- Oct 9, 2006
- 57,720
- 29,780
Seattle SuperSonics Thread
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by 651akathepaul,
- Start date
lightweight champion
Banned
- Jun 23, 2007
- 13,481
- 5,271
Seattle hasn't been able to get a new arena for 20 years
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19921014&slug=1518529
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19921014&slug=1518529
- Feb 12, 2005
- 58,832
- 30,227
I heard an explanation on a reason why people think the vote was so hands down and it makes sense. Not sure if mentioned in here yet, but according to NBC Sports, a theory is that the owners don't want to set a precedent that ownership groups needing to fund new arenas in order to remain in their city, do not end up putting up their own money in order to finance it. What they like about the Kings proposal is that it involves a larger amount coming from taxpayers. NBA owners, as greedy as it sounds, want the arenas to be funded by municipalities rather than their own pockets. Makes sense. It's unfortunate, but coming from Stern and the NBA...Makes sense.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 38182
Guest
Not trying to hate on you........ but Jesus H Christ, I have been saying this since day 1...........
think of the small market team owners who aren't making huge profits, they can't afford arenas on their own. Hell, the Maloofs can't afford one even with an arena deal that has the NBA loaning them money and Sacramento paying their fair share
And the reason why Sacramento's subsidy>Seattle's is because
A) Sacramento is offering about $50 mil more of pure city subsidy in parking rev out of the general fund.
B) Seattle's subsidy is a loan, guaranteed and backed by Hansen/Ballmer..... making it not a true subsidy or public-private partnership. And I believe something like 40% of the return is based on numbers with and NHL team.
lightweight champion
Banned
- Jun 23, 2007
- 13,481
- 5,271
It makes a lot of sense. If owners paid for the arenas themselves then every city major pro sports teams will demand the same that same thing. Eventually owning a sports team becomes a complete loss and owners would be forced to sell. When owners sell the new incoming owners takeover whatever debt is owed. I don't know how many billionaires out there that would take on hundreds of millions of dollars of debt.
- Feb 12, 2005
- 58,832
- 30,227
Yeah, well...I only have a casual interest in this and not nearly as studious on the topic as you and dmbrhs are. Mainly, it's been selective hearing here in Seattle. Rather, selective reporting, so the spin blurs the perception. There was so much good with the Seattle offer that no one looked at the opposite end of the spectrum in what good for the NBA owners could come from the Kings' proposal.
Last edited:
- Jul 29, 2001
- 20,778
- 10,860
Which is what they did, and Stern spoke glowingly of it. Less than ten years later, Stern said it wasn't adequate.
- Oct 9, 2006
- 57,720
- 29,780
- Jul 29, 2001
- 20,778
- 10,860
Too many lulz here.
D
Deleted member 38182
Guest
so if you want/keep a team you have to not only have an arena subsidy by the city but refuse revenue sharing Hansen/Ballmer should just offer up a yearly fee of like $25mil to inject into revenue sharing to entice the NBA to bring them a team
D
Deleted member 38182
Guest
hope yall make it out for this
- Sep 21, 2008
- 49,029
- 61,330
Wack
- Jul 29, 2001
- 20,778
- 10,860
Mickey Arison about to get fined again lol. Interesting comments though.
http://www.sportsradiokjr.com/pages/softy_page.html?article=11270575
http://www.sportsradiokjr.com/pages/softy_page.html?article=11270575
- Apr 27, 2009
- 19,563
- 6,839
I disagree with the part where he says Seattle didnt do anything to keep them there on both parts. Balmer did come late but what city would seriously spend $600 million on a brand new arena in kent? Especially since we had just renovated key arena right before that.
- Jul 29, 2001
- 20,778
- 10,860
The NBA set it up so nothing Seattle did would have satisfied them. That's the fallacy in his argument that Seattle didn't do enough.
- Oct 9, 2006
- 57,720
- 29,780
^ I don't know the finer-details, but that was always my impression of the situation... that Clay set unrealistic/unreasonable demands, which eventually resulted in "Oh well, guess I'll have to move..."
- Apr 27, 2009
- 19,563
- 6,839
This.
Plus it's funny Kevin Johnson calls Seattle out for poaching when sacremento poached the team from Kansas City in the first place
- Apr 27, 2009
- 19,563
- 6,839
This.
Plus it's funny Kevin Johnson calls Seattle out for poaching when sacremento poached the team from Kansas City in the first place
- Nov 16, 2001
- 3,949
- 1,197
KC had little support for the Royals/Kings for many years before they were moved. This situation is completely different, especially since KC has expressed little interest in regaining an NBA time the Kings left 28 years ago. It's tough to make the same argument for Sacramento since the city has 2 of the longest sellout streaks in NBA history, and has only had a handful of playoff worthy teams.
- Oct 9, 2006
- 57,720
- 29,780
@ChrisDaniels5
BREAKING: The $625 million dollar pricetag for #NBAKings would put franchise on par with Miami Heat, as 6th most valuable in NBA per Forbes.
EDIT ~
http://www.sonicsarena.com/news/the-latest-on-bringing-the-nba-back-to-seattle
In an effort to further demonstrate the extent of our commitment to bring basketball back to Seattle, we have elected to voluntarily increase our proposed purchase price for the Sacramento Kings NBA Franchise by $75 million — from an enterprise value of $550 million to $625 million. In conjunction with our revised offer, we have also guaranteed to the NBA that the Franchise would be a revenue sharing payer in all years in Seattle.
We would also like to take the opportunity to again point out just how far ahead our Arena project is:
— Chris Hansen
BREAKING: The $625 million dollar pricetag for #NBAKings would put franchise on par with Miami Heat, as 6th most valuable in NBA per Forbes.
EDIT ~
http://www.sonicsarena.com/news/the-latest-on-bringing-the-nba-back-to-seattle
In an effort to further demonstrate the extent of our commitment to bring basketball back to Seattle, we have elected to voluntarily increase our proposed purchase price for the Sacramento Kings NBA Franchise by $75 million — from an enterprise value of $550 million to $625 million. In conjunction with our revised offer, we have also guaranteed to the NBA that the Franchise would be a revenue sharing payer in all years in Seattle.
We would also like to take the opportunity to again point out just how far ahead our Arena project is:
- The ownership group has acquired 100% of the property necessary to construct the Arena.
- We have 100% of our private financing for the Arena committed and in place.
- After being approved by the City and County Councils the Arena MOU/legislation was signed into law by the Seattle Mayor and King County Executive on October 16, 2012. The referendum period expired 30 days later.
- We engaged our Arena architects two years ago and have completed our detailed design schematics and costing.
- We have filed for our Master Use Permit and are well underway with the Environmental Review Process, which we expect to conclude late this year.
— Chris Hansen
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 38182
Guest
Hopefully if (most likely when) the Kings stay, Sonics fans won't be too mad at the NBA and still welcome the Sonics truly coming back by way of expansion.
- Feb 17, 2007
- 21,784
- 2,957
Expansion isn't going to happen anytime soon, though. Which is why the Hansen group is desperately doing whatever it can at the last second to change minds.
D
Deleted member 38182
Guest
2016 is 3 years away, Arison said as much
Has the NBA even responded to the Hansen's first increase?? This reeks of Maloofism going this rogue and off the grid
- Feb 17, 2007
- 21,784
- 2,957
Even with the new TV contracts up for negotiations, it's still hard to believe that there will be expansion when you would need at least another team to pair along with the Seattle team to make things square. Where is there another market for a team to not only exist but to thrive in order to justify it's existence? Not to mention discussions about a serious change concerning division alignments (though this isn't as big a problem as it probably was for the NFL in the early 2000s, since divisions mean squat in the NBA).
- Jul 29, 2001
- 20,778
- 10,860
If anything, this is Hansen telling the league that it doesn't matter how much it costs, he wants a team. It'll turn heads of the owners that are consistently losing money.
