share

Kings Sold

chris_wuzhere
Registered User
Joined: 06/03/2012
Posts: 82
Points: 241
Offline
Kings Sold

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/16/5427622/kings.html
Ranadive and his group got the deal done with the Maloofs. Hopefully things pick up for the sad kings. Here's hoping they fire everyone and start fresh.


nick5354
nick5354's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/11/2011
Posts: 559
Points: 1443
Online
And then tomorrow there will

And then tomorrow there will be news that the team is going to Settle...

chris_wuzhere
Registered User
Joined: 06/03/2012
Posts: 82
Points: 241
Offline
League already voted against

League already voted against relocation so it's not an option.

Siggy
Registered User
Joined: 02/25/2012
Posts: 2926
Points: 5184
Offline
B-b-b-but the Maloofs HATE

B-b-b-but the Maloofs HATE Sacramento. They won't sell to a group from SAC...oh wait.

SportsNinja
Registered User
Joined: 11/20/2009
Posts: 180
Points: 626
Offline
You've had this stance, that

You've had this stance, that they were open to selling to Sac, through this entire "saga" and you've been wrong. They were FORCED to sell to the Sac group, they didn't want to. They tried everything they could to not sell to Sac and you have ignored that the entire time.

Siggy
Registered User
Joined: 02/25/2012
Posts: 2926
Points: 5184
Offline
They're the owners. They

They're the owners. They weren't forced to sell to anyone. They were open to selling to the highest bidder, which was not the Sacramento group. Once the SEA deal got voted down, they took the lesser deal.
The Maloofs favoring the SEA deal had nothing to do with the Maloofs "hating" Sacramento.
That was always such a pea brained argument. It was always about the money.

SportsNinja
Registered User
Joined: 11/20/2009
Posts: 180
Points: 626
Offline
Again, you're just wrong.

Again, you're just wrong. This isn't an opinion thing, I'm not saying I disagree with your opinion. You are just completely wrong in what you think happened.

Siggy
Registered User
Joined: 02/25/2012
Posts: 2926
Points: 5184
Offline
Great argument. What happened

Great argument.
What happened to all the "spite" and "hate" that the Maloofs had for the city of Sacramento? It simply went away in less than a day after the SEA deal got voted down?

Yeah right. All the hate talk was just a stupid argument to inject more emotion into the situation. The Maloofs didn't need any extra help demonizing themselves, but in this instance they were greedy, not spiteful.

SportsNinja
Registered User
Joined: 11/20/2009
Posts: 180
Points: 626
Offline
I'm not arguing with you

I'm not arguing with you because you have your facts wrong and refuse to pay attention. We've already had the discussion, as you have had it with other people before as well. You are simply wrong. If you say 2 + 2 = 3, I can only tell you so many times it is 4, before it's pointless to explain it any longer.
I just said they were forced to sell. You completely ignore it, then ask why did they sell then? It's pointless to argue or explain to you what happened because you just don't want to listen. It makes it pointless to even talk to you about this.

Siggy
Registered User
Joined: 02/25/2012
Posts: 2926
Points: 5184
Offline
Owners are never forced to

Owners are never forced to sell. They OWN. It is THEIR decision to sell. That's like saying "fire" the owners. You cannot fire the owners.
If they were full of spite and hate for the city of Sacramento they could still have chosen not to sell. They played their cards right, strung it out for as long as they could and had both groups up their offers at the final moments. They might not have gotten THE highest offer that they could have gotten, but they still came out with the highest valuation ever for an NBA franchise, far exceeding anyone's expectations. All that talk about how the Maloofs would never sell to the SAC group because they hate the city, was nothing but dramatic BS.

SportsNinja
Registered User
Joined: 11/20/2009
Posts: 180
Points: 626
Offline
Actually owners can be forced

Actually owners can be forced to sell in a lot of different ways. In this case they had to sell to the Sac group because the NBA gave them no other real option. They own a franchise within a brand, they do not have full control over what they do with that franchise, nor should they. The NBA has teams in certain cities, they can't just leave whenever they want, it would ruin the brand in a number of ways.
If you think they played their cards right, you are as an astute businessperson as the Maloofs. They didn't play their cards right AT ALL. They got what they got, despite themselves.They barely made any money considering what they sold the team for.
Most people didn't say they would NEVER sell to the Sac group, they said they specifically didn't want to and would do anything they could not to. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. You can say it as many times as you want, you will ALWAYS be wrong.

Siggy
Registered User
Joined: 02/25/2012
Posts: 2926
Points: 5184
Offline
Actually no, they still

Actually no, they still reserved the right to not sell the team. So they weren't forced to do anything. Ultimately, it was THEIR decision to sell. The NBA can vote down deals, but they cannot force owners to sell.

Of course they played their cards right. They got the highest valuation for an NBA franchise, EVER. The higher bid getting voted down was out of their control.

SportsNinja
Registered User
Joined: 11/20/2009
Posts: 180
Points: 626
Offline
MAYBE they reserved the right

MAYBE they reserved the right to sell.

If they HAD to sell for personal money reasons they were basically told they would be selling to the Sac group or nobody else. Thus FORCED to sell to that group even though they fought against it.

If they were selling because they just got some tremendous offer from the SEA group and couldn't refuse, then they could have just kept the team and tried to sell again after Stern left. But they didn't. You say this is because they were fine with selling to Sac the entire time, I say you're wrong. All events and reports show that wasn't the case. So either they HAD to sell and were forced to sell to the sac group, or they didn't have to sell, but were then forced to to get them out of the league.

The higher bid getting voted down was not completely out of their control, had they not tried to ignore Stern and the league through the entire process they would have been much better off. Had they given Sac an opportunity from the start to buy the team they would have been better off. Had they made it clear they intended to sell, they would have had competing Sac offers and could have gotten more than they did. If they played their cards right they would have opened the selling to Sac, had Sac not made a good enough offer, then they could have reached out to other investors. If they played their cards right they wouldn't look like complete tools to the rest of the league and the country. Nobody will want to work with them. They certainly didn't play their cards right.

You argued before, I believe, that they had always made it clear they wanted to sell. Which again is false. They had denied previous overtures from Ron Burkle without even negotiating, saying they didn't want to sell. You will get a better price if you let it be known something is for sale.

By saying they were willing to sell to Sac the entire time you ignore the many reports they were trying to move the team as soon as they bought them. You ignore the talks about moving to Vegas, Anaheim, and VA Beach. You ignore them backing out of a couple of arena plans, one of which they had agreed to and was negotiated by the NBA. You ignore them not working with the Sac group at all.

While I can't say why they were so against selling to Sac, that part hardly matters. I can say it was very clear they did everything they could not to, until they were defeated into doing it. The NBA isn't about being able to sell your team to the highest bidder. It's about finding the highest bidder that is willing to keep the team in the city it's in, if that city is doing what it can to keep them. Otherwise teams would move as soon as a city hit a recession, or when a new city wanted a team, or as soon as they could get a new arena, even if the old arena is 15 years old.

Sometimes the best interest of the individual owner is not in the best interest of the brand. Sometimes the decisions of an individual owner are bad decisions and would hurt the league. That's why there is a best interest of the league clause. McDonalds doesn't allow their franchisees to do whatever they want, it's no different here.

Siggy
Registered User
Joined: 02/25/2012
Posts: 2926
Points: 5184
Offline
It's not a maybe. They were

It's not a maybe. They were the owners. They determine whether they are going to sell or not. No outside forces can force them to sell.

Of course it would be stupid of them not to sell given their financial situation, just like it would be stupid for them NOT to sell to a SAC group with Burkle's name attached to it if they were offering the the same agreed upon 535mill in the end. Who cares what happened 2 yrs ago when the Maloofs were looking for a cash windfall without having to give up controlling interest. Do you honestly think that the Maloofs would rather sit on that asset instead of selling it for a record valuation? Doubt it. If Burkle and his group saw the negotiations til the end instead of bowing out last month, it would've been HIS name being attached to Kings ownership instead.

Do you know how you raise the price on an asset? You create a bidding war. And that is exactly what happened. If they played their cards right they would have listened to the highest bidder first and that's exactly what they did. Throughout the whole process, the SEA was the one willing to spend more money. Til the very end they were the group who was offering the higher bid. They didn't get outbid, they just got voted down.

It would make no sense for the Maloofs to continue sitting on a losing asset with a record valuation staring them in the face. Not with their lost goodwill in the city of SAC. With the amount of money that the SEA group was willing to put up, the idea of expansion sounds more intriguing to the NBA. The price that the SEA group was willing to pay would raise the value of every franchise in the league. The more intriguing expansion sounds, the less intriguing relocation sounds which could mean lesser offers in the future.

Them trying to move the franchise had everything to do with them receiving money without giving up controlling interest. It had nothing to do with the Maloofs "personal vendetta" vs the city of Sacramento. Now if a group is willing to pay big money for their controlling interest why should the Maloofs give a sht where the team ends up? The team wouldn't be theirs anymore. They'd have no continued investment. Furthermore, since the Maloofs were selling their controlling interest and their stake in the NBA, they shouldn't give a sht what's good for the NBA either. They were looking to make the most money that they could, that's it. This whole ordeal wasn't a Maloof personnel vendetta or "hatred (rofl)" towards any one group, which is the sexy narrative that people chose to believe. This was them exercising their right to try to get the most money that they can. That's capitalism for you.

SportsNinja
Registered User
Joined: 11/20/2009
Posts: 180
Points: 626
Offline
"Do you know how you raise

"Do you know how you raise the price on an asset? You create a bidding war." Actually you create a bidding war with people that are most likely able to buy the team. It was stupid of them to deal ONLY with SEA. You create a bidding war by taking offers. They took one offer and only wanted to deal with that group the entire time. The Sac offer was submitted to the NBA not the Maloofs. The Sac team dealt with Stern not the Maloofs. YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST YOURSELF AND YOU DON'T EVEN REALIZE IT! !

"Now if a group is willing to pay big money for their controlling interest why should the Maloofs give a sht where the team ends up?" They shouldn't but they did. Again you are just repeating yourself. And you are still wrong.

"Furthermore, since the Maloofs were selling their controlling interest and their stake in the NBA, they shouldn't give a sht what's good for the NBA either." Can you not comprehend anything that has been written? I JUST SAID that sometimes individual owners will make bad moves, and moves that are not in the best interest of the brand, which is why the league has a clause allowing them to step in when they deem necessary.

"That's capitalism for you." Spare me the 3rd grade economics lesson.

Siggy
Registered User
Joined: 02/25/2012
Posts: 2926
Points: 5184
Offline
And the SEA group was a

And the SEA group was a realistic buyer. No it was not stupid to negotiate with SEA because they were always they were the team will to spend more money and in the end STILL were the group that was willing to spend more money. They drove up the price and the SAC group responded in kind by matching and then raising the price even more. How else do you think they eventually got to that 535 mill? That was SAC's re-raise.

The NBA was not the one buying or selling the team. The offers and counter offers ALL end up in the same place, at the lap of the Maloofs. They're the ones who had to agree to the sale, which they eventually did, not the NBA. The NBA was basically doing the negotiating for them. Do you honestly think that the Maloofs were completely in the dark while the NBA and the SAC group are discussing selling THEIR investment??

No the Maloofs didn't give a sht where the team went if they were losing controlling interest. They only cared where the team went if they remained owners. Do you think they give a sht now that the team is still in SAC? No, because they're busy counting their money. Amazing how all that supposed "ill will" against the city of SAC and the team being there was squashed in less than a day.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. The Maloofs didn't have to act according to anyone's interest but their own. That's exactly what they did the entire time. They played it out to the deadline and got a huge payout.

Spare me with your BS. Not giving a sht about where an asset goes after its no longer in your control is common f'ing sense.

SportsNinja
Registered User
Joined: 11/20/2009
Posts: 180
Points: 626
Offline
You obviously have no clue as

You obviously have no clue as to what happened or the order in which it happened. Again, if you think 2+2=3 and refuse to believe it's 4, there's no point in talking to you. You're just wrong. Your facts are wrong. Sometimes you even contradict your own opinion.
The offers DO NOT end up in the laps of the Maloofs. Another thing in which you are WRONG. They end up in the laps of the other owners, thus a vote. I don't know how you don't know that. Of course they weren't in the dark, but the Sac group was dealing with Stern, not the Maloofs. This point alone contradicts essentially everything you have been arguing. AGAIN, YOU'RE JUST PLAIN WRONG.
"No the Maloofs didn't give a sht where the team went if they were losing controlling interest. They only cared where the team went if they remained owners. Do you think they give a sht now that the team is still in SAC? No, because they're busy counting their money. Amazing how all that supposed "ill will" against the city of SAC and the team being there was squashed in less than a day." WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. You keep saying the same thing, you've said this almost verbatim in an earlier post. It was wrong then, it's wrong now, it'll be wrong forever. So keep on repeating yourself if you wish, you're still wrong.
"The Maloofs didn't have to act according to anyone's interest but their own." WRONG again. They have to consider the leagues interest. They own a franchise within a larger brand, but you refuse to acknowledge that, even though I've said it several times.
"Not giving a sht about where an asset goes after its no longer in your control is common f'ing sense." At least this comment makes sense for the most part. Some people do care, want to make sure it ends up in hands that will continue to nurture it. But in general this statement is correct, which is why, nobody understands why the Maloofs did everything they could to not sell to the (or any other) Sac group.
Each one of your arguments are terrible, but at this point you're mostly just repeating yourself. I won't respond to your next reply unless it contains anything different. So if you want to get the last word in, feel free, it will be wrong anyway.

Siggy
Registered User
Joined: 02/25/2012
Posts: 2926
Points: 5184
Offline
Of course the offers end up

Of course the offers end up in the laps of the Maloofs. Who do you think ultimately has to agree to and has the final say in the offer? The Maloofs. The NBA didn't sell the franchise. They didn't sign the dotted line to seal the deal. The Maloofs did.

I can do the same thing you're doing. What you're saying is wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG. You can keep repeating yourself verbatim as well. Doesn't make you right. The Maloofs sold the Kings to the SAC group without any hesitation after the BETTER deal was voted down. No further negotiation. No batting an eyelash. No nothing. Doesn't sound like a move that a person with a personal vendetta or "hatred" for a city would do. Sounds like a move someone who wants his money and doesn't care what happens to the asset would do. What was important to them was maximizing the return on their investment and they came out with a record valuation.

No the Maloofs were looking to be OUT of the business, which means they were looking to be OUT of the NBA as well. They were looking to have no further continued investment in either the team or the NBA. Just like in the negotiating the sale, they only had to act in THEIR best interests. The vote is out of their control. As a businessperson selling your own personal assets, your duty is to be self-serving first and foremost.

Of course people with common business sense would see why the Maloofs would negotiate with the SEA group. They proved to the very end that they were willing to spend the most money.

Kayjay
Kayjay's picture
Registered User
Joined: 01/15/2011
Posts: 1087
Points: 2036
Offline
OMG

THANKYOU SO MUCH, FINALLY! &$#%#&@! THOSE &$#%#&@!,THEY WERE THE WORST OWNERS IN NBA HISTORY. (probably worse ones out there)

They pretty much ran out of options. Now its time for the Kings to finally get to work this off season. Clear out that damn front office and make a decision on hiring people. Keeping Geoff Pettrie would kind of anger me honestly. But getting rid of Keith smart would make me feel much better.

tyhchs
Registered User
Joined: 06/26/2009
Posts: 33
Points: 64
Offline
ok I'm not exactly caught up

ok I'm not exactly caught up but why were the Maloofs soo dead set on trying to sell the franchise to the Seattle Group. All I've heard is that they hated Sacramento but don't understand why?

Siggy
Registered User
Joined: 02/25/2012
Posts: 2926
Points: 5184
Offline
They were dead set on making

They were dead set on making the most money they could from the sale. It never had anything to do with them hating Sacramento. Only biased media, people who had an emotional investment in this ordeal and simple minded folk actually believed that crap. Funny how the "hate" went away as soon as the more lucrative deal got voted down.

Hitster
Hitster's picture
Registered User
Joined: 08/17/2010
Posts: 3526
Points: 2589
Offline
Great news for the city of

Great news for the city of Sacramento, if they get a good draft pick this year they can hopefully start to move forward and with a new Arena now more likely, the franchise's future looks a lot better than it did under the Maloof's. All Mayor Kevin Johnson's hard work has finally paid off.

For the city it was important to keep the franchise as it is a boost to the local economy and if they had moved then apart from the job losses and the money it would have taken out of the local economy the city would have suffered a lot of negativity

RSS: Syndicate content