The NBA in OKC Megathread

[Karried]

And what city is that? Did you, as a former citizen of Dallas think it was YOUR team?

Actually, I think one tends to adopt the closest pro team in the state or region. Since we are going to only have one.. it won't be too difficult!

For example I grew up in the Bay Area..

The San Francisco 49er's have always been MY team regardless of the fact that I was about 40 miles away.

(Oakland Raiders, not so much)

[OKC PATROL]

Oh puke. Tulsans wanna claim fame to OKCs team. How sick is that. Soon the Tulsa yokels will claim to share the title "natural gas capital of the world", because its in OKC, Oklahoma.

This is way different from the Rangers. Too much national drama now and more to come that involves ONLY OKC. It has nothing to do with Tulsa and if anything, OKC will be given a stereotype as the city that stole the Sonics. Anytime the team plays then OKC will be the only city mentioned or associated with the Sonics.

[andy157]

David Stern said he prefer's "oklahoma" and not "oklahoma city".

Well he is the man who calls the shots, and generaly gets what he wants.

[Intrepid]

The San Francisco 49er's have always been MY team regardless of the fact that I was about 40 miles away.

(Oakland Raiders, not so much)

Woo hoo!!! Go Niners!!!!

I've always been a fan, even tho the Cowboys are closer.

[andy157]

It's only right that the team be named the "Oklahoma --------". Because if it were not for the support from our State wide legislative members the tax rebate would not have passed so handley.

[edcrunk]

And what city is that? Did you, as a former citizen of Dallas think it was YOUR team?

Surely, you must know "Texas" was a compromise name. The team moved from Washington to DFW and placed the team in Arlington so it would be a DFW team. Hence, the name "Texas." We need not compromise with anyone. Actually, you're wrong on your premise as well. People in other parts of the country don't necessarily know that the Texas Rangers play in DFW. Because - they don't! They play in Arlington and are just as much Ft. Worth's team as Dallas (as I explained). I'm sure some people might think San Antonio, some may think Austin, WE KNOW because they're 3 hours down the highway and avid baseball fans know, but really - does the country at large know that the Texas Rangers play in Arlington, TX in Metropolitan Dallas-Ft Worth? Really, you make my point.

surely with your vast knowledge of north texas you would know that metropolitan dallas-ft worth is properly called the dfw METROPLEX.
any pro baseball fan knows that the rangers are a dallas team. arlington isn't anaheim and knows its place. the "dallas" cowboys are moving out there next year... are they gonna come to a compromise and change their name?
all i'm saying is that one will hear on many occassions "live from okc.." or "tonight in oklahoma city..." that we will get our name out there. i just think that it's shady to have the mayor of tulsa come and stand in "solidarity" with us, include them in our sales pitch and then to brush them aside. on the okmet forums we've been discussing the benefits of okc and tulsa working together... of course the thread devolved into bickering, fighting & then chaos. but we are all okies with 2 kick ass cities that could be virtually unstoppable if we worked jointly on common goals that advances our state. forgetting the past and pressing towards the future.

[edcrunk]

Oh puke. Tulsans wanna claim fame to OKCs team. How sick is that. Soon the Tulsa yokels will claim to share the title "natural gas capital of the world", because its in OKC, Oklahoma.

This is way different from the Rangers. Too much national drama now and more to come that involves ONLY OKC. It has nothing to do with Tulsa and if anything, OKC will be given a stereotype as the city that stole the Sonics. Anytime the team plays then OKC will be the only city mentioned or associated with the Sonics.

if it has nothing to do with tulsa... why did we have their mayor come stand with us when the board of governors were in town. oh & btw, i'm not from tulsa, i live in the asian district of okc.

[solitude]

surely with your vast knowledge of north texas you would know that metropolitan dallas-ft worth is properly called the dfw METROPLEX.
any pro baseball fan knows that the rangers are a dallas team. arlington isn't anaheim and knows its place. the "dallas" cowboys are moving out there next year... are they gonna come to a compromise and change their name?
all i'm saying is that one will hear on many occassions "live from okc.." or "tonight in oklahoma city..." that we will get our name out there. i just think that it's shady to have the mayor of tulsa come and stand in "solidarity" with us, include them in our sales pitch and then to brush them aside. on the okmet forums we've been discussing the benefits of okc and tulsa working together... of course the thread devolved into bickering, fighting & then chaos. but we are all okies with 2 kick ass cities that could be virtually unstoppable if we worked jointly on common goals that advances our state. forgetting the past and pressing towards the future.

Just so you know, I am very acquainted with North Texas and the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex. All I was saying is that, officially, the Texas Rangers do not belong to Dallas. They belong to DFW (or, as you more properly state, the DFW Metroplex) and play their games in Arlington - between Dallas and Ft. Worth. In my opinion, you just picked a bad example as a team that "everyone knows is a Dallas team" even though they are called "Texas." In fact, they don't "belong" to Dallas, but to the Metroplex.

But, if The Oklahoman report is accurate and Clay Bennett actually said on Friday that the team will definitely be "Oklahoma City" then the point, as it relates to our situation, is moot.

I agree with you about Tulsa. It's such a shame to have two great cities in a state and both deny the others greatness as a city. I love Tulsa and, in fact, will be making a trip there tomorrow! (or today - Saturday - as it's after Midnite) to see an indie film that is not being shown in Oklahoma City, but is an AMC "select film" at Southroads: "Married Life" with Chris Cooper, Patricia Clarkson, Pierce Brosnan and Rachel McAdams. And yes, from everything I have heard, it's worth the trip. They apparently nailed the 1949 atmosphere to a "t".

Have a good weekend!

[RabidRed]

I have a plan to make money on this. Message me if interested....

[RabidRed]

I have a plan to make money on this. Message me if interested....

[Kerry]

The lease says it has to be Oklaoma City somethings. End of story.

[kevinpate]

well, if leases were end of story, the whole when are they coming issue would never have arisen, it would have always been a few years from now.

Besides, that's some interesting wording quoted in the paper. not clear cut at all, and certainly not end of story clear cut.

sorry., but it'll play out how it plays out, and then it'll be end of story, with some happy, some sad and undoubtedly, some madder than the seattle faithful presently are.

[HOT ROD]

yap, it's official. The team will be called "Oklahoma City", as it should be.

The ONLY way I would EVER agree to the team being called Oklahoma would have been if 1) the STATE built the Ford Center AND 2) the STATE (including TULSA) agreed to upgrade it AND 3) all of the state leg (not just 3/5ths) but UNANIMOUS approved the payroll tax extension AND 4) if the team were to play at more than JUST the Ford Center.

Guys, all of what I state above is logical and makes perfect sense. Sure, there will be fans coming from all over the state and region to support the team. But that holds true now for events in Oklahoma City. Furthermore, don't Oklahomans already support things going on in Dallas (yet their teams dont have ANY sort of reference to Oklahoma, nor does any event in OKC reference Tulsa or other cities).

Nope, if the STATE were the reason the team were coming to OKC, then I'd be for the team having a state name [which by the way, is why the Jazz is named Utah, the Pacers are named Indiana, the Twins are named Minnesota, etc - their STATES were instrumental and essential in those team's success).

Whereas, Oklahoma did NOTHING until the END OF THE DAY for Oklahoma City. Granted, all does help - but it was the CITY of Oklahoma City who took the risk, lead the charge, and therefore should be rewarded justly so with the name.

Besides, the whole point OKC had for going after a team was for marketing purposes of THE CITY! So why now, would they renig on that and 'kum ba ya' - giving Tulsa the opportunity to 'claim' the team is theirs?

One other thing, it will be Oklahoma City residents who support the team day in and out. Tulsa, while vital and necessary for long term profit, will still be considered an extension.

No offense, but that is just the way it is being 100 miles away!

[edcrunk]

hey solitude... i'll be in tulsa on sunday, but sunday evening not morning (i'm playing at a 420 party somewhere downtown).
i guess after reading newsok last night that this whole debate is a mute point now. =-]

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

I have a plan to make money on this. Message me if interested....

If it's got anything to do with hookers, I'm in.

[mmonroe]

Good point Hot Rod. It is OKLAHOMA CITY bending over backwards to make this happen.

[HOT ROD]

guys, you need to go to the SeaTimes and vote who you think dropped the ball for Seattle.

Clearly, it wasn't Clay Bennett (despite how you feel about what he has done, it clearly lies on certain levels of Seattle/WA leadership if you ask me - a Seattle resident by the way. What do you guys think?)

Sonics | NBA owners approve Sonics' move, but legal fight continues in Seattle | Seattle Times Newspaper

[jbrown84]

The final results of the poll are surprising, and very different from a similar poll I saw that had Clay Bennett as the one to blame by a landslide.

Who gets the most blame for losing the Sonics? (Poll Closed)

1. Howard Schultz 43% (2284 votes)
2. State Legislators 18% (978 votes)
3. Clay Bennett & Co. 15% (781 votes)
4. City of Seattle 12% (665 votes)
5. David Stern 10% (540 votes)
6. King County 1% (64 votes)
7. Barry Ackerley 1% (54 votes)

Total Votes: 5366


Shultz must be shakin' in his boots.

[HOT ROD]

Noise from Seattle, very interesting!!!

Analysis: City's Sonics options limited

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Analysis: City's Sonics options limited

Analysis: City's Sonics options limited
Either sue or settle for an NBA future

Last updated May 1, 2008 11:14 p.m. PT

By GREG JOHNS
P-I REPORTER

As the city of Seattle and Sonics ownership continue on their collision course toward a June trial date over the KeyArena lease situation, three simple scenarios remain: The city will win the lawsuit, lose the lawsuit or settle the lawsuit in the six weeks that remain before the trial.

Each scenario is fraught with variables that would determine the future of professional basketball in Seattle. Here's a look at the potential outcomes:


The city wins the court case

On the surface, this seems the best outcome for Seattle and its sports fans. But even a favorable ruling from Judge Marsha Pechman wouldn't represent an all-out victory for the city.

A court victory would merely lock the Sonics into playing their home games at KeyArena for the final two years of their lease, through the 2009-10 NBA season. The team would still be free to move to Oklahoma City in 2010 and, indeed, NBA owners have already voted to approve that move, even though another relocation rubber-stamp vote would be required at that point.

From a purely fiscal perspective, a court win would be a money loser for the city. If the Sonics move in two years, the city will still owe about $25 million on the bonds used to finance KeyArena's last remodel in 1994. That number currently sits at $37 million, with the city paying $6.3 million a year toward ultimate debt retirement in 2014.

Assuming attendance and interest in the team wane in two lame-duck seasons, the city will need to dip into its general fund for more than $6 million over those two years to make up for the expected revenue shortfall.

The original concept of the KeyArena remodel was that Sonics-related revenue from suites, club seats, naming rights and admission taxes would cover operating costs and payments of the $74 million in construction bonds. But since 2001, revenue has declined to the point where the city has had to subsidize the facility from its general coffers.

Tom Israel, director of finance for Seattle Center, said Sonics revenue for 2007 was about $3.3 million, leaving a $3 million shortfall for the city to absorb in order to make the $6.3 million debt payment. With the team's continuing struggles and uncertain future, Seattle Finance Director Dwight Dively expects that subsidy to continue in the $3 million range each year the Sonics remain at KeyArena under their current lease.

Thus the idea of "bleeding (Clay) Bennett" and making the Sonics chairman pay by binding the Sonics to KeyArena for two more years would have a similar, though smaller, effect on the city itself, given an offer to buy out the lease would presumably take care of that remaining debt. But that factor isn't weighing into Mayor Greg Nickels' decision to fight the Sonics chairman in court.

"This has never been about the money, and it's not now," said City Attorney Tom Carr. "Obviously the city doesn't like losing money and budgets are tight, but it's really about having pro basketball in Seattle. That's what (the original) $74 million investment in KeyArena was about and why we're suing to enforce the lease now."

What a court victory would buy is two more years for the city to see if a solution might evolve. In theory, that would be two years in which to convince the Legislature to help fund a KeyArena remodel or for area business leaders to unearth a privately funded arena solution that would help make the NBA again work financially in Seattle.

Some feel if the region comes up with a modern facility, the NBA will find a way to keep a team in a city that has 41 years of history with the league.

There is risk in this scenario, given that a full-court legal battle with the NBA would do little to quiet the growing discord between NBA commissioner David Stern and city officials. Not to mention an all-or-nothing court fight excludes the possibility of any settlement that might pave the way for a replacement franchise or help pay off the remaining arena debt.

If the only benefit of a court victory is to have the current Sonics play two more money-losing seasons in Seattle before fleeing to Oklahoma, that would seem a shallow victory to most.

Yet the flip side is that a victory in Pechman's court could put the city in stronger negotiating position to gain a replacement franchise after the trial, given the NBA and Bennett would then know the only way to avoid two extremely difficult seasons in Seattle would be to negotiate their way out.

Some Sonics fans don't want the city to give an inch to Bennett and would be furious if a settlement to allow the team's departure occurred after Seattle had actually won in court.

Carr said it's always possible to negotiate a post-trial agreement, but downplayed the likelihood of one.

"It would have to be something acceptable, and I haven't seen anything indicating that," he said. "I'm not optimistic about resolving this (outside the courtroom)."

Another element to the city's case is its relationship to a separate lawsuit filed by former Sonics majority owner Howard Schultz, who wants the court to rescind his 2006 sale to Bennett's group. That suit also has been assigned to Pechman.

If the city wins its case, Schultz has more time to pursue his allegations that Bennett's group failed to abide by a good-faith agreement to keep the Sonics in Seattle.

Should the city lose, Schultz likely would seek an injunction to prevent the team from being moved to Oklahoma City before his own trial.

Talk of a preliminary injunction being filed by Schultz's lawyers before the city's June trial seems unlikely, given that they'd need to essentially lay their case before the judge at that point without benefit of discovery and hope for a favorable ruling. By waiting for the city's trial, Schultz could gain the same outcome without waging, and paying for, his battle prematurely.


The city loses the court case

This is clearly the worst-case scenario for those hoping to save pro basketball in Seattle, since a defeat in Pechman's court would allow the Sonics to move immediately to Oklahoma City.

All that would be left to work out would be the financial obligation required from the Sonics to pay off the remaining two years of rent on their lease. The team's lawyers filed a motion last week asking Pechman to make that financial determination during the trial rather than leaving it hanging for another court battle.

The city responded Wednesday by saying it would seek a six-month trial delay, as well as a jury decision, if Pechman agrees to include the financial decision in the upcoming case.

This particular battle should not be mistaken for a buyout offer. A buyout would be a way for the Sonics to avoid the whole legal scrum and just move to Oklahoma by satisfying the city in a settlement. The Pechman decision refers to what amount of money the city would be legally owed under the terms of the lease, should the Sonics win their case and be allowed to move immediately.

Ultimately, a loss in court would leave the city with no remaining leverage. The Sonics could move, the league would have no motivation to guarantee any future team and KeyArena would still have a large debt with no major tenant.

A KeyArena analysis done for the city by an independent group in 2006 said if the Sonics did depart, the city would still need to spend at least $20 million to upgrade the facility to keep it competitive for other events.

That report indicated Key- Arena could remain viable if the Sonics moved, but would need to be dramatically restructured if another competing multipurpose arena were built in the Seattle area for pro basketball.


The sides agree to settle

Lots of areas of gray in this scenario, which could include any variety of agreement between the city, Sonics and NBA. There's plenty of motivation for all parties to settle, so don't be surprised if this is the ultimate outcome as the trial date nears.

Nickels and Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis insist they're not interested in settling, but that could change if Bennett and Stern offer up a scenario in which the city can save both face and money.

Carr rejected Bennett's $26.5 million buyout offer in February, but that attempt generated interest from the City Council, which remains fiscally responsible for solving Seattle Center issues.

Given that Stern said the Sonics will lose $30 million a year if forced to continue at KeyArena, it seems as if any offer of less than $60 million would save Bennett and his partners money. Not to mention, the Oklahoma City owners are eager to avoid all this unpleasantness and begin reaping the rewards of moving to their hometown.

Former U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton, who heads the city's legal front, has said it would make sense now to pursue an agreement with Bennett as long as such a settlement included a guarantee of a replacement team.

But Carr, the man ultimately responsible for such negotiations, said Gorton was offering his own opinion, and the city's position has never wavered.

"The city's stance is we're going to trial," Carr said. "There's nothing on the table. We don't have a settlement position. We had the $26 million offer and rejected it. There really isn't anything else. There has been no offer and nothing to consider."

Common sense -- and Carr himself -- indicate there is always a price that could entice city leaders. But Bennett would need help from Stern in coming up with any solution that involved either assuring an expansion team or relocation of an existing franchise to Seattle.

Bennett appears quite willing to leave the Sonics' name and history with Seattle. His lawyers included that as part of the initial $26.5 million buyout offer.

Additionally, Bennett indicated in an e-mail obtained by the city's lawyers that he likes the idea of allowing Oklahoma City a fresh start with an all-new team name and colors.

The hard part figures to be assuring Seattle in any of these scenarios that it might have another team to call the Sonics at some point down the road. Unless that little problem can get resolved, any sort of settlement before the June 16 trial seems unlikely and the sides will duke it out in U.S. District Court.



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

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

© 1998-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

[HOT ROD]

ESPN - OKC's latest demands muddle Sonics' future even more - NBA

ESPN.com: NBA
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Updated: May 15, 4:23 PM ET

OKC's latest demands muddle Sonics' future even more

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Lester Munson
ESPN.com

The legal battles in Seattle over the future of the SuperSonics are quickly becoming more complicated, more expensive and more unpredictable. Hard on the heels of a fight over an arena lease in Seattle and an attempt by former owner Howard Schultz to undo his sale to an Oklahoma City group in July 2006 comes the assertion late last week from Oklahoma City officials that they will expect more than $150 million in damages if the team does not move into their upgraded arena.


The Oklahoma City demands arrived in a nine-page, powerfully worded letter from an attorney for Oklahoma City's mayor and city council. According to the letter from city attorney Wiley L. Williams, current Sonics owner Clay Bennett has signed a series of interlocking contracts and leases with Oklahoma City that are legally binding and would result in enormous penalties if the team does not move.


The contracts and leases, the letter says, are "fully enforceable against the current and any future owners" of the team.


"We expect the agreements to survive regardless of the outcome" of the litigation in Seattle, according to Williams. A lawsuit seeking to enforce the Sonics' lease in Seattle is scheduled for trial on June 16. That case seeks to enforce a lease that Bennett inherited when he purchased the team from Schultz nearly two years ago.



When Sonics' owner Clay Bennett signed agreements to move the team to Oklahoma City, he might've subjected the franchise to lease lawsuits in two places.
If the team does not move to Oklahoma City, though, last week's letter strongly suggests the franchise will face another lawsuit on another lease, with Oklahoma City officials trying to do exactly what Seattle officials are trying to do now to keep the team in the Pacific Northwest.


The Oklahoma City assertions add to an already complex jumble of claims and lawsuits. The situation has begun to resemble an exam question that could baffle even the best students at the best law schools in the land.


The conflicting demands offer the possibility of an unprecedented scenario in which a judge in Seattle could order the team sold to an "honest owner," which is what Schultz is demanding in his lawsuit seeking to undo the 2006 sale to Bennett; and then, a judge in Oklahoma City could order the new "honest owner" from Seattle either to move the team to Oklahoma City or to pay the city $150 million in "liquidated damages."


The agreements between Bennett and Oklahoma City include powerful language requiring the team to move to Oklahoma City. If the move is not completed, the agreements allow city officials to seek an injunction -- a court order requiring the team to move. And, if the team does not move, the agreements also permit Oklahoma City to seek "liquidated damages" from whoever owns the team.


Although it is difficult to make a precise calculation of the "liquidated damages," the contracts and the arena lease indicate that the owner of the Sonics could owe Oklahoma City as much as $95 million for renovations of the Ford Center Arena in Oklahoma, another $30 million for a new practice facility and 15 years of rent for 41 home games at the Ford Center at a cost of $1.6 million each season. Also included in the mix of liquidated damages that OKC would claim is an annual naming rights fee of $409,000 that the team would be expected to pay the city each year.


It's a long way from a clause in a contract to the actual collection of liquidated damages, but it will be impossible for any new owner to ignore Oklahoma City's claims. Any new owner who keeps the team in Seattle would face immediate litigation in Oklahoma City, with the city demanding either a move or the liquidated damages.


The Oklahoma City letter suggests that the city and the team are "business partners" under the series of interlocking leases and agreements, and that "we expect that any owner would join hands with the city ... and honor the agreements ... as good corporate neighbors to make NBA basketball a success in Oklahoma City."


In his letter, attorney Williams makes it very clear that Mayor Mick Cornett and other Oklahoma City leaders will not hesitate to go to court to enforce what they believe to be binding agreements with the Sonics to move to Oklahoma City and play there for at least 15 years.


It is remarkably good politics on the part of the Oklahoma City officials. On March 4, nearly 62 percent of city voters approved a referendum to allow a sales-tax increase for arena improvements and a practice facility.


Lester Munson, a Chicago lawyer and journalist who reports on investigative and legal issues in the sports industry, is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

[Kerry]

Don’t start believing Munson now. It is apparent that he is looking at this case as a casual observer at best. The sad part is he is driving the opinions of thousands of other casual observers. While he might be a lawyer by trade, he is now a full time member of the drive media. Heaven forbid that he actually research the merits of the Schultz case. He seems content to take both sides of the fence as long as the debate continues and ESPN continues to sell air time on ESPN News.

P.S. I think it is safe to say that there are at least 20 people on this site alone that now more about this case then Munson will ever care to know and most of us are not even lawyers.