Sounds like a weak case to me. Mid?

I agree jbrown, don't even need to consult law school Mid on this one. I don't see how they can sue for specific performance, when the date hasn't even come to pass. They are suing that ticket prices won't be guaranteed through the 09-10 season. Either the Sonics can guarantee the same ticket prices for that season (may not be the same venue) OR they could refund the ticket holders money, which is something I'm sure Bennett and Co. would be willing to do if he is able to move the Sonics to OKC.

what they are suing for, is that the Sonics somehow lied to them by promising that if they bought season tix this year that the prices would be frozen for the next two; and somehow, the fans claim that implies that the Sonics will be here in Seattle.

Well, does the letter say the Sonics will be in SEATTLE for the next two years? Furthermore, has the Sonics even left Seattle yet?

Since the answer to both questions is NO, then I would predict that the courts wont hear the case and it will be yet another slap in the face of Seattle fans who are proving to be the biggest wussie crybabies who think the whole world owes them just because they got the franchise 40 years ago. BIG DEAL!!!

LEARN HOW TO READ NEXT TIME B4 YOU spend your money.

I mean, how could ANY sonics fan in Seattle NOT KNOW that Bennett is trying to move the team? Surely, Im sure that Bennett would freeze those prices regardless of where the team is playing.

These people up here need to GROW UP, they are only doing this to spite Bennett and the NBA, somehow make them feel vindicated by causing 'pain' for Bennett. If I were him, I'd sue Robertson or who ever were the fans who tried to sue him for fraud among other things.

Build an darn arena Seattle fans (agreement needed within a week) OR ELSE!!! It's that plain and simple.

Counting The Days!!!!! Wooooooooo!!!!

Can we really expect an announcement in 6-7 days?

I seriously doubt it... I'm guessin mid November to early December. Regardless when we get an announcement... Seattle's deadline is up.

As a matter of law, I don't think there's a case. This letter is an advertisement. Ads are not "offers' in the sense that you can just say "I accept" and form a binding contract.

These ads are messages soliciting offers (generally speaking now). That means that the offeror is the customer who says "I'd like to buy season tickets." The Sonics then have the option of saying either "I accept your offer, here's a season ticket" or "Sorry, we're out" (haha, not in Seattle!) or "We don't want to do business with you, you're the guy who keeps getting drunk at the games, please don't come ever again."

My feeling is, and at least part of my argument for the Sonics would be that when they actually accepted, the acceptance said nothing about season tickets in the future. None of the offers were conditioned on the future price and availability of tickets, nor did any of the acceptances specify that was the case.

Further, the season tickets in the future would be subsequent and separate deals. The deal we're talking about here is a season ticket for one year. The practice has been that when we buy season tickets, they are for one season and one season only. To form a binding contract there has to be a give and a take -- we call that "consideration." In this case, there is no consideration to support the contract the season ticket holders are claiming exists. The season ticket holders did nothing other than buy season tickets for one season -- they would have had to put down money on an option to buy the future tickets or something like that for there to be any sort of that necessary give and take.

In short, I think the season tickets have a creative legal argument... that and $5.00 will get you a cup of Starbuck's coffee.

Any words from the courts up there HOT ROD, I thought the courts said it would be decided in one week, which would be by close of business today PST.

none yet, but David Stern sure is UPSET with Seattle and now is almost certain the move will happen. Take a look:


SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Stern: Seattle showed 'no heart' in Sonics solutions (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/336871_arena26.html)

Stern: Seattle showed 'no heart' in Sonics solutions
Last updated October 25, 2007 3:23 p.m. PT

By GREG JOHNS
P-I REPORTER

Those expecting NBA commissioner David Stern to ride to the rescue and save Sonics basketball in Seattle might want to think again.

Speaking on a national conference call with NBA writers Thursday, Stern sounded pessimistic when asked about the Sonics' future in Seattle, saying his two trips to the area to promote an arena solution showed "there was no heart whatsoever for assisting a Sonics team."

Stern mentioned last November's passage of Initiative 91 in Seattle, which prohibits the city's ability to fund sports arenas without getting a fair-market return, calling that roadblock "unique in the annals of arena building."

He also cited his own trip to Olympia last year to testify to the state Legislature about arena funding, after which Speaker of the House Frank Chopp said extending legislation of the same taxes currently funding Safeco and Qwest fields "would only get out of committee against his strenuous objections."

Stern, who just finished two days of owner's meetings in New York, said Seattle's situation differs from other arena conflicts in terms of the seeming backlash in its own community toward a potential solution.

"I think every situation is individualized from the league's perspective," he said. "It's fair to say there was a very sort of proactive anti-Seattle Sonics movement."

Stern said he consulted with lobbyists and arena consultants hired by Clay Bennett's new ownership group, but sounded resigned to the fact the team could be moved as soon as Bennett gets out of the KeyArena lease.

Sonics owners are currently awaiting a ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo Martinez on whether they can pursue arbitration in an attempt to buy out the final two years of their KeyArena lease following the upcoming 2007-08 season. If not, Martinez will hear the City of Seattle's lawsuit that attempts to keep the team playing its games in the arena through 2010.

"We'd love to have found a path to see them stay," Stern said, "but right now it seems either they'll be there for the endurance of the lease or not, depending on the outcome (of the legal battle), or some divine inspiration for funding for a new arena.

"That's the way the owners feel about it and I feel about it."

And while Stern has been proactive in trying to broker solutions to arena conflicts in Sacramento, Vancouver and other NBA cities, he indicated no such involvement was likely forthcoming in Seattle.

"If there were a role for me, the answer is absolutely yes," he said. "But as we watch for an opening for an intelligent path ... in Sacramento the team is a fixture and everybody expressed a desire that they stay, from the city to county to governor.

"It's a completely different situation," Stern said. "I just don't want to offend people by parachuting in and saying this is the way it should be. I tried that and my track record is not good in Seattle or Olympia and I'm not sure I add anything to the situation."



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

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

© 1998-2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

It sounds from Stern's message:

1) Seattle is OUT. The NBA will leave, it's just a matter of next year or two years. Seattle has lost the Sonics, the other owners agree so the vote will be for relocation.

2) Stern is not upset with Bennett or his team and will not 'interfere' with Bennett's effort to move the team to OKC. He said NOTHING in support of Seattle, and this is telling - since he at least spoke up for other NBA cities when their teams were/did going to move. This alone should tell you how upset he is with Seattle, who cares about market size, metro pop and all this other crap Seattle fans keep saying - we have no market here and certainly have never been able to support 3 major-league teams (mainly because Seattleites are fairweathered).

3) All of this political wrangling the city and state is doing/has done is taking attention away from the REAL ISSUE, you know - a new arena. Surely there will be nothing moving forward on this in 5 days and Bennett will surely show Seattle that he means business - ie, relo to OKC filed (and approved by majority of owners no doubt).

4) Then, it all depends upon how the court/arbitration rules. I say, the lease is way to iffy and that both sides have negatives with it - for it to be enforceable. the city has called for specific performance to make the Sonics stay until 2010 (with the HOPE that the extra time will get something done). Well that's not fair, because all it would do is EXTEND Bennett's deadline, which is unethical. Of course, Bennett wants out but could ALSO call for Specific Performance, since the lease clearly states 'the city to build a NEW SEATTLE CENTER COLUSEUM.' The fact that the prior owners never accepted the 'rebuilt' coluseum, ala Key Arena, on paper and the fact that Clay Bennett (and even Schultz before him) stated over and over that the arena is unacceptable - I think this might be Bennett's smoking gun, should the city prevail.

Irregardless, I think the Sonics will move next year UNLESS a judge outright says - the team needs to honor the lease thru 2010. I doubt that Bennett would defy a court order (although he could and just never step foot in WA again for fear of arrest), but I think that is the ONLY way the Sonics will stay for two more years. Otherwise, regardless of the other litigation or the fact that the courts could take forever to rule or appeals whatever, unless Bennet gets a specific "order of stay"
- he's gone next year.

In all honesty, I think Seattle and the state majorly messed up here. They should have - at least, met with Bennett and let the voters decide. That way, all pressure is off of the politicians (who ONLY care about returning to office) and they would place it on the populous of the state - which would surely deny the funding anyways.

By all of this political wrangling, the city has not only made it clear that the Sonics will relocate to OKC but they've made it certain that the NBA will never return again. Who'd want to deal with a bunch of cry-babies who think everybody "owes them" just because 'we're Seattle' and we had the team for 40 years.

If we still acted like the place with tradition of 40 years with a team, Im sure this all would be a moot point. But because Seattle is a bandwagon market (not a TRUE major market) and the other two teams stepped up and got their stadiums - too bad for the low guy on the totem pole and good for OKC! Its only a matter of time.

here is the link for Stern audio,

http://downloads.newsok.com/podcasts/audio/102507_SternCall.mp3

I find it interesting that the story has not made it to the Seattle Times yet. It is supposedly our #1 paper up here and has the most 'fans' who have nothing but Seattle is big and can't lose team, OKC sucks, bla bla bla. The funny thing is, these people think they have a lot of people agreeing with them, when its really only the same handful of people bouncing off each other in reality.

I wonder if the paper placates to the fans? Cherry picks through stories, and reluctantly will place this story without any fan fair or luster. If there is every any story with a positive Seattle slant or a negative OKC slant - it's front page news on the Times.

The PI is a much more credible, even handed, and honest paper. They published the storey on Stern's commentary immediately after the call was made. Its also interesting to note how the forum the PI has is much LESS negative toward OKC.

I agree HOT ROD, although I think Seattle is more of a major market then you give it credit for, the Sonics are without a doubt headed to OKC unless the courts rule otherwise. As we all knew the NBA BOG and Stern were in OKC's favor all along, and Stern just confirmed it, it's all up to the courts now of when can they move!

I can't wait for them to get here. Their presence will do more for enhancing downtown and the overall image of OKC more than anything that's been done so far.

metro, Im glad we agree.

Just to be sure, I never said Seattle wasn't a major market - I know we are in the top 15. No doubt about that.

BUT, Seattle aint Chicago. And that is something that people here often dont want to realize or face. We're really a large midmarket, but we're not such that the NBA or somebody else MUST have a presence here.

If the Bulls were leaving Chicago, I'd think Stern would be all over that and something would get done (like has been the case in those mega markets). But Seattle is a different case, we're not a mega market like that, and with all of our money and bla bla that people here keep saying, we should be able to get an arena done. Atlanta did it, and they are bigger but similar and not quite as rich per capita.

All we had to do was show the NBA that we wanted the team to stay, with our political leaders sitting down at the table and working something out with Bennett, Stern, and the NBA when they were here LAST YEAR!!! Instead, our city showed its a$$ every chance we got. Those idiots thought we were untouchable because we have Slade The Blade Gorton to turn to. We made it impossible to build an arena without HUGE political movement (which nobody wants to make) - so, why bother.

We as a city essentially put our foot in our mouth, got lost in our own false arrogance, and will lose the Sonics to this same smaller market that Sonics fans seem to think is not worthy of their team.

Well, Im a realist and disagree with them. I say, the Sonics are sold to OKC investors and OKC wants the team and Seattle doesnt. It seems Seattle just doesn't want the hit in the pride factor (you know, slap in the face of reality). Too many people up here have a false sense of what this city is. We're expendible, we have to put up or shut up! Just because the franchise has been here for 40 years does not obligate us to keep it.

It seems that Stern also has the same position.

metro. Judging from a sample of these comments on the PI, Im not the only person in Seattle who thinks we are small time.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Sound Off (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=336871)



#274780
Posted by zorro6204 at 10/25/07 7:06 p.m.

So how will the short-sighted do-nothing local government bozos spin this? It's not like the league commissioner had any ax to grind here. If we listened to these clowns there would no major league sports in this city of any kind, and here we are letting them lose the third franchise. Can you imagine 50 years from now, a father sitting with his son in Safeco and explaining how they almost lost the baseball team because of the cost? Can you imagine how little $500 million would mean in that kind of hindsight? So the commissioner shakes his head, thinking "what fools". No kidding.




#274788
Posted by bigCon at 10/25/07 7:15 p.m.

Thus, Seattle proves once again they are not a world class city and will never be one. Just keep voting the left wing whackos into office and see Seattle continue to go down the hill.





#274908
Posted by preacher at 10/25/07 10:38 p.m.

Seattle has never been or will never be a Major city like New York or LA

Seattle has always been a small time town with Big City dreams, but it will never really be able to compete with the "Big Boys". By Bye NBA to bad the people didn't have the heart to compete,in the Big Leagues





#274911
Posted by Lord Sauron at 10/25/07 10:42 p.m.

Goodbye overpaid, whining, drug addict, professional athletes and their corrupt owners. Don't let the door hit your arse too hard on the way out....



This one below is great, and really is my feelings as well (Seattle is sooo pretentious!!!)



#274917
Posted by Snowbound at 10/25/07 10:45 p.m.

Anybody that routinely spends $5-7 bucks a day on lattes
can surely handle the cost of another arena whether your team wins or loses. The westside of our state has been screwed up for a long time. Winning or losing basketball games isn't the reason, it's your blend of limp wristed political activism.





#274939
Posted by Iulianus at 10/25/07 11:13 p.m.

To echo others on this.

Go.

Get thee gone.

Please spare us any more of this nonsense.

Go to OKC where you all want to be. And just leave us all be.

No one care. Get it?

Here's a link to the Oklahoman from today:

NewsOK: Anti-Sonics feelings in Seattle keeps Stern on sidelines (http://newsok.com/article/3157088/1193367717)

Basically it sounds like Stern will grant a relo if the Sonics can get out of their lease. He actually sounds pretty pessimistic about things working out in Seattle.

Yeah, it sounds like this has all boiled down to lease negotiations. The 10/31 deadline only applies to petitioning the NBA for relocation, which seems to have the support of the commissioner. I'm not sure whether the owners will vote on such a motion before or after the legal issues regarding the lease are ironed out.

I really don't blame anyone in this whole scenario. Basically, Seattle is done subsidizing pro sports, and I can respect that, especially when you consider that the market is in good shape even after the Sonics leave. It wasn't working for the Sonics in Seattle as of late, so they wanted some help and that help was not forthcoming. The only real mess has come from the few zealots whose egos are reeling a little bit from their team being moved to what is perceived as an inferior market. So, they are filing law suits out of spite and so that they don't look impotent in the process. They want to make it hard on the Sonics and they want to hurt the current owners. It's clear that they certainly want to do that more than they want to help the team stay in the Puget Sound. Now that is hard to respect, but I think HOT ROD has made it clear that this is a few over zealous politicians trying to save face more than it is a community that wants to enforce a lease on an organization that they're not real fired up about to begin with.

Yeah, it sounds like this has all boiled down to lease negotiations. The 10/31 deadline only applies to petitioning the NBA for relocation, which seems to have the support of the commissioner. I'm not sure whether the owners will vote on such a motion before or after the legal issues regarding the lease are ironed out.

I really don't blame anyone in this whole scenario. Basically, Seattle is done subsidizing pro sports, and I can respect that, especially when you consider that the market is in good shape even after the Sonics leave. It wasn't working for the Sonics in Seattle as of late, so they wanted some help and that help was not forthcoming. The only real mess has come from the few zealots whose egos are reeling a little bit from their team being moved to what is perceived as an inferior market. So, they are filing law suits out of spite and so that they don't look impotent in the process. They want to make it hard on the Sonics and they want to hurt the current owners. It's clear that they certainly want to do that more than they want to help the team stay in the Puget Sound. Now that is hard to respect, but I think HOT ROD has made it clear that this is a few over zealous politicians trying to save face more than it is a community that wants to enforce a lease on an organization that they're not real fired up about to begin with.

You hit the nail on the head. I just wonder how this will effect Seattle when another team is up for re-lo and they want that team because this squabble is not making them look good. I don't think they realize how bad this makes them look. It may ward off any future owners from moving to Seattle for fear of being held hostage like the Sonics.

The Times did report it, but they buried it at the bottom of the sports page:

Sonics | Stern is staying on sideline concerning Sonics | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2003975293_stern26.html)

Well said BDP and traxx

interesting find, and BDP - you summarized my toughts entirely!!!

We have to vote on November 7 I think, that is pretty much all of this city stuff is all about - trying to get the fans to the polls. And like you said, there are some idiots who are also trying to make it difficult for Bennett and the NBA - like an immature tit for tat.

I bet Vancouver gets an NBA team before Seattle does, especially since the NBA never really gave the Grizz a chance or the huge market there to develop.

Here is a story on that very note from the SeaTimes, the Sonics are up in Van City for an Exhibition game (the bustling streets of downtown Van ARE LOTS OF FUN, by the way)!

Sonics | Sonics Notebook | Vancouver knows what it's like to have team leave town | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2003975457_soni26.html?syndication=rss)



Sonics Notebook | Vancouver knows what it's like to have team leave town

By Jayda Evans
Seattle Times staff reporter

VANCOUVER, B.C. — Walk the bustling downtown streets of Vancouver and you'll find some people who are still bothered that their NBA franchise left for Memphis in April 2001. Most have since detached themselves from the league, not aware the season starts next week and the Sonics are in town to play Phoenix, which features Canadian star Steve Nash.

Still, GM Place announced a sold-out crowd of 18,630 on Thursday. And the two Sonics players who were in the league when the Grizzlies were in town — Kurt Thomas and Wally Szczerbiak — are pumped to be back in the city.

"The citizens here welcomed the NBA with open arms," said Thomas, a 12-year veteran who played for New York when the Grizzlies relocated. "The fans, they really loved the Grizzlies."

Owner Michael Heisley blamed the move on dipping attendance, which dragged the team into debt. The Grizzlies averaged 17,183 fans their opening season of 1995-96, finishing 15-67. The attendance dropped to 13,737 their final season in 2000-01 when the team went 23-59.

But Memphis isn't drawing much better, even with a new arena. The height there was 16,862 in 2004-05 when the team, which included current Sonics guard Earl Watson, finished 45-37 and lost in the opening round of the playoffs. The Grizzlies averaged 14,654 fans last season.

"I miss it," Sonics coach P.J. Carlesimo said of the former NBA stop. "Particularly when I [coached] in Portland, it seemed we played here five times a year. A lot of people in the league were enormously disappointed when the team moved from here."

Local reporters immediately correlated the loss of the Grizzlies to the Sonics' current arena battle and how the Pacific Northwest could lose another NBA franchise. Players and Carlesimo dodged the question, however, preferring to praise Vancouver and focus on the game.

The Sonics (1-6) are coming off two rough fourth quarters that led to exhibition losses against Golden State and Portland, but Carlesimo said he's more confident about the team than he was when the week began.

"It's the best we played all year," said Carlesimo of the past two games, one without rookie Kevin Durant. "We're nowhere near where we need to be. But hopefully we can build on that and then we have three more practices before we get ready for Denver and Phoenix again [in the first two games of the season]. I'm happy with our progress the past three days."

Got five?

Even though today's game is the Sonics' exhibition finale, Carlesimo hasn't committed to the starting lineup as the one he'll use for Wednesday's opener in Denver.

The coach plans to start Luke Ridnour, Damien Wilkins, rookie Jeff Green, Chris Wilcox and Nick Collison tonight, but alluded to rookie Kevin Durant (ankle) and center Robert Swift (knee) as opening-night starters if both recover from injuries. Swift aggravated his knee during practice Thursday.

Reuniting

Thomas will face former Phoenix teammates, but said the matchup doesn't matter.

"It's a preseason game," he said. "I'm just glad I get to see my old teammates. I was fortunate to play with those guys for two years. We had a great run those two years, and I'm looking forward to seeing them again."

Thomas became available when the Suns wanted to clear salary-cap space and the Sonics had a $9 million exception from their sign-and-trade deal with Orlando for forward Rashard Lewis.

"He's going to get quality minutes for us," Carlesimo said. "Kurt Thomas is a very good player in this league, and I think he will be for a couple more years. We were lucky to get him."

Jayda Evans: 206-464-2067 or jevans@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

2 more days guys!

Are we going to get an arbitration decision today?

No kidding, I thought the judge was supposed to rule in no more than a week, it's been more than a week, nearing two weeks.

I wonder who it favors if it keeps dragging out...

My guess is Seattle since Stern made his voice of opinion clear. The judge even though not up for election for his seat, may still be biased to try and work it out in Seattle's favor. Seems to me if it was a matter of simple contract law, something would have already been said by now.

My guess is Seattle since Stern made his voice of opinion clear. The judge even though not up for election for his seat, may still be biased to try and work it out in Seattle's favor. Seems to me if it was a matter of simple contract law, something would have already been said by now.
A federal court judge has other things to do besides decide a lease for a basketball team. They must consider it carefully and cross every "T" and dot every "I". My thinking is this is on the list of things to do, but the NBA isn't always the priority. Imagine that!! Let's all hope it's decided in the next couple of days though.

My guess is Seattle since Stern made his voice of opinion clear. The judge even though not up for election for his seat, may still be biased to try and work it out in Seattle's favor. Seems to me if it was a matter of simple contract law, something would have already been said by now.

"Simple contract law."

I don't use internet abbreviations an awful lot, but this deserves a big "L-O-L."

I am not even sure what the judge is supposed to be deciding in this case. What did the City of Seattle ask the judge to do?

I am not even sure what the judge is supposed to be deciding in this case. What did the City of Seattle ask the judge to do?

He is just deciding if it goes to arbitration or not. He is supposed to decide this today according to newsok.com.

NewsOK: NBA season has plenty of intrigue<br/><span class='hl2'>OKC is out in the cold for now, but here are 5 story lines to hold your interest</span> (http://newsok.com/article/3158943/1193669304)




It all means Oklahoma City might become home to an NBA team this time next year. Before beginning the countdown, however, the Sonics must first win their court case with the city of Seattle to escape the final two years of their KeyArena contract. A Washington state judge is expected to announce his ruling today on whether the case must stay in court or can be settled by arbitrators.

From the Oklahoman. Newsok.com

We could find out this evening, on the ruling.

It's being reported in Seattle, that the case will stay in Federal Court and not go to arbitration.

They are reporting this as a victory for Seattle.

A victory for Seattle, would be for the city of Seattle to build the Sonics a new arena.

Here is the link for the Victory.

Local News | City wins court ruling in Sonics case | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003981876_websonicslease30m.html)


City wins court ruling in Sonics case
Seattle Times staff

In a victory for Seattle, U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez ruled today the city's lawsuit seeking to enforce the Sonics' KeyArena lease should remain in federal court.

The team owners had sought to send the case to binding arbitration and are seeking permission to leave KeyArena before the lease ends in September 2010.

In his written ruling issued this afternoon, Martinez agreed with the city that the dispute revolves around the essential term or length of the lease. He called Sonics' owners arguments to the contrary "as errant as a typical Shaquille O'Neal free throw."

Link to decision pdf:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/PDF/sonicsruling.pdf

2010 it is.

They have been trying to spin this as a victory for Seattle, but it only means that this will be decided on a courtroom.

This decision was not about who was right or who is wrong. It only decided how they would go about deciding where the contract would be argued. There is still a lot of courtroom wrangling to do on this one, this is only the beginning.

Does this open an opportunity for them to get soemthing done in the legislature this spring?

Does this open an opportunity for them to get soemthing done in the legislature this spring?

As in what? Build a new arena? I don't see that happening.

Can’t Clay do something like this? Hear me out.

Clay goes ahead and files now for relocation with the BOG for 2010. This will say to Seattle that no matter what they do, the Sonics will be leaving in 2010 so all their court antics will go for naught.

I am sure some will say “can someone apply to move in advance”. From what I have heard its been done in the past. If they have the support of David Stern (Which it appears they do) and the BOG then it can happen. I don’t see the BOG turning the request down. Once that happens, Seattle knows they will not keep the team past 2010 period.

Seattle stops putting up the fight, and then Clay appends is move request to start in 2008 or 2009.

Anyone see holes in my idea?

I dont know much about it, but the deadline for relocation is March 1 I think. Hopefully the court battle will be over by then so we can get them in 08/09...It just sucks that we have waited for this oct 31 date, now we will have to wait until who knows when...oh well, thats pro sports.

I dont know much about it, but the deadline for relocation is March 1 I think. Hopefully the court battle will be over by then so we can get them in 08/09...It just sucks that we have waited for this oct 31 date, now we will have to wait until who knows when...oh well, thats pro sports.


The deadline for filing for the following year is March 1. There is nothing after Oct. 31 that keeps Bennett from filing for relocation sooner even if it's for a date further out.

On another note, here's some quotes from USATODAY.....

Seattle needs a miracle

Stern, however, has been involved in the SuperSonics' stalemate with the city of Seattle over building an arena for the club.

Sonics ownership is suing to get out of the lease at outdated KeyArena after this season — two years before it runs out — so it can move the franchise, possibly to Oklahoma City. The city is countersuing. Two fans also are suing the Sonics.

"It's just part of a dynamic landscape," says Oklahoma City businessman Clay Bennett, head of the Sonics ownership group. "This franchise could move to a market where it could be an extraordinary success. It's part of doing business. I'm more bullish than ever on this investment and the NBA."

Stern seems resigned that the Sonics, sooner or later, will leave Seattle. "We'd love to keep the team there," he says. "But sometimes people talk themselves into a position where, absent something just shy of a miracle, it ain't going to happen. The die is cast. Hopefully, saner heads will prevail.

"I just don't see it."

******


Stern in best frame of mind since scandals - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2007-10-29-stern-cover_N.htm)

The media still can't accept that the team will move to OKC if they are allowed to relocate. They still say "possibly OKC".

NewsOK: Sonics case must remain in U.S. court<br/><span class='hl2'>Attempt at arbitration for lease dispute denied</span> (http://newsok.com/article/3159579/1193743417)


But Martinez now appears to be the mediator who will ultimately decide whether the Sonics can relocate next season or must wait until 2010. No hearing dates have been scheduled, however, and a trial could take months to commence.



So the guy who made the Shaq comment will decide? That sucks. Sounds biased.

The owners could appeal to the 9th Circuit...

But it's the 9th Circuit.

The media still can't accept that the team will move to OKC if they are allowed to relocate. They still say "possibly OKC".

Maybe they're worried about getting fined $250,000. :)

I read the decision to deny arbitration and it sounds pretty reasonable. Essentially, issues arising due to language in Article II of the the lease have been "carved out" of arbitration. Since that clause has the term of the lease in it, the judge ruled that the issue is centered around language in Article II and, therefore, arbitration can not be forced on any party that does not want it.

I believe Bennett's lawyers argued that they are not contesting the term, just their right to buy out of it. Again, Article II speaks to that issues, although a little bit vaguer, so the judge says that its part of the carve out.

In any event, reading the decision does just remind you have how silly all of this is. Why Seattle wouldn't just want to get paid at this point is beyond me. Maybe they realize that they can't get anyone else to sign a lease for that place because of I-91, so now they have to force performance on the Sonics to have a tenant. But we all know that the Sonics will leave in 2010, if because of nothing, because of I-91. So why not take the money and run, get rid of that stupid law, and work on getting a new tenant.

However, since this seems mainly like a vindicative litigation, expect this to go on for a long time. Right now they're just trying to figure out if Seattle can keep them from negotiating out of the lease. Even if they rule they can, that negotiation and the legal issues it creates could go on for awhile. So, basically, Seattle is going to spend A LOT of money trying to get a team to stay that no one is that fired up on and will be less supportive of because of these arguments. Meanwhile, they could be MAKING money on this thing by just negotiating a fat settlement now. If you think about it, Bennett is offering them a chance at a golden parachute, but they'd rather punish the new ownership.

The irony is that if the city rallies around the Sonics and actually goes to games, Bennett gets paid. If they build him a new arena, Bennett gets paid. If they negotiate out of the lease, they get paid. If the city continues to provide mediocre support with an undersized arena, no one gets paid. If they draw out the legal battles, everyone's costs go up. The only way to ensure that everyone gets screwed is to continue the lawsuits as long as possible and for the city to not support the Sonics. This, inexplicably, seems to be Seattle's chosen path.

You'd think there would eventually be an outcry against the city wasting time and money on 3rd grade revenge games...

ok guys here is my take

for one, Nixon - dont worry about the decision. All it did was state where the case will be held, which is in Federal court in Seattle. Even the Seattle fans on the forums admit that it is only the first and rather small victory, which is admirable considering the hostility many of them have had in the past.

This decision is not exactly a loss for Bennett but it brings his chances of winning from roughly 90&#37; in arbitration down to roughly 40% considering this judge seems to be sympathetic towards the city.

Bennett's lawyers will do the best they can and the terms of the lease will be litigated. Like Midtowner said, it is pure contract law and Im sure the Sonics lawyers will argue points of whether the lease constitutes a valid contract and whether that means the contract is violated with a monetary payment.

The real issue Im sure they wil bring up is, what does the city GET having the Sonics there. The city has gone on record stating that the Sonics contribute no economic value (or that it is only marginal, when compared if the Sonics were not here). So, assuming this to be true - then should the Sonics have to stay in Seattle in order to fulfill the terms of the lease OR could the Sonics buy out.

Im sure there might be other points raised as well, particularly the point that Kerry made a while ago - where he read the lease carefully and noted its wording - specifically 'that the city of Seattle will build a NEW SEATTLE CENTER COLUSEUM'. Of course, this DID NOT HAPPEN, we remodeled the original building and sold the naming rights to Key Bank (hence Key Arena). So therefore, since the terms of the lease were never fulfilled by the city, are the other terms of the lease really valid? And on that note, did Bennett or the other ownership groups ever ACCEPT Key Arena to Equal a NEW SEATTLE CENTER COLUSEUM. ...

Im sure that this point will come up, but perhaps later - as a smoking gun (at least that's how I'd do it). I would not want to give the city any chance to banter out of this point, since they seem to be keen on using the lease well then Bennett should use it to uncover whether it was ever fulfilled or agreed to.

Ill post my other comments in another post.

Ok, here are my other thoughts. I raised this on the Seattle PI forum, we'll see if there are any responses and what people think.

We all know that Oct 31, tomorrow, will come and go without an arena deal here. So, you have to ask yourself 'who really had a victory'? Sure, the city had a victory yesterday with the Judge's ruling - tipping the scales with arguably a Seattle city slant at least in the early run. But Bennett never said he was opposed to going to court and I've always argued that it would go to Federal (whereas my fellow Seattleites arrogantly always said it would go to KingCo). Surely if it had gone to KingCo for consideration, Seattle would have a 90&#37; chance of victory whereas in Federal with this current judge I think the city has a 60% chance right now. This likely will change once the case is heard, like I mentioned above, and the scale probably will tip toward Bennett since he's prepared to offer financial remuneration for the two 'vacant' years.

If, and a bit if, the judge rules like I/Kerry think might happen - that the city never fulfilled the contract (since they never built a new Seattle Center Coluseum and that was spelled out specifically), then the city will be in a horrible position because Bennett could just UP AND LEAVE without giving Seattle ANYTHING!

But I digress, here is the hypothetical (and probably might become reality) that i said on the PI forum.

From most Seattle fan's prospective, they support the team and will go no matter that they are leaving. However, there is a vocal minority fan group (of which Stern was referring to in his latest comment) who ONLY want to make trouble in this situation. They want to keep the team but then make life miserable for the owners and the NBA, to show that nobody can pick on Seattle. If you read the forums (especially the SeaTimes and Sonics forums) you run into people who keep screaming, let's give it to Bennett, boycott the games, and such. They want to keep the team just to sock it to Bennett, in the hopes that he sells (no doubt).

On a side note, Nixon asked - does this decision vacate Oct 31 deadline (answer is NO) and does this now mean the WA legislature can consider it during their 2008 session (the current answer is also NO. Bennett and the prior owners set Oct 31 2007 as the deadline. That will be reached tomorrow, after which Bennett can seek relocation of the franchise. Surely, Bennett WILL not grant another deadline; which is the ONLY way the legislature or any other Seattle entity would get another chance to 'work things out'. So, as long as Bennett wants to move the team to OKC, then if nothing come out tomorrow regarding an arena; the Sonics are gone. It's just a matter of 2008 or 2010, which the Federal judge will ultimately decide.

!

OK, now back to my PI point. As I mentioned, the Seattle Sonics CULT fan club has said they want to make like miserable for Bennett, predicting horrible attendance and sales of merchandise for the two remaining years if the judge rules the team has to stay. If the judge rules that the lease is valid, the Sonics would have to play home games at Key Arena thru the 2009 season.

But how many home games could/should that be? Currently there are 41 home games. But what happens if Bennett changes the schedule, in light of the Cult fangroup and obvious losses? the NBA owners establish the schedules, so I predict that Bennett propose a schedule for 2008 and 2009 seasons with as few home games for the sonics as possible. Remember, the lease says that HOME GAMES must be played at Key Arena, it didn't say 41 games or half of the NBA schedule.

So I thought, hm Bennett could have few home games during those years by since he/the NBA could take some of those that would have been home games and make them Away Games

- playing them at the Away location and splitting the profits (or Bennett getting all of it) since they are owners all affected by this

OR

- playing them in Oklahoma City. YES, if Bennett alters the schedule with greater than 41 AWAY games, they could agree to have those additional AWAY games played in OKC.

Doing either scenario cuts his losses AND gives HIM the last laugh. Seattle might THINK that with these lawsuits and proposed cuts in support that they will give Bennett pain, but I think on the contrary that Bennett WILL have the last laugh and it could be as early as next season - he'd just have less home games.

There is NOTHING that says there MUST be home games (is there?) and is there anything anywhere that says there MUST BE 41 HOME GAMES???

Wouldn't it be something, if the judge were to rule for the city - that in the 2008 and 2009 seasons, Seattle only has 10 Home Games. .... The remaininng reclassified 31 Away Games either played at the away location OR Oklahoma City.

Seattle :boxing2: Bennett/OKC
....

I wonder if Seattle thought of this possibility. I will hold off on sending this idea to anyone else tomorrow. :gossip:

Do you guys see the silver lining here... :)

The NBA will be in OKC, and most likely it will be next season!!

Thanks for the input Hot Rod! It is greatly appreciated. That last bit is very creative thinking! If the (biased) judge says they must remain there until 2010, who knows what that means with the Hornets? In a year or 2, the nawlins attendance very well could SUCK. Could it be a race to OKC?

The Hornets will likely suck in attendance this year, not just in a year or 2. They have barely sold 6,000 season tix which is half of what they wanted to sell.

I seriously doubt that they would be able to make up 12,500 tickets per game, each game, to max the house out. And already Shinn is beginning to complain about that (although he is appearing stoic) as well as the practice facility LA owes.

Personally, I think OKC would probably desire the Hornets over the Sonics but I think in the long run the Sonics are better for OKC, because you get 2 for 1 and OKC would always have the notoriety of having Seattle's original team. Seattle fans might call this - OKC stole Seattle's team - but I'd say (and most logical people I might add) that there must be some reason, something that OKC has that Seattle doesn't and that is why the team left.

Not to mention, the Sonics have local ownership - which arguably is the biggest plus a franchise can have besides a loyal following. In the matrix of major-league team attributes - with the Sonics, OKC would have 1) two teams to root for, 2) a loyal fanbase since the franchise will be the only true major-league team (OU really is NCAA even tho they play at the NFL level), 3) local ownership (and this local ownership is heavily ingrossed in OKC, so no chance of collapse) 4) a city that desires the franchise (and needs it) 5) a growing (and quite progressive) city and business community 6) a city that is a regional top city which should attract a considerable market outside of it's neilson designated media market. The Hornets would likely not have point 3 since Shinn has not shown the ability to STAY anywhere (he just ups and leaves wherever his team goes).

So, given the above scenarios the Sonics franchise will bring (2 teams, sole loyal fanbase, strong local owners, city wants team and likely would do anything to keep, growing city and corporate community willing to sponsor/support, city that is a leader in the region likely resulting in an expanded media market) - this all adds up to a slam dunk for OKC that many people in Seattle (or other areas) do not consider.

In fact, Seattle only has points 1 (for now), 5, and 6 (tho Seattle's region is not as big as OKC's potential extended market). Look at what Seattle has against them: 2) Sonics are low on the totem and the city is a fairweather city. They always support the MLB and right now the NFL is the 2nd franchise (used to be the Sonics and the NFL was the 'outcast'). The city has proven it can only support 2 franchises successfully since the 3rd one is always on the sidelines - since 1998 or so, that has been the Sonics. 3) obviously Seattle no longer has local ownership, a big BIG blow since this is the sole reason why they are moving 4) it is arguable whether Seattle even wants the Sonics. I think right now, they want the team just so they wont LOSE a team or be 'pushed around' by one. They like having the notoriety of being a big 3 major league team market. But I can assure you that the majority here dont really 'want' the Sonics per say or really even care if they stay.

I can tell you that in the matrix I laid out above, this is why the NBA will grant relocation - you CAN make money in OKC. I think Aubrey was being 'modest' for the sake of not blowing his horn with his statements, but in reality he should have restrained comment until TODAY perhaps??? For the city is using his very words (that 'we didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle. We only desire to break even in OKC ....) in their lawsuit - which of course is being taken out of prospective.

Like Bennett or not, everyone has to realize that his ownership group is no different than any other who have ever moved a franchise. You always have the local city mad at them and calling them out of their name and saying you can't steal our team. What I dont understand is there are people in OKC who think this is wrong.

Excuse me, but there is NOTHING written anywhere which states that Seattle MUST have a team or that the Supersonics MUST REMAIN in Seattle. Any team can be moved, and because Bennett bought the team for that purpose should not be to any surprise, especially in OKC since that has been his published desire for what 15 years now. Yet some people are saying stuff like, I hope Bennett fails - this is wrong. OKC deserves a team but not from 'stealing' another city's.

What is wrong about it? Bennett is giving Seattle the 2007 season (he could have applied for relocation in March 2007). What did Bennett 'steal'? He overpaid for the team and even tried to work it out here, we shunned him and now he's shunning us.

Personally, I dont see anything wrong with anything Bennett has done. If you're going for public money, why wouldn't you ask for as much as you can get? That is what the NBA wants and cost of construction here is higher than it is in say, OKC. People are running off saying, he wants too much or whatever, when the fact is - we never said we'd build anything ANYWAYS. that is the point, at least he gave Seattle a chance.

Now what owner has ever done this, especially one who JUST bought a team and is not based in that city????? What new owner bought a troubled team and gave them chance after chance to improve the situation and then would stay???

I assume that people here were expecting Bennett to campaign and beg and plead his case. I understand that initially Bennett did make numerous trips up here and tried to talk to people. But after 'we' passed I-91, Bennett's trips dropped off significantly. Im sure this point will be brought up on Friday when he makes his statement.

We, as a city, gave him and the Sonics the boot. Yet now people here are trying to save face. We have elections next tuesday, I bet some of this posturing in city hall blows down after that - and they might even take a settlement, which is what any city in it's right mind that doesn't want to build an arena should do. .....

I mean, it's not like Seattle is going to suddenly fail without the Sonics. LA is doing fine without the NFL and LA is a top 3 city. Seattle will be just fine with two teams since that is what we've really always wanted anyways. I hope the judge takes this (among other things) into account and does not catch the 'retaliation bug' that some of the zelic fans have.

Otherwise, it will be an interesting three year wait - but the contracts will be already signed for Oklahoma City, so what did Seattle gain by Keeping the Sonics? (piss off the owners, piss off the NBA never to return again, waste taxpayer money to get reelected, did not gain any more time since Bennett will sign on with OKC)...

I dont get Seattle sometimes. ...

[QUOTE=HOT ROD;117895]
already Shinn is beginning to complain about that (although he is appearing stoic) as well as the practice facility LA owes.

I don't think Shinn is still complaining about the practice facility, last I heard the state was going to fund it. If the Sonics stay in Seattle until 2010 and the Hornets have horrible attendence i seriously see Bennett and Shinn swapping franchises. If you think about it, it really makes the most sense. (If the Sonics are forced to live out their lease)

Personally, I'd rather have the Sonics than the Hornets. Hornets were never ours to begin with and we knew that. The politically correct thing to do was to take the team back to New Orleans. Should they have stayed here, I think it would have been a worse PR nightmare for OKC than the Sonics are turning out to be. Business is business at the end of the day and the rest of the nation, outside Seattle and Portland pretty much view it that way, as business.

It's likely that one of the two will end up in Kansas City. Neither Seattle nor New Orleans are really good NBA markets.

Also, look for the Saints to eventually start talking relocation.

Beggars can't be choosers, saying that I would rather have the sonics too... I think they have the brighter future out of the two teams. If we ended up with hornets tho.. it wouldn't bother me one bit, having any NBA team is better than not having one at all.

I agree with that. The nature of the NBA is to keep one or two franchise players with the rest of the team being traded routinely. Desmond Mason was one of the most popular players in OKC but is now back in Milwaukee. The turnover is so great (unless your team is very successful over a long period of time eg San Antonio and Dallas) that as a fan you know the team is going to change from year to year. I am sure we will love whatever team comes here because it will be our team. A team we can all get behind and love. I really am in withdrawls right now not getting ready to go to the home opener tonight. Hopefully next year.

did you guys notice all of the empty seats, for the probable last home opener??

OKC WILL HAVE TWO TEAMS OUT OF THIS

NBA: Oklahoma City Supersonics AND

WNBA: Oklahoma City STORM

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Clay Bennett !!!!!!!! :tweeted:Storm season will be here before you know it. But this is one time OKC won't have to worry about a Storm passing thru.

did you guys notice all of the empty seats, for the probable last home opener??

One way or another, Oklahoma City will be an NBA city.

Letter of Intent sent to City, press conference at 3:30

News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | SuperSonics owners send city letter of intent (http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=8017754)