I'm starting this thread because there have been numerous threads on various matters relating to the Sonics and their possible relocation to OKC. I am a former Houstonian who has been living in Seattle for the past 4 years, so I'm going to try to give a local perspective to the possible relocation. I am a die-hard Rockets fan and have never really liked the Sonics, dating back to the Kemp-Payton-Karl days, but I love Seattle and don't want to see the Sonics leave. <B>History</B> Seattle voted against a new arena for the Sonics in 2006. The owner Howard Schultz (of Starbucks fame) had threatened to move the team if he didn't get a new arena. Key Arena had been renovated a few years before that, and Schultz still had over 3 years left on the lease. Furthermore, Schultz was raised in Seattle and the Sonics were his boyhood team. As a local, I can tell you that nobody viewed the threat to move the team seriously. I voted against the new arena as did most Sonic fans that I know. I figured the city would give him an arena in a few years. This is very similar to the first time Houston voted down a new arena to replace the Summit. Schultz surprised everyone by selling the team to Clay Bennett, a businessman from OKC. Suddenly everyone got worried about the team moving even though Bennett pledged to try his best to keep the team in Seattle. There were rumors during the sale that Schultz had a separate contract that stated he could buy the team back if Schultz didn't make a good faith effort to keep the team in Seattle. If an identical deal to the first arena vote had been presented, the city would have voted for it. However, that never happened. Instead Bennett insulted the city and eventually pitched a half billion dollar palace in Renton. Renton is south of the city (kind of like Pearland), and most Seattle residents would really hate driving down there for events. Seattle has a pretty good public transportation system, and Key Arena is very accessible by bus. An arena that was similarly accessible was essential for any arena bill. Furthermore, Bennett wanted naming rights and overly generous royalties and lease clauses. It was never viewed in Seattle as a serious attempt at an arena. The state legislature shot down funding for it, and it was never even presented to votes for approval. That arena deal would have failed with the way it was set up, particularly over the cost and location. Bennett announced his intention to move the team to OKC on the eve of the 2007-2008 season, even though the team was legally bound to Key Arena through the 2009-2010 season. The relationship between Bennett and local politicians and the citizens of Seattle deteriorated rapidly. Bennett offered to buy his way out of the lease at Key Arena ($27 million), but Seattle declined and insisted that the team fulfill its lease. David Stern offered to let the city keep the Sonics name and colors if they let the team go. Seattle, meanwhile, enlisted a former senator to spearhead efforts to keep the team in Seattle. On April 18 the NBA approved the Sonics relocation to OKC for the 2008-2009 season by a 28-2 vote (Paul Allen of the Blazers and Mark Cuban of the Mavs voted no). <B>The Lawsuits</B> There have been three lawsuits filed over the Sonics possible relocation. 1. Seattle sued the Sonics to make them fulfill their lease. This is headed for a June trial date. If the city wins, the Sonics have to play 2 more years in Key Arena. If the Sonics win, they could buy their way out of the lease (price undetermined). A settlement is still a possibility if Bennett dramatically increases his offer to buy his way out of the lease, but the city and Bennett are barely speaking. I think this is going to trial. There have been some favorable rulings for Seattle already during this lawsuit (moving it to federal court vs. arbritration), and Seattle is looking to launch a scorched-earth legal path. They have subpoenaed email from Bennett's group, exposing a bunch of damning communications that indicated the team always intended to move. Seattle has also asked for financials from every team to show that the Sonics are financially viable. They are also looking to compel Stern to testify about the case, which he is trying to fight. This is going to be an interesting case, and I expect both sides to pull out every legal trick they can think of. I think it will be ugly if it goes to trial. 2. Schultz sues Bennett to regain ownership of his team. Schultz is claiming that Bennett acted fraudlently to obtain the ownership of the team and didn't act in good faith to keep the team in Seattle. Lester Munson of ESPN is a lawyer and breaks down all of the details in this article: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?id=3362659 He also gives an interview with a Seattle radio station, giving the lawsuit a 55-60% chance of succeeding: http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18...ATTLE-WA/KJR-AM/Softy_Lester Muson 080424.mp3 This really doesn't appear to be a PR move. It looks like Schultz is on solid ground. In 4-6 weeks he could file for injunction to bar the team from moving that would remain in effect until the case is heard in court. This would likely prevent the Sonics from moving to OKC for the 2008-2009 season. The relocation would have to be approved again if this happens. It's also important to note that Schultz is not asking for the team back. If he wins this case, the judge would oversee the sale of the team to a party that wanted to keep the team in Seattle. This would likely be Steve Ballmer. 3. Season ticket holders sue the Sonics. After he announced his intentions to move, Bennett found himself having difficulties selling season tickets to an irritated fan base. His sales team, in an effort to boost sales, promised would-be buyers that the team was committed to staying in Seattle. His actions and email have clearly shown otherwise. Washington state has some pretty strict false advertising laws, and they are being cited in this lawsuit. While this case won't have any bearing on the team leaving, it could wind up costing Bennett quite a bit of money. <B>Conclusion</B> While Bennett and the NBA want the Sonics in OKC for next season, this outcome looks to be in doubt for at least another year. Lawsuit 1 will begin in early June, and Lawsuit 2 will be kicking into gear sometime later this summer with initial skirmishes over the next month. This is getting a ton of press here in Seattle, and people are definitely talking about it everywhere. I'm pretty optimistic about the team staying here (even moreso than the Rockets chances during the Save Our Rockets days). I look forward to seeing what developments pop up over the weeks ahead. Save Our Sonics!
Done... as in Approved... OKC it is ____ We certainly need a dedicated thread on this issue as the 'Done' thread 3 spots from the top of the page wasn't sufficient.
And there is a thread on the lawsuits, one that feels bad for Seattle, and one on if the city keeps the team colors. The thread "Done" talked about the NBA approving the relocation for the 2008-2009 season. I'm not trying to clutter things up. This is a thread that hopefully will condense all discussion on what's happening with the team now and over the summer with the lawsuits. I got tired of monitoring 3 or 4 different threads on various aspects of this. There have been significant developments on this story with the Schultz lawsuit. Lester Munson of ESPN has some good perspective on this. There is the specter of David Stern having to testify in court (that would be awesome) and the likely scenario of Clay Bennett having to defend the damning emails he wrote. There are still many twists and turns to this. It is not "done". I thought a new thread without the slanted "Done" subject seemed appropriate for all future discussions on this case.
Just saw this tonight. I bolded some of the juicy quotes. I think Schultz has filed an interesting lawsuit, and all of the legal analysis I've heard or read seems to think it's pretty solid. It of course is helped by the fact that Bennett is stupid enough to commit some pretty damning stuff in writing. I also am very curious how the New York hearing goes on Monday. Seattle wants detailed analysis on financials for every team in the league and wants to question Stern under oath. The NBA and Stern don't want to play ball. It's going to get ugly. Save Our Sonics!
I appreciate the dedicated thread. I've been following the mess in Seattle and those other threads weren't doing it for me. I think the first thing we've learned is that this ownership group is really not very smart. I can appreciate them wanting to bring a team to their hometown, but they've done a very poor job of pulling the wool over people's eyes. I have no idea how well they'll do in the first case, not having seen the contract language. In a sense, they've already lost it, since it generated the 2nd and 3rd cases. I think Shultz is going to win that second case. I see the only barrier being a probable reluctance of a judge to get mixed up in a resale.
ESPN's report... http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3365972 Newly revealed e-mails could cause headaches for Sonics owner SEATTLE -- More e-mails involving SuperSonics owner Clay Bennett have been revealed that could slow or even stop the team's move from Seattle to Oklahoma City, a move the NBA overwhelmingly approved last week. A filing by the city of Seattle this week in federal court in New York includes e-mails to and from Bennett that show the NBA was concerned last summer that Sonics owners may be breaching their contractual promise of good-faith efforts to find a new arena in Seattle. I don't mind the PR ugliness [pretty used to it], but I am concerned from a legal standpoint that your statement could perhaps undermine our basic premise of 'good faith best efforts.' -- Sonics owner Clay Bennett, in an e-mail to co-owner Aubrey McClendon In court documents provided Thursday by attorneys representing the city, Bennett stated in an e-mail to Sonics co-owner Aubrey McClendon last Aug. 13 that the NBA was looking into issues "relative to certain documents that we signed at closing that may have been breached." Bennett wrote that president of league and basketball operations Joel Litvin was looking into the possible breach. Earlier that day, Bennett had written an e-mail to McClendon referring to the fallout from McClendon's comments to an Oklahoma business publication that "we didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle, we hoped to come here." "Yes sir we get killed on this one," Bennett wrote to McClendon. "I don't mind the PR ugliness [pretty used to it], but I am concerned from a legal standpoint that your statement could perhaps undermine our basic premise of 'good faith best efforts.'" NBA commissioner David Stern fined McClendon $250,000 for his comment. The city is citing it as evidence Sonics owners lied to Seattle when asserting they weren't trying to move the team. The e-mails are part of the city's recent filings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Seattle is attempting to compel the NBA to provide financial records for all of its teams. The city is also trying to force Stern to testify as part of Seattle's dispute with the Professional Basketball Club, the Sonics' ownership entity, over the KeyArena lease. A week before NBA owners voted 28-2 to approve the team's move to Oklahoma, the city released e-mails that appeared to show Bennett and his Sonics co-owners were eagerly anticipating moving the team from Seattle to Oklahoma City almost as soon as they bought the team in July 2006 for $300 million from a Seattle-area group led by Starbucks chairman Howard Schultz. In one from April 2007, Bennett stated, "I am a man possessed! Will do everything we can," in response to co-owner Tom Ward asking if they were in for another "lame duck season" in Seattle. Last week, immediately after the NBA approved the move, Bennett said he was referring to how possessed he was to find a home for the team in Seattle. After the e-mails became public, Schultz filed suit against Bennett for allegedly violating the good-faith agreement. The Sonics provided the e-mails to comply with a ruling by federal judge Marsha Pechman in Seattle. She ruled such messages between the co-owners were pertinent for the discovery phase of the June trial between the city and the Sonics over the KeyArena lease. Bennett argues he is contractually allowed to write a check to buy out the lease and thus move his team to Oklahoma City for next season. The city asserts the lease requires the team to play in KeyArena through the 2009-10 season. Seattle wants to keep the Sonics in town for those two years to buy time for a group led by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer or some other local buyer to find an arena solution and keep the team in the region for the long term. The trial is scheduled to begin June 16 in federal court in Seattle. In a motion Bennett filed last week in Seattle, the owner claimed the trial "has nothing to do with the last two years of the lease. Instead, the city is trying to exploit its landlord status to force the PBC to sell the team ... to drive up costs for the PBC ... to try to force PBC to sell." The city has already rejected Bennett's offer of $26 million to settle. Last week, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels repeatedly refused to answer if there was a price at which the city would consider settling with Bennett. The mayor instead reiterated the city intends for the Sonics to remain in Seattle for the long term. Last April, Bennett told a meeting of the Seattle Convention and Visitors Board that Las Vegas was a possible relocation alternative. In an e-mail to Stern dated April 28, 2007, Bennett regretted "my clumsy volley" but wrote that the "threat of Las Vegas has moved the needle" on what he saw as Seattle's indifference toward the Sonics' situation. "Leadership in the market has never valued the threat of moving to Oklahoma City," Bennett wrote to Stern. "They don't even know where it is."
You're welcome. Living in Seattle, I'm following this very closely and wanted a place to put all of what I'm hearing. The biggest surprise of this case is how the Bennett group committed so many damning statements in email or to the press. It's given legal ammunition to all the lawsuits. Some of these cases were longshots because it's so hard to prove bad intentions and fraud, but now I think they have some hefty merit. The bad news is just going to keep trickling out, each a day a new email will surface that paints Bennett in a worse light. I'm not sure how the first case will go either, but Bennett could always throw crazy money at Seattle to settle the case. $100 million probably makes the city accept the deal. I don't think that's likely unless the courts rule next week that Stern has to testify and that the NBA and the other teams have to open the books. Then I think Stern orders Bennett to settle, no matter the cost. If the city doesn't settle (which is possible, because Seattle is pretty stubborn and might relish giving the middle finger to Stern and Bennett), this court case will be juicy, especially if Stern has to testify. I'm planning on going to court to witness Stern testify under oath if it comes to that. (Then I can draw stick figure courtroom scenes with my non-existent artistic talent). I'm feeling good about the Schultz case too, although I agree with your opinion about a judge being reluctant to get mixed up in the sale of a team. It's very unprecedented. I am confident that the judge will grant an injunction on the team, effectively barring it from moving to OKC for the 2008-2009 season. Monday is the next big day when Seattle and the NBA have a preliminary hearing in New York. At stake: does Stern have to testify, does the NBA have to open its books, do all 29 teams have to open their books?
I don't think he does, especially since he's the CEO of Starbucks again. He just wants the Sonics to stay in Seattle. In a way that helps Schultz in his lawsuit. "I don't want the team back, I just want an honest buyer" is a good position to take before a judge. I could see Schultz as a minority owner. The most likely candidate to buy the team back is a group led by Microsoft's Steve Ballmer. They already have a good arena proposal in place that's been endorsed by local politicians and has received positive feedback from the state legislature. If you didn't listen to the interview in the original post, listen to ESPN's Lester Munson break down the Schultz-Bennett lawsuit in an interview with a local sports radio station: http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/SEATTLE-WA/KJR-AM/Softy_Lester%20Muson%20080424.mp3 I watch a lot of sports and Law & Order, but I am no sports lawyer. Munson is, and he hits on the relevant aspects of this case.
I hope you're right Scirbo. I just would be more confident if there was someone willing to commit to write the cheque to keep the team in Seattle. Otherwise, you're really just delaying things for a season or so. Ballmer would be key. Regardless of the legal arguments, I think a judge would be more receptive to quashing the deal if there was a viable alternative in place.
The Ballmer group offered to buy the team a few months ago and had an arena proposal in place. Bennett said he wasn't selling. I've heard some quotes from the Ballmer group in recent days that they are still interested in buying the team with the same arena proposal. If the judge dissolves the sale, the Ballmer group will almost certainly put an offer on the table, and there might be a few other interested local parties as well. There are some mighty rich people in Seattle. If nobody steps up, I think at a minimum Schultz would buy the team back.
I predict a loss for Seattle on opening the books of the NBA and franchises. I don't think it is strictly necessary to see those to determine whether or not the Sonics can be profitable in Seattle. And, ultimately, I don't see why their profitability should much matter. The question is whether they are obligated by the lease; why should profit matter? Why are they asking Stern to testify? What would he testify about?
The central argument for Bennett breaking the Key Arena lease is that the Sonics aren't "financially viable" in the NBA. The city's counter is prove it by opening all the books for the other teams. Seattle wants to show that the Sonics aren't destitute like Bennett is claiming. If they can show that there are several other teams in worse shape financially, it makes Bennett's central argument weaker. Part of the city's request is also to make this cumbersome and embarrassing to the NBA. It can also shake out potentially damning evidence (like the Bennett emails) as they look at more data (particularly internal NBA office communications). The Stern subpoena is to get him to testify about private conversations he had with Bennett. These are probably more relevant to the Schultz lawsuit than the Key Arena lawsuit. Bennett and Stern are friends and obviously discussed the team moving to OKC. The question is when did they do this. Was it right after or even before Schultz sold the team? What are Stern's feeling about the profitability of the Sonics? Did Stern ever tell Bennett that he thought Bennett was violating the "good faith" terms of the Sonic sale? Did Bennett tell Stern he was going through the motions with the new arena bid in Renton? David Stern has kind of dodged a lot of these questions, but it would mighty interesting to hear his testimony under oath about these conversations. There could be any number of damning things the two of them talked about, and Stern is smart enough not to commit perjury and wise enough to know that he could several damage Bennett's chances if he testified. There will be good lawyers on each side next week, so any outcome is possible. I think the opening of books is more likely than Stern having to testify. I also think Schultz will have a lot better luck compelling Stern to testify during his lawsuit against Bennett, but Seattle has a good shot in its lawsuit too. There are going to be some interesting and entertaining courtroom battles next week. <B>Links</B> Seattle's motion to open books and compel Stern to testify Amicus briefs in support of the city's motion NBA's opposition to the city's motions
Reading Munson's legal musings during the Duke Lacrosse case, I lost a good bit of respect for his legal skills and reasoning. It was amazing how much of the law he was wrong on (putting aside his opinions and non-legal statements that were also very often wrong). I hope his musings on the Seattle cases are closer to the actual law this time around. The thing that gets me (also as a non-lawyer, so keep in mind, this isn't a legal opinion) about the Schultz claim is that the emails just as often seem to support the idea that the OKC people were legitimately trying to give Seattle/Washington State one last chance to pay for an arena and keep the team in Seattle. When they talk about flipping the team for a profit if they get an arena in Seattle and talk about the threat of Las Vegas making the threat to move seem more real to Seattle/Washington State politicians, those are things that, if they were making no effort at all to get an arena in Seattle, they wouldn't have bothered to say. While I have no doubt that Bennett and his group were interested first and foremost in getting a team for Oklahoma City, they did give Seattle another legitimate chance to build an arena in Seattle. Had that happened, there's no way the NBA would've approved the move. It doesn't seem like it should matter what the ownership's preference was (OKC over Seattle) if they were willing to settle for their second choice (they get an arena in Seattle and flip the team for a profit). Like I said, I'm not a lawyer and maybe those efforts don't rise to the level of a good faith effort. So, I'm clearly just talking out of my ass. I would rather the Sonics stay in Seattle, personally, and hope it works out in Seattle's favor even though it seems like these sorts of things almost never do.
From the Seattle Times http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2004379329_websoni28.html NBA commissioner David Stern will not be ordered to testify in a case brought by the city of Seattle to try to keep the Sonics from moving, though a federal judge said she may consider ordering the testimony in the future. U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska rejected most of the requests of the lawyers for the city of Seattle, saying she did not think some of the information they were seeking from the NBA was necessary to press their claims. Preska had been asked to decide what evidence the city can seek from the NBA before a June 16 trial in federal court in Seattle to decide whether the Sonics must complete the final two years of a lease agreement for KeyArena, the NBA's smallest venue. She said she would consider whether Stern must testify only after the city learns what it can from other witnesses. She also rejected a request by the city for the financial records of the 29 other NBA teams, calling it the city's "most intrusive request." NBA lawyer Jeffrey A. Mishkin said the league considered the financial information "highly proprietary." Seattle officials filed a lawsuit in Seattle last year to keep the Sonics from leaving town. The city asked a judge to force the Sonics, the city's oldest professional sports franchise, to stay through the end of the lease, in 2010. Last week, Stern said the team will be moving to Oklahoma City either next season or in 2010 and he did not expect there was anything the city could do legally to stop it. If the team can settle its lawsuit, NBA owners have overwhelmingly approved the Sonics' move to Oklahoma City for the 2008-09 season.[/I] **************************** That's a bummer. I had really hoped to go see Stern testify. At least the door is still open for him to be subpoenaed in the city's lawsuit. I'm hoping that Schultz will be able to force him to testify in his lawsuit. His testimony is a lot more relevant to Schultz's case. I'm waiting on Bennett to reply to the lawsuit, and for Schultz to ask for an injunction on the Sonics relocating. That should be the next major event in this saga. Seattle's lawsuit starts on June 16.
Yeah, the city's suit seems like an appetizer before the Schultz suit. Seattle can't stop the move; they can just delay it and make it expensive. Shultz's suit threatens to actually stop the move.
How much money will it cost Seattle to put forth this lawsuit? I don't see Schultz or the city lawsuit doing anything but wasting time/money. Sure, these moves will make it harder for the Sonics to move, but it isn't like they are without cost. As someone in Oklahoma, I honestly hope they force the postponement until 2010; 2 more years of tanking/rebuilding in Seattle sounds good to me.
I'm not sure how much it's costing the city, but Bennett has pissed off enough people in Seattle that they are putting the nails to him partly out of principle, partly out of devotion to their hometown Sonics, and partly out of spite. I think some of the lawyers involved might be working for the city gratis, so that would defray the costs significantly. Unless Bennett ponies up a lot more money to settle (and even then I'm not sure), Seattle will pursue this to the bitter end. If nothing else, Seattle can force Bennett to testify under oath about a great many things and hopefully gather more damning evidence, and that testimony and evidence can only help the Schultz lawsuit. Agreed. I'm very curious how Bennett responds to the lawsuit and if the judge grants an injunction for next season. That should happen before the June 16 Seattle lawsuit. Then we can start to get an idea of a timeline for the Schultz case. Who needs Law & Order when we have this. The Seattle Sonics: they know drama. Save Our Sonics!
I was reading one of the stories in the Seattle Times about Clay Bennett being deposed, and it said something about Bennett having to explain the emails that talked about potentially moving the Sonics to OKC prior to the 12-month deadline after he bought the team. I hadn't heard anything about a 12-month deadline before and was wondering if anybody knew whether that was a contractual requirement or just a deadline that Bennett set after the sale was completed. EDITED TO ADD: Nevermind, I found the answer in another article.
In case you miss this: This is NBA. You have to play "the Stern's way". What David wants, David gets. And I trust Stern's opinion in this matter. Seattle asks one of the NBA franchises to rot in the city because it's been there for 40 years. No pro-sport franchise is going to stay if it has been losing money in tens of millions per year for a decade and it also sees no end for an arena solution. The main reason for NBA to leave Seattle is because there is no arena solution. If Seattle really wants the return of a NBA franchise, it's time to think of how to have its legislature supports a feasible arena solution and start negotiating with David Stern, the dictator.
