NBA Votes Against Sacramento Kings' Relocation To Seattle

[Brian in Boston]

Money isn't the deciding factor here, the league's control over it's own affairs is...

Correction. Money - specifically, how much public funding the NBA suits can coerce local governments into pouring into the construction of arenas - is precisely what the NBA's selection of the Randive/Sacramento deal over the Hansen/Seattle deal will be all about.

The NBA suits and owners don't like the precedent that Hansen's arena financing plan sets, so they're spurning it. The deal on the table in Sacramento calls for more public dollars to go into subsidizing the operation of an NBA franchise via footing-the-bill for stadium construction costs than Hansen's plan in Seattle does, so the former is getting the thumbs-up. Period.

Sacramento's historic support of the Kings? The fact that Sacramento is a one major-pro franchise town? The NBA's desire to favor franchise stability over relocation? All are just convenient justifications that the NBA hierarchy is trotting out to put a more acceptable shine on their decision to take the greater amount of public money and run.

You can't bully the league with insane offers.

No, you can't. Still, you can make an offer that exposes the NBA suits for the transparently public-money-grubbing gougers that they are. For that reason alone, I applaud Hansen's increased offer.

[JQK]

This offer on the Kings raises the value on all the owners teams... This is about money. It's always about money. I wouldn't be surprised if this worked.

[Brian in Boston]

[Hansen] needs to figure out what the NBA wants to help get him ANY team.

What the NBA wants is for its owners - both existing and prospective - to cut arena-financing deals with municipalities, counties, and/or states that see said NBA owners putting up less of arena construction costs and the government entities committing more public dollars to subsidizing a pro sports franchise's operation.

Hansen - for whatever reason, but most likely because he knew that an arena-financing plan that called for too much public funding was DOA in Seattle/King County/State of washington - wasn't inclined to do that.

[Jimmy!]

Money isn't the deciding factor here, the league's control over it's own affairs is...

Correction. Money - specifically, how much public funding the NBA suits can coerce local governments into pouring into the construction of arenas - is precisely what the NBA's selection of the Randive/Sacramento deal over the Hansen/Seattle deal will be all about.

The NBA suits and owners don't like the precedent that Hansen's arena financing plan sets, so they're spurning it. The deal on the table in Sacramento calls for more public dollars to go into subsidizing the operation of an NBA franchise via footing-the-bill for stadium construction costs than Hansen's plan in Seattle does, so the former is getting the thumbs-up. Period.

Is it fair to really call this a precedent when the Pepsi Center was built with private money? Link

[Brian in Boston]

Is it fair to really call this a precedent when the Pepsi Center was built with private money? Link

I'd say so... yes.

A precedent can be defined as an action that serves to justify further acts of the same or similar kind. Given that arenas that have been completely - or, significantly - privately-financed have become increasingly rare in the modern era, I'd say that any arena project that calls for the owner(s) of the team(s) playing in the facility to foot-the-bill for, at the very least, the majority of construction costs is contributing to a "precedent" in the world of major-pro sports.

Look at your example. Ground was broken on the Pepsi Center nearly fifteen years ago. That's an eternity in the increasingly shortened life-cycle of modern major-pro sports facilities. How many arenas playing host to NBA franchises have been constructed with primarily private funding since the Pepsi Center came on line?

Rather than quibble about which project - construction of the Pepsi Center, or the building of Hansen's proposed facility in Seattle - sets the ultimate precedent for privately-financed arena construction in the NBA, I'll say that both are so rare as to raise the hackles of NBA officials with regard to how they potentially impact the ability of NBA owners to squeeze public dollars out of municipal, county, and state governments going forward.

[Jimmy!]

Is it fair to really call this a precedent when the Pepsi Center was built with private money? Link

I'd say so... yes.

A precedent can be defined as an action that serves to justify further acts of the same or similar kind. Given that arenas that have been completely - or, significantly - privately-financed have become increasingly rare in the modern era, I'd say that any arena project that calls for the owner(s) of the team(s) playing in the facility to foot-the-bill for, at the very least, the majority of construction costs is contributing to a "precedent" in the world of major-pro sports.

Look at your example. Ground was broken on the Pepsi Center nearly fifteen years ago. That's an eternity in the increasingly shortened life-cycle of modern major-pro sports facilities. How many arenas playing host to NBA franchises have been constructed with primarily private funding since the Pepsi Center came on line?

Rather than quibble about which project - construction of the Pepsi Center, or the building of Hansen's proposed facility in Seattle - sets the ultimate precedent for privately-financed arena construction in the NBA, I'll say that both are so rare as to raise the hackles of NBA officials with regard to how they potentially impact the ability of NBA owners to squeeze public dollars out of municipal, county, and state governments going forward.

I can agree with that. My question wasn't intended to quibble. I thought, "Surely there have to be SOME arenas/stadiums that were constructed with private money. The Pepsi Center can't be the only one." Then I came across this article. If it's true, it's a sad commentary on the money-grubbing gougers that are professional sports franchise owners.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

The Hansen group is really going for it.

The group trying to move the Sacramento Kings to Seattle is continuing to be relentless in its pursuit.

And the NBA could be listening.

Chris Hansen and Steve Ballmer, the deep-pocketed Seattle-based investors trying to acquire the team, have struck a new deal with the Kings' current owners, the Maloofs, that may create more drama in Sacramento and the league office.

Two sources told ESPN.com the Maloofs have informed their fellow owners that if their deal to sell and relocate the Kings to Seattle is not approved by league owners next week, they will not sell the team to a Sacramento-based group that promises to keep the Kings in Sacramento.

Instead, the cash-strapped Maloofs have made a "backup" agreement with the Hansen-Ballmer group to sell it 20 percent of the team for $125 million to allow the Maloofs to continue to operate the franchise.

That new "backup" plan comes on the heels of Hansen's announcement on Friday that he had upped his offer to buy the Maloofs' 65 percent of the Kings to $409 million (from $358 million) for a total valuation of $625 million.

Sources said that new proposal also included a $115 million offer to owners as a relocation fee, which would amount to about $4 million per team. By comparison, in 2008 when the Oklahoma City Thunder moved from Seattle, they paid a $30 million total fee to the other owners.

To consider these incredible new figures, the NBA relocation committee is planning to re-evaluate the Hansen-Ballmer offer and has scheduled another meeting ahead of next Tuesday's full owners meeting in Dallas, sources said.

Two weeks ago, that same committee voted unanimously to reject the relocation request to Seattle, and the full body of owners was expected to follow that recommendation. It appeared a prospective ownership group based in Sacramento had won and the team would stay long term.

Now, the Hansen-Baller's super-aggressive, cash-laden increased offer is apparently causing at least some reconsideration.

....

The strategy is rather transparent. If the relocation bid is officially blocked, Hansen and Ballmer want a piece of the Kings so they could apply pressure on the city of Sacramento to execute an arena deal with them. The city and the Maloofs have failed to come to an agreement on a new arena several times in the past decade. If the Maloofs keep the team and an arena deal can't be reached, the franchise could apply for relocation again.

At this point, my emotions are mixed. Overall, I want an NBA team to play in Seattle; preferably, I'd like it to be the Hornets (impossible now) or an expansion team (seemingly off the table). Given the support of the Kings in Sacramento, it doesn't feel especially nice to Bennett the Kings because you have such deep pockets. So there's that.

Also, it sucks that the NBA has kept the Seattle group at arms length. Stern, for whatever reason, decided he doesn't like Seattle, no matter how good a deal or strong an ownership group put together here. And given that he's given the Sacramento group a shot at hail mary after hail mary, it doesn't seem fair on this end that our group has its act together, while the other gets every benefit of the doubt. Especially since Seattle got zero benefit of the doubt back in 2008 (and a new arena just 12 years after publicly funded renovations of Key Arena was a non-starter).

So again, my preference is for an expansion team, or a historically bad team no one will miss (like the now off-the-table Hornets). But if the Seattle group is willing and the Kings owners are willing, it doesn't feel especially right Stern can block the sale through force of will. I get that he's a strong commissioner, but I also want to go to NBA games again.

[CubsFanBudMan]

[Hansen] needs to figure out what the NBA wants to help get him ANY team.

What the NBA wants is for its owners - both existing and prospective - to cut arena-financing deals with municipalities, counties, and/or states that see said NBA owners putting up less of arena construction costs and the government entities committing more public dollars to subsidizing a pro sports franchise's operation.

Hansen - for whatever reason, but most likely because he knew that an arena-financing plan that called for too much public funding was DOA in Seattle/King County/State of washington - wasn't inclined to do that.

So you're saying Hansen's deal, as impressive as it seems, was DOA? It can't be that black and white. There aren't that many teams that need stadiums at this point...

And this new development just keeps me wondering about Hansen. Getting into bed with the Maloofs even further is not going to help you with the NBA. This is going down the Moyes-Balsillie road of absurdity. Don't play hardball with the league.

Save the Maloofs? I thought his goal was a team in Seattle? What good is 20 percent of the Kings? (And can't the NBA block that too?) Why not let the NBA block the sale and sue your way into an expansion team a la the Tampa Bay Devil Rays?

This is getting weird.

[Brian in Boston]

So you're saying Hansen's deal, as impressive as it seems, was DOA?

So long as Stern-and-Company could utilize said deal to leverage an arena-financing arrangement in Sacramento that involved the investment of more public funds... yes, that's precisely what I'm saying.

It can't be that black and white.

Oh, okay... I'll concede that saying Sacramento's historical support for the Kings, the city's being home to a single major-pro franchise, and a desire for franchise stability played SOME role in the NBA relocation committee coming to its decision.

That said, I still maintain that the relocation committee's recommendation was PRIMARILY influenced by the fact that Sacramento's arena-financing plan calls for more public dollars to go towards subsidizing an NBA team owner's desires than Hansen's plan in Seattle will.

There aren't that many teams that need stadiums at this point...

The pertinent part of your statement being "at THIS point". Don't kid yourself... the NBA suits are always - ALWAYS - thinking medium-to-long-term. Sure, there may not be "that many [NBA] teams that need stadiums at this point", but every single NBA owner is - sooner or later - going to want either a new building, or significant renovations made to the facility that their team currently calls home. And when the time comes to build or renovate said facilities, the NBA's owners are going to want municipalities, counties, and/or states to invest as many public dollars as can be wrung-out of government coffers, while the owners themselves invest as little as possible.

Hansen's willingness to shoulder as much of the burden in Seattle as he has offered to - particularly when compared to how Sacramento area politicians are willing to roll-over when it comes to subsidizing construction of a new building for the Kings with public funds - is perceived as a fly-in-the-ointment when it comes to NBA owners successfully convincing the public sector to pony-up significant dough to keep teams happy in the future.

[IceCap]

[Lights Out]

Stern, for whatever reason, decided he doesn't like Seattle, no matter how good a deal or strong an ownership group put together here.

Considering Hansen's highly immature attempts at bullying the league, it's not hard to see why Stern doesn't like the Seattle group.

And given that he's given the Sacramento group a shot at hail mary after hail mary, it doesn't seem fair on this end that our group has its act together, while the other gets every benefit of the doubt.

Bumping your bid up to $625 million - a completely absurd valuation that would realistically leave him with no room to make money off it - after the BoG had already decided in favor of Sacramento isn't having your act together, it's just pure desperation.

Hansen's just as bad as the Maloofs - none of them are negotiating in good faith and they're intent on screwing over Sacramento at all costs. This is especially rich considering Hansen had said a couple years ago that "he doesn't want to steal a team," yet that's exactly what he wants to do.

[Lights Out]

By the way - some interesting tweets on this saga:

This was known by both the NBA and the locals as late as Thursday. Thus the cryptic “no matter what happens” tweet.

— Carmichael Dave (@CarmichaelDave)

May 12, 2013

Vivek and co continue to follow the path laid out before them by the NBA. Hansen and Ballmer are kicking and screaming and I don’t blame em

— Carmichael Dave (@CarmichaelDave)

May 12, 2013

The ORIGINAL raise was never matched or even ACKNOWLEDGED by the NBA. It’s not a bidding war. Remember Arison’s direct messages.

— Carmichael Dave (@CarmichaelDave)

May 12, 2013

HBN are basically trying to force their way into the boys club in the last year for stern. You think the owners are ok with that?

— Carmichael Dave (@CarmichaelDave)

May 12, 2013

Also remember there is HUGE resentment of the Maloofs by owners/NBA. They have ZERO motivation to help line their pockets.

— Carmichael Dave (@CarmichaelDave)

May 12, 2013

One last thing. You know how the NBA keeps saying expansion is off the table till AFTER the TV deal? Think for a second. Read next.

— Carmichael Dave (@CarmichaelDave)

May 12, 2013

Why in God’s name WOULDN’T you want the 12-14th largest market ALREADY IN the NBA when you negotiate? Because the NBA won’t be railroaded.

— Carmichael Dave (@CarmichaelDave)

May 12, 2013

[The_Admiral]

While I'm happy that Sacramento won't lose a team, it's pretty gross that they only got it to make sure cities know that private investment can never be a preferable alternative to public subsidies. They're really doing anything to keep that faucet flowing, aren't they? Pigs.

[Gothamite]

I don't think I can go that far. "Only"?

It's good Sacramento isn't losing its team. Full-stop.

Public money has always been seen as preferable. Building Yankee Stadium and the SF Giants' stadium almost entirely with private money doesn't mean that all MLB stadiums will be built that way from now on, they're just outliers. As Seattle would have been had this deal gone through.

[RichardWitham]

as a kings fan, i hope seattle never gets a team based on how they've acted during this. support your WNBA team first.

[Lee.]

Stop trolling, troll.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

This is a complicated story and there's no one, true just side. My view is complicated by Seattle uber alles, but I'm not heartless. It sucked to lose the Sonics in 2008 and it'll suck for Sacramento in 2013 (maybe).

That said, I think Gothamite is giving the NBA too much credit, and I do think this story is all about the arena financing plan. I think we're increasingly in a world of public risk, private profits, and the NBA owners very much want the ability to hold governments hostage, the same the NFL essentially does.

Until more cities take a stand (like Seattle has), this will the be story for at least one professional franchise every off-season. Pro teams move for a variety of reasons, and in my view, not being able to bilk citizens for capital costs is an illegitimate one.

[Evil G]

as a kings fan, i hope seattle never gets a team based on how they've acted during this. support your WNBA team first.

Who watches the WNBA? I don't.

[RichardWitham]

as a kings fan, i hope seattle never gets a team based on how they've acted during this. support your WNBA team first.

Who watches the WNBA? I don't.

seattle wants our NBA team, yet they dont go support their own pro basketball team, even if it is the WNBA, it's still pro basketball. besides, the seatrolls, mariners, and sounders all suck. sacramento is a one team town and you guys wont get our team. BTW where are your super bowls, seattle? oh that's right, you have NONE EDIT: lee, bite me. i will post if i want. this whole thing make me hate seattle. and oh by the way, seattle, where are your lombardi trophies?

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Rack 'em!