Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

2012/2013
Bob

Sophomore
Avatar du membre
SuperSonics
760

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par Bob » 30 avril 2013, 20:13

La décision de la NBA EST une décision des proprios (une partie d'entre eux ici)
Pas encore vu de justifications mais on aura droit à des trucs bateaux : "supers fans", "super nouveau groupe de proprios", etc...

Pas faux dans l'absolu, encore une fois le bizarre de l'affaire c'est que jusqu'à présent ces considérations valaient peau de zob.

AiR1

Jedi
Avatar du membre
SuperSonics
Sydney
7954

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par AiR1 » 30 avril 2013, 20:17

KJ a du leur graisser la patte, je ne vois que ça.
Sinon aucune chance que le vote soit différent next week ?

Bob

Sophomore
Avatar du membre
SuperSonics
760

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par Bob » 30 avril 2013, 20:18

AiR1 a écrit :KJ a du leur arroser la patte, je ne vois que ça.
Sinon aucune chance que le vote soit différent next week ?
Sauf effondrement du plan de Sactown ou sorcellerie du camp Hansen-Ballmer à peu près aucune non.

AiR1

Jedi
Avatar du membre
SuperSonics
Sydney
7954

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par AiR1 » 30 avril 2013, 21:09

NBA changes the rules, breaks hearts of Seattle fans again
http://seattletimes.com/html/jerrybrewe ... wer30.html

Bob

Sophomore
Avatar du membre
SuperSonics
760

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par Bob » 30 avril 2013, 23:05

Kevin Pelton a écrit :Seattle group ready to fight for Kings

"It's going to get ugly." That's how a source close to the ownership group attempting to purchase the Sacramento Kings and move them to Seattle described the next steps after the NBA relocation committee recommended that the team should stay put.

The Seattle group isn't taking no for an answer. They plan to take their case to the Board of Governors during a meeting scheduled two weeks from now to formally vote on the Seattle proposal.

In a statement posted Monday night on the group's Web site, SonicsArena.com, lead investor Chris Hansen vowed to fight.

"While this represents yet another obstacle to achieving our goal," wrote Hansen in a letter addressed to Sonics fans, "I just wanted to reassure all of you that we have numerous options at our disposal and have absolutely no plans to give up."

In the statement, Hansen made clear the aggressive argument he plans to make to the Board of Governors. He said that his group is "one of the best ownership groups ever assembled," has offered "a much higher price" for the Kings and has "a much more solid Arena plan" in Seattle than the proposal to build a new arena in Sacramento.

The task ahead of the Seattle group is challenging: They must convince at least half of the league's owners to vote against the relocation committee's recommendation. According to the source, multiple owners indicated in private conversations they intend to vote along the lines of the recommendation. The Seattle group has to hope that the entire Board of Governors is more favorable to its position than the seven-member committee, which included four owners from small markets.

Working against the Seattle group is the sentiment Stern expressed on NBA TV in explaining the decision.

"I didn't see a unanimous vote coming," he told reporter Dei Lynam, "but they decided as strong as the Seattle bid was -- and it was very strong -- there's some benefit that should be given to a city that has supported us for so long and has stepped up to contribute to building a new building as well."

It's clear the recommendation caught the Seattle group off guard. Investor Steve Ballmer, the CEO of Microsoft, told local radio host Mitch Levy that he was "horribly, horribly disappointed" by the decision. But the decision isn't final yet, and the Seattle group still believes it can win the fight for the Kings.

KJ7

Kings
Avatar du membre
Superteam just young
2700

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par KJ7 » 30 avril 2013, 23:36

Image

Charles9th

Sophomore
Avatar du membre
Bleed Green
257

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par Charles9th » 01 mai 2013, 00:34

KJ_God ton fuck dans ta signature tu devrais plutôt l'adresser aux frères Maloof, ce sont eux la cause de la situation actuelle des Kings. Hansen lui n'a fait que proposer une offre étant donné que les Maloof ont mit en vente la franchise, puis a prévenu dès le début que ce serait pour la délocaliser à Seattle. Donc il ne mérite pas ton fuck (même si il s'en branle certainement royalement)

Bibi

Rookie
19

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par Bibi » 01 mai 2013, 01:02

Bob a écrit :
Bibi a écrit :J’ai quand même du mal à voir sur quelle base légale se fonde toute cette histoire : On a une promesse de vente co-signée par les Maloof et Hansen. Malgré ça, la NBA mène la danse.WTF ?

Nous sommes clairement dans l’hypothèse où l’on offre à une municipalité, la possibilité d’exercer son droit de préemption. C'est-à-dire qu’en vertu de dispositions réglementaires ou contractuelles, on offre à la collectivité le pouvoir de se substituer à l'acquéreur initial du bien, pour en faire l'acquisition à sa place, sous les mêmes conditions que ce dernier.

Or ici :

1. Les offres ne sont pas équivalentes
2. Le mécanisme n’est pas prévu par la NBA.

En pratique, un rachat se déroulait de la façon suivante : (bob corrige moi si je me trompe) :

1. signature du compromis de vente,
2. Contrôle de légalité opéré par la NBA
3. Passage devant la « chambre des propriétaires »
4. Signature finale de la vente
Je confirme pour le fonctionnement d'un rachat. Petite subtilité ici avec le jumelage de la validation de la vente par le Board of Governors et de la demande de déménagement, je ne sais honnêtement pas si ya déjà un précédent...

Ce qui est sûr c'est qu'il n'y a jamais eu l'occasion pour un marché en difficulté de bénéficier de moult jokers et délais pour :
- Constituer un groupe de repreneurs solide
- Faire une offre puis encore une autre pour s'approcher des tarifs de la concurrence
- Monter un plan pour une nouvelle salle

Jusque là c'était systématiquement du "vous avez eu plusieurs années pour financer une salle et/ou racheter l'équipe, c'est trop tard maintenant". Kevin Johnson est et de très loin le leader politique le plus actif de toute l'histoire dans ce type de situation et ça explique peut être en partie ce qui s'est passé mais on ne peut qu'être surpris de ces différences de traitement...

Le plus hallucinant c'est vraiment l'attitude des proprios NBA. Je rappelle que Stern est leur salarié et n'a aucun pouvoir réel, il peut bien dire ou essayer de faire ce qu'il veut il n'a en théorie pas franchement les moyens de forcer une décision "illogique". Et là ils décident eux même de créer un précédent qui pourrait bien leur faire du mal dans le futur !!
Un marché où la NBA est implanté doit donc être dorénavant être préféré à un marché extérieur dès lors qu'un plan vaguement solide existe pour conserver l'équipe là où elle est. Tant pis si l'offre de rachat extérieure est plus élevée, le projet de salle plus ambitieux et plus sûr en terme de financement et le marché lui même plus important... Et tant pis aussi si le propriétaire existant n'a jamais accepté le principe même de cette offre de rachat locale...

Je sais pas si le proprio des Bucks faisait partie du comité votant mais j'espère qu'il a pris des notes :D

On peut très bien se retrouver avec des Maloofs refusant de vendre au tarif actuellement proposé et/ou avec un financement (pour le moment pas hyper solide) du projet de salle s'écroulant l'année prochaine... C'est vraiment très surprenant.

Difficile de critiquer la décision dans l'esprit puisque c'est très naturel et sain de favoriser une fan base existante mais il faudra surveiller de près le déroulement des prochains rachats/déménagement en NBA. Je doute qu'on revoit ce genre de choses à l'avenir perso.

C’est vrai. Mais si on veut être de bonne foi, sans tomber dans la facilité conspirationniste: la différence de traitement s’explique surtout par la mobilisation locale.

Ce derniers mois on a vu un vrai courant de sympathie se développer aux US et dans la presse nationale, en faveur des habitants de Sacramento, alimenté par un KJ proactif. - EN plus ça m'étonnerait pas que Stern ait, en vu de son futur jubilé, joué le gros démago.

Si Greg Nickels et Schultz s’étaient battus - en exerçant toutes leurs options : exécution du bail jusqu’à son terme, recherche d’investisseurs, action en justice - je commence à me dire que la situation aurait pu être à peu près similaire. Tout Bennett qu’il était.

Surtout lorsqu'on connait le fort crédit sympathie dont bénéficie Seattle auprès de la population américaine. Or j’ai l’impression, qu'à l'époque, personne n’avait vraiment pris au sérieux, ni les menaces de la NBA, ni ce déménagement. On a préféré se la jouer bourgeois de gauche sclérosé.

Et puis... la crise n’était pas passée par là !Maintenant une franchise c’est 1000 à 200 emplois directs + un programme de redynamisation urbaine.

Pour le reste tu as totalement raison.

On peut être d’autant plus étonné par l’issu de ce vote, lorsqu’on regarde les membres siégeant au sein de ce « Relocation and Finance committee »… Bon je comprends que Bennett, Holt (Spurs) et le mec de Milwaukee votent contre. Ce sont des petits marchés. Solidarité oblige. Par contre quand je vois que Dolan et Buss siégeaient, je me pose beaucoup plus de questions (mega deal TV). Surtout que j’avais cru lire que les franchises californiennes étaient plutôt favorables au déménagement des Kings. Ça permettait de désengorger l’état de Californie déjà bien trop armé en équipes professionnelles ; et favorisait un réalignement des divisions.

Bref, en tout cas, comme tu le soulignes très bien, l’histoire est loin d’être terminée.

Il n’y aura pas d’expansions, et le propriétaire de Milwaukee a déjà annoncé qu’il attendrait une offre d’une investisseur local.

Résultat: Chris Hansen devrait aller jusqu’au bout. C'est un jeune loup ambitieux. Et il a bien raison.

Je ne serais pas non plus surpris qu’on ait dans cette histoire, pour meilleur allié, les Maloofs. Les pauvres se sont battus des années pour obtenir une nouvelle salle et ils viennent de constater, incrédule, qu'avec un peu de volontarisme politique, la situation s'était débloquée en l’espace de 2 mois. Et dans ce cas, que ferait la NBA d’une franchise à l’abandon ?

Honnêtement, ce sera long, on y laissera sans doute des plumes et beaucoup d’argents (d’où le désarroi de Ballmer), mais l’assignation en justice sera probablement jugée recevable. Je vois pas comment la NBA peut légalement justifier une expropriation de franchise, qui plus est, au profit du moins-disant.

KJ7

Kings
Avatar du membre
Superteam just young
2700

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par KJ7 » 01 mai 2013, 13:11

1. Are you surprised by the committee's decision?

J.A. Adande, ESPN.com: Yes. I knew the Sacramento bid had momentum, but I didn't think it was enough to catch the Seattle bid at this stage. Thought it would have to be drawn out longer and placed before the full league ownership. I'm also surprised to see them rebuke their own members; clearly the Maloofs wanted the sale to go through to the Seattle group, but their ownership brethren didn't follow their wishes.

Larry Coon, ESPN Insider: No. A lot of people jumped the gun and assumed the Seattle move was a foregone conclusion. But that's not the way the NBA works. The league's preferred option, all things considered, is to leave a franchise where it is. Just look at the Hornets -- the league took the extraordinary measure of purchasing the team in order to wait for a buyer who would leave it in New Orleans, rather than sell right away to a buyer who wanted to move it.

Kevin Pelton, ESPN Insider: I took David Stern at his word when he described this as an agonizing choice and a 50-50 decision. To that extent, the biggest surprise wasn't the choice but the unanimous nature of the vote by the relocation committee.

Marc Stein, ESPN.com: Not after the last 48 to 72 hours. For two reasons. (A) There were persistent rumblings over the weekend that all of the Sacramento money had checked out and thus nudged the group from the California capital back into the lead. (B) Jason Collins pretty much cornered the market on NBA suspense on this particular Monday.

Brian Windhorst, ESPN.com: Yes. I went back-and-forth here. First I thought it was surely going Seattle. Then the wind changed and Sacramento had momentum and energy. Then after the Board of Governors meeting, I shifted again because it was clear some owners weren't sure how solid the Sacramento financing was. Ultimately, I felt the owners would vote with their pocket. The Seattle group was more likely to pay into the revenue-sharing system while Sacramento is likely to be receiving money from fellow owners. Not to mention the free relocation fee money the owners would get from a Seattle move. But they didn't, they voted for loyalty.

2. Do you agree with the committee's decision?

Adande: No, because it's not in the league's best interests for the long term. Did you see the $2 billion local TV deal the Seattle Mariners just landed? That kind of money isn't available in Sacramento. If the city brings fewer TV sets to the league and lacks the local revenue-generating ability to help it be competitive financially, what's the benefit to the NBA?

Coon: Seattle deserves an NBA franchise, to be sure. And they'll get one in the future -- just not the Kings. As the incumbent, Sacramento deserved the opportunity to do all the things necessary to keep the team in town, which it appears they did. The committee made the right decision in recommending that the Board of Governors deny the team's request to move to Seattle.

Pelton: As a Seattleite, I'm obligated to say no. But that's simply an emotional response, and I would feel just as strongly the opposite direction were I in Sacramento.

Stein: I never liked the idea of taking the Kings away from Sacramento. Years of mismanagement of that franchise are what drove the crowds away after the early 2000s glory days, nothing else. So when Kevin Johnson found a way to get a group together so quickly that could basically match the sort of money that the Maloofs were promised in Seattle, I could see how hard it was for the league to turn its back on that community.

Windhorst: Yes. I'm from the Cleveland area and I personally felt the loss when the Browns left despite strong fan support and a promise to build a new stadium. I'm predisposed to fend for the little guy especially since there's a new building coming. Seattle is a better market and if you were placing an expansion team between the cities, you'd pick Seattle. But Sacramento did everything it could do to keep the team, something Seattle did not do in 2008.

3. If they stay, do you expect major changes for the Kings?

Adande: Absolutely. The new owners overpaid for a fixer-upper. You better believe they won't do some remodeling. Geoff Petrie ate a lot of meals off those teams he put together around the turn of the century. He's about to get the tab. New GMs lead to new coaches and players. This can involve the roster, coaching, the front office or other areas.

Coon: Yes. This isn't just a relocation -- this is a sale to a new ownership group. The Kings haven't been in the playoffs since 2006, and that kind of track record is usually a precursor to sweeping changes. I doubt the new owners will leave the team to languish after setting a new standard for franchise sale prices and re-committing to the city of Sacramento. My guess is that the burning roster decisions -- such as whether to double down with mercurial center DeMarcus Cousins -- will be left to Geoff Petrie's successor.

Pelton: Yes. Petrie's contract is up, and it looks like both sides are ready to move on. Whoever replaces Petrie will probably want to bring in his own coach, which means wholesale changes in both the front office and on the sidelines. And given the number of important decisions to be made with Tyreke Evans a restricted free agent and Cousins eligible for a contract extension next fall, I think we'll see a different team on the court, too.

Stein: This has been the only certainty in the whole process over these past few months of limbo. There will be new owners of the Kings soon and they are going to clean house. New GM. New coach. They will be starting over completely from a basketball perspective and searching for the authority figure or two who has a shot at convincing Cousins to start taking the game seriously and stop wasting his prodigious talents.

Windhorst: Yes. It will be a cleaned house and perhaps close to a cleaned roster. I'm not sure how much of the Maloofs' meddling had to do with basketball decisions over the last few years but there were a number of unfortunate ones made. Petrie has an excellent draft record but he's whiffed on two very high picks in a row and his gamble on a third (Cousins) is shaky. That's crushing to that franchise. The coach has been a revolving door since the bad decision to fire Rick Adelman. Time to start over and aim for a turnaround when the new arena opens.

4. Do you expect Seattle to have a team within five years?

Adande: No. It's hard to get everything aligned as well as it was this go-round, and I don't see a better opportunity coming right up. The retention of the Hornets/Pelicans in New Olreans in addition to this Kings rescue shows the league does not want freewheeling relocation. There's no momentum for expansion -- nor should there be, coming off a season when eight teams won fewer than 30 games. The last thing the NBA needs is more talent dilution.

Coon: Seattle will once again be the home of an NBA franchise, of this I am certain. I'm just not so sure about the five-year timetable. It isn't that I'm not expecting to see teams relocate in the near future -- on average, a team moves every 2.3 years, and four teams have permanently relocated since 2000 alone. But there are lots of cities pining for an NBA team of their own. Seattle will have certain advantages with a new arena in place, but the decision has more to do with where owners want their teams to play.

Pelton: Yes, more likely than not. Stern has repeatedly gone out of his way to praise the strength of the Seattle ownership group, which puts them at the head of the list when and if a team does move. The next endangered team may not have the political will of Kevin Johnson to find local ownership and fund a new arena, which apparently saved the Kings.

Stein: I truly hope so because, like pretty much everyone else out there with any interest in the NBA, I think Seattle deserves one. But not through expansion. This league doesn't need even one more team ... and you have to know how seriously against expansion I am when I'm likewise protesting the concept of adding four overseas franchises to make my lifelong NBA-in-Europe dream come true. I know it looks bleak for Seattle right now, but let's see what happens. Don't think it's so outlandish to predict that a team or two can suddenly emerge as a candidate for relocation in the next half-decade when we presently see none.

Windhorst: Yes, as long as Chris Hansen and Steve Ballmer continue to want to own a team. They were willing to pay a record-setting price and have an arena deal in place. For the short term, I don't see expansion. Though don't think other owners didn't consider it, at their final offer of $550 million it would've been $18 million per team in an expansion payout. In another year or two, maybe the offer goes to $600 million. Trust me, they are quite popular with the other NBA owners -- they made the bid that increased the value of all of their teams. In the shorter term, the most ripe team to go after is the Milwaukee Bucks but their owner, Herb Kohl, is one of Wisconsin's favorite sons and I don't see him selling out his home state ever.

5. What insights about the NBA do you take from this decision?

Adande: If the politicians play along, the league will work things out for them. And that's the message the NBA wanted to send, in case other cities have any misgivings about funding arenas. It helped to have a former player in the mayor's office. The NBA didn't want Kevin Johnson to look bad after he made retaining the Kings his top priority. David Stern didn't want another team swapping cities in his final year as commissioner. You always hear people talking about how the pro game is a business. This time it was political.

Coon: That Stern still has a significant amount of pull. It's no secret he wanted to keep the team in Sacramento, but that required a lot of behind-the-scenes work with the city, the relocation committee and the other owners. This was mission accomplished, and reaffirmation of the power and influence he continues to wield, even in his lame-duck year. But we're entering a new era as the torch passes from Stern to Adam Silver -- I don't know if the commissioner's office will have the same pull with the league's owners in the future.

Pelton: Smaller, single-team markets have historically been good to the NBA -- think Portland (pre-MLS, at least), San Antonio and Utah. And Sacramento, for that matter. By passing on the opportunity to move to a bigger market, the NBA has reinforced the value of these markets to the league.

Stein: Let's just say that I never bought the notion that Stern was just going to sit this one out and let the owners make this decision. We apparently had it way wrong with those forecasts that Stern desperately wanted a team in Seattle before the end of his tenure, because it sounds as though he was almost as important to Sacramento's tremendous rally as Mayor Johnson. Stern has historically been strongly opposed to the concept of relocation, views each past relocation as a failure for the league and, by all accounts, was stressing behind the scenes that Sacramento should get every chance to keep the Kings even after all of ups and downs with the Maloofs over the past five years.

P.S. -- One veteran observer of these matters and this saga in particular warned me Monday night that he wouldn't be surprised at all if something went haywire again -- most likely with Sacramento's arena deal -- to drag Seattle back into the game one more time. After what we've witnessed on the Kings' front since January, I think I'm going to heed that warning.

Windhorst: Stern's days as boss may be numbered, but the man is still in full control. He was upset when it was reported he was favoring the Sacramento bid, denying he did. But there is no doubt he did plenty to buy Johnson time to get an offer together and greased the wheels a bit for the Sacramento group. He's not a billionaire and technically he works for the owners but he's always had all the power and he still does.

jujug

Greatest
Avatar du membre
18927

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par jujug » 07 mai 2013, 19:25

AiR1 a écrit :KJ a du leur graisser la patte, je ne vois que ça.
Pas tout à fait mais presque apparemment. C'est sûr que les propriétaires votants ont du être sensibles à l'attention. ;)
"Some people did not like this ceremonial style. But after all when you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite." (W. Churchill, déclaration de guerre au Japon, 8 décembre 1941).

AiR1

Jedi
Avatar du membre
SuperSonics
Sydney
7954

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par AiR1 » 07 mai 2013, 19:49

magouille, magouille...

KJ7

Kings
Avatar du membre
Superteam just young
2700

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par KJ7 » 07 mai 2013, 21:08

No rage mec!

AP_H

Rookie
Avatar du membre
Die-Hard Knicks Fan
13

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par AP_H » 07 mai 2013, 21:55

Je me demande ce qui est pire pour un supporter : voir son équipe perdre tous ses matchs et perdre tout espoir de progression, ou ne plus avoir d'équipe à supporter comme les fans des Sonics ...
Dommage de batailler entre ces 2 belles franchises!

Shoot-on-you

Franchise Player
Avatar du membre
2125

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par Shoot-on-you » 08 mai 2013, 15:41

En tout cas les Kings peuvent faire faire une statue à Kevin Johnson .

KJ7

Kings
Avatar du membre
Superteam just young
2700

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par KJ7 » 09 mai 2013, 16:38

Micky Arison (proprio du Heat) a expliqué son vote, d'être contre le déménagement des Kings:


You don't get it. We are voting to leave Sac or not. I love Seattle and will support a team there but honestly you are making it harder to support you. ... The question before the committee is "Has Sac done all it should to keep the team?" The answer is yes. It's not a vote about Seattle. ... If Seattle -- especially local politicians -- had done what Sac's done a move to OKC would never have been approved. ...
[Seattle guy says the city did step up with Ballmer's KeyArena renovation plan] ... Sorry, but you're wrong. Ballmer never stepped up in 2008 and the issue was the turning down of the arena project to Schultz and Bennett over many years. ... Another market move is more likely but expansion will be considered after the next TV negotiations. ... [The Ballmer 2008 plan] was unacceptable to the league and they knew it.

Bob

Sophomore
Avatar du membre
SuperSonics
760

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par Bob » 11 mai 2013, 08:53

Ballmer a trouvé 75M dans la poche de son slip kangourou et augmente donc encore l'offre de Seattle...
Le groupe de Sactown n'a encore bloqué que 50% d'une offre déjà inférieure à la base.

Les proprios vont ils refuser l'explosion de la valeur des franchises NBA jusqu' au bout ?

AiR1

Jedi
Avatar du membre
SuperSonics
Sydney
7954

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par AiR1 » 11 mai 2013, 10:46

Si avec ça, les proprio ne plient pas..
Mais quand on résume, Hansen est prêt à doubler (oui, doubler) la valeur de la franchise par rapport à son estimation en 2012 (environ $300M), je me demande s'il n'est pas juste en train de faire un investissement à perte juste pour ce projet.
In an effort to further demonstrate the extent of our commitment to bring basketball back to Seattle, we have elected to voluntarily increase our proposed purchase price for the Sacramento Kings NBA Franchise by $75 million — from an enterprise value of $550 million to $625 million. In conjunction with our revised offer, we have also guaranteed to the NBA that the Franchise would be a revenue sharing payer in all years in Seattle.

We would also like to take the opportunity to again point out just how far ahead our Arena project is:

The ownership group has acquired 100% of the property necessary to construct the Arena.
We have 100% of our private financing for the Arena committed and in place.
After being approved by the City and County Councils the Arena MOU/legislation was signed into law by the Seattle Mayor and King County Executive on October 16, 2012. The referendum period expired 30 days later.
We engaged our Arena architects two years ago and have completed our detailed design schematics and costing.
We have filed for our Master Use Permit and are well underway with the Environmental Review Process, which we expect to conclude late this year.

While we appreciate that this is a very difficult decision for the league and owners, we hope it is understood that we really believe the time is now to bring the NBA back to Seattle, and that it is paramount that we do everything we can to put Seattle’s best foot forward in this process.

Bob

Sophomore
Avatar du membre
SuperSonics
760

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par Bob » 11 mai 2013, 11:26

Il est à peu près acquis que ce groupe est prêt à encaisser une très mauvaise opération financière.
Ils en ont largement les moyens heureusement pour eux :)

Ça tremblera pas devant la luxury tax du côté de Seattle si les Sonics finissent par revenir ! Attention quand même la NBA est allée trop loin pour reculer comme ça, faudra sans doute un vrai couac côté sacramento pour justifier un revirement soudain

Easy

Hall of Famer
Avatar du membre
Windy City
29165

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par Easy » 11 mai 2013, 12:30

Mais c'est non remboursable non?
BULLS FOR LIFE <3
@eazyland
« les 6èmes hommes » podcast NBA dispo sur twitter/ facebook/ Apple podcast

Bibi

Rookie
19

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par Bibi » 11 mai 2013, 17:02

Bob a écrit :Ballmer a trouvé 75M dans la poche de son slip kangourou et augmente donc encore l'offre de Seattle...
Le groupe de Sactown n'a encore bloqué que 50% d'une offre déjà inférieure à la base.

Les proprios vont ils refuser l'explosion de la valeur des franchises NBA jusqu' au bout ?

Je ne pense pas que cette nouvelle offre soit formulée pour peser sur le vote.

Elle a à mon sens deux buts :

1. S’assurer du soutien de la Famille Maloof dans le cadre d’une assignation judiciaire (100 millions de dollars de différence entre les deux offres).
2.Parvenir à constituer une violation manifeste de la loi antitrust lors non-approbation de la vente par la NBA.

Tout dépendra de la question posée… de l’angle sous laquelle l’affaire sera abordée par les propriétaires.

On sait déjà que Mark Cuban votera en faveur de Seattle. Il aura le mérite de poser le débat :)

DaV'z

Expert
Avatar du membre
Vice City
23629

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par DaV'z » 11 mai 2013, 19:10

Bob a écrit : Attention quand même la NBA est allée trop loin pour reculer comme ça, faudra sans doute un vrai couac côté sacramento pour justifier un revirement soudain

Oui enfin si les investisseurs de SacTo payent que 50% de ce qu'ils ont promis, ça va être vite régler...

Bob

Sophomore
Avatar du membre
SuperSonics
760

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par Bob » 12 mai 2013, 09:51

Un plan B serait en place...

Si refus de la vente globale il y a, les Maloofs refuseraient la vente à des investisseurs locaux et choisiraient plutôt la vente de 20% de leurs part à Ballmer/Hansen histoire de garder temporairement le contrôle tout en faisant entrer le loup dans la bergerie.

À noter aussi que le groupe de Seattle promet 4 fois plus d'argent aux autres proprios que lors du déménagement vers Okc avec presque 120M versés comme frais de déménagement.

Ils sont en mode all-in là :
- Offre incroyablement supérieure à la rivale avec montants record à tout les étages
- Maloofs totalement dans la poche
- Plan B bien glauque en place

À mon sens ya de quoi réfléchir pour les proprios et effectivement du solide aussi si ça se terminé en guerre nucléaire avec procès...

D.Rose1

All Star
Avatar du membre
Windy City
7921

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par D.Rose1 » 12 mai 2013, 11:09

vive les malhoofs!!
Gamertag XOne : mord28
Lebron - Kobe - MJ - Duncan - Olajuwon

Flopatey

MVP
Avatar du membre
Bleed Green
10544

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par Flopatey » 12 mai 2013, 11:14

Ouais, qu'ils en finissent avec cette histoire et qu'ils retournent à Seattle, comme ça on en parle plus :)

DaV'z

Expert
Avatar du membre
Vice City
23629

Re: Sacramento Kings 2012/2013

Message par DaV'z » 12 mai 2013, 14:11

Perso, j'aimerais beaucoup que les Kings restent a SacTo mais revoir les Sonics me ferait tellement plaisir. Si seulement les Bucks pouvaient disparaitre...