Are the Sonics moving?
 

I was wondering what the status was with the Seattle Sonics moving to Oklahoma City? Haven't heard much lately.

I don't know, but if they were moving to Kansas City, Mizzou B-ball Fan would've claimed that it was a done deal about 10 times by now.

The feud between the Sonics ownership and the City of Seattle continues, with no resolution thereon.

The most recent arena-related pres was an article last week that the Muckleshoot tribe is offering the Sonics free use of their land for a stadium. IIRC, they are located near Auburn, which is SE of Seattle.

Owner Clay Bennett said he would file relocation papers on Halloween if he didn't have a proposal he liked. The City has a lawsuit pending, so I wouldn't be surprised if a stay of action by the Sonics were on the way.

The lease lawsuit is going to federal court, I read today. The Muckleshoot thing, from my understanding, is a no-go. There still wouldn't be a funding plan, and most believe the NBA wouldn't go for an arena next to a casino.

The owners aren't commenting publicly on the court case; apparently they've asked the court to let it be settled in arbitration. But last I heard, they still plan to file on November 1st.

I nominated this for QOTM...

oh shit :(

Are the Sonics well-supported? Seems like a wealthy city, with a large population and corporate base, would make much better financial sense than Oklahoma City.

Not if fans don't want to go see the team play and they're being bilked for a new arena when Key Arena was renovated by the city for like $75 million bucks.

Plus, the new owner is from OKC and the city did a great job with the Hornets. So....they've proven they can handle it, especially since there are no other pro teams there and none likely to move there.

The Sonics are like most pro teams - they are well-supported when the team is good or have the promise of being good soon. But when the team sucks, and/or the owner is actively hostile to the region, they aren't all that well supported.

There's no question that, all things being equal, the team would bring in more revenue in Seattle than in Oklahoma City. I'm sure the team would enjoy a honeymoon period in Oklahoma City that would temporarily inflate revenue, but over time they would do better in Seattle, even considering that they'd be the only major pro game in town in OKC vs. being one of 3 in Seattle.

It's for that reason that I think David Stern is going to do a lot of legwork behind the scenes to figure out a way to keep that team, or move another team, or promise a rapid replacement via expansion in Seattle. The legal factors seem likely to tie up any intended move by Clay Bennett for a while, and given the comments by Bennett's co-owner about always intending to move the team to OKC, it's quite possible the courts will rule in favor of Seattle. I could easily see a scenario where Stern works something out where Bennett sells the Sonics to another group more committed to working out an arrangement in Seattle and Bennett's group is given first rights at the next team up for sale or any new expansion franchise.

Are the Sonics moving?

Hard to say.

To me, I have only a passing interest in Seattle basketball so I don't find them terribly moving. I find them sometimes compelling and sometimes worthy of watching and they can even excite on occasion but they're not particularly moving.

Now, 1987 all star game, in Seattle, Tom Chambers winning the MVP with Magic feeding him assists and the game going into overtime. That game was really an excellent game and it was indeed moving but that only kinda sorta has anything to do with the Sonics.

Even Clay Bennett admits the long-term finances of the team are better in Seattle than OKC. But he wants to be in OKC and can probably turn a profit there, so I don't know that Seattle being a superior market matters much to him.

I wish I could see dawgfan's scenario, because it makes a lot of sense. But expansion looks unlikely, as it throws the division numbers all out of whack. And I'm not sure that it won't be a few years before another team hits the rocks and is ready to be moved.

If they did expand it'd probably be by two to get to 32 and and either a four-of-eight or an eight-of-four division setup. Even so, who'd be the other candidate? KC obviously has the arena, but they had their team move out on them. Given how badly Vancouver was run before going to Memphis, would they get a second chance? Anybody else even interested (aside from Vegas, which basically self-immolated its chances last All-Star weekend)?

At any rate, the NBA did perform for a good long while with odd-numbered teams. Dallas was added I think in 1980 which made 23 teams and they never got to an even number again until the Bobcats were added a couple of years ago.

St. Louis deserves a 2nd shot at the NBA. But it makes too much sense to happen.

Louisville?

That was the first thing I thought of when I saw the title of this thread.

Yes.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/allsta...ory?id=3249625

Sucks for the sonics fans, but I am happy for Oklahoma City. Hopefully they can get an expansion team some day. I would think it should be a boon for the Blazers maybe, as they should increase their local fanbase? Since the Sonics won a title, I think maybe they should leave the team name behind.

Should be interesting to see what happens with the Hornets as well.

This probably means new uniforms, which sucks because the Sonics have the best unis in the NBA

Hornets have an extended lease that the team can't get out of if certain attendance numbers are reached. When the deal was struck a few months ago, it looked like a decent possibility that those numbers wouldn't be reached.

The problem with the Hornets attendance figures was that New Orleans never got a chance to become attached to the team. The team was below average before the storm, and after the storm residents had other concerns than trying to build loyalty with what was still a new local team.

Its easier now, with the team winning. Even if the Hornets stumble a little from where they are in the NBA standings this moment, I would be surprised if the Hornets don't keep the level of appeal and attendance that they have now. (And I expect that they will build on it...)

I hate Clay Bennett. Well, I probably hate Howard Schultz more for selling the fucking team to Clay Bennett, but at least I like his lattes. Bastards.

Sad, sad situation. I remember being a little kid and facing the threat of the Giants moving to St. Petersburg. I mean, playing at Candlestick to crowds of 10,000 a night was bad, but I loved the team, and I don't know if I would have cared about baseball at all had they moved.

Does anyone in Charlotte really have an affinity towards the Bobcats? Shinn basically gave Charlotte the finger, and I can't help but think he soured the city of Charlotte on pro basketball.

Any websites out there watching this number? Usually you hear about these clauses after the fact. Posting these numbers before the fact may result in some Companies and Individuals comming forward and purchasing large blocks of seats so the team just makes it over the line every year.

If Shinn didn't do it, I'm sure the awesome GM'ing tandem of Jordan and Bickerstaff will finish the city off. That Adam Morrison pick looks awesomer every day. They should be closer to .500 at this point.

I remember the Giants situation. I remember going to an A's game with family that year and getting a Giants pennant because I thought it might be a collectable with them leaving the next year. It was pretty great that a group of local investors stood up and bought the team knowing that SF was pretty hostile to a publicly financed stadium.

I think in the NBA, they would be gone. Stern is a powerful commissioner and knows its not in the owner's best interests to have a team finance their own stadium. I know that baseball owners aren't really pumped that the Giants financed their own stadium and it actually worked.

I'm excited about having an NBA franchise less than a half hour away though. I had half season tickets the two years the Hornets were here. I don't really have the time to do that right now, but would love to go to some games. It was a really great thing for Oklahoma City and it was such a morale boost for the whole city to have a pro team here--even for those who didn't like basketball or ever go to a game. I'm sorry that it has to be at Seattle's expense--it deserves a team more than NO as far as I'm concerned--but I am happy that the NBA is on its way.

Agreed. I think people are going to be surprised. The recent uptick in attendance has been fairly dramatic compared to the early season numbers. I believe selling out for the complete non-"draw" Memphis Grizzlies last week was the most telling sign that people here are starting to connect with this team.

One thing people around the country don't know is that we have a ridiculous cable dispute that blacks out the team to 200,000+ of the most affluent potential fans on the nearby northshore of Lake Pontchartrain -- not to mention the fact that the Hornets cannot be seen by anyone with a satellite dish, even in the city proper. Conditions are far from perfect for NBA success here, but I really believe we have a better chance to make it than most people think, especially if the idiotic dispute gets resolved.

We're making progress, and I think we're getting a lot of positive mojo from this weekend as well.


The benchmark, with the updated avg needed, is in the local paper every day. I'm not sure we will meet it, given how behind the 8-ball we are right now (and since playoff games don't count), but if we're clearly improving, I don't believe they will move after next year even if the number's a little short. The real thing to watch is going to be season ticket sales, which were anemic for this season. I'm really expecting a significant improvement on that front. The team really came back with a whimper, PR-wise, in the past offseason.

Hopefully you're right Lloyd. The Hornets deserve the support. They are a great, young team that is really fun to watch. It was fun to watch them grow up the past two years--now they are showing what they are capable of without real serious injury problems.

Absolutely. This probably would've happened last year if Peja hadn't gone down and if Paul hadn't been playing on one leg. And there are no bad apples on the team. An easy team to root for, and I really believe the crowds are going to be reasonably good from here on out, though they won't be consistently good without beefing up the season ticket base. Will be a very interesting offseason on that front.

yeah, I'm sad that it may be at the expense of Seattle, but I have no qualms with a team in Oklahoma City. Good city, good people...hungry fans...It would be a good market for a team.

At least traffic across 520 will improve 40 nights a year

This is all still just posturing - my take hasn't changed. Sonics may end up moving, but this is going to go through all the legal challenges the city of Seattle can muster, and I have a feeling someone or some group locally will step forward with a public/private plan for a new arena and Bennett will be enticed to sell the team.

I'm not the only one that feels this way... http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/thiel/351717_thiel18.html

Yeah, those couple dozen cars racing to get to the game are just murder ;)

I hear this quite often and I just can't understand it. Bennett took a bath when he bought the team, he's getting drilled operating the team so to make any money, he has to sell the team for a boatload more than he bought it for.

If there was a group out there willing to pay more than Bennett paid for the team, why didn't they offer it to Schultz? Stern can make all the backroom promises he wants, Bennett is still going to want some return for his investment.

What the hell is this guy talking about?

I think if Bennett was truly only in it to make money, he wouldn't have gotten a bunch of other local OKC investors to buy in. Maybe they knew they could have it good either way...get the arena and sell out for profit or move the team to Oklahoma City and have a team in their backyard. But, the arena isn't going to happen that will be able to make them a bunch of money and nobody is going to pay the premium to do a public/private deal (and if you think David Stern would be behind that, you'd be crazy...he'll protect the owners who want to be able to hold cities hostage). That means move to OKC and do it sooner rather than later since lame duck seasons in Seattle aren't good for the bottom line.

I must give it up to Seattle for drawing the line and not playing nice. They might as well protect the lease and give a big fuck you to the out-of-towner playing hardball with the city. Might as well try what you can to protect what profit can be made on the lease and also to hold onto hope of keeping the team. I'm not sure if it's the "right thing to do", but if you've had enough and really don't care if you ever get a team again, then you might as well.

It came out in the paper today that some of the local politicians are starting to bend and are open to the idea of a buyout from Bennet. This thing may be over quicker than we thought and the team could be gone sooner than later now.

Yeah, some Seattle City Council members are talking about being open to a buyout to retire the outstanding debts on the Key Arena renovation that updated the old Seattle Coliseum, but these are the same ones that have next to no interest in keeping the Sonics regardless.

Here's the deal - Stern's comments mean nothing; they are simply part of the expected negotiating tactics. Bennett's offer to buyout the lease is simply courtroom politics, trying to show some "good faith" effort to resolve the legal situation surrounding the arena lease.

If Bennett is serious about settling this issue, he'll have to offer a hell of a lot more than $26.5M. And if he does, that will change things. But I have my doubts he'll do so, because that puts him and his ownership group that much further in debt, a debt that will probably require selling the team to recoup. He's already stated his desire to see Oklahoma City build a brand new arena for his NBA team if he's able to move it there, despite the fact that the facility there is only 5 years old.

Issue #1 with a bullet is this - the NBA's finances are fucked in a big way. When Miami builds an arena that is replaced after only 12 years with a new arena, and yet the franchise still loses money in a new arena even after winning an NBA title, you know the game's finances are completely bullshit.

It's no surprise that the city of Seattle has been highly reluctant to publicly subsidize such a fucked-up financial situation after agreeing to a sensible public/private renovation of the Seattle Coliseum in 1994 (an agreement that split profits between the Sonics and the city that would pay off the public bonds used to renovate the facility - an agreement that would've worked fine for both parties had the NBA not endured the costly lockout situation during the '98-'99 season.

When local owner Howard Schultz threw his conniption fit over not being allowed to rape the citizens of Seattle over another renovation to Key Arena, financed solely by local taxpayers, he sold the team to the highest bidder which turned out to be the carpet-baggers from Oklahoma. Bennett and Co. overpaid in a big way for the team, which is why the team wasn't sold to local interests (such as Steve Ballmer).

But with the threat now much more realistic about the team possibly leaving the region, the stakes have changed.

If the city wins their lawsuits about the Key Arena lease, it becomes much more realistic to thing that Bennett and his investors will seriously consider selling the team to stem the red ink, especially if David Stern can offer some assurances that they'll be next in line as buyers for an NBA franchise in trouble (can you say Hornets or Bobcats?) A realistic public/private partnership to build an NBA arena that can keep the NBA team solvent while not completely fucking over the local populace will be much more palatable if Bennett is no longer the owner, and despite Stern's wailings to the contrary, plenty of precedence exists for a privately-funded arena (Pepsi Center, Denver; Staples Center, Los Angeles; Rose Garden, Portland; GM Place, Vancouver).

Again, I acknowledge the possibility that Bennett will refuse to sell the team and will wait until legally required to stay in Seattle before moving the team to Oklahoma City. But I also think it's quite possible that the legal situation will open Bennett up to the idea of selling the team to a local contingent (Steve Ballmer?) that will have the backing and plan in place to build a privately-financed arena that will keep the Sonics in Seattle.

Oklahoma City is not building a new arena. A vote comes up the first Tuesday in March to extend the penny sales tax (which has been going on forever because of downtown revitalization as well as schools in a program called MAPS) to pay for rennovations to the arena. When the Ford Center was built, it was done cheaply to give the city an arena to attract a team (actually, it was proposed when it looked like an NHL team was coming, but they decided to build it anyway once that was not a reality). The ammenities and concourses are pretty bare-bones except in the middle level. There is not really a VIP area for the big-timers in the front row. This is going to be fixed if the vote passes and a new arena won't happen for awhile.

Second, I don't think you know how well off this ownership group is. Clay Bennett's company might not be big, but his wife is a Gaylord...owns the paper in OKC and a ton of crap in Nashville. Aubrey McClendon owns part and is a major part of Chesapeake. Other minority owners are car dealers and other players in business. I don't think they're going to sell the team if they buy out of the lease.

If the city wins the lawsuit, then they'll take a loss for a couple of years. I don't think they'll be bullied into selling the franchise for a big loss and then wait to pay full price for the next franchise. It's not like it's a 25-year lease.

I don't get it though - from Seattle to Oklahoma City? Seriously? Wouldn't you take a huge hit on Demographics, a huge hit on income, and generally on players? Ie, money is still the motivating factor, but all things being equal, how many players are going to want to go there?

Quoted again, this is a gem.

I think a number of people unfamiliar with the OKC area would be surprised, as would many who haven't been here in several years.

Oklahoma City is one of the fastest growing cities in the nation. It's adding jobs at a great pace and not seeing many of the difficulties other areas of the country are experiencing. Plus, the cost of living is incredibly low. That's quite attractive for players and businesses alike.

It's difficult to predict due to the fact that the Hornets were a novelty and only here two seasons, but there was a great deal of support from residents and corporations alike when they were here. I'm sure that Bennett and company are counting on that, making them significantly more money than with less support in Seattle.

I'm just repeating what Bennett has said. Perhaps he meant upgrades to the existing facility, I don't know.

I don't think Howard Schultz and his group was hurting for money either, but even multi-millionaires and billionaires grumble a lot about losing tens of millions of dollars per season.

I doubt Bennett's group will sell the Sonics unless Stern can assure them he's got another team lined up for them to buy. But if Stern does that and the city of Seattle prevails in the lawsuits, I think they'll be mighty tempted to sell in order to stem the red ink that is flowing and will continue to flow for them for the next several years.

If they really overpaid by as much as you suggest, though, then wouldn't they have to lose just a shit-ton of money before they decide to sell out when they can just leave in three years? They will lose money by selling the team too...probably more than they would in a couple of years of losing money in Seattle. If they think it's hopeless to make money in Oklahoma City, then I can see where you're coming from--but I don't think the ownership group really thinks that will happen.

When has any owner ever lost money selling a pro sports team (and I'm talking the real leagues - NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL)?

Simmons' mailbag full of Sonics fans airing their grievances:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...8&sportCat=nba

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basket..._arena05x.html

Wheels are starting to turn publicly in attempting to keep the Sonics in Seattle. We'll see if the State Legislature acts on this - they only have 7 more business days in this year's session - but this is a significant move, and if it passes, it will put a lot of pressure on the NBA owners to carefully consider whether it's in their collective best interests to leave the Seattle market.

The NBA voted 28-2 to allow the Sonics to move to Oklahoma. Under the new lease agreement, they can no longer negotiate with the City of Seattle on a new arena and lease.

Sorry Seattle.

Some talk in that one piece on ESPN that the NBA could theoretically expand by 2 at some point to go to Vegas and Seattle, but...Stern isn't so keen and owners don't want to dilute their piece of the NBA anymore. (I think the expansion fee payoff might change their minds down the road..)

Basically that Clay Bennett has agreed to pay the lease, pay all of the other fees and such to get out of the deal. At least he's not try to stiff the city financially.

I wonder what they'll change the name of the team to is all.

I wouldn't be shocked if Seattle tried to screw over Bennett if they win their lawsuit and make them play two more seasons there. Even so, there is a lease already signed for 15 years in Oklahoma City starting in 2010, so it would really just be an angry gesture. Since nobody is going to go to the games, the value of the lease went down since they shared on a percentage basis, I think.

Personally, I hope they win the lawsuit and make it cost Bennett as much money as possible. This sucks.

Okay, so apparently Oklahoma City has now filed suit to enforce the very strong legal agreements that Bennett signed there. According to Lester Munson at espn.com, it appears that if the Sonics don't move to Oklahoma City then the team could be on the hook for as much as $150M to be paid as liquidated damages to the city.

This is hilarious. Bennett has screwed himself completely over. I just don't want to see him get away with this. The perfect scenario now is that Seattle wins their suit to enforce the existing lease. Seattle then knows that Bennett is on the hook for the $150M with Oklahoma City. So the best possible ending is that Seattle offers to let the team out of their Key Arena lease for $149,999,999.

:D

The lease with OKC doesn't begin until 2010-2011. There is language to allow them to put it in place as early as this upcoming season, depending on the outcome in Seattle, but nothing is binding until the lease expires in Seattle.

Edit: And as far as I know, OKC has not filed suit. They wrote a letter that said they would file suit if the Sonics don't arrive in 2010-2011. Basically, it's their way of trying to convince Seattle the team is gone eventually, regardless of what they do.

Should be a really interesting legal battle. I agree that Bennett could find himself between a rock and a hard place if Schultz's suit holds up, and there's some optimism that it will.

That said, shame on the Washington legislature for their cowardice on this issue. It's appalling how many State legislators have/had no idea what was being proposed to them when Ballmer's group made the plea for the State to authorize continuation of King County stadium taxes to pick up 1/4th of their proposed KeyArena renovation (with Ballmer's group picking up half plus any overruns and the city picking up the other 1/4).

He might be in a tough spot...I'm not really sure the legal ramifications of such a weird decision. If it's ruled that there was fraud, maybe it could void the contract prior to the decision to sign the lease with Oklahoma City. Who knows.

Either way, the suit is going to be a hard one for Schultz to win just because fraud is hard to prove...generally there is a higher standard of proof in a fraud case than the usual preponderance of the evidence (this is to discourage people from alleging fraud all the time when a deal went bad). Also, while the minority owners have been idiots in their e-mails and such, Bennett is the decision-maker and his e-mails have at least been pretty cryptic. He said that if they couldn't move the team to OKC, at least they'd make money on a flip of the team to a local Seattle owner--that is saying that they were willing to keep the team there if they could make a profit. The only really damaging e-mail is the one that says "I am a man possessed" but, while one can infer he means moving the team to Oklahoma City, it's not exactly spelled out.

I'm not trying to say he didn't want to move the team to Oklahoma City--it's pretty safe to say he did (and if he couldn't, he wanted to make money on the deal)--I'm just saying it's a tough suit to win because fraud is tough to prove. Especially if it's not in the written agreement, but essentially spoken-word parol evidence.

Sonics reach settlement with city of Seattle

Associated Press






Updated: July 2, 2008, 7:18 PM ET

• Comment
• Email
• Print

SEATTLE -- In a stunning turn, the city of Seattle and the SuperSonics have reached a last-minute settlement before the judge was to rule in their KeyArena lease dispute.
The settlement was reached just hours before U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman was to announce her verdict in the trial between the city and the team.
The city of Seattle has scheduled a news conference at 5 p.m. PT Wednesday, the same time as a news conference in Oklahoma City with Sonics' owner Clay Bennett. Terms of the settlement were expected to be announced then.
The settlement was announced by Pechman on the federal court Web site.
Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press





http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3471503

ESPN.com says the deal is $75 million to the city, and then the Sonics will go on their way.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3471503

I'm sure that money will make the fans happy.

They're happy in Oklahoma

I'm sure they'll leave the Sonics name and all of that behind as part of the settlement, sorta what the original Browns did when they left Cleveland to become the Ravens, to throw a bone to the fans who are worried about the "legacy" of the Sonics or whatever.

So the Sonics would be "Saved" but only in the sense of a shuddered franchise.

I can't believe I've got tears in my eyes about a team I knew was gone three years ago.

Fuck you, Clay Bennett. Fuck you, David Stern. Fuck you, Howard Schultz. And fuck you, city of Seattle. You sold out.

Not in the least surprising, but I feel for Sonics fans.

I can relate. My hometown team in our professional league just folded today. We had an asshole of an owner who went bankrupt and fled the country, leaving players unpaid for 2 months, and also doing serious damage to a rugby club that he was involved in. The past two months have been a rollercoaster ride of suitors looking at picking up the pieces, but the final two rescue packages were shot down last night, and on the team's 20th anniversary year, and just 2 seasons removed from a threepeat of championships, the Sydney Kings are dead and burried. :(

From a pragmatic point of view, this was the right decision by the city at this point - the remaining KeyArena debt should be paid off with money left over for the city's contribution to a future renovation to attract a new team.

But damn if I didn't want to stick it to the liar Bennett and the smug asshole Stern with a favorable ruling in this trial. There is still that hope with the Schultz lawsuit, but it's a slim one.

Fuck Bennett for being a lying team-stealer. Fuck Stern for his arrogance, pettiness and willingness to screw the fans of Seattle over to prove a point. Fuck Schultz for selling the team to Bennett. Fuck the State for not having the balls to allow King County to vote to allow the existing stadium tax be continued to help pay for a renovated KeyArena where Ballmer's group would pay 50% of the costs plus all overruns, something that might have prevented the NBA from signing off on the move to Oklahoma City. Fuck the City for screwing up the trial enough to want to pursue a settlement. Fuck Ballmer for not stepping up sooner to avoid this mess.

Because in the end, it's Sonics fans who are fucked in this deal.

That's shitty, they've got a great history and not to mention the best uni/logo in the NBA.

I appreciate that I don't have any kind of attachment to the Sonics at all having not grown up here, but I don't see what else the city could have done.

Clay is moving the team. Always was, always will. He will not sell the team. The only reason he would have sold the team is if the city gave him $500 in free money so he could have sold the team. There was no chance the hope of "starving him out" by making him eat huge losses by staying in Seattle was going to work. It was all over the moment Schultz sold it to Clay.

The only thing the city could do was get money. I think they came out pretty well in this. They got Key Arena paid off. But the big win in this is they got the NBA to agree that $150M worth of improvements to Key would classify it as a suitable home for an NBA team. All along the line from the NBA is that nothing short of a new, half a billion dollar, arena was acceptable.

Getting $500M from the city with zero from the ownership group never had a chance in hell of happening. Now, they've got backing that organizing $150M worth of funding will get them an additional $30M. They don't have to actually spend the $150M, just show that they can raise it.

Holding out would have left the city with no team, no chance to get a team and still saddled with the Key Arena debt.

Pragmatically, I think you're right. I'm not thinking pragmatically right now. And I think two things -- first, an extra $30 million is chicken feed for Bennett/NBA; and second, I could give a shit about stealing a team from yet another city.

Fair enough. It's pretty shitty to pile on and try to tell someone who lost their team that things aren't as bad as they seem.

I do sympathize and I'm sorry.

I mean, did they (the city) really have a choice?

Schultz could still win his lawsuit and the Sonics only miss a year in Seattle...don't forget about that possibility.

I hope the team crashes and burns in Oklahoma City, and the jackasses go bankrupt.

That city does not deserve any team, especially when there are other places (such as Vegas) that would support a team, and with a better, bigger market.

I hope that your wishes do not come true. I don't know who would have supported a team better between OKC and Vegas, but I do know that Oklahoma City has a track record of supporting NBA basketball.

I have to say that in terms of how poorly this could've come out when it seemed doomed from the start, that the settlement at least ensures that it's pretty likely the Seattle Supersonics will be back in the NBA sometime in the next 5 years or so.

The NBA will likely expand by at least two teams giving Seattle its new Sonics -- consider this is the first time an NBA team has moved and left the colors and team name behind -- and probably put a team in Vegas, since that's the only plausible league for that city.

So while it does suck, at least they stuck to their guns and sued. A lot of cities would've bailed out earlier than this and would've had nothing to show for it.

Here's hoping that Seattle gets a team again really soon with an owner who isn't an asshole.

Rational guy in me says that the trial didn't look like it went well for the City and Sonics fans and that the decision which was just about to come down yesterday was going to be bad. Making peace with the NBA by settling for enough money to pay off the KeyArena bonds AND getting financial incentive for Bennett to support a team going to Seattle may be about as good of an ending as could have been gotten.

Rational guy can go get bent. Lifelong Sonics fan in me is pissed. I want blood. Preferably Clay Bennett's. Stern's would be nice, too. Those mfs just stole my team.

This is probably not the best time/place to get into this discussion, but how much does it matter where the team plays? Chesapeake, you live in the DC area, right? So why does it matter to you whether the team plays in Seattle or Oklahoma City?

Seattle is obviously going to get one of the teams. KC is actually in the hunt for that second team. There's a NBA arena already build and ready for use. The Anschutz group in California is the one backing the deal.

Vegas has a built-in problem with sports gambling. Locating a professional franchise in a city with that many sports gambling sites provides ample room for possible tomfoolery. Given the recent claims of game fixes in the NBA, there's reportedly been severe reservations by Stern and other NBA execs in recent months about putting a franchise in that situation. There's just too much at stake for them to take that risk.

I am suprised that you are advocating basketball in Missouri. It's almost like you are are a fan of it or something.

Seriously, though, I have heard this reason stated as the reason that Vegas has no professional sports teams. But it never quite made sense to me. In the age of the internet, why does it matter if a team is located close to where sports gambling can occur legally? It seems that issues about fixing games, etc. can and do apply to any team on which bets can be placed, regardless of where the team is located. What am I missing?

Also, in exchange for getting a team, I would bet (heh) that Vegas can get the casinos to agree to not take bets on that team. That would also seem to solve any potential problems vis a vis gambling.

But I think that I must be missing something because everyone seems to agree that a pro team in Vegas is a pipe dream because of the sports books. So what am I missing?

There is an advantage to being the "only game in town" and short of the NHL going to an even more irrevlevant place than it's already chosen to, Vegas won't attract baseball or football. So the NBA is the only likely choice, to be honest. Obviously Kansas City would be a possibility, but Vegas has star cache and given the NBA is the only league that LOOOVES to show you all of the stars in the audience during its games, the Vegas team would be a destination franchise for the league, solely because of the cache that city has with the star set.

UNLV basketball is DOA, but that team did prove that pro basketball can work in that city, even with the other distractions. ;)

Vegas could be a problem. There is a big difference between online gambling and in person gambling. In online gambling, someone isn't going to reach through your computer, grab you by the throat and try and influence a player/referee, etc...

NBA owners are a big fan of completed $250M arenas managed by a group with NBA/NHL experience that have sold-out suites already in place. That likely overrides any of my influence on the situation.

Given that's already happened WITHOUT a team in Vegas, seems like they'd be more proactive to just go there and fight it head on, especially with the city having a compelling interest to keep the team and the league happy.

The NHL will be there. That seems extremely likely, especially given the rivalry with the Blues that would get started. The NBA going there would not necessarily help the OKC situation, though with a team going to Seattle, it'd at least achieve geographic parity and ensure that there aren't two expansion teams in the west at the same time.

But by the time they're looking to expand, surely the NHL will have arrived in KC, making them not able to descend it. We're talking 5 years from now.

True, but it's more about appearance I guess. You're probably right that Vegas would not be any more likely to have problems than other cities, but people would associate Vegas with gambling and it could hurt the leagues perception, especially a league like the NBA.

OKC is a 6 hour drive from KC. That's like saying a Boston franchise may effect the Washington DC franchise. They don't have overlapping markets. There's plenty of population base in the two areas to support two franchises and the distance between the two is pretty large. Memphis is just as close as OKC if we're going by mileage, but they won't be affected either. It would, however, provide some pretty good regional rivals.

Honestly, the only reason the Sonics are going to OKC and not KC is because of the owner. KC is the bigger market and has a nicer arena with more suites. He's connected to Oklahoma and wanted to take a team there. Certainly can't blame him for that.

The NHL will come to KC eventually, but it's not on the immediate horizon.

As if the NBA's perception isn't beaten down enough? That league seems to be able to rebound from anything without its perception begin dragged down. It probably owes to the fact that basketball is a global sport and the NBA is the best league in the world.

One other point to be made concerning Seattle and KC. The Sacramento Kings' owners have already stated that they will move the team if they don't get a new arena deal worked out. While I'm sure the Maloof's would like to move the franchise to Vegas, a much more likely scenario would be that they move north to Seattle. In that case, KC has a shot at two franchise slots rather than just one if they send the other expansion team to Seattle. A KC franchise would be almost guaranteed if the Kings moved to Seattle.

I doubt the Kings would dispense of their history to become the Sonics. And I doubt Seattle would want a team that wasn't a continuation of the Sonics, so that's a no-go.

Seems far more likely that in your scenario, the Kings could simply come BACK to Kansas City, even if the Maloofs just had to sell and were promised an expansion franchise or in some other strange franchise swap a la Bud Selig's Marlins/Expos/Red Sox for his boy John Werner.

I grew up in Bremerton, WA and all of my primary sports affiliations remain in that area.

Yeah, I think the Maloofs would definitely sell in that scenario. Certainly wouldn't mind having the Kings back in KC.

Why would they expand when there are multiple teams that are in precarious financial situations? Currently the NBA has leverage against cities that have vulnerable NBA franchises by pointing to places like Seattle, Kansas City, etc. and threatening to move existing troubled teams there.

Sand + vagina = Schmidty. Here's something to clean that out for you:



By the way, go fuck yourself.

Am I missing something or has David Stern done a 180 in recent days indicating that expansion is on the horizon? He was pretty clear that there were no domestic plans to expand a few months ago.

Hmm...what teams are these? I've always thought that an NBA franchise would be most likely to keep a profit out of the NFL/MLB/NBA/NHL. Player costs are generally low (no minor leagues to subsidize), a 15 player maximum roster, games very unlikely to be canceled due to weather, national TV contract, etc.

I think what he meant was, is there any chance that you could remain a fan of the Sonics? In a practical sense, if you don't live in the area, there's not much difference where they are.

It seems like most fans that have to go through this abandon the moving team, which I understand, but there has to be some exceptions.

I'm in that same boat. I've never understood why Vegas isn't a more popular destination. Quite a bit of corporate money, MSA is about the size of Kansas City- so a little on the small size but doable, and being the only game in town is huge. I've never understood the big reason why the NHL and NBA ran away from it.

SI

Maybe the NBA has some concerns about its players being involved in "incidents" there, but otherwise, ya, it seems like a no-brainer.

The population is marginal but how many millions of people visit Vegas every year? Make it an event with lots of fluff and you can charge crazy ticket prices and people will show up.

Jiminy Crickets, man. I didn't direct anything at you, and didn't say anything whatsoever about the people of OKC. I just think the Sonics ownership is slimey, and I don't think OKC deserves the team over other markets like Vegas, and that makes me mad. I'm not even a Sonics fan.

I didn't even know you had a personal issue with me. In fact, I don't think I've ever even spoke to you. Oh well, I think I can live you telling me to fuck myself. Have a nice day. :)

Back to Seattle for a sec. Does the city plan to renovate KeyArena or to build a new arena? I guess I am wondering if all this talk was just talk and ultimately, the improvements that were wanted by Schultz and then Bennett will be accomplished anyway with the hope of another team coming into town. It reminds me of South Florida's hate for Wayne Huizenga and how that hate has hung over the teams that he owned for years.

The NBA financial model is broken. Case in point - Miami first started off in, what, 1988 with a new arena? And then got another new arena in 1999. In the '05/'06 season they won the NBA title, yet still lost money. That's ridiculous - a team with a very recent arena, as successful as you can get and with multiple star power attractions in Shaq and Wade, and yet they lost money.

I believe multiple franchises such as Memphis, New Orleans, Sacramento, Milwaukee and Atlanta (and probably others) are regular money losers and have been mentioned as teams that may potentially be sold and/or move.

I'm certainly not in favor of stealing another city's team, not after having it done to mine - I'm just saying I don't think the NBA is in any position financially to expand right now.

We'll see. Ballmer is still willing to pony up $150M towards a $300M renovation (plus all cost overruns), but that's provided he has a team. The city certainly seems willing to pony up their $75M share. Whether or not the State legislature will allow King County to vote on whether to extend the existing stadium tax to provide the final $75M is hard to say, but I'd say it's doubtful unless there's more evidence that a team is forthcoming.

On a side note, I find it ridiculous that the State needs to approve a decision by the county on whether or not the county can extend an existing tax within that county.

Previous attempts at a renovation of Key Arena failed due to multiple reasons - taxpayer fatigue after paying the lion's share of both Safeco Field & Qwest Field, resentment at being asked to renovate Key Arena again considering it had already happened in '95, and requests from both Schultz and Bennett for $400-500M palaces with the vast majority of that money (80+%) coming from public money, and much of the "private" money coming from the sale of arena naming rights.

Given that the city has now lost the Sonics, the political climate may have shifted, and with a proposal from Ballmer's group that is far more fair to taxpayers, it would seem there's a better chance now of getting public funding approved for another renovation. On the other hand, there's no guarantees of a new team, and the economy isn't doing so hot.

I'd be surprised if the Heat hadn't made money before they accounted for things like player depreciation.

Maybe I don't fully understand the NBA economic model, but why would the league want a team in only the 45th largest TV market, about the same size as (ahem) Memphis and Albuquerque?

http://www.mediainfocenter.org/compare/top50/#tv

I don't have a dog in this fight, but allowing a team to move to Oklahoma City seems questionable from a business perspective.

I would still happily give up the Timberwolves to Seattle.

Because the 45th largest market built the league a free arena and the 13th wouldn't.

This has nothing to do with building the league. The NBA can't make money. The only chance they have is if communities give them $350M - $500M for free.