Now that the knee jerk reactions have passed
Posted on Wednesday, July 19th, 2006 at 12:23 am by Big Chris
I would like to put my two cents into the potential new ownership situation. I’m OK with it. While we (the SC.com staff) knew that Howard Schultz had been open to selling the team, and even possibly had some interested parties, nobody had a whiff of something being this close to being done. I think you will find the following will differ greatly from much of the knee jerk reactions that are going on around many other forums on the web.
I’m OK with this sale for many reasons. First, I do not think the new ownership group wants to move the team, or certainly not in the near future. Oklahoma City (OKC) has just over 1/2 million people in it, and 1.3 million in their metro area. Seattle itself has just below 600,000 people, but the metro area has 3.8 million people to draw from as a fan base.
The median income for a household in OKC is $34,947, and the median income for a family was $42,689. While the numbers for Seattle have the median income for a household in the city as $45,736, and the median income for a family is $62,195. OKC certainly has a lower cost of living, but not low enough to off set that significant earning difference, especially not when multiplied by the difference in number of people in the regions.
Seattle is the 13th largest media market in the USA, OKC is 45.
While OKC has done a good job hosting the Hornets (and may continue to do so), it would make no sense to move a long tenured NBA franchise from a market the size of Seattle to OKC. New Orleans is actually compariable to OKC in a number of things, which makes it make a lot more logical to keep the Hornets in OKC.
I think this is simply a business deal. And on the back of that, I think it would make very poor business sense to move this team any time in the near future.
What this sale might do though is hopefully spark a bit more of a fire to get a new arena deal worked out. I know, we’ve hashed that all to death once this year already on the blog. I think it will be interesting to see what role going forward Howard Schultz will play in the arena debate. Once he has sold the team, his support of a new building is far less self serving. I also think that Mr. Schultz could get a lot of positive PR working on a new arena to repair whatever damage was done in his selling the team.
As Brian R. pointed out in the previous thread, Howard Schultz is very much a part of Seattle. He has intentionally branded both himself and his company to be identified with Seattle. I do not think he would have sold knowing the team was going to move any time soon. If that was the case, I think he could have held out longer and made more money on the potential sale. I don’t think Schultz is trying to stick it to the city of Seattle.
So, while it is possible that the team may someday move, I don’t see it anywhere on the near horizon, regardless of which group owns the team.
Go SEATTLE Sonics!
July 19th, 2006 at 12:34 am
Well there is hope at least I guess. After the “knee jerk” as Big Chris said - I think as far as being fans we owe it to our favorite players to cheer for them next year - even though this sale makes us angry our favs like Ray Allen, Bacardi and Cola, Watson, Ridnour, Collison etc etc etc (everyone has their own favorites) - let us remember they had NOTHING to do with the sale and we should cheer them on. Many of them love Seattle as a city. Imagine being Ridnour - growing up watching the sonics.. having your dream come true to play for them and then being told about this and being unsure if you have to move to Oklahoma… come on - who wants to live there compaired to Seattle?!?
July 19th, 2006 at 12:37 am
Oh and Go Bellevue or Renton Sonics!… Seattle had its chance and instead said the Sonics had no value to them
July 19th, 2006 at 12:37 am
Good to see I’m not the only one burning the midnight oil Haf!
Big Chris
July 19th, 2006 at 12:40 am
Wow - that is a very positive spin and not without real possibilities. However i think a lot of Sonic fans are not quite ready to believe that the glass is actually half full and not really half empty.
Either way it’s a kick in the teeth and a bitter reality check that this is a business first and foremost.
Hope it all works out and we have the team locked up in Seattle without looking over our shoulder worrying when it might all end.
July 19th, 2006 at 12:45 am
I’m sorry but I don’t hold the same optimism here. I think the writing is on the wall.
yeah it doesn’t make sense for them to move the supes to OKC financial wise, but that certainly didn’t stop them from advocating an NBA franchise there before. These guys are bent on getting an NBA franchise to OKC.
a couple things that are obvious:
1- this guy is dying for an NBA franchise in OKC, now he has one in his bag.
2- This guy is OKC based, why would anyone spent 350 mil on something that they cannot enjoy in person?????? Oh I have to FLY to seattle to watch a home game of my own team… .. yeah.. doubt it
3- Why even bother to negotiate with the city of seattle when, for one, they are a bunch of morons, secondly, they already have a Ford center built and READY TO ROCK AND ROLLL…
July 19th, 2006 at 12:54 am
Color me unoptimistic….the only way the Sonics stay is a miracle billionaire bailout …Allen or Gates…unlikely or somehow the NBA comes to its senses and denies the Hornets to move back to New Orleans…………..I don’t understand how the NBA could rate Seattle #3 between these three cities…I would rate Seattle 1, Okl 2 and Vegas 3…..Its sad…but NO is not a major league city anymore that is our only hope
July 19th, 2006 at 1:05 am
I think the Sonics have to go on a 95′ Mariners type of run that gets everybody into the season. And I don’t think that is possible.
I liked hearing the differing opinion with some logical arguments. If the Sonics stick around more than 2 years past this point I will be shocked. It just wouldn’t make sense.
Especially with the “12 months and then re-evaluate”….he basically spelled out exactly what was going to happen. He has no incentive to get this deal done, he’s not going to be staying up nights trying to pound this thing out….if anything he’s going to do the opposite.
The only Sonics games any of us will be watching are nationally televised ones OR if you want to drop some money for NBA ticket.
July 19th, 2006 at 1:28 am
There is quite a bit of work underway to keep the Hornets in OKC. It makes more sense. NO isn’t ready to support the Hornets, and honestly probably never was even pre-Katrina. OKC now has ties to the Hornets, and if an NBA team is going to be in OKC it makes far greater sense for it to be the Hornets than the Sonics. Moving from NO to OKC is a lateral move market wise, with OKC having far greater current potential to support a team. Moving the Sonics does not make sense. Owning a team at a distance is not all that uncommon. For example, both the past and present owners of the Minnesota Vikings were not locals. Red McCombs was from San Antonio, and the new owner Zigy Wilf is from NJ IIRC. Malcome Glazer owns Manchester United, and he lives in Florida. There are many other examples. While certainly local ownership is to be preferred, it is NOT the exclusive way for a franchise to operate.
Big Chris
July 19th, 2006 at 1:44 am
Ok, after MY knee-jerk reaction of a day’s sadness, I too am trying to be optimistic based on a couple of things….
1) Bennet’s purchasing of the Sonics COULD be for leverage for keeping the Hornets in OKC. Moving the Sonics to OKC would without out a doubt (in my mind anyway) hurt the NBA, so this gives some reason for the NBA to allow OKC to keep the Hornets.
Bringing to my next point…
2) It would be stupid for the NBA to just allow Bennet to move the Sonics. Everyone already knows how much larger the market is in Seattle than in OKC, and add the history to that, allowing such a move just seems foolish. Stern has already said OKC is next in line for an expansion team. Why give them Seattle’s 40-year old team and probably end up giving Seattle an expansion team?
3) New Orleans will not be able to support NBA basketball in the given “12 months.” They couldn’t before the disaster, and (while trying to not sound unsympathetic) they will not be able to within the next few YEARS.
David Stern is a smart albeit arrogant man. More importantly, he has more power over his league than any other commisioner in their respective leagues. I see him at the very least trying to step in (hopefully not in the same manner as he did earlier this year) and helping Seattle’s (the fans, not the legislature) cause in keeping the Sonics where they belong.
July 19th, 2006 at 5:17 am
For your sake, I hope Bennett is just an owner in transition who is helping to keep OKC’s bases covered. If the Hornets stay, Bennett will look for a local long-term solution.
July 19th, 2006 at 5:24 am
The one negative I see in this is the immediate cessation of player activities. The Sonics are not likely to entertain trades or free agent signings and negotiations with Wilcox are likely at a stand still until the sale is finalized in October. I also didn’t like hearing that Bennett has friends who want to manage the team. That sounds Behring like to me.
Wilcox’ agent should just stop negotiating until Bennett is the offical owner of the team. He has a better chance of getting CW a bigger contract.
July 19th, 2006 at 5:38 am
1) I’m with Big Chris in that I find myself looking for positive spin. I’m not sure how much I believe it, but if I repeat it to myself often enough I’ll start to believe it’s true. It works for the president….
2) I really do think that the situation with the Hornets has a huge saga left to play out. It could dramatically affect things here. I’ve never felt that there was any reason for the league to go back other than political sensativity and that simply won’t pay the bills.
3) I’m very curious to see how the Sonics approach this offseason and if they have the ability to make any moves. Bennett talked about understanding that winning will bring support and is the key to the new arena. Well lets see if they put their money where their mouth is.
David Locke and I disagreed on this one. Locke’s view is that an active offseason, say trading Danny Fortson’s expiring deal or an overpaid player who is an upgrade on the court would signify that the team is building a winner to get support in OK city. He thinks that after having the hornets all ready the team has to have something mroe marketable when it arrives. My view is that it doesn’t matter if the team win’s or loses. It will be successful in its first coupld of years. The ownerships smart thing to do if it wants to leave would be to shave $15 million off the payroll over two years, and then put that money into the team their first year in the new city. The Hornets won like 20 games the year before they moved to OK City and still sold out. You get a 1-2 year grace period IMO…
4) This stinks.
July 19th, 2006 at 5:51 am
Please join our yahoogroup for updates on how to help. We’re still digesting the situation…
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/saveoursonics/
July 19th, 2006 at 5:54 am
This sounds terrible but IMO the real key to any deal involves the city and government to take accountability for their actions and avoid a public vote. All the deals that Nichols offered were nothing but smoke because they involved the owners having to go into a brand new phase of uphill self marketing that likely would have been fruitless in it’s initial efforts. For the 1 year deadline to have any chance of reality the politicians need to decide that the political ramifications of losing the team outweigh the ramifications of doing a deal. NO VOTE, NO VOTE! There is no way to save the team and have a public vote. Our officials just need to resolve the problem.
July 19th, 2006 at 6:15 am
“2- This guy is OKC based, why would anyone spent 350 mil on something that they cannot enjoy in person?????? Oh I have to FLY to seattle to watch a home game of my own team… .. yeah.. doubt it”
The guy that owns the Mariners lives in Japan.
A little bit different spin on this is, I’ve heard that the Hornets have submitted a request to the NBA to stay in OKC. Maybe Bennett knew that request was coming and maybe he can fulfil both of his promises, one to bring a team to OKC and one to keep the Sonics in Seattle.
Just a bit of optimism, although I highly doubt it.
July 19th, 2006 at 6:38 am
I totally agree about the vote. I sent emails to Nickels and Licata and demanded that both of them make decisions as elected officials and stick by them. The reason why we elect you is so we don’t have to vote on every single little decision you make. Make a call and take responsibility for either keeping or losing the team. Don’t waste our time with a vote.
July 19th, 2006 at 6:45 am
‘The guy that owns the Mariners lives in Japan.’
Come on folks, you can not really use that as a comparison with Clay Bennet
1)Clay Bennet has pledged to having a long term team in OKC
2)Nintendo is a abseentee owner, He bought the M’s as a favor to the Northwest and Seattle because of Nintendo’s American operations come from the Seattle area.
No way those two situations are the same.
July 19th, 2006 at 8:28 am
Seattle: Say goodbye to your Sonics
Speaking of denials, Sonics Central is in serious denial.
July 19th, 2006 at 8:31 am
Hey… I love the Sonics and right now it looks like they are gone.
But that doesn’t mean I’m not going to fight for what I want. Denial is not what that is. I KNOW it will not be easy, I KNOW its DAMN near impossible, but I’m going to try because I love this team. Hopefully others can say the same.
July 19th, 2006 at 8:41 am
There is no doubt it would be a sad day if the Supes left town, but the absurdity of the situation, and of the disingenous manner in which Schultz, and for that matter most sports franchise owners, behave, should make this no surprise to anyone.
It’s very easy to get angry at politicians or voters for not “doing the right thing” and keeping the team in town. Civic pride and all that. But the reality is that teams are exceedingly devoid of any loyalty to their home markets and then, just to shove the blade further in, they play the loyalty card when trying to convince the public to shell out its money to fund their profits.
Think about it. Gone are the days where teams were stocked with a few local players. For that matter, rosters change so much that any sense of community is meaningless. Coaches change, management changes, the players live in Orlando or Vegas in the offseason, ticket prices zoom into the stratosphere, a frickin bag of popcorn costs an absurd amount of money, and then little Howie Schultz whines that the public won’t buy him a new stadium.
Imagine the Seattle Symphony threatening to move to, say, Tampa Bay, if we didn’t build them a new concert hall with luxury boxes. Imagine the Seafair Parade bailing because they lost a public referendum to financce the construction of the floats. Imagine the Blue Angels demanding more money to fly overhead.
These are all absurd ideas. So is the idea that a community should be held hostage by a PRIVATE enterprise that happens to be a professional sporting goods team. In case anyone forget, that’s already happened to us. A little company called Boeing didn’t get what it wanted, so it moved to Chicago. Did we blame the voters for that? They didn’t offer enough tax incentives to a behemoth?
I’m sad the Sonics might leave, but I think that for Schultz and Co, it’s just business, and for fans it’s extremely divisive and, frankly, short sighted, to go around blaming the citizens of Seattle for this.
July 19th, 2006 at 8:44 am
Uh, I meant “professional sports team” not “sporting goods team.”
July 19th, 2006 at 8:45 am
Certainly emotions ran high with most fans being in shock and looking for a way to vent their anger.
But even the morning after doesn’t change facts, even though we’re trying to look for the small glimmer of light.
This Bennett guy wants a team in Oklahoma for good and is determined to get one there. He sees the time frame with the Hornets and how it may take up to two years to get back to New Orleans. It dovetails with the Sonics having to stay put unless they pay off the city. I believe they will come up with a two year exit strategy.
Go after the politicians all you want, but for every Sonics fan that threatens not to vote for them I’m sure there are a dozen other voters who they will say to that they are going to save them on their ever rising tax bill. I think it would be waste of resources to try and change their minds. The council has shown they are steadfast in their beliefs that no more money will flow towards the Sonics to make them stay. Better to work on other angles such as different areas outside of the downtown Seattle core. There may be more receptive elected officials there.
Clay Bennett(ironic that I coach a boy on my lacrosse team with the same name) danced around the question yesterday about what will happen “if the conditions aren’t right” and he will look at other possibilities at the time if those conditions aren’t met.
I see that even players like Rashard Lewis said today that the writing is on the wall and that the team will move, the only question being “when”?
Almost every media outlet saw through Howard Schultz and felt he was less than genuine in his statements. KJR said you would have to be 5 years old to believe what he spewed. I predicted before the press conference started that the spin doctoring would be in full swing and from what I heard Iwas correct. But it wasn’t difficult to read between the lines.
I admit I am still hanging on by a thread about the chances of the Sonics staying in seattle for a long period. The development of George Shinn supposedly applying to keep the Hornets in OK City for good might throw some sort of monkey wrench into the Sonics plan. But even so there is still that Nashville connection that hasn’t been delved into much yet.
There is still a very small chance that a white Knight rides in and works with the new owners to get a new arena built in Renton or Bellevue with a great deal for the Bennett group that would keep the Sonics around for the long term.
At the very, very least it would be good to hear the group solidly confirm that even if their 12 month window of opportunity to get something done doesn’t materialize they would stick it out at the key until the lease runs out, rather than buy out the lease and move after next season(I imagine Bennett’s 12 month time frame starts from now). That would at least but some time and give three years to resurrect something, such as bringing in another struggling team in a different venue if a different owner sees potential in the Seattle area market.
No, I’m afraid that the morning after hasn’t changed much for me other than the feeling of being hit by a truck has worn off some.
July 19th, 2006 at 8:49 am
The team staying in Seattle is a pipedream. They’ll have to give the new ownership group a better deal than they ever would have had to give Howard & Co. The City of Seattle just won’t do that.
You’re fooling yourselves if you think this man with the express stated goal of putting a team in OKC, now controls a team, and will decide, well, now that I think about it, lets stay here.
As far TV market size and how that plays a part in this. Do you really think when the league negotiates its next TV deal that the networks will say, no Seattle so we’re offering a lesser deal? As for the club, their profits are made overwhelmingly on ticket sales and for the forseeable future, OKC will support them stronger than Seattle.
Quickly on the Hornets, I think they leave NO eventually but that’s going to be too touchy of a political situation for a few years.
This whole thing sucks. Part of the blame needs to goto Ackerley and John Dresel who negotiated this damn lease. Part of the blame needs to goto Howard & Co. who didn’t seem to do their due diligence before the purchase and then acted surprised when they say ho wbad the deal was. And part of the blame goes to the worthless S.O.B.’s that this stupid city keeps voting into office.
The whole thing is sad. To watch that press conference in front of their 40th anniversary logo was depressing.
July 19th, 2006 at 8:49 am
As was mentioned on the radio this morning……..it will be interesting to see what the Sonics lease at Key Arena stipulates. The City could play hardball with the new owner if there is language in the lease that stipulates the Sonics must not only make the lease payments, but also play the games in Key Arena through the end of the 2009/2010 season.
That could prove to be a big stick the City could actually hold over the new owners head, if they feel slighted by the tactics that the owners are/have used to try and gain leverage for a new arena deal.
I still think this will all hinge on what happens with the Hornets and if the rumor that they’ve applied to the NBA to remain in OKC and not return to New Orleans is true, then that throws a whole new wrench into the deal………The current owner of the Hornets (Shinn) doesn’t have any ties to Bennett so it will be interesting to see if they are in a bit of a race to see who can get their team to OKC first………
July 19th, 2006 at 8:54 am
That is a horrible, horrible pun in this blog Brian
July 19th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Two points.
One, I agree with the folks who’ve speculated that Bennett did this as leverage to keep the Hornets in OKC — but not just with Stern, with the public as a whole. Stern’s been adamant about keeping the Hornets in NO, not because NO has shown itself to be a worthwhile NBA market (it’s now flunked twice), but because Stern thinks (probably rightly) that it would look like the NBA was fleeing NO because of Katrina, and that would be very bad PR, generating a lot of bad feelings. Now, the case can be made for the NBA allowing the Hornets to move to OKC on very different grounds — and let’s face it, the best-case scenario for the league at this point is the Hornets in OKC and the Sonics in metro Seattle in a new arena, so I would expect that that’s what Stern will try to bring about.
Two, before you write this whole thing off: where are the Seahawks? Under Ken (Over) Behring, they actually *moved* to LA — and where are they now? In Seattle. It ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings.
July 19th, 2006 at 9:29 am
“Imagine the Seattle Symphony threatening to move to, say, Tampa Bay, if we didn’t build them a new concert hall with luxury boxes. Imagine the Seafair Parade bailing because they lost a public referendum to financce the construction of the floats. Imagine the Blue Angels demanding more money to fly overhead.
These are all absurd ideas. So is the idea that a community should be held hostage by a PRIVATE enterprise that happens to be a professional sporting goods team. In case anyone forget, that’s already happened to us. A little company called Boeing didn’t get what it wanted, so it moved to Chicago. Did we blame the voters for that? They didn’t offer enough tax incentives to a behemoth?
I’m sad the Sonics might leave, but I think that for Schultz and Co, it’s just business, and for fans it’s extremely divisive and, frankly, short sighted, to go around blaming the citizens of Seattle for this. ”
BS. It’s Seattle’s “do nothing about a problem and hope it goes away” attitude that is at fault here. The politicians only reflect their constituency. Boeing and the Sonics leaving are symptoms of that problem. Boeing told the city of Seattle for years that if they didn’t get serious about coming up with solutions to their transportation mess, they would leave. Seattleites as usual chose to stick their heads in the sand or play the blame game. Then they wallowed in the same find a culprit game you are engaging in here. The point is if you want to save something of value to you, you must first be willing to get off your ass instead of crying futility. We’re getting off our collective asses. I would rather be able to say I tried to do something to save the team I love than be another bitter Monday morning QB woulda-coulda-shouldaing after they’re gone.
July 19th, 2006 at 9:43 am
It may be a pipedream that the Sonics will stay, but not nearly as fanciful as believing the Hornets will return to NO. They will never play there again, nor will anyone else. That city is a ruin and isn’t coming back to anything like it once was, even without another hurricane or two. It’s still possible that Shinn could ship them off to Nashville or Anaheim or San Jose, with him anything is possible. But staying in OK seems more likely.
July 19th, 2006 at 9:56 am
I agree with Groucho
New Orleans is a two-time failed market … it’s a poor pro sports town and always has been. Other than political expediency I cannot see why the NBA would possibly want to move a team there … the NFL has been trying to get out as well so it’s not as if the NBA would be the only league using Katrina as an excuse to bail for greener pastures.
July 19th, 2006 at 9:57 am
From the Sonics’ ownership perspective, from Boeing’s board’s perspective, the situation is the same: these are private companies that want the public to SUBSIDIZE their profit-seeking enterprise. Boeing didn’t like the pubilc transportation situation (as if Chicago has better traffic than Seattle) so they asked the voters to give them a huge infrastructure handout. Schultz doesn’t like the lease that he inherited/bought, so he asks the public to buy him a new, extremely profitable stadium. Did either of these institutions put their money where their mouths are? Of course not.
You want a defensible ownership stance? Look at the hated Yankees. They want a new stadium so they decide to pay for it themselves. That’s right, the Yanks are writing the checks, not the poor slobs who buy the overpriced tickets and eat the overpriced stadium food and pay the overpriced cable bill to watch the games on restricted access television. And that seems only fair to me.
We sports fans get angry and hurt and, sorry to say, irrational about this. We don’t want to lose our team, but, like a bad relationship, how much should we put in while getting nothing in return but lies, cost cutting, and $8 beers?
July 19th, 2006 at 9:57 am
The NBA could care less about Seattle. They care about sending a message to other NBA cities to give their teams sweet deals or you’ll lose your team. I’ll be surprised (and happy) if the Sonics stay in Seattle more than a year. Similar sentiments:
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/5796228
July 19th, 2006 at 10:09 am
kenny:
— You are an idiot. I really love how people don’t understand how a real city works and that the way a city becomes strong is by supporting their local icons. I’m sure Redmond was pretty stupid to work with MSFT to help them expand their campus…I mean what do we need big business here for anyways..
July 19th, 2006 at 10:12 am
I think the worst thing I see from this whole situation is how the NBA didn’t support a team that has been around for 40 years and try and help make a deal get done. Its almost as if they were antagonizing the local government.
I also HATE our local government, I was born in Seattle and really have always hoped that I would never have to leave, but the local government is driving me crazy. Only in Seattle can we spend one billion dollars on a monorail system that doesn’t exist and yet can’t build a new arena or even worse begin the process of replacing the viaduct. Its like we need the d@mn thing to fall on a car just to get the process going.
July 19th, 2006 at 10:13 am
“they asked the voters to give them a huge infrastructure handout. ”
Mass transport and decent roads are a handout? Come on, who are you, Tim Eyman? It’s about making this city a place where it actually possible to do business … ask Brian how business friendly this town is in terms of permitting…Chicago gave Boeing tax breaks and concessions Seattle could’nt dream of. Why? Because they love giving money away? No, BECAUSE THEY REALIZED THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF HAVING THE COMPANY IN TOWN FAR OUTWEIGHED THE EXPENSE OF RELOCATING THEM.
You have to spend money to make money. Except in Seattle, where we half-ass every major expense imaginable and as the old saying goes, ya gets what ya pays for.
The Yankees are the most profitable professional sports franchise on the face of the planet in a league and market where unlimited spending is actually possible. As an analogy it is dead on arrival. How many teams can afford to spend ten times what the poorest team in their league can spend?
July 19th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Myk,
Thanks for taking this down to the basest and least intelligent level: personal attacks. Very civilized of you.
Would you negotiate with hostage takers? Would you make concessions to someone who is essentially holding you by the balls and demanding your cash? Well, my friend, that’s what’s going on.
Our local icons are staffed by people who aren’t from Seattle. They have players who aren’t from Seattle and would leave for a bigger contract. Sports are vey nice for public pride, but they do very little for a local economy. If you don’t believe me, look at the devastating effect hosting an Olympic games has on the cities that win that lottery.
And the jobs provided and tax revenue collected from MSFT is so titanically much greater than all three Seattle big sports teams that it’s not even comparable. Sports is really only medium sized business, not big business.
In any case, Myk, if you want to roll over and do whatever business owners manipulate you into doing, while they makae annual profits and, when it comes time to sell, huge profits. Hell, vote to repeal the capital gains tax while you’re at it, so the Howard Schultzes of the world can really make some green off your enthusiasm for the local professional sports team. After all, it’s YOUR money.
Just ask yourself this: you provide endless and, indeed, admirable, loyalty to a team, win or lose, year after year. What does the team give you in return?
July 19th, 2006 at 10:25 am
As for the Yankees analogy, put it this way: who has more money, Howard Schultz or George Steinbrenner?
I’ll give you a hint — it’s the guy with the coffee shop on every corner of New York city. Steinbrenner was just smart enough to know that New Yorkers weren’t going to fork over the dough for a new stadium when a perfectly good one was already there.
It boils down to this: give team owners, or big business, everything they want and guess what? They never stop asking for more. Key Arena was recently renovated, so build a new stadium. What’s to stop the ownership to ask for a new new stadium in five or ten more years? Where does it end?
July 19th, 2006 at 10:29 am
“Would you negotiate with hostage takers?”
Wait. I’ve heard that somewhere before….
July 19th, 2006 at 10:33 am
“As for the Yankees analogy, put it this way: who has more money, Howard Schultz or George Steinbrenner?
Whose franchise has their own TV network? Which franchise sells more merchandise?
I don’t see everyone and their dog walking around wearing Sonics hats….You simply cannot compare the situation in Seattle to NYC, it is so far out of Seattle’s league in terms of wealth to be tapped it might as well be on a different planet.
I agree with you that the constant cries of public subsidy for private business is tiresome and irritating. Unfortunately that is the cost of doing business and you must pay to play. If it wasn’t profitable then explain to me WHY cities are lined up to take this team? What do they see that Seattle doesn’t? Everything it appears. I guarantee you that NO plan the city of Seattle has cooked up in case the team leaves will replace the jobs and money lost by the Sonics and the businesses that depend on them. 42 RV shows and Disney on Ice ain’t gonna make up the slack, not even close.
July 19th, 2006 at 10:36 am
“Would you make concessions to someone who is essentially holding you by the balls and demanding your cash? Well, my friend, that’s what’s going on.”
Anyway, if, as you contend, the Sonics mean nothing to Seattle economically, how are they holding anyone by the balls? If nothing’s at stake, what’s at stake?
“As for the Yankees analogy, put it this way: who has more money, Howard Schultz or George Steinbrenner?
“I’ll give you a hint — it’s the guy with the coffee shop on every corner of New York city. Steinbrenner was just smart enough to know that New Yorkers weren’t going to fork over the dough for a new stadium when a perfectly good one was already there.”
But we’re not talking about the fate of Shultz’s coffee business, we’re talking the Sonics (of which Shultz was not sole owner), and the Sonics have been losing money. Why is he obligated to bale out the latter with the former?
July 19th, 2006 at 11:17 am
It appears Bennett was on Spurs board when Bob Hill was hired and replaced as their coach.
July 19th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Ed Evans is involved in Busch series motor racing. Lived all across the south. Company based in Tampa. Stepping back from CEO to Chairman. In part might be to spend more time on sporting toys.
If Shinn were to rethink and offer to sell completely to Oklahoma group under threat of loss of this location and option, Evans
could possibly buy Bennett and the others out of Sonics and replace with Seattle minority partners or folks from Tampa or wherever.
July 19th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
‘look at the devastating effect hosting an Olympic games has on the cities that win that lottery. ‘
Don’t make generalizations jackass. If you don’t know what you’re talking about. Don’t talk.
According to Price Waterhouse Coopers(http://www.gamesinfo.com.au/pi/ARPICOE.html), here’s what they had to say about the Sydney Olympic Games of 2000:
The evidence collated in this report supports the view that the Games delivered substantial benefits to Sydney, New South Wales and Australia. For example:
- some $3 billion in business outcomes, including:
- $600 million in new business investment
- $288 million in new business under the Australian Technology Showcase
- almost $2 billion in post-Games sports infrastructure and service contracts
Getting back to Seattle, the mayor and city council has just set up to bankrupt and entire neighborhood. Between the Sonics, Storm, and T-Birds (who are moving to Kent) the Seattle Center will lose at least 1 million people a year in foot traffic. How do you replace those people? The Sonics needs the city to make Key Arena a more viable place to play. The city needs the Sonics to draw people (and their $$$) into the neighborhood.
The Sonics end up having an alternative, they can simply move. I’m still waiting for what alternative the city thinks it has.
July 19th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Stop throwing out insults. If you don’t agree with me, fine. I’m happy to admit where I’m wrong without dropping this interesting debate down to preschool level, fer krissake.
I based my obviously wrong Olympics statement on the fact that Montreal got skinned alive to the tune of $2 billion on its 1976 turn. Apparently Salt Lake made a slim profit. As far as economic impact goes, that’s a dodgier and greyer area and must be looked at in terms of initial capital expenditure and the range of opportunity costs of using public capital in that way.
How much would a new arena cost? How long would it take foot traffic, parking fees and cotton candy sales in the Fun Forest to make up for that expenditur?. What would happen if the City/County spent that money on something else that would be good for the city’s economy?
I remember the public voting for Safeco but against a light rail system (please correct me if I”m wrong) in the same year. Considering the major impact congestion has on the local, national and worlwide economy, which would have been a sounder public expenditure? Does a pro basketball team do for a local economy what raising teacher salaries might?
My issue (e.g. my personal opinion) is that public expenditures that overarchingly benefit private individuals and that are defended on the shaky grounds of civic pride and foot traffic may not be particularly defensible. If we want growth and development, there are better ways to produce that than allowing team owners to get what they want.
To go back to New York, there is a proposal to move the New Jersey Nets to Brooklyn. The developer has awakened a lot of local pride with the promise of a fancy arena for the team to play in, and the city is eager to pay for the thing. What isn’t mentioned is that the arena is just a red herring in a massive massive commercial and residential development that this guy wants to build around the proposed arena. Since it’s a matter of civic pride, he’s having an easy time convicing the city council to condemn literally dozens of blocks of developed property, despite the fact that the arena will occupy only one of those blocks, while the condos, office towers and Appleby’s restaurants will occupy the rest. When challenged, the developer (Bruce Ratner) says that it’s a matter of civic pride and foot traffic. Independent analysis suggests he stands to make BILLIONS. And guess who pays for most of it? Taxpayers.
Why are we so loyal when they (the teams) are not loyal to us?
Okay, heap on the abuse.
July 19th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
“I remember the public voting for Safeco but against a light rail system (please correct me if I”m wrong) in the same year. Considering the major impact congestion has on the local, national and worlwide economy, which would have been a sounder public expenditure?”
It was actually voted the complete opposite. Taxpayers voted for the light rail and against Safeco. The politicians then did exactly the opposite of what the voters wanted.
“Does a pro basketball team do for a local economy what raising teacher salaries might?”
If the two taxes were taken out of the same pool I’d find this a more compelling arguement. The reality as it stands is if the Sonics move, the money to support the Seattle Center will come from the general fund at a much higher rate than it currently does.
No abuse from me:)
July 19th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
You seem to be assuming that if the money isn’t spent on an arena, that it will instead be spent elsewhere. It won’t.
The money they asked for would be funded by an extension of an existing tax ONLY on restaurants and hotels. Extending this tax has absolutely nothing to do with teacher salaries, light rail, the viaduct, etc etc etc.
If the Sonics leave, you’ve bankrupted Seattle Center, you’ll see a number of bars and restaurants close in the area, and you’ll have NO NEW MONEY TO SPEND.
How is this good stewardship of public money?
July 19th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Kidney:
— I didn’t lower the argument to a preschool level. Your arguments are very weak and I called you on it. As I have stated ad nasuem on these polls the economic impact question is just a load of bull on both sides of argument. Of course it won’t bring in much “new” economic impact because the people already have the money, and most people spend their money. It really does come down to where they will spend it…
HOWEVER, since a significant population of Seattle Center goers only attned Sonics games and since a significant amount of those people are actually NOT from the city of Seattle that means the money will either be spent at:
— Large national corporations that really, really care less about the city. Say what you want about the sports events, but if you were in the city during Super Bowl week you can see how a city can effect the mood of an entire region. For some reason I dont think adding to the profits of Best Buy or Lowes Cineplex bring quite the same corporate rpide
— For non-Seattle residents the money will likely be spent in the city they live in. Over the past two years I have lived in Bellevue and now Mill Creek. All the money that I (and the NUMEROUS people like me) would’ve spent inside the city limits will now most likely go to businesses in those respective cites. Heck, Mill Creek isn’t even in King County…
Finally, as has been laid out in this blog. THE MONEY IS NOT BEING DIVERTED FROM ONE PROJECT TO ANOTHER PROJECT. This money does not technically exist and even if it did it would not be going to pay for school, roads or anything else. On top of that, when the tax does become repealed do you think those nice Hotel and Restuarant owners are gonig to keep their prices stable? No, they will raise them to the same rate they were getting before the tax…
What really bothered me today is to hear Gas on KJR state that one of the unintended consequences of this move is that a new NASCAR track or even a new arena for the NHL could be built. If that happens it will only crush what little respect I have for our government officals. If they are not willing to support a team that has been here for 40 years they sure as he!! better not support people who haven’t even been here.
July 19th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
I somewhat bold prediction: In ten years the Seattle Center as we know it will be replaced by apartments/parking units in an attempt to “revitalize” the Queen Anne area…
July 19th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Could be wishful thinking. I couldn’t help but feel that the self-satisfied demeanors of the new owners looked suspiciously like the cat after swallowing the canary or the thief after stealing candy from a baby…
Let’s wait and see if this new ownership makes any real effort to put a competitive team on the floor. The Wilcox contract could be a litmus test.
July 19th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
I also think the market comparison doesn’t necessarily compute. They’d be the only pro sports franchise in OKC and would thus be king of the heap (and we know which “heap”), while here in Seattle they’re low man on the totem pole relative to the Mariners and the Seahawks (or even to the Huskies, for that matter). San Antonio isn’t a very big market, nor is Utah, but they’re both one-team towns.
July 19th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
I just wanted to point out what I’ve found to be the absolute best part of this entire day. I’ve spent the last nearly year arguing the finer points of things with Myk and we very, very rarely agree on things. Today I find myself in complete agreement with nearly every point made.
On the same wavelength with Myk is kinda scary, sad that it took something like this to get this much agreement.