Scribe, Keep this coming. Even living here, a lot of this stuff isn't nearly as accessible as it could be. KJR is your best sports source here, and let's be honest, it's pretty painful listening.
The city and state don't really need the Sonics to agree to an arena deal to have one ready and waiting, though, which is what I was thinking about. The city and state could put together a deal like they want, get it funded and say "Hey, this is the best offer and it's out there for the Sonics or an expansion team or anybody else who wants it and can take it." If it's true that the Sonics will have to reapply to move if they can't break their lease, then having an arena deal out there, approved and ready to go, even if it's one that Bennett won't accept, might help convince Stern and the other owners to either pressure Bennett to stay in Seattle, pressure him to sell to someone like Ballmer or lay the bulk of the ground work for a new team (expansion or otherwise) should the Sonics still leave. Seattle doesn't have to actually build the thing until there's a guarantee of a team (either the Sonics or some other team), but having the funding approved, in-place and ready to go is just as good (if not better, depending on the circumstances) than having an arena already built. If the Sonics ultimately leave, no replacement team will be granted until an arena deal is put into place. Sometimes these things have to be done without the team's imput (as evidenced in Cleveland with the Browns, Charlotte with the Bobcats and even Houston with the Texans. The mechanism to fund the new stadium or arena was in place before a team was guaranteed). Sports leagues don't really like to leave money on the table, and an approved arena in a prime market like Seattle would be lot of money on the table.
ONly thing I wonder is if they move into our divison or if they move in the MTN.. IF theyre in our division, one team has to be moved... who will it be? Memphis, Dallas, or San Antonio or OK?
I'm waiting to hear the results at 4 (Seattle time). I wasn't able to follow the trial like I wanted to (getting the house ready to sell, 7 month old baby, working on new novel, and a foot injury kind of take up time...). It sounded like both sides scored a lot of gotcha points. The Seattle side had a number of embarassing emails of their own. It's interesting that this is a judge-based verdict. Juries might have been more persuaded by making witnesses look bad, but I think the judge will try to rule on the underlying merits of the case. Who knows how this goes? I think the judge will rule in Seattle's favor due to the nature of the lease. She might suggest the city to find a buyout amount, but I don't see her forcing them to negotiate a number. Either way, the case will be appealed. That will last until at least the start of the season, so I firmly believe the Sonics will play at least 1 more season in Seattle. Of course, Bennett could offer a really, really ludicrous amount of money to break the lease. This is all still the appetizer before the Schultz case later this summer, but it's the same judge for that trial. I'm curious to read her verdict to see how she came to the conclusions she did.
My guess is they have to honor the lease until the other case is decided......as to ownership and whether he reneged on promises. DD
That would be an interesting ruling. I think it'll be one way or another (either they'll get to leave or they'll be stuck for two years), especially given what a hail mary that other case is. Apparently, though, the city and the Sonics are currently trying to negotiate a buy-out as we speak. Presumably the city would have to cover the team's losses for the season if that came to pass and the city ultimately lost the appeal.
The Seattle Times says there's a settlement. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008030229_sonitrial02.html
Looks like the city and Schultz agreed to a buyout. I'm curious what the amount finally was. That's one hurdle out of the way for next season in OKC. No appeals out of this trial. The Schultz trial is now front and center. I hope the judge releases her decision as it was, but I don't think that will happen. I guess it's really completely a mystery what will happen in the next trial. I also wonder if Schultz can get an injunction against the team playing next season in OKC pending his trial and any appeals.
The Seattle Times says $75 million. Pechman's order just said that the sides had settled, so there's zero chance we'll get to see what her decision would've been. He might could, but he also might have to put up a bond to cover any losses the team might incur. It would be interesting to see how that would all work if he was able to get an injunction. With the settlement, there's no longer any lease in Seattle.
A settlement is good for both sides. The Seattle city receives some hefty cash and the Sonics get their freedom to go. By settling the case and buying its way out, the Sonics have avoided further appeal process although all indications are the judge is going to rule in favour of the Sonics. So, it's a good outcome for both parties. Btw, Schultz's case has no teeth. Not saying I told ya so again.
Okie here.....so I guess that makes me the sole voice of this side of the issue My thoughts: Now, first off, I haven't followed closely on the recent events and especially the court case; but I can say that the only reason this court case was brought was the result of Seattle's "procrastination" and last minute doubt on behalf of the city and the fans. I mean, if they really wanted so badly for their team to stay, then why wait until the team is bought and subjected to relocation? Why wait this long to finally realize what you might be losing? Of course, thats only regarding the fanfare side of it. But as for the courtcase itself, I just find it funny that the city is suing its OWN team just so they can stay for the last two years of its lease. Breaking news (as I'm typing this) :Oooohhh.......whats this? Its official baby-we're getting an NBA team!
