Seattle Still Pissed

[MustangGT]

Guys, just look on the bright side... Seattle is closer to Yellowstone.

Considering that all the geological experts say the fallout will travel toward the SE and not the NW the intelligent thought is SO WHAT as you are woefully unaware of prevailing weather patterns. Before posting it would help if you were educated about the matter at hand first.

Seattle acted stupidly, as was to be expected and they lost out. Too bad so sad. Their fault they lost out.

[Larry OKC]

It was a poor remodel, whether basically from the floor up or not. Have you ever been in the Key? Ever been in the AA Center in Dallas? The Key feels and looks old and it's built like an arena from a different generation. But again, who cares about any of that? It wasn't financially feasible for the owners to have a team there and so there isn't. The fans in Seattle can whine and moan, but they made no attempt to make it financially feasible, nor did their government, so the team left. There's no owner loyalty when a city doesn't care if they lose money or not. And there won't be here either. You don't care and I do, so I'll vote one way and you'll vote another. Whether we've got a team here in 20 years or not will depend on whether more people feel like me or more feel like you. There's really nothing to discuss until there's something to vote about.

Nope I sure haven't (have you?). However, someone who has been there called it a "model NBA arena", that someone was none other than Stern (I have seen the footage, you can find it out there on the internet). Also, the "remodel" as you characterize it was to the exact specifications of the team owners. If it was "poor", then the owners are too blame.

The lease as written WAS 'financially feasible" when it was written, if it wasn't why would the owners have agreed to it? Why would the NBA (Stern) sign off on it? If not mistaken Stern also called it a model lease. Again, at least 3 different offers were on the table to the previous and new owners, but depending on how much they wanted, they were going to have to share in the costs.

However it is NOT any governments responsibility to make any private, for-profit business "financially feasible". That is the responsibility of the business owner.

The following is a general comment...

To OKC's credit (and esp Mayor Cornett), they did their best to stay out of the mess (not "actively"/"officially" pursuing a particular team), they didn't need to, as Clay Bennett et al, did the dirty work. The City claims they never talked to ANYONE in the NBA about a team until AFTER they had announced they were relocating. Now if you believe that or not, is up to you. The same "OKC is trying to steal our team" accusations were flying our way from Hornet's fans. No doubt that the Louisiana media took up the cause when OKC was added to the team name, when Bennett offered to buy the Hornet's etc. Can't blame the Seattle folks for doing the same. I am sure the same will happen here one day when someone tries to "steal" the Thunder. All of that is what it is.

[betts]

I've been in it. I like visiting NBA arenas, and have been in a bunch. If it's a current model NBA arena, I'm the pope. The people calling it that are the apologists for their refusal to build a new arena for the owners. It's shabby, outmoded-looking and tiny. They say it has "great sight lines." That means "it's a stretch to come up with something positive to say about it so we have to talk about sight lines." Why did Ackerman agree to a lousy lease and a mediocre remodel? Not everyone who has money has common sense or knows anything about owning a basketball team. If you love sports, and you have enough money, owning a team seems like a dream come true until the bills start piling up. I will admit that if I were a billionaire, I'd be one of the Thunder owners. But, people don't get rich losing millions every year and, especially if the team isn't winning, red ink grows tedious rather quickly, I bet.

It may not be the government's responsibilty to make any private, for-profit business financially feasible, but it then follows that it is the business owner's right to attempt to find another location where it may be more financially feasible, where the government is willing to try to make it more feasible. It's not his responsibility to lose money so a team stays with its' fans. As I've said, people with your point of view don't have sports teams in their city. That's a choice that can be made. The voters in OKC were more interested in having a team than touting government's lack of responsibility to make a team financially feasible. Again, that choice has been made and we'll see what they think when it's time to vote again. Undoubtedly you and I will have to square off again, if I'm still living here.

[Larry OKC]

betts: OK, so you are calling Stern a liar?? Or maybe you are saying he is an "apologist"? Why did the NBA/Stern sign off on the lease? Even if the team owner doesn't know anything about owning a team, one would think the league and their experts would be aware of such things and advising the owner. But maybe you are right. Since we both agree that the NBA has had a broken business model for a while now, maybe they don't have a clue either. Fair enough. I agree Stern can't be trusted, any more than I would trust Bennett to correctly make change for a dollar, much less enter into a long-term business agreement with him where he gains the financial revenue from a building he doesn't own or paid to improve. Seattle insisted that the lease that Bennet agreed to, be honored. I would expect OKC to insist the team honor the lease with us. That's right, we did insist on that after they signed the lease and Schultz was threatening a lawsuit to rescind the sale and keep the team in Seattle. How quickly the importance of honoring leases became when it was our lease that was being threatened. Seattle was willing to make improvements, the greater the amount, the higher the contribution would be from the team. Starting at Zero contribution from the owners.

You said it yourself, the key to the team making money is to turn it into a winning team. You have said it before, the point where a team makes a profit is often in the playoffs (Seattle made that point during the trial). He could lower payroll there as he did here (most of the trades made ended up saving the team money). He could have raised the prices in Seattle like he did here. IIRC, there was a 36% increase over Sonics prices, and in some cases more than 200% over Hornets prices. All of that is in the owner's control no matter where the team plays.

We are in agreement again, the Key is "tiny". Strangely enough, our arena got smaller and is dangerously close to the the smallest seating capacity of NBA arenas. After the improvements, there was a net loss of 960 seats, dropping it from #14 all the way down to #28 (maybe even lower now).

[Thunder]

And they're still doing it. :-O

During a Presidential debate. I think they are hoping for a new President to help them.

[CaptDave]

But rabid football and basketball fans make for some pretty unreasonable grownup people.

:

[RodH]

I tried to resist commenting but I can't. The people of Seattle under-estimated OKC and over-estimated Seattle relative to OKC. I think that some of them are still pissed because they cannot imagine a scenario where lowly OKC could get the better of them in a fair contest. I do not think that they fully appreciated the serious challenge that a group of Oklahoma businessmen could make. This was not the first time that one of their teams had been threatened. They had managed to overcome the challenges in the past. No third-rate city like OKC could be expected to be able to ultimately prevail. I believe that they saw OKC as a pawn that was being used to strengthen the bargaining position. I believe that they felt that no persons in their right mind would choose OKC over Seattle. It just could not happen. The NBA owners would not approve it. As far as they were concerned, that flat, dusty, unsophisticated town in flyover country would be a place that the other teams would want to avoid at all costs, especially if the other choice was their great city. They failed to realize that their perception of OKC was not necessarily the reality. Had Las Vegas or San Diego or almost any other city gotten the team under the same circumstances they would not be as upset. But because it was Oklahoma, they must have cheated somehow. They did not see OKC as a serious threat so they did not do all they likely could have to keep the team. OKC has grown and is continuing to grow stronger. Those who are in competition with OKC and have not been paying attention could find themselves in a similar situation as Seattle.

[Snowman]

Nope I sure haven't (have you?). However, someone who has been there called it a "model NBA arena", that someone was none other than Stern (I have seen the footage, you can find it out there on the internet). Also, the "remodel" as you characterize it was to the exact specifications of the team owners. If it was "poor", then the owners are too blame.

The lease as written WAS 'financially feasible" when it was written, if it wasn't why would the owners have agreed to it? Why would the NBA (Stern) sign off on it? If not mistaken Stern also called it a model lease. Again, at least 3 different offers were on the table to the previous and new owners, but depending on how much they wanted, they were going to have to share in the costs.

However it is NOT any governments responsibility to make any private, for-profit business "financially feasible". That is the responsibility of the business owner.

The following is a general comment...

To OKC's credit (and esp Mayor Cornett), they did their best to stay out of the mess (not "actively"/"officially" pursuing a particular team), they didn't need to, as Clay Bennett et al, did the dirty work. The City claims they never talked to ANYONE in the NBA about a team until AFTER they had announced they were relocating. Now if you believe that or not, is up to you. The same "OKC is trying to steal our team" accusations were flying our way from Hornet's fans. No doubt that the Louisiana media took up the cause when OKC was added to the team name, when Bennett offered to buy the Hornet's etc. Can't blame the Seattle folks for doing the same. I am sure the same will happen here one day when someone tries to "steal" the Thunder. All of that is what it is.

It may have been model right after it was built and the lease may have been model after it was signed, that was decades ago. The cost structures changed after contracts with the players changed over time. The Key arena remodel was a compromise, the owner wanted a new arena and wanted to build it in the same location that they built one of the other current pro arenas many years later.

OK, so you are calling Stern a liar?? Or maybe you are saying he is an "apologist"? Why did the NBA/Stern sign off on the lease? Even if the team owner doesn't know anything about owning a team, one would think the league and their experts would be aware of such things and advising the owner. But maybe you are right. Since we both agree that the NBA has had a broken business model for a while now, maybe they don't have a clue either. Fair enough. I agree Stern can't be trusted, any more than I would trust Bennett to correctly make change for a dollar, much less enter into a long-term business agreement with him where he gains the financial revenue from a building he doesn't own or paid to improve. Seattle insisted that the lease that Bennet agreed to, be honored. I would expect OKC to insist the team honor the lease with us. That's right, we did insist on that after they signed the lease and Schultz was threatening a lawsuit to rescind the sale and keep the team in Seattle. How quickly the importance of honoring leases became when it was our lease that was being threatened. Seattle was willing to make improvements, the greater the amount, the higher the contribution would be from the team. Starting at Zero contribution from the owners.

You said it yourself, the key to the team making money is to turn it into a winning team. You have said it before, the point where a team makes a profit is often in the playoffs (Seattle made that point during the trial). He could lower payroll there as he did here (most of the trades made ended up saving the team money). He could have raised the prices in Seattle like he did here. IIRC, there was a 36% increase over Sonics prices, and in some cases more than 200% over Hornets prices. All of that is in the owner's control no matter where the team plays.

We are in agreement again, the Key is "tiny". Strangely enough, our arena got smaller and is dangerously close to the the smallest seating capacity of NBA arenas. After the improvements, there was a net loss of 960 seats, dropping it from #14 all the way down to #28 (maybe even lower now).

Seats only matter as much as price per seat they can charge, the seat count went down but the corporate suites and clubs replacing them should make more per square foot. Along with that another difference between Key and Chesapeake is space for retail, bars, restaurants, and other amenities outside of the arena's bowl; the Key does not compare with modern arenas in this area, Chesapeake was built with space for them, the modern model for arenas is to not just get money from people while in the arena seats but keep more of the entertainment money with the owners/NBA than the local businesses around the arena that they do not see a dime from.

[dcsooner]

I tried to resist commenting but I can't. The people of Seattle under-estimated OKC and over-estimated Seattle relative to OKC. I think that some of them are still pissed because they cannot imagine a scenario where lowly OKC could get the better of them in a fair contest. I do not think that they fully appreciated the serious challenge that a group of Oklahoma businessmen could make. This was not the first time that one of their teams had been threatened. They had managed to overcome the challenges in the past. No third-rate city like OKC could be expected to be able to ultimately prevail. I believe that they saw OKC as a pawn that was being used to strengthen the bargaining position. I believe that they felt that no persons in their right mind would choose OKC over Seattle. It just could not happen. The NBA owners would not approve it. As far as they were concerned, that flat, dusty, unsophisticated town in flyover country would be a place that the other teams would want to avoid at all costs, especially if the other choice was their great city. They failed to realize that their perception of OKC was not necessarily the reality. Had Las Vegas or San Diego or almost any other city gotten the team under the same circumstances they would not be as upset. But because it was Oklahoma, they must have cheated somehow. They did not see OKC as a serious threat so they did not do all they likely could have to keep the team. OKC has grown and is continuing to grow stronger. Those who are in competition with OKC and have not been paying attention could find themselves in a similar situation as Seattle.

Very well stated. Concur!!

[bombermwc]

Not to mention the fact that the Sonics were sold several times in a short period of time. And then they knowingly sold to an out-of-state group....duh what do you think they are going to do? Why do out-of-state folks buy teams? To move them....derrrr. If they didn't believe that from day 1, then they're just stupid. Then all of a sudden, a coupld Seattle money folks say they want to buy it now that the team might move. Where were they when they were for sale before? And as for the arena, they're still paying that thing off because of how they built it. It's almost as old as the Myriad and has had very little remodel work done. The last ig remodel was back in the mid 90's and that's when Stern's interview was. That's 2 generations of areans in the past. And if you wait that long to do anything to a building (or replace it) in the pro world, you're behind the times.

It's OKC's job to keep the team at this point. We will have to build a new arena at some point, and i think we all understand that it will be part of a MAPs project in the future. It fits nicely into the timeline at some point and the owners/city agree pretty well on that. It's not coming up soon, but it will be in the next 15 years....which isn't that long ago. By then CHK Arena will be almost 30 years old..and due for a replacement...just as the Myriad was. And by then, the Myriad will be almost 50 and due to be torn down and replaced with the new Arena....on land the city already owns and has a bigger footprint.

[semisimple]

I tried to resist commenting but I can't. The people of Seattle under-estimated OKC and over-estimated Seattle relative to OKC. I think that some of them are still pissed because they cannot imagine a scenario where lowly OKC could get the better of them in a fair contest. I do not think that they fully appreciated the serious challenge that a group of Oklahoma businessmen could make. This was not the first time that one of their teams had been threatened. They had managed to overcome the challenges in the past. No third-rate city like OKC could be expected to be able to ultimately prevail. I believe that they saw OKC as a pawn that was being used to strengthen the bargaining position. I believe that they felt that no persons in their right mind would choose OKC over Seattle. It just could not happen. The NBA owners would not approve it. As far as they were concerned, that flat, dusty, unsophisticated town in flyover country would be a place that the other teams would want to avoid at all costs, especially if the other choice was their great city. They failed to realize that their perception of OKC was not necessarily the reality. Had Las Vegas or San Diego or almost any other city gotten the team under the same circumstances they would not be as upset. But because it was Oklahoma, they must have cheated somehow. They did not see OKC as a serious threat so they did not do all they likely could have to keep the team. OKC has grown and is continuing to grow stronger. Those who are in competition with OKC and have not been paying attention could find themselves in a similar situation as Seattle.

Um, can you blame the people of Seattle for not perceiving OKC as a "threat?" I certainly wouldn't paint them as being ignorant here. After all, greater Seattle has 3x the population of OKC and an economy 4x larger than OKC's--and let's be honest, Seattle is one of the country's better urban centers. As much progress as OKC has made, it simply does not compare.

[RodH]

Um, can you blame the people of Seattle for not perceiving OKC as a "threat?" I certainly wouldn't paint them as being ignorant here. After all, greater Seattle has 3x the population of OKC and an economy 4x larger than OKC's--and let's be honest, Seattle is one of the country's better urban centers. As much progress as OKC has made, it simply does not compare.

But OKC was a threat. The Seattle area is larger but it also had to split resources between NBA, NFL and MLB. That reduced the amount of resources that they could or were willing to commit to the NBA. I would not paint them as ignorant. I think arrogant would be a better description. Their arrogance blinded them to the reality that while OKC is not the equal of the whole of Seattle it did not have to be.

[Thunder]

Why can't they just be happy with their own WNBA team? Are they not proud of females bouncing the ball?