NBA Votes Against Sacramento Kings' Relocation To Seattle

[DG_ThenNowForever]

This happened today:

Chris Hansen buys additional 7 percent stake in Sacramento Kings

Chris Hansen, who in January purchased 65 percent of the Kings, agreed Wednesday to buy the smaller share in a Sacramento bankruptcy court

When Chris Hansen meets with a group of NBA owners next week in New York, he will take with him a little extra luggage — an agreement to buy an additional 7 percent share of the Sacramento Kings.

Hansen, who in January purchased 65 percent of the Kings, agreed Wednesday to buy the smaller share in a Sacramento bankruptcy court.

The share had been owned by Bob Cook, who had been a part-owner of the Kings since 1985 before he filed for bankruptcy in 2011.

As with the 65 percent share Hansen bought in January, the purchase of the 7 percent share will need approval from the NBA Board of Governors when it meets in New York on April 18-19.

First, though, Hansen and representatives of a Sacramento group attempting to keep the Kings from relocating to Seattle will each make their case before a smaller set of owners next Wednesday, also in New York. That meeting is viewed as pivotal in the NBA's ultimate decision whether to approve the sale of the Kings to the Hansen group, which would relocate the team to Seattle for the 2013-14 season.

Hansen's group did not comment on the news of the purchase Wednesday, which was reported to be for $15.1 million and confirmed by several Sacramento media outlets as well as Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson in a statement. Hansen's bid was reported to be the only offer for the 7 percent share, though other current minority owners will now have 15 days to match it.

Michael McCann, a legal analyst for NBA-TV, said the importance of the 7 percent share could rest in part on making it that much harder for the league to turn down Hansen as an owner. The 7 percent share apparently will be considered separate from the 65 percent share.

"I don't think it's a total game-changer," McCann said. "But it puts the NBA in sort of an awkward position — would it approve him as a minority owner but not as a majority owner? Why wouldn't they? It's a strategic move. It puts him in a position where the NBA has to sort of really come up with a reason not to approve him as an owner."

[Lights Out]

Not so fast...

Chris Riva ‏@kcraRiva 3h

Bob Cook told me he has the right to match Chris Hanson's offer. He intends to match. "This is Sacramento's team."

So basically, Bob Cook is going to re-purchase his share of the Kings from his own bankruptcy auction in order to block Hansen from owning it.

[pmoehrin]

I hope the Kings are able to stay in Sacramento but if your essentially asking owners to choose between Seattle and Sacramento as a market, I can't say I like Sacramento's chances.

Things like this to me are the ugly side of pro sports. It shouldn't be this much of a fight to keep a team in a city when there are willing investors.

[Lights Out]

I hope the Kings are able to stay in Sacramento but if your essentially asking owners to choose between Seattle and Sacramento as a market, I can't say I like Sacramento's chances.

I completely disagree. The NBA has made it clear that they prefer markets where they're "the only game in town" as far as professional sports are concerned - that's why OKC was so appealing to them even though Seattle looked like a better market on paper.

I think the NBA will ultimately make the only reasonable compromise available: sell the Kings to the Sacramento group, and give Seattle an expansion team later on.

[The_Admiral]

If the Kings move to Seattle after this enormous push to keep them there--I mean, god, look at all the money being expended to buy the freaking Sacramento Kings--it will just mean the NBA qill have come out of this whole thing with two black eyes. The black eye from letting the Hornets not move back would have healed up by now, JUST SAYIN'

[FiddySicks]

If the Kings move to Seattle after this enormous push to keep them there--I mean, god, look at all the money being expended to buy the freaking Sacramento Kings--it will just mean the NBA qill have come out of this whole thing with two black eyes. The black eye from letting the Hornets not move back would have healed up by now, JUST SAYIN'

That's exactly how I feel. Sacramento has done everything, and I mean EVERYTHING possible to keep their team, and they've passed every test the NBA has thrown their way with flying colors. If the Kings are still ripped out of Sacramento and shipped to Seattle, the NBA won't just be hurting their fan base, they'll be hurting the chances of Sacramento to become a legitimate professional sports town. It's to the point where this arena deal could transform Sacramento from this supposed cow town (at least from an outsiders perspective, no matter how untrue that may be) to a legitimate competitor in Northern California. Halting the growth of an entire city for the sake of fixing a mistake they made previously would be the biggest offense at this point. I say take the risk and give Seattle an expansion franchise. It's not an ideal situation, but it's much better than crushing Sacramento's chances at really building up a legitimate entertainment industry.

But considering this is the NBA, I still fully expect the Kings to be in Seattle in two years. If that's the case, the entire league is going to somehow find a way to muscle their way past the Maloofs as the most hated group in the Sacramento valley.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Fnding an area with future parking revenues isn't a good idea -- at all -- but still, it's really crappy to pit two good cities against each other for one crappy franchise.

[illwauk]

Just give Seattle the Bucks already... the franchise hasn't done anything worth a damn since they fleeced us for Ray Allen, anyway.

[Jimmy!]

I hope the Kings are able to stay in Sacramento but if your essentially asking owners to choose between Seattle and Sacramento as a market, I can't say I like Sacramento's chances.

I completely disagree. The NBA has made it clear that they prefer markets where they're "the only game in town" as far as professional sports are concerned - that's why OKC was so appealing to them even though Seattle looked like a better market on paper.

The OKC appeal was also helped by Bennett doing what he could to make Seattle look so unappealing (moving radio game telecasts, mind-boggling choices concerning land, et al). Expansion is the only answer that makes everyone happy.

Hypothetically, though, if the Hansen/Ballmer bid is turned down, is there anything to stop the Maloofs from simply keeping the team and NOT selling it at all? I wouldn't put it past them.

[IceCap]

It's possible. Depends on how badly they need the money.

Expansion could work, as I think the NBA is in a better position to expand to 32 then the NHL is, but what other market would join along with Seattle?

[Crash]

It's possible. Depends on how badly they need the money.

Expansion could work, as I think the NBA is in a better position to expand to 32 then the NHL is, but what other market would join along with Seattle?

It's the NBA, so there are many, many more options than for, say, the NHL or NFL or even MLB. I mean, OKC, Sacramento, Salt Lake, and San Antonio wouldn't really be in the conversation in the other leagues, but do pretty fine in the NBA. It just depends on who offers and what. I could see Louisville or Albuquerque or Providence/Hartford or Columbus or even Richmond or Birmingham trying to get in on this. There are also empty traditional markets out there for the NBA in KC, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, San Diego, and Cincinnati. And the Vancouver experiment could always be tried again. Considering the fairly low costs associated with an NBA team, I wouldn't be too surprised to see another "strange" market grab the 32nd team.

[The_Admiral]

Kansas City only wants an anchor tenant that won't demand subsidies, St. Louis is overextended, San Diego and Cincinnati don't have arenas. I would guess Vancouver, or, more likely, the NBA doesn't expand.

[Sguse1]

I really don't envision a scenario where the NBA expands, the talent pool is fairly scarce. The draftable players in this forthcoming class may be the weakest in 15 years. If anything I see the NBA reconfiguring and dropping a few teams and relocating to markets where they are the 'only game in town'.

[rams80]

It's possible. Depends on how badly they need the money.

Expansion could work, as I think the NBA is in a better position to expand to 32 then the NHL is, but what other market would join along with Seattle?

Kansas City has that white elephant arena, the NBA could try to cut the Louisville Cardinals off at the knees (and there would be much rejoicing); I think 32 could be found in a reasonably short period of time.

Granted, the NBA could also just stay with 31. The NBA's had an odd number of teams for substantial stretches of league history.

[dfwabel]

If the Kings move to Seattle after this enormous push to keep them there--I mean, god, look at all the money being expended to buy the freaking Sacramento Kings--it will just mean the NBA qill have come out of this whole thing with two black eyes. The black eye from letting the Hornets not move back would have healed up by now, JUST SAYIN'

That's exactly how I feel. Sacramento has done everything, and I mean EVERYTHING possible to keep their team, and they've passed every test the NBA has thrown their way with flying colors. If the Kings are still ripped out of Sacramento and shipped to Seattle, the NBA won't just be hurting their fan base, they'll be hurting the chances of Sacramento to become a legitimate professional sports town. It's to the point where this arena deal could transform Sacramento from this supposed cow town (at least from an outsiders perspective, no matter how untrue that may be) to a legitimate competitor in Northern California. Halting the growth of an entire city for the sake of fixing a mistake they made previously would be the biggest offense at this point. I say take the risk and give Seattle an expansion franchise. It's not an ideal situation, but it's much better than crushing Sacramento's chances at really building up a legitimate entertainment industry.

But considering this is the NBA, I still fully expect the Kings to be in Seattle in two years. If that's the case, the entire league is going to somehow find a way to muscle their way past the Maloofs as the most hated group in the Sacramento valley.

I have to disagree with those statements because the economy of the Sacramento metro area is based on major sectors: Government and construction. There is only one Fortune 1000 company based there in McClatchy and it is not like the newspaper industry is one of growth. There has been a shrinking economy there for the last five years and notably, there are not many manufacturing jobs there. Building the arena will give construction a temporary influx of dollars, but not much else, hence why the area is trying to re-invent itself with "green jobs". Even any business which tries to open near the arena, such as a restaurant is just competing with another local businessperson for that same leisure dollar and that is not really growth.

I dislike public funding for facilities more than I dislike relocation. History shows that both Seattle/King County and Sacramento are making bad deals.

[dfwabel]

It's possible. Depends on how badly they need the money.

Expansion could work, as I think the NBA is in a better position to expand to 32 then the NHL is, but what other market would join along with Seattle?

Kansas City has that white elephant arena, the NBA could try to cut the Louisville Cardinals off at the knees (and there would be much rejoicing); I think 32 could be found in a reasonably short period of time.

Granted, the NBA could also just stay with 31. The NBA's had an odd number of teams for substantial stretches of league history.

The lease at the KFCYum! Center is weighted heavily to the favor of the University of Louisville. The school controls revenue and scheduling. Plus, in January a local busisnessman produced a report that at the current pace of revenues, they will default on debt payments.

[Lights Out]

I really don't envision a scenario where the NBA expands, the talent pool is fairly scarce.

You're assuming the NBA cares about that. If the talent pool influenced their decisions, the Raptors, Bobcats, and Grizzlies would have never come into being, and contraction probably would have happened by now. It's all about $$$$$, and if the NBA feels they can make a lot of it by expanding to Seattle, they'll do it.

[NoHoJoe]

Just give Seattle the Bucks already... the franchise hasn't done anything worth a !@#$%^&* since they fleeced us for Ray Allen, anyway.

Foget the Bucks. The Raptors would be a better team to move to Seattle.

[NoHoJoe]

It's possible. Depends on how badly they need the money.

Expansion could work, as I think the NBA is in a better position to expand to 32 then the NHL is, but what other market would join along with Seattle?

It's the NBA, so there are many, many more options than for, say, the NHL or NFL or even MLB. I mean, OKC, Sacramento, Salt Lake, and San Antonio wouldn't really be in the conversation in the other leagues, but do pretty fine in the NBA. It just depends on who offers and what. I could see Louisville or Albuquerque or Providence/Hartford or Columbus or even Richmond or Birmingham trying to get in on this. There are also empty traditional markets out there for the NBA in KC, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, San Diego, and Cincinnati. And the Vancouver experiment could always be tried again. Considering the fairly low costs associated with an NBA team, I wouldn't be too surprised to see another "strange" market grab the 32nd team.

Vancouver failed, which is one of the reasons the NBA has NEVER been relevant in Canada, and it NEVER will. Even with Raptors being a modest success (if at all), then it may be time for the Raptors in fly the coop at the ACC and relocated to either Seattle (if the Kings Stay in Sacramento), or Kansas City.

[IceCap]

It's just getting sad at this point NoHoJoe.