Metro Seattle: NHL, NBA and Arena - Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mightygoose

Registered User
Nov 5, 2012
5,586
1,382
Ajax, ON

gmjevtwa

Registered User
Oct 25, 2012
47
0
Everett, WA
I found this quite interesting:

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/fyi-guy/2013/01/15/with-worse-fan-support-than-spokane-can-seattle-get-its-nba-mojo-back/

I'm sure there are enough hard core NBA fans to fill an arena but what is general fan interest in the NBA going to be like in Seattle?

When the only daily newspaper in town publishes an editorial opposing a new arena project and, a few months later, a sports columnist from that same newspaper praises the new arena deal, I usually would take any article and headline from that newspaper with a pillar of salt. Many arena supporters have criticized the Seattle Times coverage and their editorial board and I think the criticism is justified.
 

CorbeauNoir

Registered User
Apr 13, 2010
922
143
I found this quite interesting:

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/fyi-guy/2013/01/15/with-worse-fan-support-than-spokane-can-seattle-get-its-nba-mojo-back/

I'm sure there are enough hard core NBA fans to fill an arena but what is general fan interest in the NBA going to be like in Seattle?

I don't know if you'd call it 'fan interest' but if and when a return of the Sonics makes them the new 'fashionable' local team I'm sure plenty of Sounders fans will switch over to them.
 

Nuclear SUV

Registered User
Jun 1, 2008
570
2
I stopped reading the Seattle Times months ago. The paper has gone to heck over the last 5 or 6 years. The Blethan family should sell the paper. Ryan Blethan is incompetent and has no business doing anything remotely important with any organization.


The Seattle Times is anti-arena, anti-Sonics. I am anti-Seattle Times and urge people of the Puget Sound area to just let that rag die. Compare the arena/Sonics reporting of KING TV's Chris Daniels vs. the entire Seattle Times, and it is easy to see why it is in Seattle's best interests if we just let the Times die.


Seattle is excited to get its Sonics back.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,232
13,602
Folsom
I'm happy Seattle is getting their team back but Sacramento is going through exactly what Seattle went through, maybe worse, when the Sonics moved. The Maloofs selling the team like this is atrocious.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,400
2,742
Its not done until NBA approves sale and relocation. Sac Mayor Kevin Johnson is gonna try to get NBA to reject the sale and make the team stay in sac. Pretty much forcing the maloofs to sell locally.
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,546
2,006
I'm happy Seattle is getting their team back but Sacramento is going through exactly what Seattle went through, maybe worse, when the Sonics moved. The Maloofs selling the team like this is atrocious.

Very classy, but IMO Sac has needed a new arena since 1998. It should have not come to this.

Its not done until NBA approves sale and relocation. Sac Mayor Kevin Johnson is gonna try to get NBA to reject the sale and make the team stay in sac. Pretty much forcing the maloofs to sell locally.

Stop being so nervous you won.
 

Nuclear SUV

Registered User
Jun 1, 2008
570
2
I'm happy Seattle is getting their team back but Sacramento is going through exactly what Seattle went through, maybe worse, when the Sonics moved. The Maloofs selling the team like this is atrocious.

Seattle had it worse. Sacramento had multiple years to save the team, Seattle never had a chance with Howard Schutz selling the team unannounced in the dead of night to the man who vowed to bring the NBA to OKC, without giving others in Seattle a chance.
 

Nuclear SUV

Registered User
Jun 1, 2008
570
2
Its not done until NBA approves sale and relocation. Sac Mayor Kevin Johnson is gonna try to get NBA to reject the sale and make the team stay in sac. Pretty much forcing the maloofs to sell locally.

No locals were willing to match the Seattle offer. The valuation of $525,000,000 is for a team getting a new arena in Seattle, not a team in smaller Sacramento without an arena deal.

Kevin Johnson is sowing the seeds for then NBA's return, not saving the team. I wish Seattle had Kevin Johnson rather than Greg Nickles a few years back.
 

No Fun Shogun

34-38-61-10-13-15
May 1, 2011
56,091
12,752
Illinois
Its not done until NBA approves sale and relocation. Sac Mayor Kevin Johnson is gonna try to get NBA to reject the sale and make the team stay in sac. Pretty much forcing the maloofs to sell locally.

Yeah... sorry, but no. It is all but done. It would take a monumental swing of events to block this, not the least of which is finding a local ownership bid willing to give the Maloofs as much as they're going to get is Hansen. And even if that's done, and that's a huge if, it's not guarantee of anything.

It sucks, I know, but the Sacramento Kings are dead after this season.

I would love for the Bucks to move so the NHL can get into Milwaukee.

A Buck-less Milwaukee would probably still be behind Seattle, Quebec City, Portland, Houston, and maybe Hamilton, the GTA, and Kansas City.
 

powerstuck

Nordiques Hopes Lies
Jan 13, 2012
7,595
1,543
Town NHL hates !
Think the Coyotes will be heading to Seattle in the postseason.

It's too much to ask Gary to move two American teams to Canada.

Quebec and Southern Ontario can start the bidding wars at a potential expansion by 2015...opening bid $300M.
 

rt

The Kinder, Gentler Version
May 13, 2004
96,878
45,245
A Rockwellian Pleasantville
I guess an NHL team is inevitable, at this point. What will they be called?

I still say this would be cool.

Seattle Sockeyes...

Orange and green like Miami Hurricanes...

Miami%20Hurricanes%20Football%208.JPG


With a pacific northwest inspired Sockeye logo....
stock-vector-various-depictions-of-sockeye-salmon-drawn-in-a-pacific-northwest-native-style-7374505.jpg


Green and orange just like the actual fish...
NH_080804_Sockeye-7.jpg
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,232
13,602
Folsom
Very classy, but IMO Sac has needed a new arena since 1998. It should have not come to this.

None of that is relevant. The fact of the matter is that Sacramento got a new arena deal struck and the Maloofs backed out.

The NBA cant force the maloffs to sell locally though. this is basically a done deal, and moves the bucks to the top of the list of possible relocation cadidates.

Yes, they can. It's their league and they have the right to decide who can be owners of their franchises in their league. Chances are that won't be tested though.

Seattle had it worse. Sacramento had multiple years to save the team, Seattle never had a chance with Howard Schutz selling the team unannounced in the dead of night to the man who vowed to bring the NBA to OKC, without giving others in Seattle a chance.

Seattle never got an arena deal struck and had their owner sell to someone local to give a try. Sacramento got the arena deal but the Maloofs backed out and then never even gave a local buyer a chance. But arguing who had it worse isn't going to go anywhere. It sucked for Seattle then and it will suck for Sacramento. At least Seattle has other professional franchises to invest into. That's not really the case in Sacramento.
 

No Fun Shogun

34-38-61-10-13-15
May 1, 2011
56,091
12,752
Illinois
I just wonder if the team will be names the Sonics again?

They'd be fools not to go with the Sonics, just as TNSE would've been idiotic if they went with something other than the Jets, Quebecor will be foolish if they don't revive the Nordiques when they get their team back, and Jordan would be an even bigger managerial fool if he doesn't change the Bobcats to the Hornets as soon as New Orleans becomes the Pelicans if the asking price isn't too high.

The public demand for the old name is huge. Way throw that easy fan goodwill away?
 

Nuclear SUV

Registered User
Jun 1, 2008
570
2
None of that is relevant. The fact of the matter is that Sacramento got a new arena deal struck and the Maloofs backed out.

It wasn't a good deal, especially with the Maloof's financial situation at the time.



Yes, they can. It's their league and they have the right to decide who can be owners of their franchises in their league. Chances are that won't be tested though.

No Sacramento group will offer a Seattle valuation figure for a team in Sacramento. The NBA will not kill a more valuable deal. For one it will force Seattle or the state of Washington to sue the NBA on anti-trust grounds.



Seattle never got an arena deal struck and had their owner sell to someone local to give a try.

Seattle never had a chance. Schultz sold the team in the dead of night to the Okies. ZERO Seattle groups had a chance to step in and buy the team. Sacramento had a chance, Seattle never had one.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,232
13,602
Folsom
It wasn't a good deal, especially with the Maloof's financial situation at the time.





No Sacramento group will offer a Seattle valuation figure for a team in Sacramento. The NBA will not kill a more valuable deal. For one it will force Seattle or the state of Washington to sue the NBA on anti-trust grounds.





Seattle never had a chance. Schultz sold the team in the dead of night to the Okies. ZERO Seattle groups had a chance to step in and buy the team. Sacramento had a chance, Seattle never had one.

Like hell it wasn't a good deal for the Maloofs. It was a free arena deal for them where they maintained a healthy portion of their revenues for their team being there. They backed out initially because their interest was going to a place with higher potential TV revenue, plain and simple.

As for the relocation thing, yes the leagues have that right. They don't have to approve owners at all. There have been plenty of leagues rejecting owners for various reasons and that right has not been challenged and overturned. The NBA has the right if they choose to use it but I doubt they will because they want this situation over with. And a deal in Sacramento doesn't have to be 525 million because part of that figure includes relocation and moving expenses.

And Seattle had a chance when the Sonics were originally sold to Schultz in the first place. Sacramento had what chance? They got the arena deal and the Maloofs never fielded offers from local owners. What chance was there in that?
 

No Fun Shogun

34-38-61-10-13-15
May 1, 2011
56,091
12,752
Illinois
Yeah, agreed with Pinkfloyd. The arena deal the Maloofs got from Sacramento was a very reasonable one that fit essentially all of their requirements except one.... wanting out of Sacramento.

That's all it boils down to. The Maloofs wanted out and, when Anaheim wasn't open to them either, they wanted out of the NBA, too. Enter the highest bidder and, "Goodbye Kings, hello Sonics."

Seattle got screwed by a liar of an owner that was never interested in trying to get a new arena deal in Seattle, Sacramento got screwed by a liar of an owner that just wanted out under any circumstances.
 

Nuclear SUV

Registered User
Jun 1, 2008
570
2
Like hell it wasn't a good deal for the Maloofs. It was a free arena deal for them where they maintained a healthy portion of their revenues for their team being there. They backed out initially because their interest was going to a place with higher potential TV revenue, plain and simple.

If it was a good deal, they would have taken it and sold the team at a higher profit than they are now. Unless, they are poor business men, which the offspring of George Maloof Sr. seem to be.



As for the relocation thing, yes the leagues have that right. They don't have to approve owners at all. There have been plenty of leagues rejecting owners for various reasons and that right has not been challenged and overturned.

The Seattle group is not a group that would be shot down by any league. On top of that the league has anti-trust lawsuits to worry about. Don't forget the State of Washington has successfully sued a major professional sports league and forced them to expand. You're welcome Blue Jays fans.

And a deal in Sacramento doesn't have to be 525 million because part of that figure includes relocation and moving expenses.

No, it does not. The $525,000,000 is the total value of the franchise being sold. Sacramento would have to at least match that offer, and even then it is probably too late due to the sale contract.

And Seattle had a chance when the Sonics were originally sold to Schultz in the first place.

Schultz didn't do anything to save the team! He never gave Seattle a chance! He never proposed an arena nor worked to sell the team to a local ownership group. When he did sell the team, he did it late at night and with zero forewarning. Multiple multi-billionaires have said they would have bought the team if they had a chance.

Again, Seattle never had a chance to save the team.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,400
2,742
None of that is relevant. The fact of the matter is that Sacramento got a new arena deal struck and the Maloofs backed out.



Yes, they can. It's their league and they have the right to decide who can be owners of their franchises in their league. Chances are that won't be tested though.

Seattle never got an arena deal struck and had their owner sell to someone local to give a try. Sacramento got the arena deal but the Maloofs backed out and then never even gave a local buyer a chance. But arguing who had it worse isn't going to go anywhere. It sucked for Seattle then and it will suck for Sacramento. At least Seattle has other professional franchises to invest into. That's not really the case in Sacramento.


NBA is subject to anti trust laws. And they clearly sad they can not force any owner to sell. Only league that can get away with that is MLB cause they have anti trust exempt. They can not make maloofs sell to local group and that's what they essentially will be doing if they reject Hansen's offer nevermind it would be another PR nightmare that they shafted seattle again.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,232
13,602
Folsom
If it was a good deal, they would have taken it and sold the team at a higher profit than they are now. Unless, they are poor business men, which the offspring of George Maloof Sr. seem to be.





The Seattle group is not a group that would be shot down by any league. On top of that the league has anti-trust lawsuits to worry about. Don't forget the State of Washington has successfully sued a major professional sports league and forced them to expand. You're welcome Blue Jays fans.



No, it does not. The $525,000,000 is the total value of the franchise being sold. Sacramento would have to at least match that offer, and even then it is probably too late due to the sale contract.



Schultz didn't do anything to save the team! He never gave Seattle a chance! He never proposed an arena nor worked to sell the team to a local ownership group. When he did sell the team, he did it late at night and with zero forewarning. Multiple multi-billionaires have said they would have bought the team if they had a chance.

Again, Seattle never had a chance to save the team.

The Maloofs have been going under for a while now. So yes, their business acumen at this point is in question.

And if the league doesn't have the right to approve owners, why would they have a vote on it? They don't have the right to force a sale but they have the right to prevent one.

And you're wrong about the figure. Look at ESPN's article on this...

The sale price of $525 million, sources said, is regarded as an overall valuation of the franchise and also includes relocation fees.

And what I was referring to with Schultz was that he was the guy that the original ownership sold it to to try and get a new arena deal. He didn't do it, obviously. But prior to Schultz, that ownership was trying as well and didn't do it. That was their chance and the attempt to sell it to Schultz was another chance but he failed miserably. The Maloofs are the owners prior to Schultz in this scenario.

NBA is subject to anti trust laws. And they clearly sad they can not force any owner to sell. Only league that can get away with that is MLB cause they have anti trust exempt. They can not make maloofs sell to local group and that's what they essentially will be doing if they reject Hansen's offer nevermind it would be another PR nightmare that they shafted seattle again.

They're not forcing an owner to sell. They're preventing a sale for whatever reason. If they don't like an owner for whatever reason, it is within their right to not give him one of their franchises. If they don't, you should probably tell them then that their BoG vote is useless because I'm sure it would be news to them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->