The BOG vote was irrelevant

[srkboy23]

srkboy, not to belittle your hopes, but the hope you cling to appears to be based on the outcome of a lawsuit that has not been filed, and which may well never be filed.

I recognize you feel otherwise, but well, in my opinion threatened litigation and earnestly pursued litigation have little in common.

On your other point, yes, one can have more than one lease, and that is true whether you are a ball club, a home renter or a business owner relocating. Generally one lease is a current lease, and the other lease binds the parties beginning at a future date, the actual date being stated, or, as with PBC and OKC, conditioned on certain factors, i.e., the end of the existing lease by its terms or by agreement on a earlier date.



Everything will play out in time, and it is not only Seattle folks who are not four dquare with reality

First of all, thanks for clarifying that for me. But I think the OKC lease was going to start only if the BOG voted to approve the relocation and when the Sonics ended their KeyArena lease.

As for the lawsuit, Schultz at this point has no choice but to file it. If he doesn't file the lawsuit now, then he will have wasted millions on the law firm and will get worse PR than if he had never brought up the idea of filing a lawsuit in the first place

Just a tip...I would never use the Times forum as a reference for anything other than to prove how pissed off Sonics fans are

Those guys have been wrong about every single event so far and they are clinging to the last line in an article that makes no sense at all...It wasn't even discussed in the article just thrown in at the end...Hardly convincing

Since when did forums make unanimous decisions and predictions about events? As far as I've seen from the Seattle Times forum, a majority of the posters have been right about a number of things, including the lopsided BOG vote, Bennett being a liar (and Stern still supporting him), and Schultz filing a lawsuit.

I don't even know what "article" you're talking about. If you were talking about the first post in that thread, then I don't see what doesn't make sense about it. Because everything he said is true and just because it doesn't match what the OKC media has been telling you, doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense

pride comes before the fall... and
seattle seems to be on a downward spiral. they are so blinded by their arrogance that they never believed that lil' ol'oklahoma could come in and whisk away their team. schultz hasn't even filed the frikkin lawsuit!!! his case is laughable and the sonics now have a lease in okc that begins in 2010 or as soon as bennett pays off the lease. slade gorton and the mayor are only shooting seattle in the foot in regard to ever having the nba in their town again. bennett has ll the cards... stern even said "the current owners will fulfill the remainder of their lease and leave, end of story". at that point bennett leaves with the name and history and key arena still has debt. that is leverage and already a couple leaders in seattle are asking for a settlement.i fully expect a settlement once the shock wears off.

The city of Seattle is not going to offer or accept any sort of settlement from Clay Bennett. because if they do they know they won't be back in office come election day.

One thing all OKC fans should know, that most of us in Seattle don't want anything to do with the NBA if we lose the Sonics. They're bargaining chip of an expansion team won't work. We're going to be getting an NHL team sometime in the near future and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't mind having an arena like the Emerald City Center all to themselves.

[SouthsideSooner]

First of all, thanks for clarifying that for me. But I think the OKC lease was going to start only if the BOG voted to approve the relocation and when the Sonics ended their KeyArena lease.

As for the lawsuit, Schultz at this point has no choice but to file it. If he doesn't file the lawsuit now, then he will have wasted millions on the law firm and will get worse PR than if he had never brought up the idea of filing a lawsuit in the first place



Since when did forums make unanimous decisions and predictions about events? As far as I've seen from the Seattle Times forum, a majority of the posters have been right about a number of things, including the lopsided BOG vote, Bennett being a liar (and Stern still supporting him), and Schultz filing a lawsuit.

I don't even know what "article" you're talking about. If you were talking about the first post in that thread, then I don't see what doesn't make sense about it. Because everything he said is true and just because it doesn't match what the OKC media has been telling you, doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense



The city of Seattle is not going to offer or accept any sort of settlement from Clay Bennett. because if they do they know they won't be back in office come election day.

One thing all OKC fans should know, that most of us in Seattle don't want anything to do with the NBA if we lose the Sonics. They're bargaining chip of an expansion team won't work. We're going to be getting an NHL team sometime in the near future and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't mind having an arena like the Emerald City Center all to themselves.

What we know is that there is a small group of very vocal fans who say that there will be no buyout but who will ultimately have no say in it.

[Laramie]

Couldn't have said it any better...

"fully expect a settlement once the shock wears off."

The pressure to retire the KeyArena debt is on and Slade Gorton who saved the Mariners and Seahawks won't be able to save the Seattle franchise from moving.

Slade's backup to save face is to keep the NBA's presence in Seattle--he knows that the Sonics are gone and he'll bleed Seattle for fees and keep this going as long as he can.

"Slade Gorton's fight with Bennett won't mean a thing, it would be like a misquito pushing a train. "

[Laramie]

skyboy23:


I'm Laramie1 who regularly post on your Seattle Times forum.

I hate that you guys are getting all pumped up; personally, I didn't want the Sonics to relocate to OKC, I will support them if they come.

There is so much misinformation (lies) being passed on that board that it is a shame. Yes, lies and mother goose rhymes...

The name-calling and bashing of Oklahoma City and calling us Trolls just won't be tolerated by you Seattle Scrotums who's brains are apparently between your legs, are you deaf, blind and paralized or are you blind, cripple and crazy to get on this board and argue the BOG vote at this point?

Tunnel vision has played a role in keeping you guys constipated to this move.

[Kerry]

I don't think there is any way Seattle accepts a buyout. The leadership in Seattle is irrational. What make sense to the rest of the country doesn't make any sense to them. Irrational thought is what makes crazy people crazy. The Sonics will be in Seattle until 2010 and then they will be in OKC.

The NHL is not going to Seattle. They don't have any place to play and there is no way Seattle is going to build another arena. They would be crazy to build a new arena for an NHL team they don't have when they wouldn't build a new arena for an NBA team they do have. Crazy? On second thought, consider the NHL arena a done deal.

[Laramie]

They need to come to their senses in Seattle and accept the fact that their NBA team is gone!

It not as painful as you think, so bend over and admit that Bennett did grease you guys down before he finally stuck it to ya!

[betts]

The BOG vote would not have been considered irrelevant by the Sonics' fans in Seattle, had a "no" vote been the majority. Nor would it have been irrelevant. Regardless of legal issues, Bennett et al had to have a "yes" vote to begin the relocation process, no matter when, or even if, it occurs. So, to Oklahoma City, a "yes" vote was very relevant to it's desire to host an NBA franchise.

[BDP]

My point is that this doesn't change ANYTHING. The Sonics are still going to lose all 3 lawsuits and the Sonics will be in Steve Ballmer's hands by the beginning of next season.

What's the legal argument that you think will be successful? The e-mails that everyone is making a big deal about don't amount to much, especially when the actual efforts of the Sonics and the lack of effort by Seattle and Washington are considered. It can not be shown that, even after those e-mails, the Sonics abandoned any efforts to get an arena built. They honored every offer they made and spent a lot of time and money in the negotiation process and worked it from more than one angle. This all amounts to good faith. If anything has led to the relocation of the Sonics, it is a direct result of the will of the people of Washington who didn't want to participate in any negotiation that would have provided financial motivation for the owners to keep the team in Washington beyond the scope of the current lease.

The only real question may be about the statement made to Stern, but guess what: Stern would actually be a witness for the PBC and would do little in his testimony to show bad faith. Any higher court is going to look at the actual effort of the PBC, which clearly shows a significant amount of effort and money spent on negotiations, especially in comparison to the city and state and even after these e-mails were sent.

Face it, all Seattle and Washington had to do was participate in the negotiations and they said "NO" right from the beginning. You even have people who were involved in the "NO" campaign, now campaigning in favor of the efforts to punish the PBC. Now, who exactly was operating in bad faith here? It would actually be easier to show that these people conspired against Bennett's group by actively working against their negotiation efforts and then hindering their rights to commerce once those negotiations failed. There is so much more bad faith on the side of Washington than on the PBC side, it's not even funny.

What the board of governer's vote has done is make these ongoing attempts to punish the PBC very transparent. Washington wanted nothing to do with the NBA's efforts to have an arena built, not with Bennett and not with Shultz. That is 100% fine and very respectable. However, when the NBA said "that's cool, we'll go somewhere else", Washington freaked out. I mean, none of this started with Bennett. It started years ago with Shultz. For some reason, Washington has taken the position that they have an inherent right to an NBA team. They have rights granted by the lease, which the PBC is fully prepared to honor, either with a buy out or through performance. Beyond that, there's nothing that legally establishes Seattle's right to a team.

In the end, it's just so weird and childish. Washington doesn't want to work with the NBA or its owners at all, yet it stills wants an NBA team... seriously, it makes no sense. This is just like the high schooler who does nothing bad mouth and ridicule the "cool kids", but wants nothing more than to be a "cool kid".

[Nawfside OKC]

I think what's gonna happen is the sonics will come to oklahoma city in 2009 not next year or 2010. They will have a horrible next season and finally cave in for the settlement so they can get the rights at least. Remember this is the only team in seattle exsistance that has a championship. So they should least want the legacy.

[traxx]

The city of Seattle is not going to offer or accept any sort of settlement from Clay Bennett. because if they do they know they won't be back in office come election day.

Says the forum poster with neither the resources or the clout to make a decision one way or the other as far as this team is concerned.

[BDP]

What's funny about the whole idea of them not accepting a buy out is how out of line it is with the whole process to date. Basically, Washington didn't want to fund a new arena based on principle. But now they want to continue to carry their debt on the arena, which costs taxpayers money, just to spite the Sonics.

They're unwilling to spend public money to keep a team there, but they will spend public money to punish the same team when it leaves.

[metro]

It's also funny how they're saying the BoG vote is "null and void". I guarantee you if the BoG voted "no" or delayed the vote, they would be bragging left and right. They like to live in grandeur illusions.

[Easy180]

What's really strange was there was no followup to this huge finding by the Times and the PI hasn't reported it at all

Since it's definitely in the constitution and the Sonics will definitely have to make another two relocation proposals and all

I smell desperation

[edcrunk]

what did i tell you guys! i just read on newsok that slade gorton is warming up to reaching a settlement!

[Easy180]

This is Percy Allen's follow up today regarding whether or not there will need to be a revote if the Sonics don't move by '08-'09

Sonics | The Seattle Times


***UPDATED 5:22 P.M.*** This is for Crow. Just did a quick check and I can't find the NBA Constitution anywhere on the Internet, which is not surprising because it's a private industry. And I'm not sure if any other news outlet has reported that the Sonics relocation approval expires after a year.

I did see that the Save Our Sonics website mentions the term limit on the approval.

Basically, here's what happened. The Sonics requested approval for location for the 2008-09, '09-10 and 10-11 seasons f the team is unable to resolve the KeyArena lease litigation this summer. The NBA's counsel told the relocation committee that Article 7 of the NBA Constitution does not permit approval of a relocation application for seasons other than the season following the application (in this case the '08-09 season).

The Board approved the move for next season and if the Sonics renew its application for either of the '09-10 or '10-11 seasons, the Board should approve the renewed application unless there's a major change in the circumstances.

It is interesting to note that the New Orleans Hornets reminded the Board of the Article 7 provision before the owners vote on Friday. No other team made any submissions regarding the Sonics' application.

I know there's a lot of technical phrases in there, but I'm quoting documents given to owners at last week's Board of Governors meeting.

Also this from the PI

That stance was confirmed by Joel Litvin, the NBA's president of basketball operations.

"The constitution only allows the board to approve a relocation that would begin the subsequent season," Litvin said. "However, the committee stated in its report that if the team does not relocate for next season and reapplies for 2009-10 or 2010-11, the board should approve the renewed application."