dfwabel Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Former ABA owner has gotten $168 million from NBAI know that it has been talked about before, but today's LA Times has a short story on Ozzie Silna, the ABA owner who gets millions wihtout owning a franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 I never tire of this story for some reason.St. Louis may not have an NBA franchise thanks to the Silna brothers, but they've made more from this deal than they ever would have had they kept the Spirits alive (particularly considering its likely they'd have sold the team in the 80's when franchise values were skyrocketing... to $30, $40 million ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBear Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Left unclear in the story - do their descendants inherit the annual payment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logodawg Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Left unclear in the story - do their descendants inherit the annual payment? It stated that the contract is vaid as long as the NBA exists, so yes. I once had a car but I crashed it. I once had a guitar but I smashed it. I once, wait where am I going with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I think though if St. Louis ever gets a NBA team the deal expires with a buyout from the expansion or relocation agreement. Just think the same deal was offered to Kentuck and Virginia who each too one time buyout in 1976. www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I think though if St. Louis ever gets a NBA team the deal expires with a buyout from the expansion or relocation agreement. Just think the same deal was offered to Kentuck and Virginia who each too one time buyout in 1976. Actually Tank, not so - the Silnas and their descendants cash in whether there's ever an NBA franchise in St. Louis or not. I read that in an article several years ago when the Grizz were eyeballing every city south of Vancouver to move to.And Kentucky and Virginia weren't offered the same deal - Virginia folded before the merger agreement had been reached, and Kentucky took a straight payout before Silna started asking about changes in the terms. Silna was offered Kentucky's deal, not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Squish Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 And Kentucky and Virginia weren't offered the same deal - Virginia folded before the merger agreement had been reached, and Kentucky took a straight payout before Silna started asking about changes in the terms. Incorrect.Kentucky's owners got the same deal as St. Louis. Read "Loose Balls" The oral History of the ABA for all the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 And Kentucky and Virginia weren't offered the same deal - Virginia folded before the merger agreement had been reached, and Kentucky took a straight payout before Silna started asking about changes in the terms. Incorrect.Kentucky's owners got the same deal as St. Louis. Read "Loose Balls" The oral History of the ABA for all the details. I think you need to re-read it there, Squishy.Both owners were offered the $ 3.3 million. Kentucky's owner (John Y. Brown, I believe) took it. The Silna's were hunting for more, and since they could hold up the deal by stalling, they did so until they got what they wanted - $3 million cash, plus the share of the TV money.Kentucky was never offered the TV share option, because they'd already accepted the cash buyout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Oh I thoght Kentucky was offered the option of one or the other. www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Nope, both teams were offered a buyout. The Kentucky owner took it. Ozzie Silna held out for more, and boy did he get it.Up to $24 million a year, and all he has to do is not put an NBA team on the court. Pretty sweet. I'll make you a deal. I won't own an NBA team for $20M. The one thing the article leaves unsaid is territorial rights. I have read that the Silnas still own the rights to the city, and any new team would have to buy them out.If true, that's 168,000,000 reasons why there won't be an NBA team in St. Louis. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 The one thing the article leaves unsaid is territorial rights. I have read that the Silnas still own the rights to the city, and any new team would have to buy them out. I haven't read anything either way on this, but suspect the Silnas don't have territorial rights, as:(1) Technically, the ABA-NBA merger wasn't a merger. The agreements made were very specific on this point - the four surviving ABA teams were technically expansion teams. That being the case, the right to operate an NBA team in St. Louis would probably only have been conveyed had there been an intent for the Silnas to do so in 1976-77.(2) Such rights, left unexercised, would almost certainly have expired by now. While TV rights were a perpetual deal, the likelihood that the NBA would compound their stupidity by allowing perpetual franchise rights in any city, even one they never expected a team to be placed, are pretty remote.(3) I suspect had the Silnas had such rights, they'd have either exercised them at some point during the past 30 years, or at least transferred them to someone who wanted to start a St. Louis-based expansion team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 the likelihood that the NBA would compound their stupidity by allowing perpetual franchise rights in any city, even one they never expected a team to be placed, are pretty remote. Oh, I don't know. We already know that the stupidity of the NBA in this matter is limitless. Not exactly forward-thinkers, at any step of this process.... The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.