Greg Nickels, Absolutely!
Posted on Tuesday, May 6th, 2008 at 12:24 am by Mr. Baker (thinking good thoughts for George Karl))
As reported by Eric Williams in his Tacomam News tribune blog, Nickels deposed.
As part of ongoing discovery in the suit involving the Sonics and the city of Seattle over terms of the KeyArena lease, an April 2nd transcript of Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels being deposed was released by attorneys for the Sonics on Monday.During the deposition, asked if he believed a solution to keep the Sonics in town was more likely to occur if the Sonics were forced to stay until 2010, Nickels said absolutely. Nickels deposed
Absolutely!
Well, duh!
Waddya’ think we’re doing here?
Linked to the story is part of the Nickels deposition, see answers from Nickels to tough questions on pages 6 through 9, more interesting to the stat based community is the PBC’s projected operating estimates for the years 2008 through 2010 on page 28 of 31.
The question is: why are they pushing this?
Answer: They had their butts handed to them over requesting a financial buyout dollar figure if/when they lose in June.
Again, Eric Williams:
In a filing on Monday attorney’s for the Sonics stated they would withdraw a request for the judge to decide a specific number for the team to buy its way out of the lease if it delayed the June 16th trial. Tacoma News Tribune.
Hey, no head scratching, it was just 5 days ago there was a thread on this, New Thread, Jury Duty, or just duty? Well, now they are taking a giant step back from that bold move to broaden the scope of the trial from Specific Performance, to financial settlement if/when (come on, it’s when) Clay Bennett loses.
Here is a link to the temporary owner of the Sonics court filing that included references of the Nickels deposition, a 180 with a twist, from the Tacoma News Tribune.
They want to still argue a financial settlement when they lose, that the City doesn’t have to have a jury, that the city has discussed some finances with people, blah, blah, blah, widening the scope of the trial beyond Specific Performance, blah, blah, blah.
The first sentence of their conclusion is the only thing that is going on here (page 7 of eight ), “Again, the PBC unequivocally withdraws its Motion if granting it would require any delay of the trial June 16.”
They go on to a bunch of other BS trying to still file, but not file, if we get our way then that’s great, if we don’t we would like to pretend that we didn’t file the motion that we clearly didn’t think through.
The City’s counter to this should be short and sweet, in fact they could just refile the majority of the the response from the PBC’s initial proposal to widen the scope to include financial damages.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:32 am
snap
May 6th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Cool. It’s too late for me to read this now, but I will check it out tomorrow (Tuesday). The Sonics must still be thinking they can get out of Seattle this year - I think that they’re telling themselves & everyone else that, but I think they know the reality of the situation. Possibly. Then again, maybe not.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:44 am
So if they agree to include the financial losses into the case, will that allow the city to ask to see the financial documents it was denied from the NBA?
May 6th, 2008 at 7:18 am
[...] ne takes on Reds Army - A blog battle. Mavs Moneyball - Do Mavs fans want Jason Kidd back? SonicsCentral - More news on the battle between the city and the NBA. 3 Shades of Blue - Reviewing the Griz [...]
May 6th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Tim Ceis to be on Mitch in the Morning.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Anyone know what time Tim is on?
May 6th, 2008 at 8:28 am
From where I sit, it seems like a waste of the court’s energy to decide damages before case is heard. just like most civil cases I know of the amount is decided after the trial.
The best plan to get a building financed would have been to take 2 legislative sessions to get it done. One to build connections and one to actually launch a well thought out plan. I have always thought this was iin PBCs best interest. This is even more clear now. If they had followed that plan and been rejected by Oly, they may have been playing in OKC this year. Instead they pulled a rush job that did not help them get a building or get to OKC as fast as they wanted to. Seems like they are working the court case in the same way. Makes me wonder about their short sightedness in relation to Presti’s comments about not skipping any steps. and taking the time to make the best long term decisions.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Tim has been on for the last 15-20 minutes. I just jumped into it..so I missed much of it.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:50 am
The PI article says that Keller said that Nickels’ answer was unresponsive. How is “Absolutely” unresponsive.
“Included is part of the Sonics’ deposition of Mayor Greg Nickels, during which Sonics lead attorney Brad Keller repeatedly asked Nickels if the city was pursuing specific performance (requiring the team play its games at KeyArena) because the club is losing money and would therefore be more likely to sell.
Nickels continually responded that he believes the longer the team stays in Seattle, the better the city’s chances of finding a solution, with Keller finally saying, “Move to strike as nonresponsive. I’ve asked it three times. We’ll wait to ask it in another time in another form.”
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/361913_arena06.html
May 6th, 2008 at 9:01 am
can anyone give an update from the Ceis interview?
May 6th, 2008 at 9:07 am
“The PI article says that Keller said that Nickels’ answer was unresponsive. How is “Absolutely” unresponsive.”
Same old garbage reporting from the P-U. Just go bankrupt already.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:19 am
In reading the PBC’s reply in support of their motion, it strikes me that the PBC should summarily be tossed out by the judge, because the foundation of the PBC’s position is entirely erroneous and without legal standing. The reason given for unilaterally voiding the lease is that the Sonics do not want to be forced to spend two years as a “lame duck” franchise where it would incur “losses because of an outdated and unworkable lease for an inadequate facility.” However, the Sonics freely and voluntarily bargained for the lease and negotiated the its terms for this facility with full knowledge of its adequacy or lack thereof. The PBC stands in the same shoes as the former owner who entered the lease contract. The lease has a specific performance clause that circumvents the typical machinations of contract law. The PBC can circumvent this clause only if they have a legally good cause. Unprofiitability is not good cause. Good cause would be a substantial breach by the City or impossibility to perform, such as destruction of the Key or if the NBA folded.
However, the NBA has not folded, the Sonics are still playing basketball and the Key is in substantially the condition anticipated when the team signed the lease agreement
The Sonics knew that the last two years would be “lame duck” when it entered a contract that expressly terminates in 2010. When they purchased the team, the PBC knew they had to honor the lease. The PBC knew that losses could be anticipated.
The City is correct in asserting that some aspects of the City’s losses would not be quantifiable. The loss of prestige and pride cannot be quantified. The joy of a family attending the game and the inspiration provided to the City’s youth cannot be quantified. For this reason, under the terms of this particular lease, the City is entitled to specific performance.
The laughable part is that the PBC is claiming “a dysfunctional relationship with its landlord” on the basis that the City will not agree to build a new facility for the Sonics after its current lease terminates. This is fundamentally idiotic because neither the PBC nor the City is obligated in any way past 2010. The PBC is acting as if this is a breach of contract, but it is legal baloney. This judge should not put up with such garbage. If the Sonics did not want a lame duck season in 2010, it should have negotiated a longer lease or a termination clause. Instead, they bargained for a specific performance clause that expressly precludes unilateral termination by the Sonics. The judge will remind the PBC of this fact as it issues an injunction through 2010 to keep the team from leaving. In so doing, the judge will entirely avoid lengthy proceedings, as judges will always do whenever they can. The PBC will lose.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:23 am
I love it.
Nickels would not phrase it exactly how the Sonics lawyers wanted it, so the lawyer threw a hissy fit.
Are these guys amateurs?
May 6th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I guess it’s better than the Daily Propaganda down in OKC. I would rather the newspapers up here try and tell both sides of the story. Even though I think the PI is trying to go too far to tell the other side of the story.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:34 am
SLC Sonics fan:
I only got a part of the interview, I didn’t hear anything really that new.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:34 am
I missed the Ceiss interview but Im listening to KJR and there interpretation is that the city is now willing to settle for cash and a promise of another team in the coming years… I will be so dissappointed in the City and the Mayor if they settle. That will mean he breaks his promise to us and it takes away our chance of keeping this team here. Anyone else hear the interview and think the same?
May 6th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Great job by Nickels. I really believe that we have a shot at keepeing the Supes in Seattle. We need to win the Lease Case and keep the team here for 2 years. Then either get something done with a new arena or upgrade right away or at the latest at the next session wich I believe is in January. Keep the Shultz trial lasting longer than Clay Clay thought it would. Have the arena deal done before the Shultz case ends and hope for Clay to start feeling the losses and sell to Balmer. Hopefully he sells before it even comes to that. I though Nickels was very good in his deposition and it shows the city has great lawyers that told him exactally what to say. GREAT STUFF!
May 6th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Actually I think Mitch is reading into Ceis’s reply. Mitch told him about his hypothetical deal of which the city would get cash (I think 50 mil was the number), they name/logos/records, and a guarantee of a different team in a couple years would he take it. Ceis simply said we’d listen to anything put forward to us in good faith efforts but he is not going to say anything to that deal.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:43 am
I missed the Ceiss interview but Im listening to KJR and there interpretation is that the city is now willing to settle for cash and a promise of another team in the coming years…
I didn’t feel that from Tim Ceis
May 6th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Yikes, sorry for the triple post!
May 6th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Are you sure what your saying T. If thats true you are killin me.I dont want another team. What would that mean for the Shultz case? Did anyone else hear that interveiw?Please dont be true!
May 6th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Ah, the KJR spin doctors… morons.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:49 am
T, once again it sounds like your going off the deep end. Your so emotional. You scared me for a minute though.You made it sound like the city was ready to settle and I dont think thats the case. Stay calm T, have confidence in our lawyers. Its funny how nobody is talking about the Shultz case right now. Everyone assumes that this case seals the whole deal when actually the trials combined is what could tip the scales our way.Have Faith, SAVE OUR SONICS!
May 6th, 2008 at 9:59 am
“Actually I think Mitch is reading into Ceis’s reply. Mitch told him about his hypothetical dea of which the city would get cash (I think 50 mil was the number), they name/logos/records, and a guarantee of a different team in a couple years would he take it. Ceis simply said we’d listen to anything put forward to us in good faith efforts but he is not going to say anything to that deal. ”
That’s what I got out of it too. Mitch was trying to throw a hypothetical out there but Ceis wouldn’t tip his hand.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:01 am
“T, once again it sounds like your going off the deep end. Your so emotional. You scared me for a minute though.You made it sound like the city was ready to settle and I dont think thats the case. Stay calm T, have confidence in our lawyers. Its funny how nobody is talking about the Shultz case right now. Everyone assumes that this case seals the whole deal when actually the trials combined is what could tip the scales our way.Have Faith, SAVE OUR SONICS! ”
Nooo I wasnt being emotional this time. I was simply listening to they guys on KJR and putting on here what they were saying and said Id be disspointed if its true. I didnt hear the interview so I dont have an opinion either way so I was just wondering if anyone else on here heard and if they thought the same things as the KJR guys.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Also, from what Ive heard it would be a bad idea to combine the lawsuits, wouldnt it have been done by now if that was the case? Im no lawyer though so I dont know. But in my opinion if the city loses this case or settles then the Shultz case doesnt have too much of a chance. Just my thoughts…
and off topic…Im graduating in June and just found out who the commencement speaker is…GREGOIRE. Im not planning on going.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:07 am
T - Why wouldn’t you go to your graduation? It’s not like Bennett is the speaker.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:13 am
KJR will probably post the interview on its site let’s keep an eye out for it. I doubt Ceis would use KJR to announce a settlement preference-nothing would shock though at this point.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:14 am
T, go to your graduation, in the middle of the gov’s speech you can loudly start chanting “SAVE OUR SONICS” and get everyone else involved!!!
May 6th, 2008 at 10:14 am
It’s already posted as of 10:15am
May 6th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I wasnt planning on going no matter who the speaker is its just a 2 yr degree so I dont really feel its necessary BUT that idea of starting a SAVE OUR SONICS chant is great I wonder what would happen.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Cies-”we’re on the road to trial”
May 6th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Ceis was very clear. The city is willing to talk to PBC about solutions that would keep a team at the Seattle Center. Period. The rest is just Mitch trying to manufacture a number for a buyout. Mitch continues to be counter productive about the whole Sonics issue.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:24 am
You know I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing to listen to the offers. This makes it look like the city is not trying to “bleed” the owners because they are willing to listen. Having a guarantee for another team could be a good backup plan in case the Schultz case doesn’t work. If the city where to take a settlement, Schultz would need to file an injuction to keep the Sonics in Seattle while they are still making discovery for their own case.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Ceis-”Stern’s job is to keep his owner’s happy and Clay is an owner”
May 6th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Ceis-”Stern’s job is to keep his owners happy and Clay is an owner.”
Mitch brought up the “new team” proposal based off KJR’s recent poll–Ceis did not want to comment on it–Mitch pressed—he then tried to put words in Ceis’ mouth–Ceis corrected him…Mitch pressed AGAIN!!!….then AGAIN…Ceis finally said..”we would be obligated to listen to a “reasonable” offer.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Softy said he was going to have a sonic roundtable later in the week, with several people that have been involved from the start.
Brian did you get a call about this? Or is this just the journalists.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Oh ok so basically it was just Mitch putting words into Ceiss’ mouth. Isnt he the one who always says he would take the deal? Well the way he said it he made it sound like Ceiss said they were willing to take a deal. Whatever I need to just listen to the interview myself.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:39 am
I like Mitch’s interviewing style, He tried to lead Ceis into saying something about settling, but Ceis didn’t cave.
Mitch will also not just ask softball questions.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Isnt he the one who always says he would take the deal?
No, Mitch would not take the deal.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Wow, the PBC is really, really showing it’s desperation now! These guys, again, are very much behind the City, and I can’t wait to see Yarmuth and staff get at these guys as well.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Have we deposed OKC’s Mayor? Can we now?
May 6th, 2008 at 11:17 am
“I can’t wait to see Yarmuth and staff get at these guys as well.”
Exactly what I’m waiting for, too.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Anyone know where we can read Clays depo?
May 6th, 2008 at 11:51 am
It is irrelevant and immaterial whether the City is making the PBC bleed. The purpose of insisting on keeping the Sonics in Seattle is that it gives 2 more years of prestige and pride to the City. The hope is that the Sonics will decide to stay. In that interim, continuity is maintained until another sports team (hopefully, pro basketball) or other event can be arranged to take its place.
Obviously, if the Sonics agreed to stay, there would be an immediate and substantial increase in attendance. Fact is, the Sonics will make more money in Seattle than OKC after you factor in two more years of losses and the relocation fee. When the Sonics and the City entered the Key Arena lease, both parties could anticipate that as the end of the lease neared, substantial reductions in attendance would likely result if the team did not remain in Seattle. The City’s attorneys should simply acknowledge that this is a reason to enforce the specific performance clause, because it increases the City’s clout to keep the team in Seattle (or to replace it) and the value of this was essential to the City entering into a lease that required the City to make a huge upside-down investment in Key Arena.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
PBC has chosen to bleed itself. Whether Nickels is taking advantage of that seems to me not his issue. PBC knew the terms of the lease when they bought the team. They presumably knew the financial situation when they bought the team. The have made basketball decisions that seeem to be hurting the financial position of the team. I think it is safe to say that Nickels was not involved in any of those decisions. Now, they are going to argue that he is taking advantage of their decisions? I hope the judge is reasonably intelligent.
That said, Nickels did not answer the question that was asked. There may be an email out there where Nickels says something that is responsive to the question. Hence, Nickels reluctance to out and out say “no.”
May 6th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
So, the Joklahoman is going with the story that the city ’sabotaged’ Bennett’s brilliant arena plan when it told legislators that Seattle didn’t support the Renton arena idea. Duh.
It was a dumb thing for Bennett to put in the court filing, and it’s an idiotic news story. “Your honor, I tried to move to the ‘burbs, but the meanies in Seattle didn’t like the idea! See, they are bad, bad people. And I’m the good guy. Nothing but good intentions here…” Cry me a river, cowboy…
http://tinyurl.com/4dlm2z
May 6th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Good analyses, Rock!
May 6th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I read the teams court filing about the city not supporting the arena and thought the same thing - DUH! Why would the City of Seattle support a competing Arena? Are these guys really that stupid?
If the city was in Olympia telling legislatures they did not support the Renton project they did a lot more lobbying against than the current ownership group did for it. Take these quote for instance.
“I never got anything from them,” said Rep. Sam Hunt, D-Olympia. “I don’t think they did any lobbying. I don’t think they put out any information for members.”
Can’t wait to hear Bennett’s testimony on why Key Arena was off the table from the start when previous ownership and the current commissioner was all for it just months before he bought the team.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Can’t wait to hear Bennett’s testimony on why Key Arena was off the table from the start
Because that’s what it said in the purchase agreement.
I read the teams court filing about the city not supporting the arena and thought the same thing - DUH! Why would the City of Seattle support a competing Arena? Are these guys really that stupid?
Howie knew that to be the case as well when he sold the team. Was he that stupid as well to think this might actually work? We are where we are thanks to that traitor and our dysfunctional government bodies not being able to find a way to work with each other. No wonder the idea of doing something with the Sabey land never went anywhere. A public funds for a new competing arena in the Seattle city limits? Fat chance! Nickels probably called Sabey after the initial idea came up and told him to fergettaboutit.
Hooray for Nickels!
Let’s all follow him off the edge of a cliff.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I actually liked the Renton arena concept initially, just not the funding situation. A $500 mil arena proposal demands substantially more private money than what Bennett pretended to offer to pay.
But woulda, coulda, shoulda doesn’t really matter now….
SAVE THESE KD-LED SONICS!
May 6th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Glad to see you are back on keeping THIS TEAM in Seattle. This is the only thing that is acceptable to me. If we lose this team I will be pretty sad, but I don’t want an expansion team. I haven’t watched one NBA playoff game since I heard we should move. I don’t want the NBA if we don’t keep this team.
The rest of you can root for a crappy expansion team in 3 years. I won’t be part of it. I am sick of the NBA as it is. I’m not going to support some team that is stolon from another city.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I’ve always wondered… is Dick Tate an okie supporter or just the most cynical Sonics fan in existence?
May 6th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I don’t really care what you think of me. Instead of wondering, why not just debate what I wrote. These don’t all have to be cheerleader type posts.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
“Can’t wait to hear Bennett’s testimony on why Key Arena was off the table from the start
Because that’s what it said in the purchase agreement. ”
I remember it saying something about an “adequate successor to Key Arena.” I must have missed the part where a renovated Key Arena wasn’t adequate.
“Howie knew that to be the case as well when he sold the team.”
Howie proposed an arena in Renton? I must have missed that as well.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Howie proposed an arena in Renton?
No, but he did explore the possibility of building a new arena in Bellevue. We can only guess how well that went.
Here’s a pretty good recap of the political environment leading up to the sale:
http://dwb.thenewstribune.com/sports/story/5935124p-5234712c.html
May 6th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
there is one thing i for sure will NOT argue with you and that’s the ineptitude of our elected officials.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Clay Bennett and company NEVER made a formal private contribution for the Renton arena plan. Clay never gave members of the legislature a firm answer about what the PBC would contribute.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
and before anyone here says it or even thinks it;
BELLEVUE IS NOT THE NEW SEATTLE!
May 6th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Why would Seattle want a Renton arena? It would compete with the Key and take away its anchor tenant. I dont think financial best interest is sabotage. You would think that a city that dealt with a terrorist attack would have a better understanding of words like “sabotage”. The OKC bunch just keeps on amazing me. Not as smart as they think they are. I think Bennett might have “filled his britches” when the city outsmarted him last week.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Dick Tate - I think you are overstating the side letter reference to Key Arena. It says it is not an appropriate venue - not that it is off the table. I think an argument can be made that the assumption inherenet in that is that it is not an appropriate venue “currently.” It does not say it can never be an appropriate venue. Not a great argument - but it can be made with a straight face.
We also do not know what about it at the time of signing is not appropriate. I would want to know, say if i were a judge in the Shultz case, what each party believes made it inappropriate and why. And then, compare it to other city arena deals and to what the city has offered in the past.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Dick - have you read the purchase agreement or just the side letter? I haven’t seen the purchase agreement so if you could link it I would appreciate it.
As far as a Key remodel - all that the letter states is a successor venue and lease arrangement. That doesn’t rule out a Key remodel at all and nowhere does it say Key Arena is off the table. Bennett didn’t want to look at something around the Key because it was the easiest course of action to take to get a deal done, IMO and he never intended on owning the team in Seattle. Ask for the palace and when it gets shot down move - that was his MO from the start.
Of course the city is going to try and fight a new venue in King County. They are carrying debt on the building and will be left holding the bag if a new venue gets build and the debt not paid on Key Arena.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Also - I would compare it real close to the deal in OKC. How sweet is that deal anyway?
May 6th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Thanks for the link Dick. It’s just a reminder of how inept and occasionally elitist (Licata) were and still are. One thing I’d like to see happen if all goes well with the pending lawsuits is that our “leaders” get the F outta the way and something tangible in the way of an arena plan (mostly privately funded in Seattle, Bellevue, or Renton—I could give a rip) can be cobbled from this fiasco. But that probably wont happen either.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Plain and simple, guys, there is no hardship here for the judge to rule on. Had some of these issues been undisclosed to the PBC prior to and at the time of purchase then they might have had a case.
We are just going to have to wade through some redundant motions for the next little bit…but eventually the judge is going to rule against the PBC. Plain and simple.
If anything I like the fact that judge is allowing them to throw everything they can at this case. It will then make it clear that on no fronts were these guys hampered or restricted from a fair trial.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
The future of the entire Seattle Center is at stake as well. Let’s get creative with this sell!!! Something for everyone(Sonic and non-Sonic fan alike) with a redone Key or a new arena on the Memorial Stadium site….I love the retractable roof idea of Freddy Brown’s group!!
May 6th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Let me be clear - I am not saying one way or the other if I agree with how the City has gone about things - but in the context of this thread and it relating to the case and the statements made in this brief - what did Bennett and his gaggle of lawyers expect the city to do?
I go back to my original statement - DUH! Maybe if they would have spent more than a token gesture (if you can even call it that) trying to get an arena done they could have “sweet flipped” the team. Even that is BS though because once he got his hands on a team he didn’t want to let go. Much easier to sabotage and try and move, only he didn’t anticipate the level of resistance he faced and is facing on all fronts.
Again - he never layed out why Key Arena wasn’t suitable. He just said it wasn’t - which does not make it so, especially since the guy has shown to be a complete liar. So again,. can’t wait to see him under oath explaining why Key Arena was never on the table.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I understand people being attracted to something conceptually….but financially that retractable roof makes no sense. In my opinion, considering it is basketball, there is no reason for a retractable roof. For other events…yes, but not for bball. So unless you get some other groups on board for advocacy…the retractable idea needs to be out the window.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Dick - have you read the purchase agreement or just the side letter? I haven’t seen the purchase agreement so if you could link it I would appreciate it.
http://sonicscentral.com/blog/?p=1853
See section 5.3
May 6th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Private dollars!! It seems like a reach, I know..maybe it is. Why not at least shoot for the stars and at least land on the moon. Let’s dream and sell, sell,sell
May 6th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
“I understand people being attracted to something conceptually….but financially that retractable roof makes no sense.”
I’d only be down with B2 if their building flew us around WHILE games took place. Not before the game, and not after. I want to be at least 1,000 ft above the ground as KD drops 50+ on Kobe in 2 or 3 years. I’d even wear a seatbelt.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Thanks - I’ll give it a read later.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I personally don’t want the thing. I can understand the M’s needing one, but not the Sonics. Even with the possible attraction of summer events, I just don’t see the roof being fiscally responsible. Oh, and let’s not forget the hideous seating. Seriously guys, that ECMC is a pile of garbage. The “concept” may be legit, but not the present model.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I couldn’t care less if the B2 roof is retractable or not. If they are building it and have people willing to pay for it who cares what they build?
May 6th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I agree. They at least got it right when they came to the conclusion to not play the public funding game.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I don’t see any reason for a retractable roof in Seattle for any reason. It’s only sunny here 25 days a year.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Oh, I don’t see a need for the retractable roof either but it ain’t my penny
I don’t care for the huge square BOX house the dude across the street built either but it was his land and his bucks so I have no say. At least all the trees block my view of it.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Dick, did Clay Bennett make good faith best efforts and propose a new arena ( or acceptable long term replacement), in Seattle or any of the three counties identified in the sale agreement, after the Renton palace did not happen, and before the end of his 12 month period defined in the agreement?
Is Kansas City, Oklahoma City, or Las Vegas in the King, Snohomish, Pierce County area, as define by the Purchase Agreement.
You want to come here and play Clay Bennett, fine, debate my points. He never did what he promised in writing that he would do, that is a fact.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Ok Dick, I read through it and my original point stands. Nowhere does it say Key Arena is off the table - all it says is he will use good faith effort to find a successor venue. That could have easily been a remodeled arena that in 2006 the Sonics owner and commissioner thought would solve the problem and in 2008 a prospective ownership group thought would solve the problem too - and even offered to pay for half the construction.
So - why exactly wasn’t this good enough for PBC (rhetorical question - anyone who is being honest knows the answer) especially when it was Ok in OKC?
May 6th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Ok Dick, I read through it and my original point stands. Nowhere does it say Key Arena is off the table - all it says is he will use good faith effort to find a successor venue. That could have easily been a remodeled arena that in 2006 the Sonics owner and commissioner thought would solve the problem and in 2008 a prospective ownership group thought would solve the problem too - and even offered to pay for half the construction.
So - why exactly wasn’t this good enough for PBC (rhetorical question - anyone who is being honest knows the answer) especially when it was Ok in OKC?
May 6th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Is there an echo in here? I swear I only hit submit once!
May 6th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
He never did what he promised in writing that he would do, that is a fact.
I’m not saying that he did, Baker. It’s just my opinion that nothing would’ve happened regardless of the level of effort he gave. I’ve always said this was a failure on all fronts. Gotta have a partner to dance with.
Did the shift from working together on a solution to working on passing an initiative/ordinance to enforce the lease while there were nearly 5 months left on the 12-month window really help matters? Seems like alot of precious time was wasted on being confrontational. There was plenty of time for that after the window closed. But then again, there weren’t many believers of the 12-month window. Most folks seemed to think it was meaningless and that there’d be two additional years to work something out.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
he was obligated by contract to try, nobody else.
He is going to lose the team.
There is a new thread, this thread is moot.
The judge said no to buyout determination in the current trial. Sonics will be in Seattle for another season. If he wins it becomes another trial involving finances, when he loses the Sonics are obligated to perform all home games in Key Arena.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Bennett announced that he intended to apply to relocate to Oklahoma City when he was able to submit his application, the city countered to keep him from breaking the lease and for court costs, and here we are.