share

Report: Maloofs cut new deal with Seattle-based investors

220
220's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/30/2012
Posts: 1219
Points: 2901
Offline
Report: Maloofs cut new deal with Seattle-based investors

http://tracking.si.com/2013/05/11/maloofs-cut-new-deal-with-seattle-base...

Report: Maloofs cut new deal with Seattle-based investors

The Seattle-based investors trying to move the Sacramento Kings to that city struck a deal with the Maloof family, in which the family informed the other owners of the Kings that they will not sell the team to Sacramento-based group that promises to keep the team in Sacramento, reports ESPN.com.

The Maloofs not selling to the Sacramento group is contingent on the league rejecting a move to Seattle. The move is expected to be voted on next week.

The Maloofs have made a “backup” agreement with the Chris Hansen-Steve Ballmer group to sell them 20 percent of the team for $125 million to allow the Maloof family to continue to operate the franchise.

More from ESPN.com:

That new “backup” plan comes on the heels of Hansen’s announcement on Friday that he had upped his offer to buy the Maloofs’ 65 percent of the Kings to $409 million (from $358 million) for a total valuation of $625 million.

Sources said that new proposal also included a $115 million offer to owners as a relocation fee, which would amount to about $4 million per team. By comparison, in 2008 when the Oklahoma City Thunder moved from Seattle, they paid a $30 million fee to the other owners.
___________________________________________________

So either the Kings get sold and moved to Seattle or the Maloofs keep the team and the Seattle investors become minority owners. Do you think this will sway the NBA owners decision? I mean the fans obviously don't want the Maloofs to continue owning the Kings, but do the owners have the same feeling. I guess we'll find out when the final vote occurs.


IndianaBasketball
IndianaBasketball's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/09/2009
Posts: 12742
Points: 24162
Offline
Strong arm move by the

Strong arm move by the Maloofs

This is going to be interesting

220
220's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/30/2012
Posts: 1219
Points: 2901
Offline
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/9265605/sources-maloof-family-cuts-new...

Sources: Maloofs have backup plan

By Brian Windhorst | ESPN.com

The group trying to move the Sacramento Kings to Seattle is continuing to be relentless in its pursuit.

And the NBA could be listening.

Chris Hansen and Steve Ballmer, the deep-pocketed Seattle-based investors trying to acquire the team, have struck a new deal with the Kings' current owners, the Maloofs, that may create more drama in Sacramento and the league office.

Two sources told ESPN.com the Maloofs have informed their fellow owners that if their deal to sell and relocate the Kings to Seattle is not approved by league owners next week, they will not sell the team to a Sacramento-based group that promises to keep the Kings in Sacramento.

Instead, the cash-strapped Maloofs have made a "backup" agreement with the Hansen-Ballmer group to sell it 20 percent of the team for $125 million to allow the Maloofs to continue to operate the franchise.

That new "backup" plan comes on the heels of Hansen's announcement on Friday that he had upped his offer to buy the Maloofs' 65 percent of the Kings to $409 million (from $358 million) for a total valuation of $625 million.

Sources said that new proposal also included a $115 million offer to owners as a relocation fee, which would amount to about $4 million per team. By comparison, in 2008 when the Oklahoma City Thunder moved from Seattle, they paid a $30 million total fee to the other owners.

To consider these incredible new figures, the NBA relocation committee is planning to re-evaluate the Hansen-Ballmer offer and has scheduled another meeting ahead of next Tuesday's full owners meeting in Dallas, sources said.

Two weeks ago, that same committee voted unanimously to reject the relocation request to Seattle, and the full body of owners was expected to follow that recommendation. It appeared a prospective ownership group based in Sacramento had won and the team would stay long term.

Now, the Hansen-Baller's super-aggressive, cash-laden increased offer is apparently causing at least some reconsideration.

A league spokesman did not reply to a request for comment.

Just as with relocation, teams cannot sell minority shares without approval from league owners. It's questionable whether the owners would approve of a group that clearly wants the team to end up in Seattle to buy a large stake in a team they voted to be kept in Sacramento. But they also cannot compel the Maloofs to sell the team.

In the last three months, the NBA has negotiated its own backup plan for the Kings with a group led by Silicon Valley billionaire Vivek Ranadive. That group, which has changed its leadership several times, ultimately offered a valuation of $525 million for the Kings and brokered a deal with local governments to building a new arena with more than $250 million in public funds.

After studying the offers closely, the relocation committee ultimately decided that Ranadive and the city of Sacramento's offer was suitable. Ranadive, who has put 50 percent of the purchase into escrow, was hoping the owners also will green light his purchase when they settle the matter next week.

But the Maloofs' latest move with the Hansen-Ballmer group's new promises could throws all that into question again. The Maloofs have favored the Hansen deal the entire time and did not negotiate with Ranadive or the city of Sacramento involving the new arena.

The strategy is rather transparent. If the relocation bid is officially blocked, Hansen and Ballmer want a piece of the Kings so they could apply pressure on the city of Sacramento to execute an arena deal with them. The city and the Maloofs have failed to come to an agreement on a new arena several times in the past decade. If the Maloofs keep the team and an arena deal can't be reached, the franchise could apply for relocation again.

Several ownership sources told ESPN.com that there was some concern that Ranadive and the city of Sacramento could close and execute the deal for the new arena. Those concerns could be driving this last round of fighting by the Seattle group as it tries to sway owners who may not have fully made up their minds.

Throughout this tedious process, the Maloofs and the Hansen-Ballmer group have worked without involving the league office and powerful NBA commissioner David Stern. Meanwhile, the Sacramento group and Mayor Kevin Johnson have worked with Stern every step of the way. That partnership seems to have helped the city and Ranadive get into favorable position with other owners.

That trend has not stopped the Seattle group from pressing forward with these plans.
_______________________________________________________________

The ESPN article had some additional information so I posted that here.

marcusfizer21
marcusfizer21's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/09/2009
Posts: 2570
Points: 4773
Offline
...

call me ignorant but why are the Maloofs so desperate to move the Kings?

BasketBalAllan
BasketBalAllan's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/20/2009
Posts: 1119
Points: 3416
Offline
They hate the city, literally

They hate the city, literally hate it.

There is no other reason why owners would tell potential buyers that they would only sell to someone willing to move the team out of Sac, all while insisting to the city that the team is not for sale.

Siggy
Registered User
Joined: 02/25/2012
Posts: 2926
Points: 5183
Offline
They're desperate to sell to

They're desperate to sell to the highest bidder, which the Seattle group is.

BasketBalAllan
BasketBalAllan's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/20/2009
Posts: 1119
Points: 3416
Offline
If they were desperate to

If they were desperate to sell to the highest bidder they would have asked the committee to have Sac match the newest offer if they vote it down, they might have obliged. This backup deal is just another way to try and screw the city of Sac.

Siggy
Registered User
Joined: 02/25/2012
Posts: 2926
Points: 5183
Offline
If they were desperate to

If they were desperate to sell to the highest bidder they'd be doing exactly what they're doing. They don't have to ask the Sac group to match the offer, That should be a given.
The back up deal is just another way for the SEA group to sweeten the pot.

llperez
llperez's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/13/2009
Posts: 11961
Points: 11943
Offline
They hate sac and the feeling

They hate sac and the feeling is mutual. They absolutely want to see the team out of there. While they have the right to want the most money, they bought a team in Sacramento and the NBA has the right to push for the team to remain where it is even at the expense of the owners pocket book.

Siggy
Registered User
Joined: 02/25/2012
Posts: 2926
Points: 5183
Offline
I think that is BS. If

I think that is BS. If they're willing to sell the team, why should sell the team to a lower bidder? It's all about the money. They are cash strapped and are willing to wipe their hands clean of the team, giving up their controlling interest as long as they maximize their return. They will favor negotiating with whoever the higher bidder is. I also think its BS that in this capitalist society that owners can't try to maximize the return on their investment. Yes they are incompetent scumbags, but they have every right to try to get as much they can.

BasketBalAllan
BasketBalAllan's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/20/2009
Posts: 1119
Points: 3416
Offline
Because the team is part of

Because the team is part of another group that as a whole should have some say in the matter as well, what the Owners deem best for the NBA may not be what lines the Maloofs pockets the most. Who gives a $hit if the Maloofs are forced to sell their team for 150% of what its worth instead of 175% of what its worth when from the beginning they knew they did not have sole control to do w/e they wanted?

Siggy
Registered User
Joined: 02/25/2012
Posts: 2926
Points: 5183
Offline
I'll tell you who gives a

I'll tell you who gives a $hit. The Maloofs. It's their team, their investment. They are well in their rights to do everything they can to maximize their return.

SFGiants
Registered User
Joined: 02/02/2012
Posts: 19
Points: 31
Offline
If they wanted to max

If they wanted to max maximize their return, they wouldn't have signed an agreement to sell their shares without fielding competing offers. It doesn't make much sense to sell an asset to the first bid you like if your objective is to solely get the most out of your original investment.

Even when the Sacramento group matched the Seattle bid, the Maloofs reiterated they would not sell to the Sacramento group even though they would net the same amount in either case. Apparently, the Sacramento money is not good enough for them. Can you explain that to me?

Siggy
Registered User
Joined: 02/25/2012
Posts: 2926
Points: 5183
Offline
If they agreed to sell

If they agreed to sell anything and it was set in stone then there wouldn't be continued negotiations.

What do you think will happen if the Board votes down the Seattle offers, the Maloofs just won't accept any other offer out of spite? They've lost their good will in SAC, they've lost sponsors, who knows what would happen to the arena deal, they're bleeding money, the franchise in SAC under them is in terrible shape and they're already in debt to the NBA over 100 mill. You think they'll just say, "Hey, we'll just turn down the most lucrative offer for an NBA franchise, one that far exceeded any of our expectations to continue to lose money on an asset, continuing to build debt to the NBA...out of spite" Doubt that.

SFGiants
Registered User
Joined: 02/02/2012
Posts: 19
Points: 31
Offline
I don't think the Maloofs

I don't think the Maloofs will turn down an offer from Sac if it is the only standing offer after Hansen retracts his bid following rejecting from the BoG. You can't deny that throughout this entire process, the Maloofs have vehemently been against Sacramento. Even when Sacramento matched the Seattle offer, the Maloofs sent a letter to the league asking them to go forward with the Seattle offer even though the competing offer was dollar for dollar.

So far, they have only negotiated with one side, What does that tell you about getting the most bang for your buck?

Does that behavior reflect that of a group who only wants the highest dollar for their investment?

BasketBalAllan
BasketBalAllan's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/20/2009
Posts: 1119
Points: 3416
Offline
Why would you not ask the

Why would you not ask the owners to have the only other competing offer match the other offer you have? Then you would not need to try any partial ownership / short term deals. This is only possible when you do not hate the other party.

Siggy
Registered User
Joined: 02/25/2012
Posts: 2926
Points: 5183
Offline
If the competing group wants

If the competing group wants them to stop negotiating with the higher bidder, the onus is on THEM to up the ante to make it more attractive to the SELLERS instead of relying on a board vote so they can with with a lower bid.

As much as you hate the Maloofs, think about it from their perspective. Why should they settle for less?

BasketBalAllan
BasketBalAllan's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/20/2009
Posts: 1119
Points: 3416
Offline
When you are on the verge of

When you are on the verge of your current and larger deal falling through because you did not have the foresight to think things through, why not put in a simple request to the other owners who you feel are harming your bottom line? Why would Sac up the offer without the league telling them they need to? Think about it from their perspective...

Siggy
Registered User
Joined: 02/25/2012
Posts: 2926
Points: 5183
Offline
In competing bids, the onus

In competing bids, the onus is on the BUYERS to up the offer.
Why would SAC up their offer? To end negotiations. As long as there is a higher bid out there, the Maloofs will look to get that higher offer.

BasketBalAllan
BasketBalAllan's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/20/2009
Posts: 1119
Points: 3416
Offline
As long as the Seattle deal

As long as the Seattle deal still looks like it will be turned down by the NBA, why would Sac feel the need to up it? It does not matter which one the Maloofs prefer, it matters what the League prefers because they have the final say. Even if Sac matched the offer, as they did before Seattle raised it again, the Maloofs still said they would not sell to them, fairly strong evidence they hate the City of Sac.

Siggy
Registered User
Joined: 02/25/2012
Posts: 2926
Points: 5183
Offline
That's fine. SAC can stand

That's fine. SAC can stand pat and the Maloofs will continue to try to get the better deal, which they should.
It has nothing to do with hate. People with an emotional investment try to inject emotion into the situation when it's more simple that. It's all about money.

BasketBalAllan
BasketBalAllan's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/20/2009
Posts: 1119
Points: 3416
Offline
If it was all about the money

If it was all about the money the Maloofs would never have had a problem with letting a Sacramento investor buy the team, which they have stated was not going to happen multiple times. there is no other explanation for this statement, you can try and accuse people of injecting emotion into a situation supposedly devoid of it but that does not change the facts of what has happened.

Siggy
Registered User
Joined: 02/25/2012
Posts: 2926
Points: 5183
Offline
Why should they agree to sell

Why should they agree to sell when there is a better offer out there? They shouldn't.
If they can make a ton of money and retain a controlling interest, putting them in a position to make even more money on a eventual future sale then that's a great option for them as well. As horrible as they are, the Maloofs are sitting pretty as long as either group keeps upping their offer. Given the developments the past couple of days, it would behoove them to string this out as long as they can.

marcusfizer21
marcusfizer21's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/09/2009
Posts: 2570
Points: 4773
Offline
damn

I remember my first jersey ever... It was a Mike Bibby jersey from the Kings... My aunt used to live in Sacramento and now it is desperately being sold out by the Maloofs.. This isn't right...

RSS: Syndicate content