Is this new?:

NewsOK: Seattle Council may pass law to keep Sonics from moving (http://newsok.com/article/3109292)

It certainly shows the pitfalls of doing businesses with governments. The Sonics have a lease with the city and the city wants to pass a law to limit the Sonics ability to negotiate based on the terms and value of that lease. So, here you have a two party lease, but one party can actually legislate to influence the execution of the lease.

Sheesh, I wish I could do that with some of my leases.

BDP -- there's this little thing called the 14th amendment. Seattle should look into it.

I do think the fine shows that the league is not unconcerned about what happens in Seattle. If it was just fine with the team moving to OKC, I don't think there would have been a fine, just the disclaimer issued earlier. It's not really good news.

I really thought this thing would get more cordial, but it seems to be getting uglier. It's just so weird that the Washington legislature did nothing to keep the Sonics and the city has done what it could to make it an even worse situation for the owners or any future potential tenants, but now they want to legislate to restrict the owners' rights to negotiate out of the lease? It really is like: we don't care that much, but we're going to force you to stay and make it as bad as possible for you. This latest move seems more like vendetta politics than any reasonable or sensible move on the part of Seattle. It seems some people have their feeling hurt or ego bruised and they want to use their role as civil servant to make themselves feel better. Seattle is more insecure than I thought.

I agree about the city of Seattle's actions. In actuality, if the city does enact that ordinance; it could let Bennett and the NBA off the hook - given its unconstitutionality and the fact that if/when passed, it not only makes Bennett's Oct 31 deadline MUTE but it also shows the NBA that it is the CITY who has not been acting in good faith.

I can count the incidents where the CITY did not show good faith; Let's see

1) immediately after Clay bought the franchise, the CITY of Seattle refused to meet with Bennett to negotiate a new arena or EVEN renegotiate the Key Arena terms.

2) shortly after the purchase, the majority of the citizens of Seattle enacted I-91 which prohibits public finance of any sports facilities unless the franchise guarantees profit sharing of some sort (I forget the proportion but it is ridiculous). This initiative guarantees that no new arena will be built in the city unless it is privately financed, since no owner in his/her right mind would ever agree to building something and sharing majority of the profits with the city just to get a little public funding

3) Despite Clay's attempt at staying in Metro Seattle (now), the Washington Leg gave him the finger, didn't even bring his bill - which was sponsored by Ways and Means committee chair - to the floor for discussion and/or debate.

4) Lately there has been some 'rumblings' of private interest in an arena but nothing concrete is on the table (since everybody knows you need public financing for a good portion of it - unless it is in the city of Seattle). 68 days to go and still nothing on the table and nothing looks to be on it either, even tho we/Seattle supposedly has all of these billionaires and millionaires just sitting around (should tell ya something ....)

5) and NOW, the city council will enact an ordinance that would prohibit sports teams from renegotiating lease agreements - which is unconstitutional by the way

Like I said, I hope the city goes forward with this, since it will show their incompetence and the CITY's lack of good faith as I described above. All would have to be done, is for

A) Clay et al to keep their mouth shut aside from stating their disappointment with the city's action (SAY NOTHING ELSE RIGHT NOW).
B) Let the city pass the ordinance then,
C) Since the ordinance passed, go to the city of Seattle with a briefcase of cash for a buyout. Of course, the city can not accept but you need to do this because ....
D) NOW, Have Clay's/Aubrey's lawyers go to the Federal courts to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance. By enacting the ordinance, the city basically voided the lease - since they felt the need to pass an ordinance to state the terms of contracts thereby forcing a business to conduct in its city (which Surely the courts would rule in Bennett's favor since this is unconstitutional. Bennett needs to show up with a buyout tho, even with the ordinance in place - to show his due diligence).
E) At the same time as E, go to Stern and meet individually with Key team owners and determine now where they stand. would they approve relo and if so when.

F) After all of the above is done, announce that the Sonics will relocate to OKC in 2007.

Think this wont work? Given the City's ordinance, it would invalidate any lease agreement since momentarily it would superscede any contract agreement (since contracts by nature, must have their terms listed on said contract and agreed to by both parties, the ordinance thus supersceding the lease and thus by its nature violating us law). Then, given the ordinance - all Bennett would ahve to do is show up trying to break the lease. He could do so sooner than Oct 31 since the ordinance essentially voided the lease and esp if the majority of the other owners are on his side. He shows up to Seattle and they follow the ordinance, it shows the courts that Bennett did due diligence and that the city did in-fact enact an unconstitutional ordinance. It also shows the courts that as such, the city is not acting in good faith since the ordinance precludes the lease, thereby violating the lease itself and making it unenforceable (since both parties can no longer agree to its terms).

No lease, Hasta La Vista. and the SOONER the better! dont wait until 2008, move in 2007 - as soon as the aformentioned takes place. Of course, if the courts take longer, then the move could take place in 2008 (maybe starting with the STORM 2008 season).

In the end, the City of Seattle gets NOTHING and the Seattle fans get a HUGE slap in their arrogant elitist faces!!!

And BDP, you're right!!

Seattle IS very insecure! As long as people are bowing and blowing smoke up Seattle's a** saying how cool or progressive it is, then HEY, 'We're the Best and we love you'. But anybody come and set the record straight, that Seattle is really JUST another mid-size city not worthy of the NY, Chicagos, LA, Torontos or Vancouver's; World Cities of the world - then THEMS FIGHTIN' WORDS!!!

Definitely vandetta on the part of the city. And like I said, I HOPE they pass the ordinance, so they can be taught a VERY GOOD LESSON!!!

One more thing, Betts - the fine from the NBA did not show their lack of support for OKC, OH CONTRARE; the fine covers the NBA's butts should the city of Seattle seek to sue. that's it.

You have to consider, the fact that the NBA never came out and publicly chastised Aubrey (other than a behind closed doors fine, for no reason that they even admit to) shows that actually the NBA is on Bennett's side! And likely would approve the move, definitely if/when the city passes the ordinance.

I can't wait (as most here in Seattle also). We could care less about the Sonics and it is time these elitist aholes here get what they deserve.

Let me clue you in, the state of WA gave Boeing $3.5B to keep the 787 assembly in Everett, which was contractual. did the state enact a law statute thereby forbidding Boeing from ever leaving given this contract? No, because it would have been unconstitutional.

We'll see on Sept 9 how DUMB and INSECURE the city of Seattle really is. The While World will know the truth!!

By the way, let's keep this hush hush on the Seattle forums. Let them dig their own hole back in the ground!!!

Thats Mark Cuban like numbers.

Isnt Aubrey what you call a silent partner, maybe this will make him realize that.

Big Aub is the next Mark Cuban... I love it! :D

It's idiots like this guy and Jerry Shottenkirk that keep this going. As HOT ROD said, we need to keep our mouths shut for 60 days or so. Or even better yet, keep them shut until Bennett and/or Stern make an announcement. This article is only going to keep the controversy going. If it wasn't for the JR, I bet this story would already be dead in the water. Sad thing is, I bet they didn't sell any extra papers, they probably just got more hits to their website.


McClendon fined $250K for comments on moving Sonics

August 24, 2007 SEATTLE – The NBA has fined Seattle SuperSonics co-owner and Oklahoma City energy tycoon Aubrey McClendon $250,000 for comments he made two weeks ago that his group didn’t buy the team to keep it in Seattle.

League spokesman Mark Broussard in New York confirmed the penalty Thursday morning, but said he did not immediately know the reason the fine was imposed. The comments of McClendon were at odds with commissioner David Stern’s stated hope of keeping the Sonics in the city they’ve called home for all 40 years of their existence.

McClendon is one of four original partners with Clay Bennett in Professional Basketball Club LLC, the Oklahoma group that purchased the Sonics and WNBA’s Storm for $350 million in July, 2006. This month, McClendon told an Oklahoma City publication that the group has always hoped to move the NBA franchise to Oklahoma, but he acknowledged the team could make more money in the Pacific Northwest.“But we didn’t buy the team to keep it in Seattle; we hoped to come here,” McClendon, chief executive of Chesapeake Energy, told The Journal Record in Oklahoma. “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.”

The ownership group has set a deadline of Oct. 31 to secure an agreement for a new arena in the Seattle area. If a deal is not in place by then, Bennett has said he will begin the league’s process of relocating the Sonics to Oklahoma City.McClendon’s fine is comparable to those the NBA has assessed to Mark Cuban, the outspoken owner of the Dallas Mavericks. Cuban was fined twice during the 2006 playoffs, with the league penalizing him $250,000 after his outbursts during the league finals, when he yelled toward a referee and later toward Stern.

Cuban, who says he matches every dollar with a charitable donation, was fined $500,000 – at the time the most against one person in the NBA – in January 2002 for comments that included saying he wouldn’t hire the league’s head of officiating to manage a Dairy Queen.

A spokesman for McClendon at Chesapeake Energy said Thursday from Oklahoma City that McClendon’s fine by the NBA is not a company issue and referred questions to the Sonics’ ownership group.“We respectfully decline to comment further about this matter,” said Brent Gooden, a spokesman for Professional Basketball LLC.Bennett and McClendon tried to calm the furor in Seattle the day after McClendon’s comments were published. They issued a joint statement that called McClendon’s comments his “personal thoughts.” Bennett said McClendon was “not speaking on behalf of the ownership group.”“It is my hope we will see a breakthrough in the next 60 days that will result in securing a new arena for the Sonics and Storm in the Greater Seattle area,” Bennett said, though even he acknowledges no breakthrough is on the horizon.

McClendon said he, Bennett and others in the ownership group became interested in purchasing an NBA team after the New Orleans Hornets temporarily relocated to Oklahoma City for two seasons after Hurricane Katrina.“We started to look around, and at that time the Sonics were going through some ownership challenges in Seattle,” McClendon told the newspaper. “So Clay, very artfully and skillfully, put himself in the middle of those discussions and to the great amazement and surprise to everyone in Seattle, some rednecks from Oklahoma, which we’ve been called, made off with the team.”

All I can say is wow....This is an interesting article to say the least

Hypothetically, OKC is ready

Source says Sonics owner told employees Oklahoma City will foot relocation costs

ERIC D. WILLIAMS AND FRANK HUGHES; The News Tribune
Last updated: August 25th, 2007 01:23 AM (PDT)

Seattle SuperSonics chairman Clay Bennett told his employees that Oklahoma City is ready to foot the bill for the team to relocate there next season, a source within the organization said.
That information was passed along to Sonics employees during a meeting with Bennett on Wednesday, an employee who attended the meeting told The News Tribune on the condition of anonymity.

However, Bennett clarified those comments late Friday, saying the statements provided by the source from the meeting were a hypothetical example of how a community that is interested in relocating a business would help provide some of the mitigation costs to make that happen.

During the 40-minute meeting Wednesday, the team employee said Bennett provided the group with details of what Oklahoma City is willing to pay for to woo the Sonics:

• Any legal fees involving the team’s fight to break the KeyArena lease.

• Whatever the settlement is to the Seattle Center to buy out the lease.

• All relocation fees the NBA would force the team to pay other owners.

• Costs of physically moving the team’s staff and offices.

• Costs of upgrading the city’s current arena, the Ford Center, to make it NBA-ready.

• Costs of building a new arena, and when it’s finished, keeping the old facility running.

Bennett’s comments Wednesday were in response to a Sonics employee asking what a community such as Oklahoma City has done to prove to Bennett that it wants the Sonics, the source said.

“He lit up like a Christmas tree,” the source said of Bennett’s reaction to the employee’s question. “He got real happy and he started spouting off these things.”

Bennett told The News Tribune that his comments were a hypothetical response.

“The context of my response was after being asked the question how could Oklahoma City possibly be a competitive market to Seattle,” Bennett said. “And my answer is because Oklahoma City is a medium marketplace that highly values the opportunity to obtain an NBA franchise, not unlike any community or any state would value the pursuit of any other highly additive economic development opportunity, such as the value of a manufacturing plant or corporate headquarters.

“The response was an attempt to provide some clarity as why it is so important that Seattle respond and recognize at once that the team is at risk. Without a successor venue at KeyArena, and without a modern facility, the team cannot remain economically viable in this marketplace.

“Our deal has never changed. On July 18, 2006, we outlined very clearly what needs to happen in order to keep the team economically viable and in the marketplace, and we are continuing in the pursuit of that objective.”

Minutes before the employee’s question, the source said, Bennett was adamant that he had not spoken in depth with Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett, a close ally, or any other city officials because he was focused on what he was trying to do in Seattle. The source said the team’s approximately 100 employees met with Bennett in four groups to allow for a more intimate setting for frank questions to be asked about the status of the organization.

“He said as far as he feels he’s done everything he can to get an arena deal here,” the source said. “He’s given up on talking to the media. He’s given up on talking to everybody. He feels like he’s getting more of the blame, and it should be (Howard) Schultz and the ownership before him because Schultz sold it to an outside ownership group as opposed to finding local owners.”

The source said Bennett went on to say when the Oct. 31 deadline comes he intends to file relocation papers with the NBA. League commissioner David Stern would then appoint a relocation committee to review the application. Ultimately, the board of governors, which includes representatives from each team, would vote on the application. A simple majority is required, and a relocation fee would be set.

Most recently, the Charlotte Hornets paid $30 million to move to New Orleans in 2002.

Bennett also told his employees that the Seattle Storm would remain with the Sonics wherever they end up, and that whether the Storm would play its 2008 season in Seattle would be determined around December.

Where the Storm play ultimately could suggest where the Sonics end up.

When one employee asked if the Storm’s destiny would suggest where the Sonics play in 2008-09, Bennett, the source said, declined to answer. Terry McLaughlin, executive vice president of administration, then stepped in and ended the session.

“He basically said that the only way an arena is going to get done in Seattle is if something falls out of the sky,” the source said. “Those were his exact words.”

Since Bennett’s ownership group purchased the Sonics in July 2006 he has remained steadfast that the team’s priority is to remain to Seattle.

Recent events have served to undermine those sentiments.

Two weeks ago Aubrey McClendon, a part owner of the Sonics, was quoted in an Oklahoma City business journal saying the ownership group wanted to bring the Sonics back to Oklahoma City all along. The NBA fined McClendon $250,000 for his comments, and the Sonics placed a gag order on McClendon.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels has said he will enforce the Sonics’ lease agreement with the city, which runs until 2010.

To strengthen that agreement, the Seattle City Council proposed creating an ordinance that would bind the team to the KeyArena lease until 2010. The earliest the council would vote on the proposed measure would be Sept. 10.

Eric D. Williams: 253-597-8437

eric.williams@thenewstribune.com

Wow o Wow. Thats big. I would support the city in paying for the relocation costs. But would other residents?

Lets say it cost $50 million to move the team, would there be a groundswell of support to have the city pay for it? I hope so.

Isn't there a possibility of them having those funds socked away already...I know they already have the renovation funds set aside

Don't really know, but it seems like those things are already promised and wouldn't require a vote...No way he brings them here w/o guarantees

I was just on the seattle times forum. Man those guys piss me off to no end. I refuse to post on there because I might say something i might regret.

Do they have the funds already packed away for the ford center upgrades? Any idea how much they are going to put on renovations?

I think they said that there was $50 million set aside to bring the Ford Center up to NBA standard.

What a traitorous 'Source' .. I'm hoping he wasn't an employee but if he was, hopefully, he'll get outed and fired. Big mouth.

I suspect Clay knew this would get out. You can't talk to a hundred employees who are residents of the city you're at least discussin moving from and assume someone's not going to leak it to the press. It could be another attempt to fire up the Washington politicians (how many chances should they get?) and/or a way to send a message to OKC that they will expect some help. Remember, Kansas City is probably getting desperate enough to promise anything.

There would be tampering issues if he and Mick have already planned this out, I think, so hopefully this is either hypothetical or something they discussed long ago, like when they were putting together a package for Shinn.

The safest thing is not to discuss anything with the Seattle forum members, Adonis, so in my opinion you're doing the right thing. One never knows what one might say that would be interpreted wrongly and could cause trouble. I agree they are really aggravating. But they find us aggravating too, and it's not all the posters. It never is. What I don't understand is why the New Orleans posters aren't all excited at the prospect of the Sonics moving to OKC. That would completely eliminate one of their biggest threats for the Hornets moving. It's rather arrogant to assume everything is going to be fine in NO, as their lease isn't so long either and they're having to work to sell tickets.

I was just on the seattle times forum. Man those guys piss me off to no end. I refuse to post on there because I might say something i might regret.

Do they have the funds already packed away for the ford center upgrades? Any idea how much they are going to put on renovations?

No reason you can't defend OKC and try and diffuse some of their anger with some humor thrown in

I actually consider myself an OKC ambassador on there...Pretty important stuff being discussed :drunk:

I've already won over all kinds of people...(If by saying all kinds you really mean zero)

The article points out that the city may make breaking the lease too costly for Bennett...If what Bennett said in the previous article is true....OKC will be paying for it anyway....Kind of takes away some of the power of that argument doesn't it


Can lease keep Sonics here?

By Jim Brunner
Seattle Times staff reporter

Seattle politicians are talking tough about the Sonics' lease at city-owned KeyArena.

Mayor Greg Nickels says he'll force the Sonics to remain through the end of the lease in September 2010, despite owner Clay Bennett's stated desire to take the team to Oklahoma if he doesn't get a deal for a new arena in the next two months.

City Council members say they'll introduce legislation prohibiting any early buyout.

But can city officials really chain the Sonics to KeyArena for three more years?

As a general rule, tenants cannot be forced to stay until the end of a lease; landlords can merely collect monetary damages for breach of contract.

But the Sonics' lease contains language that could allow the city to reject an early buyout. The single paragraph, known as a "specific performance" clause, essentially says the city can require the Sonics to stay at KeyArena for the full term.

At the very least, the city could use that clause to obtain a court order to delay a Sonics move, several experts in contract and sports law predicted.

The experts warned, though, that the contract language is not ironclad and that courts could eventually allow Bennett to buy his way out of the Sonics' lease. (The Storm's lease also runs until 2010, but it allows the team to opt out after any season.)

Seattle officials say they're aware of the legal uncertainties but are confident they would prevail in court.

"We're in as good a position as a city can be to hold a sports tenant to a lease," said City Attorney Tom Carr, who has assigned a city lawyer to prepare to defend the lease.

A Bennett spokesman declined to comment on the matter. Although Bennett has not said he would sue to break the lease, he has indicated he would like to negotiate an early exit. Bennett also has said he'll seek NBA permission to relocate the Sonics and Storm if he doesn't get an arena deal in the Seattle area by Oct. 31.

If it comes down to a fight, the specific-performance clause in the Sonics' lease could give the city important legal leverage. While it would not permanently prevent a move, the clause could jack up a settlement price or even encourage a team sale.

"That's the silver bullet," said Fred Nance, a Cleveland attorney who used similar lease language to fight Browns owner Art Modell's efforts to move the NFL team to Baltimore in the mid-1990s.

Nance said the language in the Browns' lease allowed the city to get an injunction requiring the team to play the remaining three seasons on its lease at Cleveland Municipal Stadium. That prompted Modell and the NFL to negotiate a deal that eventually allowed the team to move to Baltimore but guaranteed Cleveland an expansion franchise that kept the Browns name.

In 1996, King County relied on similar language in the Seahawks' Kingdome lease to halt then-owner Ken Behring's plans to take the team to California. Behring still had 10 years left on his lease at the Kingdome, and the county got a temporary injunction to stop him from leaving. That gave local officials time to broker the team's sale to billionaire Paul Allen and devise a new stadium deal.

The case never went to trial, so it's unclear whether Behring would have prevailed.

Legal experts said judges usually rule that tenants can escape leases provided they pay enough money.

"The general rule in contract remedies is you are only entitled to the economic expectation or its equivalent. You are not entitled to their actual performance of the contract," said Kate O'Neill, a University of Washington law professor who teaches contract law.

Alfred Brophy, a law professor at the University of Alabama, said judges typically enforce specific-performance clauses in leases only when "there is no other kind of relief that would make you whole." In this case, he said, Sonics' owners and the city probably could estimate the amount of money lost from an early Sonics exit.

"That might be an enormous amount of money," said Brophy, an expert in landlord-tenant law. It might even be enough money to make breaking the lease too costly for Bennett, he added.


It is difficult to know exactly how much Bennett would have to pay if he were allowed to leave KeyArena early. At the very least, the Sonics' lease says the team would have to pay the remaining years of rent through 2010. The team also would have to reimburse the city for its share of luxury-suite and concessions revenue. In all, the city estimates in recent years it has received between $8 million and $11 million annually from Sonics and Storm games.

City lawyers also likely would argue for additional damages based on the economic impact on Seattle Center and the surrounding neighborhood. However, the lease also says the team would get credit if any new events were booked at the arena that offset the city's losses.

Michael McCann, a law professor at Mississippi College, said that if the Sonics' lease does wind up in court, elected judges might feel public pressure to prevent, at least temporarily, a sports franchise from leaving town. But usually, he said, courts eventually rule that a buyout is legal.

"I honestly think this will get negotiated. There is a monetary value to it [the lease]. An economist would say everything has a price," said McCann, who contributes to Sports Law Blog (http://sports-law.blogspot.com).

However, McCann said, lawsuits by the city or fans could drag on long enough to achieve their purpose, even if they ultimately lose in court.

"I think it will delay the process, and I think that delay will enable a local ownership group to get involved. The longer it drags out, the more likely they will stay," he said.

That "hypothetical" by Bennett paints OKC in a bad light IMO.

It shows the city has been actively negotiating with him in great detail and is willing to finance a legal battle against another city.

None of this is surprising, and I'm encouraged to see OKC so aggressive, but if I lived in Seattle I'd be very upset by all this.

I wonder if KC and Vegas offered up similar concessions in their discussions/packages to Bennett

All those hypothetical things might just be common enticements for all we know

Seems Bennett and co. are up to something....First Aubrey speaks out and now they have a closed door meeting w/ employees 2 months b4 the deadline knowing good and well word would get out since they all live in Seattle

Okc was discussing packages with Shinn to relocate the Hornets to Okc. So I am sure that Bennett knows the package that the Hornets were to receive, and can safely assume that his Sonics would receive a similar incentive package to relocate.

Okc was discussing packages with Shinn to relocate the Hornets to Okc. So I am sure that Bennett knows the package that the Hornets were to receive, and can safely assume that his Sonics would receive a similar incentive package to relocate.

Good call...Makes complete sense...Never thought of it that way

I liked the article and basically agree with it. I think that the case will probably end up in Washington state court since there's a lack of complete diversity here (federal courts can't preside over cases where any of the plaintiffs are from the same state as any of the defendants) unless there's some sort of question of federal law here (which I'm not sure about, but I don't see how there could be such a question which would share a factual nexus with this contract/lease agreement).

As a matter of law, however, I don't see how the Washington court can order the "specific performance" it seeks. I've looked through case law and any time where it's possible to award monetary damages, that has to be the remedy.

In this case, I'd have to look at the terms of the lease, but one thing's for sure -- the damages sought may not be speculative. The city of Seattle is going to have to make an iron clad case to prove its damages.

I think the article's right -- the legal processes here can take months, sometimes years to work out. Suing on the lease could very well prove to be an effective delay tactic for Seattle unless the Sonics group can keep the court from issuing an injunction keeping them in Seattle (which I think an injunction probably will issue here). If an injunction issues, we're probably looking 1 or 2 years out at best.

I think this issue is great politically for the folks back in Washington. Fighting this thing, dragging it out in dramatic fashion is a great way for politicians to impress their constituents. I don't think there's really any incentive for these guys to work with OKC.

The real wild card here is the NBA. If the league intercedes with a directive that the Sonics are to play their next season in OKC, things could get very interesting. I think the chances of that are 50/50. From what I've read, it is possible to imply that Bennett really thinks the Sonics are about to relocate (not to mention the words out of McClendon's mouth). These guys wouldn't be acting in such a manner unless they were confident as to how this was going to play out.

That's pure speculation on my part, but typically, businessmen do not behave as if they've won until they have.

I agree that the wild card here is the NBA. What does David Stern really want? There have been occasions when he's taken the side of the owner over a city, such as Vancouver. But in the case of Sacramento, the city voted down funding for a new arena and he's trying to get private funds to get it built. There's no news about the Maloofs getting to take their team to Vegas, which is probably what they'd really like. Paul Allen ended up stuck in Portland, at least partly because of his long term agreement with the city to keep the Blazers there.

Stern's between a rock and a hard place because if he forces Bennett et al to stay in Seattle without a new arena, he's just given all cities permission to stand fast against the threat to move a team. If he lets the team move, he's ignoring 40 years of tradition in Seattle. Not a good position to be in. He's gone there personally and not made any progress. My gut feeling is that he will allow the team to move if no arena deal is forthcoming, simply to show other cities what it takes to keep a team. But I'm not 100% sure I'm right. I'm not so sure he'll allow a court battle, though. If Bennett cannot buy his way out, it may be a three year wait.

Stern and the NBA owe OKC & Bennett a huge debt because we provided a great situation for the Hornets, supported them very well, then politely let them go back to NOLA without a fuss.

Not long after, Bennett et al buys the Sonics with the express intention of cashing in that good will.

They just need to keep their mouths shut and let the NBA pay them back this favor without these stories turning up in the press, making their support more difficult.


And I don't believe there was ever a negotiation with the Hornets to stay longer than those two years, so I doubt very seriously that the terms outlined by Bennett were from that situation. Remember, Clay and his partners were rejected when they approached Shin and never did own part of that team. They just help to temporarily host them.

And the whole time, the NBA kept saying the team had to go back to New Orleans. I don't think they ever got that far with OKC in terms of discussing a specific deal.

Yeah Malibu, but you must remember that Clay is from OKC and surely he and Cornett discussed the aformentioned - which Im sure Clay presented to Shinn in his bid to become a part owner. Surely, permanent relocation to OKC was discussed and the terms Bennett outlined sounds exactly like what would have been offered by the city (since the city did much of that anyways during the 2 year stay).

I think Clay may have had a few conversations off the record with Cornett basically to say "Mick, do you think we'd have those same terms?", Cornett, "Yes", end of conversation. I dont think there's anything too wrong with that, as that is how business works and usually OKC is at the butt end of the stick but this time OKC is on the front!!

And, like others have mentioned - it appears that Bennett PROBABLY (not possibly) already has the majority vote from the NBA and he may be already ready for the court battle.

Im not soo sure the case would HAVE to go to a WA court (vs. a Federal) because NONE of the ownership group (the Plaintiff) like in Washington. The Professional Basketball Club LLC is based in OKC, and they are the plaintiffs. Furthermore, Seattle is a municipality based in WA, so wouldn't there be some 'conflict of interest?' if it went to a Washington court - just like someone would also claim if it went to an Oklahoma court. I think it has to go to Federal, and most probably - New York City - since that ist where the NBA is based. After all, we are talking about an NBA business and ultimately NYC is where the NBA is headquartered.

I loved the Tacoma newspaper article.. For ONCE, we have an article that is not biased - is level headed and JUST reported the facts..... If ONLY the Daily Oklahoman, Journal Record, Seattle Times, and Seattle PI could learn from the Tacoma News Tribune. Isn't it funny, the Tacoma paper is the smallest of the aformentioned news agencies, yet it reports facts and not inuendo. But I digress.

One more thing you guys need to know is, back when Clay bought the team - he put together a proposal where he wanted to show the economic benefit (value added) that the Sonics had on the city of Seattle. I think the figure was $60M annually, based on the lease and side businesses and spin-offs. YET, the city of Seattle came back with an even BETTER presentation where they said the Sonics contributed NO economic value to the city. .......

Now, this was when Bennett wanted to stay in Seattle - and NOW that Bennett wants to leave, it looks like the city wants to FORGET that presentation and ALL OF SUDDEN, Ooooh - Yea uuuh, the Sonics owe us this and that.

Not gonna happen. Bennett dropped his proposal (of course) and the city "won" that "battle", an agreement of such that implies - the city of Seattle must be correct, the Sonics add no economic value to Seattle..

Im positive this will come up again, and this time - Bennett will use the city's own words against them (and should prevail as such). Of course, the city will NOW find someone who will NOW say, Oh, the sonics add this and that; but since the battle was already decided in the city's "favor..." last year, there is NO WAY NOW THAT SOMEONE COULD CLAIM OTHERWISE.....

So, I guess.. Bennett will need to pay $8-10M for 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 plus the NBA relocation fees. That's it!

Goes to show you how dumb Seattle really is yet they think they are so all of that. I can say this because I am a resident here and this place always acts so elitist on their high horse because Bill Gates (et al) are local residents. Big Deal!! Bill didn't buy the Sonics for the sake of "Seattle Pride" and aint either. Yet a few people here want to act like Seattle is untouchable because it is so green.

Well, that green aint money, and surely OKC is going to teach Seattle a BIG lesson that you NEVER sit complacent on what you have when there are others who desire to be like you. ...

New York and Chicago know this, yet it hasn't sunk in to little ole Seattle yet. ..

I agree about the aformentioned sentiments coming from New Orleans. You would think that they'd support OKC's Sonics position since it takes out the #1 competition they have for the Hornets (since the market already exists in OKC for the Hornets). Surely, if put head to head - OKC would beat NOLA by a very wide margin (esp since OKC even beats Seattle by a significant margin as well).

You'd think that decorum (sp?) would set in the Cresent City and they'd be rooting for the "hicks" in the Renaissance City of OKC to get the Sonics. Yet, they are apparently either too stupid or otherwise mis-informed about the impact that OKC's pursuit and success of landing the Sonics would mean to them. IE, New Orleans would not have to worry any more about their MOST SERIOUS COMPETITOR.

KC or Vegas or (dare I say) Louisville or Seattle, all would be starting from the ground UP to try to get the Hornets, with KC most probable now being the #1 competitor given the Sprint Center. I think New Orleans should be concentrating on 1) supporting the Hornets THIS TIME while they are there and 2) be worrying about KC first, and Vegas esp if that arena that was proposed there gets built (which would surely launch Vegas ahead of KC).

Yet you can't teach a horse how to drink, you can only lead him to the water. And in this case, New Orleans aint drinkin' - instead, they are just trying to cause trouble for OKC or doing everyting anti-OKC just for a vendetta.

Dont they know that it was OKC that saved their team???? And rebuilt a significant portion of their city!!!?

Looks like the Seattle sportswriters are finally waking up...Getting close to the deadline so they are trying to rally the troops...Reeks a little of desperation though...Hope Bennett and crew know what they are doing by throwing out all of the recent fighting words...Sure isn't winning us any fans on the national stage

Time for Sonics' fans, leaders to fight exit strategy

By Steve Kelley
Seattle Times staff columnist

Call it "The Montreal Expos Exit Strategy."

Because that's what this August offensive from the wanderlusting Sonics ownership feels like.

The strategy seems something like this:

Let inflammatory comments slip from purposely loose lips, creating an adversarial relationship. Operate the team on a shoestring. Alienate the politicians and the fans.

Declare war and then backpedal. Declare war and then backpedal. Talk tough and then "aw shucks" some lame, clarifying statement.

Lose a lot of games. Finally throw your hands up in the air. Explain to the powers that be how misunderstood you feel. Tell them you've tried everything in this town and nothing works. Show them the dwindling attendance figures, then declare, "It's time for us to go."

On second thought, the strategy of the new Sonics ownership seems eerily like the plot line from the movie, "Major League," with Sonics chairman Clay Bennett reprising Margaret Whitton's role in the film.

Minority owner Aubrey "The Oil Man" McClendon fired the first shot, telling an Oklahoma City business journal it was the ownership's intention all along to move the Sonics to OKC.

Back in New York, commissioner David Stern has enough problems, dealing with a cheat of an official, Tim Donaghy, who appears to be ready to blow his whistle on several colleagues.

Stern also is trying to get an arena deal finished in Sacramento. He already has serious problem-franchises in medium-sized cities like Memphis, Charlotte and New Orleans. And his great game is suffering from perception problems and stagnant television ratings.

He wants, you could almost say needs, a team in Seattle. He wants the renewed buzz Portland's Greg Oden and Seattle's Kevin Durant could generate in the Northwest, one of the league's best rivalries.

Stern already is up to the knot in his tie in troubles. And the last thing he wanted in this summer of discontent was some newbie, some calculating, shoot-from-lip yay-hoo, complicating his life.

His $250,000 fine of McClendon was significant, not so much for its size. (That's walking-around money for Oil Man Aubrey.) It was significant because it was a very public reprimand and something you know Stern didn't want to do.

Now comes news, broken by the Tacoma News Tribune, that in meetings in Seattle with Sonics staff on Friday, Bennett outlined a plan that is in place to move the team out of Seattle.

According to the Tacoma paper, Bennett told the staff that Oklahoma City was willing to pay legal fees if Seattle fought to force the Sonics to honor their lease. He said that city would pay the lease's buyout and whatever relocation fees that would be assessed by the league.

That's how much loyalty Bennett has engendered among his staff. It seems as if at least one staff member ratted him out.

If all Bennett says is true,
Oklahoma City seems prepared to sink almost $700 million into the quest to bring the Sonics to the Southwest.

Bennett called the plan "a hypothetical." But it sounds as hypothetical as Newton's Law.

These robber barons want to move the team, period.

And this detailed relocation plan is a sobering call to arms for Seattle's mayor and city council, for the governor and the state Legislature. And a call for help from this city to Stern.

This situation has gotten so ugly and so contentious, Stern almost has to get involved.

And, I believe, if this area can finalize a viable arena deal that already is in discussion, he will find a way to keep the team in Greater Seattle.

The problem with "The Montreal Expos/'Major League' Exit Strategy," is that Seattle isn't Montreal. And the only way the league is going to allow Bennett to move is if the city or the state does nothing.

There are very wealthy people in this area who also are passionate about the NBA and the Sonics. And it is absolutely essential that they get together with Mayor Greg Nickels and Gov. Christine Gregoire and put together a plan that keeps the team here.

Accidentally, but effectively, Bennett and McClendon have strengthened the resolve of this area to get an arena deal done. They've awakened the slumbering politicians and angered the wealthy hoop fans.

Bennett told the Tacoma paper he believed Sonics fans were directing their anger at the wrong person. He said they should be upset at the previous ownership group, led by Howard Schultz, for being so naive as to sell the team to outside ownership.

It was as if Bennett were saying, "Look, I know I'm a snake, but I didn't sell this team to myself."

Nobody will argue that Schultz sold out Seattle. He's as much a villain in this story as the OKC Chorale.

But Howard Schultz is old news.

It's time to turn our attention away from the evil doers from Oklahoma and to the matter at hand — finalizing a plan that impresses Stern and keeps the Sonics in Seattle.

The fight is on.

Steve Kelley: 206-464-2176 or skelley@seattletimes.com. More columns at Columnists | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://www.seattletimes.com/columnists)

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

Well we're counting the days...I still don't see anything changing their minds in that close of a countdown. Seattle politicians would have to completely change direction to pull that rabbit out of their bums.

I am surprised OKC is willing to put out that much cash for Bennet though. I'm wondering what sort of deal they would be making with him for that money...a locked in unbreakable time due here in OKC, or maybe some larger portion of profits?

I don't know what we're offering Piper in terms of concessions if the business moves here, but Albuquerque is offering around 80 million. I suppose you could look at this as something similar. Again, think of what you would pay for a minute of advertising on ESPN every night from October through April every year. And, as we have discussed, retention of college graduates would have to be improved with a professional team, not to mention some businesses being more likely to relocate. I don't think you can really prove that a professional team provides a huge economic boost to a city from real dollars, as a lot of it is from entertainment money that would be spent somewhere in the city anyway. But I think the other advantages are clear, and I have no problem with Bennett being given financial help to relocate, if he applies for relocation.

Well we're counting the days...I still don't see anything changing their minds in that close of a countdown. Seattle politicians would have to completely change direction to pull that rabbit out of their bums.

I am surprised OKC is willing to put out that much cash for Bennet though. I'm wondering what sort of deal they would be making with him for that money...a locked in unbreakable time due here in OKC, or maybe some larger portion of profits?

bomber, I think you and others have missed the fact that Bennett officially said he has not officially met with Cornett or the city of OKC, as well as Cornett has also said the same. There has been no "official offer" from the city of OKC but you know we'll be willing to put up a good hand. The city already has money put aside for Ford upgrades, etc. I'm all for it. It won't be as much money as the Seattle folks are thinking.

Oklahoma City seems prepared to sink almost $700 million into the quest to bring the Sonics to the Southwest


wow... I can see in some ways why some in Seattle are fed up with paying this kind of money out - ie salaries to the players, owner's profits etc etc .. when I actually think of how many people could use that money for health care and basic necessities, it does seem a little excessive for a sports team.

I agree w/ Metro...I think that figure was thrown out there to make the Seattle based article more effective...Doubt very seriously the city has discussed paying out anywhere near that amount

I am still left wondering what Aubrey and Clay are up to....Why wouldn't this closed door meeting take place after Nov 1st?....I could sort of accept Aubrey's as just a slip (still suspicious), but now with this I think they are up to something and I just can't figure out what it is

Are they just losing it?....I don't see how any of this helps in any way whatsoever

The Seattle fans don't seem to be doing anything to keep their team. There are people trying to organize things , but all they get is a hand full of people show up.

The the forums are any indicator. They are relying on a 40 year history and a bolt of lighting striking the BOG, to keep their team.

Everytime one of the reporters sounds off, there is a ripple ing the water for a few days. Then it's back to the same winers in the forums.

I agree w/ Metro...I think that figure was thrown out there to make the Seattle based article more effective...Doubt very seriously the city has discussed paying out anywhere near that amount

I agree. I'm no economist, but I seriously doubt these sports writers consulted such an oracle. How much OKC is willing to spend depends upon a lot of unresolved variables. It's sad that the Seattle media has resorted to making up facts in order to make their point. Not even the staff of the Oklahoman pulls such numbers out of thin air.

Only way I can see the figure hitting 700 million is if they are including a new arena down the road.

Now the question is...Is Clay willing to wait out the 3 years if need be or will they sell off and look for another franchise?

If the Sonics can't leave Seattle ever, and there's no new arena, Bennett et al would be better off with the Grizzlies, because they have a new arena, and they make money when they're doing well. But I don't see any other franchise that might be for sale that can move right now. The Hornets are potentially moveable, but Shinn will not sell. If Stern decided he really wants to keep the Sonics in Seattle, the right thing to do would be to offer Bennett an expansion franchise. Of course, he'd also have to find a buyer for the Sonics who would be willing to over pay for the team.

That's probably the best argument for the Sonics' moving. Without a new arena, if the team is unable to move, no one is going to want to buy them. It's a really bad deal from an ownership standpoint, and ultimately, Stern works for the owners and the league, not the cities. If cities can hold teams hostage, and refuse to build arenas and yet the commissioner won't let them move, it's going to be difficult to find people interested in buying a team, ultimately.

I know it's not an official statement metro, that's why I was just voicing an interest in what all is involved in the supposed "deal".

Guys, definitely it appears that people here are now convinced that the Sonics are gone. The forums often have those hot-heads who need to use the forums to vent, but the sentiment here is - let them go.

Now, as for the 700M, I think Seattle media came up with that based on the costs HERE, not in OKC. Im sure they came up with 500M for a new arena, 100M for Ford renovations, and 100M to relocate.

I think the true costs will be:

$30M to the NBA, relocation fee to the owners (to get their yes vote)
$20M to the city of Seattle, (10M per year, which is way above the lease but would be more than enough to convince a judge to rule in favor of Bennett should he need to go to court).
$10M to actually move
$20M contingency
$30M in marketing, you need to hype up the team and the probability of a new name

I bet the city of Oklahoma City would foot half of that, plus:

$50M in Ford Center renovations (money they already have, so this is sunk cost)
$200M for a new arena (prices would still be cheaper in OKC for a state-of-the-art arena, this number is assuming the final cost of Ford to be roughly 150M, 200M doesn't see that far off)
$20M for a state-of-the-art practice facility (which i hope is built at OCU, to put the team in the community AND split the cost with OCU; total cost would be $40M)
$50M in contingency (which if not used, could go to extending the downtown light rail trolley to the new arena)
Total new capital cost to OKC = $270M (the $50M for Ford already exists)

Grand Total new cost to OKC = $320M (assuming OKC would pay $50M for: 30M NBA relo fee, 10M moving expenses, 15M which is half of the marketing, 5M which is a quarter of the pymt to Seattle)

So, I come up with half of the 700M the Seattle media published, 320M is very generous and seems reasonable for OKC to pay. Bennett would still need to pay $60M, which for them is a drop in the bucket. I also think Bennett and Co. might add some money to the new arena on top of the 200M from the city, possibly 50M to have all of the bells and whistles; so their total cost could be 110M. This is not far at all from what they offered Seattle for the Renton arena, yet in OKC they not only get the best arena in the NBA but also a move to OKC and a new market.

And, the members of the Pro BBall LLC having the franchise in OKC gives them so much incentive to offer executives and new recruits to their businesses!!! And, the notoriety that the franchise gives to OKC, and the fact that OKC would have pro sports year round (NBA and WNBA), and would finally be in the Tier II club, ..

I think this all is too good NOT to invest in OKC. Bennett and the guys are from OKC, so why not? It's about time somebody believed in OKC and really did something that really makes the quality of life better, IN OKLAHOMA CITY!!!!

Not Nashville, or Dallas, or wherever else our OKC big shots always seem to want to invest. Finally, somebody invests in OKC!! and this will ONLY ensure that OKC continues to grow (but at a much faster pace).

I like it!!! I can't wait!!!

It's so funny how much of this boils down to ego. OKC wants it to elevate its image to a major league tier. Seattle doesn't really want the team, per se, but many of their egos can't take losing it to another city, especially a smaller market city like OKC. Of course, at the end of the day, I don't think that Seattle losing the Sonics will hurt that city nearly as much (if at all) as it would help the OKC market.

I'll admit, though, that 320 million (HOT ROD's estimate) of capital from the city seems a bit ridiculous given some of our other real community needs (infrastructure, health care, education, etc.). I don't nessessarily think that it's a bad investment or that the city would not get some real tangible economic beneifit from it in the end. I just wish that we could get the same kind of support for projects that would directly impact all of the community. That's probably more of a statewide concern as MAPS, MAPS II, and MAPS for Kids have shown that the city is willing to spend money on its community and tax itself to pay for it, but I think we have a harder time getting the state to do the same.

BDP, my estimate ($320M) is not all right away tho. It's spread out over probably 10 years or more,... ?

OKC would probably only need to foot $60M or so within the next few years to get the Sonics, I dont think that is bad at all. And $200M or so for a new arena is also a bargain (considering in Seattle it would cost $500M+ for comparable).

Im also guessing at best, perhaps Bennett and company would fund more of the arena, maybe a 50/50 split?? I dont know. Im just assuming that the city would pick-up most if not all of the cost. And judging Ford Center's expected final cost, I think my estimate is probably pretty close (yet still half of the Seattle media estimates).

I definitely agree with you, that the loss of the NBA to Seattle means very little in the short or long run, especially compared to the gain that OKC will get with having the NBA.

Heck, the proof of this is just look at OKC now, after hosting the Hornets for 2 years - OKC is actually not only a contender for events but the city actually hosts them now (instead of JUST being a pawn like in the past).

And certainly, having a permanent franchise will only elevate the city to permanent major league status! The city should have NO TROUBLE getting events and businesses with that type of quality of life, attractions.

With the Ford Center and Myriad already being multi-purpose arenas, a new NBA specific arena would be less than half the cost of a multi-purpose arena planned for Seattle. I think at some point the state will get involved in helping pay some of the costs related to hosting the Sonics, or whatever they end up being called. I could even see the Storm playing in Tulsa's new arena and being called the Oklahoma Storm to intice the state to put some money up.

It would be awesome if they built a basketball specific arena for the Sonics if they were to come. Crowd right on top of the court... best home court in the NBA.

I have a question for the masses. What would everyone’s requirement be for a new basketball arena?

Here are some things I would want.

- 21,000 seating capacity
- 100 Suites
- I would want the seats to be close to the court and it built acoustically so the damn thing would be loud.
- State of the art scoreboard and sound system
- Signature exterior design with stucco. (I kid) But seriously something that looks urban.
- Lots of tree’s and water around the outside of the building.

I want it to be built at the bottom of a lake.. underwater.. with sharks swimming around outside.

-- and free wifi.

BDP- There wasn't a seperate MAPS II, MAPS for Kids was "MAPS II" if you will. MAPS 3 would be a possible new arena and other projects.

Kerry- Bennett has already publicly said many times that he is not splitting up the Sonics and Storm. He mentioned the Storm will stay/go and play wherever the Sonics play. So if they do move to OKC, then the Storm will also play in OKC. Tulsa will not be an option.

OUAdonis- so are you wanting a castle type arena proposed by mranderson with a moat around it? He called it Heartland Castle, I personally think a castle would look funny in urban OKC. Too Excalibur/Vegasesque.

I have a question for the masses. What would everyone’s requirement be for a new basketball arena?

Two words:


RETRACTABLE DOME!

:LolLolLol

http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/8728-maps-iii-redux.html?highlight=heartland+castle#post81743

... with sharks swimming around outside...
With laser beams attatched to their heads.....

Would someone throw me a freakin' bone here people!!!

Thank you for setting the Heartland Castle record straight CuatrodeMayo. I would like to limit seating to 19,500. One of the problems Charlotte has is too many seats. They could never build a sense of urgency in the fan base to buy season tickets beacuse they know single game seats will always be available.

From today's NewsOK:

sheesh...

Wed August 29, 2007
Cornett disputes report on Sonics, Bennett


By The Associated Press
Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett said Wednesday that reports in a Washington newspaper that seem to indicate city officials have spoken with members of the Seattle SuperSonics' ownership group about a possible move are "preposterous."


Cornett told The Associated Press the city's official position regarding its attempts to land an NBA franchise have not changed.

"We're not proactively pursuing any specific franchise right now and don't feel like it's appropriate to do so," Cornett said. "...We are poised and ready (and) if a franchise becomes available, we will pursue it vigorously."

The Tacoma News Tribune, citing an anonymous employee of the Sonics, reported Saturday that Clay Bennett, an Oklahoma City businessman and the leader of the team's ownership group, told team employees during a meeting last week that Oklahoma City would pay the team's expenses should it relocate to the Sooner State.

The newspaper reported that during the meeting, Bennett offered details of what Oklahoma City would do if the team tried to relocate, including paying legal fees involving the team's possible attempt to break its lease at Seattle's KeyArena, any settlement to buy out the lease, all relocation fees assessed by the NBA, the cost of the physical move of team staff and offices and the cost of upgrading the Ford Center in Oklahoma City and building a new arena.

Bennett told the Tacoma newspaper last week that his comments were only hypothetical.

"The context of my response was after being asked the question 'How could Oklahoma City possibly be a competitive market to Seattle?' And my answer is because Oklahoma City is a medium marketplace that highly values the opportunity to obtain an NBA franchise, not unlike any community or any state would value the pursuit of any other highly additive economic development opportunity, such as the value of a manufacturing plant or corporate headquarters," Bennett said.

"The response was an attempt to provide some clarity as (to) why it is so important that Seattle respond and recognize at once that the team is at risk. Without a successor venue at KeyArena, and without a modern facility, the team cannot remain economically viable in the marketplace."

Dan Mahoney, a spokesman for Bennett, said Wednesday that Bennett would have no further comment on the issue.

Cornett said the story "just seemed to indicate that we had discussed a relocation of the Sonics to Oklahoma City, and we have not." He said that Oklahoma City officials "are certainly aware of what's going on in Seattle, but it's not appropriate to have the level of discussion that that article said (Bennett) had (with Oklahoma City). I found it preposterous."

Cornett acknowledged that he speaks frequently with Bennett "about what's going on in the city ... but we also know what's appropriate and what's not. Clay is going to do what he said he was going to do. I knew that from the moment he said he would try to get a deal in Seattle."

The Sonics' ownership group has set a deadline of Oct. 31 to secure an agreement for a new arena in the Seattle area. If a deal is not in place by then, Bennett has said will begin the league's process of relocation the Sonics to Oklahoma City, which served as the temporary home the past two seasons for the New Orleans Hornets, who had been displaced by Hurricane Katrina.

The Sonics' lease at KeyArena runs through 2010. Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and Bennett have spent much of the past month arguing about the team's future.

Bennett accused Nickels of focusing on "unworkable concepts" after a proposal by Nickels to remodel KeyArena or build another area at the same site, and Nickels responded that "if Mr. Bennett wants to limit the conversation to an early buy-out of the team's lease at KeyArena, then ... a trip to Seattle isn't worth the price of the plane ticket."

Cornett said the Ford Center, in which the Hornets played the past two seasons, "is more than adequate for an NBA team," but that city officials are "in the beginning stages of what might be next," and that long-term plans could include "a replacement for the Ford Center."

Wonderful game of cat and mouse isn't it? IMO Cornett blew it by mentioning the "plans" to upgrade and replace Ford Center...

What would everyone’s requirement be for a new basketball arena?

For me personally, location is the most important thing and I don't think you get much better than the Ford Center. Easy to park and not get bogged down after an event, right downtown, proximity to other convention and entertainment facilities to increase synergy and attractiveness, and real pedestrian access that even Oklahomans don't complain about that much. The Ford Center has all of that and, to me, that's the most important thing.

#2 is more suites. I think we need to double the suites of the Ford Center. One row below and one above the club level would be perfect in my mind

Beyond that, we get into superficial and aesthetic considerations. I don't mind the Ford Center's look, but it could use a better central plaza with a few more amenities such as bars and restaurants. If you keep the location central to other attractions those businesses could also serve the CBD and bricktown crowd on a daily basis, increasing the value of their leases and maybe even putting some downward pressure on their prices as they wouldn't have to rely on 100 days to generate revenue. It also could be more comfortable throughout the arena.

But whatever we do, I think it would be a big mistake to move it any further from the CBD/convention area or bricktown than the Ford Center is. The best part about basketball in OKC is how convenient it is and how easy it is to both get in and out when just going to the game and to make a night of it by going out before and after the game in downtown. You move it even a few blocks away and you change that dynamic and lose much of the benefits garnered from being in a good location. Obviously, good public transportation mitigates that to a degree, but I think we're still so far away from that, that it should be placed with a park and walk, not park and ride, infrastructure in mind.

Wonderful game of cat and mouse isn't it? IMO Cornett blew it by mentioning the "plans" to upgrade and replace Ford Center...

Well, in fairness to Mayor Mick, it seems he's been preoccupied with other matters these days . . . like his blossoming modeling career

Mayor's Convention - Esquire (http://www.esquire.com/style/style/hizzoner0907-2)

Man...he's lookin dapper.

Well, in fairness to Mayor Mick, it seems he's been preoccupied with other matters these days . . . like his blossoming modeling career

Mayor's Convention - Esquire (http://www.esquire.com/style/style/hizzoner0907-2)

With the way things have been going I'm surprised it didn't include "Landing the Sonics" under the Projects heading in that article

I wish I had the honor of starting a thread that's pushing 35 pages.

I feel so unimportant.

For me personally, location is the most important thing and I don't think you get much better than the Ford Center. Easy to park and not get bogged down after an event, right downtown, proximity to other convention and entertainment facilities to increase synergy and attractiveness, and real pedestrian access that even Oklahomans don't complain about that much. The Ford Center has all of that and, to me, that's the most important thing.


I've got a friend that's part of the mgmt team at Ford/Cox and she's told me she has seen a master plan with a new convention center south of the Ford Center and the new arena where the Cox Center is now.

That sounds perfect to me.

Wow that's quite a project, but I agree that would be perfect. I guess we'd have to build the convention center first (and maybe get that convention hotel we've all be hoping for), then tear down the Cox Center (Just the Arena or the whole thing?), and then build the new arena. That would be the only way to really make it a seamless project where we don't lose conventions due to construction on or demolition to the Cox Center.