Starbucks and Lease Breaking

[Rover]

I think it is ironic that Starbucks is closing 600 stores and canceling their lease obligations because they can't make enough money. They have already projected the cost to PAY OFF THE REMAINING LEASES. Wow, what a novel idea for those Seattle companies.

I think every landlord should hold them to their remaining leases because we all know the Starbucks experience is unique and part of the cultural landscape.

[Kerry]

I posted that story on the Seattle Times forum and no one seems to want to talk about it. I wonder why.

[solitude]

That is pretty ironic, huh?

[Joe Kimball]

Do we know which locations in the OKC metro are in danger of this downsizing?

[Rover]

I think they are part of the fabric of the city and we should fight their closure. Al Eschbach can testify at the trial about the coffee goddesses.

[OKCTalker]

I think it is ironic that Starbucks is closing 600 stores and canceling their lease obligations because they can't make enough money. They have already projected the cost to PAY OFF THE REMAINING LEASES. Wow, what a novel idea for those Seattle companies.

I think every landlord should hold them to their remaining leases because we all know the Starbucks experience is unique and part of the cultural landscape.

Do you know that they are not going to meet their lease obligations? If so, say so and say why, but otherwise a typical commercial property lease would require them to perform through expiration. The math is easy: If a store's monthly rent is $x, and they're losing > $x per month with little hope of improving the bottom line, then it's cheaper to close and simply write a rent check each month.

[Rover]

I guess those that haven't followed the Sonics trial can't see the irony or my sarcasm. If you know, you know...if you don't, well...just don't take this commentary too seriously.

[Kerry]

Right on Rover - I am with you.

Al Eschbach can testify at the trial about the coffee goddesses.

ROFLMAO!!!!

[the_Mont]

Good one, Rover!

[Saberman]

What about all of the businesses that will suffer because SB is no longer in their shopping center, lost tax dollars, or the cultural meeting place for personal interaction.

This could cause a breakdown in civilization as we have come to know it

[Rover]

Guess when the Starbucks close down here we will just have to spend the evenings downtown watching the Sonics.

[OKCDrummer77]

Guess when the Starbucks close down here we will just have to spend the evenings downtown watching the Sonics.

[Toadrax]

Maybe if you people had supported your starbucks they wouldn't be leaving.

You can't put a coffee shop in the middle of the road with a "I don't want this" sign on it, and get upset when it someone takes it.

[srkboy23]

I posted that story on the Seattle Times forum and no one seems to want to talk about it. I wonder why.

Are you just ignoring what has been said by almost everyone on that thread?

This is why Starbucks can do that with their leases and the Sonics can't:
- The Starbucks store leases have buyout clauses and there is no specific performance.
- The KeyArena lease does not have a buyout clause and there is specific performance.

And just in case you didn't know, Schultz's lawsuit has almost nothing to do with the lease trial. Schultz is concerned about breach of contract (not the lease) and fraud. I doubt he really cares that much about the lease trial since he can request an injunction if Bennett tries to move.

Your opinions on the Sonics lawsuits aren't that relevant if you can't grasp that 1 simple fact that's been around for the last couple months.

[Toadrax]

someone needs to switch to decaf

[Sea-Town Sonics]

so true srkboy....the folks that post in the Seattle Times forums from OKC seem to get information in one ear and it then immediately leaves out the other ear

[venture]

Is it September yet? I'm ready for some football. :-P

Either way...Kerry what you posted was just flamebait regardless of the subtle irony of the situation. However, it blows me away that the people on that other forum have to resort to tearing OKC down as a whole. Dustbowl? I wish, I'm so over mowing the lawn, plus we haven't been this green for as long as I can remember (well since I've moved here).

People just need to chill the hell out and get back to having a discussion without resorting to insults in order to prove their point. This whole thing has been done in a sloppy way on both sides. Depending on the authority of the judge, I would like to see her force a move by the Sonics to remain for one year charging prices that would put them in the black. However, she would also need to force a lease change to require the rates of the Key be set to make money. Then modify the lease to state a certain performance clause that both sides must uphold. If they fail to meet that after a year, then its done.

Anyway, tomorrow will be the ruling. Either side will probably appeal it. Unfortunately that means both of these great cities will continue to bash each other for no reason. They each have qualities about them that make them unique and interesting. Unfortunately people can't get past their immaturity to fan the flames, or talk people and places down. It is amazing how adults, once conflict begins, immediately return to their elementary school days and how they behave.

[Kerry]

srkboy23 - you need to learn to check the time stamps on the posts and read the content of each post and see if what is being discussed has anything to do with the topic of the post.

So lets see, you said the 600 leases have buyout clauses. I don't doubt that but how do you know? Did you read all 600? We will let the judge determine today if specific performance applies if one party to the lease tried to used said lease as a weapon to inflict financial harm.

The Schultz lawsuit does have something to do with lease lawsuit. If the Sonics win today then Schultz will have to put up a ton of money to cover any Sonics losses. How is it going to look to the employees of the 600+ stores that are closing if the CEO drops $40 million on the Sonics lawsuit while they are being laid-off? Seems like a public relations problem to me.

Note to Sea-Town-Sonics: Please check this post for spelling errors and report back to me.

[traxx]

Do we know which locations in the OKC metro are in danger of this downsizing?

They could close all of them in the greater metro and I'd never know since I never go there.

BTW, Sea-Town, your welcome for Steve Largent. In return Seattle owes Oklahoma for that because without him your precious seahawks would've probably moved after just a couple of seasons. So just chill out.

[Rover]

I can tell that there is absolutely no humor in Seattle, nor any sense of irony. For such a "sophisticated" city (self proclaimed) they sure are sensitive and wear their feelings on their sleeves. I never would have believed they would feel so threatened by a bunch of us poor, dumb, hick Okies. And, I thought WE were the ones with an inferiority complex. All they know to do to make themselves feel better is to try to put us down. Go figure.

[sethsrott]

you know what I find absolutely disgusting? Is the fact that 12,000 job will be effected, the is 12,000 PEOPLE not just people from Seattle but people from New York, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, people with lives, feelings, families, bills to pay. And yet all us 'kind hearted okies' can do is sit and complain about the CEO and some stupid basketball team, do I look forward to having the sonics yes, but come on!

[betts]

I bet Aubrey would let Schultzy out of his lease at the NH Plaza! I wonder how many of these poorly performing Starbucks drove a local businessperson out of business when they came in. Schultz has never been too concerned about small business owners when he plunks a Starbucks down next to their established business and bankrupts them. But we all know how ethical and moral he is compared to Bennett, right?

[sethsrott]

I bet Aubrey would let Schultzy out of his lease at the NH Plaza! I wonder how many of these poorly performing Starbucks drove a local businessperson out of business when they came in. Schultz has never been too concerned about small business owners when he plunks a Starbucks down next to their established business and bankrupts them. But we all know how ethical and moral he is compared to Bennett, right?

hmm...drove out a local businessperson? is that Starbucks fault or is that the fault of the consumer? Sounds to me like some one doesn't like the free market!

[AFCM]

Betts was bringing up the issue of ethics and morality, not legality. As long as a business isn't declared a monopoly, I suppose there's not a whole lot standing in the way of it and their competitors. I understand business is a cruel game, I just wish it didn't involve heavyweights bullying smaller businesses because they want to build a Starbucks Empire.

I'm not trying to present my case to the Court of Public Opinion, but I think most folks would agree with me. Losing our local businesses to corporate superpowers has played a large part in the disappearance of America's middleclass. As were finding in America, the free market helps only the giant corporations while hurting the very people that made them successful in the first place.

Next time a Wal-Mart goes up within a stone's throw of your house, you can thank the free market and recite your previous post.

[betts]

hmm...drove out a local businessperson? is that Starbucks fault or is that the fault of the consumer? Sounds to me like some one doesn't like the free market!

Actually, I'm just pointing out the fact that Starbucks isn't so lily white either. Everyone in Seattle is pointing the finger at Bennett, but there have probably been many personal lives ruined by Starbucks empire building, and I haven't seen any remorse (I happen to know of two people affected personally). So, between the mayor in Seattle's actions, those of the city's legal team and Mr. Schultz, I don't believe there's any moral imperative for the city of Seattle winning out over Mr. Bennett.