Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Kings investors agree to opt out of revenue sharing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Kings investors agree to opt out of revenue sharing

    Okay, time for a little clarification.

    What Vivek did is not a bribe and it's not desperation. What it does is make it clear that once our new arena is built the owners plan on making a profit, pure and simple. That does not hurt other small market teams in any way, shape or form. In fact, as has been pointed out by a couple of people, it puts the Kings in the category of contributing to the revenue pool.

    This is the "knife fight in a telephone booth" part of the final days before the announcement is made. Vivek made that statement in response to some allegations by Seattle that our ownership group was not strong enough financially, something that is totally without basis in fact.

    Micky Arison, owner of the Heat and head of the finance committee, made it clear in a Twitter exchange that this has never been about Seattle anyway. It's been about Sacramento doing everything it needed to do to prove ourselves still a viable NBA city. We have done that. And we were able to do it in a short period of time after the Maloofs and Chris Hansen tried to sneak a sale past everybody until it was too late.

    Be very careful which side you come down on in this issue. If Sacramento wins, it's a clear precedent that protects other small market teams LIKE INDIANAPOLIS from having their teams stolen from them in little more than a hostile takeover. If Seattle wins, it sends the message that any NBA team is fair game if the potential buyer throws enough money at the seller.
    NBA basketball - taking my breath away since 1963.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Kings investors agree to opt out of revenue sharing

      I'd still have some concern about the Milwaukee Bucks going to Seattle if the Kings keep their team. The Seattle team can offer the same thing for the Bucks, and probably not get nearly as much of a fight for it.
      "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

      ----------------- Reggie Miller

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Kings investors agree to opt out of revenue sharing

        I hope no other city has to go through what we Kings fans have gone through over the past couple of years. The way Hansen and Ballmer have been acting lately, if they don't pull in their claws and walk back some of their rhetoric, they won't be welcome in the NBA no matter how much money they try and throw at a team.

        The 7-0 vote against relocation was a clear message that the current franchise city had done everything necessary to keep a team. The attitude of some very vocal and nasty Seattle fans is that we shouldn't have been given a chance to match their offer and that we should not have fought for our team. It's akin to a team making an offer on a restricted free agent and then not allowing his current team to match the offer.

        There's a reason Seattle lost their team back in 2008. Bottom line they could not assemble a partnership with local government, local business and team ownership to get a new arena deal in place. In fact, they even told Stern that if the NBA wanted a new arena it should make the players pay for it AND they passed a state law forbidding the city of Seattle from contributing to such an arena, even though very nice deals had been struck with the owners of the Mariners and the Seahawks. Seattle lost their team because they didn't care enough or fight hard enough to keep it.

        The one good thing that will most likely come out of this is that the NBA will change their by-laws and make selling a team a more transparent process, making it mandatory that owners give the current city the opportunity to participate in the process BEFORE they try and finagle a "binding" agreement with an outside buyer. The term "binding agreement," by the way, is a misnomer. The Maloofs have a binding agreement with Hansen that only becomes valid IF/WHEN the NBA votes to allow relocation. Since it is widely anticipated that such a vote will not be in favor of the relocation, there will be no binding agreement. The fact that the Maloofs and Hansen put the term "binding agreement" into their contract does not negate the requirement for NBA approval of relocation and sales.
        NBA basketball - taking my breath away since 1963.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Kings investors agree to opt out of revenue sharing

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          they basically bribed the relocation committee. To their credit, it worked.
          And the thing is that it's not really much of a bribe depending on how things go. Last year they took in so much sharing because attendance sucked, and that was in large part due to the very owners they are trying to get rid of (well, will be getting rid of).

          If they have high income years and have merely put a cap on the amount rather than a PCT reduction regardless of how much is due to them, then they often might not reach that cap figure anyway and thus won't be conceding anything.

          In that way I can agree with the NBA a bit. As a Yanks fan I'm aware of the Big George angle where he used to slam MLB teams that intentionally fielded a very cheap team in order to make money with revenue sharing, as in personal profit. The sharing was intended to help keep those other teams competitive by helping them pay for players, but was instead pocketed as owner profit (not all, but some "small" market teams played it that way).

          So from an NBA standpoint it's a bit like "look, we know not all markets are the same, but you gotta hold up your end of the deal and still be the best you can be in your market". Sacto is saying "we promise that if you leave a franchise here that we will make it successful" while the NBA is saying "as a total company we prefer to have franchises only in markets where we can make profit".

          I mean Starbucks reduced franchises in markets for exactly this reason. People get hung up on the "competitive sports" angle and forget that the NBA is really one company with franchises operating in various markets. They have all sorts of special anti-monopoly, etc type of rules in place that makes it not quite Starbucks, but it's not way different either.


          And this doesn't mean "F*** Sacto" because what I'm saying is that I think Sacto has shown that they have and will support a team in a way that will be satisfactorily good at holding up their financial end. They'll never match LA or NYC, thus revenue sharing, but the company knows this.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Kings investors agree to opt out of revenue sharing

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            ...
            So from an NBA standpoint it's a bit like "look, we know not all markets are the same, but you gotta hold up your end of the deal and still be the best you can be in your market". Sacto is saying "we promise that if you leave a franchise here that we will make it successful" while the NBA is saying "as a total company we prefer to have franchises only in markets where we can make profit".

            I mean Starbucks reduced franchises in markets for exactly this reason. People get hung up on the "competitive sports" angle and forget that the NBA is really one company with franchises operating in various markets. They have all sorts of special anti-monopoly, etc type of rules in place that makes it not quite Starbucks, but it's not way different either.


            And this doesn't mean "F*** Sacto" because what I'm saying is that I think Sacto has shown that they have and will support a team in a way that will be satisfactorily good at holding up their financial end. They'll never match LA or NYC, thus revenue sharing, but the company knows this.
            What Sacramento has said is more like, "Let us keep our franchise with owners who aren't total and complete jerks, and we'll support them as we have for the majority of years the Kings have been here." Sacramento sold out 19 of our 28 seasons, even when we totally sucked. We quit selling out only when the Maloofs kept jacking up prices while putting a more and more inferior product on the court. We still love our Kings. The only reason a lot of fans walked away is because they absolutely refused to put any more money into the pockets of the Brothers Maloof.

            Once the Maloofs have sailed off into the sunset, with their bottle of red velvet cake-flavored vodka, I know a lot of fans who will be more than happy to support the team.
            NBA basketball - taking my breath away since 1963.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Kings investors agree to opt out of revenue sharing

              All I have to say is that the revenue-sharing deal should not be in perpetuity. Look at the St. Louis Spirits deal, the implications of that changed HUGELY from the time it was put in place until today. At most, it should be through the next CBA (a convenient timeline and one that affects revenues so would be a good place to revisit even though revenue sharing itself isn't in the CBA).
              BillS

              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Kings investors agree to opt out of revenue sharing

                Originally posted by VF21 View Post
                I hope no other city has to go through what we Kings fans have gone through over the past couple of years. The way Hansen and Ballmer have been acting lately, if they don't pull in their claws and walk back some of their rhetoric, they won't be welcome in the NBA no matter how much money they try and throw at a team.

                The 7-0 vote against relocation was a clear message that the current franchise city had done everything necessary to keep a team. The attitude of some very vocal and nasty Seattle fans is that we shouldn't have been given a chance to match their offer and that we should not have fought for our team. It's akin to a team making an offer on a restricted free agent and then not allowing his current team to match the offer.

                There's a reason Seattle lost their team back in 2008. Bottom line they could not assemble a partnership with local government, local business and team ownership to get a new arena deal in place. In fact, they even told Stern that if the NBA wanted a new arena it should make the players pay for it AND they passed a state law forbidding the city of Seattle from contributing to such an arena, even though very nice deals had been struck with the owners of the Mariners and the Seahawks. Seattle lost their team because they didn't care enough or fight hard enough to keep it.

                The one good thing that will most likely come out of this is that the NBA will change their by-laws and make selling a team a more transparent process, making it mandatory that owners give the current city the opportunity to participate in the process BEFORE they try and finagle a "binding" agreement with an outside buyer. The term "binding agreement," by the way, is a misnomer. The Maloofs have a binding agreement with Hansen that only becomes valid IF/WHEN the NBA votes to allow relocation. Since it is widely anticipated that such a vote will not be in favor of the relocation, there will be no binding agreement. The fact that the Maloofs and Hansen put the term "binding agreement" into their contract does not negate the requirement for NBA approval of relocation and sales.

                I know you are happy they are staying in Sacramento but don't even say that Seattle didnt care about its team that's why it lost it. I'm glad you were able to keep your hometown team. But unless u mean Seattle as in the new owner that bought them and was going to move them from the beginning then yes Seattle. Sacramento had an opportunity that Seattle never did. They were able to bring together a group of buyers (that wanted to keep it in Sacramento) for the team before it got sold. In seattles case it was sold to someone who publicly expressed that he would do anything possible to keep the team in Seattle. Yet his intentions were always to move the team. Making ridiculous demands for a new stadium that would cost soo much more than it really needed. Also when a group not 100% sure but I believe it was headed by the same group that wanted to get the Kings, offered to buy the sonics back and even pay a higher amount plus fund its own stadium. The new owner declined. Your situation was a little bit better still bad but at least your local group made the pitch before the team was sold.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Kings investors agree to opt out of revenue sharing

                  Originally posted by ThA HoyA View Post
                  I know you are happy they are staying in Sacramento but don't even say that Seattle didnt care about its team that's why it lost it. I'm glad you were able to keep your hometown team. But unless u mean Seattle as in the new owner that bought them and was going to move them from the beginning then yes Seattle. Sacramento had an opportunity that Seattle never did. They were able to bring together a group of buyers (that wanted to keep it in Sacramento) for the team before it got sold. In seattles case it was sold to someone who publicly expressed that he would do anything possible to keep the team in Seattle. Yet his intentions were always to move the team. Making ridiculous demands for a new stadium that would cost soo much more than it really needed. Also when a group not 100% sure but I believe it was headed by the same group that wanted to get the Kings, offered to buy the sonics back and even pay a higher amount plus fund its own stadium. The new owner declined. Your situation was a little bit better still bad but at least your local group made the pitch before the team was sold.
                  I didn't say Seattle didn't care. I said, "Bottom line they could not assemble a partnership with local government, local business and team ownership to get a new arena deal in place." That statement is entirely true.

                  At least Seattle KNEW the team was for sale. We didn't get that courtesy and wouldn't have known anything except for a tweet from an agent's daughter that let the cat out of the bag (and was then removed from Twitter).

                  The group that tried to buy the team from Bennett was, in fact, headed by Steve Ballmer. Unfortunately, he didn't step up at the beginning of the process, BEFORE Clay Bennett bought the team. If he had, there would still be a Seattle Sonics. He came into the process at the very end, trying to buy the Sonics from Benmett when it was very clear that Clay Bennett and his ownership group did not want to sell the team and start the acquisition process all over again. And you cannot blame them. IF Hansen was able to buy the Kings from the Maloofs with the clear and stated purpose of taking them to Seatte, do you think he'd just give it up because some guy came along and offered him a big bunch of cash? That's just not how it works.

                  Seattle fans need to face the same reality Kings fans have endured for almost a decade. The Brothers Maloof are scum-sucking bottom feeders who will say or do whatever it takes to get what they want. They're gleefully sitting there just waiting for the NBA vote to be formalized because they're going to get their money either way. They have no more allegiance to Chris Hansen and the Seattle group than they did to Virginia Beach, Anaheim or Henderson, NV.
                  NBA basketball - taking my breath away since 1963.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Kings investors agree to opt out of revenue sharing

                    Not that it has anything to pertain to the current situation, but what made the purchase/move of the Sonics to OKC a sham was that Bennett bought the team under the guise that he was going to make a "good faith" effort to keep the team in Seattle.

                    I won't bother getting into the details of it, but every NBA fan (even the ones in OKC) pretty much knows that wasn't the case. Bennett never announced his intention to move the team until 2 years after buying it. He was a lying sack of scum.

                    The sad irony for Seattle is that they won't get a team this time around because of the way they lost their team 5 years ago. The NBA doesn't want to see what happened in Seattle happening again in another city.

                    I see lawsuits, or at least the threat of lawsuits coming around this time. They're probably lawsuits that Seattle either can't win or aren't worth winning, but my guess is they're going to use the threat of lawsuits to leverage the guarantee of an expansion team.

                    I don't have a horse in this race and I certainly applaud the KJ and Sacramento to fight tooth and nail to keep their team, but the NBA needs to rectify the Seattle situation, be it now or a couple years down the line. It'd probably behoove them to do so anyways because that's a pretty good market they'd be ignoring.

                    Deep down inside, I'm sure they can't believe that they have franchises in Charlotte and N.O. but don't have one in Seattle.
                    Last edited by d_c; 05-10-2013, 09:08 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Kings investors agree to opt out of revenue sharing

                      Originally posted by VF21 View Post
                      I didn't say Seattle didn't care. I said, "Bottom line they could not assemble a partnership with local government, local business and team ownership to get a new arena deal in place." That statement is entirely true.

                      At least Seattle KNEW the team was for sale. We didn't get that courtesy and wouldn't have known anything except for a tweet from an agent's daughter that let the cat out of the bag (and was then removed from Twitter).

                      The group that tried to buy the team from Bennett was, in fact, headed by Steve Ballmer. Unfortunately, he didn't step up at the beginning of the process, BEFORE Clay Bennett bought the team. If he had, there would still be a Seattle Sonics. He came into the process at the very end, trying to buy the Sonics from Benmett when it was very clear that Clay Bennett and his ownership group did not want to sell the team and start the acquisition process all over again. And you cannot blame them. IF Hansen was able to buy the Kings from the Maloofs with the clear and stated purpose of taking them to Seatte, do you think he'd just give it up because some guy came along and offered him a big bunch of cash? That's just not how it works.

                      Seattle fans need to face the same reality Kings fans have endured for almost a decade. The Brothers Maloof are scum-sucking bottom feeders who will say or do whatever it takes to get what they want. They're gleefully sitting there just waiting for the NBA vote to be formalized because they're going to get their money either way. They have no more allegiance to Chris Hansen and the Seattle group than they did to Virginia Beach, Anaheim or Henderson, NV.

                      Im just happy for the fans of Sacramento that they got a chance to put up a fight for relocation. Unlike Seattle how it was sold to an owner who would be keeping it in Seattle, yet was never his intention. The point of that one is he flat out lied and even stern covered for him when he knew exactly what his intentions were. The biggest differnce between both situations is that Sacramento found out the intention of the group that was buying it was going to relocate it before the actual sale of the team.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Kings investors agree to opt out of revenue sharing

                        Originally posted by VF21 View Post
                        I hope no other city has to go through what we Kings fans have gone through over the past couple of years. The way Hansen and Ballmer have been acting lately, if they don't pull in their claws and walk back some of their rhetoric, they won't be welcome in the NBA no matter how much money they try and throw at a team.

                        The 7-0 vote against relocation was a clear message that the current franchise city had done everything necessary to keep a team. The attitude of some very vocal and nasty Seattle fans is that we shouldn't have been given a chance to match their offer and that we should not have fought for our team. It's akin to a team making an offer on a restricted free agent and then not allowing his current team to match the offer.

                        There's a reason Seattle lost their team back in 2008. Bottom line they could not assemble a partnership with local government, local business and team ownership to get a new arena deal in place. In fact, they even told Stern that if the NBA wanted a new arena it should make the players pay for it AND they passed a state law forbidding the city of Seattle from contributing to such an arena, even though very nice deals had been struck with the owners of the Mariners and the Seahawks. Seattle lost their team because they didn't care enough or fight hard enough to keep it.

                        The one good thing that will most likely come out of this is that the NBA will change their by-laws and make selling a team a more transparent process, making it mandatory that owners give the current city the opportunity to participate in the process BEFORE they try and finagle a "binding" agreement with an outside buyer. The term "binding agreement," by the way, is a misnomer. The Maloofs have a binding agreement with Hansen that only becomes valid IF/WHEN the NBA votes to allow relocation. Since it is widely anticipated that such a vote will not be in favor of the relocation, there will be no binding agreement. The fact that the Maloofs and Hansen put the term "binding agreement" into their contract does not negate the requirement for NBA approval of relocation and sales.
                        Thats what I was referring to

                        Also clay wanted a $500 million arena where state taxes would pay for $300 million and Renton the city it would be built would pay $100 million. So $400 million coming from state and city funds? I wonder why his arena proposal was never approved
                        Last edited by ThA HoyA; 05-11-2013, 12:37 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Kings investors agree to opt out of revenue sharing

                          Seattle ownership just raised the bid to 625 million.

                          http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/92...gs-625-million

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Kings investors agree to opt out of revenue sharing

                            Originally posted by immortality View Post
                            Seattle ownership just raised the bid to 625 million.

                            http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/92...gs-625-million
                            This one is going to court. Or at the very least, the Seattle group is going to use the threat of lawsuit to either get the team or leverage the NBA into giving them an expansion team.

                            I'm just speculating here, but I would imagine that a court battle involving anti-trust would be long, drawn out and painful.........and it would involve the Maloofs still owning the team the entire time. The NBA would probably want to avoid that and I think that's what Seattle is counting on.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Kings investors agree to opt out of revenue sharing

                              I'm not worried. All this last-minute stuff coming to light was anticipated by the NBA and by our new ownership group. It was predicted that these last days would be "a knife fight in a phone booth," and so it appears they will be.

                              The Maloofs are on their way out. The NBA will not be bribed, and they will not be threatened into giving in to Seattle. The latest story coming out of ESPN.com is that the Maloofs have said they will NOT sell to ANYONE in Sacramento and that if the Hansen deal is not approved they will sell Hansen 20% so he can be a part-owner and try and get his own arena deal going with the city of Sacramento.

                              That is, in a word, delusional. IF the NBA turns down the current sale proposal, they aren't going to approve a different one to the same buyers. The whole thing still hinges on the fact that this has always been about finding a way for Sacramento to keep the Kings and the NBA to keep Sacramento as a franchise city. Seattle, Hansen, and their media flunkies can put out all the crap they like, but it doesn't change the 7-0 vote against relocation. And it doesn't change the fact the NBA has worked with Sacramento and Kevin Johnson for two years to get this problem resolved, once it was clear the Maloofs were incapable of negotiating in good faith.

                              The NBA wants the Maloofs out and they will be out. All of these potential roadblocks have been anticipated and provided for. The Maloofs haven't come up with anything that wasn't easy to predict. Geoff Petrie once quoted Confucius and said, "When a genius points at the moon, the idiot looks at the finger." Guess which one the Maloofs are.
                              NBA basketball - taking my breath away since 1963.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Kings investors agree to opt out of revenue sharing

                                And now it sounds like the Maloofs are threatening to have the Seattle guys as minority owners.

                                http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/92...cramento-kings

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X