PDA

View Full Version : Seattle might be getting a team?



JB24
02-05-2012, 06:19 PM
A wealthy San Francisco hedge-fund manager and officials in the Seattle mayor's office have been working behind the scenes for eight months to bring an NBA team back to the city as early as next fall and build a new arena, according to emails and documents that reveal a far more concerted effort than previously known.

A Dec. 13 agenda for a meeting between the parties shows they were talking about details such as a "Review of Basic Deal Structure," "Financing Issues," including "City Debt Capacity," and "Security for Public Financing."

The documents, released Friday to The Seattle Times under a public-disclosure request, also provide the first glimpse of how the largely unknown hedge-fund manager, 44-year-old Seattle native Christopher Hansen, approached the city about his desire to buy an NBA team and build an arena south of Safeco Field.

In an initial email laying out his vision, Hansen told city officials an arena could be built with minimal impact on taxpayers.


Kings up for grabs?

Although the documents don't mention how Seattle would obtain a team, they show the city has been following developments in Sacramento, which is under a March 1 deadline to come up with a viable proposal to build an arena for the Sacramento Kings. In September, Hirsh emailed a copy of an Associated Press story to Raup that outlined the Sacramento situation.

If Sacramento fails, the Kings could be playing in Seattle next fall if the city and Hansen reach an agreement, according to a Seattle City Hall source who has been briefed on the matter.


Eyes on Sacramento

What happens in Sacramento could drive the process.

Sacramento is attempting to secure the financing to build a new downtown arena for the Kings, who have played since 1988 in what is now known as Power Balance Pavilion, formerly Arco Arena. At 17,317 capacity, it is the smallest arena in the NBA and is also one of the oldest, and lacks many of the revenue-generating amenities of new arenas.

The Kings are owned by Joe and Gavin Maloof, who have run into some well-documented financial issues in recent years, specifically concerning their investment in the Palms Casino in Las Vegas, and they are pressing for a new arena to be built immediately or to relocate the team somewhere it will make more money.

The Kings almost moved to Anaheim last season before NBA Commissioner David Stern stepped in and said the city should be allowed more time to try to keep the team. Given that the Los Angeles Lakers and Los Angeles Clippers already play in the Southern California market, the owners of those teams might balk at a competitor.

The Kings are an original member of the NBA, which dates to 1949, and are one of the most well-traveled, having played in Rochester, N.Y.; Cincinnati; and Kansas City-Omaha before Sacramento.

Under the NBA's March 1 deadline for Sacramento to present a viable financing plan, a new arena would be located at the downtown rail yards at a cost of roughly $400 million. The city has proposed to raise about $200 million by leasing the rights to the city's parking spaces for 50 years.

On Friday, the city announced the names of 13 companies that have submitted proposals to win those rights. The city is expected on Feb. 14 to present to the City Council the proposals it considers the most viable. It also has been expected that a proposed arena builder would donate roughly $50 million to the project.

The Kings are struggling on the court, with a losing record, and attendance has suffered, with its average of 14,267 per game through Feb. 3 ranking 26th among 30 teams.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017426859_arena05m.html

Sandman21
02-05-2012, 06:23 PM
The NBA needs to open up the bidding on the Hornets. They aren't having much luck finding an owner to keep the team in New Orleans.

Nuntius
02-05-2012, 06:24 PM
Seattle Kings does not sound right in my ears. But yeah, it would be nice for Seattle to have a team.

xIndyFan
02-05-2012, 06:54 PM
article does raise an interesting point. if you were Christopher Hansen which team would you rather buy and move to seattle. sacramento or new orleans?

pacer4ever
02-05-2012, 07:03 PM
The NBA needs to open up the bidding on the Hornets. They aren't having much luck finding an owner to keep the team in New Orleans.

They have potential owners set up (the Benson group the Chouest group and the Mike Dunleavy sr group(I pray for Hornets fans sake that doesn't happen :laugh:) they just cant sell the team until March. The Hornets are doing better than a lot of other NBA teams .

The NBA only bought the team because the last owner Shinn was basically broke and had to step in before it got worse. Much like the Dodgers and frank Mccourt situation.

croz24
02-05-2012, 07:05 PM
Seattle should have never had the Sonics stolen from them... As for the naming, I believe if Seattle can get a team for next year, they can still be called the Supersonics.

AusPACER
02-05-2012, 07:28 PM
Seattle should have never had the Sonics stolen from them... As for the naming, I believe if Seattle can get a team for next year, they can still be called the Supersonics.

This is absolutely correct. Seattle made sure that they didn't take the name so that one day they could have have the sonics again. However the Thunder have all the history, banners and records.

Sonicsgate

Steagles
02-05-2012, 07:32 PM
Yeah, I hate that they were stolen. The Zombie Sonics will forever be known as "stolen" and rightfully so. I will never buy Starbucks, ever. I hope the Kings move up there and become the Zombie Sonics' Kryptonite.

EDIT: I guess I would buy Starbucks again, if only the CEO guy would buy the Hornets and bring the team back that he gave away to OKC. In the process give the "Hornets" history back to Charlotte and move forward.

pacer4ever
02-05-2012, 07:43 PM
Yeah, I hate that they were stolen. The Zombie Sonics will forever be known as "stolen" and rightfully so. I will never buy Starbucks, ever. I hope the Kings move up there and become the Zombie Sonics' Kryptonite.

Just like the Colts were stolen they will forever be known as "stolen" and rightfully so.

Baltimore should of never had their Colts stolen feel bad for the people of Baltimore for that happening. I would be so pissed if that happen to my team.

trying to contain myself from doing the Whoopie speech in Eddie (terrible movie btw lol)

Steagles
02-05-2012, 07:45 PM
Just like the Colts were stolen they will forever be known as "stolen" and rightfully so.

Baltimore should of never had their Colts stolen feel bad for the people of Baltimore for that happening. I would be so pissed if that happen to my team.

trying to contain myself from doing the Whoopie speech in Eddie (terrible movie btw lol)

The Colts situation is totally different. The NFL didn't "conspire" to make sure they come to Indy. Irsay just left. The NBA made sure that they moved to OKC because Seattle wouldn't build the new arena.

cdash
02-05-2012, 07:45 PM
Just like the Colts were stolen they will forever be known as "stolen" and rightfully so.

Baltimore should of never had their Colts stolen feel bad for the people of Baltimore for that happening. I would be so pissed if that happen to my team.

trying to contain myself from doing the Whoopie speech in Eddie (terrible movie btw lol)

Nobody really cares anymore.

Sandman21
02-05-2012, 07:53 PM
Just like the Browns were stolen they will forever be known as "stolen" and rightfully so.

Cleveland should of never had their Browns stolen feel bad for the people of Cleveland for that happening. I would be so pissed if that happen to my team.
Fixed. Go read "Glory for Sale" sometime.

pacer4ever
02-05-2012, 07:55 PM
The Colts situation is totally different. The NFL didn't "conspire" to make sure they come to Indy. Irsay just left. The NBA made sure that they moved to OKC because Seattle wouldn't build the new arena.

That is Seattle's fault for not building an arena. They would of stayeed IMO if they did. You cant make empty threats of leaving look what it has got the Kings this year. I personally could never move a team because that is just wrong to the fans of your team and to the franchise.


Cdash if the Pacers left tomorrow in the middle of the night for Seattle I would never forgive or never forget that. Would you??

I root and support for the Indiana Pacers not the Seattle Pacers. Also getting a new team wouldnt solve anything IMO yes you get a new team but I dont want a new team I want my Indiana Pacers.


The Browns were stole also but so were the Colts

EDIT at least Cleveland got their franchise back. Baltimore didn't they got an expansion franchise. Indy should be the one who have the Indianapolis Ravens and Baltimore should still have the Colts.

DocHolliday
02-05-2012, 08:10 PM
Seattle Kings does not sound right in my ears. But yeah, it would be nice for Seattle to have a team.
Seattle is actually in King county, so it wouldn't be that odd.

Sandman21
02-05-2012, 08:37 PM
EDIT at least Cleveland got their franchise back. Baltimore didn't they got an expansion franchise. Indy should be the one who have the Indianapolis Ravens and Baltimore should still have the Colts.

Tell that to Cleveland after Baltimore won a Super Bowl with THEIR players and have generally contended year and year out while the Browns have been a laughingstock since they came back. Some consolation prize.

Hicks
02-05-2012, 08:57 PM
Is it too obvious to move the Hornets to Seattle?

CableKC
02-05-2012, 09:11 PM
Wait a sec....Sacramento....a city that has a rabid and very supportive fanbase....could lose it's Team to Seattle....whereas the NBA is trying to find an Owner for the Hornets.

There's no way that the NBA can steer these Owners that could move the Kings to purchase the Hornets instead and move them to Seattle?

EDIT - or what Hicks said.

pacer4ever
02-05-2012, 09:12 PM
Wait a sec....Sacramento....a city that has a rabid and very supportive fanbase....could lose it's Team to Seattle....whereas the NBA is trying to find an Owner for the Hornets.

There's no way that the NBA can steer these Owners that could move the Kings to purchase the Hornets instead and move them to Seattle?

EDIT - or what Hicks said.

The Hornets are staying in NOLA they already have buyers in a bidding war they just cant sell the team until after the season.

ColorWerx
02-05-2012, 10:25 PM
Seattle Kings does not sound right in my ears. But yeah, it would be nice for Seattle to have a team.

Almost happened in the NFL back in the mid-'70s:

http://i950.photobucket.com/albums/ad347/ColorWerx/Football_Outdoor/NationalFootballLeague/SeattleKings/Photos/Seattle-Kings-1974-logo2-e1300734467477.jpg

http://i950.photobucket.com/albums/ad347/ColorWerx/Football_Outdoor/NationalFootballLeague/SeattleKings/Photos/Seattle-Kings-helmet-and-fooball-in-a-box-e1300750515837.jpg

Kegboy
02-05-2012, 11:10 PM
Bah, if the Kings move it should be back to KC. If they move to Seattle, what, the (admittedly, vagabond) history of a founding franchise just disappears into the ether so they can become the Sonics?

PacersHomer
02-05-2012, 11:36 PM
Charlotte should get the Hornets name back. It was one of the best and most fitting names in sports.

Infinite MAN_force
02-05-2012, 11:45 PM
Almost happened in the NFL back in the mid-'70s:

http://i950.photobucket.com/albums/ad347/ColorWerx/Football_Outdoor/NationalFootballLeague/SeattleKings/Photos/Seattle-Kings-1974-logo2-e1300734467477.jpg

http://i950.photobucket.com/albums/ad347/ColorWerx/Football_Outdoor/NationalFootballLeague/SeattleKings/Photos/Seattle-Kings-helmet-and-fooball-in-a-box-e1300750515837.jpg

Sounds much better than Seahawks.

ilive4sports
02-05-2012, 11:46 PM
i'm really hoping Seattle doesn't even get a chance at the Kings. The proposed arena in Sacramento looks pretty sweet and I think a deal will be made before the deadline.

graphic-er
02-05-2012, 11:55 PM
That is Seattle's fault for not building an arena. They would of stayeed IMO if they did. You cant make empty threats of leaving look what it has got the Kings this year. I personally could never move a team because that is just wrong to the fans of your team and to the franchise.


Cdash if the Pacers left tomorrow in the middle of the night for Seattle I would never forgive or never forget that. Would you??

I root and support for the Indiana Pacers not the Seattle Pacers. Also getting a new team wouldnt solve anything IMO yes you get a new team but I dont want a new team I want my Indiana Pacers.


The Browns were stole also but so were the Colts

EDIT at least Cleveland got their franchise back. Baltimore didn't they got an expansion franchise. Indy should be the one who have the Indianapolis Ravens and Baltimore should still have the Colts.

Well if the Pacers moved to Seattle, I'd probably consider moving there. I got family up there, and Seattle is one of the nicest cities/areas in the country.

As far as the Colts. Baltimore was going to actually steal the team from Irsay via immanent domain. There was going to be a city council vote on it and once Irsay learned of it he never gave them the chance to vote.

Hoop
02-06-2012, 12:01 AM
Screw Seattle, if they had built a new arena the Sonics would not have left.

Trader Joe
02-06-2012, 12:48 AM
The Colts were not stolen. The City of Baltimore was trying to steal a privately owned institution from the Irsay family. Anyone that thinks they were stolen needs to do some real research on the situation.

However, the Sonics were sold under the assumption that they would be kept in Seattle. Perhaps there was nothing binding in those agreements, but that just makes it dirty poker at best.

Deadshot
02-06-2012, 12:50 AM
Several thoughts here.

First, people here in Charlotte are still very bitter about the whole Hornets situation. So now you have a horrible Bobcats team in the middle of a college basketball state. Bringing the Hornets name back won't fix anything.

Those of you who watched Sonicsgate saw how personally the fans of the Sonics took the whole situation. I sure hope they don't want to steal the Kings and put other fans through the same ordeal.

Like a few others have mentioned, I think if any team goes there, it should be the Hornets. I never really felt like they were embraced by NOLA anyway...

Indra
02-06-2012, 05:07 AM
That is Seattle's fault for not building an arena. They would of stayeed IMO if they did. You cant make empty threats of leaving look what it has got the Kings this year. I personally could never move a team because that is just wrong to the fans of your team and to the franchise.


Cdash if the Pacers left tomorrow in the middle of the night for Seattle I would never forgive or never forget that. Would you??

I root and support for the Indiana Pacers not the Seattle Pacers. Also getting a new team wouldnt solve anything IMO yes you get a new team but I dont want a new team I want my Indiana Pacers.


The Browns were stole also but so were the Colts

EDIT at least Cleveland got their franchise back. Baltimore didn't they got an expansion franchise. Indy should be the one who have the Indianapolis Ravens and Baltimore should still have the Colts.

The logic in this statement is very flawed. First, the Baltimore Colts weren't owned by the city of Baltimore. They were owned by Bob Irsay. Every Colt achievement was his and his alone. It was his organization that he built, he hired the staff, who in turned got the players and won games for HIS franchise. None of those wins or championships or records are owned by the city of Baltimore, they are owned by Bob Irsay and his organization.

He had every right to pack up HIS team, that he paid for, and move then wherever he wanted to. Was it cold? Probably for the fans. Was he justified? Absolutely. The city of Baltimore was trying to take ownership of his franchise away from him. On what grounds? It was his business, and they were trying to steal it from him. He had every right the move the franchise before it was seized from him.

Those records belong with the organization and the ownership and the players who achieved them. The drunk fans who watched don't own any of it.

Heisenberg
02-06-2012, 07:10 AM
I REALLY want Seattle to get a franchise again, the passion that franchise has shown since the Sonics left and the support they've gotten from guys like Payton and Slick Watts is great.

But if they relent on building some majorly tax funded arena to get a team back, I gotta admit, I'll be disappointed. Maybe it was always a sort of "little guy sayin F you" kinda deal, but I always really respected that the city told Schultz screw you we're building libraries, not arenas that you'll profit from. I love, LOVE, pro sports, but arena financing bothers me very, very much.

MyFavMartin
02-06-2012, 01:20 PM
Nobody really cares anymore.

They do. Trust me... I live near Baltimore.

Of course, I bring up how they got Cleveland's team, now the Ravens, and there's always a long pause before some stupid reply.

It's a generational thing that will phase out over time.

Scot Pollard
02-12-2012, 01:49 PM
I remember this thread was posted, but I didn't mention anything because of it being the SB.

It's beginning to sound like Sacramento will get an arena built and I don't see why these teams are in such a hurry. I mean, just play in the arena and work to get something done. They've had a great fanbase for years and they've been there for years.

I don't see them moving at all. Especially not to Seattle to adopt one of their rivals history.

It's clear to me that the league will soon wave the white flag on keeping the Hornets in New Orleans. They've only been there since 2002 and they've had some great seasons with Chris Paul, but they've never shown support. I know Hurricane Katrina took effect, but the city recovered well and they still didn't show the support the team deserved having great seasons each year. Even before the hurricane.

Now they're owned by the NBA and the franchise is much more trouble than it's worth.

I see them going to Seattle, becoming the SuperSonics and adopting that history just like the "new" Cleveland Browns. Considered to be in a period of deactivation (known as the New Orleans Hornets from 2008-whatever year they become the SuperSonics). The Hornets would be considered a contracted franchise. Also, the new Sonics get all the banners and such from the Thunder, who would then become considered an expansion team established in 2008 (like the Ravens). Use the logo :sonics:, colors, uniforms, mascot, etc.

Steagles
02-12-2012, 01:54 PM
I see them going to Seattle, becoming the SuperSonics and adopting that history just like the "new" Cleveland Browns. Considered to be in a period of deactivation (known as the New Orleans Hornets from 2008-whatever year they become the SuperSonics). The Hornets would be considered a contracted franchise. Also, the new Sonics get all the banners and such from the Thunder, who would then become considered an expansion team established in 2008 (like the Ravens). Use the logo :sonics:, colors, uniforms, mascot, etc.

I thought the history went to OKC?

Scot Pollard
02-12-2012, 01:59 PM
I thought the history went to OKC?

OKC "holds" it, but they would have to give it all back to Seattle once an NBA team is back there.

I guess, they'd branch off from each other. OKC considers Sonic players numbers to be retired, but they don't actually display it. I don't know if they'd continue to consider numbers to be retired, but if the "new" Sonics want to retire Ray Allen's #34, no way the Thunder would consider it to be retired and again, if they even want to still have tie-ins to Seattle. I can't imagine they would considering they don't even represent it. So, they'd be considered an expansion franchise.

That's how it all appears.

It's not like the NHL with the Winnipeg Jets. The new Jets were originally the Atlanta Thrashers while the original Jets are now the Phoenix Coyotes, who I guess had no agreement to give back the history to Winnipeg when they got a team again. So, the new Jets have the Thrashers history and the Coyotes have the original Jets history. Neither franchise, has any tie-ins.

With the Sonics, this is like the Browns-Ravens situation.

Steagles
02-12-2012, 02:04 PM
OKC "holds" it, but they would have to give it all back to Seattle once an NBA team is back there.

I guess, they'd branch off from each other. OKC considers Sonic players numbers to be retired, but they don't actually display it. I don't know if they'd continue to consider numbers to be retired, but if the "new" Sonics want to retire Ray Allen's #34, no way the Thunder would consider it to be retired and again, if they even want to still have tie-ins to Seattle. I can't imagine they would considering they don't even represent it. So, they'd be considered an expansion franchise.

That's how it all appears.

It's not like the NHL with the Winnipeg Jets. The new Jets were originally the Atlanta Thrashers while the original Jets are now the Phoenix Coyotes, who I guess had no agreement to give back the history to Winnipeg when they got a team again.

Thanks, that makes sense.

Kstat
02-12-2012, 02:42 PM
It seems absurd to abandon a fanbase as loyal as sacramento and keep the hornets in NOLA where nobody wanted a team to begin with.

Scot Pollard
02-12-2012, 02:48 PM
Something else came to mind.

There would need to be division realignment.

The Hornets (new Sonics) would need to move from the Southwest Division into the Northwest Division and coincidently, the Thunder would move into the Southwest Division.