Dedicated Thread: Sonics, Seattle, OKC

And more lawsuits getting added to the mix:

*********************************************

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2004428236_soni21m.html

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz added a "breach of contract" claim Tuesday to his lawsuit against Sonics owner Clay Bennett — arguing Bennett failed to honor the terms of his purchase agreement when he proposed a $500 million arena plan he knew was doomed to fail.

In an amended complaint filed in federal court, Schultz's attorneys argued that Bennett's Oklahoma City-based partnership breached its contract with Schultz by failing to use "good faith best efforts" for a full 12 months to get an arena deal in the Seattle area.

That requirement was set out in the purchase and sale agreement when Bennett's group bought the Sonics and Storm in 2006 for $350 million.

Instead of proposing a reasonable arena plan, Schultz's latest filing claims Bennett pushed a $500 million Renton arena that would have required "unprecedented amounts in public subsidies" with lease terms Bennett "knew would be unacceptable" to state lawmakers.

After the Legislature rejected that plan in April 2007, Bennett "ceased meaningful efforts" to land a deal instead of continuing through last October, as required by his contract with Schultz, the new lawsuit filing claims.

The latest Schultz filing contained no new revelation or internal Sonics e-mails. But it does add the "breach of contract" argument to the "negligent misrepresentation" and "fraudulent inducement" claims previously asserted in the lawsuit — giving a judge or jury another possible reason to rule against the team.

Schultz filed the lawsuit, citing e-mails uncovered in the city of Seattle's separate lawsuit against Bennett's group which showed Sonics owners enthusiastically chatting about moving the team to Oklahoma.

The lawsuit, filed last month seeks to have the Sonics placed into a "constructive trust" by the court, which could then transfer the team back to local owners. No trial date has been set.

A spokesman for Bennett could not be reached for comment Tuesday evening. In the past, Bennett has defended his efforts on the $500 million Renton arena, noting that he spent millions of dollars on the proposal.

*********************************************

I agree with Schultz that the Renton arena plan was a joke proposal designed to fail. <B>Nobody</B> took that plan seriously, except a few desperate Renton politicians.

 

I've talked about that with a number of people, and I get the sense that a new arena deal would pass with two basic criteria: a downtown location and some investment by the owner of the Sonics.

The original arena deal when Schultz was the owner would likely pass now, but the new deal offered by Ballmer's group would definitely pass. Ballmer's group is offering $75 million of their own money to finance the arena, which would be located downtown.

The tricky part of the money is that is has to be approved at the state legislature level as well as at the city government. I get the sense that this will happen. The state people didn't really like Bennett and weren't inclined to work with him when he had no intention of staying. The Renton deal was unpopular everywhere (except Renton), and it gained no traction in the legislature. They seemed receptive towards Ballmer's deal, but they thought he wouldn't get the team so they declined to consider it last summer. They did speak positively about the deal in the event Ballmer bought the team. The mayor and city council are on board with a new arena downtown, so that side of the money is locked down.

The only question is where the new arena goes. I'm assuming somewhere between the Space Needle (right by Key Arena) and the baseball and football stadiums. That would be in the heart of downtown and easily accessible by public transportation. Tons of restaurants and bars for locals as well as touristy stuff for those out of town.

So if a location downtown can be found, the owner puts up some money, the Seattle mayor and city council approve a sales tax increase, and if the state legislature agree to the tax increase, the voters will get their say on the matter. I'm pretty damn confident that would pass. There will be some of the libertarian "Death before Taxes" group that will vote no (There's an active anti-tax group up here that always gets media attention before votes). There will be the usual education groups that will demand "books before a new arena." Yet I get the sense it would pass comfortably (12-18 points) like the second arena deal in Houston.

People in Seattle are very proud of their city, and I think most of us would welcome a sparkling new arena downtown. There's also the cloying thought of OKC getting one over on Seattle (A stolen team playing on stolen land, pullled off by a bunch of yokels). I think there would also be overwhelming good sentiment towards the Sonics if this situation gets salvaged. This would be from both sports fans as well as people who are just proud of their city.

 

A couple of new stories. There are going to be quite a few documents dumped into the public sphere as the trials near. I thought it was interesting (although not surprising) that players were complaining about moving to OKC.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004444149_webdepositions28m.html


Transcripts of several depositions in Seattle's lawsuit against the Sonics were released by Seattle City Attorney Tom Carr's office recently in response to public-disclosure requests.

The city is seeking to enforce the Sonics' KeyArena lease through September 2010. Trial is scheduled for June 16.

The depositions, and some highlights, include:

• Sonics co-owner Aubrey McClendon was grilled by Seattle's attorneys on his e-mails suggesting owners always intended to move the team despite promises to try and get an arena deal done in Seattle. During the deposition, another e-mail emerged from August 2007, when McClendon told co-owner Clay Bennett, "the truth is we did buy it [the Sonics] with the hope of moving to Oklahoma City."
McClendon deposition transcripts (PDF)

• Wally Walker, former Sonics president and part-owner, was questioned this month about his role in assembling a potential local ownership group led by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. Walker portrayed Ballmer as a reluctant Sonics savior. "He had no strong interest to be an NBA owner," Walker said.
(Only a portion of Walker's deposition has been released.)
Walker deposition transcripts (PDF)

• Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis were questioned by Sonics lawyers on whether the team's departure from Seattle would have any lasting impact and on city efforts to force Bennett to sell the team to Ballmer.
Nickels deposition transcripts (PDF)
Ceis deposition transcripts (PDF)

• Oklahoma City Manager James Couch repeatedly denied conspiring with Sonics owners to move the team.
Couch deposition transcripts (PDF)

• Brent Gooden an Oklahoma public-relations consultant to Bennett, described media coverage in Seattle as "venomous."
Gooden deposition transcripts (PDF)

• Sonics President Daniel Barth was asked about the team's finances, including lagging ticket sales.
Barth deposition transcripts vol. 1 (PDF)
Barth deposition transcripts vol. 2 (PDF)

• Bennett was deposed, but virtually all of his deposition was marked "confidential" by his attorneys and withheld from public disclosure. An e-mail from Bennett is revealed in Gooden's deposition. In that e-mail, from spring 2007, Bennett responds to Sonics players' complaints about a possible move to Oklahoma City with "boo hoo."

• Other depositions: Seattle City Councilmembers Nick Licata and Richard Conlin, City Council aide Christa Valles, Seattle Center Director Robert Nellams and Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce President Roy Williams.

 

A new article about the city's strategy for their upcoming trial. It looks like they are going to stay away from all the juicy parts of this and focus only on the team fulfilling its lease and the impact of the Sonics on the city. I'm kind of bummed (but I understand their reasons) that Seattle isn't going to litigate Bennett's intent or the sham attempt to build an arena in Renton. Looks like we'll have to wait for the Schultz trial later this summer for the explosive fireworks.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004444149_webdepositions28m.html

Lawyers for Seattle have spent the past few months digging up and publicizing a steady stream of embarrassing e-mails from Sonics owners, arguing they prove Clay Bennett's Oklahoma City partnership never made a good-faith attempt to keep the team here.

But with a trial looming in less than three weeks, the city's attorneys are now claiming that Bennett's intentions are essentially irrelevant to the lawsuit over whether the Sonics must play through the end of the KeyArena lease in September 2010.

As part of a flurry of pretrial motions filed this week, Seattle's attorneys asked U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman to prohibit Bennett from delving into how much time and money he spent trying to persuade state lawmakers to approve a $500 million arena in Renton.

Bennett has said he spent millions of dollars and exhausted every reasonable arena possibility in the Seattle area before deciding to move the Sonics to Oklahoma City. His attorneys were expected to detail at trial how much he spent on lobbyists and consultants.

But the sincerity of Bennett's arena efforts is "irrelevant to whether the Lease is valid, fair, or clear; whether damages are an adequate remedy for breach of the Lease," the city's attorneys argued in their motion.

Those questions should be reserved for a separate lawsuit filed by former Sonics owner Howard Schultz, the city argued. That lawsuit seeks to undo the 2006 sale of the Sonics, accusing Bennett of violating a promise — contained in his purchase agreement — to make "good faith best efforts" on an arena deal in the Seattle area for at least a year.

That's just one of several battles over what evidence and witnesses should be allowed at the trial, scheduled to begin June 16.

The Sonics want to prevent the city from calling local sports-radio host Mitch Levy and author Sherman Alexie as witnesses.

The city intends to call Levy, the host of KJR-AM's "Mitch in the Morning" program, to testify about fan interest in the Sonics. Alexie, a Sonics season ticketholder who has been writing a regular "Sonics Death Watch" column for the Stranger newspaper, is supposed to testify about the team's importance, especially to minority communities.

"Neither has any relevant testimonial knowledge. Both will only fuel the growing media circus. Both should be excluded," the Sonics' attorneys argued in their court filing, citing Alexie's "profanity-laced" views about Bennett's group.

Meanwhile, the city has asked Pechman to exclude several other pieces of evidence and arguments the Sonics want to raise at the coming trial:

• A poll conducted for the Sonics in January that found nearly two-thirds of 600 Seattle-area residents believed the team's departure would "make no difference" or that they would be "better off." By contrast, 57 percent of those polled said they'd be upset if the Mariners or Seahawks left. Seattle's attorneys argued the poll is irrelevant to the KeyArena lease and was tainted because it was conducted while the Sonics "were on their way to their worst record ever."

• Any evidence of "dysfunction" in the relationship between the city and the team. Sonics lawyers have cited the antagonistic relationship between current team owners and city leaders to argue the team should be allowed to leave KeyArena in exchange for a cash payment. But Seattle's lawyers argued that such personal feelings should not affect a "fully enforceable commercial contract."

• Evidence about a potential Sonics ownership group led by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. The Sonics have described Seattle's efforts to force a team sale to Ballmer as "a Machiavellian plan" that gives the city "unclean hands" in the lease case. But Seattle's attorneys argued that "there is nothing wrong with the city having discussions with a local group that wants to bring an NBA franchise to a renovated KeyArena."

• Statements by individual Seattle City Council members if the Sonics are claiming those statements represent the city's official position with regard to the team. For example, Sonics lawyers have cited Councilmember Nick Licata's February 2006 remark to Sports Illustrated that the economic impact of the team's departure would be "near zero." (He apologized for the remark a few months later.) Seattle's attorneys said such comments should not be taken as "a binding admission" on behalf of the entire city.

Paul Lawrence, an attorney with K&L Gates who is representing the city, said the series of pretrial motions is "an effort to keep the trial focused on what we think are the limited issues around specific performance [of the KeyArena lease]."

A spokesman for Bennett said the team would have no comment on the latest legal maneuvers.

A pretrial hearing in the Sonics lawsuit is set for June 6.

The six-day bench trial is scheduled to begin June 16 in federal court in Seattle.

 

1 week to go until Bennett and Seattle square off in Round One of the legal battles over the Sonics. I'm going to try to make it to the courthouse for one of the days of testimony. I can get quite geeky over legal stuff, and this four-way battle is fascinating.

I do agree with the tone of the article: there is almost no chance of settlement now and this will go to trial.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2004465996_soni09.html

When the city of Seattle filed a lawsuit against the Sonics owners nine months ago, legal experts said the case would never see the inside of a courtroom, that it would end in a financial settlement long before a trial.

But chances of a pretrial resolution appear slim just one week before the start of a trial that will begin to decide if Seattle's oldest professional sports franchise will move to Oklahoma City, home to the group that bought the team from Howard Schultz in 2006.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels is determined to hang onto the Sonics, who began playing in Seattle in 1967. If the team leaves now, the NBA is unlikely to return in the near future.

The Sonics, whose move has been approved by the NBA, want to begin play in Oklahoma City next season.

The issue for U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman, in a six-day bench trial in federal court in Seattle: Will the Sonics be forced to honor the remaining two seasons on their lease at KeyArena?

If the Sonics win, the moving vans will begin warming up — although an appeal by the city could slow down the team's plans.

If the city wins, the Sonics would be stuck in Seattle for two more seasons. Or, the city could try to leverage a better deal out of the Sonics to allow them to leave early.

The dialogue between the team and the city had been terse. And that's when they were even talking — they haven't engaged in meaningful negotiations since February.

"It's always a good idea to talk," Seattle City Attorney Tom Carr said. "It's usually a failure if a case ends up getting to trial. Generally, there's a solution to every problem."

Carr would not speculate on the prospects for a pretrial settlement; nor would Dan Mahoney, spokesman for Sonics chairman Clay Bennett.

In April, Bennett urged civic leaders to make a counterproposal after the city rejected his $26.5 million offer to buy out the final two years of the lease and move the team to Oklahoma City next season.

At the time, Nickels said, "We're focused on keeping the team here," and the lack of dialogue between the city and the Sonics owners since then suggests both sides are prepared to begin arguing their cases in front of Pechman next Monday.

Four-way conflict

ESPN legal analyst Lester Munson said a settlement in lease disagreements occurs "90 percent of the time." But this case is unusual because it involves several parties, including Schultz, who is also suing Bennett. And Oklahoma City is threatening to sue Schultz if he wins his suit and the team doesn't move there.

"The people in Oklahoma City sent a [nine-page] letter in May taking a very strong position that they expect a team," Munson said. "With them taking that tough a position, I don't see how this case can settle now. It makes it more difficult for the city of Seattle, for Bennett, even for Schultz, with Oklahoma City now trying to intervene.

"A dispute that had three parties [the Sonics, Seattle and Schultz] now has four. It becomes very complicated. Everybody is making these demands. They're all thinking they are proceeding on matters of high principle. When you see the posturing and the language and the legal positions, the idea of settlement is vanishing into the horizon."

Several factors have hindered settlement talks. For starters, Nickels is unequivocal in his desire to have an NBA team in Seattle far beyond the end of the Sonics' lease in 2010, despite resistance by state lawmakers to helping fund renovations to KeyArena. (Bennett's $500 million plan for a new arena in Renton also got nowhere in Olympia.)

The city's lawsuit unearthed embarrassing e-mails from the team's ownership, which angered Bennett and NBA commissioner David Stern, who described the city's tactics as "scorched-earth policy."

Sources with the team suggested last week that Bennett would keep the Sonics name, history and colors if he's forced to play two more years at KeyArena and incur an expected $60 million in losses. He previously had expressed a willingness to leave the name behind for a possible future Seattle team.

New team unlikely

At the NBA Board of Governors meeting in April, Stern said league owners are not in favor of expansion domestically, and that relocating another team is an imperfect science.

Stern also said he'd lose any desire to help Seattle secure another team if the city continues with its lawsuit and the team leaves.

"Commissioner Stern is not going to guarantee a team for Seattle," Munson said. "Even if he had the authority to do it, he is not inclined to do it. He is very angry and very unhappy with the Seattle market because it provided for football and baseball and did not provide for the NBA. He is taking a very unforgiving position on that."

However, during a news conference Sunday at the NBA Finals, Stern did not rule out returning to Seattle. "We don't have any specific plans for replacing the team," he said. "But that doesn't preclude us from revisiting Seattle at a later date."

Munson likened the standoff to a high-stakes game of chicken: "We're in a real stare-down here. That's what it is, although it's not so much that somebody is trying to make the other side blink. It's that all four think they have righteous positions."

Expecting a deal

Steven Pyeatt, co-founder of the Save Our Sonics group, said last week he believes a settlement will take place before the trial ends.

"I think a settlement will happen before anybody from the NBA has to go on the witness stand," Pyeatt said. "The point of the settlement is to avoid the embarrassment of anybody going on the stand and talking about the NBA's broken business model."

Carr, however, said history isn't likely to repeat itself. "It's very rare for a case to settle during the trial," he said. "But then, this is the most unusual trial that I've been associated with, so anything is possible."

If the trial proceeds to conclusion and Pechman makes a ruling, Munson said the loser is likely to appeal the verdict, which could take a year or longer to resolve, and virtually guarantee the Sonics will play another season in Seattle.

"I expect the city to prevail in the trial, but after that I'm not sure what's going to happen," he said. "We can expect Bennett and his group to appeal that decision, and that will take a while. Then Schultz and his case, which is a real landmark, take over."

Schultz is suing Bennett for breach of contract, contending the Sonics owners did not make a good-faith effort to keep the team in Seattle. Schultz is seeking to rescind the sale.

"In that one, anything can happen," Munson said. "If Schultz should win, then you have Oklahoma City wondering if it's going to sue everybody."

A victory for the city means Seattle would be tied to a lame-duck team for two more years. Or the city could have more leverage for a possible post-trial settlement.

Carr said that a win for the city would also buy civic leaders more time to find a funding solution for KeyArena renovations, which might entice the NBA to remain in Seattle.

A Sonics win — putting Bennett a step closer to taking the team to Oklahoma City — could be the biggest loss of all in franchise history.

 

Kind of a combination of several things.

Renton is viewed in Seattle as the equivalent of Pasadena to Houston (20+ miles from downtown in a city that isn't a giant urban sprawl). Building a sparking new arena would have to be convenient and close to downtown for the city (politicians and voters) to buy into it. Seattle is pretty well laid out. Downtown is compact, and the surrounding neighborhoods have their own distinct flavors and cultures. Downtown has all of the arenas, stadiums, and theaters as well as a good chunk of the trendy bars and restaurants. You can drive downtown if you really want to, but parking is a pain. There is good public transportation that will get you downtown and home again. I rarely drive downtown.

Bennett was told from the beginning that Renton was a no-go, but he pushed through. It also didn't help that he demanded an enormous palace of an arena ($500 million price tag). He also wanted a very generous rent agreement that almost eliminated any chance of revenue for the city. The politicians (both locally and at the state level) were so turned off by the proposal that it never even came to a vote. It would have failed in that form anyways.

Bennet's attempts to get an arena vote were also not helped by the poisonous relationships he had with the citizens of Seattle, local politicians, and state politicians. The guy has been an ass since he bought the team and has belittled the area and people he worked with from the beginning. It's kind of difficult to reward that. That behavior also helped to grease the wheels on the the team's relocation.

The original arena deal that Seattle voted against would pass today, and the deal by Ballmer would definitely pass. Of course Bennett would never agree to those at this point, unless he's ordered by a court to do so.

The trials kick off today. First up: Seattle suing the Sonics to enforce the final 2 years of their lease, and the Sonic counter-suing for the right to buy their way out of the lease. The mayor of Seattle, Greg Nickles, will be testifying. Each side is limited to 15 hours of testimony (includes testimony, rebuttals, and cross examinations), so it should be pretty stream-lined.

 

The Seattle Times has a running blog on the case at http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/sonics/

I'm trying to go through the highlights and will post my take on the relevant parts later.

A few other links:

A bio about The judge overseeing this case AND the Schultz lawsuit

Lester Munson's analysis of the case (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?id=3446658)

In the first of a series of legal battles that will determine the future of the Seattle SuperSonics, attorneys for the city of Seattle will try to persuade a federal judge in a trial beginning Monday that the Sonics are bound by a lease with the city and must play two more seasons in Seattle. On the other side, Sonics owner Clay Bennett and his co-owners want to move the team to Oklahoma City immediately and insist they should be permitted to leave Seattle if they pay the rent at KeyArena for the next two seasons. Bennett has the NBA's approval for that move. The trial and other litigation and threats of litigation raise numerous legal questions. Here are some of the questions and their answers:

<B>How can a judge force a team to play where it does not want to play?</B>
A legal brief written by lawyers for Sonics' owner Clay Bennett says Seattle fans are treating the team with 'yawning indifference.'
It is a bit unusual to ask a judge to force a person or an organization to do something it does not want to do. Judges can be reluctant to put themselves and their courts in positions in which they are managing or supervising something. They are not equipped for such activities. The legal term for this kind of court order is "specific performance." This kind of court order requires a person or an organization to comply with the terms of a contract. It can and does happen.

<B>What makes the city think it is entitled to "specific performance" of the lease?</B>
The key factor in obtaining an order of specific performance is the language of the contract. If the language of the contract is strong enough, an order of specific performance can result. In the lease between Seattle and the Sonics, the contractual language appears to be strong enough. The contract was written in anticipation of the team trying to move and the city trying to stop the move. The key sentence is this: "The obligations of the parties to this agreement are unique in nature; This agreement may be specifically enforced by either party." The key word in this key sentence is "unique." Both sides agreed when they signed the lease in 1994 that the presence of NBA basketball in the city's arena was irreplaceable. They agreed there was no sum of money that could replace the Sonics for the 15 years of the lease. Because city lawyers anticipated the current situation when they negotiated and signed the lease, the city's position is strong. It is hard to see how Bennett and his OKC crew could avoid playing two more seasons in Seattle.

<B>What makes Bennett and his group think they can abandon Seattle with two years remaining on the lease and move to Oklahoma City?</B>
It is not a big surprise that Bennett and his lawyers will try to avoid talking about the "unique" nature of NBA basketball and the killer contract clause that allows Seattle to seek specific performance, or, as it says in the lease, "specific enforcement." They will offer U.S. District Court Judge Marsha J. Pechman all sorts of arguments and suggestions, some of them highly creative and imaginative, to take the case away from that direction. They will assert that specific performance will be a terrible burden for her and her court for two years. They will warn Pechman she will face an endless series of questions and disputes as the city begins to question the judgments of Bennett and his general manger. The city lawyers will reply that the city will leave the team alone for two years and will not try to impose its judgment on basketball and management issues. Bennett's group will conclude with the claim that the city is entitled only to the $10 million in rent provided in the lease's rent formula.

Bennett's lawyers also will suggest Seattle doesn't deserve the Sonics. The fans, they will claim, are guilty of "yawning indifference" (a phrase used in the Sonics' trial brief) and apathy. They will try to use a poll and newspaper editorials, items that rarely qualify as evidence in federal courts. And the city government, they will add, has been deliberately harming the team in hopes Bennett will sell the team to Seattle owners. They will try to compare the support in Oklahoma City with the declining support in Seattle, asserting that they are entitled to go where it is profitable. Some of it will qualify as evidence that counts in the outcome, but some of it will not. Much of the decline in fan interest in Seattle likely can be attributed to the team's worst-ever 20-62 record last season and to Bennett's attempts to abandon the city.

<B>Who sued whom? How did this end up in court?</B>
It didn't escape the attention of Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels that Bennett asked for permission to move the team less than a year after he took ownership.

The city fathers in Seattle, including Mayor Greg Nickels, could not help but notice when Bennett, less than a year after he bought the team from Starbucks founder Howard Schultz, asked the NBA for permission to move to Oklahoma City. Refusing Bennett's offer of a cash buyout of the remaining two years on the lease, the city decided to try to enforce the lease. The city's $80 million investment (in the form of improvements to the arena) since 1995 in the Sonics, the oldest sports franchise in the market, was a factor in the decision. The city filed what is known as a "declaratory judgment." It's a legal action that asks the court to determine the rights of the litigants in a developing dispute. The declaratory judgment allowed the city to file quickly without waiting for Bennett to begin the actual move. It means the city is the plaintiff in the lawsuit, will go first in the trial and has the burden of proving its case.

<B>When will we know who wins?</B>
Pechman has scheduled six days for the trial. Each side will be permitted 15 hours to present witnesses and evidence. The first five days are this week. The sixth and final day is June 26. Because this is a bench trial, there is no jury. Pechman is the sole decider. She could rule on the 26th, but it is more likely she will take all of the testimony and the other evidence (primarily documents) under consideration and issue a written, detailed opinion a week or two later.

<B>A player looks forward to the moment when he becomes a free agent and can cash in on his talent and success. Does Bennett think he is a free agent as an owner? If he isn't, will he ever be a free agent as an owner?</B>
It usually is the player who wants free agency and fights for it in collective bargaining and court cases, and it usually is the league that fights against free agency. But in this case, the owner is fighting for free agency, and the league is supporting him in his fight. Many owners have succeeded in making it to free agency. The most notorious have been the Colts' nighttime move from Baltimore to Indianapolis, the Browns' sudden move to Baltimore after assuring Cleveland they would stay, and the Raiders' moves back and forth between Oakland and Los Angeles. Bennett's case is a bit different. He not only faces the lease that probably will keep him in Seattle as a lame duck for two more seasons, but he also faces other lawsuits. The most interesting is Schultz's attempt to take the team back from Bennett and his group and resell it to what Schultz calls an "honest buyer." None of the other owners who moved their teams as free agents faced anything quite like the Schultz attack. Although Bennett claimed at the time he purchased the team from Schultz that he intended to try to keep the team in Seattle, a series of damaging e-mails has surfaced that indicates Bennett always thought he was a free agent and was preparing to move from day one. If Pechman rules for Seattle and against Bennett, Schultz will have two years to succeed in recapturing the team and selling it to a group that will keep it in Seattle. Bennett might be further from free agency than the average rookie.

 

Day 1 of Trial #1 ended today without any major fireworks. The judge apparently is pretty straight-laced and business like in the courtroom and doesn't go for theatrics. Since she's the one deciding the case, that means showboating will be held to a minimum.

The city is focusing on the commitment the Sonics made in return for improvements to KeyArena. The city is also painting the Sonics as a community asset. The Sonics are going the "we're losing tons of money in this crappy arena" route. They're also trying to show collusion against Bennet by a lot of the politicians and a poisoned fanbase that won't support the team.

Probably advantage Sonics from a PR standpoint. Attorneys for both sides were caught flat-footed when decisions went against them, but it happened to the Seattle attorneys twice. Yet the city laid out a good opening argument about the "unique" nature of their lease agreement, which might prove more persuasive even if it's less glamorous testimony.

Seattle mayor Greg Nickels didn't sound too effective when he was cross-examined. He was embarrassed outright when he tried to play wishy-washy with charges that he was working with the Ballmer group to keep the team in Seattle. Sonic lawyers came back with video testimony he had given earlier that contradicted his testimony on Monday. Not good.

Former Seattle Center Director Virginia Anderson had a better time testifying for the city of Seattle. Former KeyArena manager Jyo Singh is scheduled to finish her testimony in the morning, and then we get the fireworks of this trial: Clay Bennet's testimony.

The Seattle Times is running a really good blog about each day of the trial at:
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/sonicstrial/

Here's all of their Day 1 posts including a recap: http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/sonicstrial/2008/06/

The Save Our Sonics group (great idea, some initial and inventive great efforts, terrible website, and completely absent for months) put together a rally after the trial today. Initial expectations were for a few hundred die-hard fans. Gary Payton and Xavier McDaniel showed up to headline the event. Police estimated between 800 and 2000, so good for them. Sorry I couldn't make it to show support for Seattle, but that much green and gold with Payton on hand might have made me puke up my red and gold (that's how I think of them because I'm old...none of that red and white or blue striped stuff) guts.

A link to the rally: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008001538_sonitrialside17.html

I'm really looking forward to seeing how Bennet fares tomorrow. This also sets up his testimony in the Schultz trial. He's damned himself in quite a few interviews and emails, so the city should have a good time impeaching his character.

Kim, Hayesfan, mrpaige, and shipwreck: glad you're enjoying the thread. I'm a basketball junkie and kind of a legal junkie so this is like mana from the entertainment gods. Of course, living in Seattle gives it a whole lot more immediacy. Now that the playoff race and the democratic nomination race are both over, I can devote my slightly obsessive behavior towards following this situation. Glad to have it underway, and I'm very interested to see how these trials shake out.

 

I think they have wait for the Schultz trial at a minimum. It's my belief that Bennett would stonewall any attempt at a new arena, making it too cost prohibitive for the city to build. If Schultz loses and Bennett retains ownership, the writing is kind of on the wall at that point. The only hope is that the team really loses money, and Bennett sells to cut his losses. However, Bennett really wants to move this team to OKC.

The basics of arena deal developed by the Ballmer group is in place. That could get fast tracked for approval by the state and city. Assuming they get ownership after the Schultz trial, I think we'd see it on the ballot this November in Seattle. Who knows when construction would begin? There would be appeals on all sides as well as the countersuit OKC has threatened to file against the Sonics if they don't move to OKC.

I think we're in for at least another year of litigation between the various lawsuits and their inevitable appeals.