Bob Johnson trying to sell the Charlotte Bobcats

[Brian in Boston]

Move the Bobcats somewhere else and put the Hornets back in Charlotte without George "The Pervert" Shinn. Chris Paul would be a god in Charlotte with him playing at Wake Forest.

As long as we're just throwing out fantastical franchise relocations...

1) Michael Jordan reconsiders and agrees to to purchase the Charlotte Bobcats from Robert Johnson.

2) George Shinn sells the New Orleans Hornets to Tom Benson.

3) Benson notifies Jordan that he is abandoning the Hornets nickname.

4) Jordan announces that the Bobcats are being rebranded as the Charlotte Hornets.

5) Benson announces that his NBA franchise will henceforth be known as the New Orleans Tomcats.

6) Tom Cruise contacts Benson and offers-up the services of both he and his wife, Katie Holmes, as the team's mascots.

[Slickster]

So...St. Louis or Kansas City?

[Lee.]

So...St. Louis or Kansas City?

Vancouver. The Canucks' ownership has been looking into the purchase and relocation of several underperforming franchises, with the notable exception of the seemingly cursed Memphis Grizzlies.

[Jigga]

"MakeItTwo.ca" is still available, Lee. I think there is an opportunity for you!

[Lee.]

"MakeItTwo.ca" is still available, Lee. I think there is an opportunity for you!

I would, but I'm not sure the local market can support two basketball franchises.

[IceCap]

I still don't understand why Bobcats (owner name notwithstanding) is such a "junior high" name, nor why their look is considered to be horrible.

Actually I agree. I kind of like their look. The primary needs to be redone, but everything else is pretty solid.

[Tentomushi5150]

If Jordan becomes the new majority shareholder, I highly doubt they'll relocate. He's pushing the NC connection and I doubt he'd move the team. Renaming the team the Charlotte Flight which they already have drafted and together, and adding some argyle to the uniforms seems far more likely.

If they get sold to another owner who doesn't have a clear tie to the area, Seattle jumps out as the most likely landing spot.

[Brendan]

Except Seattle still doesn't have a suitable arena.

[Lee.]

The Key would be a suitable interim venue until someone got off their ass and built a proper multi-use facility for hockey and basketball.

Of course this whole "economy" thing puts a damper on that idea, but still.

[Gothamite]

So...St. Louis or Kansas City?

Don't the Silnas still own the rights to St. Louis?

[Brian in Boston]

Don't the Silnas still own the rights to St. Louis?

My understanding is that this is a common misconception about the deal that the Silnas struck when the Spirits of St. Louis were excluded from the NBA-ABA merger.

The Silnas don't own the rights to an NBA franchise in St. Louis. They can't block an NBA franchise from entering the market. They folded their ABA franchise prior to the official merger between the ABA and NBA. As a result, the Silnas' St. Louis-based basketball business ceased to exist before the merger took place. It was in exchange for engaging in said act that the Denver Nuggets, Indiana Pacers, New Jersey Nets and San Antonio Spurs agreed to each give up - in perpetuity - an equal portion of their annual NBA television revenues adding-up to the equivalent of a 4/7ths share of all NBA television revenues for each year.

Frankly, the Silnas deal shouldn't necessarily be thought of as being with the NBA as a whole. While the NBA may well cut the Silnas the check for their 4/7ths share of NBA television revenue, it is the from the television revenue shares of the four ABA franchises absorbed into the NBA - Denver, Indiana, New Jersey and San Antonio - that said monies are drawn. Which is why it is the ownership/management teams of the Nuggets, Pacers, Nets and Spurs who periodically make overtures to the Silnas regarding a buyout offer.

In short, the NBA never made the buy-out deal with the Silnas... the four former ABA franchises did. The Silnas aren't being paid by the NBA for not exercising their franchise rights to a team in St. Louis, because the NBA never granted them such rights. Rather, the Silnas are being paid by the Nuggets, Pacers, Nets and Spurs - former ABA franchises - for not contesting the fact that they were going to be left out of the NBA-ABA merger.

[Gothamite]

I"m not a lawyer, so I can't speak with any authority. But I'm not sure that's correct.

Even if the deal was originally made with the other ABA franchises, the deal is currently with the NBA. They're the ones cutting the check, right? In a merger, the surviving corporation takes over the obligations of the other. So the NBA is now on the hook.

As for franchise rights to St. Louis, you may be right. I don't know.

[Brian in Boston]

While the NBA is on the hook in terms of cutting the check, not all NBA franchises are giving-up a portion of their television rights money to the Silnas. Once the determination is made as to how much money each NBA franchise will receive as their share of the league's television revenues for a given year, the Silnas are cut a check equalling 4/7ths of such an individual team payout. Then, the Nuggets, Pacers, Nets and Spurs each put-up a quarter of the Silnas' payout from the television revenues that they would have respectively received. In other words, in order for the Silnas to receive their payout, the Nuggets, Pacers, Nets and Spurs each ultimately pocket less television revenue than any of the other individual NBA franchises.

As for the Silnas holding the rights to an NBA franchise in St. Louis, I've never seen any reputable resource that reports such a thing. The Silnas negotiated receiving a 4/7ths share of an NBA franchise's annual television revenue - annually, in perpetuity - in exchange for not challenging the decision to leave them out of the NBA-ABA merger.

[Mac the Knife]

I"m not a lawyer, so I can't speak with any authority. But I'm not sure that's correct.

I'm not a lawyer, but in this matter I can speak with authority, having seen the legal documents involved (ColorWerx has his sources on colors, I have mine on sports business and law). Brian's got it nailed - the Silna brothers have no rights to the St. Louis market whatsoever, and no deal with the NBA as an entity. They're deal is with the four ABA clubs that were merged.

[Gothamite]

But was it a deal with the ABA?

[Brian in Boston]

But was it a deal with the ABA?

No, because the ABA ceased to exist with the merger. My understanding is that the deal was with the four NBA-absorbed, former-ABA franchises: Denver, Indiana, New Jersey and San Antonio.

[Gothamite]

Yes, but did the NBA assume any of the ABA's contracts, such as this agreement?

[Brian in Boston]

Again, to the best of my knowledge, the Silnas' agreement is with the ownership/management of the Denver Nuggets, the Indiana Pacers, the New Jersey Nets and the San Antonio Spurs. The NBA may well facilitate the cutting of the checks, but it was the four aforementioned franchises that signed-off on the deal and it is the same four franchises that give-up an equal portion of their share of NBA television revenues to provide the Silnas' with their annual payout.

[Gothamite]

I know it may seem pedantic, but my question comes down to whether the signed agreement is with the four teams as separate legal entities or with the ABA representing the four teams.

From the outside it might appear to be the same. But the distinction could really have meaning.

[Brian in Boston]

I know it may seem pedantic, but my question comes down to whether the signed agreement is with the four teams as separate legal entities or with the ABA representing the four teams.

From the outside it might appear to be the same. But the distinction could really have meaning.

Again, my understanding is that it is with the four teams as separate legal entities. This is why it is the four teams who periodically approach the Silnas about a buy-out.