Are the Sonics moving?

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Should be a really interesting legal battle. I agree that Bennett could find himself between a rock and a hard place if Schultz's suit holds up, and there's some optimism that it will.

He might be in a tough spot...I'm not really sure the legal ramifications of such a weird decision. If it's ruled that there was fraud, maybe it could void the contract prior to the decision to sign the lease with Oklahoma City. Who knows.

Either way, the suit is going to be a hard one for Schultz to win just because fraud is hard to prove...generally there is a higher standard of proof in a fraud case than the usual preponderance of the evidence (this is to discourage people from alleging fraud all the time when a deal went bad). Also, while the minority owners have been idiots in their e-mails and such, Bennett is the decision-maker and his e-mails have at least been pretty cryptic. He said that if they couldn't move the team to OKC, at least they'd make money on a flip of the team to a local Seattle owner--that is saying that they were willing to keep the team there if they could make a profit. The only really damaging e-mail is the one that says "I am a man possessed" but, while one can infer he means moving the team to Oklahoma City, it's not exactly spelled out.

I'm not trying to say he didn't want to move the team to Oklahoma City--it's pretty safe to say he did (and if he couldn't, he wanted to make money on the deal)--I'm just saying it's a tough suit to win because fraud is tough to prove. Especially if it's not in the written agreement, but essentially spoken-word parol evidence.

[vex]

Sonics reach settlement with city of Seattle

Associated Press






Updated: July 2, 2008, 7:18 PM ET

• Comment
• Email
• Print

SEATTLE -- In a stunning turn, the city of Seattle and the SuperSonics have reached a last-minute settlement before the judge was to rule in their KeyArena lease dispute.
The settlement was reached just hours before U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman was to announce her verdict in the trial between the city and the team.
The city of Seattle has scheduled a news conference at 5 p.m. PT Wednesday, the same time as a news conference in Oklahoma City with Sonics' owner Clay Bennett. Terms of the settlement were expected to be announced then.
The settlement was announced by Pechman on the federal court Web site.
Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press





http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3471503

[molson]

ESPN.com says the deal is $75 million to the city, and then the Sonics will go on their way.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3471503

[Logan]

I'm sure that money will make the fans happy.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Logan

I'm sure that money will make the fans happy.

They're happy in Oklahoma

[Young Drachma]

I'm sure they'll leave the Sonics name and all of that behind as part of the settlement, sorta what the original Browns did when they left Cleveland to become the Ravens, to throw a bone to the fans who are worried about the "legacy" of the Sonics or whatever.

So the Sonics would be "Saved" but only in the sense of a shuddered franchise.

[path12]

I can't believe I've got tears in my eyes about a team I knew was gone three years ago.

Fuck you, Clay Bennett. Fuck you, David Stern. Fuck you, Howard Schultz. And fuck you, city of Seattle. You sold out.

[Groundhog]

Not in the least surprising, but I feel for Sonics fans.

I can relate. My hometown team in our professional league just folded today. We had an asshole of an owner who went bankrupt and fled the country, leaving players unpaid for 2 months, and also doing serious damage to a rugby club that he was involved in. The past two months have been a rollercoaster ride of suitors looking at picking up the pieces, but the final two rescue packages were shot down last night, and on the team's 20th anniversary year, and just 2 seasons removed from a threepeat of championships, the Sydney Kings are dead and burried.

[dawgfan]

From a pragmatic point of view, this was the right decision by the city at this point - the remaining KeyArena debt should be paid off with money left over for the city's contribution to a future renovation to attract a new team.

But damn if I didn't want to stick it to the liar Bennett and the smug asshole Stern with a favorable ruling in this trial. There is still that hope with the Schultz lawsuit, but it's a slim one.

Fuck Bennett for being a lying team-stealer. Fuck Stern for his arrogance, pettiness and willingness to screw the fans of Seattle over to prove a point. Fuck Schultz for selling the team to Bennett. Fuck the State for not having the balls to allow King County to vote to allow the existing stadium tax be continued to help pay for a renovated KeyArena where Ballmer's group would pay 50% of the costs plus all overruns, something that might have prevented the NBA from signing off on the move to Oklahoma City. Fuck the City for screwing up the trial enough to want to pursue a settlement. Fuck Ballmer for not stepping up sooner to avoid this mess.

Because in the end, it's Sonics fans who are fucked in this deal.

[korme]

That's shitty, they've got a great history and not to mention the best uni/logo in the NBA.

[JHandley]

Originally Posted by path12

I can't believe I've got tears in my eyes about a team I knew was gone three years ago.

Fuck you, Clay Bennett. Fuck you, David Stern. Fuck you, Howard Schultz. And fuck you, city of Seattle. You sold out.

I appreciate that I don't have any kind of attachment to the Sonics at all having not grown up here, but I don't see what else the city could have done.

Clay is moving the team. Always was, always will. He will not sell the team. The only reason he would have sold the team is if the city gave him $500 in free money so he could have sold the team. There was no chance the hope of "starving him out" by making him eat huge losses by staying in Seattle was going to work. It was all over the moment Schultz sold it to Clay.

The only thing the city could do was get money. I think they came out pretty well in this. They got Key Arena paid off. But the big win in this is they got the NBA to agree that $150M worth of improvements to Key would classify it as a suitable home for an NBA team. All along the line from the NBA is that nothing short of a new, half a billion dollar, arena was acceptable.

Getting $500M from the city with zero from the ownership group never had a chance in hell of happening. Now, they've got backing that organizing $150M worth of funding will get them an additional $30M. They don't have to actually spend the $150M, just show that they can raise it.

Holding out would have left the city with no team, no chance to get a team and still saddled with the Key Arena debt.

[path12]

Pragmatically, I think you're right. I'm not thinking pragmatically right now. And I think two things -- first, an extra $30 million is chicken feed for Bennett/NBA; and second, I could give a shit about stealing a team from yet another city.

[JHandley]

Originally Posted by path12

Pragmatically, I think you're right. I'm not thinking pragmatically right now. And I think two things -- first, an extra $30 million is chicken feed for Bennett/NBA; and second, I could give a shit about stealing a team from yet another city.

Fair enough. It's pretty shitty to pile on and try to tell someone who lost their team that things aren't as bad as they seem.

I do sympathize and I'm sorry.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by path12

I can't believe I've got tears in my eyes about a team I knew was gone three years ago.

Fuck you, Clay Bennett. Fuck you, David Stern. Fuck you, Howard Schultz. And fuck you, city of Seattle. You sold out.

I mean, did they (the city) really have a choice?

[sooner333]

Schultz could still win his lawsuit and the Sonics only miss a year in Seattle...don't forget about that possibility.

[Schmidty]

I hope the team crashes and burns in Oklahoma City, and the jackasses go bankrupt.

That city does not deserve any team, especially when there are other places (such as Vegas) that would support a team, and with a better, bigger market.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I hope the team crashes and burns in Oklahoma City, and the jackasses go bankrupt.

That city does not deserve any team, especially when there are other places (such as Vegas) that would support a team, and with a better, bigger market.

I hope that your wishes do not come true. I don't know who would have supported a team better between OKC and Vegas, but I do know that Oklahoma City has a track record of supporting NBA basketball.

[Young Drachma]

I have to say that in terms of how poorly this could've come out when it seemed doomed from the start, that the settlement at least ensures that it's pretty likely the Seattle Supersonics will be back in the NBA sometime in the next 5 years or so.

The NBA will likely expand by at least two teams giving Seattle its new Sonics -- consider this is the first time an NBA team has moved and left the colors and team name behind -- and probably put a team in Vegas, since that's the only plausible league for that city.

So while it does suck, at least they stuck to their guns and sued. A lot of cities would've bailed out earlier than this and would've had nothing to show for it.

[albionmoonlight]

Here's hoping that Seattle gets a team again really soon with an owner who isn't an asshole.

[chesapeake]

Rational guy in me says that the trial didn't look like it went well for the City and Sonics fans and that the decision which was just about to come down yesterday was going to be bad. Making peace with the NBA by settling for enough money to pay off the KeyArena bonds AND getting financial incentive for Bennett to support a team going to Seattle may be about as good of an ending as could have been gotten.

Rational guy can go get bent. Lifelong Sonics fan in me is pissed. I want blood. Preferably Clay Bennett's. Stern's would be nice, too. Those mfs just stole my team.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Rational guy in me says that the trial didn't look like it went well for the City and Sonics fans and that the decision which was just about to come down yesterday was going to be bad. Making peace with the NBA by settling for enough money to pay off the KeyArena bonds AND getting financial incentive for Bennett to support a team going to Seattle may be about as good of an ending as could have been gotten.

Rational guy can go get bent. Lifelong Sonics fan in me is pissed. I want blood. Preferably Clay Bennett's. Stern's would be nice, too. Those mfs just stole my team.

This is probably not the best time/place to get into this discussion, but how much does it matter where the team plays? Chesapeake, you live in the DC area, right? So why does it matter to you whether the team plays in Seattle or Oklahoma City?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

The NBA will likely expand by at least two teams giving Seattle its new Sonics -- consider this is the first time an NBA team has moved and left the colors and team name behind -- and probably put a team in Vegas, since that's the only plausible league for that city.

Seattle is obviously going to get one of the teams. KC is actually in the hunt for that second team. There's a NBA arena already build and ready for use. The Anschutz group in California is the one backing the deal.

Vegas has a built-in problem with sports gambling. Locating a professional franchise in a city with that many sports gambling sites provides ample room for possible tomfoolery. Given the recent claims of game fixes in the NBA, there's reportedly been severe reservations by Stern and other NBA execs in recent months about putting a franchise in that situation. There's just too much at stake for them to take that risk.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Vegas has a built-in problem with sports gambling. Locating a professional franchise in a city with that many sports gambling sites provides ample room for possible tomfoolery.

I am suprised that you are advocating basketball in Missouri. It's almost like you are are a fan of it or something.

Seriously, though, I have heard this reason stated as the reason that Vegas has no professional sports teams. But it never quite made sense to me. In the age of the internet, why does it matter if a team is located close to where sports gambling can occur legally? It seems that issues about fixing games, etc. can and do apply to any team on which bets can be placed, regardless of where the team is located. What am I missing?

Also, in exchange for getting a team, I would bet (heh) that Vegas can get the casinos to agree to not take bets on that team. That would also seem to solve any potential problems vis a vis gambling.

But I think that I must be missing something because everyone seems to agree that a pro team in Vegas is a pipe dream because of the sports books. So what am I missing?

[Young Drachma]

There is an advantage to being the "only game in town" and short of the NHL going to an even more irrevlevant place than it's already chosen to, Vegas won't attract baseball or football. So the NBA is the only likely choice, to be honest. Obviously Kansas City would be a possibility, but Vegas has star cache and given the NBA is the only league that LOOOVES to show you all of the stars in the audience during its games, the Vegas team would be a destination franchise for the league, solely because of the cache that city has with the star set.

UNLV basketball is DOA, but that team did prove that pro basketball can work in that city, even with the other distractions.

[Danny]

Vegas could be a problem. There is a big difference between online gambling and in person gambling. In online gambling, someone isn't going to reach through your computer, grab you by the throat and try and influence a player/referee, etc...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I am suprised that you are advocating basketball in Missouri. It's almost like you are are a fan of it or something.

NBA owners are a big fan of completed $250M arenas managed by a group with NBA/NHL experience that have sold-out suites already in place. That likely overrides any of my influence on the situation.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Danny

Vegas could be a problem. There is a big difference between online gambling and in person gambling. In online gambling, someone isn't going to reach through your computer, grab you by the throat and try and influence a player/referee, etc...

Given that's already happened WITHOUT a team in Vegas, seems like they'd be more proactive to just go there and fight it head on, especially with the city having a compelling interest to keep the team and the league happy.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

NBA owners are a big fan of completed $250M arenas managed by a group with NBA/NHL experience that have sold-out suites already in place. That likely overrides any of my influence on the situation.

The NHL will be there. That seems extremely likely, especially given the rivalry with the Blues that would get started. The NBA going there would not necessarily help the OKC situation, though with a team going to Seattle, it'd at least achieve geographic parity and ensure that there aren't two expansion teams in the west at the same time.

But by the time they're looking to expand, surely the NHL will have arrived in KC, making them not able to descend it. We're talking 5 years from now.

[Danny]

True, but it's more about appearance I guess. You're probably right that Vegas would not be any more likely to have problems than other cities, but people would associate Vegas with gambling and it could hurt the leagues perception, especially a league like the NBA.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

The NHL will be there. That seems extremely likely, especially given the rivalry with the Blues that would get started. The NBA going there would not necessarily help the OKC situation, though with a team going to Seattle, it'd at least achieve geographic parity and ensure that there aren't two expansion teams in the west at the same time.

But by the time they're looking to expand, surely the NHL will have arrived in KC, making them not able to descend it. We're talking 5 years from now.

OKC is a 6 hour drive from KC. That's like saying a Boston franchise may effect the Washington DC franchise. They don't have overlapping markets. There's plenty of population base in the two areas to support two franchises and the distance between the two is pretty large. Memphis is just as close as OKC if we're going by mileage, but they won't be affected either. It would, however, provide some pretty good regional rivals.

Honestly, the only reason the Sonics are going to OKC and not KC is because of the owner. KC is the bigger market and has a nicer arena with more suites. He's connected to Oklahoma and wanted to take a team there. Certainly can't blame him for that.

The NHL will come to KC eventually, but it's not on the immediate horizon.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Danny

True, but it's more about appearance I guess. You're probably right that Vegas would not be any more likely to have problems than other cities, but people would associate Vegas with gambling and it could hurt the leagues perception, especially a league like the NBA.

As if the NBA's perception isn't beaten down enough? That league seems to be able to rebound from anything without its perception begin dragged down. It probably owes to the fact that basketball is a global sport and the NBA is the best league in the world.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

One other point to be made concerning Seattle and KC. The Sacramento Kings' owners have already stated that they will move the team if they don't get a new arena deal worked out. While I'm sure the Maloof's would like to move the franchise to Vegas, a much more likely scenario would be that they move north to Seattle. In that case, KC has a shot at two franchise slots rather than just one if they send the other expansion team to Seattle. A KC franchise would be almost guaranteed if the Kings moved to Seattle.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

One other point to be made concerning Seattle and KC. The Sacramento Kings' owners have already stated that they will move the team if they don't get a new arena deal worked out. While I'm sure the Maloof's would like to move the franchise to Vegas, a much more likely scenario would be that they move north to Seattle. In that case, KC has a shot at two franchise slots rather than just one if they send the other expansion team to Seattle. A KC franchise would be almost guaranteed if the Kings moved to Seattle.

I doubt the Kings would dispense of their history to become the Sonics. And I doubt Seattle would want a team that wasn't a continuation of the Sonics, so that's a no-go.

Seems far more likely that in your scenario, the Kings could simply come BACK to Kansas City, even if the Maloofs just had to sell and were promised an expansion franchise or in some other strange franchise swap a la Bud Selig's Marlins/Expos/Red Sox for his boy John Werner.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

This is probably not the best time/place to get into this discussion, but how much does it matter where the team plays? Chesapeake, you live in the DC area, right? So why does it matter to you whether the team plays in Seattle or Oklahoma City?

I grew up in Bremerton, WA and all of my primary sports affiliations remain in that area.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I doubt the Kings would dispense of their history to become the Sonics. And I doubt Seattle would want a team that wasn't a continuation of the Sonics, so that's a no-go.

Seems far more likely that in your scenario, the Kings could simply come BACK to Kansas City, even if the Maloofs just had to sell and were promised an expansion franchise or in some other strange franchise swap a la Bud Selig's Marlins/Expos/Red Sox for his boy John Werner.

Yeah, I think the Maloofs would definitely sell in that scenario. Certainly wouldn't mind having the Kings back in KC.

[dawgfan]

Why would they expand when there are multiple teams that are in precarious financial situations? Currently the NBA has leverage against cities that have vulnerable NBA franchises by pointing to places like Seattle, Kansas City, etc. and threatening to move existing troubled teams there.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I hope the team crashes and burns in Oklahoma City, and the jackasses go bankrupt.

That city does not deserve any team, especially when there are other places (such as Vegas) that would support a team, and with a better, bigger market.

Sand + vagina = Schmidty. Here's something to clean that out for you:



By the way, go fuck yourself.

[sooner333]

Am I missing something or has David Stern done a 180 in recent days indicating that expansion is on the horizon? He was pretty clear that there were no domestic plans to expand a few months ago.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Why would they expand when there are multiple teams that are in precarious financial situations? Currently the NBA has leverage against cities that have vulnerable NBA franchises by pointing to places like Seattle, Kansas City, etc. and threatening to move existing troubled teams there.

Hmm...what teams are these? I've always thought that an NBA franchise would be most likely to keep a profit out of the NFL/MLB/NBA/NHL. Player costs are generally low (no minor leagues to subsidize), a 15 player maximum roster, games very unlikely to be canceled due to weather, national TV contract, etc.

[molson]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

I grew up in Bremerton, WA and all of my primary sports affiliations remain in that area.

I think what he meant was, is there any chance that you could remain a fan of the Sonics? In a practical sense, if you don't live in the area, there's not much difference where they are.

It seems like most fans that have to go through this abandon the moving team, which I understand, but there has to be some exceptions.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Seriously, though, I have heard this reason stated as the reason that Vegas has no professional sports teams. But it never quite made sense to me. In the age of the internet, why does it matter if a team is located close to where sports gambling can occur legally? It seems that issues about fixing games, etc. can and do apply to any team on which bets can be placed, regardless of where the team is located. What am I missing?

Also, in exchange for getting a team, I would bet (heh) that Vegas can get the casinos to agree to not take bets on that team. That would also seem to solve any potential problems vis a vis gambling.

But I think that I must be missing something because everyone seems to agree that a pro team in Vegas is a pipe dream because of the sports books. So what am I missing?

I'm in that same boat. I've never understood why Vegas isn't a more popular destination. Quite a bit of corporate money, MSA is about the size of Kansas City- so a little on the small size but doable, and being the only game in town is huge. I've never understood the big reason why the NHL and NBA ran away from it.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm in that same boat. I've never understood why Vegas isn't a more popular destination. Quite a bit of corporate money, MSA is about the size of Kansas City- so a little on the small size but doable, and being the only game in town is huge. I've never understood the big reason why the NHL and NBA ran away from it.

SI

Maybe the NBA has some concerns about its players being involved in "incidents" there, but otherwise, ya, it seems like a no-brainer.

The population is marginal but how many millions of people visit Vegas every year? Make it an event with lots of fluff and you can charge crazy ticket prices and people will show up.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by duckman

By the way, go fuck yourself.

Jiminy Crickets, man. I didn't direct anything at you, and didn't say anything whatsoever about the people of OKC. I just think the Sonics ownership is slimey, and I don't think OKC deserves the team over other markets like Vegas, and that makes me mad. I'm not even a Sonics fan.

I didn't even know you had a personal issue with me. In fact, I don't think I've ever even spoke to you. Oh well, I think I can live you telling me to fuck myself. Have a nice day.

[miami_fan]

Back to Seattle for a sec. Does the city plan to renovate KeyArena or to build a new arena? I guess I am wondering if all this talk was just talk and ultimately, the improvements that were wanted by Schultz and then Bennett will be accomplished anyway with the hope of another team coming into town. It reminds me of South Florida's hate for Wayne Huizenga and how that hate has hung over the teams that he owned for years.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Hmm...what teams are these? I've always thought that an NBA franchise would be most likely to keep a profit out of the NFL/MLB/NBA/NHL. Player costs are generally low (no minor leagues to subsidize), a 15 player maximum roster, games very unlikely to be canceled due to weather, national TV contract, etc.

The NBA financial model is broken. Case in point - Miami first started off in, what, 1988 with a new arena? And then got another new arena in 1999. In the '05/'06 season they won the NBA title, yet still lost money. That's ridiculous - a team with a very recent arena, as successful as you can get and with multiple star power attractions in Shaq and Wade, and yet they lost money.

I believe multiple franchises such as Memphis, New Orleans, Sacramento, Milwaukee and Atlanta (and probably others) are regular money losers and have been mentioned as teams that may potentially be sold and/or move.

I'm certainly not in favor of stealing another city's team, not after having it done to mine - I'm just saying I don't think the NBA is in any position financially to expand right now.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Back to Seattle for a sec. Does the city plan to renovate KeyArena or to build a new arena? I guess I am wondering if all this talk was just talk and ultimately, the improvements that were wanted by Schultz and then Bennett will be accomplished anyway with the hope of another team coming into town. It reminds me of South Florida's hate for Wayne Huizenga and how that hate has hung over the teams that he owned for years.

We'll see. Ballmer is still willing to pony up $150M towards a $300M renovation (plus all cost overruns), but that's provided he has a team. The city certainly seems willing to pony up their $75M share. Whether or not the State legislature will allow King County to vote on whether to extend the existing stadium tax to provide the final $75M is hard to say, but I'd say it's doubtful unless there's more evidence that a team is forthcoming.

On a side note, I find it ridiculous that the State needs to approve a decision by the county on whether or not the county can extend an existing tax within that county.

Previous attempts at a renovation of Key Arena failed due to multiple reasons - taxpayer fatigue after paying the lion's share of both Safeco Field & Qwest Field, resentment at being asked to renovate Key Arena again considering it had already happened in '95, and requests from both Schultz and Bennett for $400-500M palaces with the vast majority of that money (80+%) coming from public money, and much of the "private" money coming from the sale of arena naming rights.

Given that the city has now lost the Sonics, the political climate may have shifted, and with a proposal from Ballmer's group that is far more fair to taxpayers, it would seem there's a better chance now of getting public funding approved for another renovation. On the other hand, there's no guarantees of a new team, and the economy isn't doing so hot.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

The NBA financial model is broken. Case in point - Miami first started off in, what, 1988 with a new arena? And then got another new arena in 1999. In the '05/'06 season they won the NBA title, yet still lost money. That's ridiculous - a team with a very recent arena, as successful as you can get and with multiple star power attractions in Shaq and Wade, and yet they lost money.

I'd be surprised if the Heat hadn't made money before they accounted for things like player depreciation.

[headtrauma]

Maybe I don't fully understand the NBA economic model, but why would the league want a team in only the 45th largest TV market, about the same size as (ahem) Memphis and Albuquerque?

http://www.mediainfocenter.org/compare/top50/#tv

I don't have a dog in this fight, but allowing a team to move to Oklahoma City seems questionable from a business perspective.

[mckerney]

I would still happily give up the Timberwolves to Seattle.

[JHandley]

Originally Posted by headtrauma

Maybe I don't fully understand the NBA economic model, but why would the league want a team in only the 45th largest TV market, about the same size as (ahem) Memphis and Albuquerque?

http://www.mediainfocenter.org/compare/top50/#tv

I don't have a dog in this fight, but allowing a team to move to Oklahoma City seems questionable from a business perspective.

Because the 45th largest market built the league a free arena and the 13th wouldn't.

This has nothing to do with building the league. The NBA can't make money. The only chance they have is if communities give them $350M - $500M for free.