NBA votes NO to Kings move to Seattle

[wildturkey]

Issue just got more complicated. Maloofs just cut a back up deal with Seattle. The basics: If the League doesn't approve the team to move, they won't sell the team AT ALL. Instead, they'll sell 20% to the Seattle group.

Sources -- Maloof family cuts new deal for Sacramento Kings - ESPN

 

[uncfan103]

They do? They have been ranked 27th or worse out of 30 teams the last 5 years in attendence.

Year/ Rank
2013- 30th
2012- 27th
2011- 29th
2010- 29th
2009- 30th

Sacramento routinely drew more fans than Seattle when both teams were in the league, even though Seattle had a larger arena.

 

[wazzu31]

Sacramento routinely drew more fans than Seattle when both teams were in the league, even though Seattle had a larger arena.

Stats to back that up? From 92-00 I recall Seattle being top 5 in attendance. There was a drop when Clay Bennett took over because he hiked ticket prices and refused to honor season tickets holders contract, hence their lawsuit against his ownership group.

I hate the fact that Seattle is trying to take a team from another city but the more and more David Stern shows he cares about his buddies more than it grows pathetic. He didn't give the city of Seattle a chance at anything, the sell went smoothly even though their were minority owners who offered about the same value as the Sac group is offering. Bennett overpaid for the franchise's value yet Hansen and Ballmer are not allowed to?

I truly hope Sacramento keeps their team and David Stern get's struck by lightening.

 

[Banned 10x]

Today is D-Day, unless, of course, Stern gives Sacramento more time by delaying the vote....

Anybody have any thoughts? Do you think the owners side with the relocation committee and just say "no".

 

[wildturkey]

I think they'll vote to keep the team in Sacramento. The NBA really likes the idea of having a publicly financed arena. It'll complicate things though because it'll leave a decision up to the Maloofs of who to sell to. It makes no sense for the Seattle group to buy the majority of the team if they aren't allowed to move, but the Maloofs seem like they won't sell to the Sac group no matter what. So that makes for a sticky situation.


One thing that is related to this that bugs me when people discuss the topic is attendance. It's low on the totem pole if Sac can average 16,000 a night while say Seattle or any other city can only draw say 14,500. Seattle is a larger media market. That's the primary driving force for an NBA team's revenue. It's why the Lakers, Knicks, and Nets have stupid amounts of cash and why teams like the Bucks and Memphis have to support their teams via revenue sharing. So the argument that Sacramento is more ideal because it can draw better because its the only game in town is misleading. From a league wide standpoint, the NBA would be healthier overall financially with the Seattle market. But they're taking a stand with Sacramento because they've suckered them into publicly funding an arena. They want to set that precedent for future NBA teams. They'll say "see, if you put up cash for an arena, we won't move your team to Seattle (or another city)". The owners not having to pay out of pocket is more important to them personally than the overall league wide revenue.

 

[Banned 10x]

I think they'll vote to keep the team in Sacramento. The NBA really likes the idea of having a publicly financed arena. It'll complicate things though because it'll leave a decision up to the Maloofs of who to sell to. It makes no sense for the Seattle group to buy the majority of the team if they aren't allowed to move, but the Maloofs seem like they won't sell to the Sac group no matter what. So that makes for a sticky situation.


One thing that is related to this that bugs me when people discuss the topic is attendance. It's low on the totem pole if Sac can average 16,000 a night while say Seattle or any other city can only draw say 14,500. Seattle is a larger media market. That's the primary driving force for an NBA team's revenue. It's why the Lakers, Knicks, and Nets have stupid amounts of cash and why teams like the Bucks and Memphis have to support their teams via revenue sharing. So the argument that Sacramento is more ideal because it can draw better because its the only game in town is misleading. From a league wide standpoint, the NBA would be healthier overall financially with the Seattle market. But they're taking a stand with Sacramento because they've suckered them into publicly funding an arena. They want to set that precedent for future NBA teams. They'll say "see, if you put up cash for an arena, we won't move your team to Seattle (or another city)". The owners not having to pay out of pocket is more important to them personally than the overall league wide revenue.

yeah, I agree with you. I think the vote is to stay in Sacramento, but I definitely don't think it will be unanimous. Let's just hope out of all of this Seattle gets an expansion team in a couple years with the new TV deal for the NBA. If Seattle walks out of this with nothing then I don't believe the NBA will ever come back to Seattle.

 

[GiantsPackersChamps2011]

Just joining this thread now. NBA screwed up a long time ago. Could make everyone happy if they gave Seattle an expansion team, Kings stay in Sacto, Maloofs out.

 

[Banned 10x]

Just joining this thread now. NBA screwed up a long time ago. Could make everyone happy if they gave Seattle an expansion team, Kings stay in Sacto, Maloofs out.

This is the easiest way and makes everybody happy, but I guess the numbers just don't show that expansion is a viable option in the NBA's eyes.

 

[wazzu31]

Just joining this thread now. NBA screwed up a long time ago. Could make everyone happy if they gave Seattle an expansion team, Kings stay in Sacto, Maloofs out.

This whole thing would've been easier had Stern just A. either given OKC an expansion team when Sac and Seattle were still thriving cities or B. Just given OKC the Hornets but once David Stern had his mind made up to allow Charlotte to move to New Orleans he would stick by it.

As for expansion, that may sound good but Kansas City has been waiting for an expansion team for a decade and they have already met all the public funding ideals of the owners who are afraid of the precendent the Seattle deal would set with privatizing their arena.

Ideally, the teams stays in Sac and the Maloof's sue the NBA under the anti trust exemption. The city of Seattle sued MLB under the anti trust exemption and strangely enough the case was dropped and the Mariners magically arrived, Cleveland sued and strangely the Browns showed back up over LA. The only significant things that happen in sports comes when a lawsuit goes at the anti trust (free agency for example). From my perspective, the agreement the Maloof's signed about not suing the NBA is voided by the NBA forcing them into losing over 75 million in a sale when they have not filed bankruptcy.

 

[Banned 10x]

Early reports are saying the vote was 22-8 in favor of not moving the team.

 

[uncfan103]

Stats to back that up? From 92-00 I recall Seattle being top 5 in attendance. There was a drop when Clay Bennett took over because he hiked ticket prices and refused to honor season tickets holders contract, hence their lawsuit against his ownership group.

I hate the fact that Seattle is trying to take a team from another city but the more and more David Stern shows he cares about his buddies more than it grows pathetic. He didn't give the city of Seattle a chance at anything, the sell went smoothly even though their were minority owners who offered about the same value as the Sac group is offering. Bennett overpaid for the franchise's value yet Hansen and Ballmer are not allowed to?

I truly hope Sacramento keeps their team and David Stern get's struck by lightening.

Sacramento Kings (1948 - ) Attendance by Year

Seattle Supersonics (1967 - ) Attendance by Year

Sacramento has more attendance per year when both teams are in the league. Even if you take the best 20 years, Sacramento still wins.

 

[Banned 10x]

Sacramento Kings (1948 - ) Attendance by Year

Seattle Supersonics (1967 - ) Attendance by Year

Sacramento has more attendance per year when both teams are in the league. Even if you take the best 20 years, Sacramento still wins.

I don't think attendance matters at all. You'll see in the lean years both teams were down and in the good years both teams were up, happens in every city... there might be a couple of exceptions. Even when the Sonics were good lots of people might have went and seen The Yankees in town rather than a middle of the season Sonics vs Utah game.

 

[uncfan103]

I don't think attendance matters at all. You'll see in the lean years both teams were down and in the good years both teams were up, happens in every city... there might be a couple of exceptions. Even when the Sonics were good lots of people might have went and seen The Yankees in town rather than a middle of the season Sonics vs Utah game.

The kings sold out all but six years. Sacramento is the number one thing in town, they don't have other sports to compete with similar to OKC, which helps their attendance compared to Seattle.

 

[Banned 10x]

The kings sold out all but six years. Sacramento is the number one thing in town, they don't have other sports to compete with similar to OKC, which helps their attendance compared to Seattle.

Exactly, I think that's what I was trying to say

All I know is I went to about 15 games a year starting in 1995 and the place was always jumping, the restaurants around the arena were packed, never looked like there was any lack of excitement for the team.

 

[wazzu31]

Sacramento Kings (1948 - ) Attendance by Year

Seattle Supersonics (1967 - ) Attendance by Year

Sacramento has more attendance per year when both teams are in the league. Even if you take the best 20 years, Sacramento still wins.

So you're argument against my 92-00 doesn't hold water thank you. The Seahawks and Mariners have to do with when they both were in the league. Kings fans have been great, even the minor league team drew well.

Fan support is not the question nor was it when Bennett stole the Sonics. The whole ended like how it should, Kings fans deserve the team, Sonics fans deserve the Sonics and the Thunder fans deserve an expansion or the Hornets/Pelicans/whatever will finally get support once David Stern leaves office.

 

[uncfan103]

So you're argument against my 92-00 doesn't hold water thank you. The Seahawks and Mariners have to do with when they both were in the league. Kings fans have been great, even the minor league team drew well.

Fan support is not the question nor was it when Bennett stole the Sonics. The whole ended like how it should, Kings fans deserve the team, Sonics fans deserve the Sonics and the Thunder fans deserve an expansion or the Hornets/Pelicans/whatever will finally get support once David Stern leaves office.

You asked for stats backing up the fact that Sacramento drew more fans, and i did. I'm not sure why my "argument" doesn't hold water. My point about the Seahawks and Mariners was just agreeing with Banned X10 about there being other things to do in Seattle.

I never said the Sonics don't deserve a team, just that they don't draw as good as Sacramento.

 

[wildturkey]

I don't think expansion is an option. The league is doing just fine at 30. Nice even number with a good dispersal of talent. Yeah, some franchises suck like the Kings and Bobcats but that has more to do with poor management than it does a lack of available talent. Expanding to Seattle would give the West an extra team, so I would think to keep things even, they'd have to expand to one more city (KC, Louisville, who knows). 2 extra teams might be pushing it talent wise though. You're venturing dangerously close to watering everything down. The NBA boxed themselves in. Like someone said earlier, they either never should have let the Sonics leave or never made such a stern (pun intended) effort to keep the clearly failing Hornets in NO.

 

[wazzu31]

You asked for stats backing up the fact that Sacramento drew more fans, and i did. I'm not sure why my "argument" doesn't hold water. My point about the Seahawks and Mariners was just agreeing with Banned X10 about there being other things to do in Seattle.

I never said the Sonics don't deserve a team, just that they don't draw as good as Sacramento.

Because I gave you a specific time frame and that time frame you cited proved Sacramento did not outdraw Seattle every year as you stated.

Which is all moot point regardless.

I would just like to know what Sacramento did to piss off the Maloof's so bad? At least up here I know what pissed Schultz off so bad that he went behind everyone's back and sold it to an outside investor, I just can't fathom what Sac town did.

 

[wazzu31]

I don't think expansion is an option. The league is doing just fine at 30. Nice even number with a good dispersal of talent. Yeah, some franchises suck like the Kings and Bobcats but that has more to do with poor management than it does a lack of available talent. Expanding to Seattle would give the West an extra team, so I would think to keep things even, they'd have to expand to one more city (KC, Louisville, who knows). 2 extra teams might be pushing it talent wise though. You're venturing dangerously close to watering everything down. The NBA boxed themselves in. Like someone said earlier, they either never should have let the Sonics leave or never made such a stern (pun intended) effort to keep the clearly failing Hornets in NO.

Expansion is not a viable option for Seattle or the NBA. They like to say Sacramento "did all that was asked" well Kansas City has done all that NBA has asked and is on the wait list for an expansion team.

The facts are that Hansen and Ballmer are the epidemy of what any professional sports league wants. A precendent set that a city can have a privately funded arena regardless of what poor owner says his financial house is in. In total the entire Hansen/Ballmer deal was going to be 1.4 billion out of pocket, that is not something any business wants on the table when he goes and asks for public money.

 

[uncfan103]

Because I gave you a specific time frame and that time frame you cited proved Sacramento did not outdraw Seattle every year as you stated.

Which is all moot point regardless.

I would just like to know what Sacramento did to piss off the Maloof's so bad? At least up here I know what pissed Schultz off so bad that he went behind everyone's back and sold it to an outside investor, I just can't fathom what Sac town did.

Sacramento drew more fans from 92-00 than Seattle. Seattle had higher attendance during two of those seasons.