Metro Seattle: NHL, NBA and Arena - Part VII

[sactown dude]

He said they would view it as binding, but its not binding.

They view it as binding = offer cannot be reduced.

 

[superdeluxe]

They view it as binding = offer cannot be reduced.

Sure it can, because it is not binding. Maybe the NBA doesn't want sactown to reduce it, but contractually speaking, because its not binding, they can do whatever the ****** they want.

Honestly though, I don't see sactown reducing the bid. Now I am seeing that the NBA wants sactown to put the entire 100% into escrow.

Also saw a report from KJ's right hand man that the maloofs will be told to back out of agreement with Seattle.

This sets up all sorts of fun legal battles.

 

[sactown dude]

Sure it can, because it is not binding. Maybe the NBA doesn't want sactown to reduce it, but contractually speaking, because its not binding, they can do whatever the ****** they want.

Honestly though, I don't see sactown reducing the bid. Now I am seeing that the NBA wants sactown to put the entire 100% into escrow.

Also saw a report from KJ's right hand man that the maloofs will be told to back out of agreement with Seattle.

This sets up all sorts of fun legal battles.

Not talking contractually. Obviously, if we are talking contract law the phrase "the NBA considers it binding" is nonsense. But, the NBA will have to approve the sale. Their "view" that it is binding means they will not consider approval of a lower offer. Of course they CAN reduce their offer, but they know it won't get them anything.

 

[superdeluxe]

I'm not a lawyer...

..But SonicsRising posted a piece about potential anti-trust arguments that Hansen can use.FWIW:

http://www.sonicsrising.com/2013/5/...rust-law-to-sale-and-relocation-of-sacramento

The two main points are followed by a additional information such as case law/general thoughts

A. THE HANSEN GROUP SHOULD BE ABLE TO OBTAIN SPECIFIC ENFORCEMENT OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT'S PROHIBITION AGAINST GROUP BOYCOTTS.

B. AS PART OF A LAWSUIT SEEKING SPECIFIC ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONTRACT, THE HANSEN GROUP SHOULD REQUEST DECLARATORY RELIEF THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO MOVE THE TEAM TO SEATTLE UNDER ANTITRUST LAWS.

 

[maruk14]

Stern has already said their offer is binding in the NBA's eyes. The league will NOT allow them to negotiate a lesser amount. That was never an option.

Well then they need to come up with the rest of the cash for their offer and put it in escrow ... will they?

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

He said they would view it as binding, but its not binding.

No, Stern said that it was binding.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

No, Stern said that it was binding.

And do you believe anything that comes out of Stern's mouth? And if so WHY?!?!

 

[sactown dude]

..But SonicsRising posted a piece about potential anti-trust arguments that Hansen can use.FWIW:

http://www.sonicsrising.com/2013/5/...rust-law-to-sale-and-relocation-of-sacramento

There's no anti-trust issue here. The Kings are a franchise of the NBA, and the NBA has the right to approve the entry of new franchisees, as well as approve the movement of franchises.

The NBA is not preventing Hansen from creating his own team in a competing league. If they were, there would be an anti-trust issue. The only league that has the right to prevent competition is MLB, thanks to its anti-trust exemption.

The arguments in the link compare the Kings sale to a player contract case and to the movements of the Raiders and Clippers to L.A. I don't see how a player contract situation is remotely comparable to moving a franchise. But the Raiders and Clippers cases obviously did concern franchise movement. One of the odd things about the argument is that it cites as one factor the distance of competing teams (from Sacramento to Oakland - 80 miles vs Seattle to Portland - 200 miles) as a factor. But for both the Raiders and Clippers, they were moving into a market that ALREADY HAD A TEAM!

 

[sactown dude]

Well then they need to come up with the rest of the cash for their offer and put it in escrow ... will they?

Yes.

 

[XX]

Sure it can, because it is not binding. Maybe the NBA doesn't want sactown to reduce it, but contractually speaking, because its not binding, they can do whatever the ****** they want.

Honestly though, I don't see sactown reducing the bid. Now I am seeing that the NBA wants sactown to put the entire 100% into escrow.

The league telling an owner to sell for less than they have been legally offered is a legal nightmare. Reducing the sale price after the recommendation would just add more firepower to the Maloofs' case. This is the same reason why they cannot realistically force a local sale with only 50% in escrow. In contractual terms (and the eyes of the courts) there's basically less than half as much in real money guaranteed to the Maloofs at the moment from Sacramento when compared to the Seattle offer. The NBA will do everything possible to avoid having this hit the court system.

It wouldn't be very smart for Hansen to initiate any legal challenges. The Maloofs would have the best claim. Even so, Hansen can still feasibly get an expansion team, right? So no reason to sour the relationship with the league. I'm sure they don't want to close the door on Seattle for a long time as well.

 

[snovalleyhockeyfan]

..But SonicsRising posted a piece about potential anti-trust arguments that Hansen can use.FWIW:

http://www.sonicsrising.com/2013/5/...rust-law-to-sale-and-relocation-of-sacramento

The two main points are followed by a additional information such as case law/general thoughts

Helluva find, SD. Thanks! BTW, where the heck did you get that Hansen avatar? I sure would love one for my computer "wallpaper".....

 

[maruk14]

..But SonicsRising posted a piece about potential anti-trust arguments that Hansen can use.FWIW:

http://www.sonicsrising.com/2013/5/...rust-law-to-sale-and-relocation-of-sacramento

There's no anti-trust issue here. The Kings are a franchise of the NBA, and the NBA has the right to approve the entry of new franchisees, as well as approve the movement of franchises.

The NBA is not preventing Hansen from creating his own team in a competing league. If they were, there would be an anti-trust issue. The only league that has the right to prevent competition is MLB, thanks to its anti-trust exemption.

The arguments in the link compare the Kings sale to a player contract case and to the movements of the Raiders and Clippers to L.A. I don't see how a player contract situation is remotely comparable to moving a franchise. But the Raiders and Clippers cases obviously did concern franchise movement. One of the odd things about the argument is that it cites as one factor the distance of competing teams (from Sacramento to Oakland - 80 miles vs Seattle to Portland - 200 miles) as a factor. But for both the Raiders and Clippers, they were moving into a market that ALREADY HAD A TEAM!

Thats not true. Legally, the NBA is an association of 30 different businesses and governed by this association.. They get called "franchises" but they arent like your local Subway

This is exactly why courts routinely strike down a "single entity" defense from sports leagues when trying to legally justify their monopolistic practices by claiming they are one large businesses vs. 30 individual businesses working in partnership.

Edit - meant to reply to sactown dude. Tablets are fickle.

 

[maruk14]

Some info on the subject.
http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/reso...cuments/Fall 2011/SPRING 2012 - STAENBERG.pdf

 

[Stonewall]

This is from earlier today but I don't think this was posted here. Maloofs apparently told to take the Sacramento offer.

http://www.sonicsrising.com/2013/5/9/4315618/breaking-maloofs-told-to-take-sacramento-offer

@REGraswich

Inside word is M's have been told to take Sac offer for Kings, period.

Hansen can't let this end without an expansion team and/or court.

 

[gstommylee]

NBA can't legally tell the maloofs to take the offer.

 

[Shaz]

Wow. How incredibly stupid is David Stern?

If we don't get the Sonics, bury the league 100 feet deep and burn the headstone

 

[gstommylee]

Well then they need to come up with the rest of the cash for their offer and put it in escrow ... will they?

Which means 100% of the 550m not 525m. So far they are only doing 100% (assuming they will) of the 525m thus NBA will be illegally voting no on seattle and get maloofs to take the lesser offer of 525m.

 

[maruk14]

Which means 100% of the 550m not 525m. So far they are only doing 100% (assuming they will) of the 525m thus NBA will be illegally voting no on seattle and get maloofs to take the lesser offer of 525m.

And nothing is stopping Hansen from raising his offer again if the Sac team does put that much money in escrow (and I doubt they will) - just to keep the Maloofs interested in our deal ...

 

[Holden Caulfield]

So I have been working quite a bit lately, so I have not been following this as closely. Is Hansen 100% out of the Sacramento bid? Does Sacramento have a firm offer to keep them in town? Any news of Hansen looking into another way to attract an NBA team (other relocations/expansion)?

So can anybody give me a cliff's notes of the current situation?

 

[EC09]

This has got to be the greatest storyline the NBA has ever seen since Jordan.

 

[Stonewall]

So I have been working quite a bit lately, so I have not been following this as closely. Is Hansen 100% out of the Sacramento bid? Does Sacramento have a firm offer to keep them in town? Any news of Hansen looking into another way to attract an NBA team (other relocations/expansion)?

So can anybody give me a cliff's notes of the current situation?

1. Not 100%, but no one really knows the actual number.

2. Legally, Hansen still has a binding offer with the Maloofs (and therefore to move the team). In the NBA's wacky world the binding offer doesn't matter, but that could lead to a lawsuit in the real world.

3. Hansen has said he will still fight for the Kings, so if they want to avoid an antitrust suit the smartest thing they could do is just give Hansen an expansion team in writing.

 

[Zorbane]

Question:

How does this differ from Balsille buying the Coyotes and then the NHL coming in and stopping the deal?

 

[snovalleyhockeyfan]

Brian Robinson on the "scorched earth" strategy

More Brian R.:

http://www.sonicsrising.com/2013/5/...aciousness-has-not-gotten-seattle-an-nba-team

Looks as if Robinson is on board now with HBN suing the league should they vote no on this. Those of you in Sacramento who don't know who this guy is - he's the guy who has been leading a lot of the grassroots fan-based efforts behind the scenes in Seattle to bring back the Sonics. And I think he's kind of an insider with the HBN people, so he may be in tune to what they may do next.

This and that antitrust primer that you put out yesterday SD I feel are two very important pieces of information that every Seattle sports fan needs to read this weekend, so if it's all right with the mods, I would like to encourage all of the Seattle-area posters to spread the word and make sure all fans read those two stories.

 

[Major4Boarding]

Question:

How does this differ from Balsille buying the Coyotes and then the NHL coming in and stopping the deal?

Because the Sacramento Kings were not put into bankruptcy

And with that... time to move to a new thread - http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=65751245#post65751245