• ChrisPaulGeorgeKarl@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    the NBA owners as a whole have to approve relocations, they rejected the Seattle group buying the Kings, recall!

    so i’m confused at how much leverage the Thunder realllllly have here to extort the city, when we know the NBA won’t let another team move again.

    can OKC not push a more middle ground deal with a profit share for the city? the city helping secure the huge initial capital makes sense, but they should simply share in the benefits.

    • IHateYouKids@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The NBA is dependent on th public funding model. It makes owners a ton of money, and if one city can buck the trend others will follow. It’s a major reason Seattle was moved and still doesn’t have a team; no public funding no team. If it can happen to Seattle it can happen to almost anyone(Lakers, Bulls, Knick, Dubs, Heat are immune)

    • AKAD11@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Kings didn’t move here because David Stern had a vendetta against the city of Seattle. He was pissed we told him to fuck off when he asked for public money for a stadium.

      Sacramento got a million chances to put a group together to make a counter offer. Even then the Vivek group paid less than what Hansen/Ballmer were going to pay the Maloofs.