Paul, lying is part of the business world. Transactions occur at an arm's length, and while not necessarily ethical, the behavior is commonplace.

This NBA stuff is a game for big boys. Calls to "stand for what is right!" just sound silly at this point. This has nothing to do with wrong and right. It has everything to do with money, power and prestige.

This grab for the team may have been a bit Machiavellian, but what sports team relocation has ever been done with good feelings on both sides?

I don't think the OKC ownership group really lied more than similarly situated people in similar situations do. They were just dumb about statements they made which were subject to discovery. The ownership group is generally arrogant and not used to being second-guessed or questioned... or else, they just don't give a damn about people in Seattle feeling all butthurt about being lied to.

You would have to be severely mentally challenged not to have been able to read the tea leaves from the moment Clay Bennett emerged as the owner of the Supersonics. Acting shocked and upset at this juncture just comes off as disingenuous. Particularly when you're making appeals like "Come on people! Stand for what is right!"

-- and you thought you could win us Okies over by maligning Clinton.. I have to admit.. I like you a little better for that, but it didn't cinch your argument :)

I have to admit that if McClendon, Bennett et al were hard core liberal Dems, then all of this wouldn't be as much of an issue. I'd be happy to say why I believe that, but I am sure most people here understand these things without me writing a long dissertation that maybe one extremely bored person would bother reading.

Hell...LAWNMOWERS kill more people.

i'm interested in hearing more about these man killing lawnmowers!

I'm with Paul. Situational ethics don't cut it. I guess I'll finish last.

:Smiley199 :Smiley199 I don't understand where lying is the issure here. No matter what was said about moving the team to OKC as a reason to buy the team, an effort was made to fulfill the contract. Bennett spent money and time to get the powers that be to approve a new arena. Those people didn't have any interest in spending money on the Sonics in order to keep them. Bennett gave them a year to change their mind and told them he would move the team if nothing could be worked out. Where is the lie? He did just what he promised to do. Now people are calling him a liar because behind close doors he and his partners where looking at options including moving to OKC (which they went into this in the first place hoping it would work out to do just that). Be this as it may, they tried to fulfill the contract made with Schultz.

I would agree that to lie and cheat to get something is not what we want to put our hat on. I just don't think you can call it lying or cheating in the way Bennett handled the attempt to keep the team in Seattle. Did he have other hopes? You bet he did. But he did all that he promised in the contract.

BTW, Seattle is a nice city and one that I have enjoyed going to. I couldn't live there due to the weather. I think they have the highest suicide rate in the country. Most of that attributed to the weather. But I digress....

Actually, I believe there was no way the owners could completely tell the truth and fulfill their promise to Howard Schultz. When Schultz put the team on the market, he'd already been looking at selling to owners in other cities. Obviously, if possible, he wanted to keep the team in Seattle. But, by insisting on the one year effort, Bennett et al were telling Schultz they only were willing to keep the team in Seattle if they got a new arena. Does anyone really know if they promised Schultz more than that? That's what the letter says. It doesn't say it was the wish of their heart to keep the team in Seattle. It doesn't say they were going to keep the team in Seattle no matter what. It said they would make a good faith effort to get an arena built, which would, by definition, require that the team stay in Seattle.

Every public action by the Sonics owners was designed to get an arena built, which was what they had promised to do. Every interview indicated they intended to stay in Seattle if they got an arena, and they continue to give interviews to that effect into the fall of 2007. There are contradictory e-mails that exist, some of which show that they were accepting of the fact that the team would stay in Seattle if an arena was built. I think contradictory e-mails are easy to explain. They had to act in public as if their greatest wish was to get an arena built, in order to have any hopes of accomplishing that task. Telling the truth would have violated the agreement with Schultz far more seriously than private e-mails.

We were all excited when Bennett bought the team. We all thought the team would be moving to OKC. So did all the people in Seattle. Suddenly, we heard the interview that told us that the team would be staying in Seattle if an arena was built. But, everyone knew it was a long shot, even the people in Seattle. So, did a "woohoo, Oklahoma City Sonics" equivalent exultation equal a deliberate plan to move the team? Or, was it simply a quick impulsive statement that was replaced by the reality of Tom Ward saying he might consider selling if an arena was built and "work on a team for OKC"? Were the e-mails after the legislature adjourned refusing to consider an arena plan also part of a diabolical plot, or were they simply the expression of frustration with the political leaders and process in Seattle.

The truth was known by Howard Schultz, regardless of his current law suit. He knew that if an arena was built, the Sonics would stay in Seattle. He knew that if it was not, the team would move. It doesn't matter if the owners hoped an arena would never get built, because their hopes didn't matter. All that mattered was what action or lack thereof was taken by the city of Seattle. The city determined the fate of the Sonics, not Clay Bennett.

Actually, I believe there was no way the owners could completely tell the truth and fulfill their promise to Howard Schultz. When Schultz put the team on the market, he'd already been looking at selling to owners in other cities. Obviously, if possible, he wanted to keep the team in Seattle. But, by insisting on the one year effort, Bennett et al were telling Schultz they only were willing to keep the team in Seattle if they got a new arena. Does anyone really know if they promised Schultz more than that? That's what the letter says. It doesn't say it was the wish of their heart to keep the team in Seattle. It doesn't say they were going to keep the team in Seattle no matter what. It said they would make a good faith effort to get an arena built, which would, by definition, require that the team stay in Seattle.

Every public action by the Sonics owners was designed to get an arena built, which was what they had promised to do. Every interview indicated they intended to stay in Seattle if they got an arena, and they continue to give interviews to that effect into the fall of 2007. There are contradictory e-mails that exist, some of which show that they were accepting of the fact that the team would stay in Seattle if an arena was built. I think contradictory e-mails are easy to explain. They had to act in public as if their greatest wish was to get an arena built, in order to have any hopes of accomplishing that task. Telling the truth would have violated the agreement with Schultz far more seriously than private e-mails.

We were all excited when Bennett bought the team. We all thought the team would be moving to OKC. So did all the people in Seattle. Suddenly, we heard the interview that told us that the team would be staying in Seattle if an arena was built. But, everyone knew it was a long shot, even the people in Seattle. So, did a "woohoo, Oklahoma City Sonics" equivalent exultation equal a deliberate plan to move the team? Or, was it simply a quick impulsive statement that was replaced by the reality of Tom Ward saying he might consider selling if an arena was built and "work on a team for OKC"? Were the e-mails after the legislature adjourned refusing to consider an arena plan also part of a diabolical plot, or were they simply the expression of frustration with the political leaders and process in Seattle.

The truth was known by Howard Schultz, regardless of his current law suit. He knew that if an arena was built, the Sonics would stay in Seattle. He knew that if it was not, the team would move. It doesn't matter if the owners hoped an arena would never get built, because their hopes didn't matter. All that mattered was what action or lack thereof was taken by the city of Seattle. The city determined the fate of the Sonics, not Clay Bennett.

:bow: :bow: :bow:

:Smiley199 :Smiley199 I don't understand where lying is the issure here. No matter what was said about moving the team to OKC as a reason to buy the team, an effort was made to fulfill the contract. Bennett spent money and time to get the powers that be to approve a new arena. Those people didn't have any interest in spending money on the Sonics in order to keep them. Bennett gave them a year to change their mind and told them he would move the team if nothing could be worked out. Where is the lie? He did just what he promised to do. Now people are calling him a liar because behind close doors he and his partners where looking at options including moving to OKC (which they went into this in the first place hoping it would work out to do just that). Be this as it may, they tried to fulfill the contract made with Schultz.

I would agree that to lie and cheat to get something is not what we want to put our hat on. I just don't think you can call it lying or cheating in the way Bennett handled the attempt to keep the team in Seattle. Did he have other hopes? You bet he did. But he did all that he promised in the contract.

BTW, Seattle is a nice city and one that I have enjoyed going to. I couldn't live there due to the weather. I think they have the highest suicide rate in the country. Most of that attributed to the weather. But I digress....Should this deal fall through for some reason. Or if by some remote chance the courts rule in favor of the previous owners, thereby allowing the Sonics to remain in Seattle, they will become the City with the second highest suicide rate in the Country.

That was an excellent post, Betts...:congrats:

I like your post Betts, however I can't get past that I am rooting for it to move to OKC as well as you so we without a doubt have a bias and I don't care how well thought out and well written your post is (though I do agree mostly and enjoy your posts). I can't get past the fact that person trained in this type of law, who also happens to be the top legal expert for espn and someone when he first heard about this lawsuit gave it a 0% chance of going in Seattle's favor. However once he read the lawsuit he did a complete 360 and is now giving it 60% in favor of Seattle. So while I root and agree with your posts, I have to sadly give this Munson more credit and weight as he is paid and paid a lot of money for looking at this very type of situation and knows what he is talking about more than any of us put together. =(

To add more wood to the fire, I was listening to ESPN radio today and they had another espn legal expert (not Munson), who wouldn't give any type of % like Munson did but kept repeating that this lawsuit is very serious trouble for Bennett and he wouldn't be shocked at all if Bennett lost the team. As more and more legal experts are looking at this, they are all changing their tune and going on about how clever and good of a lawsuit Shultz has. I don't want to be all doom & gloom, I am just saying this is not looking good, its actually looking pretty damn bad.

Nathaniele, if it helps any, please consider that many talking heads, irrespective of backgrounds, tend to forecast outcomes about as well as the weather folks do ... lots of blow and go and oh nos when there isn't much happening, but maybe it might so they want folks hanging on their every word, right, wrong, it does not really matter, so long as folks Do in face hang on their words.

I've hit this point before but the prior owner is expressly saying undo the deal, BUT DO NOT MAKE ME TAKE THE TEAM BACK and DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE UP MY PROFITS

Maybe, just maybe, if this was about my team was taken from me by false prestenses and I have been injured, then maybe they have an argument, notwithstanding the talking heads. But to not want the team, to want both the profits of selling but have the court decree you were too stupid to sell to a local so we'll take control and lay it down for a local, bah, i'm sorry, i don't see that happening.

If I'm wrong, it won't be the first time in my life, but I'm not investigating the various ways one can dish up crow just yet

No one knows what a Federal Judge might do.

You can call in 20 talking heads, but none of them know for sure what will happen.

Stern weighs in:

Stern still OK with SuperSonics move | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/stern-still-ok-with-supersonics-move/article/3235135/?tm=1209172000)



There could be more headaches for the Sonics (http://newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Seattle+SuperSonics&CATEGORY=ORGANIZATION). Damaging e-mails involving Sonics (http://newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Seattle+SuperSonics&CATEGORY=ORGANIZATION) owner Clay Bennett (http://newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Clayton+Bennett&CATEGORY=PERSON) have been revealed that could slow or even stop the team's move.

A filing by the city of Seattle (http://newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Seattle+SuperSonics&CATEGORY=ORGANIZATION) this week in federal court in New York (http://newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=New+York&CATEGORY=STATE), where the city is seeking the NBA (http://newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=National+Basketball+Association&CATEGORY=ORGANIZATION)'s financial records and a deposition of Stern (http://newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=David+Stern&CATEGORY=PERSON), includes e-mails to and from Bennett (http://newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Clayton+Bennett&CATEGORY=PERSON) that show the NBA (http://newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=National+Basketball+Association&CATEGORY=ORGANIZATION) was concerned last summer that Sonics (http://newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Seattle+SuperSonics&CATEGORY=ORGANIZATION) owners may be breaching their contractual promise of good-faith efforts to find a new arena in Seattle (http://newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Seattle+SuperSonics&CATEGORY=ORGANIZATION).

"I think, ultimately, despite the novel and face-saving attempts to construct cause of action, that the Sonics (http://newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Seattle+SuperSonics&CATEGORY=ORGANIZATION) are moving to Oklahoma (http://newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Oklahoma&CATEGORY=STATE)," Stern said.

I am just confused as to where Clay out and out lied. Everyone assumes that he lied over and over for some reason...

I haven't read all of the emails that have been made public yet, so maybe what I'm about to say is off the wall. I thought that Bennett and his group complied with the agreement of his contract, and did what he was supposed to do to try to keep the team in Seattle. Am I correct so far? Now, I know that a while back McClendon said this, "We didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle, we hoped to come here. We know it's a little more difficult financially here in Oklahoma City, but we think it's great for the community and if we could break even we'd be thrilled." He was fined a quarter of a million dollars for saying that. Ouch! Well, not for him obviously since he has plenty of $$$$$.

OK, so he said they hoped to come here at some point. But they still complied with their agreement with Schultz, right? If I remember correctly, Bennett pledged $100 million dollars towards the cost of a new arena in Seattle. Seattle had a chance to vote to fund the rest of it, but they turned it down. Who's fault is that? Not Bennett's.

Now, we all know that Bennett's group has always wanted to move the Sonics here, but they would have stayed had the conditions to build a new arena be met, right? Didn't happen, so they should be let off the hook. But they're not off the hook, because Bennett and his group of owners had some email conversations (and McClendon's comment) about moving the team back to OKC, all while they tried to live up to their end of the contract with Schultz. So, what's wrong with that? Nothing, in my opinion.

When Bennett and his group decided to buy the Sonics, they saw an opportunity to bring a basketball team to OKC. They knew they had to make a good faith effort to do what they could to keep them in Seattle--and they did. They probably knew that Seattle would not do what they needed to do to keep the team there. In other words, they saw the writing on the wall (they did their homework), and they felt that it would just be a matter of time, and Seattle's own doing, that the team would be able to move to OKC. Look at it this way. Bennett had two parallel tracks going at the same time. Track one--doing what he obligated himself to do in his contract with Schultz, which was to try to build a new arena (within a year) so that the team could remain in Seattle. Tract two--work on a plan to bring the Sonics to OKC, because he knew that Seattle would probably vote against approving funds for a new arena.

Doesn't that seem like a smart, common sense plan, to make plans to prepare the team to move to OKC, while at the same time, work towards honoring his contract with Schultz? Sure, he and the other owners didn't really think that the plan to keep the Sonics in Seattle would pan out, but it really doesn't matter what they thought, does it? Bennett fulfilled his obligation to Schultz, and that's all that really matters, at least from a legal stand point--right? Why should Bennett be sued for making plans to move the team here? Didn't he make a good faith effort to keep the team in Seattle? That's all he was obligated to do, regardless what emails he wrote, or what one of his partners said, he lived up to his contract--and that's all that matters.

To me, this shows why all these guys who own the Sonics are successful businessmen. These people are smart, astute, and appear to have a lot of common sense. True, they might have been better off had they been more discreet in discussing things among themselves, especially in writing. Regardless, they fulfilled their contract, so, what's the big stink all about? I don't get it.

For those of you who are much more "in the know" about this than I am, straighten me out, and tell me if I've got it wrong.

GWB

The problem is that a lot of the legal people from ESPN are saying that thanks to Bennett and his friends not being smart enough to know that email could be pulled at a later time that the sale and their actions were fraudulent.

With emails that say 2 days before they even bought the team that they were going to move the team to OKC, and a email from Bennett knowing that "McClendon's" comment that he got fined for might actually put them in jeporady with their good faith agreement.

"Bennett stated in an e-mail to Sonics co-owner Aubrey McClendon last Aug. 13 that the NBA was looking into issues "relative to certain documents that we signed at closing that may have been breached."

Bennett wrote that president of league and basketball operations Joel Litvin was looking into the possible breach.

Earlier that day, Bennett had written an e-mail to McClendon referring to the fallout from McClendon's comments to an Oklahoma business publication that "we didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle, we hoped to come here."

"Yes sir we get killed on this one," Bennett wrote to McClendon. "I don't mind the PR ugliness [pretty used to it], but I am concerned from a legal standpoint that your statement could perhaps undermine our basic premise of 'good faith best efforts.'"

The whole point of what this Munson guy from espn wrote was that Seattle has a strong suit that can prove the sale was a fraud, so much so that he thinks Seattle has a better chance of getting the team back than Bennett has of keeping it.

Its a mess, so much drama and its due to get worse, from the radio interview with Munson and other reportings even more damaging emails are going to start being released over the next couple weeks.

Which all brings me back to the same thing, which I can't get my head around, why in the hell did these morons put all this crap in email!!!!E@#)U@#!)!???

More news

Seattle attorneys seek chance to question Stern | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/article/3234734)


NBA is saying that Seattle is just trying to harass Stern

"There can be no doubt that the sole purpose of the deposition is to harass the NBA and its commissioner,” NBA attorneys argued to a federal judge in New York City.

The NBA's president of league and basketball operations, Joel Litvin, has agreed to be questioned, but the NBA wants limits on what Litvin can be asked.

The NBA also wants limits on what information it should turn over to Seattle attorneys, particularly information on the finances of other NBA teams.

Seattle attorneys argued: "The NBA is a very important source of evidence regarding how NBA teams generally affect communities. This evidence will allow the City to test — and prove false — (the Oklahoma owners') ... claim that the loss of the Sonics will not hurt Seattle.”

The Seattle attorneys argued it is necessary to question Stern because he had private conversations with Sonics Chairman Clay Bennett on relocation and other related topics.

NBA attorneys argued whatever the Oklahoma owners told the NBA about their relocation intentions is "totally irrelevant” to the lawsuit.

Keep the faith, good faith is not hard to prove, the burden may be to prove a bad faith effort regardless of their original intentions.

What we've failed to remember is that Bennett did more than Schultz to get an arena deal done in Seattle. So, Howard himself will have to admit that he didn't put forth good faith before he sold the team to Bennett.

Had Seattle made an attempt to build something or counter we wouldn't be having this discussion. The team would still be in Seattle.

They have gone out and gotten all the legal experts who agree with their claim that they have a chance and that again is their PR hype.

I'll do some reseach next week, I hear that there may be legal experts out there that don't agree on the chances of Seattle's suits being successful.

Seattle dropped the ball, their own Initiative 91 (taxpayers revolt; can't use taxpayers' money to fund sports stadiums, unless it is profitable--it puts a tremendous financial strain on the owners).

Most major league sports franchises are a novelty to own, most, barely break-even financially.

-Most major league sports franchises are a novelty to own, most, barely break-even financially.


Until they are sold, and then come the profits....plus owning one helps you make lots of loot outside of your owning the team so it's not much of a point to make. LOL!

I like your post Betts, however I can't get past that I am rooting for it to move to OKC as well as you so we without a doubt have a bias and I don't care how well thought out and well written your post is (though I do agree mostly and enjoy your posts). I can't get past the fact that person trained in this type of law, who also happens to be the top legal expert for espn and someone when he first heard about this lawsuit gave it a 0% chance of going in Seattle's favor. However once he read the lawsuit he did a complete 360 and is now giving it 60% in favor of Seattle. So while I root and agree with your posts, I have to sadly give this Munson more credit and weight as he is paid and paid a lot of money for looking at this very type of situation and knows what he is talking about more than any of us put together. =(

To add more wood to the fire, I was listening to ESPN radio today and they had another espn legal expert (not Munson), who wouldn't give any type of % like Munson did but kept repeating that this lawsuit is very serious trouble for Bennett and he wouldn't be shocked at all if Bennett lost the team. As more and more legal experts are looking at this, they are all changing their tune and going on about how clever and good of a lawsuit Shultz has. I don't want to be all doom & gloom, I am just saying this is not looking good, its actually looking pretty damn bad.

For what it's worth, I had someone I know who is an excellent trial lawyer and works all over the country look at the lawsuit. He said it is "weak". So, there's a differing opinion. Also, remember that these legal experts only have the lawsuit filed by Schultz available. They're not looking at all the data that Bennett's lawyer will provide. They don't have the interview with Schultz a day or two after the sale when he talks about Bennett and a possibly buyout of the lease. They don't have every interview Bennett has given to the Seattle press warning them about the fact that the city has a year to build the arena. They don't have any information about the dates and times of Bennett's presentations to the Seattle legislature, or the arena plan. They don't have information showing how much comparable arenas around the country are costing. They don't have Margarita Prentice's testimony about how much time and effort she thinks Bennett put into the arena deal. There will be a lot of data provided showing Bennett made a good faith effort.

Also, if you look at the data being provided, the Seattle newspapers keep leaving out the second part of the Aubrey interview, similarly to how the Schultz lawyer left the key part of the key sentence out of his lawsuit filing. We didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle..." is all they ever print. But there's a second half to the sentence, " we hoped to come here." Again, if you only look at the first part of the sentence, it looks like they intended from the beginning to move the team. If you look at the sentence in it's entirety, the word "hope" indicates only that was their wish. You have to ask why that part of his statement keeps getting left out of their quotes. Are they worried that it doesn't make their point, ala the sentence in the Schultz filing? Wishes don't matter. Action does. Leaving parts of sentences out or taking things out of context can give a completely different impression. Hopefully, Bennett's lawyers will be intelligent enough to make sure every single piece of data is present in it's entirety and in context.

It makes no difference what their intentions were, they tried to fulfull the contract. Schultz's lawyers will have to prove otherwise and they won't be able to. If every business deal was predicated on intentions and not on deed, no deal would go through. Many people have alternate plans if things don't work out. Seattle was given a chance to make the contract work and they dropped the ball. If Bennett and company had not given them the opportunity to build the arena, then there would have been a breach of the contract. They did, so there is no breach. You can argue the intentions all you want. Seattle and Washington state failed to make it possible to keep the team there. If the court rules otherwise, you must question bias on their part.

This whole situation is warped anyway.

What other item do you buy and then have zero control over what you can and can't do with your purchase?

Bennett bought the team, if he wants to move it, he owns it and should be able to do what he wants with it.

Shultz is really saying he wouldn't have sold the team if he thought that Bennett would move it out of Seattle right? I think that's not true... so he is just as guilty as not being on the up and up.

So, if he was that concerned with keeping the team and cared all that much about it, he should have kept the team himself and rallied his efforts to meet the teams needs and their demands.

He's like a jilted lover. He didn't want them but he doesn't want anyone else to have it either.

He can't have his cake and eat it too, which is what I think he thought he was getting.... Bennett buys the teams, takes on all the headaches, builds an arena and the team gets to stay.

But, this brings me back to, again really what other thing do you buy and then can't use it because the previous owner dictates what you can and can't do with it?

This whole situation is warped anyway.

What other item do you buy and then have zero control over what you can and can't do with your purchase?

Bennett bought the team, if he wants to move it, he owns it and should be able to do what he wants with it.

Shultz is really saying he wouldn't have sold the team if he thought that Bennett would move it out of Seattle right? I think that's not true... so he is just as guilty as not being on the up and up.

So, if he was that concerned with keeping the team and cared all that much about it, he should have kept the team himself and rallied his efforts to meet the teams needs and their demands.

He's like a jilted lover. He didn't want them but he doesn't want anyone else to have it either.

He can't have his cake and eat it too, which is what I think he thought he was getting.... Bennett buys the teams, takes on all the headaches, builds an arena and the team gets to stay.

But, this brings me back to, again really what other thing do you buy and then can't use it because the previous owner dictates what you can and can't do with it?

Karried, with all due respect, I think you can dictate in the contract what the property can be used for. If person A sells a lot and stipulates that the property can't be used for raising chickens, buyer B must abide to that or be subject to suit.

I don't think there was anything in the contract to limit where the team could play. If there was I seriously doubt that Bennett and company would have signed the contract.

Paul, lying is part of the business world. Transactions occur at an arm's length, and while not necessarily ethical, the behavior is commonplace.

This NBA stuff is a game for big boys. Calls to "stand for what is right!" just sound silly at this point. This has nothing to do with wrong and right. It has everything to do with money, power and prestige.

This grab for the team may have been a bit Machiavellian, but what sports team relocation has ever been done with good feelings on both sides?

I don't think the OKC ownership group really lied more than similarly situated people in similar situations do. They were just dumb about statements they made which were subject to discovery. The ownership group is generally arrogant and not used to being second-guessed or questioned... or else, they just don't give a damn about people in Seattle feeling all butthurt about being lied to.

You would have to be severely mentally challenged not to have been able to read the tea leaves from the moment Clay Bennett emerged as the owner of the Supersonics. Acting shocked and upset at this juncture just comes off as disingenuous. Particularly when you're making appeals like "Come on people! Stand for what is right!"

-- and you thought you could win us Okies over by maligning Clinton.. I have to admit.. I like you a little better for that, but it didn't cinch your argument :)Your right Midtowner, it's not about how you play the game, it's about winning the game.

Crosscut Seattle - Attention lawyers: The Sonics game is over (http://crosscut.com/seattle-supersonics/13661/Attention+lawyers%3A+The+Sonics+game+is+over/)

I watched this Youtube clip from a local Seattle writer...Think he sees through the parade of lawsuits

What you guys seem to be missing (or leaving out) in this whole argument is the fact that he promised he would make a good-faith effort for 12 months.

He could have made the greatest effort known to man for the first 9 months, but if he didn't make an effort during the last 3 months, then he did violate the promise he made.

It's good to know that what we've got out there is enough to convince most people in law that we have a good chance to win this case. Especially considering that there will be a lot more being released to the public by the time the court date rolls around.

On that note, you should really stop this wishful thinking that Bennett and the Sonics will be able to dig up more dirt on Schultz and Seattle than Schultz and Seattle will be able to dig up on Bennett and the Sonics.

What you guys seem to be missing (or leaving out) in this whole argument is the fact that he promised he would make a good-faith effort for 12 months.

He could have made the greatest effort known to man for the first 9 months, but if he didn't make an effort during the last 3 months, then he did violate the promise he made.

It's good to know that what we've got out there is enough to convince most people in law that we have a good chance to win this case. Especially considering that there will be a lot more being released to the public by the time the court date rolls around.

On that note, you should really stop this wishful thinking that Bennett and the Sonics will be able to dig up more dirt on Schultz and Seattle than Schultz and Seattle will be able to dig up on Bennett and the Sonics.

It's all going to be a matter of the judge's opinion about what constitues a good faith effort. Clearly, there wasn't much Bennett could do with the legislature after April. And, he was talking to the Seattle mayor, the Muckleshoots and Sabey after April, which contradicts the contention that he wasn't at least making an effort. The question is, "How much of an effort is enough."? It's not unreasonable for people in business to keep their options open, so I think it would be difficult to prove that discussing moving the team privately means they weren't willing to keep the team in Seattle......with a new arena.....which was the requirement for the team to stay in Seattle.

If it were me, I'd be pointing out to the judge what other cities in similar positions did to keep their team: Orlando, Houston.

I don' think anyone thinks that more dirt is going to be dug up on Schultz than Bennett. But, I'd be using his post-sale interview where he talks about what it would take for Bennett to buy out the lease with Seattle if I were one of Bennett's lawyer. But, who knows what evidence is present regarding the city of Seattle and their effort with Ballmer? None of it has been released.

Clearly, at least right now, David Stern is still on Bennett's side, and he's a powerful ally. I'm not saying I know what's going to happen, but I don't think it's a slam dunk for anyone.

Especially considering that there will be a lot more being released to the public by the time the court date rolls around.



Yeah but this time by both sides...Bennett will document his time and money spent trying to get an arena deal and it probably won't hurt having Prentice and the entire league backing him

He may win but if so it will likely just cause some more cash to be taken out of the ownership's wallets....Since he doesn't want to buy the team back it hurts his request for rescission

Also, Bennett was actually quite public about discussions he was having with other cities as early as May2006. There are articles about it in the Seattle and OKC press. He continued to talk to people in Seattle about the arena as well, and there are articles supporting that fact. Where was Schultz at that time? How about when Bennett filed for arbitration? Where was Schultz? Any evidence he complained publicly or privately to Bennett or Stern? To be honest, it looks as if Ballmer said, "See if you can get the team back and I'll buy it." Schultz has had almost a year prior to now to file this lawsuit. How come he didn't want the team back four months ago? Eight months ago? Why didn't he file a lawsuit last August when Aubrey made his comment? Again, were I Bennett's lawyer, that's precisely what I would be asking Schultz. Where was your indignation then? Was it the presence of an alternate buyer that made you change your mind, rather than a belief that a good faith effort hadn't been made? I think his silence up until now speaks volumes.

I'm a bit late into this, but I'm going to toss in my opinions on this...

First, I'm no attorney, either, but I think there's a difference between "breach of good faith" and "fraud." Fraud is an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact. Good faith is, essentially, "I was crossing my fingers behind my back when I signed the deal."

Contracts for the sale of property go down the tubes when you have matters that arise to the level of fraud. Breaches of good-faith negotiations normally don't get contracts derailed unless you can prove some material relationship between the negotations and the contract, eg were there provisions reflective of the "good faith" written into the terms of the sales contract.

The prior owners, to my knowledge, didn't integrate any requirement about staying in Seattle into their agreement. You either sell something, and the rights to it, or you don't. You just can't go back and yell "Kings X" and make it all go away. You can't sell a car provided the new owners promise not to repaint it purple. Ultimately, the positions in a contract are put into writing, it gets signed, money gets exchanged, and title transfers. That's it.

Even if the prior owners could prove a breach of good faith, or even fraud, what is his measure of damages? He's the seller, not the buyer, so it isn't like he bought a great looking car and found out there was no engine under the hood. Considering his price of $350 million, its going to be awfully hard to prove he was the injured party.

Let's pretend, for a second, that the old owners want to prove a lack of good faith. All Bennett's lawyers have to do is roll out ol' Stern himself, and have him testify to his own public words about how he felt there was no such breach. If anyone might be materially damaged about any such breach of good faith, it would be the NBA in moving a franchise from a larger to a smaller market.

Keep in mind, too, that ESPN legal analysis isn't very interesting if all the lawyers say "its a bad case, game over." You get a LOT more air time when you can spin "hey, he might win the thing," certainly in Seattle, and certainly among newspaper editors.

I think, in reality, there's no material demonstration that proves a lack of good faith or fraud, because no one in Seattle ever ponied up a legitimate proposal for a new arena. Had they done so, and Bennett turned it down, that might have been a bigger problem - and it would have resulted in a flip, not a reversal of the sale back to the original owners. Beyond everything else, the mere fact that Bennet et al didn't apply for relocation immediately mitigates against bad-faith. Even if it didn't, it would indicate shocking naivete on the part of those previous owners not to think an Oklahoma City-based ownership group wouldn't entertain the idea of moving the franchise at some point.

Bottom line, this creates some embarassing emails for Bennett to overcome, more bad PR, but in the bottom line it still ends up being a legal effort to remedy what amounts to "seller's remorse" - or much ado about nothing.

In practical terms, Seattle would be much better served if they realized they didn't take the leave threat seriously, and opted to pursue a future wherein they opt not to alienate the commissioner of the league who held open the door while the franchise they didn't want walked out with barely a notice until it was way, way too late to stop it. And *none* of that can be tossed at the feet of anyone in Oklahoma City.

-sd

I'm a bit late into this, but I'm going to toss in my opinions on this...

First, I'm no attorney, either, but I think there's a difference between "breach of good faith" and "fraud." Fraud is an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact. Good faith is, essentially, "I was crossing my fingers behind my back when I signed the deal."

Contracts for the sale of property go down the tubes when you have matters that arise to the level of fraud. Breaches of good-faith negotiations normally don't get contracts derailed unless you can prove some material relationship between the negotations and the contract, eg were there provisions reflective of the "good faith" written into the terms of the sales contract.

The prior owners, to my knowledge, didn't integrate any requirement about staying in Seattle into their agreement. You either sell something, and the rights to it, or you don't. You just can't go back and yell "Kings X" and make it all go away. You can't sell a car provided the new owners promise not to repaint it purple. Ultimately, the positions in a contract are put into writing, it gets signed, money gets exchanged, and title transfers. That's it.

Even if the prior owners could prove a breach of good faith, or even fraud, what is his measure of damages? He's the seller, not the buyer, so it isn't like he bought a great looking car and found out there was no engine under the hood. Considering his price of $350 million, its going to be awfully hard to prove he was the injured party.

Let's pretend, for a second, that the old owners want to prove a lack of good faith. All Bennett's lawyers have to do is roll out ol' Stern himself, and have him testify to his own public words about how he felt there was no such breach. If anyone might be materially damaged about any such breach of good faith, it would be the NBA in moving a franchise from a larger to a smaller market.

Keep in mind, too, that ESPN legal analysis isn't very interesting if all the lawyers say "its a bad case, game over." You get a LOT more air time when you can spin "hey, he might win the thing," certainly in Seattle, and certainly among newspaper editors.

I think, in reality, there's no material demonstration that proves a lack of good faith or fraud, because no one in Seattle ever ponied up a legitimate proposal for a new arena. Had they done so, and Bennett turned it down, that might have been a bigger problem - and it would have resulted in a flip, not a reversal of the sale back to the original owners. Beyond everything else, the mere fact that Bennet et al didn't apply for relocation immediately mitigates against bad-faith. Even if it didn't, it would indicate shocking naivete on the part of those previous owners not to think an Oklahoma City-based ownership group wouldn't entertain the idea of moving the franchise at some point.

Bottom line, this creates some embarassing emails for Bennett to overcome, more bad PR, but in the bottom line it still ends up being a legal effort to remedy what amounts to "seller's remorse" - or much ado about nothing.

In practical terms, Seattle would be much better served if they realized they didn't take the leave threat seriously, and opted to pursue a future wherein they opt not to alienate the commissioner of the league who held open the door while the franchise they didn't want walked out with barely a notice until it was way, way too late to stop it. And *none* of that can be tossed at the feet of anyone in Oklahoma City.

-sd

Sure you're not a lawyer? :-)

Crosscut Seattle - Attention lawyers: The Sonics game is over (http://crosscut.com/seattle-supersonics/13661/Attention+lawyers%3A+The+Sonics+game+is+over/)

I watched this Youtube clip from a local Seattle writer...Think he sees through the parade of lawsuits

It seems that the only people who will benefit from all these suits are the lawyers. But then their bosses have lots to give them. Schultz will just raise the price on his terrible drinks and Bennett and company will enjoy basketball in OKC.:dizzy:

Most of their lawyers are on retainer, the others do it because it's good PR for their firm.

Most of their lawyers are on retainer, the others do it because it's good PR for their firm.

Is that kinda like Prepaid Legal?:tiphat:

Yea, but for people that have money.

You get somebody bigger the Mike Turpin

"— (the Oklahoma owners') ... claim that the loss of the Sonics will not hurt Seattle.”

Wasn't it the leaders of Seattle that made this claim?

Yes, it was originally someone in Seattle (mayor, Nick Licata, Chris Van Dyke?) who said that, and the Sonics' owners were trying to use their own words against them. I'm not sure why the Sonics' owners need a reason to break the lease. Wouldn't it be adequate to simply say, "It is our team and we want to move it"?

On that note, you should really stop this wishful thinking that Bennett and the Sonics will be able to dig up more dirt on Schultz and Seattle than Schultz and Seattle will be able to dig up on Bennett and the Sonics.

I'm not really sure who's doing the wishful thinking here. Shultz and Seattle may be able to dig up more "dirt", but if you look at the facts, it's Shultz and Seattle that have acted in bad faith.

The actions of the city, state, and former owner all amount to nothing more than harassment of the current owners. They set the new owners up and are now trying to bleed them dry. Whether the PBC bought the team with intentions to try and move it to Oklahoma City or not, the fact still remains that the group did more than Shultz EVER did to try and help the team stay in Seattle. The PBC has spent more time, more money, and a lot more effort in trying to get the team a competitive place to play to assure it remains in Seattle and the NBA remains happy than Shultz did and you know it.

The reality is that Seattle and the state took a stand against the team and the NBA during negotiations. They didn't even vote funding out of committee, while the city made sure such funding was all but impossible to get within their limits.

Let me say this again: Seattle and the state TOOK A STAND against the owners and the team. Not only did the legislature refuse to consider the public funding, a group of citizens organized in an effort to protest any such funding and actually got a city initiative passed to make it very difficult for the city to help any team or other permanent tenant of the sub-par arena do business there. And even after they did this the PBC owners continued discussions with other possible partners in building a new arena.

Then after all but driving the Sonics out of town by not wanting to fund any of their projects and by passing legislation directed squarely against the team, you guys call them shady, file law suits alleging bad faith, and do everything you can in your power to force them to lose money in your community. Come on, srkboy, that's disgusting. That's about as slimy and dirty as you get.

Sure, there may not be any sexy inflammatory or incriminating e-mails that surface from Shultz or the city or the state. But the fact is that they're not needed for anyone to see that the city and state have acted with but one motivation from the very beginning: screw the Sonics and its new owners. That's it. Few people if any have made any attempt in what could resemble good faith to get an arena for the Sonics on the Washington side of this equation.

No matter what happens, one thing will be continue to be true: NO ONE to date has worked harder to get an arena built in Washington than Clay Bennett. And what does the community of Seattle do for that? Spit in his face.

At the end of the day it's pretty transparent that Washington is embarrassed by what they have done to the Sonics and now, after they refused every chance given to them by the NBA, by Shultz, by the PBC, now they want to screw everyone they can in an immature child like lashing out because they didn't get their way. Meanwhile, they're burning every bridge they can, and coming off looking like a bunch babies to everyone who knows all the facts, not just the ones presented in Shultz's most recent effort to seek vengeance on a group that actually did more than he ever did to try and help the Sonics stay in Washington.

It's all pretty pathetic, but anyone who suggests that Shultz and Seattle are somehow more "clean" in any of this is delusional, ignorant, and/or simply unwilling to admit what has actually transpired over the last 4 years in regards to the Sonics and the people's efforts against them.

Now, the people of Seattle are hoping that a court forces the PBC to give up their team after all the work they did, so that a local buyer can buy it back and build an arena so they can stay in Seattle. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT BENNETT GAVE YOU GUYS THE CHANCE TO DO AND YOU SAID NO! So really, Seattle wanted exactly what Bennett was offering, they just wanted to make sure he was bled dry before hand. Yeah, that's really classy. No dirt there... :rolleyes:

There's a reaons why people in Seattle hate Clay Bennett, and it's not just because he isn't a local owner. It's because he clearly never made a good effort to stay here or to at least try and make the Sonics watchable.

You say all of this evidence of money and time spent trying to get an arena in Seattle so that the Sonics could stay there. Explain to me how, after 12 months, he only came up with 1 pathetic arena proposal that he knew never stood a chance anywhere. I can give you just as "good" of an arena proposal if you give me 12 minutes.

Just in case the OKC media doesn't tell you, he could have put a Sonics team that could contend for the playoffs, which would in turn have sold out the KeyArena almost every night. He could have had Durant, Ray Allen, and Rashard Lewis on the court at the same time, but of course that would allow the Sonics to win and would not help Bennett and Co convince the NBA that they should relocate to Oklahoma City.

It's a joke what the OKC media is telling you about the situation up in Seattle. They're trying to tell you that big bad Seattle and the meanies in the Washington State legislature are beating up little Clay Bennett no matter how hard he tried when he's only trying to do the right thing and make a profit in his business and that him losing money or moving to Oklahoma City is not his fault in any way. The OKC media could tell you you were dead and you'd believe them

If any of these lawsuits make it to a higher court, they won't have a leg to stand on.

Many of the judges in the Seattle courts are elected officials, so don't be surprised if it is granted.

The higher courts will overturn or throw out these suits, the relief sought isn't grantable.

A long shot if Shultz may win his suit; however, it's going to be difficult for him to sell to locals with Ballmer being the only applicant.

The courts can see through much of this, the relief sought that Shultz is asking isn't grantable through the courts--The NBA legal staff will file on this one because they have a right to approve their own ownership groups and Ballmer is definitely not being approved.

...and Shultz will at least say he tried.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of these are in federal District Court. There, the judges are appointed by the President upon advice and consent of the Senate. Their appointments are for life.

I stand corrected, I do remember reading that--my bad!

There's a reaons why people in Seattle hate Clay Bennett, and it's not just because he isn't a local owner. It's because he clearly never made a good effort to stay here or to at least try and make the Sonics watchable.

You say all of this evidence of money and time spent trying to get an arena in Seattle so that the Sonics could stay there. Explain to me how, after 12 months, he only came up with 1 pathetic arena proposal that he knew never stood a chance anywhere. I can give you just as "good" of an arena proposal if you give me 12 minutes.

Just in case the OKC media doesn't tell you, he could have put a Sonics team that could contend for the playoffs, which would in turn have sold out the KeyArena almost every night. He could have had Durant, Ray Allen, and Rashard Lewis on the court at the same time, but of course that would allow the Sonics to win and would not help Bennett and Co convince the NBA that they should relocate to Oklahoma City.

It's a joke what the OKC media is telling you about the situation up in Seattle. They're trying to tell you that big bad Seattle and the meanies in the Washington State legislature are beating up little Clay Bennett no matter how hard he tried when he's only trying to do the right thing and make a profit in his business and that him losing money or moving to Oklahoma City is not his fault in any way. The OKC media could tell you you were dead and you'd believe them

Would you show a link to what you just said? Much of what I have read in the OKC media is a regurgitation of what is being printed or said from Seattle.

The Sonics had a choice when the new owners took over. Keep the present team together and be limited by the high salaries they were paying. They chose to get rid of the salaries in favor of creating a younger team and more draft picks. They got lucky with last year's draft picking up an all star in the making. They should have a good draft this year as well. Several people out there that they can use. It appears they are trying to build a team for the future that will really contend for playoffs and maybe an NBA championship.

From what I see there was no love lost when Schultz owned the team and not much future with the team members they had. It appears Schultz was at his ropes end with improving the team or making a profit with the climate in Seattle. He sold the team when he had a chance to sell way about the market value and tried to make it look like he was trying his best to keep the team in Seattle. Truth be known he was doing cartwheels at making the sale and didn't care what happened after he pocketed his change. Say what you want, Bennett and company made an effort to keep the team in Seattle. It was a win win for them. Get a arena with a good lease and make money in a good market or short of that move to OKC which was showing signs of being a good market also and city and state govenments willing to embrace the team in a heart beat. He gave it a chance in Seattle, now it's time to see if they can make a go in OKC.

Who knows what will happen in OKC. Maybe the new wears off and the ticket sales fall off. Then Bennett and company will have another choice to make. Do they keep them in OKC or find another home for them. Maybe at that time Seattle has worked up a plan and funded it for a new arena. If Seattle hasn't completely distroyed what good feelings the ownership and NBA has for them, they might be able to get the team back. I would think though that with the present runs at making the team stay till the contract with the Key is over and the suits filed by Schultz and others, will lessen the chances of that ever happening. What Seattle and those representing the interests there should do is make the transition to OKC as smooth as possible in hopes that the NBA will look favorable to the return of a team there. Otherwise they will be destined to never in the next decade get a team and will forever appear to be sore losers. Only the high ground will save them at this point.

There's a reaons why people in Seattle hate Clay Bennett, and it's not just because he isn't a local owner. It's because he clearly never made a good effort to stay here or to at least try and make the Sonics watchable.



As long as Bennett's efforts exceeded those of Howard Shultz', Shultz chances of winning this suit is like that of a one legged-man in a butt-kicking contest.

As long as Bennett's efforts exceeded those of Howard Shultz', Shultz chances of winning this suit is like that of a one legged-man in a butt-kicking contest.

You didn't read about the service man returning to Iraq in the DOK did you? I might put my bets on him!

There's a reaons why people in Seattle hate Clay Bennett, and it's not just because he isn't a local owner. It's because he clearly never made a good effort to stay here or to at least try and make the Sonics watchable.

You say all of this evidence of money and time spent trying to get an arena in Seattle so that the Sonics could stay there. Explain to me how, after 12 months, he only came up with 1 pathetic arena proposal that he knew never stood a chance anywhere. I can give you just as "good" of an arena proposal if you give me 12 minutes.

Just in case the OKC media doesn't tell you, he could have put a Sonics team that could contend for the playoffs, which would in turn have sold out the KeyArena almost every night. He could have had Durant, Ray Allen, and Rashard Lewis on the court at the same time, but of course that would allow the Sonics to win and would not help Bennett and Co convince the NBA that they should relocate to Oklahoma City.

It's a joke what the OKC media is telling you about the situation up in Seattle. They're trying to tell you that big bad Seattle and the meanies in the Washington State legislature are beating up little Clay Bennett no matter how hard he tried when he's only trying to do the right thing and make a profit in his business and that him losing money or moving to Oklahoma City is not his fault in any way. The OKC media could tell you you were dead and you'd believe them

I think I've read every single Sonics related article on the Times and PI over the past year and a half and still come to the conclusion that both parties in this situation are equally at fault...Your government has had 4 years to get something done and they did nada...Aside from passing a vindictive I-91 that is

Numerous times with numerous owners Olympia has sent them packing...I think too many folks in Seattle thought the league was just bluffing...Well guess what...They weren't

As for the one proposal made over 12 months...The legislature wouldn't even put it to a vote so why bother spending millions more when you know they won't even let it hit the floor?

This lawsuit festival won't do anything but prevent the NBA from returning to Seattle for a long long time

RabidRed: "You didn't read about the service man returning to Iraq in the DOK did you? I might put my bets on him!"

Give me some excerpts from what you have read? I'm totally clueless.

Sounds as though we had a hero return with one leg that kicked more than butt in Iraq?

srkboy:

Serious question here (or for anyone else who can answer):

What portions, if any, of the sales contract between the Bennett group and Schultz specified the terms of what constituted "good faith efforts"?

If Schultz had been truly so worried about keeping the Sonics in Seattle, identifying the acts of specific performance necessary to meet a contractual demand of "good faith acts" could easily have been enumerated, and ownership retained in full by Schultz had they not been met.

It isn't magic; you incorporate language to the effect of the original owner retaining 51% of the team upon initation of the agreement, and then a transfer of the remaining 49% to Bennett upon completion of items x, y, and z within so-many days certain that demonstrated whatever measure of "good faith" he wanted. But I don't think he did that - again, if he did, I'd love to see it. "Trying to create a winner" or "trying to make the team successful" isn't legal performance language - heck, I could argue that not "folding" the team is "trying" to make it succesful. It needs to be in writing - somehow - and to me that's why all this retrospective righteous indignation from Schultz sounds so terribly disingenuous.

Again, if there was language about good faith efforts in that sales contract, I'd love to see it, and have a lawyer read it to see if I'm anywhere near in the right ballpark. Contrary to that, I think all this legal nonsense is talk from a former owner who realized too late that the people pursuing his (former) franchise were serious - and now that the NBA has made the move "official," there's a great deal of hindsight CYA'ing going on...and Schultz won't mind spending a few million of his own fortune if it buys him even a bit of posterior-coverage in the public eye.

-sd

RabidRed: "You didn't read about the service man returning to Iraq in the DOK did you? I might put my bets on him!"

Give me some excerpts from what you have read? I'm totally clueless.

Sounds as though we had a hero return with one leg that kicked more than butt in Iraq?

Link (http://www.newsok.com/article/3235397/) Great story and someone to be proud of.:tiphat:

It is really no more simple than this - Schultz excepted payment in full and cashed the check. Once you do that you have almost no chance of getting anything back. I learned that the hard way one time and I won't make that mistake again. I bet Schultz won't either.

It is really no more simple than this - Schultz excepted payment in full and cashed the check. Once you do that you have almost no chance of getting anything back. I learned that the hard way one time and I won't make that mistake again. I bet Schultz won't either.

You sold a basketball team and had an understanding of a good faith obligation to deal with the current home city before moving and you weren't able to get your team back when you petitioned a court to place the team into a constructive trust which would in turn convey the team to local ownership who was interested in keeping the team?

Good news!

Well OK - not exactly the same thing. However, Schultz is asking the judge to define "good faith effort" and insert a new clause into the agreement for what happens if Bennett does put forth a good faith effort. Sincs Bennett didn't put either of them in the letter and Schultz accepted the letter and payment then I don't see any way the judge goes against both of their wishes at the time and insert them now.


It's a joke what the OKC media is telling you about the situation up in Seattle. - srkboy23

No, It is a joke what the Seattle media is telling you about the situation in Seattle. See, two can play this game.

Well OK - not exactly the same thing. However, Schultz is asking the judge to define "good faith effort" and insert a new clause into the agreement for what happens if Bennett does put forth a good faith effort. Sincs Bennett didn't put either of them in the letter and Schultz accepted the letter and payment then I don't see any way the judge goes against both of their wishes at the time and insert them now.

I'm pretty sure that Washington case law or statutes will give us a good idea of what "good faith" means in Washington. The restatement (which is a secondary law source, not authoritative, but very persuasive) says that there's an implied covenant of good faith in every transaction between the parties to make sure that the contract is executed.

A couple of issues pop out at me immediately -- the covenant is generally understood to be between the parties. Seattle was not a party to this contract, but merely a third-party beneficiary, and even that is arguable.

My understanding is that the 'deal with in good faith for 12 months' issue was in a side letter, not even in the actual contract. If that's the case, a court is probably going to be reluctant to unwind the deal on something it would deem to be an immaterial breach.

The major performance here was selling the team for $350M. That happened.

It's arguable whether Bennett, et. al. were in bad faith at all. It's arguable that Seattle even has standing here. It's arguable that the contract was no longer executory, but fully performed. it's arguable that even if all this stuff goes against the PBC, it's an immaterial breach anyhow, maybe compensable by some monetary damages, but the mother of all equitable remedies, conveyance into a constructive trust??? I think the chance of that remedy being granted here is about the same as Oklahoma State winning a national title in football next season.

I'll take your word for everything Midtowner. What do you think about the company Schultz is using to bring the lawsuite with. The Company filling the lawsuit wasn't an owner of the Sonics. Could it be argued that only the LLC that originally owned the team be the only entity that can file a lawsuit on its behalf?

This just in from the A.P. - Las Vegas is reporting an unusally high number of wagers from the Pacific NW betting the OSU Cowbys will win the NC next year.

Here's the link to the purchase contract. Look at the last document, #21, I believe. The three sections that jumped out at me, although I have no idea precisely what they mean, were 5.3, 7.3 and 9.6. I wondered if 7.3 was a blanket statement covering any other written materials between the buyer and seller, and I had no idea was 9.6 meant. 5.3 sounded like it was giving the buyer a lot of discretion on what he could do regarding accepting a lease or other offer. What do you lawyer types think?

http://www.king5.com/sharedcontent/northwest/pdf/4-Lawrence-exhibits3.pdf

Here's the link to the purchase contract. Look at the last document, #21, I believe. The three sections that jumped out at me, although I have no idea precisely what they mean, were 5.3, 7.3 and 9.6. I wondered if 7.3 was a blanket statement covering any other written materials between the buyer and seller, and I had no idea was 9.6 meant. 5.3 sounded like it was giving the buyer a lot of discretion on what he could do regarding accepting a lease or other offer. What do you lawyer types think?

http://www.king5.com/sharedcontent/northwest/pdf/4-Lawrence-exhibits3.pdfbetts, did you happen to read exhibit #19 4(G) dated 11/1/06 on page 7 of the document? What are (would be) your thoughts, or opinions? Would that constitute a breach of the contract under 7.3(A), or (B) of exhibit #21? Based upon any of the e-mails and/or A.M. statement? I'm not saying there was or was not a breach. I'm no Lawyer, just curious if you think #19 may be a factor. I see now what made Stern mad enough to slap A.M. with that $250,000. fine.

I've given up both my amateur psychology and amateur legal hobbies.

betts, did you happen to read exhibit #19 4(G) dated 11/1/06 on page 7 of the document? What are (would be) your thoughts, or opinions? Would that constitute a breach of the contract under 7.3(A), or (B) of exhibit #21? Based upon any of the e-mails and/or A.M. statement? I'm not saying there was or was not a breach. I'm no Lawyer, just curious if you think #19 may be a factor. I see now what made Stern mad enough to slap A.M. with that $250,000. fine.

Here's the statement in question:
"The team does not have any present intention of, or agreement or arrangement with respect to selling, relocating or otherwise transferring the assets of the Team, other than exploring the alternatives to relocate the Team to a new arena in the greater Seattle, Washington area."

I believe Exhibit 19 is the contract with the NBA, not with Schultz, if I read it correctly. I don't know if that means the NBA would have to sue Bennett to enforce this. I also don't know if the side letter would be linked to this document as well, since that includes the provision that a new arena and lease are part of the conditions, which this statement doesn't mention.

I'm no lawyer either. If I read this correctly, the "sweet flip" e-mail still doesn't constitute fraud, as it and Ward's later e-mail regarding his possibly selling if the team gets a new arena would not violate this since that would imply the team would stay in Seattle were that to happen. I think they could sell at any time, as long as the team remained in Seattle. As far as McClendon's statement goes, I suppose it's going to hinge on interpretation of the statement. "We didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle, we "hoped" to move to Oklahoma." I don't have any precise quotes here, but I'm positive that in McClendon's interview, he also said that Seattle "still has time to come up with an arena and the team will stay if that happens".

So, is "hope" the same as "intention"? I don't know. Are actions more important than words? That will require at least a lawyer to determine.

I've given up both my amateur psychology and amateur legal hobbies.Hobbies are therapeutic. Studies have shown that 1 hour of productive and meaningful use of ones spare time will add 1 minute to your life. Hopefully you've found others to fill the void.