TR Forums

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/stor ... ng-sources

Will he repeat "monkey-boy" at his first team meeting?

The Seattle Clippers has a nice ring to it.

*ducks*

Ballmer told The Wall Street Journal earlier this month that, should he obtain the Clippers, he would not attempt to move the franchise from Los Angeles, saying that would be "value destructive."

Sources told ESPN that Ballmer has told friends he is moving to Los Angeles.

That said, it does help Seattle in the long run to have one more sympathetic owner whenever a deal to move a team or expand the league back to the city.

He definitely wanted to be the high bidder, though. Imagine overpaying for something by $300+ Million.

$300M is nothing when Ego Gratification is on the line!

At least now Steve is paying others to endure the abuse - in the past they paid him for the 'privilege.'

Ballmer is now a balla.

Ubergerbil wrote:

Imagine overpaying for something by $300+ Million.

I'd have to start by imagining a net worth of ~20 billion.

Steve Ballmer wrote:

Forwards! Forwards! Forwards!

FINALLY, A SPORTS TEAM I CAN CARE ABOUT!

Good career move. Yelling, jumping and throwing things are right in his sweet spot, and now as an owner-operator he can do that as much as he wants. Truly, his talents were wasted at MSFT and now he can REALLY show everyone the kind of enlightened, dynamic leader he was born to be.

;->

Hz so good wrote:

The Seattle Clippers has a nice ring to it.

*ducks*

This was my first thought, too - if the NBA will let him move them (since they were dying to get the Sonics to OKC) then I think it's a fine idea.

derFunkenstein wrote:

Hz so good wrote:

The Seattle Clippers has a nice ring to it.

*ducks*

This was my first thought, too - if the NBA will let him move them (since they were dying to get the Sonics to OKC) then I think it's a fine idea.

It'll be interesting to see if he actually does that. It's probably more lucrative to keep them in LA, but then again LA already has another team.

The Clippers actually sold more tickets than the Lakers did. Why should they move?
http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance
http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams ... m=sea&lg=n
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketb ... d/2013.pdf

P.S.: Compare those to the NFL or college football.

The Egg wrote:

It'll be interesting to see if he actually does that. It's probably more lucrative to keep them in LA, but then again LA already has another team.

ESPN said he was moving to LA and that he has a son attending USC, so it's LA for a while at least.

Captain Ned wrote:

Will he repeat "monkey-boy" at his first team meeting?

That is just the sort of racist behavior will cost him the team before he even gets it...

Captain Ned wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc

I forgot my /s tags...

/stolen from CNN

Los Angeles Clippys

I really kind of doubt that Ballmer is going to be allowed the move the Clippers to Seattle, assuming he would if he could. However, perhaps this is a situation where Ballmer has learned to keep his cards closer to his chest because of the botched attempts at bringing the Kings and Bucks to Seattle. Maybe he's just saying everything the NBA wants to hear until the sale is final. Then, as a Seattle fan I say *hopefully*, Ballmer has a secret plan up his sleeve to challenge the NBA on moving the Clippers to Seattle.

I kinda doubt it, but that's my hope.

I just don't see the $2B valuation making any kind of financial sense unless the team remains in LA. A team is just more valuable in the LA media market, and especially one with identifiable, charismatic stars like Blake Griffin (and especially now, when the Lakers are bad and without healthy stars). Even if you assume the sports valuation bubble will go on indefinitely*, sports property valuation will always be higher in LA than in Seattle. So whenever Ballmer or his heirs sell the team, it's going to be many, many years before the "Seattle Clippers" sell for that much, whereas the other bids demonstrate that the perceived value of the LA Clippers is already much closer to what he actually paid.

Of course it's possible he doesn't care about that, or the long-term value just isn't his priority compared to the value of being "the guy who brought NBA basketball back to Seattle" -- rich guys' playthings are intrinsically ego-driven, even if they also frequently turn a tidy profit (either yearly or down the road when they're sold).

While I don't care about the NBA in the slightest, I have enough friends who long for the return of an NBA team that I hope Seattle gets another one soon (especially since it will likely also create a home for a Seattle NHL team, which I do care about). I just don't think this is how it's going to happen. That said, and while I realize any NBA team in Seattle will be called the Sonics, I do like the idea of a "Seattle Clippers" because that name has a strong resonance and history deriving from exactly the same source as the SuperSonics (albeit decades earlier).

* it won't of course, since it's driven by the carriage fees that Regional Sports Networks can extract from the cable companies, based on sports being the only thing that isn't having its advertising value gutted by DVRs and on-demand video services; but the cable companies are increasingly reluctant to pay those fees, and some RSNs are getting into financial trouble as a result

UberGerbil wrote:

Of course it's possible he doesn't care about that, or the long-term value just isn't his priority compared to the value of being "the guy who brought NBA basketball back to Seattle" -- rich guys' playthings are intrinsically ego-driven, even if they also frequently turn a tidy profit (either yearly or down the road when they're sold).

You could be onto something there. Ballmer is filthy rich (net worth around $18bil or so), and it's possible that he simply doesn't care about it from a value or investment perspective.

If that's the case, it's kindof sad, as there are so many other ways to blow that kind of money which would really make a difference in the world.