I've been wondering if Omaha is considered a possibility. They sure appear to be a viable candidate. QWest looks like a nice arena.

But really, Anaheim just has to be considered the leader now. I honestly no longer think Sacramento is even among the front-runners.

MikeM, while I think the LA Metro area would support three teams, do you or does anyone else know if the Kings would have to pay off the Lakers and Clippers for moving into their territory?

Steve, I don't know. There was a blog post at a fan site that said it could be $200M, and people started asking where that number came from. They did more research, and the OP came back and said, okay, we can only document $30M.

I've wondered many times if that's even legal. The NBA doesn't have an antitrust exemption. Seems to me as though any payment could be viewed as a restraint of trade. I bet there's a constitutional basis for not paying the fee.

Went back and looked at Omaha, and I see they just barely kept their mayor in a recall election yesterday, over (among other things) an arena. Turns out Qwest Center raised heck with that city's finances. I had no idea.

Great timing on my remark, though. Omaha is now a cautionary tale. Perfect.

Hope our mayor's paying attention.

I believe the number was revealed a week or two ago. It was $30 mil each to the Lakers and Clippers. I'll see if I can find the exact news report. But it wasn't nearly as much as we imagine it is and would actually cost less than the actual relocation itself would.

Huge misconception is the Kings paying rights to the Lakers and Clippers. They don't have to pay them anything, thanks to Donald Sterling winning his case against the NBA to move the Clippers from San Diego to Los Angeles. The Kings will have to pay probably a big relocation fee $50 million would be my guess. The only thing the Lakers and Clippers can do is lobby to get the other owners to vote against it. But I doubt that happens. The NBA is about to go into a lock-out. Also today, Newark will try to get a team after the Nets move, the mayor and governor said.

The NBA insists that, Sterling notwithstanding, the rule is clear: The NBA Board of Governors (i.e., the 30 teams) can vote to do whatever it wants, including imposing a relocation or territorial fee of whatever size it chooses:

m.ocregister.com/articles/nba-284229-maloofs-relocation.html

My guess is that the Maloofs could try to sue to override this, using the Clippers move as precedent, but neither I nor Google are lawyers, so it's hard to predict how it'd turn out. Presumably they'd be much happier to make an NBA-approved move.

After way more research than I really wanted to do on this, I finally found the resolution of the Clippers lawsuit: Sterling and the NBA settled for an undisclosed sum (reportedly $5.6m from Sterling to the NBA). So there's no legal precedent set there, though clearly it's an example of an owner thumbing his nose at the NBA's relocation rules and getting away with it.

Source:

books.google.com/books?id=phgatFiaWbgC&lpg=PA40&dq=lawsuit%20nba%20%20clippers%20move&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q=lawsuit%20nba%20%20clippers%20move&f=false

The thing is, though, that the Maloofs are in pretty big trouble financially. Suppose the NBA says, oh, $40M each to the Lakers and Clippers; $80M total.

And in the process, they bankrupt the Maloofs.

Not saying they would, but it might.

Then what? Would requiring a payout of $80M that bankrupts the owners be considered a restraint of trade? It sure seems like you could argue that.

So, fine, the league steps in and buys the Kings. They give the current ownership group $305M. But that money is from the other owners, who don't really want to do that.

Contraction? That'd be pretty bad PR.

I just can't see how the courts would say, "$100M to relocate. Pay up."

Am I making sense?

If the choices are 1) reduce the relocation fee, or 2) bankrupt the Maloofs, or 3) a league buyout, or 4) contraction, I bet the NBA would select item 1).

Mike, that's where the Ducks owner comes in. He's offered to pay the Maloofs enough money to cover their debts (which would then in turn cover the relocation fee). Undoubtedly he's banking on the Kings potential to earn greater profits in Anaheim to then pay him back over time.

Actually, he's offered to "help" pay off their debts and the relocation fee. Not clear how much money that actually means:

www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2011/01/4396_kings_owners_me.html

As for your calculus, Mike: That makes sense *if* the courts rule as you say. And keep in mind that it would take a couple of years to wend through the various appeals levels - can the Maloofs hold out that long?

I think that Sterling paid the money to the NBA, rather than the Lakers, is significant. It says that the NBA/Lakers didn't really have a leg to stand on in court, but that Sterling paid it anyway to avoid court costs and maybe to foster a somewhat better working relationship with the rest of the fraternity (although with that guy, who knows?). The Lakers would have actually been the aggrieved party, but didn't get a dime for having their market be split up.

So Sterling probably would have won but paid out for strategic reasons.

The NBA took it because some money is better than nothing (or having to pay trebled antitrust damages like the NFL did to Al Davis).

The Lakers had no leverage, and got nothing.

Looks like Larry Ellison is now entering the fray.

www.nola.com/hornets/index.ssf/2011/01/sacramento_kings_face_iffy_fut.html

I'm not sure what Stern would think of the move to Anaheim, as the Kings would be secondary tenants to the Ducks, who would have first choice of dates for scheduling. Stern is not thrilled when any of the teams have to take a backseat to a NHL club.

This is one reason why attempts to move a NBA team back to St. Louis have failed, as who ever went in there would be secondary to the Blues.

Anaheim Kings: San Jose Timberwolves.....

Ellison is a Bay Area guy so if he buys the Kings or any other team they are coming to San Jose outright.

He and SVSE already struck an agreement 5 years ago when Ellison offered a "blank check" to then Sonics owner Howard Schultz. Schultz said no because he is from Seattle and Ellison told him he would move the team to San Jose immediately...Schultz would have been banned in his own hometown.

At this point Schultz was better off selling to Ellison as the Sonics are long gone. Ellison should have done what Clay Bennett did and said publicly he would try to keep the team in Seattle. Hence Ellison has learned a lesson and took the high road with the Hornets stating "he wanted to buy the team first before deciding what to do with them."

Ellison is the one guy who can bail the NBA out of a bad situation. He can pay for any team and the relocation fee that comes with it without blinking...The NBA knows this...it is only a matter of time before he gets a team and moves it to San Jose.

As for the Anti-Trust exemption, the NFL took it all the way with Al Davis and lost miserably in court via the "rule of reason" defense.

Sterling settled with the NBA because the NBA knew they were going to lose after the NFL lost in court.

The owners voting is a just a "formality" with no AE to support it. Any owner can pick up and leave but it would alienate his fellow owners.

Ellison is a Bay Area guy so if he buys the Kings or any other team they are coming to San Jose outright.

He and SVSE already struck an agreement 5 years ago when Ellison offered a "blank check" to then Sonics owner Howard Schultz. Schultz said no because he is from Seattle and Ellison told him he would move the team to San Jose immediately...Schultz would have been banned in his own hometown.

At this point Schultz was better off selling to Ellison as the Sonics are long gone. Ellison should have done what Clay Bennett did and said publicly he would try to keep the team in Seattle. Hence Ellison has learned a lesson and took the high road with the Hornets stating "he wanted to buy the team first before deciding what to do with them."

Ellison is the one guy who can bail the NBA out of a bad situation. He can pay for any team and the relocation fee that comes with it without blinking...The NBA knows this...it is only a matter of time before he gets a team and moves it to San Jose.

As for the Anti-Trust exemption, the NFL took it all the way with Al Davis and lost miserably in court via the "rule of reason" defense.

Sterling settled with the NBA because the NBA knew they were going to lose after the NFL lost in court.

The owners voting is a just a "formality" with no AE to support it. Any owner can pick up and leave but it would alienate his fellow owners.