Now I do feel sorry for those small local business that survives on the Sonics. The food stands, the jersey retailers, the parking structrues around. I feel bad for those people.
Yes but ask them how much they want to go to a game in Houston. I can root for Houston when I go to see them at a Pacers game, or a Detroit game... but its not the same as going to the Toy Box and rooting with 18 thousand other fans. And its not the same team if they are moved. Do you think the people in Charlotte still root for the Hornets or if they root for the Bobcats... okay maybe that is a bad example. My point is geography does matter.
And you would have said that if the Rockets moved to Louisville? I am a Rockets fan, not a Sonics fan. But I do live in Seattle, and this city is getting screwed. It's happened before, and it'll happen again to other cities. I lived through it with the Oilers, almost lived through it with the Rockets, and I hope Seattle doesn't have to deal with the Sonics leaving. The Sonics are the city's only team that has won a championship, and they've been here for over 40 years. I'm not a fan of lawsuits generally, and lawyers will get rich off this. But I think all of the suits being pursued are valid: 1) Seattle suing to enforce a lease. The city ponied up significant money to upgrade Key Arena 10 years ago, and the Sonics signed a lease in condition for those improvements. They should have to play it out and not be able to walk away early. Clay Bennett has stated he can break his lease because it's not "financially viable" and doesn't allow him to compete in the NBA. Seattle is countering by looking into every nook and cranny of every team in the NBA, the NBA corporate offices, and Bennett's organization. Valid lawsuit, valid tactics. If it succeeds, the Sonics stay in Seattle 2 more years, and who knows what happens in that time. 2) Schulz suing to get team back. Schulz grew up as a boy in Seattle, rooting for the Sonics. He's a hardcore supporter. When he couldn't get an arena deal (like Houston in the first vote), he gave up and sold the team to Bennett. He likely thought the city needed a good scare to get them to vote for a new arena. He's probably right. Schulz knew that moving to OKC was an option, but he wanted to make sure that Bennett pursued keeping the team in Seattle. If a reasonable arena deal had been on the table (like the one being bandied about the group of investors looking to buy the team), Seattle would have voted for it overwhelmingly. To preclude Bennett from just walking away with the team, Schulz put a clause in the sale or signed a separate agreement (there's some debate on this) with Bennett that stated he could buy the team back if Bennett didn't act in "good faith" to keep the team in Seattle. This would have been a hard case to make, but in addition to being an ass, Bennett is also pretty dumb. He made a number of self-incriminating statement in email that will be admitted to trial. A number of his associates have made similarly damning statement in the press. Even the arena that Bennett proposed was unfeasable. He wanted a half billion dollar arena in Renton (equivalent to putting it in Pearland). There was no way this would suceed. Everyone knew it, and it was viewed as Bennett putting this up so he could say he tried to keep the team while knowing it would fail. This is a pretty valid lawsuit, and I think it succeeds, depending on the wording of the agreement between Schulz and Bennett. If this suit succeeds, Schulz gets the team back, a group of investors has an arena plan in place, Seattle will vote for it, and the Sonics stay in Seattle. 3) Season ticket holders suing for false advertising. Washington state has some lower standards on this than other states. Bennett was Public Enemy #1 in Seattle after he bought the team. He made a number of cracks about Seattle not being a world-class city and belittling its citizens. Not a good way to make a first impression, but I think it was pretty intentional. He wanted the city to vote no on a new arena, but then he realized he was going to lose a boatload of money if nobody bought tickets for the lame duck season before they moved to OKC. To drum up support for the team, his sales team promised skeptical season ticket holders that they would do everything necessary to keep the team in Seattle for 3 years. This clearly was not what they were doing. I can understand some of the season ticket holders feeling they were duped. Maybe not as valid as the first 2, but still a valid case. If it succeeds, it doesn't affect the move at all, but it could cost Bennett a lot of money. I am optimistic about how this plays out. Save Our Sonics!
Define a fan? You have to be kidding. I won't. If you don't get it, you just don't get it. And add a ditto from me to what Scribo posted. You want to know about the San Diego Rockets? Guess what... they were one of two expansion teams that started playing in the '67-'68 season. That's 40 years ago. They moved to Houston after their 4th season in San Diego. Guess what the other expansion team was? The Seattle Supersonics. 40 years is quite a bit different that 4, don't you think? No, you probably won't see the difference. All I can say is... wow.
Welll, didnt mean to offend you. Just my honest view on this. If I did, I applogize. Out of the three, I can see the 2nd one might help to save the team. But it would a real hard case to make, if not impossible unless there is something black and white on the papaer saying something like Shultz can buy his team back at the price he wants if Benett doesnt act in "good faith" by Shultz's definition. I doubt Benett is that dumb. I hope he is though. The team was sold. I think if there will be a case, the burden is on Shultz.
I think Bennett is that dumb. It's my understanding that Schulz got it in writing that Bennett would act in "good faith" to keep the team in Seattle or he could buy the team back. By the reports today, I think he has the rights to rescind the sale, refund the money, and retake ownership. The burden is still on Schulz to prove his case, but Bennett is dumb. He and his partners have made incriminating statements in the press and committed them to email. Bennett would have to testify under oath as to his dealings with OKC during the time of the sale and immediately afterwards. That's a mountain of damning evidence. You didn't offend me, but I find your cavalier and spiteful attitude about this baffling. I am never a fan of teams moving cities. It is bad for fans and the sport. I guess I don't see how anybody else agrees with that sentiment. I can understand not liking the Sonics or Seattle, but no city deserves to have their team ripped away from them, especially by an ass like Bennett. Save Our Sonics!
Better buy those authentic Kevin Durant Seattle Jerseys... They'll be worth a fortune in the future... especially if they're signed.
Its business, but its a big deal. I'd like to see the reaction in Tennessee if they moved the Volunteers to another state for financial reasons.
I thought I had replied earlier. You're making my point. Seattle has spent hundreds of millions of dollars because Seattle knows the "rules of the game." Houston didn't and Houston paid the price by losing the Oilers. Now Houston has three new stadiums for its three major franchises. Cities are building three new stadiums in short periods...why can't Seattle? A remodeling is at best a 10 year year time out. Seattle should learn from Houston's mistake. It costs waaaaaay more to land an expansion franchise.
Maybe I work for Benett. J/k As I stated, I dont like that a team can move. It should be made into the law that once a pro sports team franchises at one location, they cant move unless gets kicked out by the fans. I am serious. But I do understand it is not in the law, and NBA is a business. Teams will always be in danger of falling into the hands of irresponsible greedy owners that dont care about fans, and the bounds of loyalty between the fans and the team means nothing to them. And it's hard to stop them from relocation the team because they are the legal owners. This is just a part of NBA. I might happen to any team including the Rockets.
Eloquent, Smokey. The city voted no on the new arena because the Sonics were halfway into a lease at Key Arena after the city put up a lot of money to remodel it. The city also had major renovations going on at the airport, a monorail project, and 2 new stadiums they were still paying off. Remember that Houston voted no on a new arena when the Rockets still had a few years left at the Summit. Once it looked like the team was going to move, Seattle would have voted for a new arena. That's what happened to Houston during the Save Our Rockets days. The difference is Les wanted to keep the team in Houston and worked towards a viable arena that voters would approve. Bennett wanted a half billion dollar palace in Renton. That's like Pearland for those not familiar with Seattle geography. Bennett wanted it to be completely taxpayer funded, and he wanted the full naming rights as well as obscenely generous lease conditions. There was no way that was going to pass. It was designed to be unacceptable to voters and fail. That way Bennett had his cover to move the team. Save Our Sonics!
