Anaheim Kings?

[McCall]

Ok, with all these radio stations and tv stations, this thread is starting to look like an eye chart.

[NatsFan2004]

Here's a solid interview with the leader of the #HereWeBuild fan movement to keep the Kings in Sactown. The group has already collected a half million dollars in pledges to build a new Kings arena in just a few days.

http://rotoworld.com/articles/nba/37686/270/sacramento-losing-its-crown?pg=1

[BBTV]

Here's a solid interview with the leader of the #HereWeStay fan movement to keep the Kings in Sactown. The group has already collected a half million dollars in pledges to build a new Kings arena in just a few days.

http://rotoworld.com...-its-crown?pg=1

Assuming that "a few" means 3, at that pace, it will take them approximately 1,797 more days to come up with an amount that even might be enough to build a new arena in California. So this might be relevant 5 years from now.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Isn't the deadline sometime very soon?

[The_Admiral]

They have to file for relocation in about a week. Being approved for relocation is another step, and I can count at least six owners who would be against it.

[NatsFan2004]

Assuming that "a few" means 3, at that pace, it will take them approximately 1,797 more days to come up with an amount that even might be enough to build a new arena in California. So this might be relevant 5 years from now.

The point is not to raise ALL the money to build a new arena via fan support. It's to show that there is fan support and, more importantly, dollars behind getting such a project started. The visibility of that is what's important here.

Already, Comcast has expressed interest in becoming a partner in a new entertainment complex to include an arena and has contacted the Maloofs about the project. Fan support, including dollars, could be one thing that tips the balance back in favor of the Kings staying in that scenario.

[McCall]

They have to file for relocation in about a week. Being approved for relocation is another step, and I can count at least six owners who would be against it.

6 is not enough. They only need 16, a simple majority, to approve to the move.

[bosrs1]

They have to file for relocation in about a week. Being approved for relocation is another step, and I can count at least six owners who would be against it.

Which 6? I'm counting only 4 at most so far, the two LA teams, Golden State, and Chicago.

[ninersdd]

They have to file for relocation in about a week. Being approved for relocation is another step, and I can count at least six owners who would be against it.

Which 6? I'm counting only 4 at most so far, the two LA teams, Golden State, and Chicago.

I thought Golden State would support the move

[IceCap]

They have to file for relocation in about a week. Being approved for relocation is another step, and I can count at least six owners who would be against it.

Which 6? I'm counting only 4 at most so far, the two LA teams, Golden State, and Chicago.

I thought Golden State would support the move

I think their owner's a buddy of Reinsdorf. But yeah, Reinsdorf has a lot of pull around the league. So he MAY be able to rally opposition to the move.

[Eye]

They have to file for relocation in about a week. Being approved for relocation is another step, and I can count at least six owners who would be against it.

Which 6? I'm counting only 4 at most so far, the two LA teams, Golden State, and Chicago.

I thought Golden State would support the move

I think their owner's a buddy of Reinsdorf. But yeah, Reinsdorf has a lot of pull around the league. So he MAY be able to rally opposition to the move.

Let's say the owners oppose the move. What the hell would happen then? The situation would be a (bigger) nightmare.

[bosrs1]

They have to file for relocation in about a week. Being approved for relocation is another step, and I can count at least six owners who would be against it.

Which 6? I'm counting only 4 at most so far, the two LA teams, Golden State, and Chicago.

I thought Golden State would support the move

No I think the oppose it simply because they don't want the Hornets coming to San Jose in the near future. Yes they stand to gain a small bit of TV market and possibly a tiny bit of in person interest from Sac if the Kings are gone, but they stand to lose alot more if they were to open the door on San Jose for someone like Larry Ellison in the future.

[rams80]

Assuming that "a few" means 3, at that pace, it will take them approximately 1,797 more days to come up with an amount that even might be enough to build a new arena in California. So this might be relevant 5 years from now.

The point is not to raise ALL the money to build a new arena via fan support. It's to show that there is fan support and, more importantly, dollars behind getting such a project started. The visibility of that is what's important here.

Already, Comcast has expressed interest in becoming a partner in a new entertainment complex to include an arena and has contacted the Maloofs about the project. Fan support, including dollars, could be one thing that tips the balance back in favor of the Kings staying in that scenario.

I don't think anyone has ever questioned the team's fan support. The Kings aren't trying to move from a lack of fans. The Kings are trying to move so they can get into a newer arena (and score some quick cash while they are at it.)

[The_Admiral]

Regarding why the Warriors ultimately want to keep the Kings nearby:

Yeah, it's about establishing a precedent for shoring up established markets with second and third teams where there are facilities to host them. The new Warriors ownership is vehemently against a team coming to San Jose. Reinsdorf would be against a team in Rosemont, and the Knicks' and Nets' respective owners wouldn't want someone in Newark or the Meadowlands. That's in addition to Buss and Sterling, who we know are against it. So from there, it's a matter of how many favors they can call in with friends who themselves aren't looking to shore up established markets down the road, and if they can make it seem like they can hit 16, no move.

[IceCap]

They have to file for relocation in about a week. Being approved for relocation is another step, and I can count at least six owners who would be against it.

Which 6? I'm counting only 4 at most so far, the two LA teams, Golden State, and Chicago.

I thought Golden State would support the move

I think their owner's a buddy of Reinsdorf. But yeah, Reinsdorf has a lot of pull around the league. So he MAY be able to rally opposition to the move.

Let's say the owners oppose the move. What the hell would happen then? The situation would be a (bigger) nightmare.

Indeed it would be. Maybe it would force the Kings ownership to consider other markets (such those not hosting two NBA organizations as is) though.

[crashcarson15]

Wouldn't it be 15 needed, since the Maloofs wouldn't be voting on approving their own relocation?

[McCall]

Wouldn't it be 15 needed, since the Maloofs wouldn't be voting on approving their own relocation?

I don't know. Do they still technically get a vote?

[The_Admiral]

It was a 27-2 vote for Oklahoma City (Portland and Dallas saying no), so I'm guessing the relocating team doesn't vote. So that makes nine favors to call in among six people.

[MadmanLA]

Another thing to think about...since Abe Pollin and Bill Davidson have passed away in recent years, Jerry Buss (1979) and Donald Sterling (1981) now have the most seniority among the current group of NBA owners. That alone can have some major sway in terms of getting the other owners to vote their way, although with Sterling's track record, it's not a certainty.

[omnivore]

The Maloofs do get a vote and there's no way you're going to get a simple majority to vote against this. The owners club is just that. The NBA wants to move the Hornets at some point and there's no compelling reason for any of the power broker owners to squash this. If this move weren't de facto green lighted, there's no way the Maloofs would have one foot out of the door. There's less blowing smoke than what happened in Seattle obviously, but...I don't think this is anything other than owners who can't afford to run a team in a small market anymore.

It was a 27-2 vote for Oklahoma City (Portland and Dallas saying no), so I'm guessing the relocating team doesn't vote. So that makes nine favors to call in among six people.

It was 28-2, not 27-2. Every team gets a vote, even the team moving.

NEW YORK -- The messy split between Seattle and the SuperSonics lurched forward Friday when NBA owners approved relocating the team to Oklahoma City -- a move legal wrangling might delay another two years.

"I'm giving this press conference in the face of a scorched earth policy," said NBA commissioner David Stern, who criticized civic leaders suing to force the team to stay until its lease expires in 2010.

He charged that their "strategy is to inflict as much harm on the Sonics in Seattle" to try to force a different outcome.

Owners voted 28-2 in favor of the move, with Dallas and Portland against it. The relocation carries a $30 million fee, and the Sonics could begin playing in owner Clay Bennett's hometown as early as next season.

All that is contingent on resolving the lawsuit filed by Seattle, which has rejected a $26 million settlement offer from Bennett.