Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 36 of 67 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 526 to 540 of 1003
  1. #526
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    568
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by JLynn943 View Post
    Seriously? That's obviously ideal, I just hadn't heard anything suggesting expansion was even a possibility.
    David Stern spoke about expansion during the BoG meeting at the end of last October. When asked specifically about whether or not expansion was possible for Seattle, he had the following to say:

    Stern:

    What I would say is I wouldn’t preclude it. We have something a relocation committee that is going to have on its list of authorities to focus on, consider and report to the board on whether expansion is recommended or not.
    http://www.cowbellkingdom.com/2012/1...nd-sacramento/

    So I don't know where people are getting this "relocation is an absolute impossibility" sentiment. It's not impossible at all. The Commish said it himself. While Stern may have shied away from any definite statement and, per usual, deferred the focus of the responsibility to the appropriate committee, he still has a hand in, and a knowledge of all the subsections and governing boards of the NBA. Just the fact that he said, "I wouldn't preclude it..." means it's within the realm of possibility that Sac keeps the Kings and Seattle gets an expansion team. How likely that is to happen I have no idea; but to say there's no chance at all is just flat-out incorrect. If everyone involved on the Sac side are able to get their ducks in a row in enough time to make a competitive bid with a viable arena plan(funding included), then this really seems like the only logical solution where everyone would come out ahead.

    The NBA told us what we needed to do in order to keep the team. So far we've done, and continue to do all that has been asked of us. To allow the team to leave after all we've accomplished in order to prove ourselves worthy would be nothing short of Maloofian. As imperfect as the NBA is, I don't expect them to make Maloof-level bonehead decisions. Allowing the Kings to leave would be just that.
    You can never give up because quitting is not an option. No matter how dark it is or how weak you get, until you take that last breath, you must fight.”
    -Wayman Tisdale




  2. #527
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lincoln, CA
    Posts
    8,408
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Plague View Post
    Owners are not going to vote down the sale because AEG built their arena, or because Rick Adelman is their coach. The only way the Kings will stay in Sacramento is two fold. 1-the agreed upon sale itself has problems. 2-a reputable deal is matched and the new owners want to keep the team in Sacramento.
    That's why I used the word "speculation". Of course all those reasons for those franchises to vote down the sale is a little ridiculous.

  3. #528
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    568
    vCash
    1500
    **Attention anyone who wants to go to the game on Feb. 9th(Here We Buy Night), but cannot afford tickets!**

    If you aren't already aware, the folks over at Sactown Royalty are trying to sell this game out. But because the economy sucks, and we're the best fans in the world, people who cannot make the game are actually purchasing tickets for people who can go, but don't have the money. Yes, you read that correctly, people are essentially giving away free tickets to this game! All that is required is that you show up and be loud. Just check out the comment threads at StR and look for people offering tickets. You can even post something saying you'd like some tickets and someone will be sure to hook you up.

    Spread the word, guys. Let's fill this ***** up and show the NBA how viable a market this really is, and how much we truly support the Sacramento Kings!

    http://www.sactownroyalty.com
    You can never give up because quitting is not an option. No matter how dark it is or how weak you get, until you take that last breath, you must fight.”
    -Wayman Tisdale




  4. #529
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Andrew Luck's world
    Posts
    74,705
    vCash
    1500
    It's ******** that NBATV dropped the game. now it'l only be shown locally.
    "We earned this ****ing burn. It doesn’t matter how you get from A to B. Our goal at the beginning of this ****ing season is to win a ****ing World Series, and guess what, boys, we’re going to the ****ing dance." - The Reverend Hunter Pence


    <3
    "[He's] a really complete player... There's not really any weaknesses to his game." - Bill Belichick on Andrew Luck

  5. #530
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    568
    vCash
    1500
    ^Then we'll just have to MAKE people take notice.
    You can never give up because quitting is not an option. No matter how dark it is or how weak you get, until you take that last breath, you must fight.”
    -Wayman Tisdale




  6. #531
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lincoln, CA
    Posts
    8,408
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by sfgiants5518 View Post
    It's ******** that NBATV dropped the game. now it'l only be shown locally.
    Wow...... ********!!!!

  7. #532
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    178
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by KingsPhillies View Post
    **Attention anyone who wants to go to the game on Feb. 9th(Here We Buy Night), but cannot afford tickets!**

    If you aren't already aware, the folks over at Sactown Royalty are trying to sell this game out. But because the economy sucks, and we're the best fans in the world, people who cannot make the game are actually purchasing tickets for people who can go, but don't have the money. Yes, you read that correctly, people are essentially giving away free tickets to this game! All that is required is that you show up and be loud. Just check out the comment threads at StR and look for people offering tickets. You can even post something saying you'd like some tickets and someone will be sure to hook you up.

    Spread the word, guys. Let's fill this ***** up and show the NBA how viable a market this really is, and how much we truly support the Sacramento Kings!

    http://www.sactownroyalty.com
    We did all the same things in seattle before we lost our sonics we want a team but don't want you guys to lose yours. you guys had the craziest games i remember with bibby divac turkelou. the NBA wants something they'll screw you over. hopefully it works out for you

  8. #533
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lincoln, CA
    Posts
    8,408
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by 166471 View Post
    We did all the same things in seattle before we lost our sonics we want a team but don't want you guys to lose yours. you guys had the craziest games i remember with bibby divac turkelou. the NBA wants something they'll screw you over. hopefully it works out for you
    For the last ****ing time!!! The situation of the Sonics going to OKC is a totally different situation which is going on right now.

    Sorry, but I just don't have anymore patients for anybody coming in here and comparing the current drama to the past drama.

    Please, for ****s sake!!! Get educated on why the Sonics left and what the current situation is here in Sac before you make any comments about anything.

  9. #534
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    568
    vCash
    1500
    Right of First Refusal DOES exist...and seems to be anything but a non-issue(contrary to popular belief). Anyone here understand legal jargon?

    This item was co-written by Aaron Bruski and James Ham

    The fight over the Sacramento Kings is building to a fever pitch.

    In one corner, Seattle-based investors led by hedge fund manager Chris Hansen and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer have entered into an agreement to purchase the Kings from the Maloof family with the intention of moving to Seattle.

    In the other corner, former NBA All-Star and Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson is moving comfortably toward an announcement of his equity partners, which will come at some time this week. Sources close to the situation have said that these owners will more than meet NBA criteria and be able to compete with or beat Seattle’s offer. Additionally, these owners will come to the table willing to pay their portion in an arena deal that was previously approved by the NBA, and sources say will be approved by the Sacramento City Council, as well.

    USA Today and the Sacramento Bee reported that big money guys Ron Burkle and Mark Mastrov were in serious talks with the city, and USA Today reported that Burkle met with David Stern in New York on Thursday, January 24th. PBT can confirm each of those reports.

    Since the Sacramento Bee’s report on the issue January 24, there has been speculation whether Kings minority owners have the “Right of First Opportunity” to purchase the team from the Maloofs.

    Looking at the club’s governing documents, they well may.

    NBC ProBasketballTalk has acquired a copy of the Kings’ 1992 ownership agreement and an addendum to the original agreement from May of 2003. While a 1991 version of this document has also made media rounds over the last two weeks, we have verified through sources that the 1992 copy is the definitive agreement governing ownership rights and obligations of the Kings franchise and that the 2003 addendum specifically clarified any confusion regarding the Right of First Refusal, amongst other pending issues.

    Article VII of the original agreement, “Transfer of Partnership Interests” starts off in Section 7.1 “Restrictions on Transfer” with the basic tenet that, “…no sale, assignment, transfer, encumbrance or hypothecation (herein referred to as a “Transfer”) shall be made by a Partner of the whole or any part of its or his Partnership interest (including, but not limited to, its or his interest in the capital or profits of the Partnership).” Section 7.2 permits certain specified sales to “Affiliates,” which in theory covers sales to essentially the same ownership (more on “Affiliates” below).

    A little further down in Article VII, Section 7.3 spells out the right of first refusal in plain legalese.

    Section 7.3. Right of First Opportunity.

    Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7.1 hereof, if a Partner desires to assign all or part of his or its interest in the Partnership and such assignment is not specifically permitted under Sections 7.2A or 7.2B above, then the assignment shall be subject to the right of first opportunity hereinafter described in this Section 7.3. Before a Partner (the “Selling Partner”) actually concludes a sale of its interest in the Partnership subject to this Section 7.3, the Selling Partner shall give notice to (a) the General Partner and each other Limited Partner if the Selling Partner is a Limited Partner, and (b) to each Limited Partner if the Selling Partner is the General Partner (such Partner or Partners other than the Selling Partner being individually and collectively herein called “Non-Selling Partner”) setting forth the purchase price for which it will offer such Partnership interest for sale (which purchase price must be payable entirely in cash or part in cash and the balance pursuant to one or more promissory notes).

    Section 7.3 further adds that a “non-selling partner” must step forward with its right to match within 30-days notice of the team’s sale. When that authority is exercised, the minority owner would have a 45-day window to complete a purchase.

    The language is clear, but perhaps the Maloof family is counting on an earlier clause:

    Section 5.3. Limitations on Authority of the General Partner.

    Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 5.1 and 5.2 hereof:

    A. The following decisions shall require the approval of Partners then holding Partnership Percentages aggregating at least 65%:

    (1) The moving of the Team from the Sacramento area to another City prior to February 1, 2002;

    (2) The sale of all or substantially all of the Partnership Property

    Section 5.1 details the “Authority of the General Partner.” It includes language giving the majority owner “exclusive authority to manage the operations and affairs and to make all decisions regarding the Partnership and its business…”

    Section 5.2 addresses the “Sale or Financing of Partnership Property.” It includes clear language stating “the General Partner shall have the sole and unrestricted right to and discretion to determine all matters in connection with any sale of the partnership Property or any part thereof…”

    In layman’s terms, sections 5.1 through 5.3 establish the potential for a super-majority in the franchise’s decision-making authority. By reaching a 65-percent threshold of controlling interest, the Maloof family and partner Bob Hernreich have accomplished that by purchasing minority shares during the last decade.

    While this all seems alarming for the Kings’ minority owners, it is not the end of the story. Nowhere in Sections 7.1 through 7.3 is an exception carved out protecting Section 5.3 and the Maloofs super-majority clause from the right of first opportunity. This means that while the Maloofs’ have the right to sell and/or relocate without minority approval, they don’t have the right to sell any portion of their interest in the club without first giving the limited partners a chance to match.

    As attorneys do, how an attorney may interpret the document may depend on who is paying their bills. And a judge may get to make the final call.

    The 2003 Addendum goes even a step farther, not only clarifying the situation, but stripping the “Affiliate” language that sources tell PBT may have provided a small loophole for a transfer of the team’s majority share while circumventing the rights of the minority owners. According to a source with intimate knowledge of the situation, the proposed addendum was signed and executed in May of 2003 and included implementation of the following:

    2. Partners Right of First Refusal

    To clarify the issue of First Right of Refusal on purchase of partnership shares, the following is a proposed amendment to the Partnership Agreements:

    A. Partner’s Proposal to Transfer. If a Partner proposes to sell, assign, or otherwise dispose of all or any part of the Partner’s Interest, however it is held, i.e. whether or not the interest is owned directly by it, or through another entity, individual, etc. (Hereafter “Such Interest”), then the Partner (“Selling Partner”) shall first make a written offer to sell such Interest to the remaining Partners, pro rata (as not all of the other Partners are required to participate in the purchase) based on their then ownership positions in the Partnership. The price, terms and conditions shall be as mutually agreed by the parties.

    The following section goes on to detail that in the case of a third-party offer, the minority owners retain their right of first refusal for 60 days after receiving the selling Partner’s written notice and it finishes with this definitive statement:

    “No Partner shall sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of their Interest, even if owned through a different entity and it is the purported different entity selling all or a portion of itself within the holder of the Interest, except in accordance with the provisions of this Article.”

    According to multiple sources, a Notice of Transfer has not been submitted to the minority ownership group.

    There is one more note of interest in Section 3 of the 2003 Addendum titled “Sale of an Interest in the General Partner”:

    “Any offer received by the General Partners to purchase a portion, or all, of their interest, which was not purchased by the Limited Partners pursuant to their Right of First Refusal, would be considered an offer to purchase that percentage of the total entity.”

    Meaning, that if the Maloofs sell their interest to the Hansen-Ballmer group for the reported $525 million and the minority owners do not take up the Right of First Refusal, Hansen and Ballmer would be required to purchase a proportional stake of the minority share as well.

    We aren’t looking at $341 million (the Maloof and Hernreich 65-percent share), we would be looking at the entire $525 million. Although whether that sum would make the Seattle group even blink is up for debate.

    So the question now becomes, is there a minority owner who is willing to step up and invoke the Right of First Opportunity/Refusal? If so, can that owner come up with the financial backing to match the deal from the Hansen-Ballmer group? And lastly, will the NBA continue to back a Seattle deal that appears to have ignored the rights of minority owners?

    After these findings, it would be surprising if the NBA didn’t have some serious questions for the Maloofs and the Seattle group.
    http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...s-for-seattle/
    You can never give up because quitting is not an option. No matter how dark it is or how weak you get, until you take that last breath, you must fight.”
    -Wayman Tisdale




  10. #535
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    1,317
    vCash
    1500
    "....while the Maloofs’ have the right to sell and/or relocate without minority approval, they don’t have the right to sell any portion of their interest in the club without first giving the limited partners a chance to match.

    As attorneys do, how an attorney may interpret the document may depend on who is paying their bills. And a judge may get to make the final call."

    That's probably the most important part in the article. It's really going to come down to how it's interpreted. Who knows maybe the limited partners were given a chance & declined. Also, I don't see how they could match because I don't think any of the limited partners have the money to match. I just don't see how the ROFR will help Burkle/Mastrov buy the team which is what I thought it would do.

  11. #536
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Andrew Luck's world
    Posts
    74,705
    vCash
    1500
    Can the limited partners use outside funds to help match?
    "We earned this ****ing burn. It doesn’t matter how you get from A to B. Our goal at the beginning of this ****ing season is to win a ****ing World Series, and guess what, boys, we’re going to the ****ing dance." - The Reverend Hunter Pence


    <3
    "[He's] a really complete player... There's not really any weaknesses to his game." - Bill Belichick on Andrew Luck

  12. #537
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Arco
    Posts
    4,767
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by sfgiants5518 View Post
    Can the limited partners use outside funds to help match?
    Or can ROFR be passed on? IE the guy who owns 7% who went bankrupt and wanted to sell to Larry Ellison

  13. #538
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Andrew Luck's world
    Posts
    74,705
    vCash
    1500
    Maloofs tried to sell to a Mexico City group:

    Potential Kings Mexico City group actually attended a game here, in Maloof seats. In the end, NBA wasn't ready, and deal didn't work out.
    https://twitter.com/CarmichaelDave/s...63215471312898
    "We earned this ****ing burn. It doesn’t matter how you get from A to B. Our goal at the beginning of this ****ing season is to win a ****ing World Series, and guess what, boys, we’re going to the ****ing dance." - The Reverend Hunter Pence


    <3
    "[He's] a really complete player... There's not really any weaknesses to his game." - Bill Belichick on Andrew Luck

  14. #539
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    37,900
    vCash
    1500
    Ay! Caramba

  15. #540
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    1,317
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Sactown View Post
    Or can ROFR be passed on? IE the guy who owns 7% who went bankrupt and wanted to sell to Larry Ellison
    This would be perfect but I'm sure Hansen could buy that 7% percent himself. In my opinion I don't think the ROFR will do much except delay the whole sale. It's going to come down to Mayor KJ to form a solid investor group, arena plan, and have it be better than the Seattle offer. Basically put the NBA in a position where they don't have a reason to the move the team. Everything has to be PERFECT. In KJ we trust!

Page 36 of 67 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •