SEATTLE — The federal trial over relocation of the SuperSonics ended Thursday after six days of testimony and arguments before U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman. Pechman must now decide whether the NBA team can move to Oklahoma City for the next season or if it must honor the last two years of its lease at KeyArena.
Advertisement
Seattle sued the Oklahoma City-based owners last fall to enforce the lease after the owners asked for arbitration to get out of it.
Q: When will the judge announce her ruling?
A: At 6 p.m. central time Wednesday. The judge said she would post the ruling to give everyone access to it at the same time. The Web site is www.wawd.uscourts.gov, which links to City of Seattle v Professional Basketball Club LLC ("Sonics Case”).
What happens if the Sonics' owners win?
The owners and their attorneys have declined to comment on this case while it's been in court, so it's impossible to say whether the moving trucks will arrive Wednesday afternoon or what the plan would be.
Paul Lawrence, an attorney for the city, said the city would have "options” for preventing the team from moving immediately, but he didn't specify whether that means he would seek an injunction and file an appeal. He said Howard Schultz, the former owner of the team who is also suing the current owners, would have options related to his lawsuit to keep the team from moving right away.
Seattle Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis said Thursday he didn't want to speculate on whether the city would appeal the case if the Sonics' owners win. Last week, Lawrence said that, if the owners win, the next phase would be deciding what damages the owners would have to pay the city and that juries normally decide damages.
What if the Sonics' owners lose?
Key parties in the case, including Mayor Greg Nickles and principal team owner Clay Bennett, testified that they wouldn't be nasty to each other if the team is forced to stay and they have to work together. Whether the owners and city might reach a legal settlement that would allow the team to leave early is unknown; neither side has been willing to talk publicly about a settlement since the trial started.
Bennett offered the city $26 million last year to get out of the lease. According to testimony in the trial, that's $15 million more than the city would get if the Sonics stay and make their lease payments at KeyArena.
The judge seemed to indicate on Thursday that the city should have taken the offer — since it would help pay off the bonds issued by the city to renovate the arena in 1994 — but said it wasn't up to her to tell city leaders they were asking for a bad bargain.
Ceis, the deputy mayor, told reporters that if the city wins, it would reach out to the Sonics organization to make sure "they have everything they need to work with us toward a successful season this year.”
What were the city's main arguments in the trial?
The Sonics are a unique tenant at KeyArena and you can't calculate a dollar figure to compensate the city for losing the 41-year-old franchise because of the intangible benefits associated with a pro sports team. The law only allows tenants to get out of contracts if the landlord can be adequately compensated. The Oklahoma City owners knew, when they bought the team in 2006, they were getting a lease that had been characterized as the worst in the NBA. It's not up to the court to get the owners out of a bad business decision. And the lawsuit filed against the owners wasn't part of a plan to make them endure financial pain so they would sell the team to a local group of investors.
What were the owners' main arguments?
A price can be put on any losses the city has a right to claim from the lease being broken. Courts rarely force tenants to stay through the terms of a lease if they can pay their way out. The lease at KeyArena no longer works for the city or the team. The Sonics as a business would suffer financial losses, sponsors would refuse to be associated with the team, fewer tickets and suites would be sold and the city — since it shares revenue from ticket sales — wouldn't benefit from the two years of lame duck status.
And the city was a participant in a plan to bleed the team and try to force its sale, perhaps directly through the participation of city officials but definitely through the efforts of an attorney hired to represent the city.
How are the Oklahoma City owners viewed in Seattle?Brad Keller, an attorney for the owners, said in his closing arguments that fans view the owners "as nothing but a bunch of carpetbaggers from Oklahoma who came to take their team away.” He said Bennett can't come to town without personal security guards and can't sit courtside at games. Hundreds of fans gathered outside the courthouse on the first day of the trial and many had unkind — and unprintable — things to say about Bennett.
"Any man with morals, values, and integrity would have honored the contracts, waited until 2010, and then filed for relocation." Michael Heisley has fewer morals, values and integrity then, since he moved the Grizzlies with four years left on their lease. How do morals, value and integrity figure in to honoring a lease, when Bennett was honorable enough to offer Seattle more than the lease was worth to move before this trial ever began? And don't give me this hoohaw about intangible value to the community. If the Sonics were really worth over a hundred million a year to Seattle, the mayor and the city council would have been bending over backwards to get a new arena deal done, or they would have been supporting the Renton arena plan. Having the Sonics in Renton would have barely decreased the intangible value of the team at all to the city of Seattle. No, the mayor of Seattle was more willing to risk the Sonics leaving the region than he was willing to have them move to Renton. There's plenty of mendacity on the city of Seattle's side, so I don't think anyone from there should be throwing stones at the Bennett group.
Philip do you want to apologize now? You wrote: "Yes Larry, your mistaken and are you trying to say that the new arena Bennett proposed wasn't much different than the Key?" You didn't offer any documentation to refute my post. As far as seating capacity goes, it looks that way doesn't it?
_________________________________________________________________
I wasn't mistaken after all when I wrote: "Even Bennetts proposed $500 million arena wouldn't have had the seating capacity of the Ford. If not mistaken it was in the 18,000 range and the Ford is in the 19,000" I didn't have the time to dig up the info and was posting from memory, but was pretty dang close (see below)
_________________________________________________________________
http://www.newsok.com/sports/nbadatabase?appSession=772101663877578
_________________________________________________________________
(if link gets truncated, its the NBA Database link on this site)
_________________________________________________________________
Key Arena Seating Capacity = 17,072
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/300387_sonics19.html
_________________________________________________________________
Sonics present plans for new arena (Jan 19, 2007)
_________________________________________________________________
"The facility the team wants built would ... seat 18,000 people for basketball games...."
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
http://www.newsok.com/sports/nbadatabase?appSession=938101664124639
_________________________________________________________________
(if link gets truncated, its the NBA Database link on this site)
_________________________________________________________________
Ford Center Seating Capacity = 19,163
Have any projections been made on renovated Ford Center profits? Profits on a new Washington $500 million arena?
Did Nichols leave the group over possibility of a successful Washinton arena (no Oklahoma move), damaging lawsuits, Bennett's management skills, or Devon being a much better investment?
Being "sophisticated" investors did the Bennett group assign probalities to a Washington arena, an Oklahoma City move, a flip, or a San Jose/Las Vegas move?
Is Bennett's motivation different form the rest? Does he have running an NBA team anywhere as his prime goal, while the other Oklahoma investors see this as an opportunity to bring a team to OKC?
Would an expansion team solution bring other cities wanting to purchase a new team into play? At a higher price?
"Wow, you still sold out "Almost" every game. This would be pretty impressive if not for the $2 ticket prices. Sonics tickets in Seattle sold for much much more." Someone's been drinking New Orleans koolaid. The cheapest Hornets' tickets in Oklahoma City were $10 for the third tier ends behind the basket. The most expensive ones were $1200 courtside seats and of course there were prices everywhere in between. As far as percentage capacity of arenas, Jesse, that's one of the most specious of statistics, because arenas are of different sizes. An 80% full 22,000 seat arena has far more people in it than a 90% full 16,000 seat arena. The only time percent capacity is meaningful is when an arena is 100% full, because then you cannot tell how many more people would have bought tickets if the arena had more seats. Seattle is three times as big as Oklahoma City, so it should sell more tickets. It has a smaller arena, so anything less than 100% capacity means there are a lot more people in Seattle NOT going to games than there were people in OKC NOT going to Hornets' games.
"Actually the Renton project never had a chance because it was submitted late, as bennett testified himself. How can you vote on something that comes late???"..." The Renton Project was submitted Feb. 20th and the legislature adjourned April 19th. Margarita Prentice was still trying to get something done a week before the legislature adjourned, but one day after Bennett introduced the arena plans (his second visit to the legislature that session) Chopp declared it "dead in the water." The whole "late" thing is a recent buzz word cooked up by someone with an agenda. The year before, Schultz presented his arena plan Feb. 1, and it was a short session of the legislature, ending in March. Bennett actually gave the legislature a month more than Schultz did. Also, could the mayor not have come up with his own arena plan and lobbied for it like our mayor did here? It didn't have to wait for Clay Bennett. He had nothing to do with the arena in OKC. It was all done for him because people wanted it to happen. Contrast that with Ceis et al lobbying against the Renton arena in Olympia. That's a political team that would rather NOT have the Sonics than have them in Renton.
Hey guys-I wish you all in OK and OKC a good night. No matter what happens-we and you are NOT the enemy. This was caused by a interesting confluence of events and people. Sleep good-no matter what happens tomorrow-we can respect our fellow Americans-God Bless Oklahoma.
Did ever dispute the seating issue phil ? no but you guys believe what you want to believe what's done is done do I agree with how the politicians handled themselves no we will see what happens tomorrow but stop with the lawsuites don't have a chance and the case over crap it's chidish.
"Actually the Renton project never had a chance because it was submitted late, as bennett testified himself. How can you vote on something that comes late???"...Two words...Special session...btw this is the same excuse Olympia used when it told Ballmer and the city of Seattle to shove it yet again earlier this year...Seems to be a pretty good cop out
Yes Larry, your mistaken and are you trying to say that the new arena Bennett proposed wasn't much different than the Key? This arena stuff seems to completely baffle you. Ron all you have to do to prove you're not an idiot is tell everyone which NBA arena has fewer seats the the Key.
Phillip has confusion with facts just because someone prints it doesn't make it true or untrue but in the same context a picture is worth a thousand words but can also be deceiving.
Philip wrote: "Seattle has been in the bottom 5 in attendance in the NBA almost every year in this decade." If the arena is the smallest in the NBA (was it always that way or did it gradually become that as newer arenas were built??) it would be difficult for them to pass anyone else along the arena ladder. Even Bennetts proposed $500 million arena wouldn't have had the seating capacity of the Ford. If not mistaken it was in the 18,000 range and the Ford is in the 19,000
Larry let me answer that question david is a fool that thinks just because he goes to church that god is on his side no matter how judgemental he is I mean anyone who thinks Katrina was intentional (sent by god to clean house) is freaking crazy.
Jesse wrote: "This would be pretty impressive if not for the $2 ticket prices." $2 tickets? Interesting, the cheapest I read about was $10 ones in the nose bleed area.
Jesse wrote: "First off those quotes from prentice are about a year old, and where also taken before any of the e-mails came to light." If you were talking about the quote I posted from her, it was right after the emails were revealed...she still supported Bennett (if she doesn't support him now please post an update, would be interested in seeing it).
Good point. But I also remember that, in his press conference after the tour of the Ford center with the relocation committee, Stern was saying the relocation would no be approved without the new plans for the Ford center. One of these things is not like the other.... BTW I don't pretend to know anything, I like to ruffle feathers to find out opinions. Work gets boring :)
Nathan: Stern said on numerous occasions OKC had proven itself to him and the NBA. We didn't need to spend any more tax dollars to do it. Stern himself said that the Ford didn't necessarily need any improvements to land a permanent team. Earlier comments that have said the Ford or the Key are unfit for the NBA have nothing to do with playing basketball as both arenas are certainly able to do that. The "unfit" part is all of the other revenue sources that teams claim they need in order to survive (broken business model). Strange that the Ford is unfit when the Hornets turned a $10 million profit (if not mistaken) here without all of the other revenue sources that the Ford doesn't have. Odd how the City made a net profit of over $1 million (this is AFTER all of the relocation expenses etc had been covered) from a facility that didn't have any of those "needed" revenue streams. Odder still how AFTER those improvements are made to "maximize" those revenue streams, the City is only looking to "break-even" for the next 15 to 30 years.
SOS said,"it is not out of the question that OKC could get an expansion team or a team from a failing market". The failing market is what all of this is about. SOS, aren't we talking about Seattle, you slum lord you. Why are posting on this forum? You compared this paper with the PI, calling both a rag. You said you won't even read the PI. If they are both rags why are you here? Show us the same courtesy you show the PI. You don't name call, right? You need to read what you post, but of course you have an excuse for that also.
Nathan wrote: "Here's why we spent the money- because we didn't need to convince Bennett - its was the relocation committee." The relocation committee was just a formality, we didn't need to convince them of anything. Philip even admitted this in another thread (of course after the vote) that of the last 3 relocation votes, all were nearly unanimous. Did you notice that when the relocation committee came here, less than half of the committee showed up? It was all a sham, going thru the motions (they have to according to the NBA by-laws). As Mark Cuban pointed out the other owners get to keep a million a piece...he said you would be amazed at what they will do for a million dollars. It is a simple matter for them that they want to keep their own relocation options open and if they vote no, not only are they saying no to $1M, but the possibility that when they want to relocate, the other owners might vote against them.
Not that anyone cares now, but what I meant two hours ago was that we should be catching the eye of Memphis and other owners with dead-end markets. In case anyone was wondering. I wish there was a way to keep the Sonics in Seattle and get an expansion team, but that's clearly not going to happen. If PBC wins tomorrow, should we start talking about new team names? Haha...
I actually would like to applaud Rick from Yakima. At least he is honest and not just wanting to slam OKC all the time for anything he can........ like some others.
I think we agree the lease is the key issue I think however it is not the lease in whole just the enforceability of the specific performance clause. This is historically difficult clause and rarely enforced.
Several papers in the NW reported less than 3k as well Rick the only reason the number was even mentioned as a point in fact against SOS who constantly inflates the facts to fit his agenda. He took one papers estimate of 3000 added a + and called it fact same as they always do. The true number unless they took roll is impossible to calculate and irrelevant.
Jesse, I was being facitious...only the Oklahoman continues to report that only hundreds were there. The fans in OKC deserve better...as poor as Seattle media can be at times..at least they offer valid critism both ways...
Rick Support from either side is only a side bar in this issue as it relates to profitability. The judge pointed out very clearly that the public are not a party to the lease.
Anyway-someone argued (I will not name names)that the people who did NOT vote for the Ford Center upgrades gave their tacit approval..in other words, there was a 95% approval...today someone stated that only .05% approx(I'm to lazy to scroll down to get the exact number) supported to Sonics staying in Seattle because only 3,000 out of 450,000 plus showed up for the rally. It does seems like a double standard. NO??
As to voting on an arena that has no land it happens all the time in building projects. The plans are approved and suitable land is secured when funding is established. Why would you buy a piece of land and hope someone would give you money to build something on it. How many people build a home that way don’t you go to the bank first to see what you qualify for? In this case the city is the bank and they said no every chance they could.
Jesse, you look silly posting attendance in percentage when you have the arena with the fewest seats in the NBA. It makes you appear to be deceitful. Seattle has been in the bottom 5 in attendance in the NBA almost every year in this decade. OKC averaged higher paid attendance for the two years the Hornets were in OKC than the Sonics have had in the last 25 years.
I don't need to listen to this article rick, I was at the rally, were you??? Don't tell me how many people were there, I know, not an exact number of course, but it was way way closer to 3000 than 1000. So let me get this straight brent, you saying that we should of voted when bennett came late and said I want you to build me an arena, but I don't know for how much, and not sure if I can build it where I propose to..LOL.. NOBODY would of done this, and Bennett knew it. It just sounds ridiculous.
We can argue attendance-we can skew the numbers anyway we want to serve our biases. There is a special lease with a performance clause, Bennett knew it(although admittedly not real well). By the way, you people need to do research-there were not 3,000 at the rally in Seattle-there were only several hundred...read the NEWS..it's in THIS article people!!!
Wow brent, nice argument, Bennetts lucky that your not his lawyer. How about answering the question, how do you vote on an arena when there is no land to build it on, and no financial planning??? Was he going to build a floating arena that sits on no land what so ever??
Sonics attendance by year...07-08 78.2% 20-62 record. 06-07 93.9%. 05-06 95.3%. 04-05 96.9%. 03-04 92%. 02-03 91%. This is just the last 6 years, only 1 playoff team, and yet the arena is at full capacity, and still paying full price, no $2 tickets to be had here. I would argue that this is phenomenal attendance for a losing team, that has relocation looming over thier heads, yet we still supported our team.
Wow, you still sold out "Almost" every game. This would be pretty impressive if not for the $2 ticket prices. Sonics tickets in Seattle sold for much much more.
It was also proposed on land he didn't own, or had an option to buy, not to mention that there was no financial plan. These are the reasons why there was no vote, and why Bennett had no chance, not any plot to undermine it. Explain to me please how you can vote on a plan that has none of these in place, and was also submitted late, as Bennett himself testified to??
The only point I want to make is about the support that the citizens of OKC have given to Bennett. We did not meet him at the airport or throw him a party. We did better than that. We voted, not once but twice, to build and expand an arena that was capable of supporting an NBA franchise. We even supported a team and allow it to make a profit that was just visiting for a few years. And by the way, even though the Hornets are contenders now, they were far from contenders their first year and WE STILL SOLD OUT almost every game. The Seattle economy is so much better than ours. Job pay better and you have so much more disposable income. Yet, your citizens would not step up to the plate and support the team. Attendance has been falling for the Sonics for years, not just since Bennett has owned the team. It this was such a damned good business, why did Shultz sell it? Answer: He was losing MONEY. You know, if the city of Seattle would just make a deal or two to allow Bennett to make some money it would be different. Instead, the city conspires to "bleed him dry". Great strategy to work with business. Tell me, who else is going to come in and volunteer to lose $60 million? Shultz? Maybe Bill Gates? I doubt it. They did not become billionaires by losing money. Wake up, Seattle!!
He can change his mind about anythin he wants Jesse he owns it. You ever have electrical companies change their order? Business models change and situations change that's why the contract is so vague.
You are right Philip his contract with schultz even says a venue of his choosing. So if he wanted one planted on the Seattle Space Needle and he tried he meets the contract.
Actually the Renton project never had a chance because it was submitted late, as bennett testified himself. How can you vote on something that comes late??? Bennett himself stated that a Key remodel was ok when he bought the team, why did he change his mind???
No Jesse, you are wrong. Those quotes were from this past December.....barely 6 months old and several of the emails were already known. What wasn't known at that time was the conspiracy and lobbying efforts going on behind the scenes to torpedo her Renton project. I would love to here her discuss that on the witness stand. Love him or hate him, Shultz was Seattles last chance to work out a Key remodel. Where Shultz may have felt like a Key solution worked with his 200 million dollar investment, Bennett didn't feel like it worked with his 350 million dollar investment. No matter what you think, Bennett was never under any obligation to consider a key remodel, contractually or ethically.
Wow, alot to catch up on. First off those quotes from prentice are about a year old, and where also taken before any of the e-mails came to light. Second, I hate it when people call Schultz a "Seattle Guy", he was born and raised in New York, and still lives there, he is just an employee of a Seattle Co, not the founder, or the owner. No Sonic fans even liked him, he was a horrible owner, and the man he hired to run the team, wally walker, was inept at best, with horrible move, after horrible move. I was actually glad that he sold the team, and to someone who looked like he could get things done here, Bennett himself called Seattle a first rate international city, and was thrilled at the prospects of owning a team here, we all know his true stance now. Third, I was at the rally, and I promise, the amount of people there was much closer to 3000 than 1000, and I challenge anyone in OKC that was not there to tell me any differently. Fourth, none of this really even matters, and has no bearing on the cases what so ever. What I will be interested to see is how the NBA reacts to the plans to redo the Keyarena, and the whole of the Seattle Center, which IS in the works, and should be passed come Janurary. This redo of the Seattle Center will not fall under the I-91 requirements, as it will be looked upon as a city improvement, not just a sports arena, this is the loop hole the city, and state will use to get passed I-91.
Just got done looking at the NBA-Sonics homepage views of over 350,000 people jamming downtown Seattle celebration the Sonics Championship. My guess is if Clay and Stern pulled this stunt in 1998 before the lock out when the team actually was good-there would be more than 3,000 people-but probably not much more for an event like this. In fairness to OKC. ALL their media outlets report that the Sonics ARE coming-- so a rally to "Save them from Seattle" would be a little silly. OKC will support them just fine if they eventually move. We just hope OKC gets a different team.
There is alot of comments about the sweetheart deal the City gave Clay and company. Why is that bad? I mean if the populace gets some new form of entertainment choice and the owners and the NBA make more money. Is that not a win win. Last time I checked Aubrey and company paid alot of peoeple in this city to come to work everyday do we not want those guys more financially sound so that in turn the jobs they provide are sound. Where is the negative I dont see it.
But like I said earlier, Rick. The other owners in the NBA have made it clear they are not interested in expanding right now. They don't want to reduce the shares of the national television contracts. The proceeds they receive from a one time expansion fee do not make up for a permenantly reduced piece of the national TV revenue pie.
Correction-the last time the NBA added only 1 expansion team was NOT in 1980 with the Mavs-it was a few years ago with the Bobcats. Memory lapse probably because it was Charlotte which had the Hornets before. Needless to say the NBA went well over 20 years between 1980 and 2004 with an odd number of teams adding 3 sets of two in between intermitently
The truth is the NBA is fortunate the Bennett and co. came along and saved the Sonics from financial ruin. We don't know the future but we do know the past and that past says that the Sonics have lost money every year in this decade and they made the playoffs and made a nice little run just a couple of years ago. Shultz's group lost 60 million dollars in 5 years and HAD to sell because they were unwilling to keep making cash calls. In OKC at least they'll have a partnership with a city that cares whether or not the team is financially viable and a city that wants to see the team thrive. Kinda like the mindset must have been in Seattle back in the 60's when they got their first team.
With this I will leave you for the day...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/367296_rally17.html
3,000 rally loud and proud to keep Sonics in Seattle - ... An estimated 3,000 people attended a "Save Our Sonics" rally Monday outside the federal courthouse, hoping to be heard as attorneys presented opening arguments 14 floors up in the six-day trial to determine if the NBA team moves or stays in Seattle next season. ... And on Youtube ... 3-4000 fans outside the courthouse http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rp-JB4SrLAU ... http://youtube.com/watch?v=sAp2OLQYVfI ... there is a second part as well.
This is the best write up I've seen on the current trial. It was written by a poster named Tacodome on Sonicsbeat.com.......The Lease
You might think Seattle has the obvious advantage here. After all, if the judge enforces the letter of the contract, the City of Seattle wins hands down. However, judges are very reluctant to enforce specific performance unless there is no other remedy at law. Also, the strength of the language in the contract is a factor. I'd say the City has a slight advantage with the lease, but they certainly have some work to do to overcome the courts' overwhelming preference for monetary damages.
Advantage: Seattle
No Other Remedy At Law
The City of Seattle has the burden of proof here and must prove that Seattle will be significantly harmed in a way that it cannot be made whole by a financial award alone. Seattle has argued that there are intangible benefits that cannot be quantified in terms of a dollar amount. I think the City's case has come up way short in this aspect. Their expert Mr. Zimbalist was able to quantify the intangibles in Anaheim (a fact Judge Pechman seemed to take particular interest in.) Mr. Alexie's ability to watch the "greek gods" for two more years doesn't cut it here. There are other intangible benefits such as recognition and status, but Seattle is not actually going to lose these things if the team leaves. If the City doesn't prove that there is no remedy at law, the Sonics win.
Advantage: Sonics
Undue hardship.
The Sonics stand to lose $60-70M in Seattle vs. making $10M in OKC. Seattle argues that the losses were foreseeable when they bought the team, or they are self-inflicted and not a result of performance of the lease. I would say Seattle has been effective in establishing these points. However, whether the Sonics knew they might end up losing $60-70M, that was before an opportunity to make $10M opened up. A swing of $80M seems like a significant burden to me. After all, the City is asking the judge to force the Sonics to lose $60M when a profitable option is available to them. That seems undue hardship to me, regardless of how forseeable the losses were, but I don't know what the judge is thinking and how she will weigh these facts.
Advantage: Even
Unclean Hands
In order for Seattle to get a remedy in equity, it must be acting in an equitable way. Equity means fair to both sides. It is extremely damaging to Seattle's case if the City is shown to be using the lease as a weapon to accomplish something they have no legal right to do. They are within their rights to try to enforce specific performance, but they are not within their rights to do so as part of a greater plot to inflict damage and force PBC to sell. Mr. Keller did an outstanding job with Mayor Nickels, and PBC appears to have a solid case. More will be coming on this today with Mr. Walker, Mr. Griffin, etc. It should be a very interesting day.
Advantage: Sonics
Overall
While the contract is on Seattle's side, and they've established that the Sonics' losses were foreseeable, I think it is being shown that they are not acting in equity. And much more importantly, they have failed to show that money can't make them whole. This coupled with the general preference for financial damages as opposed to keeping two warring parties together for an extended period of time makes me feel pretty good about the Sonics chances in this case. I think right now, there is a good chance the judge finds that the City of Seattle does have an adequate remedy at law, and rules that the Sonics can leave and pay financial damages.
Advantage: Sonics
Maybe I should take the city of Seattle's approach call in a few of my more affluent friends stroke a check or two call in a marker here and there and see if we cant get the IRS to see how well SOS has managed and set up their nonprofit status maybe look into some comingling of funds. Might shut them up quicker than getting them to answer to their lies. Isn't that the things work up there we could call it "Poisoning the Slumlords and exposing their true agenda"
Stephen: Thank you for proving my point. No one in OKC cared enough to show support for Clay. Sonics fans were intelligent enough to check the flight plans filed and a bunch made sure Clay was given a proper send off when he left town. It is ok, after all OKC is not a Big league City so they wouldn't know how to show support like people in cities with teams are, but I wanted to show how hypocritical it was of people to attack SOS for "only" having 3000 people at a rally when OKC had ZERO people at their rally. I am not here to post negativity, I am here to set the record straight. If you have issue with others who choose to bash OKC (despite my saying time and again I have no problem with the people of OKC, just their elected officials and dishonest leaders like Clay), then take that up with them. I don't engage morons like OKC Phil. - Yes I own my own businesses. Yes I have had tenants like you buy out their leases to move, but that is because all of our leases have buyout clauses. But this is a "Use Agreement" not a lease. It is a type of contract that can demand specifice performance. If you had "specific performance" in a contract with me you would be in court getting schooled for it if you tried to break the contract.
SOS you should be ashamed I cleary said the number of fans was tricial. The part that is pertinenet to the discussion is the fact that you would lie about this and a host of other details with no regard for the true Seattle fan or the residents who do or do not want a basketball team in your area. You call us foolish for pointing out your lies but feel justified in lying about them because you are a so called fan? Well I am a fan of the truth and you offend me.
Ok, I got that out of my system so from here on out i'll discuss issues as honestly as I can but I WILL NOT engage anyone that can't "play well with others". You can rant and rave all you want, call me names all you want, but if you can't behave you do not get the privledge of a response.
You can't wait until a lease is expired to worry about the next lease. It's no longer possible to have a successor venue ready in Seattle by the time the lease ends and considering how the city has cut the team no slack on the lease it is unreasonable to ask the team to play in the current arena one day past the end of the lease, besides the Sonics are legally bound to a new lease with OKC beginning in 2010 at the latest. The other owners in the NBA have made it clear they are not interested in expanding right now. They don't want to reduce the shares of the national television contracts. The proceeds they receive from a one time expansion fee do not make up for a permenantly reduced piece of the national TV revenue pie. The NFL has gotten along just fine without L.A. and the NHL has gotten along just fine without Houston.....If those leagues can get by without those tier 1 cities, The NBA can certainly get by without a tier 2 city like Seattle.
It is sad to see the desperate attempts to justify trying to take Seattle's team. 300 people, 3000 people, 30,000 people, even 300,000 people and you would attempt to portray that as a lack of support. Take a moment to look at how foolish you look. This forum is flooded with people showing support for keeping the Sonics in Seattle. The Federal Marshalls claimed that 3000 people were in the courtyard (they know very well how many people it holds). Does it matter if it was 1000, 5000, or whatever? No, but you are so desperate for something to attack Seattle on that you can't see the forest for the trees. You think that anti-clay signs instead of pro-sonics signs means a lack of support? Come on folks, you look like idiots attacking the efforts of the fans to keep their team. Get a grip and look at reality. If there was no interest in keeping the Sonics the city would have let Clay by out the lease. The Mayor would have claimed victory at paying off the debt and keeping the Storm. The city council would go back to banning bottled water and plastic shopping bags without blinking an eye at the Sonics. The fan group would have dozens, not double digit thousands. There would have been 30 people, not 3000 at the trial. You are like football fans who argue a 29 point win wasn't impressive but a 30 point win would be. I have tried to come here and bring facts to a forum that has suffered greatly by an effort to misinform the people of OKC by the Bennett controlled media. I have tried to take the high road by not degenerating into personal attacks and childish behavior like OKC Phil and others have, so stop and take a look at yourselves and realize how silly you look. Give Sonics fans credit for being passionate about their team. Give them credit for pushing the elected officials to do everything they can to save the team. Realize they are doing what you hope someone there will do if the situation ever occured in OKC. Realize that OKC getting the NBA shouldn't have to be at the expense of the fans in Seattle who DID NOTHING to deserve being treated the way Bennett and Stern have treated them. All we ever did was provide THREE 100% taxpayer funded facilities over the span of 30 years for the NBA, been one of the best cities in the league for 41 years including 3 NBA finals teams and setting attendance records that any city would envy. If you can't give Seattle credit for all of this then maybe you don't deserve the NBA. If you are not able to stand up for another cities fans like they would for you then you are not a "Major league city". Portland fans love to hate the Sonics on the court but they have been fantastic in supporting our cause because they may not like us on the court but they understand that this could happen to them next and have enough integrity to see that. You should be ashamed of yourselfs.
people dont show up for rallies in fron tof court houses accordign to SOS Really?30 seconds on google says you are full of it once again---Jena, La., home to the Jena 6 noose incident, is gearing up for what is probably the largest influx of people in its history. More than 30,000 protestors from every corner of the United States are expected to convene on the town's courthouse lawn tomorrow, the original sentencing date for 17-year-old Mychal Bell, the first of the Jena 6 to face a judge.----- Baltimore County teachers battling with County Executive James T. Smith Jr. over a lack of pay raises stepped up their pressure yesterday, marching outside his office and participating in a job action by working to contract rules.
Leaders of the Teachers Association of Baltimore County said they arranged the rally outside the county courthouse in Towson to bring attention to the union's push for at least a 3 percent cost-of-living increase.
"Today we have come together as a united team to strongly urge [Smith] to re-examine his past budget practices and budget priorities," Cheryl Bost, president of the union, which represents about 9,000 teachers, said during a news conference before the march
Wow, I was unaware that I had to keep up with CB and his flight schedule. I will write that in my things to do list. AND, speaking of work, you seem to sit, as it was stated in another post, on this thing all day and post endless negativity instead of support. Really, I must go now.... I actually HAVE A JOB TOO. Oh, and in case you are interested in answering my question : Do you own a business? I do, AND I have relocated it from one city to another, AND (I love this crap)I have had to buy out a lease to do it, AND it was approved in court... Have a nice day
Stephen: 3000 is very impressive, especially for an event put together by volunteers. Even large anti-war marches and other major events don't bring 30,000 people. 3000 for a rally of this type is amazing. The federal marshalls guarding the courthouse said it was unheard of for an event like this to draw that many. You have to remember that sports fans have jobs. This isn't a bunch of students that have nothing better to do, these are people who have jobs taking time off from work, finding a place to park in a major city during business hours, to spend hours at the courthouse for no reason other than to show support for their team. I know that OKC media probably showed you only the bad signs but the vast majority of the signs there were supportive of the city and the team. Of course people were going to vent their anger towards Clay. He is a man without honor or integrity and they are going to hold him accountable for being a low life scum. Answer me this. How many people rallied in OKC to show support for Clay? Did anyone meet his plane at the airport? Didn't think so. Using your logic that means there is ZERO support for Clay.
Stephen well said did you see the little girl on the sign flipping someone off? That was classy. I have said before that my only beef with the SOS group is they dont come here to share the issue in a forum they post endless propoganda filled with misinformation and manipulations of the truth. Some people come here to learn the issue and they act in contrast to that goal. They have been shunned in their own papers forums and should be here as well unitll they clarify their lies and establish their true agenda.
So to tell me it was an impressive turnout and give me a 0.5% of the population turnout with nothing but SLANDER signs instead of support for the franchise signs really is not convincing me that you care so much about the Sonics, as you care about not letting Bennett win. Food for thought. <-------- That is a good point I never thought about. They mainly did have anti Clay signs, instead of support the franchise signs.
3000+ another blatant stretch of the truth every paper in the region put the number between 800 and 2000. I argued this last week with him and the result was people came and went. Is that how they count attendance up there is you stroll by at some point during they day you count. Only one of the many papers reprting the issue put it at 3000 and they call it 3000+. I know this is a small issue but their post are filled with them if he will lie about something so small and trivial it speaks volumns about the groups character. NO CREDIBILITY!!!!!
Cucumber: Maybe owning apartments makes one a slum lord in OKC but not in this region. That particular co-founder is an excellent businessman with mostly commercial and retail properties. The apartments his family owns are upscale. Of course none of that matters except in the small little world where it makes you feel better to be ignorant.
I have to give the SOS crew a little credit. They really are trying to save their team. With that said, if you had 30,000 instead of 3000 show up on the first day of the trial, I would have been much more impressed.
Also, keep in mind that I have been watching this situation very carefully since day one way back last year. So to tell me it was an impressive turnout and give me a 0.5% of the population turnout with nothing but SLANDER signs instead of support for the franchise signs really is not convincing me that you care so much about the Sonics, as you care about not letting Bennett win. Food for thought.
Stephen: Expansion is not out of the question. <---- SOS... See, you speak for others. If the NBA says expansion is not out of the question, then why is Clay even in court instead of saying, let them go and we will give you an expansion? That just doesn't make sense. If the NBA wanted to give an expansion they wouldn't have said they aren't looking to expand the league.
SOS claimed weeks before the trial that the under the table deal was already struck giving each city a team and we would never see a courtroom. You have never answered to why you made these claims and where you secured the information. If your source was bad merely admitting it would help but ignoring the charge leads me to believe there was no source and it was all a distraction and smokescreen hiding your real agenda.
The Seattle Times posted this before the trial started, I wonder what the odds are today...."On its Web site, Bodog asks: "Will the City of Seattle win their lawsuit against the NBA and force the Sonics to play out their lease at Key Arena?"
The Sonics are favored, at -400, while the city is listed at +200. Here's what that means:
If you bet the Sonics will win the trial, you would have to risk $4 to win $1. If you bet $1 on a city victory, you win $2 (plus the original $1 bet).
The other proposition: "In what city will the Seattle Sonics play in during the 2008-2009 NBA Season?" Oklahoma City is a -315 favorite, Seattle a +170 underdog.
Stephen: Expansion is not out of the question. The rhetoric from the league has changed recently. Also MLB was more dead set against expansion than the NBA in 1976 and the legal situation in Seattle had them change their minds in 72 hours and they created the Mariners and Blue Jays. Come Wed, if the court rules the team has to stay, the climate to negotiate a deal that gives OKC an expansion team (or team from a failing market) is ripe. It would require a committment that all legal action stop, that the arena solution be funded, but it saves Bennett from losing $60 million over two years and gives OKC a time certian for when they will have a team there. It can be a win/win deal for all, why would anyone in Seattle or OKC not want to do it?
Yea Rick, but I realized that the only way the NBA is coming to OKC is if we get a relocated team. I've given up on any hope that the NBA will grant us an expansion. For the sake of taking my son, daughter, and fiancee to games, I'll take what I can get. Businesses leave here all the time. We no longer have Peter Piper Pizza (my favorite Pizzeria,) and the only Dairy Queen we have is almost an hour outside the city (Blizzards > McFlurrys,) but I have to live with the fact that businesses leave all the team, for better or worse. My kid deserves to see the NBA in his own city, not support these huge cities by driving 2 hours, only to fund their asses while our city is still considered a "town." The reason small markets stay small, is because the small markets support the big markets which then leaves us high and dry. Time for a change, no matter the cost, in my opinion.
Stephen: The people of Seattle have not said no. 3000+ made it very clear the first day of trial that they want this team to stay. What the region has made clear is that be it the Mariners, Seahawks, or Sonics, we will invest in a building as long as the team makes a committment back. That requires a reasonable investment into the building and agreeing to a lease that will lock the team into the region. The Mariners and Seahawks have done so, the NBA via Stern said they wanted the "same deal" except they forget about the part where they put in a reasonable investment and make a committment to the market. They want the money AND the ability to hold you up for more just like they got in OKC. You not only approved nearly $200 million in public money but Clay got a lease that gives him an out clause in 5 years so you can be held up for more. The attitude here is 100%, A deal is a deal, so no matter what the situation we expect our contracts to be honored. Some don't care if they stay after that, enough do that the elected officials have seen the light and are working to solve the problem. Key Arena expansion funding has been promised in the next legislative session in January so it will be in place before the next chance for the BOG to vote and with the league bylaws the league would not be able to approve the move. You can cry about "denial" all you want but it is time for OKC to wake up and see that if a deal isn't struck that has an NBA team in both cities this move isn't happening AT LEAST until 2010 if at all.
David, the last time the NBA added only 1 expansion team was in 1980-the Mavericks-that brought the league to an UNEVEN number of teams(23) which lasted 8 YEARS until 1988 with the Hornets and Heat. The league has almost NEVER added just one team. Why do we assume they would do so now or not just allow another team to re locate to OKC. That is why I was wondering about the number 31
363
_________________________________________________________________
I wasn't mistaken after all when I wrote: "Even Bennetts proposed $500 million arena wouldn't have had the seating capacity of the Ford. If not mistaken it was in the 18,000 range and the Ford is in the 19,000" I didn't have the time to dig up the info and was posting from memory, but was pretty dang close (see below)
_________________________________________________________________
http://www.newsok.com/sports/nbadatabase?appSession=772101663877578
_________________________________________________________________
(if link gets truncated, its the NBA Database link on this site)
_________________________________________________________________
Key Arena Seating Capacity = 17,072
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/300387_sonics19.html
_________________________________________________________________
Sonics present plans for new arena (Jan 19, 2007)
_________________________________________________________________
"The facility the team wants built would ... seat 18,000 people for basketball games...."
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
http://www.newsok.com/sports/nbadatabase?appSession=938101664124639
_________________________________________________________________
(if link gets truncated, its the NBA Database link on this site)
_________________________________________________________________
Ford Center Seating Capacity = 19,163
Did Nichols leave the group over possibility of a successful Washinton arena (no Oklahoma move), damaging lawsuits, Bennett's management skills, or Devon being a much better investment?
Being "sophisticated" investors did the Bennett group assign probalities to a Washington arena, an Oklahoma City move, a flip, or a San Jose/Las Vegas move?
Is Bennett's motivation different form the rest? Does he have running an NBA team anywhere as his prime goal, while the other Oklahoma investors see this as an opportunity to bring a team to OKC?
Would an expansion team solution bring other cities wanting to purchase a new team into play? At a higher price?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/367296_rally17.html
3,000 rally loud and proud to keep Sonics in Seattle - ... An estimated 3,000 people attended a "Save Our Sonics" rally Monday outside the federal courthouse, hoping to be heard as attorneys presented opening arguments 14 floors up in the six-day trial to determine if the NBA team moves or stays in Seattle next season. ... And on Youtube ... 3-4000 fans outside the courthouse http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rp-JB4SrLAU ... http://youtube.com/watch?v=sAp2OLQYVfI ... there is a second part as well.
You might think Seattle has the obvious advantage here. After all, if the judge enforces the letter of the contract, the City of Seattle wins hands down. However, judges are very reluctant to enforce specific performance unless there is no other remedy at law. Also, the strength of the language in the contract is a factor. I'd say the City has a slight advantage with the lease, but they certainly have some work to do to overcome the courts' overwhelming preference for monetary damages.
Advantage: Seattle
No Other Remedy At Law
The City of Seattle has the burden of proof here and must prove that Seattle will be significantly harmed in a way that it cannot be made whole by a financial award alone. Seattle has argued that there are intangible benefits that cannot be quantified in terms of a dollar amount. I think the City's case has come up way short in this aspect. Their expert Mr. Zimbalist was able to quantify the intangibles in Anaheim (a fact Judge Pechman seemed to take particular interest in.) Mr. Alexie's ability to watch the "greek gods" for two more years doesn't cut it here. There are other intangible benefits such as recognition and status, but Seattle is not actually going to lose these things if the team leaves. If the City doesn't prove that there is no remedy at law, the Sonics win.
Advantage: Sonics
Undue hardship.
The Sonics stand to lose $60-70M in Seattle vs. making $10M in OKC. Seattle argues that the losses were foreseeable when they bought the team, or they are self-inflicted and not a result of performance of the lease. I would say Seattle has been effective in establishing these points. However, whether the Sonics knew they might end up losing $60-70M, that was before an opportunity to make $10M opened up. A swing of $80M seems like a significant burden to me. After all, the City is asking the judge to force the Sonics to lose $60M when a profitable option is available to them. That seems undue hardship to me, regardless of how forseeable the losses were, but I don't know what the judge is thinking and how she will weigh these facts.
Advantage: Even
Unclean Hands
In order for Seattle to get a remedy in equity, it must be acting in an equitable way. Equity means fair to both sides. It is extremely damaging to Seattle's case if the City is shown to be using the lease as a weapon to accomplish something they have no legal right to do. They are within their rights to try to enforce specific performance, but they are not within their rights to do so as part of a greater plot to inflict damage and force PBC to sell. Mr. Keller did an outstanding job with Mayor Nickels, and PBC appears to have a solid case. More will be coming on this today with Mr. Walker, Mr. Griffin, etc. It should be a very interesting day.
Advantage: Sonics
Overall
While the contract is on Seattle's side, and they've established that the Sonics' losses were foreseeable, I think it is being shown that they are not acting in equity. And much more importantly, they have failed to show that money can't make them whole. This coupled with the general preference for financial damages as opposed to keeping two warring parties together for an extended period of time makes me feel pretty good about the Sonics chances in this case. I think right now, there is a good chance the judge finds that the City of Seattle does have an adequate remedy at law, and rules that the Sonics can leave and pay financial damages.
Advantage: Sonics
Leaders of the Teachers Association of Baltimore County said they arranged the rally outside the county courthouse in Towson to bring attention to the union's push for at least a 3 percent cost-of-living increase.
"Today we have come together as a united team to strongly urge [Smith] to re-examine his past budget practices and budget priorities," Cheryl Bost, president of the union, which represents about 9,000 teachers, said during a news conference before the march
Sold the team. Business decision, I am sure. WAIT, according to SOS this isnt a business, its a team.
I am so confused.
Also, keep in mind that I have been watching this situation very carefully since day one way back last year. So to tell me it was an impressive turnout and give me a 0.5% of the population turnout with nothing but SLANDER signs instead of support for the franchise signs really is not convincing me that you care so much about the Sonics, as you care about not letting Bennett win. Food for thought.
The Sonics are favored, at -400, while the city is listed at +200. Here's what that means:
If you bet the Sonics will win the trial, you would have to risk $4 to win $1. If you bet $1 on a city victory, you win $2 (plus the original $1 bet).
The other proposition: "In what city will the Seattle Sonics play in during the 2008-2009 NBA Season?" Oklahoma City is a -315 favorite, Seattle a +170 underdog.