Seattle SuperSonics Thread

[Deleted member 38182]

Yikes. Add in relocation fees, debt to repay Sacramento, and financing a new arena...it could be somewhere between $850-$900 million to have a team in Seattle. It would be a lot less expensive to have an expansion team.

Until they can figure out a way to spread out the superstars expansion is never gonna happen

I still think this will end with the Kings staying, and Seattle getting an expansion team promise with the completion of the new arena in Seattle.

 

[lightweight champion]

Until they can figure out a way to spread out the superstars expansion is never gonna happen

Lower the salary cap...again. It's not foolproof but it's the first thing that came to mind for me. Put it around 54 million and more players like Harden will be shipped off to other teams for role players, cap space, and expirings. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think right now owners are getting somewhere around 31 million per team for TV deals. Obviously adding one expansion team puts the league at an uneven 31 teams, so expanding two more teams would balance things out. IMO Seattle and KC should have teams. Adding those two would cut into everyone else's share, but owners still get somewhere around 29 million each. That's really not that big of a difference. It's not as simple as that, but it's a start.

 

[Deleted member 38182]

The NBA players would be on strike indefinitely if they lowered the salary cap that much 

 

[dakid23]

I still think this will end with the Kings staying, and Seattle getting an expansion team promise with the completion of the new arena in Seattle.

I see this ending with Seattle getting the Kings and Sacramento getting a promise to be the next city in line.

This would of never happened if the Sonics would have stayed in Seattle .

 

[Deleted member 38182]

^ I responded to you in the Kings thread and basically we ain't ever getting another NBA franchise or expansion if they leave

 

[dmbrhs]

Before everyone gets worked up or bent out of shape, this is just part of Hansen's final sales pitch to the BoG.

http://www.king5.com/sports/Hansen-breaks-silence-asks-for-Priority-Ticket-Waitlist-197229971.html

 

[Deleted member 38182]

Why does Hansen need to continue a sales pitch when he already has a legally binded sales agreement with the Maloofs?

 

[dmbrhs]

The sales agreement is one thing. The BoG approving it is another. Finances and the arena are non-issues. Proving that there will be a fan base is something the owners still probably want to see. The Hansen group still gets to make a presentation to the BoG, and that will be a big part of it.

To compare: you don’t think the Hornets playing a season in OKC just months prior to the Sonics sale had any influence? It absolutely did. Hansen doesn’t have the luxury of an NBA team being relocated for a season to show the NBA anything, so his next best option is to show fan support in the best way he can.

 

[Deleted member 38182]

 I feel like when Sacramento did this a back in January, we just got mocked by everybody 

 

[dmbrhs]

 I feel like when Sacramento did this a back in January, we just got mocked by everybody 

I don't like it either (I think it's a bit cheesy), but it's the only thing he can do, really.

 

[statis22]

The sales agreement is one thing. The BoG approving it is another. Finances and the arena are non-issues. Proving that there will be a fan base is something the owners still probably want to see. The Hansen group still gets to make a presentation to the BoG, and that will be a big part of it.

To compare: you don’t think the Hornets playing a season in OKC just months prior to the Sonics sale had any influence? It absolutely did. Hansen doesn’t have the luxury of an NBA team being relocated for a season to show the NBA anything, so his next best option is to show fan support in the best way he can.

Doesn't the NBA has damn near 40 years of past history to show Seattle can support a team?

 

[niketalker23]

I still think this will end with the Kings staying, and Seattle getting an expansion team promise with the completion of the new arena in Seattle.

I see this ending with Seattle getting the Kings and Sacramento getting a promise to be the next city in line.

This would of never happened if the Sonics would have stayed in Seattle .

Why would the NBA relocate from a city willing to put in a lot public money , to a city who voted down to put in public money in the past?

This is the big issue IMO. Owners are going to want to embrace cities that are willing to dump in money to build their arenas.

 

[dmbrhs]

Why would the NBA relocate from a city willing to put in a lot public money , to a city who voted down to put in public money in the past?

This is the big issue IMO. Owners are going to want to embrace cities that are willing to dump in money to build their arenas.

1. The deal in the past that was "struck down" wasn't even a real offer. Clay Bennett asked for a fully tax-payer funded $500 million arena. He knew it would never get approved (no city or state would ever approve that), so it was never a real offer.

2. The past is not the present. The current arena deal in Seattle is being considered as a new model for public-private partnerships in pro sports. Some experts are calling it the best example they've seen of a private-public partnership for a sports stadium (and these are analysts with no vested interest). Hansen is paying for more than half of the new arena, along with every traffic study, EIS, etc.

And speaking of embracing owners willing to dump money into their product, I'm pretty sure the owners are more than willing to embrace Steve Ballmer and his $16 billion. Ballmer is also ultra competitive. He'd go into the luxury tax without hesitation.

 

[Deleted member 38182]

Why would the NBA relocate from a city willing to put in a lot public money , to a city who voted down to put in public money in the past?

This is the big issue IMO. Owners are going to want to embrace cities that are willing to dump in money to build their arenas.

1. The deal in the past that was "struck down" wasn't even a real offer. Clay Bennett asked for a fully tax-payer funded $500 million arena. He knew it would never get approved (no city or state would ever approve that), so it was never a real offer.

2. The past is not the present. The current arena deal in Seattle is being considered as a new model for public-private partnerships in pro sports. Some experts are calling it the best example they've seen of a private-public partnership for a sports stadium (and these are analysts with no vested interest). Hansen is paying for more than half of the new arena, along with every traffic study, EIS, etc.

And speaking of embracing owners willing to dump money into their product, I'm pretty sure the owners are more than willing to embrace Steve Ballmer and his $16 billion. Ballmer is also ultra competitive. He'd go into the luxury tax without hesitation.

I've been reading that Sac's arena deal would be preferred by more NBA owners because of the amount of public subsidy. Not every NBA city is going to have a Steve Balmer.

And I'm sure your comment of Balmer being rich and competitive isn't exclusive to just him... Who in their right mind would buy an NBA franchise and not want to be competitive?

 

[Deleted member 38182]

The more I think about it, the BoG will basically have to decide if they want to solidify blueprints for the future on how to poach an NBA franchise or how to keep and NBA franchise in its current home.

 

[lightweight champion]

It's gotta be solidifying the future in the current market. Relocating is extremely costly.

 

[Deleted member 38182]

It's gotta be solidifying the future in the current market. Relocating is extremely costly.

What do you mean costly?

 

[lightweight champion]

Relocation fee.
Funding a new arena in a new city.
You can't just pick and move and play in any old barn.

 

[Deleted member 38182]

Relocation fee.
Funding a new arena in a new city.
You can't just pick and move and play in any old barn.

I guess, but I'm sure Hansen/Balmer will have no problem putting up a relocation fee of $75-$100 mill.

The funding of a new arena is also no problem for those two, but the public subsidy is what the NBA is looking at. Any rich dude can fund an arena, but Stern/NBA will be looking at how it is funded but the city (Seattle/Sac). They don't want to set a new precedent/model of owners having to foot most of the bill, and this is where I think Sacramento might have an advantage since the Kings would only be asked to put up around 35% of the funding.

 

[lightweight champion]

Yeah but we both know last year was only an issue because the Maloofs only wanted to foot x amount of dollars and reap 100% revenue. I don't think Burkle will do that. Plus Sacramento isn't tapping into the general fund so we're all good there. This new arena deal will definitely make Sacramento a more metropolitan area than it currently is.

 

[Deleted member 38182]

Yeah but we both know last year was only an issue because the Maloofs only wanted to foot x amount of dollars and reap 100% revenue. I don't think Burkle will do that. Plus Sacramento isn't tapping into the general fund so we're all good there. This new arena deal will definitely make Sacramento a more metropolitan area than it currently is.

There's a quote of Burkle saying something along the lines of "don't worry about the funding of the arena" I'm absolutely confidant he'll get it done. To your last point, I wrote something about that in our Kings thread a few pages back in there

And it wasn't that the Maloofs only wanted to foot ____% of the arena, they wanted to fund 0% of the arena. They just never thought the city council/KJ would come to an agreement till it was too late and had to go thru the motions till George put his foot down and basically said they couldn't afford it...

 

[crcballer55]

The more I think about it, the BoG will basically have to decide if they want to solidify blueprints for the future on how to poach an NBA franchise or how to keep and NBA franchise in its current home.

I'm worried that the precedent has already been set though. Charlotte had a pretty strong fan base with the exception of the 2-3 years before they left, the same held true for Seattle too. Unfortunately, as I've seen it from afar the last couple years, Sacramento fell into the same trap. The only difference is that the grass roots support has always been there (Crown Downtown & HereWeBuy). Since Sacramento only needs 8 votes against the relocation to stay, and the Maloofs threw the door closed on David Stern's personally negotiated deal with the arena last year, I'm hoping that Stern will have some sway in convincing the owners that a loyal fan base deserves to have their team stay and pushing for the sale of another team with a lukewarm fan base (Minnesota?)

 

[ogkbj16]

I'm so excited for the Seattle Sonics to come back! Sorry Sacramento, but I think it is inevitable. Isaiah Thomas is coming back to his hometown Seattle. Deal is pretty much set at least that is what I get from Steve Ballmer and Slick Watts smirks.

 

[Deleted member 38182]

I'm so excited for the Seattle Sonics to come back! Sorry Sacramento, but I think it is inevitable. Isaiah Thomas is coming back to his hometown Seattle. Deal is pretty much set at least that is what I get from Steve Ballmer and Slick Watts smirks.

congrats man, what jersey you gonna get first?

The more I think about it, the BoG will basically have to decide if they want to solidify blueprints for the future on how to poach an NBA franchise or how to keep and NBA franchise in its current home.

I'm worried that the precedent has already been set though. Charlotte had a pretty strong fan base with the exception of the 2-3 years before they left, the same held true for Seattle too. Unfortunately, as I've seen it from afar the last couple years, Sacramento fell into the same trap. The only difference is that the grass roots support has always been there (Crown Downtown & HereWeBuy). Since Sacramento only needs 8 votes against the relocation to stay, and the Maloofs threw the door closed on David Stern's personally negotiated deal with the arena last year, I'm hoping that Stern will have some sway in convincing the owners that a loyal fan base deserves to have their team stay and pushing for the sale of another team with a lukewarm fan base (Minnesota?)

The precedent that has been set, the owner's ridiculous demands 

 Shinn and Bennett both wanted their cities to foot 100% of the bill,  is that if the city doesn't build a new arena then that market is no longer viable and therefore have free reign to move.

This situation is a little different IMO because Sacramento is bending over backwards to work and get an arena built. What better way to change a precedent set by Charlotte/Seattle, than promoting long term stability of a franchise by allowing them to meet the checklist set forth by the NBA and their constitution. And if the NBA BoG do allow the Kings move, what does that say for the future? does it mean, regardless of how much a city steps up to appease the NBA's needs and wants there's nothing you can do to keep a team?

 

[dmbrhs]

Interior arena renderings released. Damn, son. That place is gonna be wild if it all goes through.

http://www.sonicsarena.com/news/arena-renderings