Its never easy with Glen, sale could be voided
- bleedspeed
- Posts: 8173
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Its never easy with Glen, sale could be voided
I predict this will all get settled. The only way the Wolves move is if the league doesn't do an expansion or a great 3rd option surfaces. Is there one beyond Vegas and Seattle? Maybe Nashville or Austin.
- AbeVigodaLive
- Posts: 10272
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Its never easy with Glen, sale could be voided
Ugh.
And this isn't necessarily an Orbach vs. Taylor thing, right?
Isn't the part about no provisions for moving taken directly from the sales agreement?
And this isn't necessarily an Orbach vs. Taylor thing, right?
Isn't the part about no provisions for moving taken directly from the sales agreement?
Re: Its never easy with Glen, sale could be voided
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!
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!
Re: Its never easy with Glen, sale could be voided
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
Re: Its never easy with Glen, sale could be voided
KG4Ever wrote: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.
Re: Its never easy with Glen, sale could be voided
If these owners who presumably want to build the city of the future decide that the Twin Cities is not giving them what they want to start getting a return on their investment the threats will start. Minnesota has been pretty stubborn in this area in the past. It really depends on what bigger plans Lore and Rodriguez have for this team beyond playing basketball in a rented arena.
Re: Its never easy with Glen, sale could be voided
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
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
Re: Its never easy with Glen, sale could be voided
kekgeek1 wrote: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?
- AbeVigodaLive
- Posts: 10272
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Its never easy with Glen, sale could be voided
FNG wrote: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!
What does "fail" really mean?
Did the North Stars "fail" in Minnesota? Or, did a greedy, narcissist move the team because of stadium issues AND sexual harassment issues?
Did basketball in Seattle really "fail" or did politicians drop the ball... along with shady new owners with no intention of staying in Seattle? They moved to OKC for chrissakes. Is that a better market than Seattle? Better fans than Seattle? As for your success take... it works both ways. Let's imagine how well basketball in OKC does without being gifted three surefire, first-ballot HOFers in its first 2 years of existence.
And the NFL... the biggest sports league... just moved to Las Vegas... after an NHL team found success there. There's no reason to think that the NBA wouldn't thrive. Again... an NHL team is there!
Re: Its never easy with Glen, sale could be voided
FNG wrote:kekgeek1 wrote: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.