Its never easy with Glen, sale could be voided

[Lipoli390]

An important detail that probably needs to be spelled out very simply is this:

Alex Rodriguez and Marc Lore do not *currently* have anywhere near enough money to buy the Minnesota Timberwolves.

They might in two years. And then they can be the owners. This is THE hold up.


Per Dane Moore

That's an interesting detail, kek, but also quite odd. I wonder what Dane means by this. Specifically:

1) What is his source?

2) Lore and ARod have a combined net worth of almost $5 billion. Is Dane saying they can't find a bank willing to finance this deal when they can put up collateral worth more than 3 times the price?

3) How does Dane know what is going to happen financially to Lore/ARod in the next two years where they will suddenly have the wherewithal to buy the team?

Can anyone here with a finance background explain how this makes any sense?

I don't have a finance background but I stayed in a Ramada Inn once.

Do you know who in a way made it possible for Jerry Buss to buy the Lakers? Donald Sterling. Why? He bought some real estate to get Buss the actual cash money to buy the Lakers.

So my guess is that ARod and Lore have assets worth enough to buy the team but they need to cash them out in some way over time and in addition possibly earn more money to fully buy the team. I'd guess most people worth that kind of money have it invested in something not just hanging out in a bank somewhere.

Pretty spot on, Monster. Dane Moore's comment that Lore and Rodriquez don't have enough money is misleading and a overly dramatic. If there's an issue, it's a cash issue, not an asset issue. In other words, it's pretty much a nonissue. They clearly have the "money" to buy the franchise. It's a matter of how they want to finance and structure the purchase. They might want to line up some additional minority investors. They'll probably want to figure out how much debt they might want to use to finance the deal. The League will do a thorough review of the buyers' financial ability to purchase the team and maintain a financially healthy franchise. That's mainly what the League focuses on in their review. One of the issues with the New Orleans group that attempted to buy the team back in 1994 was that the League had doubts about the group's financial capacity to buy and run the team successfully.

[Lipoli390]

There are more markets that might attract an NBA team than those mentioned (Seattle, Las Vegas, Nashville, Austin): Tampa, St. Louis, San Diego, Vancouver, Montreal, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Jacksonville

On that list, only Montreal and Seattle are bigger than MSP in population, and not by much...and nobody would consider either to be basketball hotbeds. When the Twins, Wild and Vikings win, this market has proven they will support a team...heck, even the Lynx almost fill up the arena when they win! Breaking the Target Center lease is only one cost of moving the franchise...there are many more. I don't see the logic of moving a team to a smaller metro area and away from an area that has a proven record of supporting winners. Does anyone really believe a 23-win team would draw big crowds in Montreal (the biggest population metro on your list)? If the new owners are savvy (and most billionaires are), their focus is going to be on winning to increase attendance, not on incurring costs to move to a smaller area where the team continues to lose. Non-issue IMO.

I'll add that Vancouver once had an NBA team and couldn't support it. I have relatives from Montreal. The idea that Montreal could support an NBA team is pretty funny. They have almost no interest in basketball up there. It's hockey, hockey, hockey. There is no groundswell of support for an NBA team in any of the other cities listed. The only city listed that has a strong professional sports culture is St. Louis, but they're smaller and less wealthy that Minneapolis.

The only way the Wolves might end up moving within the next 10 years would be if either Seattle or Vegas fails to get an expansion team. But I don't see that happening.

[Lipoli390]

Of all the issues I have with the Wolves, the possibility of them moving is far down the list. The only metropolitan area without an NBA franchise with a bigger population than MSP is Seattle, and they are only slightly bigger, and they have already failed as an NBA city (to be honest, MSP failed also...but that was back in the 50s when it was a different league). Any new owner is going to recognize that this metropolitan area supports winners when they win, and doesn't support losers...just look at the Wolves' attendance in 2004. Guys who are savvy enough to have the means to spend $1.5 billion on a basketball team will recognize that the only problem with attendance here is that we don't win enough, and that won't be any different in another metropolitan area with an even smaller population (like St. Louis and Las Vegas) if they don't improve the roster.

The Wolves are going to stay in Minnesota because it is the best available market and there are costs associated with moving a franchise. Discussion about whether there is a clause saying they can't move (would that even be enforceable?) is irrelevant to me. If I were Glen and I wanted to maximize my deal, I certainly wouldn't insist on such a clause. And if I were a buyer ready to put up $1.5 billion, I wouldn't accept such a limiting clause. I don't believe there has ever been any agreement between the parties about not moving, handshake or otherwise, and that has never been a concern for me. There simply isn't an LA-type market available out there to move to like there was in 1959 when the Lakers left town.

I now return to my regularly scheduled real worry about this franchise....whether a team that has over 25% of it's payroll invested in a one-way player like Russell can ever be successful. Now that's something to lose sleep over!

In addition to winning, there are other revenue streams that Glen hasn't tapped into. Lore's ownership will likely be more modern and creative.

[Monster]

There are more markets that might attract an NBA team than those mentioned (Seattle, Las Vegas, Nashville, Austin): Tampa, St. Louis, San Diego, Vancouver, Montreal, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Jacksonville

On that list, only Montreal and Seattle are bigger than MSP in population, and not by much...and nobody would consider either to be basketball hotbeds. When the Twins, Wild and Vikings win, this market has proven they will support a team...heck, even the Lynx almost fill up the arena when they win! Breaking the Target Center lease is only one cost of moving the franchise...there are many more. I don't see the logic of moving a team to a smaller metro area and away from an area that has a proven record of supporting winners. Does anyone really believe a 23-win team would draw big crowds in Montreal (the biggest population metro on your list)? If the new owners are savvy (and most billionaires are), their focus is going to be on winning to increase attendance, not on incurring costs to move to a smaller area where the team continues to lose. Non-issue IMO.

I'll add that Vancouver once had an NBA team and couldn't support it. I have relatives from Montreal. The idea that Montreal could support an NBA team is pretty funny. They have almost no interest in basketball up there. It's hockey, hockey, hockey. There is no groundswell of support for an NBA team in any of the other cities listed. The only city listed that has a strong professional sports culture is St. Louis, but they're smaller and less wealthy that Minneapolis.

The only way the Wolves might end up moving within the next 10 years would be if either Seattle or Vegas fails to get an expansion team. But I don't see that happening.

People around here would love another pro team in Kansas City but I honestly don't see the NBA moving a team there from Minnesota (or really anywhere) even though for me it would be kinda nice.

[Monster]

An important detail that probably needs to be spelled out very simply is this:

Alex Rodriguez and Marc Lore do not *currently* have anywhere near enough money to buy the Minnesota Timberwolves.

They might in two years. And then they can be the owners. This is THE hold up.


Per Dane Moore

That's an interesting detail, kek, but also quite odd. I wonder what Dane means by this. Specifically:

1) What is his source?

2) Lore and ARod have a combined net worth of almost $5 billion. Is Dane saying they can't find a bank willing to finance this deal when they can put up collateral worth more than 3 times the price?

3) How does Dane know what is going to happen financially to Lore/ARod in the next two years where they will suddenly have the wherewithal to buy the team?

Can anyone here with a finance background explain how this makes any sense?

I don't have a finance background but I stayed in a Ramada Inn once.

Do you know who in a way made it possible for Jerry Buss to buy the Lakers? Donald Sterling. Why? He bought some real estate to get Buss the actual cash money to buy the Lakers.

So my guess is that ARod and Lore have assets worth enough to buy the team but they need to cash them out in some way over time and in addition possibly earn more money to fully buy the team. I'd guess most people worth that kind of money have it invested in something not just hanging out in a bank somewhere.

Pretty spot on, Monster. Dane Moore's comment that Lore and Rodriquez don't have enough money is misleading and a overly dramatic. If there's an issue, it's a cash issue, not an asset issue. In other words, it's pretty much a nonissue. They clearly have the "money" to buy the franchise. It's a matter of how they want to finance and structure the purchase. They might want to line up some additional minority investors. They'll probably want to figure out how much debt they might want to use to finance the deal. The League will do a thorough review of the buyers' financial ability to purchase the team and maintain a financially healthy franchise. That's mainly what the League focuses on in their review. One of the issues with the New Orleans group that attempted to buy the team back in 1994 was that the League had doubts about the group's financial capacity to buy and run the team successfully.

I don't think Dane's tweet is dramatic but I agree it could be taken that way. I think it's fine partly because he emphasized *currently*. I think Dane is likely trying to educate people more on how this process works and about this sale. It's certainly not as simple as even just going and buying a house...which depending on a number of factors could end up being somewhat complicated. :)

I am guessing it benefits both Glen and Lore and ARod to have the sale process take more than a few months. Glen might want to hold onto the team for a bit longer in case things turn around in terms of the team playing better. Glen always seems to have hope like the rest of us suckers. Lol If team success were to happen Glen can look good (to some people) and he can feel good. I think Glen genuinely enjoys being an owner even if he isn't always good at it. He might even be able to enjoy another Lynx championship during that time.

For Lore and ARod a longer process may mean they can take their time getting the resources all lined up for the sale. It also gives them plenty of time to get up to speed on owning a franchise, assessing the Wolves and Lynx franchises and also considering who they may want to bring in to help them with their investment. For all we know 14 months from now Rosas will be looking like a good GM and when they take over they will basically be looking to add resources (possibly even a blank check situation) to support him. If Rosas isn't really succeeding they could also be looking to bring in their own guy/s or if Rosas is doing fine maybe just add some of their own picked experts to what is already here. That could be people that have nothing directly to do with basketball it may be marketing or some other business aspect.

[kekgeek]

Pioneer press was talking about that A-Rod wants to move the wolves to Seattle but KG is trying to keep them in Minnesota.

Feels like a lot of speculation but still going to be a couple interesting years

[KG4Ever]

So the argument that the Wolves would never leave for Seattle because the NBA would prefer to expand the league and collect a boatload of franchise fees might be valid, but then again there has been plenty of NBA teams that relocated in the past even though the NBA would have benefited more by collecting franchise fees. Lets say, at some point, ARod is hellbent on moving the franchise to Seattle, what powers does the NBA have to block such a move? Has a relocation attempt ever been blocked before?

[AbeVigodaLive]

So the argument that the Wolves would never leave for Seattle because the NBA would prefer to expand the league and collect a boatload of franchise fees might be valid, but then again there has been plenty of NBA teams that relocated in the past even though the NBA would have benefited more by collecting franchise fees. Lets say, at some point, ARod is hellbent on moving the franchise to Seattle, what powers does the NBA have to block such a move? Has a relocation attempt ever been blocked before?

Ummm... Yes.

http://sportspressnw.com/2148762/2013/stern-has-okd-6-relocations-blocked-a-7th

[Lipoli390]

So the argument that the Wolves would never leave for Seattle because the NBA would prefer to expand the league and collect a boatload of franchise fees might be valid, but then again there has been plenty of NBA teams that relocated in the past even though the NBA would have benefited more by collecting franchise fees. Lets say, at some point, ARod is hellbent on moving the franchise to Seattle, what powers does the NBA have to block such a move? Has a relocation attempt ever been blocked before?

The NBA has the ultimate power to say no to any relocation.

There's certainly a chance the NBA would approve relocating the Wolves to Seattle or Vegas. But that chance is minimal for at least three reasons. First, the NBA won't want to lose its only franchise in the upper Midwest, which also happens to be the 14th largest media market. Second, they won't want to give up $2.5 billion in franchise fee revenue. Third, the League has essentially already decided to add two new franchises - one in Vegas, the other in Seattle. Both cities have a lot of money and are primed for new NBA franchises, which means they'll have no difficulty finding owners to start new franchises in those cities. And the NBA wants to bring in two franchise at the same time to ensure numerical balance in the two Conferences.

If the Wolves ultimately move out of Minnesota, it will be to a city other than Seattle or Vegas and it will happen 7 to 10 years down the road. At some point, St. Louis or Kansas City might offer Lore and A-Rod a deal they can't refuse, which would have to include a new publicly financed arena designed specifically for the Wolves franchise. How likely is that? I'd say it's unlikely, but you never know. Also, note that NBA franchises have already failed in both of those cities as well as Vancouver and San Diego. But at some point, the City of Minneapolis will need to step up and finance a new arena or a more thorough renovation and expansion of the Target Center. Actually, I'm not sure where a new arena could be built.

[Monster]

So the argument that the Wolves would never leave for Seattle because the NBA would prefer to expand the league and collect a boatload of franchise fees might be valid, but then again there has been plenty of NBA teams that relocated in the past even though the NBA would have benefited more by collecting franchise fees. Lets say, at some point, ARod is hellbent on moving the franchise to Seattle, what powers does the NBA have to block such a move? Has a relocation attempt ever been blocked before?

The NBA has the ultimate power to say no to any relocation.

There's certainly a chance the NBA would approve relocating the Wolves to Seattle or Vegas. But that chance is minimal for at least three reasons. First, the NBA won't want to lose its only franchise in the upper Midwest, which also happens to be the 14th largest media market. Second, they won't want to give up $2.5 billion in franchise fee revenue. Third, the League has essentially already decided to add two new franchises - one in Vegas, the other in Seattle. Both cities have a lot of money and are primed for new NBA franchises, which means they'll have no difficulty finding owners to start new franchises in those cities. And the NBA wants to bring in two franchise at the same time to ensure numerical balance in the two Conferences.

If the Wolves ultimately move out of Minnesota, it will be to a city other than Seattle or Vegas and it will happen 7 to 10 years down the road. At some point, St. Louis or Kansas City might offer Lore and A-Rod a deal they can't refuse, which would have to include a new publicly financed arena designed specifically for the Wolves franchise. How likely is that? I'd say it's unlikely, but you never know. Also, note that NBA franchises have already failed in both of those cities as well as Vancouver and San Diego. But at some point, the City of Minneapolis will need to step up and finance a new arena or a more thorough renovation and expansion of the Target Center. Actually, I'm not sure where a new arena could be built.

They already dumped money into Target center. How exactly can they renovate that thing again? Also (I've never been inside) what are the issues now? I know it was never going to be amazing or whatever but I see people making comments like it already looks bad or something. The outside certainly looks a ton better (or at least updated) than it did previously.