Cuban has sold the Mavs to Adelson-Dumont Family

[DallasMaverick]

This is the piece that doesn't make sense to me.   Super rich typically don't like not making the decisions or being patient until Cuban decides he doesn't want to run basketball operations any longer.   The people with the most money typically get their way.  What happens with Nico?  If Cuban is running just the basketball operations does he meddle more?  What do the new owners do when they find out that Cuban never offered 13 million to Brunson the year before he is a FA.  What do they do when Cuban works on his Howard Eisley trade spreadsheet (old Mavs reference).  Do they grow frustrated that even though they are the majority owner that Cuban still gets most of the attention/visibility?  How long before Cuban makes a stupid comment trying to be the smartest guy in the room that the new ownership thinks is a swipe at them?

Feels like Cuban made a wise decision of getting a few billion more liquid and a chance to turn 3 billion into 13 billion.   On the other side, much greater chance in a year or two we hear that Cuban has been pushed out of his current role.  Who knows though....I have no idea of the language, but it just feels like this is going to be likely in the future.

Maybe they’ll bring back Frank Zachanelli.

Be careful what you wish for.

[StrandedOnBeauboisHill]

The area you are talking about is on the W side of the what will be the lake (the long-planned lake is currently just a river and river bottoms flood plain). That's farther away from downtown, less valuable. The W side doesn't contain the highway infrastructure to take a big number of people to your doorstep, whereas it is to a large degree already in place on the E side. 

Instead, I see their plan being to get first dibs on the land between I-35 and the lake, ie on the E side of the lake, that sits directly west of the AAC. It's generally where the practice facility has been sited. Currently that whole area is a warehouse district, with property owners holding tight to old warehouse buildings in anticipation of the day when the lake comes in and they get a massive payday as their land values explode. Every owner in that broad area has some speculative thoughts about the future payday and is looking ahead.

Just want to throw this back out there but I have already heard from some folks with family who work at HKS (folks who build Globe Life) that they have already been working with Cuban and designing something to go in the space "behind the practice facility" which aligns with your thoughts here.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

https://twitter.com/townbrad/status/1730254722886496290

[michaeltex]

After listening and reading, I think the land development theory is most supportable, but the lynchpin is to have a Mavericks team that is so successful it creates a draw to support the other development. DAL was not going to compete with LACs, LALs, GSWs, SAC just on Cuban's wallet, so (theoretically) this opens the door to bringing in higher dollar FAs.

They have the team core with Luka and Kyrie, both marquee names that will draw anywhere they play. So now focus on investing in bigger players to stack up against the DEN, MIL, and BOS and you have your perennial contender to use as a centerpiece for your multi-billion dollar development.

FWIW, I don't think moving the Mavs to LV is a concept right now. If the Adelsons just wanted a team for LV there are cheaper ways to go that would welcome the chance.

[mvossman]

After listening and reading, I think the land development theory is most supportable, but the lynchpin is to have a Mavericks team that is so successful it creates a draw to support the other development. DAL was not going to compete with LACs, LALs, GSWs, SAC just on Cuban's wallet, so (theoretically) this opens the door to bringing in higher dollar FAs.

They have the team core with Luka and Kyrie, both marquee names that will draw anywhere they play. So now focus on investing in bigger players to stack up against the DEN, MIL, and BOS and you have your perennial contender to use as a centerpiece for your multi-billion dollar development.

FWIW, I don't think moving the Mavs to LV is a concept right now. If the Adelsons just wanted a team for LV there are cheaper ways to go that would welcome the chance.

There will definitely be some value to having deeper pockets, but the new CBA definitely puts limits on it.  If you go too much over the cap it impacts things you can do, not just tax you have to pay.

Agree on that last point.

[SleepingHero]

Brad Townsend (@townbrad)
A league person familiar with Mavs’ sale parameters tells me that as of now, once the Mavericks’ sale goes through, the expectation is that all 5 current Mavericks minority owners will cash out.

That would leave the Adelson/Dumont families and Mark Cuban as sole stakeholders.

[hakeemfaan]

What happens if the casino stuff fails to pass?

Even if it passes and the Mavs stay here, how would it work with a minority owner running the operations and spending the money of the majority owner? The Adelsons didn’t get rich by being dummies. There has to be protection in the documents for them to not just be Cuban’s piggy bank without any checks and balances.

[F Gump]

What happens if the casino stuff fails to pass?

Even if it passes and the Mavs stay here, how would it work with a minority owner running the operations and spending the money of the majority owner?  The Adelsons didn’t get rich by being dummies.  There has to be protection in the documents for them to not just be Cuban’s piggy bank without any checks and balances.

These are good questions. It's reasonable to assume both parties have ultra-smart people to examine the what-if's, and then figure out how to structure the deal so they both have fair protections.

"There has to be protection in the documents for them to not just be Cuban’s piggy bank" -- 
a. Yes, their protection is in the sale docs, which will define the terms of the partnership, and the consequences of the interest that Cuban still retains.
b. The idea that Cuban has "control" is looking like sloppy reporting, because Adelson (not Cuban) will be the 'Governor' of the team, making  Adelson (not Cuban) in charge in all NBA matters. 
c. Generally, it sounds more like his role of running the team is a job he is filling (at least for the time being), instead of them, because they think he is capable and they are not.
d. As far as his ability to get into their pocketbook, there are partnership norms that probably come into play that help. For example, let's say the ownership is a 60 (A)- 40 (C ) split. If/when Cuban wants more cash money injected into the team to do this or that, or the cash flow comes up short (say for big contracts, or luxury tax) then he would have to bring 40% of it himself. (He starts off with over $2B in cash on hand, minus taxes, which should allow him the opportunity to spend if he wishes.) And as an underling, it's close to certain his spending of team money will be audited, he will get a designated salary, and he can be fired for mismanagement if they ever feel the need.

On the casino question, that may be a tougher nut to crack than they hope. At the same time, they may be betting on the idea that should the laws stay the same for now, but then WHEN the laws in Texas eventually change (if they do), this setup may be creating a huge head start for themselves at being 1st in line for a casino (or even 5 or 10, eventually).

[Jason Terry]

These are good questions. It's reasonable to assume both parties have ultra-smart people to examine the what-if's, and then figure out how to structure the deal so they both have fair protections.

"There has to be protection in the documents for them to not just be Cuban’s piggy bank" -- 
a. Yes, their protection is in the sale docs, which will define the terms of the partnership, and the consequences of the interest that Cuban still retains.
b. The idea that Cuban has "control" is looking like sloppy reporting, because Adelson (not Cuban) will be the 'Governor' of the team, making  Adelson (not Cuban) in charge in all NBA matters. 
c. Generally, it sounds more like his role of running the team is a job he is filling (at least for the time being), instead of them, because they think he is capable and they are not.
d. As far as his ability to get into their pocketbook, there are partnership norms that probably come into play that help. For example, let's say the ownership is a 60 (A)- 40 (C ) split. If/when Cuban wants more cash money injected into the team to do this or that, or the cash flow comes up short (say for big contracts, or luxury tax) then he would have to bring 40% of it himself. (He starts off with over $2B in cash on hand, minus taxes, which should allow him the opportunity to spend if he wishes.) And as an underling, it's close to certain his spending of team money will be audited, he will get a designated salary, and he can be fired for mismanagement if they ever feel the need.

On the casino question, that may be a tougher nut to crack than they hope. At the same time, they may be banking on the idea that IF the laws in Texas change, they may be creating a head start for themselves at being 1st in line for a casino (or even 5 or 10, eventually).

I wonder when the terms of the partnership will become public

it’s an interesting dynamic between both parties. I think it will sound fair and make sense in a Cuban way like most of his deals

Cuban has the Mavs franchise which inherently has a connection to the city/county/state government.

Adelsons have the $ and the casino/real estate development business connections and experience 

Put it all together and they have all the ingredients needed (as long as they can pay off the government so they will steal from the citizens) 

The Adelsons must understand how important the Mavs are to Cuban. He would not sell the team unless his demands in that way were met first and foremost. He has said his kids will not run it. Something like he keeps being final decision maker on basketball moves and has a similar role to what he is currently for X number of years. Until 75, so 10 more years to enjoy it? Or maybe with a stipulation that he runs for POTUS and gives up control at that point? 

But the NBA “business” side of it i think will transfer quickly so they can start paying for what’s needed. Giving up the 51% assures the Adelsons will own the Mavs long term in every way. Cuban gets the temporary special treatment demands met. In return, the Adelsons get the discount in valuation. Cuban keeps the 49% so he can sell it down the road for much more than he sold the 51%.

[F Gump]

I wonder when the terms of the partnership will become public

it’s an interesting dynamic between both parties. I think it will sound fair and make sense in a Cuban way like most of his deals

Cuban has the Mavs franchise which inherently has a connection to the city/county/state government.

Adelsons have the $ and the casino/real estate development business connections and experience 

Put it all together and they have all the ingredients needed (as long as they can pay off the government so they will steal from the citizens) 

The Adelsons must understand how important the Mavs are to Cuban. He would not sell the team unless his demands in that way were met first and foremost. He has said his kids will not run it. Something like he keeps being final decision maker on basketball moves and has a similar role to what he is currently for X number of years. Until 75, so 10 more years to enjoy it? Or maybe with a stipulation that he runs for POTUS and gives up control at that point? 

But the NBA “business” side of it i think will transfer quickly so they can start paying for what’s needed. Giving up the 51% assures the Adelsons will own the Mavs long term in every way. Cuban gets the temporary special treatment demands met. In return, the Adelsons get the discount in valuation. Cuban keeps the 49% so he can sell it down the road for much more than he sold the 51%.

1 All of what you say makes plenty of conceptual sense.
2 "I wonder when the terms of the partnership will become public " --- Never. No one puts things like that in the public domain unless they have no choice (for example, if one side sues the other). There is no reason to air such legal work to the public, and it's probably all downside for them if they do.
3 I expect the Adelson's will be buying way more than 51% up front. The reports spoke of a $2B liquidation being added to additional cash on hand, with which they are buying a portion of a 3.5B enterprise. I would be surprised if their share is less than 60%. And in time, there may be provisions for them to buy even more (perhaps all) - that's a common setup. Cuban will still have a public face with the Mavs for some time, but FROM DAY ONE he won't really be The Owner any longer, in NBA eyes.
4 When you say " the NBA “business” side of it i think will transfer quickly so they can start paying for what’s needed", I'm not sure what you have in mind. The A's aren't buying the business side, separate from the team, nor could they, as both "sides" are intertwined, and there is just 1 entity, not 2. The A's will await NBA approval to be the Governor, and then have majority partner ownership of all of it (as well as majority responsibility to see the bills are paid, but not sole responsibility).
5 In addition, if you are envisioning a cash infusion on day 1, I'm wondering why. At this point in the season, there's not a lot of opportunity to spend more than they already have on player payroll. It's not as if they are going to unilaterally back up a truck full of cash to put in the Mav bank account.

[Jason Terry]

1 All of what you say makes plenty of conceptual sense.
2 "I wonder when the terms of the partnership will become public " --- Never. No one puts things like that in the public domain unless they have no choice (for example, if one side sues the other). There is no reason to air such legal work to the public, and it's probably all downside for them if they do.
3 I expect the Adelson's will be buying way more than 51% up front. The reports spoke of a $2B liquidation being added to additional cash on hand, with which they are buying a portion of a 3.5B enterprise. I would be surprised if their share is less than 60%. And in time, there may be provisions for them to buy even more (perhaps all) - that's a common setup. Cuban will still have a public face with the Mavs for some time, but FROM DAY ONE he won't really be The Owner any longer, in NBA eyes.
4 When you say " the NBA “business” side of it i think will transfer quickly so they can start paying for what’s needed", I'm not sure what you have in mind. The A's aren't buying the business side, separate from the team, nor could they, as both "sides" are intertwined, and there is just 1 entity, not 2. The A's will await NBA approval to be the Governor, and then have majority partner ownership of all of it (as well as majority responsibility to see the bills are paid, but not sole responsibility).
5 In addition, if you are envisioning a cash infusion on day 1, I'm wondering why. At this point in the season, there's not a lot of opportunity to spend more than they already have on player payroll. It's not as if they are going to unilaterally back up a truck full of cash to put in the Mav bank account.

I guess what i meant on that last part is the A’s could pay for all the groundwork immediately on their own and it be part of the behind the scenes deal. Lobbying money for casino gambling in texas and lobbying money for the arena/casino/resort area? Like you say though, anything that touches the actual basketball side would need to be more transparent and part of the partnership where both sides contribute

[F Gump]

I guess what i meant on that last part is the A’s could pay for all the groundwork immediately on their own and it be part of the behind the scenes deal. Lobbying money for casino gambling in texas and lobbying money for the arena/casino/resort area? Like you say though, anything that touches the actual basketball side would need to be more transparent and part of the partnership where both sides contribute

" the A’s could pay for all the groundwork immediately on their own " -- Yes, they could do that. But I don't think they would want to.

The real estate deal doesn't have to be tied to the Mavs transfer of ownership, but I think it will be.

At this point, apparently all the sale and partnership docs are signed and binding, contingent on NBA approval of the NBA part , and the answer from the NBA might take only about 30 days? The sale of most of the Mavs will give Cuban cash to pay his share of the expenses in the real estate venture, and the Adelson's ownership of the Mavs will give them a much-needed angle to grab that land they want using eminent domain.

In addition, if the NBA says no, I think their real estate partnership doesn't work anymore. Cuban wont have the money to play real estate games, and the A's won't have the arena angle. IMO Cuban would then look for a different buyer/partner that the NBA will approve, and the A's won't want to be competing with the Mavs potential eminent domain powers for that land. Because of all of that, I don't think the A's do anything until the NBA says yes.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/wha...r-AA1kOWhR

[youzigizag]

What happens if the casino stuff fails to pass?

Even if it passes and the Mavs stay here, how would it work with a minority owner running the operations and spending the money of the majority owner?  The Adelsons didn’t get rich by being dummies.  There has to be protection in the documents for them to not just be Cuban’s piggy bank without any checks and balances.

They have already legalized poker rooms.

The one at Harry Hines and 635 is open 24 hours and business seems very good based on the parking lot and also me personally delivering food inside the place through Uber to poker players.

I assume Dallas was smart...and are easing their way into gambling slowly and measuring crime/homelessness due to the gambling they have allowed on a small scale.  Its also an opportunity to measure the local demand for card players.   Everyone knows there is going to be slot players.

I dont have data...but I havent heard of crime increase because of these poker houses.  But...big money has interest in casinos and can pay local law enforcement and news channels to not report on it if it wasnt too bad.  But I assume its going well thus far on a small scale and casinos are in the near future for Dallas. You could go further with this speculation and suggest thats why the Adelson's bought into the Mavs....because the 2 plus years data on poker rooms is going well and Dallas plans to move forward with the casino plans.

[F Gump]

They have already legalized poker rooms.

The one at Harry Hines and 635 is open 24 hours and business seems very good based on the parking lot and also me personally delivering food inside the place through Uber to poker players.

I assume Dallas was smart...and are easing their way into gambling slowly and measuring crime/homelessness due to the gambling they have allowed on a small scale.  Its also an opportunity to measure the local demand for card players.   Everyone knows there is going to be slot players.

I dont have data...but I havent heard of crime increase because of these poker houses.  But...big money has interest in casinos and can pay local law enforcement and news channels to not report on it if it wasnt too bad.  But I assume its going well thus far on a small scale and casinos are in the near future for Dallas.  You could go further with this speculation and suggest thats why the Adelson's bought into the Mavs....because the 2 plus years data on poker rooms is going well and Dallas plans to move forward with the casino plans.

There has been a push for legalized gambling in Texas for many years. Yet it's never come close. That's not to say it can't change eventually, but in the past it hasn't been close.

The state of Texas HAS NOT passed a law allowing poker rooms. The existing state law says "A person commits an offense if he knowingly uses or permits another to use as a gambling place any real estate, building, room, tent, vehicle, boat, or other property whatsoever owned by him or under his control, or rents or lets any such property with a view or expectation that it be so used."

The TCH you mention has had a rough go of it, to find a way to operate. They were shut down at one point in 2022. They don't seem to actually be in accord with that state law against gambling, and their workaround under which they eventually were allowed to operate still leaves lots of question marks as to whether they are legal. The way the decision to allow them to reopen came down was incredibly puzzling as to how it was argued and decided - were people paid off? I don't assume they are safe from being shut down in the future, because they still don't align with the law.

And the casino model is exponentially far beyond that, in the scale and type of gambling.

In that context, I'm not as willing to assume that legalized gambling is on the near horizon in Texas. Casinos would require a huge leap in a different direction from how things are.

[dirkfansince1998]

Would the Adelson's make a move like this without guarantees? Feels like this has been in the making for a long time. Just cannot imagine that it isn't a done deal.

[youzigizag]

There has been a push for legalized gambling in Texas for many years. Yet it's never come close. That's not to say it can't change eventually, but in the past it hasn't been close.

The state of Texas HAS NOT passed a law allowing poker rooms. The existing state law says "A person commits an offense if he knowingly uses or permits another to use as a gambling place any real estate, building, room, tent, vehicle, boat, or other property whatsoever owned by him or under his control, or rents or lets any such property with a view or expectation that it be so used."

The TCH you mention has had a rough go of it, to find a way to operate. They were shut down at one point in 2022. They don't seem to actually be in accord with that state law against gambling, and their workaround under which they eventually were allowed to operate still leaves lots of question marks as to whether they are legal. The way the decision to allow them to reopen came down was incredibly puzzling as to how it was argued and decided - were people paid off? I don't assume they are safe from being shut down in the future, because they still don't align with the law.

And the casino model is exponentially far beyond that, in the scale and type of gambling.

In that context, I'm not as willing to assume that legalized gambling is on the near horizon in Texas. Casinos would require a huge leap in a different direction from how things are.

Im not trying to be rude or confrontational...

But your post seems like a lot wordsmithing trying to suggest a Poker House exists but isnt legal but has 4 armed guards, guys with visible guns, protecting the place.   To say that this establishment(not the only one, I have delivered to one in Plano a few times also) isnt obviously been given the blessing of local law enforcement is reaching.   You can dance around it with words...but the place is allowed to exist BY LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE LAW SAYS.   You are submitting that governments are shady and lie.  I agree.   Im saying this place is being allowed to exist by law enforcers...which basically means its legal...regardless of what actual law says or case law or anything else.  This establishment is not some underground speak easy...its well known and there are billboards advertising it along I-35.   

I asked a security guard if there was some weird rule they are exploiting like players using cash to win tickets that are then taken somewhere else and cashed in for money....they said no...its like a normal casino...nothing weird going on to exploit rules.

To suggest this place isnt legal or blessed by the police is dancing and wordsmithing just to dance and wordsmith.

I would reassert that my explanation of the City of Dallas experimenting with gambling is more plausible.

I dont want to argue semantics about THE LAW vs LAW ENFORCERS.

[hakeemfaan]

F Gump. Are you DLord?

This board never ceases to amaze me with the depth of legal and contractual knowledge quite a few folks have here.

[RoyTarpleysGhost]

The poker houses have been allowed to exist because they make their money by charging the players an hourly membership fee. So people aren’t going in and losing money to the house/casino in a game where they’re at a disadvantage.

[youzigizag]

The poker houses have been allowed to exist because they make their money by charging the players an hourly membership fee.  So people aren’t going in and losing money to the house/casino in a game where they’re at a disadvantage.

Its gambling or it isnt?

Genuine question.  Are people gambling there? Or is it some weird derivative of gambling that can be over explained as not gambling? 

You pay a fee to fake gamble?