Sonics Fans File Class Action Suit Against Ownership
Posted on Sunday, September 30th, 2007 at 6:24 pm by Brian Robinson
Sorry Kurt, Sorry Tom. Sneak Peak for the faithful.
October 1, 2007, FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Advisory: Sonics Fans File Lawsuit Against Team
What: Monday, October 1, 2007 at approximately 11am a complaint was filed in King County Superior Court against the Professional Basketball Club, LLC.
This complaint was filed by Mr. Michael Myers of Myers & Company, P.L.L.C. on behalf of Ms. Carolyn Bechtel and Mr. Patrick Sheehy, both of who are season ticket holders of the team. The complaint alleges misleading advertising, Consumer Protection Act Violations, and other deceptive actions by the Oklahoma-based Sonics ownership as part of the team’s 2007 marketing campaign.
Attached: Copy of Complaint from Myers & Co. P.L.L.C.
Statement from Save Our Sonics and Storm
Copy of subject advertising
Appropriate biographies and background information
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, OR INTERVIEW REQUESTS PLEASE CONTACT MR. BRIAN ROBINSON OR MR. STEVEN PYEATT AT THE NUMBERS ABOVE
STATEMENT FROM SAVE OUR SONICS AND STORM:
Several weeks ago Ms. Carolyn Bechtel of Seattle, Washington contacted our organization. As a season ticket holder she expressed concern over a season ticket renewal offer which she felt was deceptive based on ownerships actions.
It was our pleasure to assist Ms. Bechtel as well as Mr. Patrick Sheehy by putting them in touch with Mr. Michael Myers of Myers & Company, P.L.L.C. who will be representing them along with other season ticket holders in this matter. Concurrent to these lawsuits, Save Our Sonics & Storm anticipates that various season ticket holders will be filing complaints with the Washington State Attorney General’s Office for consumer protection act violations by the Sonics ownership. We are confident that the Attorney General’s Office will take these complaints very seriously.
While we cannot speak for Ms. Bechtel, Mr. Sheehy, or their legal representation, we applaud their actions. At the heart of this matter are the intentions and actions of current ownership. It is our belief that through the discovery process, the public will gain significant insight as to the events that involve this ownership group and specifically the ownership’s efforts, or lack thereof, to remain in the Seattle region beyond the 2007/2008 NBA season.
Shortly after the conclusion of the 2006/2007-basketball season all Sonics’ season ticket holders were offered an “Unprecedented Commitment” should they make the decision to renew their existing season ticket package. In an enclosed letter Sonics’ Chairman Clayton I. Bennett states, “At a time when we are asking for your season ticket renewal, it is of paramount importance that we establish our commitment to you, our most passionate and supportive fan.” Within that same letter he makes an unequivocal guarantee of fixed ticket pricing through the 2010 NBA season. Since that time it has become obvious that the Sonics are not able to guarantee this products availability and have in fact taken direct action to deny it to their customers with recent attempts to breach their existing lease.
As stated in Mr. Bennett’s letter season ticket holders are “the foundation of any franchise”, as well as “the most passionate and supportive fans.” That this type of deceptive solicitation may have abused their loyalty is unacceptable and should be an embarrassment to the entire National Basketball Association.
Season ticket holders who would like more information about this action may contact our organization for further instructions by sending an e-mail to volunteer@saveoursonics.org.
GO SONICS AND WELCOME KEVIN DURANT!!!
#35
September 30th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
I was at church this morning and it suddently occured to me whether class action suit by fans was possible. This is huge. I’m not a season ticket holder (due to the fact my job requires me to travel Mon-Thu), but I did purchase 10-game weekend pack this season. I wonder what non season ticket holders can do? Or fans in general?
September 30th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I stay in my comfort forum to practice the Q&A on these subjects
I am not a lawyer, nor am I a plaintiff in this case. I’m helping out and expressing my opinion.
It is my belief that this initial case will open a lot of doors, potentially to further litigation by a broader base of fans. This is a very valid Consumer Protection Act complaint because the team was flat out dishonest in its dealings. The fact that they continued to offer this promotion after the statements they made in their arbitration request is an embarassment.
My expectation is that there will be depositions taken of all parties under oath. That will include Clayton Bennett, Aubrey McClendon, and members of all levels of the SuperSonics organziation and ownership. Possibly members of the prior ownership group who were privy to the sale and could testify regarding expressed intentions and the due dilligence period.
It is during these depositions that people are likely to see if there are other options available for non-season ticket holders, fans, sponsors, etc.
In the Save Our Seahawks battle there was a class action filed by fans that was much less specific in nature than this one. It was not THE reason the teams stayed but it was a component in the process.
There will be an arena proposal. SOS&S’s defense of the 3 years is justified because eventually it will transition into a longer term solution. We’ll get that end done whether they participate or not.
September 30th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Thanks Brian.
I have no interest in law ordeals in general, but I intend to follow all Sonics-related lawsuits closely, very very closely ;o)
September 30th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Good news, I found it very funny to read the what Clay said about season ticketholders in this release and then comparing that to what he said when requesting arbitration. This guy is talking out of his ass and he is doing a terrible PR job, when you pubically say contradicting things people take notice.
September 30th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
I’m a bit lost…. was/is there a specific comment by Bennett &/or the Sonics in a recent release that Alex & BR are refering to?
BR - I think your observation that this will force Clay B. & others to do some testifying under oath & potentially reveal some other information related to the team - financials etc. - could be very important in the ongoing drama here - putting more pressure on Clay to sell - and probably increasing his desire to just getg out of this mess - hopefully I guess.
David Stern must be beyond infuriated with C;ay B. at this point.
September 30th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
I don’t get it either. If the Sonics stay the three years, the offer stands, right? If the Sonics aren’t here, you don’t pay for the tickets or do you? I’m lost.
September 30th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
They made a pricing promise to fans, then acted in such a way to negate that promise. This is a violation of the Consumer Protection Act, constitues false advertising, and causes damage to fans who have expectations of seeing the team at the noted prices.
This begs the question: why don’t we sue the team for trying to relocate? We certainly stand to lose a lot as fans, and thus meet the criteria of “suffering”.
September 30th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
The point is that the “locked in” season ticket price was offered as an incentive to renew season ticket contracts. Anyone who renewed his tickets could claim that he would not have done so if not for the offer of locked in pricing. And since Clay is, as Brian said, taking direct action to eliminate the possibility of this incentive ever being realized, it could be considered false advertising. I’m no lawyer, but the lawsuit at least passes the common sense test. I’ve already told my friends with season tickets to contact Brian about joining the class action suit.
September 30th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Can’t CB just say “the ticket pricing offer still stands, they’ll just have to drive or fly to OKC to use the tickets”??
What is the compensation this is seeking? If the fans win, what do they get? Money back on season tickets and no season tickets? Just trying to figure out what I would lose by joining the class and why I would do it.
September 30th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
I can see the point, if the team actually leaves. But it seems foolish to set this in motion at this point in time, as there is no certainty the team is leaving. If the city’s lawsuit forces the Sonics to stay, then the point is moot. I don’t think you can sue someone for having evil thoughts if they don’t come to fruition.
September 30th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
The way I see it, since Clay has already stated in his press conference that 07-08 will be the last year in Key Arena, that would be the basis of the argument. Not to be outdone, the fact that he also has stated that Oct 31 he is filing for relocation would also help to the undoing.
Either way, it is a good proactive shot at Clay and the ownership group.
September 30th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
I wrote this to Steve Kelley:
Hey Steve,
First I want to say thanks for your recent articles and videoblogs on the Sonics & the new ownership. I really am glad that someone in the news media really has this issue figured out and isn’t afraid to tell us all about it. Keep ‘em coming!
Secondly I’d like to share some news from Brian’s blog http://sonicscentral.com/blog/?p=1454 about the class action lawsuit to be filed tomorrow at 11AM. This is just more feed for the media fire that needs to be continually fed until we get this team a local arena.
Thanks again for your honesty & outspokenness on this issue.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
“My expectation is that there will be depositions taken of all parties under oath. That will include Clayton Bennett, Aubrey McClendon, and members of all levels of the SuperSonics organziation and ownership. Possibly members of the prior ownership group who were privy to the sale and could testify regarding expressed intentions and the due dilligence period.
It is during these depositions that people are likely to see if there are other options available for non-season ticket holders, fans, sponsors, etc. ”
This is Brilliant. What I especially like about this is that Clay Bennett conversation he had with his employees a month or two ago, whereby he said that he could “envision” a move to OKC and that OKC would pay for the relocation fees, the moving expenses and the like. Does anyone else remember that? Shortly after, when the story gets leaked, he swears it’s all simply hypothetical, and that none of this stuff has ever, ever been discussed with the big wigs at OKC. Now, under oath, somebody can question all of those city council members, the mayor, assistant mayor etc, all of those people with whom clay probably plays golf with regularly, and see if they sweat the “under oath” part and begin to admit that as we all know, those conversations have in fact taken place. Brilliant. This will indeed open doors I think. If those conversations have taken place, Clay and the boys will lose their lawsuits, and hopefully feel that keeping the Sonics will not be worth their while and sell to local ownership.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
“Tonight on ‘In The Crosshairs’: Clay Bennett and his redneck friends from Oklahoma tried to steal the Sonics from Seattle. Now the Emerald City is pissed off - and they’re fighting back.”
The point would seem to be that our fair city has now engaged - and clearly intends to continue engaging - Bennett and the PBC on a variety of legal levels. First the City, now the fans, what’s next - key members of Schultz’s ownership group claiming that Bennett misrepresented his group’s intentions vis-a-vis making a “good-faith effort” to keep the team here?
The larger point clearly being to embarrass, expose, humiliate, and undermine Bennett’s credibility in every conceivable way, so as to squarely focus the kleig lights of media attention and NBA scrutiny onto him in the most negative fashion possible.
The End Game clearly being to make non-local ownership of the Sonics completely untenable and unsustainable on any level and for anything but the least possible amount of time going forward.
Bennett - minus the team - will be gone by this time next year.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
LOL! Nice one!
September 30th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
This lawsuit provides me a deep sense of satisfaction. At this point, anything that burdens Clay Bennett pleases me.
September 30th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Go get those fucking douchebags! Way to go!
September 30th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Here’s some interesting and relevant information from today’s Sacramento Bee regarding the Kings’ ownership’s attempts to get a new arena for the Kings. Check out the vibe from Stern! I’ve added caps for emphasis:
***
“But if a deal ultimately materializes, the seminal moment will have occurred last November, when the Maloofs asked for and received Stern’s involvement, ON SEVERAL CONDITIONS:
1. that Stern hire the negotiators.
2. that Stern’s hand-picked emissary would have the authority to negotiate the deal.
3. that Stern wouldn’t hear an arena-related peep out of the Maloofs.
“This is a long journey,” Stern said, “but we’re pleased that the first step was well-received. And, you know, one of the Maloofs’ greatest strengths in all this has been their enormous resolve about getting something done for the Kings in Sacramento.”
That’s starting to make more sense, too. The vacant arena market isn’t exactly bustling these days.
Oklahoma City leaders are pursuing Ford Center upgrades, ostensibly for the Seattle SuperSonics at some point in the near future. STERN, WHO SEEMS PARTICULARLY VEXED ABOUT THE SONICS’ SITUATION, has enjoyed one offseason respite from increasingly problematic arena matters: After years of wrangling, rejection and familiar relocation threats, the Orlando Magic and county officials recently reached agreement on a downtown sports arena and performing arts center.
“Sacramento is like Orlando,” Stern added. “You get the sense they really want to get something done.”
***
Well, well, well - so much for the notion that Stern isn’t paying attention to the legal shenanigans in Seattle, or that he doesn’t care what the Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight is doing today, or that he won’t get involved when the shit hits the fan, or…you get the picture.
The NBA is David Stern’s league. Period. Nothing goes down without his approval. He got involved in Sacramento (check out his conditions: “sit down, shut up, and let me handle this!”) after the Maloofs burned every bridge in town (sound familiar?) and they desperately needed Stern’s help to save their sorry asses.
A similar script will play itself out here, and soon. The difference will be, Bennett will have to sell the Sonics to local ownership.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:14 am
It could be a negotiated sell. Presti and even some players (ie. Durant) might go with him.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:31 am
Versio — I’ve thought about that too, but there’s just no way. Allowing Bennett to take Durant would poison the well here forever.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:35 am
^ I highly doubt that.
By anyway, i love hearing this news. I love checking this site everyday to see if anything else has developed in this legal matter. I hope Clay and his little friends go crawl back into the hole they came out of and never come back to Seattle.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:55 am
“It could be a negotiated sell. Presti and even some players (ie. Durant) might go with him. ”
That’s not possible. Bennett owns the franchise that is the Seattle Sonics, he doesn’t own the players
October 1st, 2007 at 3:10 am
Now we just need a lawsuit led by Ridnour from the players.
I doubt Ridnour wants to move. Lauren Jackson certainly doesn’t.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:16 am
If Clay takes Durant with him, its almost the same as letting them move and Seattle getting an expansion team.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:36 am
“It could be a negotiated sell. Presti and even some players (ie. Durant) might go with him.”
That goes against everything within the NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Professional Basketball Club, LLC — which is headed by Chairman Clayton Bennett — doesn’t technically own the individuals who play for the Seattle Supersonics, for those athletes are obligated to peform their contractual duties with the ballclub.
President of Basketball Operations Sam Presti, however, isn’t held to the same standards. If the PBC sells the Supersonics and, as a result, Bennett is awarded an expansion franchise in Oklahoma City by the NBA, then it’s possible that Bennett may acquire Presti’s services from the new ownership group for something like a future second-round draft pick and/or $3,000,000 in cash considerations. The following is an example of such a transaction that occurred this off-season.
http://tinyurl.com/2jzp9o
In actual basketball news, the New Orleans Hornets traded Cedric Simmons ($1,629,160) to the Cleveland Cavaliers for David Wesley ($1,750,000; $250,000 Guaranteed), who’s a washed-up has-been, and an undisclosed amount of cash considerations. The Hornets plan on waiving Wesley within the next few days; thus, the deal was purely a financial move on Jeff Bower’s part.
Upon learning about that trade, I wondered why Presti didn’t look to dump Mouhamed Sene ($2,105,520) — who’s been a bigger bust than Simmons — for that low-end, albeit prudential package. Dismayingly, Sene’s overall value as a trade asset has dwindled in even my eyes — and I was staggeringly aghast at his selection in the 2006 NBA Draft from the get-go — which thoroughly illuminates the idiocy behind Rick Sund originally picking him.
Oh well, Sene is unlikely to be dealt elsewhere and, in turn, should spend the entire 2007-2008 season with the Idaho Stampede. He’s so goddamn raw, though, that he’ll probably never progress into a useful player.
October 1st, 2007 at 6:16 am
More fireworks in Seattle
A pair of Sonics/Storm season-ticket holders has filed suit against the team’s new ownership, claiming deception: The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of everyone who purchased season tickets between July 2006, when Clay Bennett led a group…
October 1st, 2007 at 6:45 am
Sent to all season ticket holders in late April, 2007, after it was announced that there would be no vote in Legislature regarding the arena.
This is what they say when they want our money:
A Message From the Chairman:
Greetings,
I want to offer my sincere appreciation to you as a Sonics Season Ticket Holder. You are the foundation of the franchise and I thank you for your support…
When my partners and I purchased the Seattle SuperSonics last July, we were filled with great enthusiasm about being part of the NBA family. We also feel privileged to own a team with such a storied history, and we take on the responsibility of leading the Sonics back atop the NBA.
As we continue to work toward the development of a new arena, we recognize the uncertainty of the Sonics’ future beyond 201. I assure you, we are absolutely committed to keeping the Sonics in the region, and we continue to be optimistic that we will secure the support we need to do just that.
In the meantime, we want to provide the leadership the resources to strengthen the Sonics as an organization, as a team, and as an asset to this region. In the five months since we took the reigns, we’ve learned a lot about what it takes to be a championship-caliber organization in the NBA. We’re prepared to do whate we can to get us there and we hope we can count on your continued support.
At a time when we are asking for your season ticket renewal, it is of paramount importance that we establish our commitment to you, our most passionate and supportive fan. Therefore, we are creating the Sonics Emerald Club, and exclusive membership for current Season Ticket Holders. Sonics Emerald Club members will earn long-term price assurances, enhanced amenities, and priority activation related to the new arena.
The future of Sonics Basketball is now…Please Join us as we renew the excellence and spirited traditions of the oldest professional franchise in the Northwest.
Sincerely,
Clayton I. Bennett
Chariman
They go on to say “Renew youseason tickets and earn guaranteed cost certainty through 2009-10″
The use of the words “guarantee” and “commitment” are what stand out to me.
October 1st, 2007 at 6:51 am
So when they are asking for our money they give that. Here is what they said, while still offering this deal, in their arbitration demand:
“A majority of the public has accepted the teams imminent departure. The sentiment among many is “who cares?”
“in short, there will be minimal or no impact on Seattle when the Sonics leave. Unfortunately, most people seem not to care. Other than the dwindling core fan base, the only people pushing to force the Sonics to stay are those iwth a self-advancing political agenda”
They say “when the Sonics leave”, not “if”
How can you make one statement to your customers when asking for money, then the others when asking for relief?
October 1st, 2007 at 6:56 am
Lets play the analogy game.
Lets say 6 months ago, when Wiis were impossible to stock a store made a promise that, if you purchased 5 games you could get a Nintendo Wii for $1.
Later on you found out that he reasonably knew that he would only have 1 Wii in stock.
Later on you found out that he had the opportunity to get more Wiis, but redirected them to other stores.
Later on you found out that they actually had 15 Wiis in stock, but had them shipped out to other stores.
When the people arrived they offered to give you a 30 day voucher for the $1 Wii if you pre-purchased the 5 games.
Later on a memo was published in which the store manager instructed his staff to not stock any Wii’s during that 30 day period to avoid the discount.
That’s what happened here. They lied to get us in the door, took our money, then made no effort to deliver on the promise made. Have they met with the mayor since this offer was made? Have they spent a dollar trying to find a solution? Have they worked to educate the mayors office regarding the Key Arena? Not at all.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:04 am
Player contracts are just that - contracts. Anything can be negotiated.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:05 am
When you hire “samurai litigators” who fail to think through the business implications of their filings?
When the client is more focused on personal goals than on successful business operations?
When you are used to press coverage that lets you think that you can say almost anything without being held accountable for it?
When you have never had the opportunity to answer for your words in a court of law?
Depositions have a nice way of helping people to understand that what they say really does sometimes matter. I hope those deps get scheduled real soon….
Note, too, that depositons, unless done subject to a court’s protective order, are not confidential, and may be made accessible to the public……
October 1st, 2007 at 7:07 am
Rant to the media members who got this early.
If the claimants wanted to be called at 6am they would have listed their phone numbers on their release. I don’t think pulling their names out of the phone book and waking them up is going to get you a juicy interview!
October 1st, 2007 at 8:06 am
Have the people putting the arena stuff together attempted to contact Stern and the NBA at all? I think this will get his attention but in regards to that stuff he said in the Sacramento paper I think it is necessary to show him that things are happening over here in regards to funding a new arena.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:10 am
I have to agree with some of the people above (even Dick, WTF?) regarding this lawsuit. While I enjoy the fact that Bennett is getting hit from another angle, and enjoy the fact that it continues to bring a spotlight to the situation…I feel this lawsuit is pretty meritless. If the team had required the season ticket holders some sort of deposit on the following year’s tickets then it would seem to make sense. However, that is not the case…they are just promising you would have the “right” to buy tickets next year for the same cost.
Also, it would seem that I would have a hard time believing that a Sonics season ticket holder would not have known the “risks” involved when agreeing to buy season tickets this year.
Again, its great to continue to stick it to Bennett in multiple ways. It is also great to have them go through the deposition process…however, I can’t imagine that this lawsuit will turn out a winner in court.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:24 am
This is wonderful news.
I hope this will be the first of many such actions that will bury Bennett in paperwork, time consuming court appearances, and massive legal fees.
Publicly exposing the deceit, doubletalk and calculated destruction of goodwill is an added treat.
The worst part: At a time when fans should be re-energized and invigorated with all the extremely positive news over the past 5 months, the team owner has crushed every piece of good news that has surfaced in a selfish attempt to swipe Seattles NBA presence. With all the momentum that could have been created, the fan base should have been dramatically increased, the franchise should have increased in value, and the community COULD have been a lot closer to approving a new stadium. Instead the owned has chosen to devalue his own franchise, initiate an adversarial relationship with customers, and create a very uncomfortable working environment for all of the employees, players included. And all the while the NBA has turned a deaf ear, looked the other way, and shrugged their shoulders.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:15 am
Thanks for the update & explanation on this everyone.
My take is that the lawsuit itself will not amount to much - but the impact may be helpful in terms of just pushing Clay a bit harder and making Stern a bit madder which may move things towards a new resolution.
Also - the legal thrat of depositions etc. may be a concern to Clay - who may not want lawyers going through all his records etc.
As a fan who wants to see the Sonics stay - I see this lawsuit as a piece of the picture that could help in some way.
I bought my season tickets with this assurance - maybe I can get in on this!
October 1st, 2007 at 10:27 am
I don’t know about you…. but I just want one of those 1.00 Wii systems!!!
October 1st, 2007 at 11:04 am
I am no lawyer but I do think this lawsuit has a strong basis in common sense. The owners of the Sonics promised a strong financial inducement to current season ticket holders that they not only never intended to keep, but actively sought to make sure it would be impossible for anyone to actually benefit from their promise.
This seems to meet any common-sense definition of fraud on its face. If any retailer tried to pull this on me I would bring them to court too.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:13 am
Myk makes some great points. This is probably more of a PR thing than anything else. It is probably not absolutely cut and dry because even though tickets aren’t bought and one merely has a right to buy in later seasons at the same price, I would try to argue that the fact that the lease runs through 2010 amounts to a promise made by the org. I would also hit him hard on the word “guarantee.” I don’t know much about consumer fraud laws, so I don’t know what the impact is there.
Bennett & Co. will respond to the lawsuit that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim and will seek dismissal as a result. Their chances may be good in this regard, and if they get the dismissal at this point, there will be no discovery, so no depositions, etc. The key right now is hoping that the claim filed survives this stage of the litigation. If it does, a trial may be scheduled and that’s when things can happen - in the interim.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:20 am
If this lawsuit is such a big problem for Bennett, what makes you think he won’t just offer refunds to any season ticket buyer who wants a refund? End of lawsuit.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:21 am
I would tend to agree with Myk that this is a meritless suit, however, in running a business having to address any lawsuit is a loss. They still have to hire lawyers and be prepared in case someone decides that the suit does hold some water.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:28 am
TrueHoop has weighed in on the lawsuit. It’s good to see this getting national exposure:
http://myespn.go.com/nba/truehoop
October 1st, 2007 at 11:39 am
This is not in any way a meritless suit. It has real teeth otherwise the attorney would not have taken it.
You cannot lie to your customers. It may sound great to say “they should have known” but that doesn’t mean that you can make promises that you do not intend to keep in writing at the time you are collecting money.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:46 am
Again the journalist/blogger in Alex’s article points out that this lawsuit is highly unlikely to succeed. IMO in the end, the only loss is the loss in Clay’s teams’ pockets as he’ll have to hire lawyers to defend this suit which will probably be dismissed.
—————————————————-
Changing the topic, which three players of the Sonics’ current roster will get cut or traded to trim the roster to 12?
October 1st, 2007 at 11:58 am
They won’t trim to 12. They’ll carry 14
October 1st, 2007 at 12:13 pm
This is not in any way a meritless suit. It has real teeth otherwise the attorney would not have taken it.
You cannot lie to your customers. It may sound great to say “they should have known” but that doesn’t mean that you can make promises that you do not intend to keep in writing at the time you are collecting money.
- All I am saying is that common sense and the law do not always seem to go hand in hand. Personally, as I pointed out above, I think the biggest sticking point is that a main point these “long time season ticket holders” are claiming is that they made this purchase with the feeling that they would be able to collect on the benefits. This is despite the fact that common sense would dictate that they’d be fully aware that Bennett had no intent to be here three years from now.
Again, I’m glad another lawsuit is out there and I’m glad this is just one more attack on the Bennett camp. I just don’t feel the common sense test passes as well as it should. Essentially, I’ve been hurt by other business much worse than what is happening to the defendents. Does anyone know exactly what the losses that they are asking for are??
OTH, when you think about it…isn’t thinks just ONE MORE stupid thing done by Clay’s team. Did him (and his marketing staff) think that the benefits he’d receiving from guaranteeing these prices would offset all the loses he would incur if the team does stay here for three years. Sure he probably thought that there was a good chance he’d be relocating, but did he really think there wasn’t any chance that he might have to follow through on this committment?? He is really stupid…
October 1st, 2007 at 12:17 pm
The national legal blogger in today’s ESPN piece likely does not have command of all of the facts.
First, Clay Bennett’s September 21, 2007, arbitration brief states that he wants to get out of the lease.
Second, Clay has said over and over again that he intends to apply to the NBA for relocation after October 31, 2007.
The plaintiffs here, the season ticket holders, have been given enough information, a lot from the “horse’s mouth”, that Clay’s group does not intend to live up to the promises and guarantees promoted in the sale of the special season ticket packages through 2010.
Even if the Sonics end up staying in Seattle through 2010, if Clay’s group continues to try to get out the lease before 2010, the plaintiffs still have a legal case involving unfair and deceptive business practices.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:45 pm
“Player contracts are just that - contracts. Anything can be negotiated.”
No. Not under the CBA rules. An owner cannot sell and take players with him
October 1st, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Does it really ultimately matter whether or not the season ticket holders prevail in this lawsuit alleging fraud, or is it enough that Bennett is once again put on the legal defensive, and made an embarrassment to the NBA?
I vote for the latter, because that’s a much more important step in the larger process at hand.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:53 pm
this is great! more lawsuits against those rednecks!!! man if we all started filing lawsuits i’m sure clay and co would just crumble and leave us alone pretty quickly
October 1st, 2007 at 1:10 pm
I’m a supporter of keeping the Sonics in town, but this lawsuit is frivilous.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:13 pm
“This is not in any way a meritless suit. It has real teeth otherwise the attorney would not have taken it.”
Are you serious?
This is a national story, ANY lawyer would take it.
Give me a break.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:20 pm
“I’m a supporter of keeping the Sonics in town, but this lawsuit is frivilous.”
so far we have heard the basis and the claims for the lawsuit. But all I have heard from the anti-lawsuit crowd is : “it’s frivolous”, or “they (season ticket holders) should have known better”.
I am interested in actually hearing some basic arguments on why a company (sonics), should not be held liable for their claims??
The Sonics offered no price changes for the next three seasons IF you re-upped your tickets. Now that they have come out and DEFINITELY claimed they will file for relocation before that, why would a consumer not claim fraudulent behavior on their part?
I don’t know if this lawsuit will be upheld in the court of law, but to just say: “they should have known better” doesn’t resolve the legal issue either.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Even if this is nothing than an nuisance to the sonics, It brings even more attention to the whole situation, which is always a good thing.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:41 pm
The Sonics offered no price changes for the next three seasons IF you re-upped your tickets. Now that they have come out and DEFINITELY claimed they will file for relocation before that, why would a consumer not claim fraudulent behavior on their part?
- I would say that they offered no price changes for the next three years….and if they are here in three years they will be required to fulfill on that requirement…however, I don’t see where they guarantee that the customer will have the opportunity to buy tickets for three years. Just that if tickets do become available they will be able to buy them for the price they purchased them this year. Also, I’m not sure how much “damange” has been done to the ticketholder. Are they going to claim after X amount of years and what tremendous fans they are that they were not planning on buying tickets, but ONLY did so because of this promise??
Again…I think its great that another lawsuit and more national spotlight is being pointed onto this situation. However, just because I am a Sonics fan does not mean I have to feel that this isn’t at least a shaky premise. Like I’ve said I’ve been “screwed” much worse by businesses (incurring financial losses) in this area and haven’t been able to recoup the money. Common Sense does NOT equal illegal…obviously I am not a lawyer so who knows what will happen, just putting out a counter argument who claim that this is common sense.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Even if this is nothing than an nuisance to the sonics, It brings even more attention to the whole situation, which is always a good thing.
- QFT
October 1st, 2007 at 1:49 pm
From the TrueHoop blog:
This claim seems highly unlikely to succeed. For one, it hasn’t been a mystery to NBA fans — and one would think Sonics season-ticket holders in particular — that the Sonics might be leaving Seattle. This has been speculated ever since the Bennett group purchased the team. Second, these fans paid to see the Sonics play in Seattle in the 06-07 and 07-08 NBA seasons. They either got or will get that. If they paid for a future season that never occurs, they would be entitled to a refund and incidental damages. But that’s not the case here. Lastly, the Sonics have not yet moved nor even announced a move; whatever “harm” that could arise has not yet done so.
- At least I am happy to see that the lawyer guy seems to agree with each of the points that I brought up earlier…oh well if the ticket holders have the money to pursue this type of case they should…fans are getting screwed way too much and way too often these days and it just takes one judge to take their side to create a precedent. At some point the fans need to take back the sports they support so strongly.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Well put JamminJ!
I’d also like that add something regarding the “They should have known better” defense, which several people brought up- and that is that Clay fooled some pretty smart people into thinking he was committed to making something worked here (ie. Howard Schultz, Margarita Prentice, etc.)
October 1st, 2007 at 1:55 pm
So, I had questions about this issue and as Brian requested above I emailed volunteer@saveoursonics.org for more information.
The response I got was a semi-nice version of “go F yourself”.
Why? I quote:
“based on the generic aspects of your email address and the fact that you have not signed your email I am very hesitant to respond to your email”
So I guess Hotmail isn’t legit. I’m sure Microsoft would disagree.
In the end all I got was “please contact your attorney to fully discuss this issue.”
Ummm… I don’t have an attorney. The class does. I’ve been a party to several class actions and never had an attorney. This was just a blow off.
So let me save everyone some time. Rather than email SOS as requested by the founder just contact your attorney and if you don’t have one sit there and twiddle your thumbs with no answers until magically it all just falls into place for you.
Anyway, no sweat off my nose. I just bring it up so nobody else wastes their time writing for more information.
Sorry for the rant but that response (actually FIVE responses to my ONE email) really ticked me off.
Jackson (
October 1st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
I agree that the lawsuit is ridiculous. The idea that an attorney wouldn’t have taken the case if it wasn’t legit does not make any sense at all. An attorney represented the woman who sued McDonald’s for making her fat. Great foresight. Clay Bennett tells us he’s filing for relocation in October and people still buy season tickets. Once again, great foresight. This case holds less water than a sippy cup.
———————————————————
OK so if the Sonics are trimming their roster to 14 who gets traded or cut?
October 1st, 2007 at 2:35 pm
isn’t the roster at 14 now?
October 1st, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Bennett’ legal team will most likely file a counter suite to recoup their losses and then some. This type of suite is poking fun at the legal system and judges do not look too kindly on these things. I wouldn’t be surprised to even see a judge slap the plaintiff with contempt.
I hope Bennett sues the pants off of them for filing this obvious frivolous suite. This is nonsense and you would think that people would have better things to do with their time.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Yesterday, the TNT had the roster at 15 (icluding Jermaine Jackson):
Collison
Durant
Gelabale
Green
J. Jackson
Petro
Ridnour
Sene
Swift
W. Szczerbiak
K. Thomas
E. Watson
D. West
C. Wilcox
D. Wilkins
Have they offered Jermaine Jackson a contract? Is Doug Christie still there? I guess they could put a guy or two onto the injured list and keep the roster intact.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:05 pm
15 is nice because it gives them 3 complete squads for scrimmage
October 1st, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Good point, Vinny. I’m hoping they keep Jermaine Jackson. I think we could have some pretty nice swingmen coming off the bench this year. I hope Christie is still there too.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2003915275_soni01.html
Interesting article about Presti’s influence on the team. You would think that if the team is going to invest $500,000 in improving the training facility, the plan would be to stay here.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Ever since football has started I have been wondering why coaches do not do more things like they do in football.
Like a kickoff return.
Why cant all 5 players come up the floor together with 4 out in front of the ball handler. I know they can’t block and tackle but they could cause some sort of disruption and let the ball handler go to the rim.
And of course the old debate: Subbing 5 players at once to put the defensive squad on the floor.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Jackson - We are very busy today. Your e-mail was forwarded to me with the intent to reply. Your “polite version of go F! yourself” comment astounds me because that wasn’t the way I read the reply whatsoever. We’re sorry.
I am not the filing attorney nor one of the claimants. The issues you request further clarification on are more appropriate for the attorney and we have forwarded your information to him. My hunch(and I have not spoken about this matter to him) is that prior to releasing technical information regarding the case he will want to know your name, contact info, and reason for wanting to know. It’s nice that you want to understand the nuances of the case and I’ll do whatever I can to answer questions, but there is no obligation by our volunteer staff to answer every question posed in a short timeline. The specific nature of your information request through our volunteer for a loop and she should have simply stated “We’ll be happy to forward your information to the attorney”
October 1st, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I, as a season ticket holder, only renewed because I thought the team would still be here through the 09-10 season. I was on the fence about renewing for the up coming season. My thought was that it would be depressing to watch a team that was only going to leave us after the season was over. As things have progressed, I actually called my ticket rep and asked if there was any way to cancel my tickets. I was told I could get no refund on money I had already spent. My thought is still the same. If the Sonics are here for another three years then I would keep my tickets (for this season), but if the plan is to leave after this season then I’m pretty sure I would cancel my tickets if I had the chance. I feel bad saying it but again, how depressing to root for a team you know won’t be here after the season ends.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:47 pm
This team will be here.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:50 pm
It is by no means a done deal that the Sonics are gone after this season. First they have to get out of the lease and then they have to be allowed to relocate by the NBA, meanwhile an arena proposal will be put together. Have some faith and have fun watching a young team with a bright future.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Christie will not be here. Jermaine Jackson I suppose has a shot but it is unlikely. Most likely he is here, as mentioned earlier, to provide them with 3 5 man squads.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I agree she could have just forwarded and dropped it but what made me mad was the inference that my email was shifty somehow. It was clear she was defensive and suspicious when there was no reason to be. She responded to me like I was a spy or a mole on CBs team or whatever which really irritated me. Yeah maybe I had a bad night and this hit me wrong but still…
I’m as big a Sonic fan and ’stay in the NW’ supporter as anyone else so to be told I am suspicious just because of my email address (hotmail) or because I didn’t sign my email (I rarely do because people either know me or don’t care who I am) stinks. Am I the only person SOS has ever dealt with that comes from hotmail and doesn’t use their real name in the address? Can’t be. Were they all told they needed their own legal counsel to answer 2 simple questions that should be free info to those in the class or with potential to be in the class?
I don’t have a problem with giving you, volunteer, or attorney my name but why does it matter? The questions were simple (I merely asked the exact same questions I did in this thread at http://sonicscentral.com/blog/?p=1454#comment-305526).
Doesn’t seem to me like a top secret clearance, background check, and ‘for your eyes only’ answer is needed. On top of that I wasn’t looking for answers that would hold up in a court of law. I was asking informational questions like everyone else on this thread is doing.
Just my two cents… or is it really only my 1.3 cents? Who knows what I might pull on you.
Jackson, “00-Okie” (double O Okie)
October 1st, 2007 at 4:13 pm
I, as a season ticket holder, only renewed because I thought the team would still be here through the 09-10 season. I was on the fence about renewing for the up coming season. My thought was that it would be depressing to watch a team that was only going to leave us after the season was over. As things have progressed, I actually called my ticket rep and asked if there was any way to cancel my tickets. I was told I could get no refund on money I had already spent. My thought is still the same. If the Sonics are here for another three years then I would keep my tickets (for this season), but if the plan is to leave after this season then I’m pretty sure I would cancel my tickets if I had the chance. I feel bad saying it but again, how depressing to root for a team you know won’t be here after the season ends.
- I’m sorry…I don’t believe that any season ticket holder renewed their season tickets with a 100% confidence that the team would be here next year. That is an outright lie or borderline insanity. I’m as big of a fan as any of the Sonics and right now it appears that the signs point towards the Sonics staying (which would mean no lose in incurred to you). However, to say that you went into this situation without understanding the risk of the team leaving is very hard to believe.
To me this little “enticement” will be looked upon by the court as nothing other than a business venture that had certain risks associated with it. If the NBA was to go bankrupt next year and lose money do you think that season ticketholders could hold the team accountable for having purchased season tickets the previous year? No.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:19 pm
From the TrueHoop blog:
This claim seems highly unlikely to succeed. For one, it hasn’t been a mystery to NBA fans — and one would think Sonics season-ticket holders in particular — that the Sonics might be leaving Seattle. This has been speculated ever since the Bennett group purchased the team. Second, these fans paid to see the Sonics play in Seattle in the 06-07 and 07-08 NBA seasons. They either got or will get that. If they paid for a future season that never occurs, they would be entitled to a refund and incidental damages. But that’s not the case here. Lastly, the Sonics have not yet moved nor even announced a move; whatever “harm” that could arise has not yet done so.
This country needs a few more lawyers.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Can anyone prove “emotional damages” based on all the crap that has happened so far with the PBC?
October 1st, 2007 at 4:57 pm
I’m with Myk, Dick Tate, and James B. in this case. The only winners in the frivolous lawsuit that’s mentioned within this thread are the lawyers behind it.
Instead of focusing on this crap, let’s put our attention to the upcoming aribtration hearing between the City of Seattle and the Professional Basketball Club, LLC. That, without question, is a crucial piece of litigation for us folks throughout the Pacific Northwest.
October 1st, 2007 at 6:10 pm
if the case is thrown out on the basis, argument, that people should just know that Bennett didn’t intend to stay back when he sold the tickets, then you have them admit in court they were not living up to the good faith effort, then that might be a fact for the city to use later, or, let’s say you want to act on the provision of the agreement, like a former owner (a subgroup of the 57) that doesn’t like the way this is playing out and you didn’t want to sell, and you want the team back. Just saying’,
one of those other former owners could take him to court, they might not win, but it would drag this out even longer, I think a case like that could end up in court. The facts coming out of a case like that would be plentiful and useful.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Mr Baker Says:
October 1st, 2007 at 6:10 pm
“if the case is thrown out on the basis, argument, that people should just know that Bennett didn’t intend to stay back when he sold the tickets, then you have them admit in court they were not living up to the good faith effort, then that might be a fact for the city to use later, or, let’s say you want to act on the provision of the agreement, like a former owner (a subgroup of the 57) that doesn’t like the way this is playing out and you didn’t want to sell, and you want the team back. Just saying’,
one of those other former owners could take him to court, they might not win, but it would drag this out even longer, I think a case like that could end up in court. The facts coming out of a case like that would be plentiful and useful.”
Word, Baker, that’s exactly what I was thinking. Bennett can’t have his cake both ways and then eat it too, to morph my metaphors.
Bennett has filed to relocate the team by way of his request for arbitration. At least SOME fans must have felt, up until this filing, that there was a good chance that Bennett’s lies were all true. Now, after the arbit request, most everyone should know that the team owners are doing everything they can to move the team — but those fans have a pretty good claim that they DIDN’T KNOW earlier, that the TRUSTED Bennett & crew that the team would be here through 2010 as per the letters sent to season ticket holders and other statements made to the media, fans & local politicians. Those fans who purchased season tickets based on those statements have been defrauded by Bennett, simple case.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:18 pm
But what is the loss for the fans?? Are the people who are suing asking to get their money back for this years tickets? That is the only reasonable thing they can ask for…and i doubt that is what they want. Im sure they still want to attend the games…
October 1st, 2007 at 9:39 pm
what do the fans want? How about the team play its games through 2010, like the lease says. What value do season ticket have 3 years away from the end of the lease with a good faith effort to try to keep the team here long past that date and the teams give you the same price the next two years if you buy them when they sold them a couple months ago… What is the value of a season ticket for a team that the owner is actively working to break the lease and move to OKC no matter how many ticket you buy?
I’ll take a wild guess and say that the former has a higher value, more likely to sell; the other might not fetch such a high price.
Some might want their money back since the tickets were sold under false pretenses (lies), some might want some money back, less the value a ticket of a team that’s leaving no matter what.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:43 pm
I agree with everyone who has stated that plenty of attorneys would love this case - even if it’s a longshot to do much - it’s great publicity and you know Clay would rather settle than go through a public trial - even if it is “Frivolous”. That’s the way the legal game works - sadly. Chances of settlement money are good - publicity is excellent - a no brainer of a case to take on that plenty of hungry lawyers would love.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:54 pm
and when the fans take you to court its hard to recover from that.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:22 pm
From the times:
“Bechtel and the other initial plaintiff in the suit, Patrick Sheehy, 36, of Seattle, are represented by Seattle personal-injury attorney Michael Myers.”
PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY?
Mr. Robinson, are you sure you don’t want to retract your statements regarding the legitimacy of this law-suit based on its representation?
The guy’s an ambulance chaser, jeez.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:55 pm
I think some folks, lawyers and nonlawyers, should probably review this complaint for damages and cause of action before resorting to broad attacks about the merits of this case. It is always easy for anybody to render an opinion about something without researching the full situation.
Here, we have a franchise ownership group that has made guarantees and promises about something in the course of business that they have shown that they do not intend to keep. This is a viable consumer protection act claim.
Moreover, as a practicing attorney, I would like a few of you to take a pause with some of these anti-lawyer attacks. Lawyers, like all other professions, are made of up of the good, the average, and the bad. The regular person person out there is probably going to be in need of a consumer trial attorney more than any other attorney. Many regular people get injured through no fault of their own, defrauded, mislead, and manipulated. A trial attorney is often times the best hope a person has. Putting aside certain biases and stereotypes, there is a role for consumer trial attorneys.
In this particular case, my colleague, Mike Myers, is a very capable consumer trial attorney. I know Mike and his firm are doing their best to protect Sonics season ticket holders who have been mislead and used.
In any event, a little bit more reflection about this case, and a withholding of judgments about lawyers in general, and the lawyers involved in this specific case would be appropriate.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:22 am
Your colleague is a headline chaser, my friend.
And this suit is nothing more than a publicity stunt.
It has no merit, but its good to know you’re willing to go out on a limb and stand up for your drinking buddy.
Stereotypes exist for a reason, mostly because they’re true.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:33 am
Brandon,
Why don’t you go back to your Oklahoma blog?
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:38 am
“Stereotypes exist for a reason, mostly because they’re true.”
Well, there goes your credibility. Bye.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
How the f^ck is this in any way a frivolous lawsuit?
I have a remodeling company with many regular customers who depend on me to update the style of their homes and business’. If I were to send out an advertising memo that stated all of the new interior finishes I haver incorporated into my designs with a clear message that this is something that you will appreciate and may want as an upgrade to your living style, then took on contracts for the next several months while knowing full well I was moving my business to another state and wouldnt get to all of the contracts, could I expect to be sued for backing out of the contracts I signed?
I know that a lawyer will probaly shoot holes in my analogy but it seems that the same principle applies. And that is someone who is trying to maximize his profit on his way out of town at the expense of the consumer that he plans on screwing over…..PURE F^CKING SLEAZE. How does any business man operate this way?
And how would I expect to keep my business reputation? I cannot see how Bennett can save face in the NBA industry at this point. Like I have said in the past. An NBA with Bennett isnt an NBA I would wholeheartedly support. Even if he gets an expansion team.
-Seattle Supersonic Fan for LIFE.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Is it legal to send out an advertising memo for services you arent planning on completing?
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
^^^^^^^^^^^^well said Calabro & ballaholic.
And thanks Mr. Schneiderman for your measured thoughts on this matter.
Frivolous lawsuit my ass!
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:18 pm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/334022_arena03.html
This doesn’t sound positive. I understand the whole “core meaning” thing but to have the guy on your side resort to the “ooops, that was an error” defense. To me it says the badguys (CB) have a hook to hang their hat on, however small it is. I would prefer NO hook.
October 8th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Isn’t this much like shareholders suing themselves? I write extensively on con men and their scams, and at least this is nothing akin to the upcoming subprime mortgage mess, and stock options scandals. Seems self-defeating in so many ways though.
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Bennett’s announcement is so he can make us angry so we will not attend games. Reason: So he can “show” the NBA we have lost interest in the Sonics. I suggest we keep the Key full every game.
December 25th, 2007 at 11:38 am
FIRST ING GEORGIA MARATHON: OFF
STREET CLOSURES Peachtree Street from Marietta Street to Ralph McGill Boulevard will be closed from 6:30 a.m. until about 2
December 31st, 2007 at 1:19 am
CHL All-Star tickets on sale
… and the Colorado 14ers Professional Basketball Club of the NBA Development League (affiliate of the Denver Nuggets, New Jersey