Lionbackers.com

There's a huge rally planned on Monday the 16th in front of the Courthouse in Seattle to support the Sonics and Gary Payton will be there. The trial is supposed to last 6 days and then the big Schultz lawsuit takes center stage.

What chances do you give them?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/s ... ley09.html

zilch

bye-bye

50 - 50 at best and I don't even really believe that.

Less than zilch. buh-bye

Hmmm.... Sonics website no longer works. Links no longer work.

They pulled plug on the team's official website 3 days before the court trial. Interesting strategy.

Nice spin by the lowlife lawyers that represent the Sonic ownership group. They allege that the city has a "yawning indifference" towards the Sonics, therefore, both parties would be best served if the Sonics were quietly allowed to move to Oklahoma City.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketbal ... ing12.html

Sure...blame the fans for allowing (previous owner) Howard Shultz to flip the team to Clay Bennett. :no:

Bennett from Day 1 never hid the fact that his ownership group bought the Sonics for one reason only - to re-locate them to Oklahoma City. Shame on Shultz and the NBA for allowing this to happen.

Two parties agree on a out-of-court settle that will see Bennett pay the city up to $75 million.

Press conference scheduled for 5 p.m. but looks like the Sonics have played their final game in Seattle.

You've had at least a year's warning that this was going to happen.

The shame of it all is, the NBA should have pulled the Hornets from New Orleans and left them in OKC. I think most OKC residents would have preferred that way.

But cheer up! Renovate Key Arena and you'll get the Grizzlies! (And I'm at least 60% serious about that, by the way).

And the chances of getting public funding for an Arena now that there is no sports franchise to play in it?

When they had a team - not good.

No team - less than not good.

Much like what happened here, it is likely gonna be a long while for the NBA graces Seattle's door again and some major $$$ are going to have to be committed before there is even a possibility of a maybe. With the bitter taste that will be left in the mouths of Washington residents, that seems pretty unlikely.

Sir Purrcival wrote:And the chances of getting public funding for an Arena now that there is no sports franchise to play in it?

When they had a team - not good.

No team - less than not good.

Much like what happened here, it is likely gonna be a long while for the NBA graces Seattle's door again and some major $$$ are going to have to be committed before there is even a possibility of a maybe. With the bitter taste that will be left in the mouths of Washington residents, that seems pretty unlikely.

And you know, if I can get philosophical about it on your behalf for a second, so what?

My opinion on Seattle and the NBA is the same as it is with Montreal and MLB. Good on ya for refusing to be held captive to a blatant case at corporate welfare.

Of course, no consolation if you're a Sonics fan but still.....

cromartie wrote:You've had at least a year's warning that this was going to happen.

The shame of it all is, the NBA should have pulled the Hornets from New Orleans and left them in OKC. I think most OKC residents would have preferred that way.

But cheer up! Renovate Key Arena and you'll get the Grizzlies! (And I'm at least 60% serious about that, by the way).

The Grizzlies are locked into their stadium lease until 2013, so they're not going anywhere in a hurry. IF a move were to take place, the lease buyout would be far higher then what Bennett is paying to get out of his Key Arena obligations.

As far as the Hornets - they were not up for sale when Bennett went sniffing for an NBA franchise - unfortunately for Sonics fans, their team was on the market.

The Grizzlies are locked into their stadium lease until 2013,

Yea but the Sonics were "locked into" their lease until 2010. Money talks.

All Stern gives a *poop* about is overseas. As great as he did pulling the NBA out of the 70's and early 80's. He is just as slowly dragging them down.

Yank In BC wrote:

The Grizzlies are locked into their stadium lease until 2013,

Yea but the Sonics were "locked into" their lease until 2010. Money talks.

All Stern gives a *poop* about is overseas. As great as he did pulling the NBA out of the 70's and early 80's. He is just as slowly dragging them down.

Granted, but if it cost Bennett 75 million to pull the Sonics out of Seattle, not too many people are going to kick the Grizzlies tires if they still have 5 years remaining on their lease.

Huskies basketball >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sonics basketball

cromartie wrote: And you know, if I can get philosophical about it on your behalf for a second, so what?

My opinion on Seattle and the NBA is the same as it is with Montreal and MLB. Good on ya for refusing to be held captive to a blatant case at corporate welfare.

Of course, no consolation if you're a Sonics fan but still.....

I don't agree with the methods of deception by Bennett and Co. but there were opportunities for local money to help the Sonics before they ever arrived on the scene. There were no local takers.
All I was saying was that if the Washington public were unwilling to help fund a stadium with a team in place, there is no chance that they will do it without a team. No stadium = no chance of team anytime soon.

Here is the part I find a bit mystifying. It seems to be generally accepted that a good stadium is one foundation of a vibrant, active city because of the events it attracts, the tenants it houses and so on. So why is it so difficult to see some measure of public funding going into these structures. The are massively expensive buildings granted but a city collects taxes and rents. Local business depends on the trade that they generate and the city taxes them too. Why is it so unreasonable to see JohnQ public footing some of the bill? I don't argue any specific proposal but there certainly seems to be an undercurrent of "no way" when this come up. Is it any different than a Convention Centre, airport, museum or art gallery? Those receive public funding all the time. Does a sports facility that generates lots of economic activity somehow not rate? Sure some of these owners are rich enough to pay the full shot but does that seem completely reasonable for a private entity to pay for the whole thing while local governments do nothing but enjoy the spin off benefits generated by these facilities.
Maybe I am too simplistic in my thoughts on this but it seems like good sports facilities are as much a community investment as they are a corporate one and are best as a shared responsibility.