Comments on: So much for that

By: michael u.

michael u. — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:24:49 +0000

KEN BEHRING SAID THE SEAHAWKS WERE NOT FOR SALE WITH THE TRUCKS LOADED AND HEADED TO SOUTHERN CALI. HMMMM, HAS ANYONE SEEN MR. BEHRING SINCE, BECAUSE IVE BEEN TO A BUNCH OF SEAHAWKS GAMES HERE IN SEATTLE. DARNELL, FROM OKLAHOMA HISTORY, HOW FAST HAVE YOUR LAWMAKERS REACTED TO ANYTHING CLOSE TO THIS?? OR SHOULD I POSE THE QUESTION TO GM?? YOU LEGISLATIVE BRANCH IS ONE OF THE SLOWEST IN ALL OF THE STATES. TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR HWY’S (THE ONES THAT ARE NOT TOLL ONES). YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE TAKEN YEARS TO GET WHAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED IN A FEW MONTHS BY OUR GUYS. SHOOT, LAST TIME I DROVE FROM TULSA TO OKC THRU CUSHING, THIER WAS MORE THAN A FEW STATE-PROJECTS LEFT UNFINISHED. SEE YA IN JUNE DARNELL, IF YOU CARE TO JOIN US!!!

MIKE U.

By: Rick

Rick — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:20:13 +0000

Doesn’t look good for Sonics fans but they stlll have the city lawsuit that Seattle likely wins and the discovery process could be very uncomfortable even damaging to Bennett’s group and the NBA. Don’t know how this turns out fully.
There are several variations of how crunch time goes and what all the outcomes are. Waiting 2 years is somewhat an obstacle that could lead to some sort of negotiated outcome.

By: SEATTLE Sonics

SEATTLE Sonics — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:58:58 +0000

Yes, Bennett & company bought the Sonics and are the current ownership. He also continues to assert that the team is not for sale, fine. As it currently stands, however, Bennett & company have purchased a franchise that they are allowed to operate IN SEATTLE. That is what he bought, but not what he wanted obviously. With a $300 million renovation in a world-class city in place how are you going to pass if you are the NBA BOG in favor of a $120 million renovation to a barebones arena in OKC–albeit a fine city, but far from world-class? To answer my own question–with collusion and backroom winks and nods, so I won’t say it’s not going to happen. This is afterall, “Stern’s NBA.”

~Chris

By: Pete

Pete — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:46:27 +0000

More clearly, Clay Bennett can’t even hint that the team is for sale at this point, or this thing is all over and he loses.

Just think about it for two seconds, and you’ll realize why…

How would it sound if he said he is open to selling the team when the NBA comes to visit OKC in a couple weeks? Why would the owners even come look at the facility? If he says he might sell the team, he loses all the leverage.

Saying he might sell would undermine his commitment to the team and the NBA. The Board of Governors would vote unanimously to deny re-location.

It’s pretty simple rhetoric.

By: Pete

Pete — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:40:26 +0000

“The one thing everyone in Seattle seems to be forgetting, or simpy not hearing, is that Clay Bennett continues to say that the team is not for sale.”

You’re right, that’s what he says. He currently has no reason to sell. I wouldn’t sell the team when I had all the power in the situation either. If (when) the tide changes, and there is an arena deal to back the new ownership group, everything changes. Despite Stern’s public rhetoric, NBA owners don’t want to abandon Seattle. Seems to me if the Board of Governors decides he can’t leave Seattle Bennett might change his mind. If he doesn’t, he may well be forced to do so.

In situations like these, the man with the deepest pockets often wins. Not sure there is any argument over who has the deeper pockets… Steve Ballmer would immediately become the second-richest owner in the NBA. The richest happens to be a couple of hours to the south, and also has a huge interest in keeping the NBA in Seattle.

Additionally, just a few months ago, Bennett insisted publicly that the Seattle Storm were not for sale. Seems to me he did that…

By: Sam K

Sam K — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:12:48 +0000

“Your columns amuse me. And who is this Legislator to whom you refer?”

HAHAHAHAHA awesome.

By: kdizzle

kdizzle — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:06:12 +0000

Your columns amuse me. And who is this Legislator to whom you refer?

(Thanks for the catch. -DM-)

By: Pete

Pete — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:11:54 +0000

Couldn’t have said it better.

By: Save Our Sonics

Save Our Sonics — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:02:46 +0000

Pete is mostly right. I think we are in the second half but far from the stretch run.

What is going on right now is a game of Kaboom. Everyone is trying to pass the bomb so they don’t get stuck holding it when the timer goes off.

However a lot of movement is being made in a very short time and you will see a resolution in place before the owners meeing in April.

With a group that will have maybe the deepest pockets in the league, a solution for the arena, and more and more owners going public saying they are not going to abandon this major market it is looking like the team will be staying here.

With the lawsuit pending it is likely that you will see the league step in with a negotiated settlement that gets OKC a team while leaving the Sonics in Seattle.

By: Pete

Pete — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:27:34 +0000

Hi,
I live in Seattle, and to imply that this thing is over is very premature, my friend.
Trust me, this thing is just getting started. Our city has been through two other professional teams threatening to leave — one had even packed up the trucks to move.
The governor’s comments are public rhetoric, and nothing more.
To make this issue analogous to a basketball game, it hasn’t even reached halftime. I’d say it’s late in the second quarter.
In fact, I’ve never been more sure the team will stay in Seattle.
Thanks for your time.

(I’m not implying anything, simply posing questions of what might be next. But I disagree that it’s far from over. At this point it doesn’t look like it matters how many investor groups step up or what the politicians have to say. They had their chance and they didn’t do anything when the opportunity presented itself. The one thing everyone in Seattle seems to be forgetting, or simpy not hearing, is that Clay Bennett continues to say that the team is not for sale. -DM-)