OK, I don't know how much of that letter is standard, but the assignment of all Arena advertising and sponsorship rights and revenue, including naming rights and revenue, to Bennett's company seems a little off base to me. The thing is 100% owned and operated by the city, and the city is responsible for all maintenance, operating cost, and capital improvements. So what justifies turning arena sponsorships over to the tenant?

Maybe someone could clarify that for me a bit, but I hope that's not rubber stamped. I was hoping we could recoup some costs of our 200+ million investment by renegotiating a very weak naming rights agreement.

Surely all of the letter is pretty standard and that informal conversations have occurred over the past many months in which other details have been discussed.

I'm sure an NBA team would argue that the naming rights for any arena wouldn't have much value without their tenancy. I doubt Ford pays OKC very much currently.

Not saying they are right, but I could certainly see where a pro franchise would want a good chunk of the value they helped create.

Would the letter not simply be an outline of demands that have to be negotiated in the actual contract? In other words, ask for everything you can think of, and then begin negotiations?

It's not completely apples to apples, either, but the symphony, ballet and any traveling Broadway shows keep the profits that they have made while performing at the Civic Center, correct? And yet they did not participate in the financial support of the Civic Center upgrades.

I also remember Mick Cornett saying the ultimate contract would be very similar to what the city negotiated with the Redhawks and Bob Funk, albeit on a larger scale.

I'm sure an NBA team would argue that the naming rights for any arena wouldn't have much value without their tenancy.

Definitely a good point and sure the basis for the request. The flip side would be that they would have no place to play without the facility. I think they are certainly entitled to some of it, but being required to terminate the current agreement and forgo any and all arena sponsorships and the revenue they generate just seemed a bit stiff. Maybe the city should at least retain the initial value of the naming rights and maybe double that due to the improvements of the arena.

I realize this is just a deal memo. I'm just saying that I'd like the city to try and retain at least some of the revenue, due to the fact it owns the arena entirely. Of course, they'll ask for everything and the city should probably counter by doing the same, then they can meet in the middle somewhere.

This says that the city would be guaranteed the money from the current agreement:

Sonics outline proposed deal with OKC | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/article/3216377/1205527334)

This is posturing before the April BOG vote. We need to have something tentative in place then so it looks like OKC is doing everything right. The Seattle Times and the AP wire even agrees if you go over there and look. Basically Mayor Cornett, Bennett and OKC are doing everything right and Seattle has the appearance of doing everything wrong. Keep in mind Balmer (Microsoft CEO) is giving his group and Seattle until April 10th (before the BOG vote) to come up with a solution in Seattle. This is also posturing in their favor. Let's keep supporting our wonderful city and do everything right until the BOG vote! Remember the NBA officials will be here at the end of the month, we need to get some sort of organized welcome party together!

Oklahoma City reaches preliminary lease agreement with Sonics
Associated Press - March 14, 2008 5:25 PM ET

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - The Seattle SuperSonics and Oklahoma City have reached a preliminary agreement on a lease at the Ford Center pending NBA approval of the team's relocation.

The deal calls for the SuperSonics to pay the city $1.6 million annually for use of the building and reimburse $409,000 per year to replace revenue from naming rights for the arena.

The agreement calls for a 15-year term but has an exit clause if attendance falls after the first two years.

The deal would not become official unless NBA team owners approve the Sonics relocation in a meeting next month and until the team can escape its lease in Seattle

Gee, you think there might have been on-going discussions for a while now?? :)

This is all more good news. I suppose the next big step is the vote by the NBA board of governors but I'm not too worried about that.

It really comes down to breaking the lease in Seattle and that's merely a question of 'when'.

I just read the entire lease and it looks pretty good to me. The city will make more than they already do with the Ford Center and the Sonics will keep everything else. Revenue fro the CHL, NCCA, AFL2, NBA All-start game will still go to the City. Rent on the practice facility is only $100,000 year but it will be available during the off-season to OKC Parks and Recreation Department. If the team leaves before the lease is up they have to buy the practice facility out-right. The only thing I don't like is that the lease will only be for 15 years. I guess that means we should be ready for a MAPS IV in about 12 years.

This is posturing before the April BOG vote. We need to have something tentative in place then so it looks like OKC is doing everything right. The Seattle Times and the AP wire even agrees if you go over there and look. Basically Mayor Cornett, Bennett and OKC are doing everything right and Seattle has the appearance of doing everything wrong. Keep in mind Balmer (Microsoft CEO) is giving his group and Seattle until April 10th (before the BOG vote) to come up with a solution in Seattle. This is also posturing in their favor. Let's keep supporting our wonderful city and do everything right until the BOG vote! Remember the NBA officials will be here at the end of the month, we need to get some sort of organized welcome party together!
Should we meet 'em at the airport with some leis? http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/NBA/leifromokc.jpg

Couldn't hurt Doug. Maybe you and I can go down there with our NBA loves OKC shirts and wait out front.

Couldn't hurt Doug. Maybe you and I can go down there with our NBA loves OKC shirts and wait out front.
I'm good to go with that! Now .... where can we get some leis in OKC???

Probably the nearest Party Galaxy or similar shop

The more that comes out about it the better it sounds, imo. Giving up naming rights is a huge chunk of change, but given the fact that the city will retain what it was getting without a team and the team will get any value it adds, it seems pretty fair. I have no idea how the base rent compares to other markets, but sharing in the concessions and retaining revenue from other events outside of any sponsorships they bring, sounds like a fair trade.

Now, the only question really is sales tax. If they city can charge sales tax from ticket sales (and I don't know what anyone's position is on this), then no doubt having an NBA team will put a lot of cash in the coffers for city maintenance and civil projects and actually take pressure off a MAPS IV or further improvements to the school district.

At this point, it really does seem like Bennett's group is negotiating from the stand point of they get any revenue from the value they add to the arena and the city retains the revenue streams it already had in place. It would be hard to characterize that as a total sweet heart deal or as taking advantage of the city.

Right now, no sales tax is charged on NBA tickets and only the legislature can change that.

One thing I see that concerns me is section D:

"The Arena will continue to be owned by the City and managed by the Operator or another professional arena management entity that is acceptable to both the City and the Company.

"...the Arena Lease will set forth performance standards, opportunities for the Company to request corrections of deficiencies and procedures whereby management may be replaced by a new Operator is such deficiencies are not corrected."

That reads to me like the setup for tossing SMG out in favor of Dorchester Arena Management, LLC or something similar.

Right now, no sales tax is charged on NBA tickets and only the legislature can change that.

Right and, imo, it should be changed.


That reads to me like the setup for tossing SMG out in favor of Dorchester Arena Management, LLC or something similar.

It reads to me like they would be the de facto manager of the arena whether it's called SMG or DAM, LLC. They'd be calling the shots either way.

It reads to me that if SMG is replaced, the replacement must be acceptable to the team - and nothing more than that. There's no reason to think that SMG-managed arenas are somehow inimical to the NBA.

I've got a friend that works for SMG and the way she explained it to me was, SMG will still manage the Cox Center and will work with the Sonics mgmt in managing the Ford Center.

The way it reads to me is that SMG continues to manage the arena, and if there is a problem with their management ( example: repairs are not made in a timely fashion), they can ask that they be replaced. When replacing them as management, they want a say in who replaces them.

That doesn't seem to be any more then any other major tenet would ask to be done. The city would also be involved in the process.

Definitely a good point and sure the basis for the request. The flip side would be that they would have no place to play without the facility. I think they are certainly entitled to some of it, but being required to terminate the current agreement and forgo any and all arena sponsorships and the revenue they generate just seemed a bit stiff. Maybe the city should at least retain the initial value of the naming rights and maybe double that due to the improvements of the arena.

I realize this is just a deal memo. I'm just saying that I'd like the city to try and retain at least some of the revenue, due to the fact it owns the arena entirely. Of course, they'll ask for everything and the city should probably counter by doing the same, then they can meet in the middle somewhere.If this statement by Couch holds true then I would bet there will be no further negotiations regarding the lease agreement between the parties. When he said;"The city seldom, if ever, reaps a large monetary benefit from a redeveloper or its tenants in the form of direct payments by the redeveloper or the tenants to the city,” Couch wrote.

For those interested, I've OCR'ed the Letter of Intent PDF file to make it easier to read. You'll find it in a link at this location: Doug Dawgz Blog (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/#intent)

Sonics owners announce intent to move team to OKC
Journal Record
March 17, 2008

OKLAHOMA CITY – The owners of the SuperSonics have submitted to the Oklahoma City Council a letter of intent to relocate the professional basketball team from Seattle so they can begin negotiations on arena and practice facility use.

The letter, signed by Clay Bennett of the Professional Basketball Club LLC owners, outlines four main areas for agreement: arena upgrades and construction of a new practice facility via a recently passed sales tax; food and beverage services at the arena; the arena use license; and the practice facility lease.

The issue was put on the agenda for consideration at the City Council’s next regularly scheduled meeting Tuesday morning and is set to be acted on March 25. Although officials would not discuss the item ahead of the meeting, the proposal is expected to be accepted; Mayor Mick Cornett has been the lead proponent of the “Big League City” campaign to pass a sales tax to fund the upgrades, and none of the eight City Council members have voiced strong opposition to the matter.“I’m very pleased with the deal,” City Manager Jim Couch said Friday. “I believe this is the right decision for the city to go forward with this deal.”

Bennett’s ownership group has asked the NBA board of governors to let the team cut ties with Seattle and relocate to Oklahoma City. An NBA relocation committee is expected to visit the metro area March 25 to review the arena and discuss plans with city leaders before the board’s final decision April 17.

Oklahoma City voters recently approved a 1-percent sales tax to raise about $120 million over 15 months, beginning next year. If NBA executives do not approve the relocation, the sales tax will be cut back to 12 months to raise about $100 million; in that case, the arena will still be renovated, but a practice facility will not be built.

Team owners outline in the letter to Cornett about 15 pages of expectations for the arena’s operation and revenues. In an overview of the text, Couch said the team will pay a total of $1.64 million in annual rent – “It’s a complicated model,” he said. A breakdown of that total and other details of the letter include:

• The arena lease will have an initial term of 15 years, beginning in the 2008-09 or 2010-11 NBA seasons, depending on pending court cases. The team will have the right to terminate the lease after six years if ticket revenues fall below 85 percent of average sales set in the first two seasons.

• The Sonics will pay arena rent of $40,000 per game.

• The Sonics will receive about 40 percent of gross revenues from concessions at the arena for team events, 10 percent from clubs and restaurants and 15 percent from bars.

• The team will pay the city $100,000 per year to rent the practice facility.

• The team will pay the city $409,000 annually to approximate the income expected from current arena naming rights with Ford Motor Co., but the Sonics will be allowed to capture any additional revenues from new naming rights contracts.

• The city’s Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority will guarantee up to 1,400 parking spaces at set prices for premium seating patrons, 125 parking spaces daily at set prices for team employees, and an indeterminate amount of spaces free of charge for players, coaches, personnel and media vehicles.

It reads to me that if SMG is replaced, the replacement must be acceptable to the team - and nothing more than that. There's no reason to think that SMG-managed arenas are somehow inimical to the NBA.

Well, the effect is that Bennett has control. They have the authority to force any changes they want by forcing a replacement if what they want is not done. If a replacement is ordered they have to approve it. Therefore, they are the de facto boss.

It's just like your boss tells you what to do, but if his boss doesn't like what he is telling you to do then his boss can replace your boss, making his boss the one that's really in charge.

I could of swore I heard something on CNN or ESPN over the weekend stating that Stern said the Sonics can remain in name only in Seattle, and that the franchise would be a "new" franchise in OKC. I couldn't find anything on ESPN's website, anyone else hear anything like this?

Nuggets set franchise record for points in regulation with 168:

ESPN - Seattle vs. Denver - Recap - March 16, 2008 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=280316007)

D-FENCE!

I could of swore I heard something on CNN or ESPN over the weekend stating that Stern said the Sonics can remain in name only in Seattle, and that the franchise would be a "new" franchise in OKC. I couldn't find anything on ESPN's website, anyone else hear anything like this?

You know Mark Rodgers was saying something about this last night on Sports Xtra but he was speaking so fast and fumbling around so I didn't quite understand what he was saying...... So I am wondering what the details on that are as well.

If it stays in name only that would mean the records and history would follow to Oklahoma.... if it's a "new" franchise in OKC then it would mean the history and records would stay in Seattle.... so I don't know what the scoop is.

Personally, I'd rather the history and records stay in Seattle, let our own records speak for themselves.

I just read the entire lease and it looks pretty good to me. The city will make more than they already do with the Ford Center and the Sonics will keep everything else. Revenue fro the CHL, NCCA, AFL2, NBA All-start game will still go to the City. Rent on the practice facility is only $100,000 year but it will be available during the off-season to OKC Parks and Recreation Department. If the team leaves before the lease is up they have to buy the practice facility out-right. The only thing I don't like is that the lease will only be for 15 years. I guess that means we should be ready for a MAPS IV in about 12 years.

But I believe the lease also allows for a series of FIVE three-year lease extensions, making for 30 years total, or almost as long as this years-old thread. (Why isn't this LOI deal a new thread anyway?)

what happened to the "NBA Megathread"?

I'd support an old rusty padlock on this thread. May it rest in peace in the cherished mahogony-lined walls of the OKCTalk archives.

Remember Stern and part of the NBA relocation committee will be here in OKC tomorrow! Let's be on our best behavior and help clean up anything we can. I know there are tons of those trashy illegal signs in right of ways, etc.

I wish the Chamber had organized some official event for tomorrow's visit to show our support.

I wish the Chamber had organized some official event for tomorrow's visit to show our support.

They already did, it was called the March 4 vote yes for "Big League City".

The reason there hasn't been anything else about this visit is there is no need. The visit is only preliminary, Okc already has this vote in the bag thanks to Clay Bennett and the Yes vote on March 4.

Remember Stern and part of the NBA relocation committee will be here in OKC tomorrow! Let's be on our best behavior and help clean up anything we can. I know there are tons of those trashy illegal signs in right of ways, etc.

I wish the Chamber had organized some official event for tomorrow's visit to show our support.

I almost would rather not have an official event. I would rather portray to the other owners that we are a city that isn't DEPENDENT on the NBA and that our support is in addition to all the other things we have going on. I think it's a better message that we don't have to drop everything to show our support of a team and that our lives are bigger than just a possible NBA team. Maybe that's just me. Is that backwards?????

Tue March 25, 2008
Owners willing to leave Sonics name in Seattle
From Wire Reports
Team name, logo and history could help settle OKC relocation dispute

Sonics chairman Clay Bennett said he's willing to leave the team's name, logo, colors and history in Seattle to settle a dispute with the city, allowing him to relocate the NBA team to Oklahoma City, according to the Seattle Times.

During a breakfast meeting for team sponsors last week in Southern California, Bennett told several sponsors that he wants to negotiate a settlement in which the city retains nearly everything associated with the Sonics except the players and coaches, the newspaper reported.

Sonics spokesman Dan Mahoney confirmed Bennett's statement on Monday.

"That's an accurate assessment," Mahoney told the Seattle Times. Mahoney said the ownership group told the city last month it was willing to leave behind the Sonics name, logo and history.

The NBA commissioner David Stern and representatives from the league's relocation committee are in Oklahoma City Tuesday. The group will tour the Ford Center and hear presentations from local business and government leaders. The Sonics relocation application must be approved by the NBA Board of Governors and will be considered at the April 17-18 meetings in New York.

In its $26.5 million settlement offer, which was rejected and panned by city officials, the ownership group sent a letter to city attorney Tom Carr that read: "We understand the city's desire to reserve the Sonics name for a future franchise and will support the city's effort with the NBA on this issue."

State Legislature is getting closer to passing tax rebates for Sonics if/when they move. Also, looks like David Glover hasn't gotten over his 15 minutes of fame yet. He's still out there pounding the media. I think it's funny he lives in the Village which has a higher tax rate, yet is so concerned with OKC's taxes. Maybe he should run for public office if he wants to make a difference. Just my two cents.

http://journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recID=87800

Nothing about this new PR disaster of the emails between Clay and the rest of the PBC?

Sonics | Governor says we've all "been lied to" on Sonics | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2004341370_sonics11m.html)

Interestingly, Clay is being defended by, of all people, Margarita Prentice.

Although it proves that they never planned to keep the team in Seattle, I don't know if it will have an effect on this or not. Legally I don't think it has anything to do with the lease agreement. I can see it pissing off enough owners that the BOG vote doesn't go our way. What do you guys think?

Nothing about this new PR disaster of the emails between Clay and the rest of the PBC?

Sonics | Governor says we've all "been lied to" on Sonics | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2004341370_sonics11m.html)

Interestingly, Clay is being defended by, of all people, Margarita Prentice.

Although it proves that they never planned to keep the team in Seattle, I don't know if it will have an effect on this or not. Legally I don't think it has anything to do with the lease agreement. I can see it pissing off enough owners that the BOG vote doesn't go our way. What do you guys think?

Honestly, if I were a Sonics fan who fell for the "They really want to make it work here," I would be pissed. If they can lie like that to Seattle, remember folks, they can lie to us just as easily.

But what's their incentive to lie to us? The private emails clearly reveal a desire to have a team here. Nothing is said about wanting to scam OKC out of money (sorry, David) or even about wanting to make money off this team. They just want to have an NBA team for their hometown.

I can understand why they would be pissed, but if it's that important to them, they should be pissed at

1) the legislature for not paying for a new arena, or

2) Howard Schultz for not ponying up the money himself as a local


Clay may not have really wanted to keep the team there, but as Margarita said, he gave Seattle and Washington plenty of chances.

I mentioned this a few posts back, but isn't this "classic thread" due for a padlock? There's over one thousand posts in this thread. It makes it very hard to find specific things.

Nothing about this new PR disaster of the emails between Clay and the rest of the PBC?

Sonics | Governor says we've all "been lied to" on Sonics | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2004341370_sonics11m.html)

Interestingly, Clay is being defended by, of all people, Margarita Prentice.

Although it proves that they never planned to keep the team in Seattle, I don't know if it will have an effect on this or not. Legally I don't think it has anything to do with the lease agreement. I can see it pissing off enough owners that the BOG vote doesn't go our way. What do you guys think?

I just hope the other owners think Seattle is being a pain in the neck. Although the e-mails were stupid, especially the one to David Stern, they don't change the fact that the city of Seattle and state of Washington never made any attempt to come up with an arena plan, and they could probably still do so tomorrow and the team would stay. What Bennett et al wanted is immaterial. Had Seattle built an arena, they would have been forced to keep the Sonics in Seattle. When Bennett made the deal with Stern that he would try to get an arena built for a year, obviously the fact that he wasn't interested in trying indefinitely, but would rather move the team here, clued Stern in to the fact that their ultimate hope was to get a team for Oklahoma City. That's a duh. And Seattle was told from day one that they had a year (actually 16 months) to come up with a plan or the team would move. So, what was written in private e-mails had very little bearing on what had to be done to keep the team in Seattle.

I've been sifting through the 92 page document today, not even half way there yet, but it doesn't look good for us. We're probably definitely looking at 2010 or beyond now. I was optimistic until I got to page 37


From: Clay Bennett
To: David Stern

We are attempting to make this the most difficult arena development/relocation exercise of all time. Talking with the lawyers and PR folks now to craft a response strategy. Never a dull moment.

Man these guys were buffons for thinking Seattle wasn't smart enough to ask for email records. One of Bennett's consultants from OKC even warned him early on in these email documents. Geez. I'm honestly surprised it's taken so long to make them public.

Sounds like somebody doesn't know how to press delete and empty the trash folder. ;)

Intrepid, I'm not that tech savvy, but even I know a "deleted" email is never really deleted and can be retrieved. Especially when you work for large corporations say Chesapeake, Sand Ridge, etc. that have massive backup servers, etc.

Only safe communication for something like this would be face to face conversation behind secured closed doors.

You'd think these buffons would know that or have advisors that would. I'm embarrased they are from OKC right now, despite all they've done for us.

It definitely keeps that hick image of OKC continuing. This is not going to be good PR wise for OKC from here on out, regardless of what happens, unless some damaging emails from Seattle's side come out.

Intrepid, I'm not that tech savvy, but even I know a "deleted" email is never really deleted and can be retrieved. Especially when you work for large corporations say Chesapeake, Sand Ridge, etc. that have massive backup servers, etc.


I think we ALL know that metro. Thus the ;)

:tiphat:

I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like Seattle's attorneys lobbed a grenade right into the middle of the PBC camp.

First, there's the email in which Bennett, following some of the most hilarious sucking-up I've ever read, flatly lies to NBA Commissioner Stern – to Stern, not to some reporter or citizen or politician – about the partners having no prior conversations about moving the team. Did anyone tell Stern beforehand that this was going to come out?

Then, there's the email in which Brent Gooden discusses with Bennett telling Mayor Cornett what to say to reporters (and citizens) in January, 2007.

And here's Tim Romani, a PBC consultant, discussing with CB in June, 2007 upcoming negotiations with City Manager Jim Couch:

"Our approach will be to ask for the world so you or may not want to pull back on the bit."

So much for the 'act of philanthropy.'

The point I want to make here is that whatever the merits of the lawsuit, these emails may sow distrust among the PBC and Stern and the other owners. They may also send elected officials running for cover - elected officials who are going to be po'd that CB didn't protect them, and in fact allowed embarrassing communications into the court record.

It will be interesting to see if they can hold a united front.

I've been sifting through the 92 page document today, not even half way there yet, but it doesn't look good for us. We're probably definitely looking at 2010 or beyond now. I was optimistic until I got to page 37

Man these guys were buffons for thinking Seattle wasn't smart enough to ask for email records. One of Bennett's consultants from OKC even warned him early on in these email documents. Geez. I'm honestly surprised it's taken so long to make them public.

From: Clay Bennett
To: David Stern

We are attempting to make this the most difficult arena development/relocation exercise of all time. Talking with the lawyers and PR folks now to craft a response strategy. Never a dull moment.

Actually, if you look at the date on the above quoted e-mail, it was August 13, 2007. The legislature had already long since turned down the arena request, and this followed the much mourned interview with Aubrey in the Journal-Record. I believe this was Clay Bennett's attempt at self-deprecating humor about the situation created by Aubrey, combined with everything else that had happened over the past year. He was crafting a response strategy to Aubrey's comments in the Journal-Record. That's why I don't think the newspapers have picked up on this particular e-mail. It's really innocuous if you think about the date and the context.

Never a dull moment seems to be a favorite phrase of the ownership group. These emails are interesting. What is Stern's reaction going to be? Will he feel betrayed by Clay?

Never a dull moment seems to be a favorite phrase of the ownership group. These emails are interesting. What is Stern's reaction going to be? Will he feel betrayed by Clay?

Bennett was a fool to lie to Stern. Stern would have been a fool to believe him. When Bennett stated, on the first day he owned the team, that Seattle had a year to build an arena or the team would relocate, Oklahoma City as an option was already out there. Who in their right mind thought that the group hadn't at least discussed the possibility. If nothing else, by the time Bennett wrote that e-mail, in August of 2007, the Seattle legislature had already declined to even consider an arena, and nobody else but the Muckleshoots was calling.

Shoot, what was going to happen to the Sonics was keeping at least three sports related websites in OKC and Seattle busy. Who in their right mind ever thought the Sonics' ownership wasn't at least thinking about ] a possible move, and, at that point, it was a rational thing to do, given the unlikelihood of staying.

Bennett should have apologized profusely for Aubrey to Stern and moved on. Hopefully, at the time, Stern was rolling his eyes when he read the e-mail. I would have been.

Here is how the money was spent and who contributed. Clay Bennett spent $385,000 on campaign. $18.80 per YES VOTE, opposition spent 100x less per vote 18 cents. Full accounting here. (http://reverserobinhood.com)

Metro would be a smart consultant for these guys: "Only safe communication for something like this would be face to face conversation behind secured closed doors." When lying to the public and then officials have to lie for you - don't let anyone find out. Good one Metro-guy/girl. Funny when I told you guys about this everyone seemed like they didn't care. Anyone here about Cornett or Couch testifying?

jbrown84 said "Nothing is said about wanting to scam OKC out of money "

I guessed you missed this comment from the consultants to help negociate this deal for the Sonics - "OUR APPROACH WILL BE TO ASK FOR THE WORLD" uh that is with regard to how much they can get out of OKC. Good try.

Not the least bit uncommon of a negotiating tactic, whether it is a pro ball consultant, or an atty prosecuting, or one defending, or a mom seeking mercy, or someone on the street ... ask for more than one reasonably expects, in the hope the middle ground will be at least close, if not more favorable, than one will accept.

Should it be that way is a separate question from the fact that it is that way. From lease agreements to vehicle and clothing and jewelry MSRP, it's all a shell game in one form or another.

Do I think if Seattle had stepped up the team would have stayed, sure, it's just business Charlie, nothing personal,l just business.

Do i think they hoped Seattle would not step up. well, emails or no emails .... duh

David,

From the beginning I felt Clay Bennett buying the Super Sonics was a serious mistake from a media standpoint. We live in a country where the national media will back a coastal city in a heartbeat before siding with a prairie dwelling metro area. And I have always cared. Clay Bennett has some serious explaining to do, because he just made Oklahoma City look very bad. Do me a favor and stop acting like I have no judgement.

We live in a country where the national media will back a coastal city in a heartbeat before siding with a prairie dwelling metro area.

I disagree with that. The national media, being headquartered in NY and DC, tend to pay more attention to what happens there, but nobody 'backs' Seattle over OKC or vice versa. This is another example of the continuing persecution complex that makes our city look small and provincial.

Right now, the only person I see that Bennett may have to explain things to is Stern (and, of course, the federal court). I can't imagine him being held accountable by anyone in this city.

But there is certainly some possibility for other kinds of fallout. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if enough turned up in those emails to rationalize making Oklahoma City a codefendant in the suit.

Isn't the suit an attempt to make the Sonics fulfill the terms of their lease and stay in Seattle for two more years? I'm not sure how you could name OKC as a co-defendent in the suit. I always thought it would be smarter to see what happened with the BOG and try and negotiate with Seattle if the BOG voted for relocation. But, the wheels are in motion now.

Of course Seattle isn't making any friends in the NBA either. They may effectively reuin their chances of getting another team if the Sonics move. I guess we will see......

Isn't the suit an attempt to make the Sonics fulfill the terms of their lease and stay in Seattle for two more years? I'm not sure how you could name OKC as a co-defendent in the suit.

That makes sense. I was thinking that if you thought party A had assisted or abetted party B in violating the terms of a contract, you might have some legal recourse against party A.

Although the e-mails were stupid, especially the one to David Stern, they don't change the fact that the city of Seattle and state of Washington never made any attempt to come up with an arena plan, and they could probably still do so tomorrow and the team would stay. What Bennett et al wanted is immaterial.

I agree. Bad PR, but hopefully the fallout is minimal.

Have members of PBC given sworn depositions or anything at all that could come back to bite them criminally?

If they can accuse the city, they could just as easily accuse David Stern - which would insure a new team in Seattle would arrive about half an hour after Lucifer starts banging on the pipes for more heat.