Will Oklahoma City offer the Sonics a free lease while Key Arena deal exists?

[Theo Walcott]

I've seen this bantered around a bit today and wanted to get the board's thoughts. Suppose that Bennett is unable (for whatever reason) to come to an agreement with the City of Seattle over the terms for a lease buy out. Further assume that Seattle seems intent on trying to make Bennett specifically perform his lease obligation to the City in a court.

If this happens, and things turn ugly from a litigation standpoint, what are the chances that OKC offers the Ford Center to the Sonics for free for the remainder of the Key Arena lease? Bennett could keep paying his end of the lease to Seattle but could move the team to OKC.

Thoughts?

[Luke]

I don't know from a legal standpoint how all the details would work out. But from a garden variety citizen... Sounds good!

[Pete]

Lease buy-outs happen all the time and I seriously doubt anybody in the NBA -- especially the commissioner -- would want to force a team to stay in a place where they are lame ducks. Would be horrible for everyone involved.

I believe the lease runs through 2010 and we all know the Sonics will stay put for the 2007/08 season, so that just leaves 2008/09 and 2009/10: two years. That's not a lot.

No matter what, OKC will offer the Sonics a sweet deal and even if they have to pay off Key Arena, they'll no doubt still come out ahead when you consider increased enthusiasm that will result in greater ticket, suite, concession and merchandise sales.

[Blangdon]

I agree with Malibu. I think that if/when the Sonics come to OKC there will be such enthusiasm for an actual "Home Team" this time around that sales will explode. I dont mean to offend anyone but when the Hornets were here I would never buy any "gear" because I knew they'd most likely be gone in a couple of years and I'd be stuck owning some jersey from a team that isn't even in OK anymore.

But with the Sonics being here indefinitely...now that's a different story.

When (what time of year) do you think they would move to OKC?

[Pete]

I think they would move immediately after this coming season ends.

And I agree about the enthusiasm for the Sonics vs. the Hornets. The Hornets were never our team, their unis never even said Oklahoma City (apart from a little patch), they weren't locally owned, etc. Yet, they were supported very, very well.

I can only imagine how the Sonics would go over, especially if they sign Kevin Durant.

[HOT ROD]

Yep, I agree Malibu.

Obviously, Bennett is wanting to set up a meeting with the city of Seattle do develop the terms of the buyout of the lease. I think at first the city might have a defensive posture - but if Bennett were to make them an offer they can't refuse - ie keep the Supersonics name and rent paid thru the 2010 season, I seriously doubt the city will refuse that OR take Bennett to court.

A court battle would surely result in a win for Bennett. Unlike the other two teams, the sonics lease at Key Arena sucks. When you think in legal terms, it does not offer Equitable Consideration for the Sonics - other than they are the top tenant during the lease. There are no provisions for the city to assist the team to break even nor will the city offer to do so to keep the Sonics here.

The City knows they HOOKED the Sonics and like you said, there's only 2 years left on the lease - so why not let Bennett out easy? Especially since the city has a no-win clause for pro sports and the state will NOT make public funds available prior to Bennett's Oct 31 deadline.

Legally, Bennett will win because of the UNFAIR lease. How/Why should a business be obligated to continue to lose money on an unfair and unequitable agreement that was reached under past ownership and past conditions. Sorry, but times change and the city aint offering anything to balance the tables.

Honestly, I bet Bennett could move IMMEDIATELY and not even play in 2007 if he wanted to. There is NOTHING that holds him to play in Seattle for 2007. He ONLY said he'd try to work something out with the state/city thru Oct 31.

Perhaps a split season would be better than a lame duck for 2007/2008 (with OKC getting them in Jan 2008). This IS possible!! (could be probable).

[okclee]

Another thing with the lease is David Stern of the NBA.

He could simply tell the city of Seattle to let Bennett out of the lease if they ever want to think about getting another NBA team in the future.

Basically threaten them into letting Bennett out of the lease, not a pretty idea but it would be effective.

[Pete]

Stern has said several times that the Key arena situation is bad for the Sonic, both in terms of the venue and the lease itself.

Plus, Bennett & Co. have tons of goodwill on their side after everything they did for the Hornets -- really turned a bad situation into a great one for everyone involved... Except the sponsoring group (Bennett et al) and the fans in OKC.

You better believe Stern knows he owes a debt to both as does the NBA in general.

[bombermwc]

Plus, Seattle doesn't really make that much on just the lease. If the team isn't going to be there those 2 years, then they aren't going to be making any money on the deal because there won't be people buying tickets/merchandise/parking/eating/etc...the whole economic impact is gone. So do you think the city of Seattle would be so hard headed and stupid to force the team to pay that small 2 years worth of lease?

I don't think they will...I'm sure Bennet will be able to buy out the lease, even though it may cost him more than he wants since he's been so forceful. But from the OKC side, I'm so glad things worked out this way...we just all have to cross our fingers that Seattle doesnt get something passed so we can get OUR team. Not a loaner.

I'll turn into a Sonics (or whatever they want to call them) fan galore once they are OURS! My god the people here will go BRAZERK!!!!!

[Easy180]

Another thing with the lease is David Stern of the NBA.

He could simply tell the city of Seattle to let Bennett out of the lease if they ever want to think about getting another NBA team in the future.

Basically threaten them into letting Bennett out of the lease, not a pretty idea but it would be effective.

Good point...I'm pretty sure the master plan is to at some point get a team back in Seattle if they move the Sonics

If Seattle forces them to lose money for the next three years I doubt the NBA would even sniff Seattle again

[betts]

Yep, I agree Malibu.

Obviously, Bennett is wanting to set up a meeting with the city of Seattle do develop the terms of the buyout of the lease. I think at first the city might have a defensive posture - but if Bennett were to make them an offer they can't refuse - ie keep the Supersonics name and rent paid thru the 2010 season, I seriously doubt the city will refuse that OR take Bennett to court.

A court battle would surely result in a win for Bennett. Unlike the other two teams, the sonics lease at Key Arena sucks. When you think in legal terms, it does not offer Equitable Consideration for the Sonics - other than they are the top tenant during the lease. There are no provisions for the city to assist the team to break even nor will the city offer to do so to keep the Sonics here.

The City knows they HOOKED the Sonics and like you said, there's only 2 years left on the lease - so why not let Bennett out easy? Especially since the city has a no-win clause for pro sports and the state will NOT make public funds available prior to Bennett's Oct 31 deadline.

Legally, Bennett will win because of the UNFAIR lease. How/Why should a business be obligated to continue to lose money on an unfair and unequitable agreement that was reached under past ownership and past conditions. Sorry, but times change and the city aint offering anything to balance the tables.

Honestly, I bet Bennett could move IMMEDIATELY and not even play in 2007 if he wanted to. There is NOTHING that holds him to play in Seattle for 2007. He ONLY said he'd try to work something out with the state/city thru Oct 31.

Perhaps a split season would be better than a lame duck for 2007/2008 (with OKC getting them in Jan 2008). This IS possible!! (could be probable).

Not only is there a short lease between the Key and the Sonics, but regardless of what happens, the Key is not going to be in the picture for the next Sonics' arena. It's not as if they have the chance to negotiate a favorable new 15 year lease as an alternative to Oklahoma City, if I understand I-91 correctly. The way it stands, Seattle will not be in the picture regardless. A new arena in the suburbs, if it truly were a multipurpose facility and include convention facilities would actually compete with the Key and the city of Seattle for events. From a financial viewpoint, the city of Seattle would be wise to accept a generous settlement, as they will profit more than from having a team there for the next three years. Obviously there are other issues, such as the city's 40 year history with the Sonics and the negative aspect of losing a franchise, so it's not all money.

I also agree that David Stern might step in to avoid a protracted court battle, if Clay Bennett decides to move the team. Leaving the name and history in Seattle for the next team would be a reasonable compromise, as a market that size will not stay teamless forever, or even for a long time, IMO. We've still got Paul Allen out there in the wings as well. I'm still hearing Trailblazer rumors, as hard as that seems to believe.

[HOT ROD]

I agree with your statements Betts. The city is going to lose no matter what due to I-91. That is correct.

But, I think leaving the name will be perhaps the BIGGEST chip that Bennett could offer to the city, since it has that 40-year history and ONLY major championship!!

If Bennett were to offer the name Supersonics to the city, then to the city - it wouldn't be like LOSING a team, it would be more like RETIRING a team. I liken this similar to when Michael Jordan retired, they saved his number so no one else could use it - when he returned for a brief stint (well, 3 more championship years to be precise), he wore his retired number that the Bulls saved for him.

Like I said, it would be a much LESS slap in the face for Seattle if they were to accept the NAME as a huge concession since the city will lose no matter what. Im not sure what it's worth dollar wise, but it has to be HUGE since image wise it would be like a retirement!

[andy157]

Another thing with the lease is David Stern of the NBA.

He could simply tell the city of Seattle to let Bennett out of the lease if they ever want to think about getting another NBA team in the future.

Basically threaten them into letting Bennett out of the lease, not a pretty idea but it would be effective.

Those tactics seem to be working here.

[fubaduba]

The "reimbursements" clause in the ballot could possibly make part of the negotiation process paying Bennett et. al the money they pay to get out of the lease...

[Easy180]

Those tactics seem to be working here.

I agree...Stern shouldn't be pushing for upgrades on an arena that is half as nice as the one up in Tulsa

[Dustbowl]

I agree...Stern shouldn't be pushing for upgrades on an arena that is half as nice as the one up in Tulsa

True. Let's vote no and see if another NBA team wants to negotiate with OKC on better terms. If OKC is a mecca for a basketball team, let's let the free market work and see what happens instead of having another brother-in- law deal crammed down our throats. I know, I don't get it and I don't have vision. Save the diatribe.

[betts]

True. Let's vote no and see if another NBA team wants to negotiate with OKC on better terms. If OKC is a mecca for a basketball team, let's let the free market work and see what happens instead of having another brother-in- law deal crammed down our throats. I know, I don't get it and I don't have vision. Save the diatribe.

Uh, another team? There is no other team. That's what some people fail to realize. This could be a once in a lifetime (for some of us) opportunity. Oklahoma City is NOT a mecca for basketball, and anyone who thinks it is is using some serious rose colored glasses. We would be the second smallest market and we are the 47th largest television market. As I've said multiple times, it's unlikely this team will even make money over the years.

If the free market works, there will not be a team in Oklahoma City. Don't people realize that the only reason we're even being considered for a team is because the owners are from Oklahoma City and would like to have a team here? They're willing to lose money or break even, and people begrudge them (it's not even "them" really) an upgraded Ford Center, which needs to be upgraded anyway.

We are so unbelievably lucky to be given this chance. It's because of the generosity of the owners that the chance even exists. We're treating these owners as badly as the people in Seattle have, and they've all been philanthropists and leaders in this city for years.

[Laramie]

Since we are paying for the practice facility (if vote passes), I noticed that it had been advertised that the team would be leasing the practice facililty and leasing the Ford Center and there was a double emphasis that the city owned the facilities.

This was an effort to fight this "Maps for Millionaires" crap that has been floating around in water.

It wouldn't be a good ideal unless the NBA and Sonics are will to exchange free rent for a lowering of ticket prices.

Please get out and vote yes March 4.

[Laramie]

True. Let's vote no and see if another NBA team wants to negotiate with OKC on better terms. If OKC is a mecca for a basketball team, let's let the free market work and see what happens instead of having another brother-in- law deal crammed down our throats. I know, I don't get it and I don't have vision. Save the diatribe.


If this vote fails, look for the city to court the National Hockey League.

I understand that there is a group in Tulsa trying to lure an American Hockey League franchise for the BOK Center.

[Dustbowl]

Uh, another team? There is no other team. That's what some people fail to realize. This could be a once in a lifetime (for some of us) opportunity. Oklahoma City is NOT a mecca for basketball, and anyone who thinks it is is using some serious rose colored glasses. We would be the second smallest market and we are the 47th largest television market. As I've said multiple times, it's unlikely this team will even make money over the years.

If the free market works, there will not be a team in Oklahoma City. Don't people realize that the only reason we're even being considered for a team is because the owners are from Oklahoma City and would like to have a team here? They're willing to lose money or break even, and people begrudge them (it's not even "them" really) an upgraded Ford Center, which needs to be upgraded anyway.

We are so unbelievably lucky to be given this chance. It's because of the generosity of the owners that the chance even exists. We're treating these owners as badly as the people in Seattle have, and they've all been philanthropists and leaders in this city for years.

Well, I guess you answered the question. The free market will not bring an NBA team here. Let's stop and think about what you just said. If the free market will not support a team in OKC, why would anyone subsidize out of their own pockets a loser deal? The goodness of their hearts? Maybe they are that generous, I don't know. I seriously doubt it though. Why does Wal-Mart lose money on toothpaste? It's called a loss leader to get you into the store to hopefully buy higher margined products. Nothing wrong with that at all. So our NBA deal could be a loss leader for the generous millionaires? If so, what is the real prize? What is the real purpose for the generosity? As "Deep Throat" told Woodward and Bernstein: FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!!! Why the media blitz and passing out flyers to churches? Why the brow beating by Mayor Mick? Why don't they just tell the people, I love OKC and I'm willing to lose millions of dollars so you can watch basketball? I would really respect them if that's the truth and would sing their praises forever. Remember, I don't get it and I don't have vision.

[andy157]

I agree...Stern shouldn't be pushing for upgrades on an arena that is half as nice as the one up in Tulsa

You say pushing. I say Demanding. I would vote yes if he were only pushing.

[Easy180]

You say pushing. I say Demanding. I would vote yes if he were only pushing.

Stern is demanding the upgrades?...Could you please provide the quote where he says that?...Don't think I've seen him demanding anything

[Easy180]

Well, I guess you answered the question. The free market will not bring an NBA team here. Let's stop and think about what you just said. If the free market will not support a team in OKC, why would anyone subsidize out of their own pockets a loser deal? The goodness of their hearts? Maybe they are that generous, I don't know. I seriously doubt it though. Why does Wal-Mart lose money on toothpaste? It's called a loss leader to get you into the store to hopefully buy higher margined products. Nothing wrong with that at all. So our NBA deal could be a loss leader for the generous millionaires? If so, what is the real prize? What is the real purpose for the generosity? As "Deep Throat" told Woodward and Bernstein: FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!!! Why the media blitz and passing out flyers to churches? Why the brow beating by Mayor Mick? Why don't they just tell the people, I love OKC and I'm willing to lose millions of dollars so you can watch basketball? I would really respect them if that's the truth and would sing their praises forever. Remember, I don't get it and I don't have vision.

Must everything be part of a vast conspiracy?...This is very simple and transparent...City owned arena gets massive upgrades and we land an NBA team with local owners who fought hard to bring a team to their hometown...Completely paid off in 15 months and with a tax we currently pay

Some people just have to subscribe to the all wealthy are in it only for themselves theory and just can't accept the possibility these 8 owners may just be doing this mostly to better the city they live and work in...Of course they want to make money on it, but the facts don't support that this is their main driving force

[andy157]

Stern is demanding the upgrades?...Could you please provide the quote where he says that?...Don't think I've seen him demanding anything

Has not the Mayor said over and over, without a yes vote to upgrade the F.C. and build the P.F. that we WILL NOT get the NBA? And weren't those statements made after he had met with Stern and based on the information he was given at that meeting? Check the video.

[Easy180]

Has not the Mayor said over and over, without a yes vote to upgrade the F.C. and build the P.F. that we WILL NOT get the NBA? And weren't those statements made after he had met with Stern and based on the information he was given at that meeting? Check the video.

Like I said there is no doubt Stern is pushing for these upgrades, but to say he is demanding anything w/o him actually saying that is pure speculation

I would think it would have more to do with conversations with the BOG relo committee and other owners since Stern doesn't have a vote in April