I wanted to respond to BDP with regard to the Hornets/Sonics. I agree that it might be easier in some respects to let OKC have its Hornets and let somebody else (vegas, KC) deal with the Sonics and Seattle.

But, I disagree that we should let Seattle get off so easy. Im sure they'd probably let the team go if somebody other than OKC (or a LOWER CITY) were trying to get it. Guys, Im confident that this is Seattle trying to save its face - pretending it's such a major city, when in fact Seattle is just another 3M metro. Nowhere near the league of the large cities NY, Chi, LA, SF, DC, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Boston, Miami; even though Seattle likes to pretend they are.

And, since Seattle is a fare-weathered town, I think it diminishes the HISTORY aspect that you speak of. It's not like Seattle has really any history to begin with other than ONE championship 30+ years ago (were you even alive then??) and the runs during the Michael Jordan/Bulls dominated 1990's. I loved Shawn Kemp and Gary Payton then but Michael and the Bulls were numero Uno for me, and most people for that matter.

So, what history?? If Seattle was SUCH a sports town, that despite it's last (and only by the way) championship being so long ago - they are still so die hard in supporting the Sonics. Despite having a labeled 'carpetbagger' owner they still pack the NBA's smallest arena night in and out, regardless of the wins/losses and/or whose the opponent. If Seattle had multi-million dollar media deals like the mariners regularly get and the Seahawks have been getting of late - something which Seattleites like to tout-their-horns about since they are so RICH/Large, well, if they were doing this for the lowly Sonics, ... then I'd agree with your argument BDP that Seattle should be given benefit of doubt and allowed the team.

however, none of the above is true. Seattle fans are fairweathered, they only support the Sonics (or Seahawks for that matter) if they win or if a big opponent comes to town. The media contract (or lack thereof) pales in comparison to peer cities, despite the fact that Seattle is supposed to be so rich and populated - Denver, a smaller city and mark, has MORE TEAMS (say 5) and better support for all of them and better media/corporate support than does Seattle with its Microsoft, Amazon, WAMU, Costco, Boeing (origin) corporate crap. I say Denver deserves their teams, but Seattle is a two team city (ok, MLS would make it three and we have to wait until 2009 to see how they will do here).

that's it, Seattle is a two league town. Nothing wrong with that, there are other 3M metros who are, yet for Seattle to lose its 3 league status and especially lose a team to OKC (a 1.3M metro who Seattle has NO RESPECT for) - well, that's fighting words ;;;; and is the ONLY reason why the city clowncil is 'all of sudden' concerned and interested in enforcing the lease (other than being re-elected this and next years elections).

Im sorry, but I say it like it is - and I dont placate Seattle just because they had the Sonics for 40 years. Do they have the same HISTORY that Chicago does for the bulls, or Boston does for the Celtics, or even LA does for the Lakers, dare I say EVEN Dallas does for its Mavs??? NO

so why should anybody put Seattle on that pedistal (that it's so USED to being put on) and lump it in with the major markets. Come on, Seattle is NO DIFFERENT than Minneapolis or Phoenix - just another large metro trying to play with the big boys (NY, Chi, LA, SF).

I dont think OKC should back down to that, not at all. Furthermore, look at what Bennett is bringing to OKC - TWO TEAMS!!! You would have the Ford Center packed ALL YEAR LONG, which will more than pay for the 1 cent year extension tax that will bring the arena to the upper crust of the league. 41 NBA home games PLUS (at least) 20 WNBA games, plus the two minor league teams plus concerts plus collegiate (OCU, OU, OSU, NCAA, Big XII) events - there will (AND SHOULD) always be something happening at the Ford Center and you guys surely will get a positive return on your investment. With Shinn, comes the Hornets and just 41 games (if that, he might still try to farm out some home games).

I say, dont back down OKC. You hold all of the cards. Do what it takes to get the Sonics/Storm franchise! Improve Ford Center to put pressure on the NBA and make it that much easier for Bennett to bring the franchise home.

dont let Seattle off, OKLAHOMA CITY needs to deliver the WAKE-UP call to Seattle (and the supposed big slap in the face by the team moving). OKC will benefit for the forseeable future to come.

I also hope OKC is aware of Boeing's desire to not build the 737 replacement in WA. OKC should go after the 737 new airplane like there is NO TOMORROW!!!

Get the Sonics. Get the 737 new airplane. Get Northrup. Get Piper. So on!! Move Forward OKC, and don't let somebody else SHAME YOU into settling for 2nd best again. Go for 1st!!!

BDP - Here is what I was trying to say...

That's is an interesting take on it and I don't know if it has been argued or could be successfully argued, but it should be tried if necessary. I am not sure if a judges ruling that negates the exit clause negates the penalties clause as well, but, in a way, there is some logic to it. However, removing the exit clause, in my opinion, simply means that they can not leave even if they pay damages. But that does create a paradox, because I'm not sure if any lease or even any contract can be enforced in that way. Can you make someone do business against their will even if they are willing to pay damages for non execution?

It's funny because that scenario, if played out sounds like this:

1) Seattle says there is no exit and you can't just buy you way out
2) Sonics exit anyway
3) Seattle sues for the damages they said weren't applicable in the first place.

Should be interesting. ;)


I wanted to respond to BDP with regard to the Hornets/Sonics...

I think your assesment of the Seattle market and their conduct is correct. But, when it comes down to it, I don't care. Honestly, as a past and potential future NBA consumer, I just want access to product. I have no personal vendetta against Seattle and I wouldn't see the location of any other team in OKC as letting Seattle off easy or a failure on the part of Oklahoma City. Personally, I'd just see it was a way to not have to deal with their crap. The way I see it, the goal is not necessarily the Sonics, it's the NBA.

But, of course, the Hornets scenario is far from reality at this point and, because of that, I agree that Bennett and Oklahoma City should in no way give up on the Sonics and hope they won't. However, if the Hornets move did become a possibility, well, then let's get out of the courts, and move on with a team that already appreciates the market. I'd have no problem letting KC or Vegas clean up the Seattle mess while I'm hanging club level at an NBA game downtown.

What continues to baffle me is Seattle's insistence upon burning bridges. They have burned bridges with the owner of the team they supposedly want to stay. They have burned bridges with the NBA and Stern.

If they really want to keep the team, why are they doing everything possible to piss off the owner and the NBA? If they just want to get some money out of it, why don't they just let Bennett pay the damages and not spend millions on litigation?

It makes no sense. I just really have no idea what their thinking.

jbrown84 - They are doing the only thing can do. Seattle cannot afford to build a new arena. I am not sure they can afford to remodel Key either for that matter. This is probably why they have not announced any kind of plan. Seattle dropped the ball a long time go. Instead of planing for growth in the region, they spent all of their time fighting each other on everything. Then when it came time to actually do something they had to throw things together at the last minute. Their problem now is the the "last minute" has already passed on the Sonics and they are fresh out of cash and ideas.

Excellent summary Kerry and I totally agree.

We (Seattle) have let ourselves bloom to the point that our infrastructure is one of the worst in the nation. And, to save face - we sat up and destroyed a perfectly functional (yet sometimes dangerous) and unpaid for Kingdome and built two stadiums for two franchises, but neglected the other.

Now, you're right - there is no more money and certainly much more difficult to raise taxes. Certainly a 1 cent sales tax would pay for it (just like it does in OKC) but nobody would go for that here (since we like to push things on other people, we go for restaurant/hotel tax increases).

And Seattle is just large enough (well, King County is) to where a restaurant/hotel tax sends in some cash - but nowhere near the 1 cent sales tax in OKC. In fact, OKC's tax generates more cash than would the same tax if in Seattle; We'd need it to be a King County tax since MOST of the shopping options and population is outside of Seattle (not like in OKC where the city has everything). but that is an aside.

We're stuck and the city wants to save face again and play like Bennett is a bully and trying to get sympathy for "losing its 40 year franchise". You've heard some people fall for that crap around the nation, saying that Seattle shouldnt lost their team or how can OKC STEAL a 40 year franchise.

And like I said, if Seattle supported the Sonics with a large die-hard fanbase (like in Chicago, NY, LA), then I'd agree with that statement. but Seattle is a fairweathered city who can only support 2 of the 4 major major-league teams at one time (and that is MLB and NFL here, in that order!!!). Like was said by someone on the SeaTimes forum,

Seattle is acting like the kid who has a toy but never plays with it or wants it until somebody comes along and takes it away - then out of spite, the kid does what he can to make life miserable for the new owner.

-- BDP, I agree and was not specifically addressing my entire message to you. I know it is in OKC's best interest to get ANY team it can get its hands on, and honestly the Hornets should have NEVER left. But I was just saying that OKC should not give up on the Sonics just to placate Seattle, since OKC is in the lead on this and should prevail. And it would be very nice to have a city (up and coming yet often laughed at) like OKC put the smack-down on the more established brand name that Seattle thinks it is.

That's why I said, hopefully OKC will go aftger the 737 new airplane assembly and other Seattle area businesses. Dont let up, the goods are here for the taking!!!! but yes, I do agree with you BDP, if the Hornets want to leave NO then OKC should be the NATURAL destination (assuming that the Sonics are not in OKC yet).

If anything, Stern should have "forced, if you will" Shinn to sell majority interest in the Hornets to Bennett - Seattle fans are definitely thinking this; but one things' for sure, most truly now believe OKC deserves a team (and that's a change from last year. ..)

I never really understood why people think a hotel/motel/rental car tax is paid by outsiders. Maybe in some tourist heavy/low business cities but I think places like Seattle have a higher percentage of business people using those services. When I travel I pay high car rental rates in Atlanta, Chicago, and San Francisco. I even pay for homeless healthcare in San Fran when I eat out. But guess what - I get 100% refunded those costs by the companies I have there working for. So you see, local business really is the ones that pay that cost. In situations where I don't get reimbursed I factor that into bill and just charge more. Either way local business picks up the tab.

Yes, but that's not the typical person. Business travelers are one thing, but the average joe out there on a trip doesnt get reimbursed and so that money really does get paid out. When I go somewhere on business, I get reimbursed when I get back, so the company in OK pays out, again the city still got their money.

bombermwc - when you travel are you going to your own companies location or are you at a customer site? For those that travel to customer site - your comapny send the customer a bill that includes the money they reimbursed you. I am not saying the monmey doesn't get collected, but it is not this free panacia of cash that supporters of such taxes make it out to be. This why Chambers of Commerce and hotel/motel assoication every where oppose such taxes. Sales taxes are the way to go.

Looks like Shinn blew it if he wanted to block or compete with Bennett over OKC (for 2008 at least). The NBA has given Bennett EXCLUSIVE rights to Oklahoma City.

This is very good news from two prospectives:

1) it should make it very easy for Bennett to get the relocation approval for either 2008 or 2010; depending upon the outcome of the litigation 1a) especially if/when OKC approves the Ford Center update

AND 2) IF (and I mean a big IF) the BOG does not approve OKC (more than likely would be if OKC were not to pass the Ford Center update) - then Shinn could apply to OKC next year and surely would be granted to move when the N.O. lease runs out, if not earlier.

One thing's for sure, Oklahoma City is major-league now forever and WILL get an NBA team - most likely the Sonics 99%, with the Hornets becoming likely should the Sonics relocation bid fail.

Read on and ENJOY!! :dizzy:

Sonics | Bennett is first in line for OKC, NBA says | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2004108685_soni05.html)


Bennett is first in line for OKC, NBA says

By Percy Allen
Seattle Times staff reporter

WASHINGTON — The Sonics have exclusive rights to the Oklahoma City market, according to the NBA constitution, which means New Orleans Hornets owner George Shinn can't block Sonics chairman Clay Bennett's relocation bid.

Shinn has been mentioned as having interest in returning to Oklahoma City, which hosted his Hornets after Hurricane Katrina.

"Any other team that has interest in moving to Oklahoma City would have had to apply within 45 days of the Sonics' application," league spokesman Tim Frank said in a telephone interview Friday. "So, therefore, we're only reviewing the application submitted by Clay Bennett and the Sonics."

The Sonics filed for relocation Nov. 2, which established a Dec. 17 deadline for counterproposals. Once that deadline passed, the Sonics were awarded exclusive rights to Oklahoma City until their application is decided.

The NBA formed a relocation committee of seven owners, which is expected to make a recommendation to the Board of Governors at an April meeting.

At issue is the city of Seattle's lawsuit against the Bennett-led Professional Basketball Club, which owns the Sonics. The city wants the team to play at KeyArena for the duration of its lease, which expires after the 2009- 10 season. Bennett would like to buy out the lease and move to Oklahoma City next season.

The case has been reassigned to U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman.

The sides are expected to hold pretrial meetings in the next two weeks before Pechman sets a trial date. The case isn't expected to be decided before the Board of Governors' meeting.

The NBA would need Bennett to resolve his legal situation before the 2008-09 schedule is determined. Typically, the league completes scheduling in August.

Despite the potential hurdles, if any team plays in Oklahoma City next season, it will be the Sonics and not the Hornets, who spent two seasons there from 2005 through 2007.

Their return to New Orleans hasn't been a smooth transition. Despite a surprising amount of corporate support, a 21-11 record and an All-Star candidate in guard Chris Paul, the Hornets rank last in the league in average home attendance at 11,871.

Twice the Hornets drew fewer than 9,000 fans. Even before Katrina and Rita slammed into the Gulf shores, the Hornets averaged 14,221 in 2004-05, about 4,000 fewer than their average during their stay in Oklahoma City.

Several other issues plague the Hornets. Games are not televised locally because of a dispute between the cable company that broadcasts games and the provider that carries them. Ground has not been broken on a $20 million downtown New Orleans practice facility, a promise from the state of Louisiana that helped lure the team from Charlotte. And Shinn's relationship with local and state politicians has been described as "icy" in newspaper editorials.

Few optimists outside NBA commissioner David Stern's office think the Hornets will remain in New Orleans once their lease expires in 2012. Recently there has been rampant speculation that Shinn would try to force a move back to Oklahoma City immediately following the Feb. 17 All-Star Game in New Orleans.

"That's not going to happen," Frank said. "The rules are very clear. That market belongs to Bennett and the Sonics, for now."

Notes

• X-rays of F Chris Wilcox's dislocated right pinkie didn't reveal any serious damage, but there is considerable swelling. He returned to Seattle on Friday and will remain there until the swelling subsides. He's listed as doubtful for Sunday's game against Washington and questionable for Tuesday's game in Cleveland.

• The Sonics flew to Washington, D.C., on Friday afternoon. Sunday's game is a homecoming for rookies Kevin Durant and Jeff Green and reserve guard Delonte West. Durant and West were born in the district; Green was born in nearby Cheverly, Md.

Percy Allen: 206-464-2278 or pallen@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company


:gossip:

WNBA Storm staying put. Bennett sold them to Seattle investors. Looks like OKC will just be an NBA city afterall - which this sale should indicate NBA is a done deal for OKC.


SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Clay Bennett selling Seattle Storm (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/wnba/346461_storm08.html)

Clay Bennett selling Seattle Storm

Last updated January 7, 2008 11:27 p.m. PT

By MOLLY YANITY
P-I REPORTER

The Seattle Storm is staying put. A local ownership group has bought the WNBA franchise from Clay Bennett and his Oklahoma City-based group, a source with knowledge of the negotiations told the Seattle P-I on Monday night.

League president Donna Orender will be in Seattle on Tuesday for an 11 a.m. news conference, the Storm announced Monday.

Neither Orender nor Storm chief operating officer Karen Bryant could be reached for comment Monday, but the source said the new ownership group includes at least one woman.

Bennett bought the Sonics and Storm for $350 million in 2006 from a group led by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. At the time, Bennett committed to keeping both teams in Seattle, contingent on plans for a new arena within a year.

With no arena in the works, Bennett filed with the NBA to relocate the teams to Oklahoma after the lease at KeyArena expires after the Sonics' 2009-10 season.

"Those of us close to (the Storm) are riding out our optimism ... (we) just hope that at some level, everyone will come together, be solution-oriented and find a way to get this done," Bryant said on Aug. 30 of the effort to keep the team in Seattle.

She said Bennett intended to keep his "investment" in both the NBA and WNBA, but also left the door open to outside interest.

"I think if there's an ownership group that's committed, you can survive in a market without the association of an NBA team," Bryant said.

When the WNBA began in 1996, all eight teams were owned and operated by NBA franchises and continued to be collectively owned until 2002.

The Connecticut Sun became the first independently owned team when it was bought by the Mohegan tribe.

With the Storm joining the group, there are now seven independently owned WNBA teams, including the Los Angeles Sparks and Houston Comets, both league originals.

The Buss family, owners of the NBA's Los Angeles Lakers, sold the Sparks to a female-led investment group for $10 million in December 2006.

The sale price of the Storm was not known Monday.

The WNBA has suffered financial setbacks in recent years and four teams have folded in the league's 11-year history. The Charlotte Sting was the latest, disbanding last January.

The Storm is on a year-to-year lease at KeyArena separate from the Sonics, and is not directly involved in the city's lawsuit aimed at halting Bennett's efforts to move the Sonics after the current season.

The Storm has only four players under contract for the 2008 season -- including league MVP Lauren Jackson -- and is searching for a coach and director of player personnel.

Anne Donovan resigned both jobs Nov. 30 after going 93-77 in five seasons and leading the Storm to the 2004 WNBA championship.

The Storm opens the 2008 season at KeyArena on May 17 against the Chicago Sky.

© 1998-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Hornets’ future sketchy | TheNewsTribune.com | Tacoma, WA (http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/sonics/story/256123.html)


Tacoma, WA - Wednesday, January 16, 2008 < Back to Regular Story Page

Hornets’ future sketchy


ERIC D. WILLIAMS; eric.williams@thenewstribune.com
Last updated: January 16th, 2008 01:23 AM (PST)

NEW ORLEANS – Time is ticking for the Crescent City if it wants to keep professional basketball in New Orleans.

The outcome doesn’t look too promising, and it could have an effect on the SuperSonics’ tenuous situation in Seattle.

A week ago, the New Orleans Hornets signed an accord with the state of Louisiana extending its lease agreement at New Orleans Arena until 2014.

On the surface, the deal would seem like good news, creating some stability that the Hornets will stay long term.

However, a clause in the contract allows the Hornets to opt out of the lease if the Hornets do not draw an average attendance of 14,735 by the end of the 2008-09 season. The amended deal also absolves the state of the responsibility to pay for a costly practice facility for the Hornets.

Opting out of the lease would cost Hornets owner George Shinn close to $100 million. He would have to buy back the 25 percent minority share local businessman Gary Chouest purchased for $62 million in July, and also pay back inducements the team has received, among other things. But it would give Shinn the ability to relocate his team to a stronger financial market.

A city of nearly 500,000 before Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans’ population is now around 300,000, according to the latest U.S. Census results. And New Orleans does not have the corporate business support many major U.S. cities enjoy.

Sonics chairman Clay Bennett has a foothold on Oklahoma City after filing relocation papers in November. But the Hornets are a familiar product to Oklahoma City, having played there for two seasons after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the New Orleans’ area.

Kansas City, Las Vegas and Louisville, Ky., also are in the market for an NBA team.

Shinn has stated that he wants to stay in New Orleans and try to make it work there.

“It’s a joint effort with the state,” Shinn told the New Orleans Times-Picayune. “I think it’s the right thing to do. I believe in this market. I believe in everybody working with me. We’re going to make it work. I don’t care what people nationally think. I care what people here think.”

However, the team seems unlikely to meet the attendance benchmark, which is based on the Hornets’ three-year average before Hurricane Katrina. In 17 home games, the Hornets are averaging 12,341, ranked second-to-last in the NBA in attendance behind Indiana (11,987).

The Hornets are putting a quality product on the floor. With a team led by budding superstar point guard Chris Paul, the Hornets are 25-12 and likely headed for the playoffs.

The Hornets also have an increasing player payroll to consider. Paul, the rookie of the year in 2005-06, can begin negotiating a lucrative, long-term deal when his contract expires in July 2009.

New Orleans will get a chance to showcase itself to the professional basketball world when it hosts the NBA All-Star Game on Feb. 17. However, it’s unclear if New Orleans has recovered enough financially to support both the Hornets and the city’s most popular professional sports franchise, the NFL’s New Orleans Saints.

Shinn insists he is set on making it work in the Big Easy.

“I’m 66 years old; I’m tired of moving,” Shinn told the Times-Picayune. “I don’t want to move again. We want this thing to work. We are using prayer and manpower.”

The News Tribune - ‘Not much interest’ in helping Sonics, house speaker Frank Chopp says (print) (http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/sonics/v-printerfriendly/story/255067.html)


‘Not much interest’ in helping Sonics, house speaker Frank Chopp says


eric.williams@thenewstribune.com
Last updated: January 15th, 2008 06:20 AM (PST)

For state house speaker Frank Chopp the new session of the Legislature is all about “kitchen table” issues that affect everyday people.

And that does not include public funding for a $500 million arena for the Seattle SuperSonics.

On Monday, the opening day of this year’s 60-day legislative session, Chopp said securing public funding for a remodeled KeyArena or a new venue for the Sonics is not a priority for the Legislature.

“We’re focusing on what the voters want us to focus in on, which is education, health care and jobs,” Chopp said. “And other issues, too, like the environment and government reform. There’s just not much interest out there about helping the Sonics.”

However, Chopp said he met with Seattle mayor Greg Nickels a few weeks before the legislative session. Chopp said Nickels made a proposal for a revamped KeyArena during the meeting, and later followed it up by e-mailing a preliminary plan for financing the proposal. However, Chopp said he hasn’t had a chance to review the numbers.

Chopp said he also planned to meet with other legislators in Olympia to talk about how they will respond should the city of Seattle submit a proposal this session for a remodeled KeyArena.

“In the past when ideas have been floated, first by the Sonics through Howard Schultz and then by (current Sonics chairman Clay) Bennett, there weren’t hardly any votes for anything,” Chopp said. “So I don’t know, we’ll see.”

Senate majority leader Lisa Brown said she’s heard nothing about an arena proposal for the Sonics.

“They haven’t contacted me,” Brown said. “Nothing has come up to the leadership level. And no senator has brought me any proposal they are working (on) or anybody they are working with.

“The time line is very short. If something is not on the table now it needs to get there soon.”

Seattle still has not revealed its plans for a remodeled KeyArena, although deputy mayor Tim Ceis said in December that the city would announce plans in the near future. Ceis has not given a specific date and did not return a phone call from The News Tribune on Monday seeking comment.

According to sources with knowledge of the plan, the city’s proposal will be similar to a plan it made to former Sonics chairman Schultz and his group, just before Schultz sold the team to Bennett’s group. The most expansive option in that plan would have provided $198 million for a KeyArena remodel. But it required a public vote and a $49 million contribution from the team.

Bennett has said he’s not interested in any plan that involves remodeling KeyArena.

Also, timing is an issue. The Sonics and the city will soon file joint status reports, giving the judge in their federal court case over KeyArena lease terms, Marsha Pechman, some possible trial dates and other time guidelines. The filing deadline is Wednesday, after which Pechman is expected to set a date for a jury trial.

If the city gets the fall trial date it wants, the Sonics could be forced to play in Seattle another season.

With the Sonics filing an application with the NBA to relocate to Oklahoma City, interested observers are keeping an eye on an Oklahoma City initiative. It goes to voters March 4 asking for a penny increase in sales tax to raise $122 million to improve the Ford Center and build a practice facility for the arrival of a team.

Meanwhile, Washington legislators such as Rep. Eric Pettigrew and Sen. Margarita Prentice, who initially supported arena proposals for the Sonics in past legislative sessions, say possibilities are dim to get something done this session.

“I haven’t heard a peep or anything, today or beforehand, about any motivation or interest to do anything,” Pettigrew said. “We have kind of gone through the ringer a couple times before and have kind of ground people into a situation where they were already sensitive to it anyway, as related to the other stadiums. So whatever sentiment we had before the last couple years, I just don’t have a sense for that now.”

Added Prentice: “I have had a number of people (legislators) ask me if there’s anything happening. … But there’s too many stumbling blocks.”

blogs.thenewstribune.com/sonics

Originally published: January 15th, 2008 01:22 AM (PST)

IF the BOG approves the move in April for a future date or however they word the decision then that coupled with zero interest in the legislature may open up buyout talks again

If they know it's inevitable they would be stupid to not get a chunk of cash out of the ordeal

If the BofG approves the move then there is no way the team stay in Seattle. The only thing left to determine is when it happens. If the BofG approves and then Bennett agrees to some kind of deal in Seattle, talk about a bunch of pissed off people that are customers of the owners in OKC. And don't think Stern and the other owners would be more than ticked off. If the Board approves in April the Sonics are coming to OKC - period.

I just read the box score for the Hornets Sonics game last night and the paid attendance was 9882. The game was played in NO. Obviously the attendance clause in the Hornet's new contract did not spur the fans to go to a game. I almost cry for these guys and how hard they are playing and the fans don't appreciate their effort. The team is very close to getting Coach Scott as coach for the Western Conference in the All Star Game and openly talk about that as being a short term goal since the game will be played on their home court. I just fell in love with this team (especially CP and Tyson) and wish them all the best wherever they play.

Here's the newest story about the Seattle Supersonics on ESPN.com... Looks like they're pushing to be in OKC for the 2008-2009 season.

SEATTLE -- The Seattle SuperSonics are asking a federal judge to order a quick start to mediation, as well as a March trial date, in the team's legal fight with the city over its future in KeyArena.

In a status report filed by both sides with U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman this week, the city agreed that mediation should start as soon as possible -- but only if the Sonics' ownership group, the Professional Basketball Club, is prepared to discuss keeping the team in Seattle instead of following through on plans to move it to Oklahoma City.

The Sonics have shown no such willingness.

"The court has the right to order the parties to mediate," Paul Lawrence, a lawyer for the city, said Thursday. "But the goal here is to keep the Sonics in Seattle. We don't want to mediate unless that's an option."

The city also took issue with the Sonics' request for a March 24 trial date, saying there's no way to prepare that quickly, and instead proposed Oct. 27. Both sides agreed the issues should be heard by a judge, rather than a jury.

The city is suing to keep the Sonics at KeyArena -- the NBA's smallest venue -- through the end of its lease in September 2010. Team owner Clay Bennett, having failed to win support for a new arena in the Legislature last year, is seeking to buy out the remainder of the lease and move the Sonics to Oklahoma City. The league is expected to rule on the team's relocation request this spring.

Mediation -- negotiations overseen by another judge, retired judge or other qualified mediator -- is typical in cases where an early settlement could save the cost of preparing for and going to trial. Sonics attorney Paul Taylor said Thursday he could not discuss what the team might hope to gain in mediation, or whether it would be willing to talk about staying in Seattle.

In the status report, the Sonics argued that the earlier trial date was crucial, and that the lawsuit is basically a landlord-tenant dispute that doesn't need 10 months of preparation.

"Wherever the Sonics are playing, considerable planning and lead time are required to prepare for the 2008-2009 season, and myriad details must be worked out regarding offices, ticket sales, marketing, sponsorships, player contracts, coaches, media contracts, trademark issues, etc.," the team's lawyers wrote. "All of these and other matters are in limbo until the case is resolved."

Here is Art's take on things. Im beginning to really believe that the Hornets' are on their way back to Oklahoma City, especially given the recent attendance. ...

Sonics are awful -- and possibly staying put? (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/thiel/348989_thiel28.html)


SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Sonics are awful -- and possibly staying put? (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/thiel/348989_thiel28.html)

Sonics are awful -- and possibly staying put?
Last updated January 27, 2008 10:45 p.m. PT

By ART THIEL
P-I COLUMNIST

The debacle of the StudentSonics feels like one of the sorriest ordeals in the history of Seattle sports.

It terms of the appearance of infinite futility, it's tough to top the Mariners' 15 years to their first winning season, the dreariest trudge in the history of modern American team sports. But at least it ended. Can't say that yet for the StudentSonics.

Sitting through Wednesday's game with the Houston Rockets, which featured a winning opponent and a couple of intriguing characters in Yao Ming and Tracy McGrady, was nevertheless a chore. Even though the StudentSonics played well enough to bring a half-empty house to its feet at the end, there was an air of inevitability about the outcome despite a 13-point lead in the fourth quarter.

The team is playing at midseason exactly to the fate ordained after the dismissals of Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis. Assembled largely for reasons of lower payroll and expiring contracts, the roster lacks the two key elements of most successful NBA teams (without Michael Jordan): A center and a point guard. Nearly everyone else is a middle-sized forward of undetermined role and value.

The mishmash is coached by P.J. Carlesimo, a retread with a checkered NBA past who has done little to persuade players and fans that he has learned his unnecessarily overbearing tactics still don't work so well.

New GM Sam Presti seems able, but right now he is half of a league-wide joke that says he and Timberwolves GM Kevin McHale will be co-winners of the executive of the year award for the contributions they made in turning the Boston Celtics into a sudden powerhouse.

The debacle had its roots in the bungled stewardship of Howard Schultz and Wally Walker (attention Starbucks shareholders: If Schultz in his return to his old job as Starbucks CEO plans to do what he did for his hoops team, consider investing in all the tea in China). The best personnel move, for them, in their six years was selling to an overeager buyer from out of town who had no clue what he was overpaying for.

And as yet, no political or business leader has emerged to take public charge of the arena situation. All appear on hold until there is legal resolution of ownership's attempt to get out of the KeyArena lease after this season.

Comments from multiple attorneys who have read the public filings indicate the city has a good chance to win the argument that the lease can't be bought out, and the club will be forced to play two more seasons.

It might be pro basketball's only local win in 2008.

Despite the foregoing litany of despair, we take this moment to throw in a little perverse sunshine.

The New Orleans Hornets have negotiated an escape clause into their lease after the 2008-09 season.

How that affects the scene here takes some explaining, so hang in, please.

Despite having, astonishingly, the best team in the Western Conference, the Hornets are, not astonishingly, floundering financially in the devastated city. Even before Katrina, the Hornets weren't working out, with an average attendance of 14,735 ranking near the NBA's bottom in the first three seasons in the Crescent City.

Now, with many in a relatively small middle class having fled and almost no Fortune 500 companies to carry sponsorship freight, the Hornets are in worse shape.

Unclean as it feels to examine this civic pain through a pro sports prism, the fact is that on Jan. 9, the state and city were realistic enough to create a new lease deal for owner George Shinn that allows him to leave before the lease's old expiration in 2012.

Naturally, Shinn, who disgraced himself when the Hornets were in Charlotte and is perhaps the most unpopular owner among his NBA fellows, said all the optimistic things about meeting the announced goal by the end of next season of 14,735 -- the pre-Katrina average.

"It's going to be hard, very, very difficult for us NOT to pass that number," he said last week, despite the current average of a little more than 12,000, which includes ticket giveaways. "I think it's going to happen. We're happy to be in New Orleans and have made the effort to come back. We didn't come back to fail."

What else could he say? Shinn believes the fan base lost in the temporary relocation to Oklahoma City will be revived, starting with hosting the All-Star Game next month as well as by the success of a team that Saturday beat the defending champion Spurs by 24 in San Antonio.

He might be right. Even if he isn't right, moving won't be easy. Triggering the escape clause means he must cash out a local partner of his $62 million investment, and pay a relocation fee to the NBA of perhaps $40 million.

Nevertheless, the franchise may well be in play, creating two possibilities in Seattle:

- A Seattle ownership purchases the Hornets for a move, or

- More likely, StudentSonics owner Clay Bennett no longer tolerates losses in the wallet as well the courts of law and basketball. He sells to a local ownership group, taking his proceeds to buy the Hornets for less than the $350 million paid for the Sonics in 2006 and move them to his Oklahoma City hometown (Shinn and Bennett could be forgiven the relocation fee).

No knowledgeable person will talk about the scenario on the record, much less suggest it will happen; no one wants to add to New Orleans' misery. But the movers and shakers in Seattle, New Orleans, Oklahoma City and New York know the path is there. The escape clause wouldn't have been created and accepted if the need for an out wasn't dramatic.

The NBA legitimately can say that it tried in New Orleans. It also wants to stay in Seattle, and wants to reward Bennett and Oklahoma City (not Shinn) for being good NBA citizens after Katrina.

An arena solution still is needed here. Discussions have taken place, but action awaits a favorable court ruling and Bennett's willingness to be a hometown hero in a different way.

Even then, the process of keeping the franchise will be a slog. Nothing is guaranteed. The ordeal seems infinite, and

I pretty much agree with Art, with one exception: Bennett will sell to the HIGHEST BIDDER and not JUST to Seattle ownership.

Im almost certain that New Orleans wont make the cut and this will be determined by the April meeting (even if they were to sell out all of next year). This will come to the table and Shinn will be put on notice. The BOG will grant a franchise move to Bennett BUT they strongly recommend it be the Hornets (as in, Shinn you better sell). Shinn does but asks for (and probably gets) minority interest.

Then Bennett offers up the Seattle Sonics to the HIGHEST BIDDER - which I BET will come from Las Vegas, for $400M. Im sure the BOG won't PUNISH Bennett by MAKING HIM sell ONLY to Seattle investors when there ARE/MIGHT BE others. And surely, nobody in Seattle will offer that much money that Im assuming (or even the $350M Bennett paid), for the sake of Seattle's pride when the arena and unfavourable government issues still exist.

So, in the end - Oklahoma City will Definitely get a team (VOTE YES ON MAR 4) and honestly, I think it is looking more likely to be the Oklahoma City Hornets.

Also in the end, the Sonics may still be leaving Seattle in 2010, for Vegas or KC.

Im beginning to see the light now. .... I wonder if Cornett was tipped about this? Maybe everything is already in work (meaning, Shinn already agree to sell to Bennett if N.O. fail to attend). ...

Very interesting! Thanks for posting!

Good analysis as well.

In my mind, this has always been the best solution for the NBA, even if not necessarily for Oklahoma City. The Hornets are currently the gypsies of the NBA. If they are going to move, they will gain the most stability by going back to a city in which they've already been. Stability is good for the NBA. I had heard from decent sources that David Stern is set on not letting Shinn out of New Orleans, but the new negotiated contract there certainly makes one doubt that's the case. It looks bad for the NBA to have the Western conference leader, and almost assured playoff team sitting at 60&#37; announced capacity. If you watch the games (every Wednesday night on Cox 7!), it's clear actual attendance is lower than announced. If the Hornets were to move to OKC, rather than the Sonics, the entire sporting world, with the exception of a couple in NO. would heave a collective sigh of relief. The problem I see with this scenario which would make almost everyone happy is the fact that George Shinn clearly lied to Clay Bennett about selling him some portion of the team, and I'm not sure they're dear friends and close companions. George has been adamant about not selling a majority interest in the team, and flatly denied Bennett's request for minority ownership now, with the option to purchase majority ownership after Shinn's death. So, could a compromise be reached whereby Shinn and Bennett could get along, and both of them have enough control over some aspect of the team which makes them satisfied? I don't know. I also don't know if Shinn would have the relocation fee waived, since he still hasn't paid the BOG his last relocation fee.

I do agree that it's reasonably likely Bennett will not get an early out on the lease in Seattle. However, what happens from there is going to affect whether the Sonics move. If the Board of Governors gives him permission to move "at which time he is legally capable of moving", that gives him some negotiating room with the city of Seattle. Even if held to his lease, he can go to the city and say, "I've been given permission to move the team, and I will move the team the minute I can do so legally. Therefore, you no longer have any hope of keeping the team beyond 2010. I will wait out the lease, but I will not stay here no matter what happens with an arena." Were that the case, the city of Seattle, which is losing money on the Sonics(poor attendance + suite size and sale issues + bond debt) might be able to go to it's constituents and say, "We're negotiating a buy out because we know the Sonics aren't staying regardless and so the city might as well make some money to help pay back Key Arena debt. Bennett could conceivably leave the Sonics name and logo there, as another way for the city to save face and possibly get the Sonics "back" after some point in time, through expansion or franchise movement.

If the above is an option, at some point David Stern is going to have to go to everyone and say, "We don't like teams moving all over the place. It's better the Hornets be the team to move, as they've already been in Oklahoma City, and broker some sort of deal whereby Bennett owns part of the Hornets (I'm not sure the other Sonics owners care about more than getting a team to OKC) and has enough responsibility for the team to be happy. Stern then finds someone in Seattle who is willing to buy the team (for $350 million, so it's no easy task), he gets the city of Seattle to agree to a major remodel of the Key Arena and a reworked contract between the city and the owners.

Were that to happen, sportswriters of American would be racing to be the first to approve Stern's "clear desire to do what's best for the sport in American."

But this is all a daydream if we don't pass the tax proposition on March 4, I honestly believe.

Or option numero tres, all of our speculation scenarios are wrong. I'm pretty confident we'll get a team within 3 years as long as the Ford Center vote passes, otherwise, we have other scenarios to ponder far greater than this.

When will we hear if they will get a spring court date or october? Could the hornets be mathmatically out of contention for their benchmark by april and be here in 08/09? this is not a fun roller coaster ride.

I think they're expecting a court decision within the next couple of days, if you look at the Seattle websites. I think it would take pretty bad attendance even by current standards for the Hornets to be mathematically able to negotiate out of their lease by April, but Doug could tell you whether that's a possibility or not.

Hornets in 08/09 is not possible (unless the NBA changes its rules and I don't see that happening this year for the Hornets, the Sonics maybe). The NBA has officially come on record stating that the Hornets did not apply for relocation and that the Sonics have exclusivity over OKC. Now, if the judge strikes down the Sonics move and then the Hornets file next fall to relocate for 09/10 then the Hornets might be a possibility. Barring another Katrina or an unforeseen disaster, no way the Hornets are here in 08/09.

I think they're expecting a court decision within the next couple of days, if you look at the Seattle websites. I think it would take pretty bad attendance even by current standards for the Hornets to be mathematically able to negotiate out of their lease by April, but Doug could tell you whether that's a possibility or not.
Mathematically possible, but waaaay improbable ... like a bunch of games with near-zero attendance would have to occur, and that's not gonna happen!

Based on the average paid attendance before tonight's game v. Denver, and carrying that number forward, the 14,735 number would be mathematically possible to reach until sometime in late November-December or so of next season. I'm expecting Nola to improve on its existing average (12,569) and if they do the "impossible" date moves further out than that. Here's a thread with the detail: HornetsCentral.com & SonicsBeat.com Forums :: Log in (http://www.hornetscentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6482)

Here's a subset of the projected data zeroing in on the "zone" where the "mission" becomes impossible to reach ... but this is only based on the existing paid attendance average as of today, beginning 12/1/2007:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/hornets/2008_2009_hotzone.jpg

Nola arena capacity is something of an unknown quantity, also. Presently, the official capacity is 17,188, although it was stated to be 17,956 earlier in the season. In previous Nola years, paid attendance surpassed 18,500 on 3 different occasions, so "real" arena capacity is pretty hard to know. Realistically speaking, I'm thinking that it will be possible for the 14,735 number to be reached until January-February 2009. However, none of my crystal balls have ever worked worth a damn ... though tinkering with them gives one something to do while waiting!

The trial date appears to be a compromise to me. Although it's not the March date requested by the Sonics' owners, it's also not the fall date requested by the city of Seattle. This seems like a fair decision, recognizing that March is rather close, but also recognizing the stalling tactic the city of Seattle clearly was implementing. Had the trial been scheduled for October or November, there is no way the team could move next year, regardless of the outcome.

"Judge Marsha Pechman set a June 16 trial date for the court case involving the City of Seattle and SuperSonics to determine the team's future in Seattle under the KeyArena lease, which doesn't expire until 2010. The Sonics have filed for relocation to Oklahoma City, the base of chairman Clay Bennett and the ownership group. Bennett's lawyers wanted a speedy resolution, requesting a March 24 trial date, but it was not granted. "

I bet the Judge set it then in Seattle's favor. This case is clearly going to be biased as long as it's held in the Pac NW. Hopefully the BOG will approve the move in April anyways and it will be leverage for the trial in Bennett's favor.

The City has threatened to include the NBA in its lawsuit if they do that.

WOW, talk about burning your bridges. Seattle is so ridiculous.

When will we hear if they will get a spring court date or october? Could the hornets be mathmatically out of contention for their benchmark by april and be here in 08/09? this is not a fun roller coaster ride.

Answer: June 16 is the date. Ending is the question, .. perhaps by Nov??? Which would allow Bennett to move in 2009 (only forgoing one year). In fact, I think with the court date split between the two requests submitted (which admirably is fair of the judge); it still gives the advantage to Seattle because it is highly likely Bennett wont be able to move next year even WHEN he gets BOG approval in April. Bennett wont move the team mid-season (I don't think). If he's still in court by the schedule set in August, then 2008-2009 will surely be in Seattle.

So then, the question becomes - does Seattle want to be stupid and continue the fight or would they drop the case (once it clear that the final year possibly gained isn't worth the cost to keep dragging)? Why not take the "WIN" and try to get some MONEY for Key Arena AND some good graces with the NBA by letting Bennett negotiate out the final year ....

In exchange for Stern stepping in and getting a new owner for the Sonics (and possibly an arena solution also) while getting Shinn sell the Hornets to Bennett (although he could remain a majority-minority investor) and Bennett takes his relo grant and applies it to the Hornets; moving them to OKC.

Everybody is happy.

I think Seattle would go for that. I think Shinn would go for that (since he dont want to be in N.O. and could STILL participate in the Hornets in the OKC hotbed). I think Bennett et al would go for that since they'd get a team and likely could recover some of their lost cash (although they'd owe LA some dough but perhaps they could negotiate with them to leave some broadcast in their market and perhaps exhibition games in exchange for lessening some of the burden).

This is interesting times, but it definitely looks like OKC is IN - Now improve the Ford Center!!!

NewsOK: Sonics given June trial date (http://newsok.com/article/3198463/)


Tue January 29, 2008
Sonics given June trial date
By Darnell Mayberry
Staff Writer

The court battle between the city of Seattle and the Sonics has been scheduled to go to trial in June, a halfway point between the parties’ preferences which was settled on by U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman today.

Pechman set the trial date of June 16 during a 10 a.m. scheduling conference in a Washington court that brought together attorneys from both sides. Pechman also issued a trial calendar which contains every pertinent date and deadline leading up to the trial.

Attorneys for the Sonics had requested a March 24 trial date, the earliest possible date that likely would have concluded the case in time for the Sonics to relocate to Oklahoma City for the start of next season.

The city of Seattle’s legal team sought an Oct. 27 trial date in order to have more time to prepare and present its case. With the 2008-09 NBA season likely starting on or around Halloween, the Sonics would not have been allowed to move in time for next season.

It’s unclear how a June trial will impact a potential relocation by the Sonics, whose Oklahoma-based ownership group submitted relocation paperwork with the NBA in November to move to Oklahoma.

The NBA typically works on the league-wide schedule from the end of February through its announcement in August, so the league office would need to know where the Sonics will be based.

The NBA board of governors is also scheduled to vote on the move in April at league meetings in New York. But the city of Seattle, according to legal documents, has threatened to add the NBA to its current suit against the Sonics if a move is approved before the court case is determined.

Doug, that is a very nice table.

I was trying to do some calculating and I thought I had come up with by April, the NBA should know if NOLA could meet the attendance.

My thinking was based on if they sold out all of last year, then what minimum would have to be met between Dec 1 and April for the Attendance Metric to still be met. I had calculated something like 10,500 avg would be necessary.

I think your table probably confirms my thinking, but you used the current avg to see how far into next year before they dont make it. I agree that end-of-year is reasonable based on the near 13,000 metric.

One thing's for sure, there is NO WAY they will be able to sell out all or even any of next year, so the metric will likely not be met. They will have more 8,000 games, (especially if the team takes on some IL).

I think the metric should have been set to the highest year that was in N.O. instead of the average though but I suppose they were trying to be somewhat fair to the market (and I think it would only have added 1000 or so anyways).

Nevertheless, like I said the NBA will know before the next relocation deadline whether the metric could be met and surely this bodes will for OKC.

I honestly don't think it is fair for the tickets that are given away to count. That just doesn't sound like 'paid attendance' to me but instead sounds like just what N.O. posters were accusing OKC of doing (you know, padding the books).

Darnell's take.


Wed January 30, 2008
Sonics get June trial; enough time for OKC move?
By Darnell Mayberry
Staff Writer

The Seattle SuperSonics have a realistic chance of relocating to Oklahoma City next season thanks to a mid-June trial date scheduled Tuesday by U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman in the court case between the team and the city of Seattle.

Pechman ordered a six-day trail to begin June 16 on Tuesday morning during a scheduling conference between the two parties in a Washington court. The date is a halfway point between the requested trial dates sought by the two sides.

At the heart of the legal dispute is the question of whether the Oklahoma-based ownership group of the Sonics should be allowed to buy out the remaining two years of their arena contact and leave Seattle or can only fulfill the use agreement by playing in KeyArena until 2010.

Sonics chairman Clay Bennett formally applied with the NBA in November to move the franchise to Oklahoma City for the 2008-09 season.

After Tuesday's ruling, that goal appears alive.

That wouldn't be the case if the city of Seattle's legal team was granted an Oct. 27 trial date as it requested, arguing for more time to prepare and present its case. With the 2008-09 NBA season likely starting on or around Halloween, and the NBA preseason beginning in early October, it would have been nearly impossible for the Sonics to move in time for next season.

Attorneys for the Sonics, on the other hand, had requested a March 24 trial date, which likely would have enabled the case's conclusion in time for the Sonics to relocate to Oklahoma City for the start of next season.

Pechman, however, scoffed at both the city of Seattle's request for such a distant start date and the Sonics' request to begin trial so soon despite the team's arguments of the timeliness involved in the NBA's scheduling process.

The NBA typically compiles the league-wide schedule from the end of February through its announcement in August, attempting to provide teams the most sensible road trips and back-to-back games according to location.

"We respect and appreciate the judge's decision,” said Sonics attorney Brad Keller in a statement. "We will be fully prepared to present our case on June 16.”

Seattle City Attorney Tom Carr was unavailable for comment Tuesday, but a spokeswoman for Carr referred to the June 16 trial date as a "compromise” that is satisfactory.

With the trial scheduled for completion June 22, Pechman could make an immediate ruling or take up to a few weeks to decide the outcome. Either way, a decision likely would be known sometime by July. Both sides, however, would have the opportunity to appeal the ruling, which would further delay the franchise's relocation plans.

The NBA board of governors is scheduled to vote on the move in April at league meetings in New York. Although the city of Seattle, according to legal documents, has threatened to add the NBA to its current suit against the Sonics if a move is approved before the court case is determined, the NBA will carry out the relocation process as outlined in its bylaws.

"The relocation committee will proceed with its deliberations and will make a recommendation to the Board of Governors when it meets in April,” said NBA spokesman Tim Frank. "If the board votes to approve the relocation, that approval will, of course, be subject to a legal determination that the team is free to relocate.”

If the Sonics receive a favorable ruling in July, and no appeals are made, that likely would leave the franchise enough time to relocate in time for next season. The NBA board of governors approved the relocation of the Memphis Grizzlies from Vancouver on July 3, 2001 for the Grizzlies to begin the 2001-02 season in Tennessee.

The New Orleans Hornets, the only other NBA franchise to relocate since 1985, received approval from the league on May 10, 2002 to move from Charlotte, N.C. and play the 2002-03 season in Louisiana

I bet the Judge set it then in Seattle's favor. This case is clearly going to be biased as long as it's held in the Pac NW. Hopefully the BOG will approve the move in April anyways and it will be leverage for the trial in Bennett's favor.
Metro, I wouldn't make any such assumption. Federal judges are appointed for life and are generally more independent than locally elected judges might be inclined to be. I think that the trial decision has all appearances of being even handed and fair to both sides. Federal judges have less of a need to be "politically correct."

Doug, that is a very nice table.
Thanks. I really did think, and do so more now than when I made my January 1 attendance guesses, that attendance will pick up:

My January 1 Guesses
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/hornets/2008nolaattendance_guess.jpg

Those guesses were made way before the current Hornets winning streak had developed and anticipated that Nola attendance would improve somewhat in the 2nd half of the current season, consistent with prior Nola 2nd half-of-season averages. As history has already proved, I guessed badly for the last 3 games ...

Game..........Guess......Actual PDA
Portland.....9,000......11,006
Clippers....11,000......13,538
Denver......10,000......15,601

The win v. San Antonio AT San Antonio should, probably did and will, have a significant effect on Nola attitudes and attendance. Nola still has a way to go to be able to mathematically meet the benchmark, but I wouldn't rule out that they would not actually come together as a community and do it. Tonight's game v. Golden State (on 1/1 I guessed only 9,000 but I now think that guess was much too low ... probably will be 11,000-12,000, maybe even more ...) may be an indicator whether or not Monday's game v. Denver was a fluke. My guess is that it was not a fluke. We shall see.

I really hope NOLA comes together for this team. I would love to see the Hornets come back here but I just want the people of NOLA to understand what a great thing they have in this team. As of right now they are tied for Phoenix for lead of the West. What a tremendous acheivement for a group with no true Superstar. I know CP2 is a superstar but the regular fans have not caught on yet or he may have been voted a starter on the West's All-Star team. He's on most expert's short list of MVP of the league so go figure.

Metro, I wouldn't make any such assumption. Federal judges are appointed for life and are generally more independent than locally elected judges might be inclined to be. I think that the trial decision has all appearances of being even handed and fair to both sides. Federal judges have less of a need to be "politically correct."


I agree, but if you read most of the message boards in both Seattle and OKC, all seem to agree that they feel it will still be biased as long as it is held in the Pac NW. That's saying alot from Seattlites. The judges so far haven't exactly been neutral. This new one we don't know much about yet, but you're the attorney not me so for our sake, I hope you're right.

Here's the most hopeful piece of information I've seen about her honor:

"Pechman claimed to be a neophyte when it comes to professional sports.

"I have almost no knowledge or no interest in professional sports, so if there is something I need to know, you ought to tell me," Pechman said.

Pechman later clarified her statement, saying it was intended to show she has no personal stake in pro sports locally, and the two sides need to explain to her why it is important."

It also sounds like she was chiding Seattle for asking for such a late court date, implying they were deliberately stalling. Of course she also told the Sonics' counsel it was unreasonable to expect a date as early as March.

I ask, why is it so early for a March date?

didn't the city of Seattle drag the Sonics into lawsuit back in Sept 2007 originally? And didn't the feds take over in October 2007?

I think between then and March is plenty of time (6 months) to get all of the ducks in a row and have a speedy trial. So, in many respects - I think the June trial is biased in favor of the city since they've ALREADY been allowed to drag this thing on unnecessarily.

Also, if you consider their "list" of people they wish to question (mostly OKC people on the stand, with 'dispositions' to come from the Seattle folks). YES, the city wishes to call Clay Bennett, Aubrey McClendon, Howard Schultz, certain unidentified NBA officials, OKC Mayor Mick Cornett and this guy who was a member of the PBC from OKC but backed out.

So, they're essentially requiring four prominent OKC people to travel here to TESTIFY for Im not sure what or why. And yet they are letting Seattle people give a disposition.

I hope the Sonics get Mayor Nickels, deputy mayor Ceis, and the other Seattle people who the city wants to just sit COZY on the sidelines.

Oh, and the city wanted October when they already have the list of people they wish to question???? Like I said, this has been going on already for 4 months - I dont see why it can't or shouldn't go to trial in March like the Sonics wanted. It's fair. It's equitable.

But we know the reason for the June trial. And it is the SAME reason that despite the Sonics winning the case the team still probably won't move to OKC next season.

It is pretty clear to me that the City of Seattle does not have any plans to keep the Sonics after 2010. All they are trying to do is delay the move. I wish our court system could see through this and sto[p the non-sense. Seattle wants to turn this trial into some kind of inquistion. Why would they want to call Schultz to the stand unless they were trying to nullify the purchase of the Sonics. If the judge allows any questioning outside of lease clauses related to early termination she will lose control of her court.

It is clear from the Seattle Times forum that most people don't even know what this case is about. It is not about Bennett making a good faith effort to keep the team in Seattle. It is about determining if the "specific performance" clause is valid if the team abandons Key Arena. I read the lease and as it is written, specific performance does not apply, period. The lease clearly states which parts of the lease are enforceable in the case of abandonment and the not only is the "specific performance" clasue left out, there is another line that says the City of Seattle as limited judicial relief. According to the letter of the contract all the Sonics would owe for leaving early is 2 years of rent.

It is pretty clear to me that the City of Seattle does not have any plans to keep the Sonics after 2010. All they are trying to do is delay the move. I wish our court system could see through this and sto[p the non-sense. Seattle wants to turn this trial into some kind of inquistion. Why would they want to call Schultz to the stand unless they were trying to nullify the purchase of the Sonics. If the judge allows any questioning outside of lease clauses related to early termination she will lose control of her court.

It is clear from the Seattle Times forum that most people don't even know what this case is about. It is not about Bennett making a good faith effort to keep the team in Seattle. It is about determining if the "specific performance" clause is valid if the team abandons Key Arena. I read the lease and as it is written, specific performance does not apply, period. The lease clearly states which parts of the lease are enforceable in the case of abandonment and the not only is the "specific performance" clasue left out, there is another line that says the City of Seattle as limited judicial relief. According to the letter of the contract all the Sonics would owe for leaving early is 2 years of rent.

I was wondering the same thing, Kerry. Why would it matter what the intentions of the owners were if this lawsuit is about the lease? Wouldn't they need to file a separate lawsuit, completely unrelated to lease issues, if they wanted to argue that Bennett and McClendon, etc, had not made a "good faith effort" to get a venue built? And wouldn't that be a civil case? Actually, if they want to complain about good faith efforts, they'd better make their case to David Stern and stay out of court.

Here's the most hopeful piece of information I've seen about her honor:

"Pechman claimed to be a neophyte when it comes to professional sports.

"I have almost no knowledge or no interest in professional sports, so if there is something I need to know, you ought to tell me," Pechman said.

Pechman later clarified her statement, saying it was intended to show she has no personal stake in pro sports locally, and the two sides need to explain to her why it is important."

It also sounds like she was chiding Seattle for asking for such a late court date, implying they were deliberately stalling. Of course she also told the Sonics' counsel it was unreasonable to expect a date as early as March.
I think that she was correct on both counts.

Hot Rod, you queried,
I ask, why is it so early for a March date?

didn't the city of Seattle drag the Sonics into lawsuit back in Sept 2007 originally? And didn't the feds take over in October 2007?
I can't speak about Seattle/Washington courts, but to get a 6 day trial date that (either March OR June) quickly would be quite an accomplishment here. Courts have existing trial dockets that are booked well in advance. For example, in the work that I do (divorce, etc.), were I getting a trial date TODAY for an upcoming trial that would last only one day, to get a "1st up" setting on the typical Ok County divorce judge trial docket, we'd be looking at this summer sometime, at the earliest, and quite possibly later than that.

I agree Doug.

At the time I wrote that, I was not aware of the 6 day trial.

I think this actually is a benefit for the Sonics and OKC moreso than Seattle, who could ONLY win with a long, drawn-out trial of dispositions and people testifying on the stand. And, certainly having a judge rendered decision ALSO plays into OKC's favor.

The ONLY reason why Bennett could lose is if 1) he forgets to remind the city that they were the ones who said the Sonics were no value to SEATTLE (and not the other way around - sort of putting their own foot in their mouths) or 2) Bennett fails to argue that the lease required a NEW SEATTLE CENTER ARENA and that this ownership group has NEVER accepted Key Arena as fulfillment nor is there any written record or otherwise legal documentation indicating acceptance from prior ownership or that which should preclude current ownership into acceptance.

Just saying, hey - you're here doesn't mean squat as far as acceptance. The sonics could argue that there were no other alternatives until now - with OKC.

but, it could all go down to the impartiality of the judge; which I see holds in OKC's favor as well because she is not a sports fan (and being a federal judge, doesn't have to worry about political ramifications should she run not in the city's favor).

I totally agree, the trial date bodes in OKC's favor because it is 'speedy.' I also agree that the trial duration bodes in OKC's favor because it also is 'speedy' and doesn't drag on (which would favor Seattle). I think the way the lease is written favors Bennett because one should argue whether the terms were EVER satisfied and agreed upon. I also think the FISHING EXPEDITION the Seattle Attorneys are trying with getting dispositions and/or testimonials from EVERY HIGH RANKING OFFICIAL IN OKC AND THE NBA is going to backfire in Seattle's face because it will show a community in OKC who values the NBA and is willing to do what it takes to secure a team (in a legal, legit, and ethical manner) wheras it will show Seattle as the EXACT opposite based on their inaction and past comments/behaviour.

It was the City Leaders (and state) themselves who SOLD OUT Seattle fans! Now, they are trying to use APATHY and Diception to sway public opinion and try to get people to side with their save of face.

Good Luck SEATTLE, but it should result in OKC getting the Sonics in 2008 or the Hornets in 2009.

Guys, you have to check this out from the Seattle Weekly.

News: Major League IV: Scripting the Sonics Movie (Seattle Weekly) (http://www.seattleweekly.com/2008-02-06/news/scripting-the-sonics-major-league-iv.php)

Watch the U-Tube film, it is tooooo funny!

The video no longer works. I got bored with the silly article on page 2.

Here is the latest legal skirmish in the Sonic Wars. I simply do not understand why the "intentions" of the owners have any validity in this lawsuit. It would seem to me that the lease is either ironclad or it isn't, and whether the Sonics owners want to stay in Seattle or not is immaterial. I'm not a lawyer, though, so perhaps I am missing something.

Sonics in e-mail skirmish
Team says city's access requests excessive, illegal
By GREG JOHNS
P-I REPORTER

While the trial between Sonics owners and the city of Seattle won't start for four months, legal skirmishing between both parties is well underway. Lawyers for the Sonics filed a Rule 37 objection this week to the city's request for access to e-mail files of eight members of the Professional Basketball Club, LLC ownership group, with the city countering with an extensive explanation of why it would like to see communications among owners both before and after the team's purchase.

The Sonics have agreed to provide access to pertinent e-mails belonging to team chairman Clay Bennett and minority owner Aubrey McClendon, but contend that providing the "responsive e-mail" files of six other requested owners would be unnecessary and perhaps even illegal, given the co-owners work at various private companies and use those firms' own e-mail systems.

The NBA has also objected to the city's subpoena of some of its records in the discovery process currently underway.A 34-page document filed to Judge Marsha Pechman's court this week outlines the e-mail war, as well as providing insight into the root of the city's lawsuit seeking to bind the basketball team to its KeyArena lease through the 2009-10 season.

A magistrate, or independent judge, will likely settle the e-mail dispute so the discovery process can continue and depositions begin with the questioning of key figures in the case. While the battle over the scope of e-mail access delves into minutia of legal precedents, the big picture lays out some of the key components that figure to play out in the trial, scheduled to begin June 16 in U.S. District Court and expected to last about six days.

The city clearly intends to attack McLendon's published statement that the ownership group purchased the team in July of 2006 with the intent of moving it to Oklahoma City. Thus the city's lawyers are looking for e-mail discussions between fellow owners prior to the purchase date, as well as subsequent exchanges, that might shed further light on that topic. Bennett has said McClendon was speaking solely for himself, while the city would like to see if there is e-mail proof that other owners also discussed the matter.

The Sonics' lawyers are already responding to that issue by labeling it the "supposed Secret Plan" in this week's documents. "The sole basis for the theory is a press report of a remark made by Mr. McClendon," the Sonics state. "Despite urging the Secret Plan to the media, in pleadings and (to) anyone who will listen, the City has never squared its theory with the fact that the PBC spent millions of dollars and months of effort trying to structure an economically viable arrangement to keep the Sonics in the greater Seattle area."

Lawyers for the city are also searching for documents concerning the KeyArena lease, details of the purchase, financial performance of the team, pursuit of other arena options and whether good faith efforts were indeed made to keep the franchise in Seattle. This week's documents contain precise information on the ownership structure of the Oklahoma group, with Bennett, McClendon and Tom Ward each owning 19.23 percent of the club, with numerous other owners holding significantly smaller shares.

The club's lawyers argue that providing access to some 150,000 responsive e-mails belonging to Bennett and McClendon will cover any communications among the entire ownership group. The e-mails will be filtered through a search containing pertinent words such as "Sonics" and "basketball" in order to obtain relevant documents.

The PBC lawyers say Bennett and McClendon both use systems that trap all e-mail, even when deleted off the desktop, so that no documents will have been eliminated.

Sonics lawyers contend that some of the other owners might have exchanged e-mails either between themselves or with third parties that weren't sent to Bennett and McClendon and that such searches wouldn't be any more burdensome than those already being conducted on the archives of Bennett and McClendon.

The Sonics already have obtained city e-mail documents, as those are available via a public records request for a government agency.

Betts - I must be missing something also. I just do see how the intentions of the owners can have impact on wheather or not the lease can be broken. It is not a secret the ownersip team wants to move the team to OKC. For crying out loud, it is in the PBC mission statement to bring an NBA team OKC. How can that be a secret plan? Just why do the lawers think they are trying to break the lease? So they can stay in Seattle.

The only thing I can think of they are going to try and contest the sale of the team in the first place. However, I don't see that going anywhere since trying to keep the team in Seattle was not even part of the purchase agreement. This just tells me that Seattle doesn't have a case and are searching for anything.

No money, no arena, no plan. That pretty much sums up Seattle for me. I am more optimistic than ever that the Sonics will be in OKC next year.

What confuses me most is why Seattle is dragging this out through the legal system. What's the point of making them stay through the end of the lease? After all this, they are certainly not going to want to stay beyond that, the way they've been treated by the city government. Why not settle, get your money as penalties for breaking the lease, and move on? It's nothing but vindictiveness.

What confuses me most is why Seattle is dragging this out through the legal system. What's the point of making them stay through the end of the lease? After all this, they are certainly not going to want to stay beyond that, the way they've been treated by the city government. Why not settle, get your money as penalties for breaking the lease, and move on? It's nothing but vindictiveness.

It is vindictiveness, but the Seattle City Council voted to hold the Sonics to their lease, and so I would suppose the city's hands are tied. And, of course, they're feeling vindictive anyway.

The reason I think the March 4th vote is so important, besides the fact that we've been told we won't get an NBA team if we don't pass the proposal, is because if the Board of Governors votes in April to allow Clay Bennett to move the team when he is free of the lease, they have effectively made the Sonics a lame duck team in Seattle. The owners can then go to the city of Seattle and say, "We're leaving. It can be this year and we'll pay you money to allow us to leave, or it will be in 2010, and we can both lose a lot of money for two years." If the city of Seattle knows it's losing the Sonics regardless, they might be more willing to deal. Then, David Stern can work his magic, and tell Seattle that they'll be first in line for a team that wants to move if they let the Sonics leave nicely and they either upgrade or build a new arena, or they can be pariahs as far as the NBA is concerned. (The last is speculation.....I have no idea if David Stern would do something like that, but I wouldn't be shocked if he did. It does him no good to have a lame duck team sitting in Seattle, with miserable owners and no fans.)

Stern has already gone on record as saying the NBA will NEVER return to Seattle if the Soncis leave.

What confuses me most is why Seattle is dragging this out through the legal system. What's the point of making them stay through the end of the lease? After all this, they are certainly not going to want to stay beyond that, the way they've been treated by the city government. Why not settle, get your money as penalties for breaking the lease, and move on? It's nothing but vindictiveness.

The people of Seattle are under the impression that if the team is forced to stay until the end of the lease, somehow they will come up with an arena deal by then..... it's a bit of a stretch if you ask me but they certainly seem to assume that's it's just going to work out because they are just that special.....


I think this is spot on:



The reason I think the March 4th vote is so important, besides the fact that we've been told we won't get an NBA team if we don't pass the proposal, is because if the Board of Governors votes in April to allow Clay Bennett to move the team when he is free of the lease, they have effectively made the Sonics a lame duck team in Seattle. The owners can then go to the city of Seattle and say, "We're leaving. It can be this year and we'll pay you money to allow us to leave, or it will be in 2010, and we can both lose a lot of money for two years." If the city of Seattle knows it's losing the Sonics regardless, they might be more willing to deal.

The problem for Seattle is if the BOG approves the move and declares it can happen as soon as the litigation is complete, or the lease ends naturally, whichever occurs first..... then it won't matter what they think they can come up with, the decision will already be made...... I know the Sonics fans in Seattle think that the BOG will DEFINITELY vote against the move, but I think that's a not so safe assumption..... but what do I know....

If OKC passes the Ford Center improvements then I guarentee the NBA BofG will approve the relocation. How do I know this? You have to look at what will happen to the NBA if they don't approve relocation. If OKC approves the sales tax in March, and the NBA doesn't allow relocation (or puts off the vote) then that will leave Seattle in the drivers seat. Seattle will be holding all of the cards because they will believe that the NBA needs Seattle far more than Seattle needs the NBA, and if the NBA blocks the move Seattle might be right. Once other cities see Seattle in the drivers seat the NBA BofG will forever be relegated to the back seat. For that reason the NBA will approve the move.

If OKC passes the Ford Center improvements then I guarentee the NBA BofG will approve the relocation. How do I know this? You have to look at what will happen to the NBA if they don't approve relocation. If OKC approves the sales tax in March, and the NBA doesn't allow relocation (or puts off the vote) then that will leave Seattle in the drivers seat. Seattle will be holding all of the cards because they will believe that the NBA needs Seattle far more than Seattle needs the NBA, and if the NBA blocks the move Seattle might be right. Once other cities see Seattle in the drivers seat the NBA BofG will forever be relegated to the back seat. For that reason the NBA will approve the move.

I'm not sure I could guarantee approval, but I feel pretty certain they will, for the reasons you outline, Kerry.

However, I don't believe David Stern when he said if the Sonics leave Seattle, the NBA will never go back. First of all, one should never say never. Second of all, having a team in Seattle is actually good for the NBA. And third of all, I think it was bluster, and if he can back down a bit and gain concessions, he will do so. David Stern, from what I can tell, does like to do precisely what he says he will do, but he has backed away from statements on occasion.

Here's an op/ed from Josh Fields in the DOK:

Sat February 16, 2008
A unique opportunity awaits

By Josh Fields

As a native Oklahoman, I built the foundation of my professional sports career in the Sooner State. I had the privilege of playing baseball and football for Oklahoma State University, and I can honestly say that the passion and support of Oklahoma sports fans rivals that of anywhere else in the country. My love for my home state is what brings me back here to live in the off-season, and my belief in the opportunities that lie ahead are what will keep me coming back in the future. Oklahoma City's ability to attract a major professional sports team is one of these opportunities.

Growing up in this state, I dreamed of becoming a pro athlete. I dreamed of playing in the biggest cities, in front of the biggest crowds. Through much hard work and commitment, I have been fortunate enough to realize my dreams, and today I play for the Chicago White Sox. Now Oklahoma City could join the likes of Chicago, New York City and Los Angeles as a big league city. But it's not going to happen without your commitment, which is why I urge you to vote yes on March 4.

I believe that improving the Ford Center and attracting an NBA team will be a tremendous asset, not just for Oklahoma City, but the entire state. By raising the profile of Oklahoma City, a pro team also raises the profile of our state. And it would give all of Oklahoma's passionate fans an exciting franchise to rally behind. It's time for Oklahoma City to get called up to the big leagues. We have a unique opportunity in front of us that we cannot let pass by. I urge you to support this proposal and vote yes on March 4.

Fields plays third base for the Chicago White Sox.

Very cool, Josh Fields! Thanks for remembering your home!

Stern says Sonics’ relocation an ‘inevitability’
Commissioner expects team to leave city this year, or when lease expires
The Associated Press
updated 7:51 p.m. CT, Sat., Feb. 16, 2008

NEW ORLEANS - Sorry Seattle, there is no saving your Sonics.

That’s the feeling of NBA commissioner David Stern, who said Saturday he expects the SuperSonics to leave the city, either this year or when their lease expires in 2010.

“It’s apparent to all who are watching that the Sonics are heading out of Seattle,” Stern said during his annual All-Star weekend press conference. “I accept that inevitability at this point. There is no miracle here.”

Stern revealed he encouraged the SuperSonics to make an offer to the city to buy out the remaining two years of the lease to Key Arena. He said the offer, made two days ago, approached $30 million and was rejected.

Sonics owner Clay Bennett and his predecessor, Howard Schultz, have both said the Sonics couldn’t remain in Seattle without public funding for a new arena. But despite the efforts of both of them, Stern, and a group of fans called “Save our Sonics,” state lawmakers have given no indication that is a priority.

Bennett has informed the league he plans to move the team to his hometown of Oklahoma City after this season. But a potential move is currently on hold after the city filed a lawsuit against the team, attempting to make it fulfill the terms of the lease.

Stern doesn’t think there is much point.

“There’s not going to be a new arena. There’s not going to be a public contribution and that’s everyone’s right. I mean that sincerely,” Stern said. “So the only question now becomes, is the court going to rule that you can fulfill the terms of the lease by paying money for the remaining two years after this? Or, despite everything, there is some reason to keep them there as the clock winds down.”

Stern spoke more hopefully about the future of the Hornets’ here. The franchise will have the right to opt out of its lease at New Orleans Arena if it doesn’t average 14,735 fans at the end of the 2008-09 season.

The Hornets average only 12,645 currently, 29th in the 30-team league. But Stern hopes All-Star weekend helped turn over some new fans.

“When I leave here after the All-Star game, I’m much more optimistic about the prospects of the team meeting the goals that have been set,” Stern said. “The people I hear interviewed, the businessmen I speak to, the fans, the government officials, I think there is going to be a unique, unified effort to make sure that New Orleans is very much a basketball town.”

Union director Billy Hunter joined Stern on the podium to start the press conference and praised the performance of New Orleans during the weekend. It was about a year ago when Hunter said he was concerned that the city couldn’t properly handle the crowds that All-Star weekend brings.

“I expressed some grave concerns about the well being of NBA players if they were to come to New Orleans to participate in the All-Star weekend, and I expressed some concerns about their safety,” Hunter said. “And I can assure you that any concerns that I previously had have been fully allayed.”

Stern confirmed that he remained interested in European expansion, which has long been a goal once there were enough NBA-ready arenas to do it. London has one, and he mentioned Berlin, Rome and Madrid as other cities that could eventually. However, he said no there was “no announcement scheduled or likely in the near future.”

Also, Stern said the league hasn’t told Dallas it can’t include Jerry Stackhouse in a trade with New Jersey for Jason Kidd. Stackhouse seemingly put the deal in jeopardy when he told The Associated Press that he expected to return to the Mavericks in 30 days, an indication the Nets planned to buy out his contract.

“What I will say is there can’t be a deal in advance,” Stern said. “It’s not allowed (for) there to be a deal that a team will trade a player, and a team to which he is traded will buy him out, and then he will rejoin the other team. Under normal circumstances, that is allowed to happen after a 30-day period, but it’s not allowed to happen by prearrangement.”


URL: MSNBC.com (http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/23202547/)

Here's an op/ed from Josh Fields in the DOK:

Sat February 16, 2008
A unique opportunity awaits

By Josh Fields

As a native Oklahoman, I built the foundation of my professional sports career in the Sooner State. I had the privilege of playing baseball and football for Oklahoma State University, and I can honestly say that the passion and support of Oklahoma sports fans rivals that of anywhere else in the country. My love for my home state is what brings me back here to live in the off-season, and my belief in the opportunities that lie ahead are what will keep me coming back in the future. Oklahoma City's ability to attract a major professional sports team is one of these opportunities.

Growing up in this state, I dreamed of becoming a pro athlete. I dreamed of playing in the biggest cities, in front of the biggest crowds. Through much hard work and commitment, I have been fortunate enough to realize my dreams, and today I play for the Chicago White Sox. Now Oklahoma City could join the likes of Chicago, New York City and Los Angeles as a big league city. But it's not going to happen without your commitment, which is why I urge you to vote yes on March 4.

I believe that improving the Ford Center and attracting an NBA team will be a tremendous asset, not just for Oklahoma City, but the entire state. By raising the profile of Oklahoma City, a pro team also raises the profile of our state. And it would give all of Oklahoma's passionate fans an exciting franchise to rally behind. It's time for Oklahoma City to get called up to the big leagues. We have a unique opportunity in front of us that we cannot let pass by. I urge you to support this proposal and vote yes on March 4.

Fields plays third base for the Chicago White Sox.


I applaud your loyalty to the state that you call home.:congrats:

Whether you are a Sooner fan or a Cowboy fan, you should always be proud of any Oklahoma-born athlete and student who makes a success out of their lives.

Great news from Stern! This will help solidify an emminent move. It's just a matter of when.

Great news from Stern! This will help solidify an emminent move. It's just a matter of when.

Agreed...This will only put more pressure on city leaders to accept a buyout knowing it is now inevitable...Be pretty stupid to pass up $30 or $40 mil just to try and drag the league through the muck

Stinks for Sonics fans but that city hosts two other more popular major league teams so it won't kill them to share the least popular with their friends down south

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Council leaves door open to buyout (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/351830_arena19.html)

Council leaves door open to buyout
Settlement with Sonics could be possible if team increases original offer

Last updated February 18, 2008 11:29 p.m. PT

By GREG JOHNS
P-I REPORTER

While the city of Seattle rejected last week's $26.5 million offer for a KeyArena lease buyout that would have allowed Clay Bennett and his Sonics co-owners freedom to leave town next year, that could simply be the opening salvo in upcoming negotiations to reach a more equitable payoff price.

Several city council members left open the door Monday to the possibility of closing out the KeyArena debt with a financial settlement, should the Oklahoma-based Professional Basketball Club, LLC, come up with enough cash to warrant consideration.

While Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis insisted the KeyArena lease "is not for sale," political pressure figures to rise if Bennett's group ups the ante in its bid to settle a lawsuit intended to bind the team to Seattle for two more seasons before it would be free to depart to Oklahoma City.

The only thing clear from last weekend's commotion over Bennett's initial buyout bid is that $26.5 million won't be enough to tempt the city's decision-makers.

"What they're trying to do is get us to engage in settlement conversations," City Attorney Tom Carr said. "So far, there is no interest from the city in doing that."

The critical point being "so far." The City Council remains fiscally responsible for an arena debt that will continue for five years after the Sonics' lease expires in 2010, whether the team remains in Seattle or not.

Thus political will and public sentiment figure to be divisive if the Sonics make a more substantial offer that potentially pays off the arena bonds while allowing the franchise to leave town after this season.

"Basically everyone wants to keep as many options open as possible," councilman Nick Licata said of initial discussions.

Several interesting points regarding the Sonics' future, ignited by NBA commissioner David Stern's denouncement of Seattle's failure to accept what he said was close to a $30 million offer:


In a letter to Carr on Thursday outlining their buyout proposal, team lawyers also indicated a willingness to work with the city and NBA in order to allow Seattle to retain the "Sonics" name for future use if the team did move to Oklahoma City.


While Carr already turned down the Sonics' buyout bid after being given a one-day deadline to accept or reject the offer, the city has a week remaining before that offer legally expires.

By law, any Offer of Judgment carries a 10-day window that starts when papers are served to the court. Sonics lawyers filed formal papers to U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman on Friday afternoon, shortly after Carr spurned their offer. Thus the offer still stands, though city officials clearly have no interest in its current makeup.


The City Council can pursue such a settlement despite passing an ordinance on Sept. 10 that bound the Sonics to their current lease without potential for a negotiated buyout.

That ordinance was a "non-binding" message of intent without any legal enforcement, according to Carr, and the council is free to change its mind.


While Ceis and Marty McOmber, spokesman for Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, both responded vigorously to Stern's statements that the Sonics have no chance now of remaining in Seattle, several city leaders acknowledge that there is at least potential for a negotiated departure.

"I think they were bluffing and hoping to panic people into making a decision, but that's something lawyers do," council president Richard Conlin said of the original one-day deadline. "On the other hand, as an opening gun in negotiations, while it's not an offer we'd accept, it's not that far from a credible offer. So I don't think it's a bad-faith effort on their part."

Licata acknowledged that while the council voted unanimously to bind the team to its lease in September, the matter remains open.

"It might change the scenario a little bit if they're willing to pick up the entire debt with nothing left over," Licata said. "That's something we'd have to consider."

Legally, per the city charter, such a decision lies in Carr's control. But practically, he works with both the mayor and council to come to such economic and political decisions.

This one figures to be a doozy, assuming the Sonics owners come back with a revised offer that further turns up the heat.

Carr said there always is a number that could tempt city leaders to strike a deal, but indicated the Sonics' initial offer wasn't even close.

"So far the mayor is absolutely firm on this and I don't see anything changing in the future," Carr said. "Now I suppose if they offered $200 million it might be something people want to consider. But right now there's nothing else going on and there's been no counter."

What the Sonics did offer was $19.3 million, saying that was the "present value" equivalent to pay off the remaining $26.5 million KeyArena debt as it matures, plus $7.2 million to cover the present value of the estimated $7.9 million in rent and taxes due for the next two seasons in Seattle.

The combined $26.5 million is about $10 million short of what Carr figures necessary to accomplish those minimum goals.

Carr also said it would take a 9 percent rate of return on the $19.3 million to pay off a $26.5 million bond.

"I don't know of any investment a city could make that would produce that kind of interest rate," he said. "This is all immaterial because we're not even talking about those things. But that number is low. I suppose if the number were high, there might be discussion among the council."

Carr met with four or five of the nine council members Friday morning before sending a rejection letter to the Sonics.

He also is in close contact with the mayor's office in preparation for the June 16 trial in U.S. District Court.

"My instructions are not to pursue settlement negotiations," Carr said, "though as a lawyer my job is to keep doors open and give the policy makers all the options. At this point, I have no indication the city has any interest in going through that particular door."

Given the diversity of the council and mayor's office, that could lead to some interesting debate in the future. And not all the financial pressure lies on the city. Sonics owners figure to lose more than $40 million if forced to play before dwindling crowds for a lame-duck franchise in KeyArena in the next two years.

"This first offer clearly is way less money than we would need (to settle the arena debt)," Conlin said. "It's also less than what (the Sonics) claim would be their losses for the next two years. So it would seem reasonable that another offer would be made. ... We expect discussions to continue."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P-I reporter Greg Johns can be reached at 206-448-8314 or gregjohns@seattlepi.com.

© 1998-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer


:dizzy: