Breaking news: Owners vote to keep Kings in Sacramento

[wakencdukest]

This.

If Seattle is still desperate for a team, Stern should move the Lakers there, let the Clippers be the king of LA.

Dude, why do you have to bring up the Lakers? This thread don't have nothing to do with LA. You're the biggest ******* on ISH, why don't you just F*ck off! There, got that out of the way. This sucks for Seattle, but rules for Sac. Hopefully, next time the league expands, Seattle will get a team. They have a good history and a championship. I always liked their team from the Dennis johnson and Sikma days through the 80's and the 90's.

[33teeth]

Don't know the full terms of the two offers, but it appears that the vote might have to do with owners wanting to maintain a precedent for the future regarding public subsidization of new stadiums.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...subsidies.html

As noted by Ziller in his SBNation piece, the article you linked is full of misinformation. It's one thing to be an economist, but if you write an article with little to no knowledge of the topic at hand, you're still useless - even in terms of economics.

[Burgz V2]

Interesting article:

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/5/1...-arena-subsidy

i think the article kind of misses the point. It's not about who's paying for the stadium or not. It's about how ready each group is to go forth with their plans. Public-private partnerships in city planning are bureaucratic nightmares. So much red tape, so many things to consider, so many different opinions must be heard and have their say.

The fact that the Seattle group A) passed this hurdle months ago and B) were so efficient and organized in their application process to their city are the reasons this is (i guess was? it's official right?) being entertained. Obviously One ownership group is not just going to build a half a billion dollar stadium by themselves. That would be completely ludicrous, yet the author of this articles spends the entire first half of the article explaining that one fact.

He's right though about the reasons why the team should stay, 100%. But the way he framed the article oversimplified the entire situation.

[Lakers Legend#32]

The Seattle group has been open and honsest about their intentins right from the start (unlike that ugly fat ass Clay Bennett and the other OKC jackasses.)

Now it's time for Seattle to get dirty, ugly, and nasty to get the Kings. Do whatever it takes. Play the hardest ball you can to make this happen. I don't care how it is perceived nationally.

It's time to go all Django on David Stern's azz

[crisoner]

win-win for the kings. keep the team and oust the maloofs as owners.


also, can we get a ****ing round of applause of MAYOR KEVIN JOHNSON
great to see a former NBA player do everything in his power and mobilize to keep his city's team from moving.

Here here!!!

Put a statue of him in front of the new arena!!!!
That place is going to be sweet! I want to get a marketing job with the Kings now!

[9512]

Why has there been so much of a push to move an existing team to Seattle?

Why not just ADD a team in Seattle? Wtf? Someone please explain this to me.

That would be my suggestion all along too but...

David Stern said no more expansion due to the number of teams even in all divisions and conferences (or something like that).

I wished they just gave an expansion to OKC then maybe friggin Clay Bennett and his crew to buy the Sonics and move it to OKC.

[Burgz V2]

That would be my suggestion all along too but...

David Stern said no more expansion due to the number of teams even in all divisions and conferences (or something like that).

I wished they just gave an expansion to OKC then maybe friggin Clay Bennett and his crew to buy the Sonics and move it to OKC.

Because during the lockout there were whispers of contraction and the feasibility of 30 teams in the league, let alone 31. I want a team in Seattle as much as the next person, but the league is watered down enough already.