You are one upping me on every interchange. I'll keep trying.Originally Posted by bajaden
I've heard a few that you've been called....
You are one upping me on every interchange. I'll keep trying.I've heard a few that you've been called....
Upwards and onwards.
Hansen Balmer aren't ending up with Sta. not in deal and they don't want it. The loan does come due when they move. The most likely scenario is the Bog won't approve any transaction without the Maloofs playing off the loan with the proceeds of the vastly over priced sale. At which point the Maloofs own it and they will try to move it later. But people who read the contract here two years ago thought the team might have the right to hand the arena to the city (bill and all.). I don't know if that's right.
I agree with Brick that Kj will have an offer to resolve that. But the nba can't make the Maloofs sell Sta. It becomes another moving part the league doesn't control, between two parties that hate each other, and one party rarely can committ. The two years of an arena is messy and could be hard to close at bog. It may end up with the team being away for two years
The Maloofs acquired STA (née Arco Arena) and the associated debt when they bought the team. It will be part of the purchase price - either with Seattle having to pay it off or by new owners in Sacramento taking possession of it in the sale. I don't think the scenario you've laid out is a possibility.
STA belongs to the owners of the Sacramento Kings, not the Maloofs specifically. But if someone has proof that the situation is otherwise I'll certainly listen.
All over America, people keep on asking me for funky kingston.
The same people own STA and the Kings. Here they are held as one. That’s not always the case. I think Portland is again, but Allen sold off the arena and kept the team at one point. If you wanted to buy the team and keep it here, you would probably want to buy both. If you were moving the Kings to Seattle, and the arena would remain dormant … and then somebody would have to sell it to local developers, well I wouldn’t want to be Hansen trying to find a local buyer and the press that would entail.
By all accounts, he’s buying 65% of the Kings. There has been nothing published saying that Balmer Hansen is buying STA. And that makes sense, why would they want to? It’s not worth 77 million. What are they going to do with STA?
I don’t know if the Kings sellers own 65% of STA or more, but it doesn’t matter.
STA has a bond on it. Assuming there isn’t a give back right to the city, Balmer Hansen over pays for 65% of the Kings, the current pay off the bond, at which point the current owners own it free and clear. At some point, when the dust settles, they will sell it to a developer or perhaps the city.
Or maybe there is a give back, at which point the city will own it and they have to come up with the cash.
It will be resolved at the BOG: either by current owners paying off debt, current owners exercising a legal right in the contract, or it being rolled into the deal to keep a team here.
Balmer Hansen aren’t buying STA. The Maloofs may use the money they get from Balmer to pay that off. Maybe it’s being moved in the deal to a third party that’s willing to deal with the press and hassle of selling it after a move.
But Hansen Balmer isn’t “buying” STA
Even if the option of securing an expansion team was available for Sacramento right now there would be no reason to take it. Sacramento is in the position of strength because THE TEAM IS ALREADY IN SACRAMENTO. It would be like folding a winning hand. There isnt a justifiable reason for the Kings to move as long as the counter offer matches or exceeds the seattle deal. Imagine someone trying to argue the case for taking the Kings from Sacramento and moving them to seattle while there are two identical deals on the table from each party. Not happening. " Well...uhhh...we want to take the Kings from Sacramento and move them to seattle because uhhh..." - Hansen
Last edited by Chupacabra; 01-23-2013 at 07:49 PM.
The maloofs have already won their battle, I honestly don't see anything in the form of lawsuits coming from them. They have their own problems, are looking for one big deal that will put them back on the right track (in their minds). So they throw out a dream number that would accomplish that, and not only do they get a willing buyer, but they get a backup plan on that offer that they use to leverage it into more money (both the bump from the original 500m to 525, and the 30m that hey seemed to have squeezed out of Hanson because of the threat of competition)
So now they either sell to Hanson or to a sac buyer, but either way this is going to be for a substantially higher amount that would have been predicted when they were looking at the Anaheim bailout. These guys need the money, are now virtually guaranteed at getting it from someone, and are going to take it and run.
They may be petty and vindictive, but they are way too broke take a chance to mess anything up.
A quick google search found something interesting. Remember this transaction is taking place in CA so CA law is what is applied.
http://www.biggerpockets.com/renewsb...able-deposits/
Now this is in regards to a real estate transaction, but the law is in reference to contracts.
Here is another article on the same case.In conclusion, do not sign and do not try to get anyone to agree to a clause stipulating deposits to be “non-refundable”. They will just end up being “non-enforceable” in court. Time and time again this clause just does not hold up in court.
http://contracts.lawyers.com/blogs/a...efundable.html
Basically it says the seller has to prove damages if the sale is cancelled. So to me that means as long as the Maloofs get the same amount of money they would have to return the deposit.
Last edited by Section 101; 01-23-2013 at 10:17 PM.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall. - Pink Floyd
After thinking about it, I think your wrong. They are buying the shares in the Kings team. The team owns the arena not the Maloofs. It just so happens the organization that owns the team is MSE. So if they buy a 65% share in MSE that includes everything the organization owns.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall. - Pink Floyd
If the Hansen group does not buy STA, the Maloofs will not pay it off. They will default on it. As I pointed out above, part of the collateral on the STA loan is a $25M stake in the Kings...which the Maloofs would no longer own. If STA is not sold with the Kings, it opens up a very bizarre situation, and I wonder if the collateral situation alone would be enough to stop the sale in a court.
If that's the case, I don't see how the NBA approves the sale. Bug black eye for the league. Talk about a city getting screwed over.
Like I said above. They would be buying MSE stock and taking over the company. MSE owns STA not the Maloofs.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall. - Pink Floyd
There is a reason why the BOG takes a long time to approve new owners. They go through everything in the deal. If you have anything that could expose them to litigation, they will make them change the deal or not approve. There are no rubber stamps in this process. If they approve a deal that allows one of the parties to default on an obligation to a city, they have to reject the deal. More likely they will want this to go to some sort of negotiated settlement between the parties.
No. Just no.
It's a federal anti-trust law case. The Sherman Act is the law, not California contract law. The anti-trust law provides for treble damages. We don't know where the contract was signed, I would guess Seattle for this reason. The team is in CA. The BOG will meet in NY. I don't know if there will be a case, but where it's filed and goes forward would be way up in the air.
not sure if this had been posted on here yet. but its great news
Carmichael Dave @CarmichaelDave
As I understand, simple BOG majority needed for relo, but 3/4 for sale. 29 owners, that's 22 votes. Meaning 8 no votes blocks sale. Hmmmm.
I am just guessing that Hanson wants an NBA team not an extended lawsuit against the deep pockets who also hold the keys to the thing he wants. It's one thing to threaten a contractor with a big law suit, you can hire another an move on regardless. But if Hanson EVER wants a team suing the NBA would be the LAST thing he would want to do.
"Line up a long shot maybe try it two times, maybe more
Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor
Why hold out for more?
Here comes sunshine, here comes sunshine"
-The Grateful Dead
This has nothing to do with anti trust law. This is about the buyer/seller contract and the $30 million deposit being refundable even with a non refundable cause. Yes the team and the company is in CA. This is where the law applies. Just like if you buy anything else from out of state.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall. - Pink Floyd
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks