn’t the NBA somehow hurting Seattle, thought you seem very willing to hurt Sacramento. Reflect poorly on the character of Seattle fans.

http://www.nba.com/2013/news/features/david_aldridge/03/04/morning-tip-kings-relocation-nbpa-future-jrue-holiday-contract-tyson-chandler-qa/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt3c

I find it somewhat strange that the people on Sacramento keep talking up their potential suitors or owners and fail to realize the seattle group has billions on billions of dollars not just a billionaire. Something like 30+billion! Microsoft money not gym money!

The market between these teams is not even close. Saying a team that only has 1 professional team is more loyal is ridiculous. To me having a year round sports city far out weights a single team city. Look at the greatest home field advantage in all if sports right now seattle has 2 of them between the Sounders and Seahawks.

As passionate as seattle fans are they will be stoked to bring back a team and will show up in huge numbers. If for nothing else but pure hatred that our team was stolen under worse circumstances than this deal and that our team is considered one of the 2 best in the nba with 2 all stars and an future hall of famer!

Now add the wealth of the community in Seattle compared to Sacramento and it’s easy to see how a team will do well here.

I see the objectively of this article but still find it hard to believe other owners don’t want to fatten their own pocket and possibly strap their own hands behind their backs by not agreeing. It’s not just the principal ITS BUSINESS!

ALSO I wonder how much proceeds the nba would receive immediately from the SALE? And how long term the rebranding of merchandise and jerseys sales and shoes and apparel the league will receive?

Correct me if I’m wrong but they receive some of that money and that only cushions the pot for the league and the brand. Resurrecting a new team would have a huge economic impact on the landscape of the NBA more so than keeping a team that’s not winning and had the worst attendance and sales.

Also the market and growth of the market in these cities isn’t even as close as 12 to 21.. That’s just current cities with professional sports. Seattle is a much much much more bigger market and has multiple large cities within like 30 mins, closest cities to Sacramento like SF and Oak are as far away as Portland is from Seattle. Seattle also has its surroundings states and some of Canada that support their teams because of proximity.

Benefits outweigh the negatives, unfortunately this sale means stealing another team which sucked to go through. At least their trying but I don’t see them succeeding. Too little too late same as we did.

Seattle is not shooting from the hip here. The ownership group and the city has consulted with the NBA over quite a few months leading up to this. The Seattle principals have been preparing for this for over a year, maybe two. Just because our mayor isn’t taking every opportunity to work the press doesn’t mean there isn’t a deep desire here too. Sacramento has been talking about a new arena for 5 or 6 years now and the deal reached a year ago (which had the NBA kicking in several million) is no longer on the table – so all that would need to be reworked.

This article fails to consider the importance of corporate sponsorship and how important that is to the league and other owners. While it’s notable that Mayor Johnson has gotten local companies to promise $50 million over 5 years there aren’t any Fourtune 500 companies in Sacramento. The Seattle area has 8 fortune 500 companies, 9 if you want to count Boeing (they moved their headquarters but most operations here remained). Corporate sponsorship with long term viability is very important to the owners, it stands to bring in a lot of money and Seattle is well poised for that.

It’s going to take more than a few passionate speeches from KJ to stop this deal, and Seattle fans’ heart is on the line now too – for a second time.

It sucks that the system takes tax dollars to build these stadiums/arenas, but one can’t really blame the owners/ownership groups for going that way.

If there was a system where one could get a local liquor sales tax to pay for a good portion of a new home, many would take advantage.