sactown dude
Registered User
- Apr 21, 2013
- 125
- 0
He said they would view it as binding, but its not binding.
They view it as binding = offer cannot be reduced.
He said they would view it as binding, but its not binding.
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.
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.
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.
No, Stern said that it was binding.He said they would view it as binding, but its not binding.
No, Stern said that it was binding.
..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!
Well then they need to come up with the rest of the cash for their offer and put it in escrow ... will they?
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.
..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
..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.
@REGraswich
Inside word is M's have been told to take Sac offer for Kings, period.
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.
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?
Question:
How does this differ from Balsille buying the Coyotes and then the NHL coming in and stopping the deal?