PDA

View Full Version : Seattle NBA Team Thread



Pages : [1] 2

ztilzer31
02-08-2012, 12:50 PM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nba/2017448885_arena08.html

There are other articles, but it looks like the Sonics are comming back.

KingPosey
02-08-2012, 12:56 PM
Good ****ing luck Seattle.

smith&wesson
02-08-2012, 01:07 PM
it be cool to have the super sonics back.

mgsports
02-08-2012, 01:08 PM
Never says anything about Kings moving yet.

ztilzer31
02-08-2012, 01:12 PM
We will know on March 1st. Someone from the times reported that the Kings moving to Seattle has a 70-30 chance and the Phoenix Coyotes have about a 50-50 chance.

DaVille
02-08-2012, 01:14 PM
The business side of the nba is cruel. Zero loyalty to anyone. It's has gotten worse now with new crop of Owners. My condolences Sacramento, but I'm happy SuperSonics are coming back.

HAWKS.NO27
02-08-2012, 01:22 PM
Id love for the city of Seattle to get their Super Sonics back! Its sad because they had a great fan base but couldn't get the arena settled back in the day! Remember watching my Bulls play them in the Finals of '95-'96. They had a squad to man!...Shawn Kemp, Gary Payton, Detlef Schrempf, Nate McMillian, Hershey Hawkins & Sam Perkins.

Be good to see the Green & Gold once again!

Randy West
02-08-2012, 01:23 PM
70/30 and it's a done deal huh?

Good luck getting an arena built and a team by next fall

GodsSon
02-08-2012, 01:27 PM
We will know on March 1st. Someone from the times reported that the Kings moving to Seattle has a 70-30 chance and the Phoenix Coyotes have about a 50-50 chance.

Why would the Coyotes move to Seattle when there are better markets available, like say, Quebec City?

Gritz
02-08-2012, 01:29 PM
lol

DerekRE_3
02-08-2012, 01:29 PM
If Sacramento gets an arena deal in place they are staying, and there's a decent chance of that happening.

mgsports
02-08-2012, 01:32 PM
KC/Tampa Bay/Anahiem and so on has Arena's in Place.

Tmath
02-08-2012, 01:40 PM
Here's an idea. Move the Kings to Seattle then move the Clippers to Sacramento, profit#.

ztilzer31
02-08-2012, 01:41 PM
Why would the Coyotes move to Seattle when there are better markets available, like say, Quebec City?

Maybe. The success of the Thunderbirds in Renton (about 20 mins out of Seattle a minor league hockey team) might convince the commissioner that Hockey would work well in Seattle. I think you underestimate the size of the Seattle market.

None of this is set in stone, but Arena will be built. David Stern has expressed interest as long as there is a guaranteed stadium. The Sonics have already payed for the lot. Now they just need to "pony up the doe" because congress won't let a bill pass that allows a stadium unless it creaes revenue for the city. The arena is being built no matter what because the city also wants one for political reasons.

Baller1
02-08-2012, 01:43 PM
:pray: :pray: :pray:

ztilzer31
02-08-2012, 01:45 PM
KC/Tampa Bay/Anahiem and so on has Arena's in Place.

David Stern has been very clear in the press that he wants to move a team to Seattle. He understands the market in seattle is huge. He's constantly said all they need is funds and a new arena.... Well, now they got the funds from an investor and the plans (needs to be a guarantee) to get a new arena. If the arena is GUARANTEED then they'll probably play a season in the Key Arena before moving.

GodsSon
02-08-2012, 01:48 PM
Maybe. The success of the Thunderbirds in Renton (about 20 mins out of Seattle a minor league hockey team) might convince the commissioner that Hockey would work well in Seattle. I think you underestimate the size of the Seattle market.

None of this is set in stone, but Arena will be built. David Stern has expressed interest as long as there is a guaranteed stadium. The Sonics have already payed for the lot. Now they just need to "pony up the doe" because congress won't let a bill pass that allows a stadium unless it creaes revenue for the city. The arena is being built no matter what because the city also wants one for political reasons.

I meant nothing against the city/market of Seattle, as you guys already had a pro hockey team back in the day called the Metropolitans; who won the Stanley Cup in 1917.

As for the NBA, while I'm glad to see Seattle get a team again, it's unfortunate that Sacramento will potentially lose their's.

KmB728
02-08-2012, 01:53 PM
Would Sonic fans turned Thunder fans then root for the Sonics again and ditch KD and crew?

ztilzer31
02-08-2012, 01:54 PM
I know right? I mean it's another California team so I'm not THAT bent out of shape, but Sacremento had it's years and theres other teams that should probably go instead.

The Metropolitans! First American team to win a Stanley Cup! I read somewhere that the only reason they won was because Canada had gotten a huge wave of influenza.

ztilzer31
02-08-2012, 01:57 PM
Would Sonic fans turned Thunder fans then root for the Sonics again and ditch KD and crew?

I know very few Sonics fans that follow OKC. Theres no beef with the team for sure. I mean we hate Clay, but Durant and company showed respect when they left, and I think most people wish the team well.

It's bitter watching them. I feel no glory watching OKC, but I do hope for the best.

drew_ellis_23
02-08-2012, 02:05 PM
Here's an idea. Move the Kings to Seattle then move the Clippers to Sacramento, profit#.

great idea, or just move the clippers hehe

DerekRE_3
02-08-2012, 02:15 PM
David Stern has been very clear in the press that he wants to move a team to Seattle. He understands the market in seattle is huge. He's constantly said all they need is funds and a new arena.... Well, now they got the funds from an investor and the plans (needs to be a guarantee) to get a new arena. If the arena is GUARANTEED then they'll probably play a season in the Key Arena before moving.

Except Sacramento has its own arena plans. If they go through with them Seattle can build three arenas and the Kings would still stay in Sac. The ball is in Sacramento's court.

king4day
02-08-2012, 02:15 PM
It's funny how people celebrate the possibility of the Sonics getting their team back, meanwhile, it's at the expense of another franchise that's been around for almost 30 years.

Punk
02-08-2012, 02:16 PM
I hate to say this but the Kings are the weak link in the Cali connection. The LA Lakers are obviously the Kings of Cali basketball. The Clippers are now the big alternative. The Warriors are the SF/Oakland team and the Kings are?....I know the city is waiting for that team to break out and have a breakout season but it doesn't seem to happen and there really isn't anything going there.

I think it is best to move back to Seattle. Get a new owner, make some moves, start building properly. The NBA has to make money and the Seattle market is stronger than the Sacramento market.

Besides, there is a really good chance Sacramento will get the Hornets soon. So, It sucks if they lose the Kings but I'm sure they will get the Hornets.

goalie
02-08-2012, 02:18 PM
I think having the NBA back in Seattle and bringing the NHL there would be nice, but hate seeing other cities lose their team.

Easy to say move the Coyotes, but I'm sure someone is going to be as disappointed as Sonics fans were.

Don't blame the people of Seattle for not having any sympathy for the Sac Kings fans or Coyotes fans, but do you really want to see that happen to another fan?

Teams with a great fanbase should never lose a team over politics. Only teams with years of bad attendance should be granted a move. There needs to be a law preventing teams from holding cities hostage for bigger arenas, IF their building passes inspection every year and the meet a certain attendance number every year.

Needing more seats or a building that produces higher revenue is garbage. Hire Bill James and find a way to make your money work for your sport.

nickdymez
02-08-2012, 02:19 PM
Here's an idea. Move the Kings to Seattle then move the Clippers to Anaheim , profit#.

Fixed

nickdymez
02-08-2012, 02:20 PM
It's funny how people celebrate the possibility of the Sonics getting their team back, meanwhile, it's at the expense of another franchise that's been around for almost 30 years.

No one gives a sh** about the Kings though. Its not like the Knicks are moving. Its the Kings..

DerekRE_3
02-08-2012, 02:21 PM
No one gives a sh** about the Kings though. Its not like the Knicks are moving. Its the Kings..

Well **** you too then.

OutOfTHEBLUE
02-08-2012, 02:29 PM
I personally would like to see the NBA back in Seattle, and to be honest I think we (California) have too many teams here as it is.

This is nothing against Kings fans, but in my mind it might be best to move them to Seattle and then have the Clippers move down to Anaheim.

Actually, why not move the Clippers up to the Pacific NW and leave the Kings where they are?

Punk
02-08-2012, 02:29 PM
Well **** you too then.

Sorry but to be honest....from a business standpoint, It kinda makes sense to go to Seattle.

Sad as it sounds, the sports world is filled with markets that have to be tapped. Right now, the NBA is setting it self up to tap into the LA market with the Clippers/Lakers having relevant teams, superstars, hoopla. OKC is the only real small market that has been making a profit for years to come.

Miami/Orlando is making a profit. Despite the Raptors not being a good team for the last 2 seasons, they still make a profit. NY makes a huge profit, Brooklyn will make a huge profit.

Stern just wants to get a profit going in the Seattle market. There really isn't a promise that Sacramento can match what a market like Seattle can.

Like I said, I doubt the Kings will be team-less for long. It's possible, the Hornets move to Sacramento and the Kings return. All you have to do is hope Minnesota turns into a contender, hope Eric Gordon refuses to sign with the Hornets, they continue to tank, etc. I can guarantee the Hornets will be Sacramento bound under the NBA.

Randy West
02-08-2012, 02:33 PM
Why wouldn't the Hornets be moving to Seattle?

You all know the NBA has a team to sell they just refuse to.

DerekRE_3
02-08-2012, 02:33 PM
Or, we can just keep our team. If the Kings leave Sacramento will be the largest market in the country to not have a professional sports franchise.

Seattle had its chance. We are still fighting and a new arena is getting closer by the day.

New Orleans should be the team to move. They have never had the backing of their city like the Kings have had in the past. In fact, attendance in Sac is up 20% and tv ratings are up 33%.

NYY 26 to 7
02-08-2012, 02:37 PM
Liked and miss the Sonics. Always been a Knicks fan but who didnt love Kemp and the glove.

Baller1
02-08-2012, 02:38 PM
How about we just get our own ****ing team back from OKC. That makes the most sense to me.

I want a team back, but not at the expense of Sacramento and their fans.

DerekRE_3
02-08-2012, 02:40 PM
Liked and miss the Sonics. Always been a Knicks fan but who didnt love Kemp and the glove.

It wouldn't be the Sonics. It will be the Kings in Sonics clothing.

tmacsc2
02-08-2012, 02:41 PM
I would have a nba team again!!!!:speechless::speechless:

DerekRE_3
02-08-2012, 02:43 PM
How about we just get our own ****ing team back from OKC. That makes the most sense to me.

I want a team back, but not at the expense of Sacramento and their fans.

I can totally see the honeymoon in OKC ending within the next decade. Their team has been good pretty much throughout their time there. Basketball goes in cycles, and once this run is over it will be difficult for them to rebuild being in thr smallest market in the NBA.

Rebuilding a small market team is so much harder than a big market team. We'll see how much OKC supports them when their golden years are gone.

Infamous916
02-08-2012, 02:48 PM
It would ****ing suck if the Kings left, but I guess going to Seattle is a much better option than Anahiem.

jimbobjarree
02-08-2012, 02:53 PM
really want to see the Sonics back, but if its at the expense of Sacramento losing their team then I'm not on board. Go buy the Hornets and move them.

Sadds The Gr8
02-08-2012, 02:54 PM
really want to see the Sonics back, but if its at the expense of Sacramento losing their team then I'm not on board. Go buy the Hornets and move them.

this

Baller1
02-08-2012, 02:55 PM
I can totally see the honeymoon in OKC ending within the next decade. Their team has been good pretty much throughout their time there. Basketball goes in cycles, and once this run is over it will be difficult for them to rebuild being in thr smallest market in the NBA.

Rebuilding a small market team is so much harder than a big market team. We'll see how much OKC supports them when their golden years are gone.

Exactly the way I feel. Of course OKC is going to support the best team in the league with a humble superstar. I want to see the support when they're a typical small-market bottom feeder. Fortunately, they probably won't have to experience that for quite a while.

imbetterthanyou
02-08-2012, 02:55 PM
Why is no one acknowledging the fact that the Maloofs also have to be willing to sell the Kings to this guy in order to move them to Seattle which they have said repeatedly that they will not do. They may not be the best owners in all the land but if they have enough to back the franchise and not wanna sell, they dont have to sell. Seattle isn't their number 1 choice to move to either. So if the Maloofs dont sell you have the same problem as the Kings do in Sacramento. There is no arena. So Kings probably arent going to Sea. I for one hope they stay. Those games in the early 2000s were the best crowds and most excitement the NBA had to offer. Arco was always rockin. They have a couple good building blocks in Evans and Cousins. Cousins is quickly becoming a force down low. I wouldnt count Sacramento out yet

Ano705
02-08-2012, 03:44 PM
Just keep the ******* kings in Sacramento. Move the damned hornets to seattle. The Kings belong in Sacramento and their fans are some of the best in the league, even though they've had losing seasons.

If anyone wants to move the kings, just think back to the days of Jason Williams, Chris Webber, Mike Bibby, and Peja. What a great basketball city and it was probably the most entertaining team in NBA history. That 2002 kings team could've gone down as the best single season team in NBA history, but the league/refs stole a title from them.

northsider
02-08-2012, 04:21 PM
Wish Durant and co. never had to leave Seattle in the first place.

netsgiantsyanks
02-08-2012, 04:35 PM
No one gives a sh** about the Kings though. Its not like the Knicks are moving. Its the Kings..

um...king fans?

Sox72
02-08-2012, 04:36 PM
Just keep the ******* kings in Sacramento. Move the damned hornets to seattle. The Kings belong in Sacramento and their fans are some of the best in the league, even though they've had losing seasons.

If anyone wants to move the kings, just think back to the days of Jason Williams, Chris Webber, Mike Bibby, and Peja. What a great basketball city and it was probably the most entertaining team in NBA history. That 2002 kings team could've gone down as the best single season team in NBA history, but the league/refs stole a title from them.

A little over the top, don't you think?

Sox72
02-08-2012, 04:41 PM
How about we just get our own ****ing team back from OKC. That makes the most sense to me.

I want a team back, but not at the expense of Sacramento and their fans.

I doubt you would care in the slightest if OKC was terrible.

asandhu23
02-08-2012, 04:42 PM
Poor Sactown. That place was the loudest place in the league during Chris Webber, Bobby Jackson, Vlade Divac, Doug Christie days...

DeRozan10
02-08-2012, 04:48 PM
Basketball back in Seattle would be amaaazzzzzing!!!!!!!!!!

IBleedPurple
02-08-2012, 05:00 PM
As much as I dislike most California teams, I hate it when teams move. It is terrible for fans.

nickdymez
02-08-2012, 05:20 PM
Or, we can just keep our team. If the Kings leave Sacramento will be the largest market in the country to not have a professional sports franchise.

Seattle had its chance. We are still fighting and a new arena is getting closer by the day.

New Orleans should be the team to move. They have never had the backing of their city like the Kings have had in the past. In fact, attendance in Sac is up 20% and tv ratings are up 33%.
LMFAO. Sac is a large market??????

Sox72
02-08-2012, 05:31 PM
LMFAO. Sac is a large market??????

He never said they were a large market (though 2.1 million isn't exactly small). He said they would be the largest market without a sports team, which is true.

DerekRE_3
02-08-2012, 05:32 PM
No, those cities have football and baseball teams aka pro teams. Sac only has the Kings

kingsdelez24
02-08-2012, 05:57 PM
The kings probably have the funding for an arena so good luck taking us

Sox72
02-08-2012, 06:12 PM
No, those cities have football and baseball teams aka pro teams. Sac only has the Kings

Yeah, sorry, I misread. I edited.

nickdymez
02-08-2012, 06:13 PM
He never said they were a large market (though 2.1 million isn't exactly small). He said they would be the largest market without a sports team, which is true.

2.1 Million is mid level. And no one cares about Sac enough to give them a sports team. No one wants to be there. Its just the truth.

JordansBulls
02-08-2012, 06:19 PM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nba/2017448885_arena08.html

There are other articles, but it looks like the Sonics are comming back.

If this happens, do they get there 1979 banner back from winning the title or does OKC keep that no matter what?

DerekRE_3
02-08-2012, 06:24 PM
2.1 Million is mid level. And no one cares about Sac enough to give them a sports team. No one wants to be there. Its just the truth.

Yeah that's why Chris Webber re-signed there for 7 years when he could have easily gone to New York and continues to be involved with the city.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrJIqtE3xAc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCossv8wclU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXjuC0JGww8#t=0m10s

Sox72
02-08-2012, 06:27 PM
If this happens, do they get there 1979 banner back from winning the title or does OKC keep that no matter what?

I would assume OKC keeps it. It's technically the franchise's banner, not the city's (regardless of how the fans may feel).

Sox72
02-08-2012, 06:30 PM
2.1 Million is mid level. And no one cares about Sac enough to give them a sports team. No one wants to be there. Its just the truth.

Regardless of how you perceive it (mid, small, large) he never claimed it was a large market. Point is you blatantly misquoted in a pathetic attempt to take a jab at the poster and city.

kingsdelez24
02-08-2012, 06:30 PM
No one gives a sh** about the Kings though. Its not like the Knicks are moving. Its the Kings..

Coming from a lakers fan? Not surprised. Maybe you're just pissed that the kings have a brighter future than your lakers. And no, Bynum and Walton will not be enough for Dwight either

nickdymez
02-08-2012, 06:31 PM
Coming from a lakers fan? Not surprised. Maybe you're just pissed that the kings have a brighter future than your lakers

lol Yea.......

The Final Boss
02-08-2012, 06:31 PM
The Lakers beat the Super Sonics.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
02-08-2012, 06:33 PM
Why should Seattle get a team? They couldn't keep there own Sonics. They couldn't move fast for a new place to play. So now years later there gonna get a freebe? I doubt it. Unless the Kings owners force a move. But I doubt it. I see a future expansion of two teams. Then dilute the league some more. Probably Kansas and Seattle or Vegas.

ztilzer31
02-08-2012, 06:36 PM
When the SOnics left David Stern said that if Seattle can get there act together in the next 5 years he would move a team there. It would have to be a guaranteed stadium. Plus Clay (or stern can't remember) has to buy out the contract still. If they get the team the soncis get more money.

I also doubt Sacramento has a bigger market then Las Vegas (even though the NBA won't go there) or anaheim. I feel like you made that up.

ztilzer31
02-08-2012, 06:39 PM
The Kings have tell March 1st. Your right it is in the Kings court, but most people think the Kings are going to opt out and the dude (can't remember his name) from Seattle who lives in San Fran will get a shot. The biggest factor is whether or not Seattle will have a plan in time. Either way it looks like the Kings are moving.

Gibby23
02-08-2012, 06:40 PM
When the SOnics left David Stern said that if Seattle can get there act together in the next 5 years he would move a team there. It would have to be a guaranteed stadium. Plus Clay (or stern can't remember) has to buy out the contract still. If they get the team the soncis get more money.

I also doubt Sacramento has a bigger market then Las Vegas (even though the NBA won't go there) or anaheim. I feel like you made that up.

You do know that the Maloofs are not selling the team, right?

netsgiantsyanks
02-08-2012, 06:41 PM
The Lakers beat the Super Sonics.

it's ironic.

ztilzer31
02-08-2012, 06:42 PM
Lastly I have no disrespect to Kings fans. I know it sucks losing a team and I've been there, but I want a team. To be honest I'd rather get a sweet pick from the NOH then get Sacramento, but if that's what we need to get a team then I'm down.

ztilzer31
02-08-2012, 06:43 PM
If the Kings don't get a new stadium trust me... THey'll have no choice, but to move. You think it all comes down to the owner, but it really doesn't.

JOhnnyTHaJet
02-08-2012, 06:49 PM
Seattle Kings?

The Final Boss
02-08-2012, 06:49 PM
it's ironic.

Irony is usually quite amusing.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
02-08-2012, 06:50 PM
Made Vegas up? Its news. If Herb Kohl sold to Jordan back in the day the rumor was Michael Jordan would move the Milwaukee Bucks to Vegas. I joked at work saying yeah instead of Deer Bucks it would be a pile of cash bucks! Fits the bill. But Kohl wouldn't have any friends. So he kept the Bucks. Even if Kohl sold the Bucks today I think it would be in writing the Bucks are here to stay. Or sell the Bucks then use the rest of his money on a new place. Then collect off of that while he gets old. Or has to be some tax thing or some partners to get a new place here in Milwaukee. Should be near our casino. But doubt the league would approve of that. Seattle should be a new franchise. Its bad when you up root a old franchise and move it. Its not the same. I see Stern breaking down and letting two new cities in. Probably Seattle. Then Kansas or Vegas. Vegas is a bad name with gambling. They would have to bribe or dump some big money some where.

Blazers#1Fan
02-08-2012, 06:51 PM
If this happens, do they get there 1979 banner back from winning the title or does OKC keep that no matter what?

comes back to seattle they get the rights to all sonics stuff once we get a team here why would OKC get it they didnt win it there and they didnt win it under clay bennett or the thunder name if it says sonics it will go to seattle we just share it for now


im always gonna be a blazers fan and from P-O but i still have sonics as #2 but i still hate the thunder love me some I-5 rivalry always gonna be #1 Blazers #2 Sonics F--- the rest

Blazers#1Fan
02-08-2012, 06:55 PM
it will be the Kings Or Hornets Cali gots enough teams and are close enough to the Bay anyways(Warriors) i know same with seattle and P-O but its 2 different Types Of People both Sac And the Yay Area are same type of people(somewhat) Oakland to Sac 60Miles(+/- 45 Mins) Seattle to Portland 150(+2 Hours) depending on Traffic

Mane
02-08-2012, 06:57 PM
Man some of you are so stupid.

KingPosey
02-08-2012, 07:00 PM
Its funny how ignorant people are about the Sacramento market. Go back to the late 80s, when they were god awful, and look at the attendance #s through say 2005, when the Maloofs started tanking the team and losing interest. You will see most of you are misinformed. Its not the city, its the OWNERS.

KingPosey
02-08-2012, 07:01 PM
AND Seattle lost their team for a ****ing reason. Give me a ****ing break.

KingPosey
02-08-2012, 07:02 PM
it will be the Kings Or Hornets Cali gots enough teams and are close enough to the Bay anyways(Warriors) i know same with seattle and P-O but its 2 different Types Of People both Sac And the Yay Area are same type of people(somewhat) Oakland to Sac 60Miles(+/- 45 Mins) Seattle to Portland 150(+2 Hours) depending on Traffic

They are not even CLOSE to being the same "types of people". Blatant ignorance at its finest.

lol, it does not take 45 minutes to get to Oakland from Sac, dummy.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
02-08-2012, 07:03 PM
If its a move. Then its the owners fault not re-upping the lease or owning a place them self. Owner always forces out if they don't own their own place when the place gets old. Green Bay Packers are still in their first stadium ever built. Do we complain? Its all about the owners. Well then again GB is public owned. Still NBA has 82 games. Stadium size doesn't really matter. Just jack up the prices. Yeah you can do minor updates to old places like score boards and bathrooms and lockers and food courts and maybe put rent gate with a name on it for naming rights. There's ways to making money. Then well a real lockout where owners hold out a whole season. But a few franchise crapped out cause they own loans so they need games so they broke down for the players sides for votes. So that's that. If league ever gets real with a hard cap like NFL and nonguaranteed deals then its back in business.

Nycbball08
02-08-2012, 07:14 PM
Would love to see the Charlotte Hornets come back too, I just can't get use to this Charlotte Bobcats and New Orleans Hornets crap!!!!

DerekRE_3
02-08-2012, 07:15 PM
Regardless of how you perceive it (mid, small, large) he never claimed it was a large market. Point is you blatantly misquoted in a pathetic attempt to take a jab at the poster and city.

Thank you, but don't worry about him. You can't fix stupid.

Sportfan
02-08-2012, 07:16 PM
:clap: seattle deserves a promising team



LAC should move to seattle though, for the lulz

DerekRE_3
02-08-2012, 07:16 PM
Man some of you are so stupid.

It's the NBA Forum, you can't expect people to know things.

Nycbball08
02-08-2012, 07:24 PM
It's the NBA Forum, you can't expect people to know things.

Exactly, this is not wall street!..this is the NBA forum where dumb happens.lol:crazy::crazy:

ztilzer31
02-08-2012, 07:47 PM
Also for those of you who are hoping for Quebec City for NHL. The more I read people are saying that the NHL has about 6 teams they want to move. That being said if phoenix goes to Seattle (or vise versa) teams in the NHL will be sprouting up.

CityofTreez
02-08-2012, 07:48 PM
Thank you, but don't worry about him. You can't fix stupid.

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showpost.php?p=20884182&postcount=728

ztilzer31
02-08-2012, 07:53 PM
If you think David Stern will sit, and let the Kings stay in Sacramento without building a new stadium you're ignorant. The Kings will need to build a new stadium or they're out.

Gram
02-08-2012, 07:56 PM
Man some of you are so stupid.

I thought mods were trying harder now to prevent people from saying things like this. :eyebrow:

On topic, Seattle was my second favourite team. Would be unreal to have them back.

Sox72
02-08-2012, 07:56 PM
comes back to seattle they get the rights to all sonics stuff once we get a team here why would OKC get it they didnt win it there and they didnt win it under clay bennett or the thunder name if it says sonics it will go to seattle we just share it for now


im always gonna be a blazers fan and from P-O but i still have sonics as #2 but i still hate the thunder love me some I-5 rivalry always gonna be #1 Blazers #2 Sonics F--- the rest

Are you sure about this? I would imagine it's the franchise's championship and banner, not the city of Seattle's. Why would the city be able to take it back. Regardless of whether the new team is named the Sonics, it is not that franchise that won the championship. Absent some sort of written agreement (which is entirely possible), I don't see how the "new" Sonics would get anything at all from the Thunder.

ztilzer31
02-08-2012, 07:59 PM
I'm going to reiterate the facts for people that don't like to view the situation in realistic terms. The kings have tell March 1st to come to a financial agreement to build a new stadium. The deadline will not be moved. If they do not reach an agreement the Kings will be sold and moved by the NBA relocation committee. This is fact. I know it sucks if you're a kings fan, but it's fact. If you don't want your team to move then I suggest your city and owner make a financial agreement. You have 3 weeks. Good luck.

DerekRE_3
02-08-2012, 08:00 PM
If you think David Stern will sit, and let the Kings stay in Sacramento without building a new stadium you're ignorant. The Kings will need to build a new stadium or they're out.

So much irony to this...You started the ignorance in this thread.

The city of Sacramento is one city council vote away from securing a significant amount of the funds ($200 mil) needed to build a new arena. That vote will happen on February 14th, and it should pass. They have another $50 mil coming from AEG, the largest entertainment company in the world. Hotels around the area are expected to chip in another $20 mil.


According to two executive level employees within the Kings organization, who are not allowed to publicly discuss the arena project, there is strong belief that the league will come up with the rest if the numbers are close. NBA spokesman Tim Frank would not comment on the terms.

Source: Cowbell Kingdom (ESPN Affiliate) (http://www.cowbellkingdom.com/2012/02/07/project-arena-part-ii-how-much-will-the-kings-and-nba-pay/)

Also, if the city shows significant progress to securing an arena deal, they very well could be granted an extension. In fact, the Kings are already preparing a significant marketing campaign for next season (season tickets).

ztilzer31
02-08-2012, 08:00 PM
And yes when the Sonics left they kept the city kept the rights to everything. Colors and all. They would be the Seattle Sonics again.

Blazers#1Fan
02-08-2012, 08:06 PM
They are not even CLOSE to being the same "types of people". Blatant ignorance at its finest.

lol, it does not take 45 minutes to get to Oakland from Sac, dummy.

your the dummy i have family who live in Sacramento and my family lived in Oakland for years been there plenty of times! know your SHlT do you not know what +/- means it can take from a hour or more or 45 mins depending of traffic ive done that drive more then i can count i know what im talking about same type did you not see the (Somewhat) guess not! your ignorance is beyond compare

ztilzer31
02-08-2012, 08:08 PM
So much irony to this...You started the ignorance in this thread.

The city of Sacramento is one city council vote away from securing a significant amount of the funds ($200 mil) needed to build a new arena. That vote will happen on February 14th, and it should pass. They have another $50 mil coming from AEG, the largest entertainment company in the world. Hotels around the area are expected to chip in another $20 mil.



Source: Cowbell Kingdom (ESPN Affiliate) (http://www.cowbellkingdom.com/2012/02/07/project-arena-part-ii-how-much-will-the-kings-and-nba-pay/)

Also, if the city shows significant progress to securing an arena deal, they very well could be granted an extension. In fact, the Kings are already preparing a significant marketing campaign for next season (season tickets).

SHould pass? You mean the same vote that already failed last month by a 5 to 4 vote? Also even with all those people the Kings are reportedly about 50 million short. Even if the vote passes the Kings aren't guaranteed their team. They would still need more funds.

DerekRE_3
02-08-2012, 08:13 PM
SHould pass? You mean the same vote that already failed last month by a 5 to 4 vote? Also even with all those people the Kings are reportedly about 50 million short. Even if the vote passes the Kings aren't guaranteed their team. They would still need more funds.

That's where the NBA comes in, and Kings executives expect them to cover the difference. The Maloofs will also have to contribute.

Also, there goes that ignorance again. That 5-4 vote you are talking about was actually this month, and it wasn't on the $200 million of funding itself. The city council was voting as to whether it should be up to Sac County voters to decide if the funding should happen or not. The council voted against that, which means it's now up to the city council to vote on whether that $200 mil will go to the arena or not. That vote will be on Feb. 14.

Thanks for playing.

Blazers#1Fan
02-08-2012, 08:13 PM
Are you sure about this? I would imagine it's the franchise's championship and banner, not the city of Seattle's. Why would the city be able to take it back. Regardless of whether the new team is named the Sonics, it is not that franchise that won the championship. Absent some sort of written agreement (which is entirely possible), I don't see how the "new" Sonics would get anything at all from the Thunder.

it was a deal part of the move and from what i remember that was part of the lawsuits heres a quote from WIKI

According to the settlement, items associated with the SuperSonics' history in Seattle, including trophies, banners, and retired jerseys, stayed in the city and it was placed in the Museum of History and Industry. Other items such as televisions, radios, headphones, CDs, chairs, and equipment were shipped to Oklahoma City after the Seattle Storm finished the 2008 WNBA season

Blazers#1Fan
02-08-2012, 08:16 PM
it was a deal part of the move and from what i remember that was part of the lawsuits heres a quote from WIKI

According to the settlement, items associated with the SuperSonics' history in Seattle, including trophies, banners, and retired jerseys, stayed in the city and it was placed in the Museum of History and Industry. Other items such as televisions, radios, headphones, CDs, chairs, and equipment were shipped to Oklahoma City after the Seattle Storm finished the 2008 WNBA season

i wonder if they still get the Sir Mix Alot song "not in are house" lol it says CD's

ztilzer31
02-08-2012, 08:20 PM
That's where the NBA comes in, and Kings executives expect them to cover the difference.

Also, there goes that ignorance again. That 5-4 vote you are talking about was actually this month, and it wasn't on the $200 million of funding itself. The city council was voting as to whether it should be up to Sac County voters to decide if the funding should happen or not. The council voted against that, which means it's now up to the city council to vote on whether that $200 mil will go to the arena or not. That vote will be on Feb. 14.

Thanks for playing.

It has alerady been reported even if this vote passes the Kings may not be financially able to keep the team.

Let's break it down. The city expect 80 million from the NBA and Kings up front.

Then another 50 million from AEG.

Then the city expects to get another 200 million up front for downtown parking structure. The lease is expected to be 30-50 years.

After all this. Even if it completely pans out the Kings will be 50 million short. They will need that money by March 1st.

Can you debate like an adult and not throw a fit like a child. You do the same **** on the Seahawks forum before games, and it's really sad.

ztilzer31
02-08-2012, 08:20 PM
The NBA will bridge a small gap... 50 million is not a small gap.

Sox72
02-08-2012, 08:25 PM
it was a deal part of the move and from what i remember that was part of the lawsuits heres a quote from WIKI

According to the settlement, items associated with the SuperSonics' history in Seattle, including trophies, banners, and retired jerseys, stayed in the city and it was placed in the Museum of History and Industry. Other items such as televisions, radios, headphones, CDs, chairs, and equipment were shipped to Oklahoma City after the Seattle Storm finished the 2008 WNBA season

Pretty smart move on behalf of the city. Cleveland did the same thing in terms of the Browns. Probably because they both anticipated having teams again in the not-so-distant future.

ztilzer31
02-08-2012, 08:26 PM
The Kings are one of the most poorly managed teams in the NBA. It would not be suprising to see them screw this up.

avrpatsfan
02-08-2012, 08:27 PM
Just move the Thunder back to Seattle.

DerekRE_3
02-08-2012, 08:35 PM
It has alerady been reported even if this vote passes the Kings may not be financially able to keep the team.

Let's break it down. The city expect 80 million from the NBA and Kings up front.

Then another 50 million from AEG.

Then the city expects to get another 200 million up front for downtown parking structure. The lease is expected to be 30-50 years.

After all this. Even if it completely pans out the Kings will be 50 million short. They will need that money by March 1st.

Can you debate like an adult and not throw a fit like a child. You do the same **** on the Seahawks forum before games, and it's really sad.

:confused: I never go to the Seahawks forum, but ok. Bottom line is if the arena deal gets done the Kings stay. That's all I'm saying. It doesn't matter what other cities want the team. The ball is in Sacramento's court. In the original post you acted like it's a done deal they are going to Seattle. Even though there are other cities with suitable arenas right now, unlike Seattle.

DerekRE_3
02-08-2012, 08:36 PM
The Kings are one of the most poorly managed teams in the NBA. It would not be suprising to see them screw this up.

They aren't the ones handling the arena deal. David Taylor of the Icon Group and the city of Sacramento are. Stop pretending you know what you are talking about.

SFGiants4life
02-08-2012, 08:43 PM
if the kings leave i stop watching basketball all together

Baller1
02-08-2012, 09:04 PM
AND Seattle lost their team for a ****ing reason. Give me a ****ing break.

That reason being Howard Schultz, Clay Bennett, David Stern, and Washington Legislature forming a collution to relocate the team.

The true irony here is you calling others ignorant. You're probably clueless as to how the entire situation went down.

ztilzer31
02-08-2012, 09:57 PM
You're correct. I did not mean to come off that Seattle will get the Kings. That is who they're looking at right now though. You're completely correct the ball is in the Kings court. If they get the money, and get a guarantee on an arena they will stay. However if I was a Kings fan I would want a new owner anyways.

Don't compare this with Seattle getting robbed... Clay Bennett bought the Sonics with the intent on moving them to OKC. It's a completely different situation and people who say "they lost their team for a reason" you should probably learn the reason first. While if the Kings lose their team it will be legitimately. Clay drove that team into the ground before drafting Durant then abandoning ship. He got rid of key contributors including in management Lenny Wilkens and Nate Mcmillan. They drafted tall no name players driving the franchise into the ground tell they finally struck gold in Durant. DO you think it's coincidence that the Sonics got rid of Nate as coach right after he had a 50 win season? Of course not. The whole thing was planned from the beginning. The politicians in Seattle failed to bring a viable case in court and lost. Then toward the end of the whole thing Steve Balmer tried to keep the team in Seattle with who Clay basically gave the finger and turned away.

Watch Sonicsgate. IT's a great documentary.... Or just say stuff without any fact... Whatever.

ztilzer31
02-08-2012, 09:59 PM
Oh yeah then once they realized Durant was going to be MVP calibur they got rid of the last year of the contract. They didn't want people's interest to get back into the team, and they sure as hell didn't want to give Seattle another year to propose a new arena.

NoahH
02-09-2012, 02:05 AM
Howard Schultz is a ***** for just flipping the team to Clay Bennett and so is Clay Bennett and Washington Legislature.

NoahH
02-09-2012, 02:06 AM
You're correct. I did not mean to come off that Seattle will get the Kings. That is who they're looking at right now though. You're completely correct the ball is in the Kings court. If they get the money, and get a guarantee on an arena they will stay. However if I was a Kings fan I would want a new owner anyways.

Don't compare this with Seattle getting robbed... Clay Bennett bought the Sonics with the intent on moving them to OKC. It's a completely different situation and people who say "they lost their team for a reason" you should probably learn the reason first. While if the Kings lose their team it will be legitimately. Clay drove that team into the ground before drafting Durant then abandoning ship. He got rid of key contributors including in management Lenny Wilkens and Nate Mcmillan. They drafted tall no name players driving the franchise into the ground tell they finally struck gold in Durant. DO you think it's coincidence that the Sonics got rid of Nate as coach right after he had a 50 win season? Of course not. The whole thing was planned from the beginning. The politicians in Seattle failed to bring a viable case in court and lost. Then toward the end of the whole thing Steve Balmer tried to keep the team in Seattle with who Clay basically gave the finger and turned away.

Watch Sonicsgate. IT's a great documentary.... Or just say stuff without any fact... Whatever.

This. Robert Swift sucks too.

ztilzer31
02-09-2012, 02:25 AM
I cannot wait tell Alex Smith blows it next year and 49ers fans go back into hiding.

ztilzer31
02-09-2012, 02:26 AM
Any yes Robert Swift sucks lol.

PleaseBeNice
02-09-2012, 03:07 AM
I'm going to reiterate the facts for people that don't like to view the situation in realistic terms. The kings have tell March 1st to come to a financial agreement to build a new stadium. The deadline will not be moved. If they do not reach an agreement the Kings will be sold and moved by the NBA relocation committee. This is fact. I know it sucks if you're a kings fan, but it's fact. If you don't want your team to move then I suggest your city and owner make a financial agreement. You have 3 weeks. Good luck.

Actually the Maloofs have said they're flexible with the deadline.

CityofTreez
02-09-2012, 03:14 AM
I cannot wait tell Alex Smith blows it next year and 49ers fans go back into hiding.

Is this guy serious?

He comes in here talking about basketball and the Sac Kings leaving for Seattle, only to flip the script and talk about Alex Smith. Ha! Watch your Seahawks, and be a faithful Thunder fan!

SportsAndrew25
02-09-2012, 03:59 AM
Don't believe this ****. The Kings are going to Hot'sville Mars.

naps
02-09-2012, 06:43 AM
Please. Get them back. I ****ing miss the supersonics. Such a great franchise.



:pray: :pray: :pray:

Dude, if the Kings or any other team is moved to the Seattle who are you gonna root when they play OKC?

naps
02-09-2012, 06:52 AM
I think moving OKC back to Seattle would be the most fair move. The original Sonics team. My second pick would be the Hornets (Not trying to hurt the fans). I just don't see OKC fans holding it together once Durant era ends and they start rebuilding. Post Chris Paul Hornets version 2.0

Baller1
02-09-2012, 12:28 PM
Please. Get them back. I ****ing miss the supersonics. Such a great franchise.




Dude, if the Kings or any other team is moved to the Seattle who are you gonna root when they play OKC?

I'd root for Seattle, no doubt.

ztilzer31
02-09-2012, 12:43 PM
Actually the Maloofs have said they're flexible with the deadline.

The Maloofs are flexible with David Stern's deadline? They don't have a choice it has to be decided by the first of March.

ztilzer31
02-09-2012, 12:54 PM
Listen... For King's fans that are pissed. I completely understand why you are mad. I don't want the Kings. I think it would make more sense for us to get the Hornets. I would rather have a #1 pick overall to build around then the Kings, believe me. I posted this to show the oppurtunity the Sonics have to get a team. I personally think there are 3 or 4 other teams that should leave their city. Sac is not my first option. This is just what's being reported.

That being said don't deny fact. If the King's don't get a stadium they'll be moved. If you think for a second that the NBA relocation committee won't relocate the Kings instantly your high. I understand it sucks. If you care so much call your area's representative and voice your complaint. The deadline is March 1st. IT WILL NOT BE MOVED BACK.

I did not make this thread to talk about how much I hate the kings. I really don't have any feelings toward the Kings whatsoever. This was reported in the Seattle Times. So if you're upset I suggest you take a breather then post. I'm not attacking the Kings I'm just discussing what has been shared by the Seattle media. The Kings have been around for 30 years? You think that matters? The Sonics were around for 40 and they moved them with only 2 owners voting it down.

If you guys show enough fan support you could end up like the Sonics and get a team relocated back to your city in the future, or you get your stadium this year and this whole thread becomes pointless. That being said even people from Cali on this thread have said that California has too many basketball teams.

Gibby23
02-09-2012, 01:22 PM
Listen... For King's fans that are pissed. I completely understand why you are mad. I don't want the Kings. I think it would make more sense for us to get the Hornets. I would rather have a #1 pick overall to build around then the Kings, believe me. I posted this to show the oppurtunity the Sonics have to get a team. I personally think there are 3 or 4 other teams that should leave their city. Sac is not my first option. This is just what's being reported.

That being said don't deny fact. If the King's don't get a stadium they'll be moved. If you think for a second that the NBA relocation committee won't relocate the Kings instantly your high. I understand it sucks. If you care so much call your area's representative and voice your complaint. The deadline is March 1st. IT WILL NOT BE MOVED BACK.

I did not make this thread to talk about how much I hate the kings. I really don't have any feelings toward the Kings whatsoever. This was reported in the Seattle Times. So if you're upset I suggest you take a breather then post. I'm not attacking the Kings I'm just discussing what has been shared by the Seattle media. The Kings have been around for 30 years? You think that matters? The Sonics were around for 40 and they moved them with only 2 owners voting it down.

If you guys show enough fan support you could end up like the Sonics and get a team relocated back to your city in the future, or you get your stadium this year and this whole thread becomes pointless. That being said even people from Cali on this thread have said that California has too many basketball teams.


the thing you don't get is if the Kings move it is going to be to Anaheim. The Maloofs already have a basic deal in place with the owner of the Honda center. they would be there this year but the NBA gave Sac another year to work it out and all the news that came out yesterday here in Sac was all positive and they look good for the March 1 deadline.

CityofTreez
02-09-2012, 02:35 PM
God you're a ****ing dick...:mad:

He's a Lakers fan that saw his team lose to Paul Westphal.

Of course he's under the weather.

ztilzer31
02-09-2012, 04:05 PM
the thing you don't get is if the Kings move it is going to be to Anaheim. The Maloofs already have a basic deal in place with the owner of the Honda center. they would be there this year but the NBA gave Sac another year to work it out and all the news that came out yesterday here in Sac was all positive and they look good for the March 1 deadline.

Lol. What I don't understand? I don't think you understand the difference between an opinion and fact. This is an opinionated article. It does have some fact. I've never said THE KINGS ARE DEFINITELY MOVING TO SEATTLE. I said if the Kings don't get a new stadium they will be relocated. You guys need to get hooked on phonics again.

However you saying that they're definitely going to move to Anaheim is projecting opinion as fact. Something I don't do.

GrandDaddyPurp
02-09-2012, 04:15 PM
Lol. What I don't understand? I don't think you understand the difference between an opinion and fact. This is an opinionated article. It does have some fact. I've never said THE KINGS ARE DEFINITELY MOVING TO SEATTLE. I said if the Kings don't get a new stadium they will be relocated. You guys need to get hooked on phonics again.

However you saying that they're definitely going to move to Anaheim is projecting opinion as fact. Something I don't do.

Well sir, you do not know the difference between tell and till so when it comes to being "hooked on phonics", that clearly should be you.

utl768
02-09-2012, 04:17 PM
id love a team back in seattle

sonics were a fun team to watch

Gibby23
02-09-2012, 04:25 PM
Lol. What I don't understand? I don't think you understand the difference between an opinion and fact. This is an opinionated article. It does have some fact. I've never said THE KINGS ARE DEFINITELY MOVING TO SEATTLE. I said if the Kings don't get a new stadium they will be relocated. You guys need to get hooked on phonics again.

However you saying that they're definitely going to move to Anaheim is projecting opinion as fact. Something I don't do.

Since the Kings had a deal to move to Anaheim that is the 1st option. they already have an Arena and the maloofs have worked out details with the owner of the Honda center. Seattle is in a worse position than Sac is. Sacramento is further along in the process to have an arena built than Seattle is and that is a Fact.

utl768
02-09-2012, 04:29 PM
Since the Kings had a deal to move to Anaheim that is the 1st option. they already have an Arena and the maloofs have worked out details with the owner of the Honda center. Seattle is in a worse position than Sac is. Sacramento is further along in the process to have an arena built than Seattle is and that is a Fact.

there is no way the lakers and clippers let a third team move into southern california

that aint happening

CityofTreez
02-09-2012, 04:33 PM
there is no way the lakers and clippers let a third team move into southern california

that aint happening

There is no way the Lakers and Clippers have a say over David Stern.

They have a vote, but David Stern can do whatever the hell he wants, he's David Stern!

ztilzer31
02-09-2012, 05:08 PM
When the Sonics left, and the owners voted on it only 2 owners voted it down. Paul Allen for obvious reason, and Mark Cuban... because Mark Cuban is awesome.

PleaseBeNice
02-09-2012, 05:09 PM
The Maloofs are flexible with David Stern's deadline? They don't have a choice it has to be decided by the first of March.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/16/4126500/maloofs-signal-theyre-flexible.html

ztilzer31
02-09-2012, 05:14 PM
I think most NBA fans would agree that bringing the Sonics back would bring more national support then moving a team to Anaheim. If both Anaheim and Seattle have an arena then I'd have to give the advatage to Seattle. The more I write about Seattle the more I realize the national support they have.

David Stern cares about one thing. Money. If it comes down to going to Anaheim or going to Seattle... I feel like he'll chose Seattle. It's a bigger market, and already has fans. OKC only worked so well because they had a competitive team right away. The Sonics have fan support already, and not to mention David Stern gave us a 5 year window to get a new team. If Seattle has there **** together and it comes down to Anaheim or Seattle... My bet is definitely Seattle.

ztilzer31
02-09-2012, 05:17 PM
http://ransackedmedia.com/2012/02/03/nba-says-the-march-1st-deadline-will-not-be-extended/

I trust a spokesman from the NBA more then I trust the owner of Sacremento. If there is no deal by March 1st the NBA will want to start the process ASAP.

ztilzer31
02-09-2012, 05:19 PM
The Sonics tried to get an extension too, but it didn't happen. I think you guys don't understand how fast this will happen. People didn't think the Sonics would actually move. It just happend fast. If March 1st theres no deal trust me David Stern will move that **** faster then you can blink.

PleaseBeNice
02-09-2012, 05:26 PM
I think most NBA fans would agree that bringing the Sonics back would bring more national support then moving a team to Anaheim. If both Anaheim and Seattle have an arena then I'd have to give the advatage to Seattle. The more I write about Seattle the more I realize the national support they have.

David Stern cares about one thing. Money. If it comes down to going to Anaheim or going to Seattle... I feel like he'll chose Seattle. It's a bigger market, and already has fans. OKC only worked so well because they had a competitive team right away. The Sonics have fan support already, and not to mention David Stern gave us a 5 year window to get a new team. If Seattle has there **** together and it comes down to Anaheim or Seattle... My bet is definitely Seattle.

Im all for a team going back to Seattle, but Not if it's the SACRAMENTO KINGS

Karlos49
02-09-2012, 05:29 PM
Move the kings back to Kansas City!

blastmasta26
02-09-2012, 05:41 PM
Add Content

ztilzer31
02-09-2012, 11:49 PM
Im all for a team going back to Seattle, but Not if it's the SACRAMENTO KINGS

Like I said earlier there are a lot of teams I'd rather leave the NBA, but if they don't stay in Sacramento I think they should go to Seattle.

DaBear
02-09-2012, 11:57 PM
Why did they leave Seattle in the first place? No fan support since they sucked?

Well, it makes sense why they want an NBA team now. Their old team is one of the best in the NBA lol.

onlythisfar41
02-09-2012, 11:58 PM
I miss the Supersonics

utl768
02-10-2012, 01:51 AM
watch sonicsgate

seattle was robbed of their team

ccg34
02-10-2012, 11:14 AM
Why did they leave Seattle in the first place? No fan support since they sucked?

Well, it makes sense why they want an NBA team now. Their old team is one of the best in the NBA lol.

:facepalm: Watch Sonicsgate before you say something stupid like that. We were robbed plain and simple.

DerekRE_3
02-10-2012, 11:15 AM
Watch the crowd from last night's game in Sacramento before you say the team should be moved.

JWO35
02-10-2012, 11:16 AM
The fewer teams in California the better...

Randy West
02-10-2012, 11:23 AM
A few key things here.

The guy is trying to BUY a team and move it to Seattle.

The Kings are NOT FOR SALE according to the owners.

As far as just moving up there why would ownership do that if you are facing the same arena situation up there?

Baller1
02-10-2012, 11:31 AM
Watch the crowd from last night's game in Sacramento before you say the team should be moved.

We had crowds like that before we moved, rallies, fundraisers... Hell, a ****ing movie was made.

One sellout, free giveaway game against a top team on national tv isn't going to convince anyone. Just being blunt.

GrandDaddyPurp
02-10-2012, 11:40 AM
We had crowds like that before we moved, rallies, fundraisers... Hell, a ****ing movie was made.

One sellout, free giveaway game against a top team on national tv isn't going to convince anyone. Just being blunt.

:laugh2:

Sonics fans don't deserve a team. They feel someone else is to blame when things don't go their way.

DerekRE_3
02-10-2012, 01:43 PM
We had crowds like that before we moved, rallies, fundraisers... Hell, a ****ing movie was made.

One sellout, free giveaway game against a top team on national tv isn't going to convince anyone. Just being a douche

Fixed

Ticket sales are up 20% and the tv ratings are up 33%. And I never said Seattle deserved to lose their team. Sacramento doesn't either. That's my point.

A kings movie has also already been made. Small Market Big Heart

utl768
02-10-2012, 02:04 PM
We had crowds like that before we moved, rallies, fundraisers... Hell, a ****ing movie was made.

One sellout, free giveaway game against a top team on national tv isn't going to convince anyone. Just being blunt.

i watched sonicsgate last night because of ur sig

really sad how everyone went down

Baller1
02-10-2012, 02:18 PM
Fixed

Ticket sales are up 20% and the tv ratings are up 33%. And I never said Seattle deserved to lose their team. Sacramento doesn't either. That's my point.

A kings movie has also already been made. Small Market Big Heart

I never said you guys deserve to lose your team. I even said earlier in this thread that I want my Sonics back, but not at the expense of Sacremento.

Being a douche for what? Being honest, being blunt? I did nothing but lay out the truths of the situation. Nothing will convince Stern to keep the team in Sacremento except for a brand new arena that will make him money. Simple as that.

Never was I trying to be a "douche", just being blatantly honest with you Sactown fans. It's unfair, but that's the way it goes.


i watched sonicsgate last night because of ur sig

really sad how everyone went down

Literally the most depressing piece I've ever seen. I love it, but it makes me want to cry every time I see it.

It's bad enough that we lost the team, but the fact the it could've so easily been resolved makes it that much worse.

Randy West
02-10-2012, 03:19 PM
I never said you guys deserve to lose your team. I even said earlier in this thread that I want my Sonics back, but not at the expense of Sacremento.

Being a douche for what? Being honest, being blunt? I did nothing but lay out the truths of the situation. Nothing will convince Stern to keep the team in Sacremento except for a brand new arena that will make him money. Simple as that.

Never was I trying to be a "douche", just being blatantly honest with you Sactown fans. It's unfair, but that's the way it goes.



Literally the most depressing piece I've ever seen. I love it, but it makes me want to cry every time I see it.

It's bad enough that we lost the team, but the fact the it could've so easily been resolved makes it that much worse.

Do you understand at all that the team is NOT FOR SALE!

This guy from the bay area wants to BUY A TEAM not build an arena so a team could just move up there.

If folks would pay attention to the one little detail of the KINGS NOT BEING FOR SALE this would all be a whole lot easier.

ZebraCity916
02-10-2012, 04:10 PM
We had crowds like that before we moved, rallies, fundraisers... Hell, a ****ing movie was made.

One sellout, free giveaway game against a top team on national tv isn't going to convince anyone. Just being blunt.

Maybe you need to rewatch Sonicsgate. From what I remember of the movie, Sonics fans showed up the last game of the season, sold the place out, but it was too late. The narration even said so.

We started our rally to keep our team over a year ago. This isn't one game on national TV. This isn't one sold out crowd. This isn't a last minute thing like Seattle did.

How the hell is a team going to move to Seattle anyways?? They don't have an arena and it would take around 5 years to build one. Stern deemed Key Arena unfit for an NBA team to play there.

Baller1
02-10-2012, 04:54 PM
Maybe you need to rewatch Sonicsgate. From what I remember of the movie, Sonics fans showed up the last game of the season, sold the place out, but it was too late. The narration even said so.

We started our rally to keep our team over a year ago. This isn't one game on national TV. This isn't one sold out crowd. This isn't a last minute thing like Seattle did.

How the hell is a team going to move to Seattle anyways?? They don't have an arena and it would take around 5 years to build one. Stern deemed Key Arena unfit for an NBA team to play there.

Clay Bennett put the city and fans in a lose-lose situation. He didn't allow for post game interviews with players... He did everything he could to keep fans disinterested to portray a lack of support for the team.

Either Seattle fans went to the games and put money in the pocket of the man who was going to relocate the team, or they didn't go to the game and gave the false portrayal that Bennett wanted, which was that we didn't support our team.

ZebraCity916
02-10-2012, 06:16 PM
Clay Bennett put the city and fans in a lose-lose situation. He didn't allow for post game interviews with players... He did everything he could to keep fans disinterested to portray a lack of support for the team.

Either Seattle fans went to the games and put money in the pocket of the man who was going to relocate the team, or they didn't go to the game and gave the false portrayal that Bennett wanted, which was that we didn't support our team.

Bottom line is, no city should lose a team. Especially when they're so important to that city. Not Sac, not Seattle. NOBODY!!!

For Seattle to try and steal away the Kings, makes them just as bad as Clay Bennet.

ztilzer31
02-10-2012, 08:59 PM
For all the people saying the team isn't for sale that doesn't matter. Please read previous posts. If Sacramento doesn't have a deal in place by March 1st for a new stadium then the NBA relocation committee will move them. Whether they're for sale or not.

utl768
02-10-2012, 09:01 PM
For all the people saying the team isn't for sale that doesn't matter. Please read previous posts. If Sacramento doesn't have a deal in place by March 1st for a new stadium then the NBA relocation committee will move them. Whether they're for sale or not.

isnt clay bennent the head of that committee

itd be pretty ironic if bennent brought basketball back to seattle after stealing the team 3 yrs ago

knicks=love
02-10-2012, 09:03 PM
where's cousinsevansduo? :shrug:

Baller1
02-10-2012, 10:50 PM
Bottom line is, no city should lose a team. Especially when they're so important to that city. Not Sac, not Seattle. NOBODY!!!

For Seattle to try and steal away the Kings, makes them just as bad as Clay Bennet.

Like I've said multiple times it this thread, I sympathize for any future fanbases that may have to go through what we did, but at the end of the day Seattle just wants basketball back. If it's someone else's team, you have our sorrows but that's about it. Seattle getting a team back is the only goal.

Also, we wouldn't be "stealing" the Kings.

Randy West
02-10-2012, 10:52 PM
For all the people saying the team isn't for sale that doesn't matter. Please read previous posts. If Sacramento doesn't have a deal in place by March 1st for a new stadium then the NBA relocation committee will move them. Whether they're for sale or not.

SEATTLE HAS NO NEW ARENA........JUST LIKE SACRAMENTO.

Yes it does matter or the NBA would have forced the sale to Ron Burkle when this all came up last year.

He offered to purchase the team and finance almost 80% of the arena himself. Now if the NBA could have forced the Maloofs to deal why didn't they?

Key points in the article

If no deal is reached, the Kings could be relocated. COULD BE

His investment group has yet to produce a firm proposal to McGinn, who has said that the group must make a substantial financial commitment with no new taxes to fund an arena.

NO FIRM PROPOSAL, NO NEW TAXES TO HELP FUND....that is real likely.

I don't understand why reading previous posts from people that don't have all the facts matter??

Sacramento is finalizing a plan to build an entertainment complex. Seattle is talking about considering options to do those those things that Sacramento has already done.

Seattle may be at the top of the list for "cities that need an NBA team," but they lack something cities like Kansas City or Anaheim have—a non-ancient, NBA-playable arena.

The story is quaint, of course. Seattle deserves a new team, and native Christopher Hansen, a wealthy San Francisco hedge-fund manager, is working with the city to get an arena done. And look, says the national media, they is a team right down the Pacific Coast that almost moved last year! Get the printers on the line; we have front-page news!

That is, of course, if you ignore all the progress in Sacramento. Or the fact that other cities are far more ready than Seattle for a team.

There are plenty of concerns left in Sacramento, and in a month, the Kings' ticket out of town could certainly be punched. But is isn't a probability, and it isn't the present. Wait until then at least before you try and move the team.

Seattle has no finance plan in place, they dont even have all the land that would be needed squared away, and you know how long that takes. Seattle also has to go through the public voters, per a law they passed when the Sonics left.

"There's other people that have been interested from the very beginning in purchasing the team and keeping them here in Sacramento. So if the Maloof's are no longer viable or if they are interested in selling the team, I think there's a number of entities that would want to actually buy the team and keep them here in Sacramento," said Jackson.

C_Mund
02-10-2012, 10:54 PM
The business side of the nba is cruel. Zero loyalty to anyone. It's has gotten worse now with new crop of Owners. My condolences Sacramento, but I'm happy SuperSonics are coming back.

True, but don't you feel like in the last while there's been little loyalty from the players' side as well? It seems like kind of a cycle and the only ones that truly lose out are the fans of certain teams.

OT Thriller
02-11-2012, 01:07 AM
The Hornets shouldve never moved to New Orleans. End the charade, move them out of NO, rename the Bobcats and make them the Hornets again and bring back the Seattle Super Sonics.

Boom your welcome. NBA fixed.

utl768
02-11-2012, 01:27 AM
it sucks but california has 4 teams so losing one shouldnt be that big of a deal although im really in no opinion to judge since im a mets jets and heat fan so my teams will probably never move

ztilzer31
02-11-2012, 12:56 PM
The SOnics will come back. Not necessarily next year and not necessarily from getting the Kings. If they don't get a new building the Kings will be relocated. Seattle will attempt to pass a bill for a new stadium. If that bill passes they will be head of the line to get a new team. If it doesn't Anaheim will probably be where it goes. David Stern wants a team in Seattle. It would produce a lot more money then Anaheim, and the first season would probably sell out. Stern cares about one thing. Money. If you think for a second your team will not be moved if they don't get a new stadium you're high. They will be moved.

Why should you look at other forum posts? So you can see where the conversation is going and know that we've already been over it.

ZebraCity916
02-11-2012, 04:33 PM
Like I've said multiple times it this thread, I sympathize for any future fanbases that may have to go through what we did, but at the end of the day Seattle just wants basketball back. If it's someone else's team, you have our sorrows but that's about it. Seattle getting a team back is the only goal.

Also, we wouldn't be "stealing" the Kings.

How would you not be stealing the Kings??

mgsports
02-11-2012, 08:46 PM
KC/Tampa Bay/St. Louis/New Jersey would be in line before Seattle.

Randy West
02-11-2012, 10:52 PM
The SOnics will come back. Not necessarily next year and not necessarily from getting the Kings. If they don't get a new building the Kings will be relocated. Seattle will attempt to pass a bill for a new stadium. If that bill passes they will be head of the line to get a new team. If it doesn't Anaheim will probably be where it goes. David Stern wants a team in Seattle. It would produce a lot more money then Anaheim, and the first season would probably sell out. Stern cares about one thing. Money. If you think for a second your team will not be moved if they don't get a new stadium you're high. They will be moved.

Why should you look at other forum posts? So you can see where the conversation is going and know that we've already been over it.

So because you've "been over it" that means it's happening? Who cares what people have "been over" if you don't know what you are talking about?

Sacramento is still 90% closer to getting a deal done, Seattle hasn't even started doing all those same things. Just because Seattle passes a bill does not mean a thing.

If all Stern cared about was a new arena why wasn't a sale forced to the guy who wanted to build a new arena without the NBA's money?

You ran a headline from a Seattle paper with a pipe dream at this point about a new arena and a team moving back. BFD a guy wants to build an arena and buy a team, yet the story won't tell you he does not even have 50% of the land yet needed for an arena.

KingPosey
02-11-2012, 11:18 PM
your the dummy i have family who live in Sacramento and my family lived in Oakland for years been there plenty of times! know your SHlT do you not know what +/- means it can take from a hour or more or 45 mins depending of traffic ive done that drive more then i can count i know what im talking about same type did you not see the (Somewhat) guess not! your ignorance is beyond compare

I live in Sacramento. If you can get to Oakland in 45 minutes, then you must be driving the batmobile, or a flying car.

Oakland is over 80 miles from Sacramento driving, not ****ing 65, unless MAYBE you made a road completely straight between the 2. Google Maps has that distance at a 1 hour 30 minute drive. Then you add in traffic (which there ALWAYS is), toll crossings, etc, and that equals you being an idiot.

So 80 miles away, to get there in 45 min, which you say is possible, you would only need to drive what, 100+ miles an hour and blast right through the toll booth, never stopping once? I love when people that visit a place try and tell the residents of the area how things are in their own city lol

KingPosey
02-11-2012, 11:27 PM
Listen... For King's fans that are pissed. I completely understand why you are mad. I don't want the Kings. I think it would make more sense for us to get the Hornets. I would rather have a #1 pick overall to build around then the Kings, believe me. I posted this to show the oppurtunity the Sonics have to get a team. I personally think there are 3 or 4 other teams that should leave their city. Sac is not my first option. This is just what's being reported.

That being said don't deny fact. If the King's don't get a stadium they'll be moved. If you think for a second that the NBA relocation committee won't relocate the Kings instantly your high. I understand it sucks. If you care so much call your area's representative and voice your complaint. The deadline is March 1st. IT WILL NOT BE MOVED BACK.

I did not make this thread to talk about how much I hate the kings. I really don't have any feelings toward the Kings whatsoever. This was reported in the Seattle Times. So if you're upset I suggest you take a breather then post. I'm not attacking the Kings I'm just discussing what has been shared by the Seattle media. The Kings have been around for 30 years? You think that matters? The Sonics were around for 40 and they moved them with only 2 owners voting it down.

If you guys show enough fan support you could end up like the Sonics and get a team relocated back to your city in the future, or you get your stadium this year and this whole thread becomes pointless. That being said even people from Cali on this thread have said that California has too many basketball teams.
Literally no one, AND I MEAN NO ONE, is saying The Kings will stay even if they dont get an arena deal done. I have nop clue why you even said that.

tyfreaks brotha
02-12-2012, 01:07 PM
If the Kings aren't able to stay in Sacramento I'm not even gonna bother watching one more play of basketball

Young2Kinsler
02-12-2012, 05:32 PM
Let's put a team back in a city that couldn't support one in the first place....BRILLIANT

iceberg00316
02-12-2012, 05:38 PM
First of all, let me say I am a die-hard sonic fan so I am biased. I just was reading through these posts and found a few things funny/entertaining and figured I would join the action while we all wait and see what happens since nobody knows...

--for the dude who thinks that st. louis is in line before seattle for a team. Yeah, I've read all those swirling rumors too (sarcasm)

--The dude who thinks it takes 5 years to build an arena. That might be the dumbest/most hilarious thing written yet

--Does anyone know who is which city between Sac/Seattle is actually closer to getting an arena. The Sac talk reminds me of the year before Seattle leaving and we trusted everything we read as fact on how close we were to steps to keep the team. I wouldn't beleive everything you read.

--IF (Big IF) Sac went to Seattle, people even comparing it to the same thing Seattle went through as far as getting a team stolen is insane. A Seattle native as far as I know is not going to buy the Kings and promise to keep the team in Sac town (lying through is fat teeth the entire time)

--The idea that we "blew our chance" by not supporting the team is just stupid. I went to a meaningless game mid-season that last year and the place was rockin. It was just a small/crappy arena. Just cause a panel of big-wigs decide they don't want to spend money for an arena doesn't mean an entire city turned their back on the team.

--Sucks to lose a team (Im NOT saying Sac is) but we both know what both sides are rooting for...good luck and somehow, someway, Our Sonics will rise again!!

Baller1
02-12-2012, 06:08 PM
Let's put a team back in a city that couldn't support one in the first place....BRILLIANT

Way to come in with the ignorance. Solid.

MVP1
02-12-2012, 07:04 PM
Let's put a team back in a city that couldn't support one in the first place....BRILLIANT

:facepalm:

You gotta do some research before you come on here

LAOwnsAll15
02-12-2012, 07:10 PM
The Sonics werent exactly a "good team" during my short NBA following. But they sure as hell put up better games then any games the Kings or Bobcats have put up since the Sonics left Seattle.

DerekRE_3
02-12-2012, 10:11 PM
Let's see...

1) Seattle business leaders are targeting the Kings and want to buy and move them to Seattle. The Kings are NOT for sale. There's also a billionaire named Ron Burkle who wants to buy the Kings and keep them in Sacramento. It's not like these guys are the only people interested. You know what team is DEFINITELY for sale? The New Orleans Hornets. How about you start there?

2) Seattle needs to build a new arena while cities like Anaheim and Kansas City already have venues that meet NBA standards.

3) Sacramento is pretty close (the closest they have ever been by far) to coming up with their own arena deal to keep the Kings in Sacramento.

4) Ticket sales in Sac are up 20% while tv ratings are up 33%

5)
Joe and Gavin Maloof – who operate the Kings – aren't thrilled about brother George's solo act, and, of greatest significance to Kings fans, the two oldest Maloofs have become more entrenched in Sacramento and even less inclined to leave. They have taken an aggressive boots-on-ground approach to marketing, ticket sales and re-engaging the community.
Source: Sacramento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/12/4257542/ailene-voisin-who-do-we-want-to.html)

6) Just to reiterate:

Seattle business leaders are campaigning for another franchise and, according to published reports, targeting the Kings. This is not going to happen for a number of reasons, according to my highly place NBA sources, namely the fact KeyArena is still outdated but more importantly because the Maloofs are not selling the Kings. Repeat after me: The Maloofs are not selling the Kings.
Source: Sacramento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/12/4257542/ailene-voisin-who-do-we-want-to.html)

But hey...this is the NBA Forum. Let's continue to ignore facts.

GrandDaddyPurp
02-12-2012, 10:16 PM
Repeat after me: The Maloofs are not selling the Kings.

The Maloofs are not selling the Kings.

OA SLAY
02-13-2012, 12:18 AM
Let's put a team back in a city that couldn't support one in the first place....BRILLIANT

Lets build a franchise around a QB that cant throw.....BRILLIANT!

iceberg00316
02-13-2012, 12:19 AM
I bet they arnt...but I bet they will if no arena gets built. Either that or I bet they will change their tune about moving. The poster above seems to personally know the goofs and what they are thinking. Sac is trying to get an arena, if they need support, why in gods name would they come out and admit that they were considering a sell or move...that would be dumb. Not saying they are or arnt...just sayin lets wait and see.

Young2Kinsler
02-13-2012, 12:28 AM
Lets build a franchise around a QB that cant throw.....BRILLIANT!

LOL, I love fans who come in and try to attack a posters team when it has nothing to do with the thread. But yeah you are right...Romo is horrible.

ZebraCity916
02-13-2012, 12:44 AM
First of all, let me say I am a die-hard sonic fan so I am biased. I just was reading through these posts and found a few things funny/entertaining and figured I would join the action while we all wait and see what happens since nobody knows...

--for the dude who thinks that st. louis is in line before seattle for a team. Yeah, I've read all those swirling rumors too (sarcasm)

--The dude who thinks it takes 5 years to build an arena. That might be the dumbest/most hilarious thing written yet

--Does anyone know who is which city between Sac/Seattle is actually closer to getting an arena. The Sac talk reminds me of the year before Seattle leaving and we trusted everything we read as fact on how close we were to steps to keep the team. I wouldn't beleive everything you read.

--IF (Big IF) Sac went to Seattle, people even comparing it to the same thing Seattle went through as far as getting a team stolen is insane. A Seattle native as far as I know is not going to buy the Kings and promise to keep the team in Sac town (lying through is fat teeth the entire time)

--The idea that we "blew our chance" by not supporting the team is just stupid. I went to a meaningless game mid-season that last year and the place was rockin. It was just a small/crappy arena. Just cause a panel of big-wigs decide they don't want to spend money for an arena doesn't mean an entire city turned their back on the team.

--Sucks to lose a team (Im NOT saying Sac is) but we both know what both sides are rooting for...good luck and somehow, someway, Our Sonics will rise again!!

I'd like to hear how long you think it will take to build a, at the very least, $300 Million complex ($600 Million at the most) that holds around 20,000 people.

It's been estimated that it will take Sac to build our arena in about 5 years. Are you an architect or something??

Also, we're not believing everything we hear. We have things through the Sac City Counsel that have already passed that gets us closer to funding an arena. We dont have anonymous business man or anything like that saying things and making empty promises.

ZebraCity916
02-13-2012, 12:54 AM
Let's see...

1) Seattle business leaders are targeting the Kings and want to buy and move them to Seattle. The Kings are NOT for sale. There's also a billionaire named Ron Burkle who wants to buy the Kings and keep them in Sacramento. It's not like these guys are the only people interested. You know what team is DEFINITELY for sale? The New Orleans Hornets. How about you start there?

2) Seattle needs to build a new arena while cities like Anaheim and Kansas City already have venues that meet NBA standards.

3) Sacramento is pretty close (the closest they have ever been by far) to coming up with their own arena deal to keep the Kings in Sacramento.

4) Ticket sales in Sac are up 20% while tv ratings are up 33%

5)
Source: Sacramento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/12/4257542/ailene-voisin-who-do-we-want-to.html)

6) Just to reiterate:

[/B]Source: Sacramento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/12/4257542/ailene-voisin-who-do-we-want-to.html)

But hey...this is the NBA Forum. Let's continue to ignore facts.

End argument.

blom85
02-13-2012, 01:20 AM
So they let their old team get taken from them which is arguably the best team in the league right now and try to steal one of the worst. :clap:

iceberg00316
02-13-2012, 01:29 AM
I'd like to hear how long you think it will take to build a, at the very least, $300 Million complex ($600 Million at the most) that holds around 20,000 people.

It's been estimated that it will take Sac to build our arena in about 5 years. Are you an architect or something??

Also, we're not believing everything we hear. We have things through the Sac City Counsel that have already passed that gets us closer to funding an arena. We dont have anonymous business man or anything like that saying things and making empty promises.

Prob 3 years to build (took okc that long)
David stern said as long as an arena was being built that the key is fine as a temp
you dont think the seattletimes has sources? They wouldnt have run that story for a pipe dream...somethin is up...i dont know what...but they dont not run a sonics story for 3 years and then bust out with that piece...an arena is a great possiblity..."stealing" the kings is a slim possibility but one none the less

GrandDaddyPurp
02-13-2012, 01:34 AM
So they let their old team get taken from them which is arguably the best team in the league right now and try to steal one of the worst. :clap:

Um says the Wolves fan?

The Kings are the youngest team and actually have pieces to build around. Worst would be teams like the Hornets and Bobcats.

Ty Fast
02-13-2012, 01:35 AM
why dont they put the hornets there? kings have a good fan base there.

ZebraCity916
02-13-2012, 12:46 PM
Prob 3 years to build (took okc that long)
David stern said as long as an arena was being built that the key is fine as a temp
you dont think the seattletimes has sources? They wouldnt have run that story for a pipe dream...somethin is up...i dont know what...but they dont not run a sonics story for 3 years and then bust out with that piece...an arena is a great possiblity..."stealing" the kings is a slim possibility but one none the less

I'm done arguing on why Seattle isn't getting the Kings.

Seattle doesn't have an arena and won't have a team until they get a new one.

DerekRE_3
02-13-2012, 01:35 PM
Prob 3 years to build (took okc that long)
David stern said as long as an arena was being built that the key is fine as a temp
you dont think the seattletimes has sources? They wouldnt have run that story for a pipe dream...somethin is up...i dont know what...but they dont not run a sonics story for 3 years and then bust out with that piece...an arena is a great possiblity..."stealing" the kings is a slim possibility but one none the less

I'll just keep repeating myself I guess:

In order to move the team to Seattle, the Kings have to be sold.

The kings are not for sale.
The kings are not for sale.
The kings are not for sale.
The kings are not for sale.
The kings are not for sale.

bmd1101
02-15-2012, 10:45 PM
Tomorrow Seattle Mayor Mike Mcginn will anounce the plan for the new arena south of Safeco. Source 710 espn Seattle/King 5 news. http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=5 banner at the top, should have a story up soon. Or http://www.nwcn.com/sports/New-Seattle-arena-press-conference-set-for-Thursday-139407008.html

Baller1
02-15-2012, 10:54 PM
Tomorrow Seattle Mayor Mike Mcginn will anounce the plan for the new arena south of Safeco. Source 710 espn Seattle/King 5 news. http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=5 banner at the top, should have a story up soon. Or http://www.nwcn.com/sports/New-Seattle-arena-press-conference-set-for-Thursday-139407008.html

:pray:

bmd1101
02-15-2012, 10:58 PM
:pray:

:pray:

tmacmamba
02-15-2012, 11:24 PM
Seattle deserves an NBA team no doubt, Hopefully they have a team there ASAP. I would much rather the Hornets move to Seattle than the Kings though but its looking like the Kings will end up there. Can you imagine how intense Seattle vs OKC games would be? :pray:

NateyB24
02-16-2012, 12:50 AM
I don't know if it will be the Kings but it sounds like this arena is getting built you don't announce things at the City Hall unless you have some sort of backing.

NateyB24
02-16-2012, 12:51 AM
I'll just keep repeating myself I guess:

In order to move the team to Seattle, the Kings have to be sold.

The kings are not for sale.
The kings are not for sale.
The kings are not for sale.
The kings are not for sale.
The kings are not for sale.

You do know the Maloofs are in debt right? They might end up having to sell there team and the NBA isn't going to give them more $ like they have in the past. Again not saying that the Kings are coming to Seattle but just because they aren't selling now doesn't mean they won't do it.

ZebraCity916
02-16-2012, 01:00 AM
Seattle deserves an NBA team no doubt, Hopefully they have a team there ASAP. I would much rather the Hornets move to Seattle than the Kings though but its looking like the Kings will end up there. Can you imagine how intense Seattle vs OKC games would be? :pray:

How does it look like the Kings will end up there?? There's no arena in Seattle. Until Seattle has a new arena, they will not have an NBA team. Why doesn't anybody understand that??

drew_ellis_23
02-16-2012, 01:06 AM
I am all for Seattle getting a team, I like the Kings, but I think it should be the Hornets. That team is a mess and needs to move. A lot of their fan base was from OKC and when the Thunder were born, that sucked some life out of NO. And now that OKC is great and NO is a joke they lose even more fans as most NBA fans are bandwagon jumpers. Bring the Hornets to Seattle, slap some green and gold on that **** and let us rebuild it! Sacramento will relocate to where ever they can get a arena built in Cal. Or they will go to Vegas with the same owners. That team won't be sold.

drew_ellis_23
02-16-2012, 01:08 AM
I don't know if it will be the Kings but it sounds like this arena is getting built you don't announce things at the City Hall unless you have some sort of backing.

This! The pieces are in place. Someone is going to get shafted by Stern like we did so he can get a team back in Seattle and get that market back. He now realizes he ****ed up. If OKC was still in Seattle the NBA would be better off right now :cool:

ZebraCity916
02-16-2012, 01:08 AM
You do know the Maloofs are in debt right? They might end up having to sell there team and the NBA isn't going to give them more $ like they have in the past. Again not saying that the Kings are coming to Seattle but just because they aren't selling now doesn't mean they won't do it.

Last I heard was that the Maloofs were out of debt after they sold most off sir shares of the Palms casino. They only own 2% of the Palms now.

What are they in debt from??

ZebraCity916
02-16-2012, 01:15 AM
I am all for Seattle getting a team, I like the Kings, but I think it should be the Hornets. That team is a mess and needs to move. A lot of their fan base was from OKC and when the Thunder were born, that sucked some life out of NO. And now that OKC is great and NO is a joke they lose even more fans as most NBA fans are bandwagon jumpers. Bring the Hornets to Seattle, slap some green and gold on that **** and let us rebuild it! Sacramento will relocate to where ever they can get a arena built in Cal. Or they will go to Vegas with the same owners. That team won't be sold.

I agree. Hornets should be moved to Seattle.

Kings are actually on the verge of getting a new arena here in Sac. We're closer than we ever have been at getting a new arena. The vote on the final plans of the area project will be on Feb. 28th I believe so we'll all know what will happen then.

NateyB24
02-16-2012, 01:22 AM
Last I heard was that the Maloofs were out of debt after they sold most off sir shares of the Palms casino. They only own 2% of the Palms now.

What are they in debt from??

They are? Thought they still were in it i heard it over Seattle Radio this past week. I agree though that i think it will be the Hornets i think they are most likely because nobody is stepping up to buy them from the NBA.

ZebraCity916
02-16-2012, 01:31 AM
They are? Thought they still were in it i heard it over Seattle Radio this past week. I agree though that i think it will be the Hornets i think they are most likely because nobody is stepping up to buy them from the NBA.

The Hornets are moving before any other team in the NBA. Kings aren't for sale. Sac is on verge of getting a new arena. And it just makes no sense for Stern to allow the sale of a team like the Kings when the NBA needs to sell the Hornets.

I hope Seattle does get an arena so they can get the Hornets. The NBA just ain't right without the SuperSonics.

shen
02-16-2012, 04:03 AM
For the record it took the Magic 2 years to build the arena they now use. I don't know how much time was spent gathering funds and permits. Just that between the time that they broke ground and place was opened was 2 years.

NateyB24
02-16-2012, 04:23 AM
For the record it took the Magic 2 years to build the arena they now use. I don't know how much time was spent gathering funds and permits. Just that between the time that they broke ground and place was opened was 2 years.

I am sure he has this all planned out he has been working on this for 8 months now quietly.

nolafan33
02-16-2012, 11:20 AM
Lol will you people stop about the Hornets moving?

I don't know who would move, but I can assure you it won't be the Hornets.

If the Hornets were moving, they would have had a owner a long time ago. Stern has turned around any owner with the intentions to move the team, that's straight from his mouth.

Even more, there will be an ownership announcement during All-Star weekend.

And zebracity, lets not act like the city of New Orleans doesn't support the Hornets. We sold 10,000 season tickets this past offseason, something a lot of NBA teams can't say they've done. Even with our horrendous record we're only averaging 622 less fans per game than your own Kings, and there are three teams with worse attendance than us, when our situation is possibly one of the worst in NBA history. The fanbase for the Hornets has gone though a tough time, and a lot of people have been turned off by this whole ownership fiasco. Alot of people have refused to put any sort of money into the franchise because of the way the team has been ran. Alot of people were turned off by the Chris Paul situation. There will be a resurgence with a new owner, a lot of people will come back. A lot of "core fans" will come back. Before you criticize others I suggest you look into the mirror. The Hornets have had better fan support attendance wise six of the last seven seasons. Back when the Hornets were winning, and when they first moved here, we consistently were having near sellouts averages, and in 07 we averaged standing room only crowds. So again, lets not act like the city can't support the Hornets, because we've proven that we can.

todu82
02-16-2012, 11:28 AM
Be good to see NBA basketball back in Seattle. What happened with that team and it's move a few years ago was disappointing.

NateyB24
02-16-2012, 12:53 PM
Lol will you people stop about the Hornets moving?

I don't know who would move, but I can assure you it won't be the Hornets.

If the Hornets were moving, they would have had a owner a long time ago. Stern has turned around any owner with the intentions to move the team, that's straight from his mouth.

Even more, there will be an ownership announcement during All-Star weekend.

And zebracity, lets not act like the city of New Orleans doesn't support the Hornets. We sold 10,000 season tickets this past offseason, something a lot of NBA teams can't say they've done. Even with our horrendous record we're only averaging 622 less fans per game than your own Kings, and there are three teams with worse attendance than us, when our situation is possibly one of the worst in NBA history. The fanbase for the Hornets has gone though a tough time, and a lot of people have been turned off by this whole ownership fiasco. Alot of people have refused to put any sort of money into the franchise because of the way the team has been ran. Alot of people were turned off by the Chris Paul situation. There will be a resurgence with a new owner, a lot of people will come back. A lot of "core fans" will come back. Before you criticize others I suggest you look into the mirror. The Hornets have had better fan support attendance wise six of the last seven seasons. Back when the Hornets were winning, and when they first moved here, we consistently were having near sellouts averages, and in 07 we averaged standing room only crowds. So again, lets not act like the city can't support the Hornets, because we've proven that we can.

Didn't some high ranking guy have to buy up Hornet tickets so that the lease wouldn't be voidable?

Shadowplay
02-16-2012, 01:21 PM
I hope it's the Hornets that move and not the Kings.

nolafan33
02-16-2012, 06:38 PM
Didn't some high ranking guy have to buy up Hornet tickets so that the lease wouldn't be voidable?

No, the fans made that benchmark.

Snakeyestx
02-16-2012, 06:47 PM
You know... Seattle Clippers (makes Logistical sense too since there are just SOOOO many ships in LA) have a nice ring to it.... why does LA need two teams anyway?

OT Thriller
02-16-2012, 08:23 PM
The thing that really bothers me about New Orleans is how they took the Hornets name when they moved to NO. Thats a joke. New Orleans will never be the real Hornets.

I know that may be a weird reason, but as a former Charlotte Hornets fan, thats why im rooting for New Orleans to move to Seattle. Seriously New Orleans Hornets as a team name sounds awful and awkward lets be honest.

utl768
02-17-2012, 12:40 AM
the kings really should be the team to move

california doesnt need 4 nba teams

new orleans is a better market imo and they should keep their team there

congrats tho to the seattle ppl for finally getting an arena done

LTBaByyy
02-17-2012, 12:41 AM
Just move the Thunder back!!!! Makes so much sense

Kings have to make the deadline for that franchise, OKC will no way in hell support that team if Durant leave and they become a lottery team

LTBaByyy
02-17-2012, 12:42 AM
Just as simple as it was to move the Hornets back to New Orleans

Move the Thunder back!

utl768
02-17-2012, 12:50 AM
the thunder arent moving back

that ship has sailed a long time ago

LTBaByyy
02-17-2012, 01:02 AM
The Thunder will move in 10 years when they become the next Hornets

Every team goes through their phase and that's a very small market that wont support a bad team

DerekRE_3
02-17-2012, 01:22 AM
Biggest part of the "big announcement" today in Seattle:

They won't build the arena unless there is a tenant waiting. The Kings are not for sale, and won't be for sale, and that's the only way the Kings can be a potential tenant for a new arena in Seattle.

And even if they do go on sale, the people who want to buy and move the team to Seattle will have billionaire Ron Burkle (who Stern really likes) to compete with, and he has been interested in buying the Kings for about a year now.

Bottom line is Sacramento is one city council vote away from securing an arena deal. If they do that, they stay regardless. That vote will come on the 28th of February, plus mayor Kevin Johnson is going to meet with David Stern during All-Star Weekend to discuss the arena. The March 1st deadline has a good chance of being extended as well because of progress made in Sacramento. If that happens, it will likely be announced during All-Star weekend.

NateyB24
02-17-2012, 05:31 AM
Biggest part of the "big announcement" today in Seattle:

They won't build the arena unless there is a tenant waiting. The Kings are not for sale, and won't be for sale, and that's the only way the Kings can be a potential tenant for a new arena in Seattle.

And even if they do go on sale, the people who want to buy and move the team to Seattle will have billionaire Ron Burkle (who Stern really likes) to compete with, and he has been interested in buying the Kings for about a year now.

Bottom line is Sacramento is one city council vote away from securing an arena deal. If they do that, they stay regardless. That vote will come on the 28th of February, plus mayor Kevin Johnson is going to meet with David Stern during All-Star Weekend to discuss the arena. The March 1st deadline has a good chance of being extended as well because of progress made in Sacramento. If that happens, it will likely be announced during All-Star weekend.

Actually the biggest thing to take out of this proposal is the fact that Hansen is willing to put 290M of private $ into this arena which would be the 3rd most for an arena. This sounds like to sweet of a deal for the city to mess up the only people who would have to worry about paying for it are the people who are going to go and enjoy it won't effect the people who aren't NBA fans.

Also i doubt they would come out to the public like this unless there is a high chance of it getting done if it didn't they would just stay quiet in my opinion.

Not saying it will be the Kings though as others have said Hornets make the most sense because they do not have an owner yet just depends on if Stern will change his mind on moving them.

nolafan33
02-17-2012, 03:43 PM
The Hornets will soon have a owner, announcement will be made during all star weekend and the new ownerwill be in place before the trade deadline.

I feel like I've said this a million times but people refuse to acknowledge it. Kind of like how people think Eric Gordon is unhappy in New Orleans but refuse the fact that we almost had a deal done to extend him.

NateyB24
02-17-2012, 04:16 PM
The Hornets will soon have a owner, announcement will be made during all star weekend and the new ownerwill be in place before the trade deadline.

I feel like I've said this a million times but people refuse to acknowledge it. Kind of like how people think Eric Gordon is unhappy in New Orleans but refuse the fact that we almost had a deal done to extend him.

Until i see it on paper i won't believe it whoever is going to buy them isn't going to profit off them if they keep them in New Orleans might even lose $.

Ty Fast
02-17-2012, 04:37 PM
Do you think they will be an expansion team or do you think a team will relocate? I think the Hornets should move there if someone relocates. Even when the Hornets had CP3 they still had bad attendance numbers. Lots of people say the Kings, but I think they should stay. They have really good fans. What do you think?

gotoHcarolina52
02-17-2012, 04:39 PM
Move OKC back

Ty Fast
02-17-2012, 04:41 PM
Move OKC back

i bet seattle would love that.

NateyB24
02-17-2012, 04:45 PM
A team will relocate Stern said no expansion Hansen is going to meet with the NBA in April he met with them last year to i don't want to get excited but it sure sounds like something is going to happen the Mayor wouldn't of addressed the public like he did if there wasn't a solid plan in place.


i bet seattle would love that.

I could really care less what team we got.

JeffG20
02-17-2012, 04:56 PM
Do you think they will be an expansion team or do you think a team will relocate? I think the Hornets should move there if someone relocates. Even when the Hornets had CP3 they still had bad attendance numbers. Lots of people say the Kings, but I think they should stay. They have really good fans. What do you think?

Hornets are not moving

KnickFanSince91
02-17-2012, 04:58 PM
The Hornets make the most sense because that franchise hasn't had a fanbase behind them since Zo and LJ started fighting. That's gonna be a young team that could grow into something fun to watch depending on how they draft in the next few years. I'm sure Seattle would love them.

smith&wesson
02-17-2012, 05:05 PM
the seatle hornets lol thats sounds awful

ManningToTyree
02-17-2012, 05:10 PM
Any team that is moved there should be renamed the sonics

gotoHcarolina52
02-17-2012, 05:12 PM
This is all quite simple

Move the Kings to Seattle, rename them the "Seattle Supersonics"
Rename the Jazz the "Salt Lake City Kings"
Rename New Orleans the "New Orleans Jazz"
Rename the Bobcats the "Charlotte Hornets"

NateyB24
02-17-2012, 05:16 PM
Any team that is moved there should be renamed the sonics

It will we retained the name.

KnickFanSince91
02-17-2012, 05:17 PM
the seatle hornets lol thats sounds awful

Any team that winds up in Seattle will be called the Sonics and continue the history. Similar to what happened with the Cleveland Browns after the Ravens left.

Cal827
02-17-2012, 05:26 PM
Move the Clippers. They will never be able to jump over the shadow of the Lakers. You know, unless Stern starts handing them titles.

sep11ie
02-17-2012, 05:31 PM
This is all quite simple

Move the Kings to Seattle, rename them the "Seattle Supersonics"
Rename the Jazz the "Salt Lake City Kings"
Rename New Orleans the "New Orleans Jazz"
Rename the Bobcats the "Charlotte Hornets"

That makes waaaaay too much sense for the NBA to do.

nolafan33
02-17-2012, 05:35 PM
The Hornets make the most sense because that franchise hasn't had a fanbase behind them since Zo and LJ started fighting. That's gonna be a young team that could grow into something fun to watch depending on how they draft in the next few years. I'm sure Seattle would love them.

And New Orleans wouldn't?

Some of you guys are so misinformed, that you shouldn't even be discussing this topic.

Lets not act like the Hornets time in New Orleans has been full of nothing but roses. I mean, where should we start?

Lets start from one of the first things I remember, a public feud that our two allstars and their head coach Tim Floyd had. I'm talking about Baron Davis and Jamaal Magloire, their head coach didn't want their personal trainers to enter the Alario Center, so they decided they would one up the coach and warm up and stretch OUTSIDE the Center. Is that on the fans or the franchise?

Katrina hits, and the team moves to OKC for two seasons. During that time, they made no attempt to connect to the city of New Orleans, even having some coaches and players say they should stay in OKC because New Orleans would never be the same. When they came back to New Orleans for a few games in those two years, do you know how the public address announcer announced the team? "PLEASE RISE AND WELCOME, YOURRRR HOMETOWN HORNETS!!" Yes, that is right, your hometown Hornets. Now your New Orleans Hornets, but your hometown Hornets. The franchise made no attempt, it was like relating to New Orleans in anyway would cause the franchise to disappear out of thin air. Is that on the fans or the franchise?

Team comes back and has a great season, gets within one game of the WCF. Things go down hill from there though. Team basically tries to trade Tyson Chandler for basically nothing, but OKC (or Seattle?) rejects the trade because apparently the Hornets had a bunch of teenagers hired as doctors and OKC isn't happy with Chandlers health. Then, Shinn doesn't want to pay the guys that needed to be paid, so we lose a few guys from that team. Is that on the fans or the franchise?

The embarrassment that is George Shinn. Shinn has to be one of the worst owners in NBA history. Do you know one of the main reasons Gary Chouest (former minority owner) doesn't own the Hornets? Shinn wanted Chouest to pay off his own PERSONAL debts, debts that he collected during his 20 something years as the owner of the Hornets. Chouest obviously said no. Is that on the fans or the franchise?

George Shinn didn't want to fire Byron Scott after the embarrasment that was the 08 playoffs, 1st round against Denver (again is that on the fans or the franchise?), because he didn't want to have to pay Scott. We start out horribly the next season, Scott finally gets canned. But wait! Shinn doesn't want to pay to bring in an actual head coach, so what does he do? He appoints our GM Jeff Bower, who has no known coaching experience, to head coach! If that wasn't bad enough, Shinn brings back the before mentioned Tim Floyd as an assistant coach! Are you laughing yet? This is just yet another embarrassment for the Hornets fanbase. Is that on the fans or the franchise?

Then because of the disagreements Shinn and Chouest have, and because of Shinns outrageous sales price, an owner cannot be found. So what happens? The NBA, and the HATED David Stern buys the team. Now the Hornets are even BIGGER laughing stocks. How embarrassing is that? So, is that on the fans or the franchise?

And then, because of the garbage this franchise has thrown itself in, our two franchise players (Paul and West) leave town. Paul leaves in ugly fashion, another black eye to the Hornets, and yet lose their fanbase even more.

And now we of course come to this season. The lockout damaged all fanbases, we know that. But then comes the VERY laughable Chris Paul trade saga. How much did this embarrasment hurt the Hornets fan base? Chris Paul is traded, wait no he's not! Hornets and the NBA want more! But they want too much! Multiple teams back out (and Hornets fans are again shaking their heads)! Finally a trade goes through, and what do we get? Well I'll go further into one of the pieces (Kaman), but we get a young promising SF, a draft pick that looks like it will be late lottery, and a guy that has only played two games for the Hornets. How does that look now? Basically we got Aminu for Chris Paul. Is that on the fanbase or the franchise?

Lastly, there is the ongoing Chris Kaman saga. Lets tell him to leave the team, go sit at home because we're going to trade you. Well that sucks, and is kind of odd says the Hornets fanbase. So then reports come out that the NBA once again wants too much, and Kaman is taken off the block and told to come back to the team. How do you think the fanbase reacts to that? Not good, another "smh" moment I can assure you. Is that on the fanbase or the franchise?



So I mean, what has the franchise done to earn the support of New Orleans other than embarrass us and kick us when we were down? I'd really like to know, because as a diehard fan I don't see it.

But even with that, there is a little excitement in the air. You say, "I'm sure Seattle would love them." Would New Orleans not love them? It's like a whole new start, like the team is just moving to New Orleans. It's a whole new team, a whole new franchise, and honestly a rebrand is very possible. People say, "Oh New Orleans hasn't supported that team." I ask, why should we? Truth is, that answer is irrelevant, because the franchise has down NOTHING to warrant our support. BUT, we have anyway. We meet a benchmark last year, we sell 10K season tickets this offseason through a lockout and through losing the franchises face, something very few teams can say they have done. Does that not count as support? If it doesn't, what does selling 10K season tickets mean? But still, we don't support the team? In 2007 we AVERAGED a sellout for every home game, we averaged standing room only. The city of New Orleans has proved that we will support the Hornets, winning cures all.

Cal827
02-17-2012, 05:37 PM
That makes waaaaay too much sense for the NBA to do.

:laugh2:

KnickFanSince91
02-17-2012, 07:02 PM
And New Orleans wouldn't?

entirely too many words to quote

I hear you but in terms of making money, it's a better look for the new owner and the league to ship the team to Washington. I'm sure you are already familiar with the details but for those that care, read this :

http://www.atthehive.com/2010/12/7/1862259/the-hornets-financial-statements-the-hornets-have-been-unprofitable

NateyB24
02-17-2012, 07:09 PM
If Stern has found a guy who is willing to buy the Hornets and keep them in NO why has he not sold them to the guy yet?

nolafan33
02-17-2012, 07:44 PM
If Stern has found a guy who is willing to buy the Hornets and keep them in NO why has he not sold them to the guy yet?

From my understanding the deadline to get your bids in just passed like a week or so ago, and it is down to three guys.

Tom Benson (New Orleans Saints owner and WVUE-TV owner)
Gary Chouest (Edison Chouest Offshort owner)
Mike Dunleavy (I think everyone knows who he is, he would be in a group of California investers who would move to New Orleans)

Right now it's a bidding war. If three people are interested, you are going to play them against each other to get the best price.

Just to give you an idea, the NBA bought the Hornets for $300 million. George Shinn has a net worth of only $100 million. Tom Benson has a net worth of $1.1 billion and Chouest is anywhere between Mark Cuban (2B) and Paul Allen (13.5B).

mjokc
02-17-2012, 07:56 PM
Please get it done so that Sonics fans can stop crying and move on with their lives.

Stuckey#3
02-18-2012, 05:58 AM
At least sacramento and Seattle are close-by... The league should just sell the hornets to Seattle and let the kings stay in sactown.

KingPosey
02-27-2012, 03:53 PM
So, about 50 posters probably need to say "OOOOPPPSSS" right now?

KingPosey
02-27-2012, 03:54 PM
Sorry Seattle fans...

PatsSoxKnicks
02-27-2012, 04:04 PM
The Clippers moving to Seattle would be a good idea. Most people in LA are Lakers fans anyway and so I doubt any people in LA would really miss the Clippers. Meanwhile, the Sonics would be getting back an exciting team with CP3 and Blake to replace the KD-Westbrook team that left (and has got to hurt seeing as how great they are now).

So I say move the Clippers to Seattle.

Tmath
02-27-2012, 04:09 PM
The Clippers moving to Seattle would be a good idea. Most people in LA are Lakers fans anyway and so I doubt any people in LA would really miss the Clippers. Meanwhile, the Sonics would be getting back an exciting team with CP3 and Blake to replace the KD-Westbrook team that left (and has got to hurt seeing as how great they are now).

So I say move the Clippers to Seattle.

I agree with this 100%.

PleaseBeNice
02-27-2012, 04:11 PM
Im not sorry at all. We kept our team

ManningToTyree
02-27-2012, 04:17 PM
This is all quite simple

Move the Kings to Seattle, rename them the "Seattle Supersonics"
Rename the Jazz the "Salt Lake City Kings"
Rename New Orleans the "New Orleans Jazz"
Rename the Bobcats the "Charlotte Hornets"

That is too logical for it to ever happen.

Mr_Amaziing
02-28-2012, 03:23 AM
The Clippers moving to Seattle would be a good idea. Most people in LA are Lakers fans anyway and so I doubt any people in LA would really miss the Clippers. Meanwhile, the Sonics would be getting back an exciting team with CP3 and Blake to replace the KD-Westbrook team that left (and has got to hurt seeing as how great they are now).

So I say move the Clippers to Seattle.

This

Couldn't have said it better





Also that girl on your sig is SEXYy!
( Very bangable ;) )

asandhu23
02-28-2012, 03:47 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQeMhYJe5JA


:drool:

ccg34
02-28-2012, 03:50 AM
I miss the Sonics. I want KD and Westbrook back. :(

ccg34
02-28-2012, 03:51 AM
I guess my team will be New York Knicks until the Supersonics come back. Jeremy Lin is the man. He is an inspiration to all asian americans.

Weezy
02-28-2012, 09:18 AM
This is all quite simple

Move the Kings to Seattle, rename them the "Seattle Supersonics"
Rename the Jazz the "Salt Lake City Kings"
Rename New Orleans the "New Orleans Jazz"
Rename the Bobcats the "Charlotte Hornets"

You're hired, David... youre fired.

AntiG
02-28-2012, 11:46 AM
they'd better move a team and not create a new one. there's already more than enough teams that fans around the country don't care about.