PDA

View Full Version : NBA team soon to be formerly known as the Sonics...



Pages : 1 [2]

BigRedJed
3/30/2008, 11:57 AM
Hey, don't bash us over the Yard Dawgz. We had a semi-successful AF1 team for a couple of seasons. From what I understand, that was the absolute pinnacle of success for players who can't make it in the NFL, NFL Europe or the CFL.

bri
3/30/2008, 12:00 PM
Yeah, I remember the Talons would have players called up to your AFL team. It was annoying, but good practice for the impending nee-Sonics/66ers relationship.

And I will bash you guys like crazy over "Yard Dawgz". Seriously, man. Yard Dawgz. :D

Mjcpr
3/30/2008, 12:03 PM
Yeah, I remember the Talons would have players called up to your AFL team. It was annoying, but good practice for the impending nee-Sonics/66ers relationship.

And I will bash you guys like crazy over "Yard Dawgz". Seriously, man. Yard Dawgz. :D

You mean the Bixby 66ers, right? :D

BigRedJed
3/30/2008, 12:03 PM
Well, that's what happens when Barrah Switzer is/was one of your owners. :D

****ING HILLIBILLIES!!

BigRedJed
3/30/2008, 12:04 PM
TIMING RUINER!!!

BigRedJed
3/30/2008, 12:05 PM
You mean the Bixby 66ers, right? :D
Dude, you're gonna make him crankier than I can, and I'm from Oklahoma City. :D

bri
3/30/2008, 12:07 PM
Dude, have you been to the Pavillion lately? I don't begrudge them wanting to play someplace nicer, but the BOK Center is too big for them.

F*ck, the Pavillion is too big for them right now. :D

Mjcpr
3/30/2008, 12:10 PM
I know. I think if you wanted to you could go to one of their games and meet and have an extended conversation with every paid attendee. I don't blame them.

bri
3/30/2008, 12:23 PM
Hopefully having NBA back in OKC will help Tulsans remember, oh yeah, we have an NBA D-League team here. Every year you can predict which game will have the biggest crowd before the season even tips off: The last home game of the year, when the home team wears the jerseys of one of their affiliate teams and then raffles them off after the game.

Which reminds me, I'm STILL p*ssed about missing out on a Hornets jersey by ONE F*CKING NUMBER last year. :D

Mixer!
3/30/2008, 03:53 PM
Got a name for the team just for you: Oklahoma City Barrens. :D

BigRedJed
3/30/2008, 04:37 PM
bri could TOTALLY get behind that one. Win for everyone! :D

bri
3/30/2008, 04:59 PM
Shouldn't it be "Oklahoma City Barrenz".

DUDE! I've got it!

Oklahoma City LOLcats!

BigRedJed
3/30/2008, 05:01 PM
Heh. "Barrenz."

Kizz my azz.

bri
3/30/2008, 05:02 PM
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2202/2374612547_b99747f01f_o.jpg

:D

BigRedJed
3/30/2008, 05:06 PM
I see trees in front of that place. Your theories have no merit.

bri
3/30/2008, 05:17 PM
Meh, mere shrubs.

And moreso, I fail to see any hills. ENJOY YOUR FLOODS, F*CK-O! :D

tommieharris91
3/30/2008, 05:38 PM
Shouldn't it be "Oklahoma City Barrenz".

DUDE! I've got it!

Oklahoma City LOLcats!

OKC LOLcats was a few pages ago.

BigRedJed
3/30/2008, 05:40 PM
Nah, it doesn't flood here since they rerouted our river back in the fifties and turned it into a giant drainage ditch. Of course, once you put low water dams and multimillion dollar boathouses on said drainage ditch -- presto!! -- world class rowing venue.

Eventually the tens of thousands of trees they planted along it will actually look like trees, too.

bri
3/30/2008, 05:45 PM
OKC LOLcats was a few pages ago.

That implies that I pay attention to what people who aren't me say.

Besides, I followed it up with a macro, so I win.

BigRedJed
3/30/2008, 05:45 PM
...Eventually the tens of thousands of trees they planted along it will actually look like trees, too.
Watch out in 50 years, T-town!! (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/oklahoma%20river/oklahomariver_8_06_a.jpg)

bri
3/30/2008, 05:51 PM
I still fail to see hills. Continued fail. :D

bri
3/30/2008, 05:53 PM
And our naturally occurring trees and river laugh at your planting and digging. (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/229/470213411_6adca2ec4d_o.jpg) ;)

BigRedJed
3/30/2008, 05:55 PM
Bah. Those are just giant weeds.

BigRedJed
3/30/2008, 05:55 PM
And we do have hills. In the suburbs.

bri
3/30/2008, 05:56 PM
Whatever helps you sleep at night, dude.

The lies keep the voices quiet!! :D

BigRedJed
3/30/2008, 06:01 PM
Dude, I sleep great, without all of that racket from leaves rustling in the wind. :D

BigRedJed
3/30/2008, 06:03 PM
And the stink. Fortunately, we don't have teh stink.

bri
3/30/2008, 06:10 PM
What teh stink? I lived on the river for a year and never noticed a teh stink from the river.

BigRedJed
3/30/2008, 06:18 PM
Whatever the stink is that you people keep complaining about having over there. We don't have it. Our air smells more like blowing dust.

bri
3/30/2008, 06:35 PM
That's the refineries on the west side. And I want to punch people when they do that. I've had some of my prissiest friends hang out with me by the pool at my old place and they never complained about it.

Probably couldn't smell the burning trash and oil over the overpowering stench of suntan lotion and chlorine. :D

BigRedJed
3/30/2008, 06:40 PM
Or they were all stopped up from the ridiculous amounts of tree pollen killing their allergies.

yermom
3/30/2008, 06:51 PM
the OKC Allergens?

Mixer!
3/30/2008, 07:09 PM
OKClaritans

Mixer!
3/30/2008, 07:29 PM
On a semi-related note, I really want a Tulsa Roughnecks t-shirt now.
ucnhazrufnextshrt (http://www.section219.com/Default.aspx?tabid=139&txtSearch=North+American+Soccer+League+%281968-84%29&catpageindex=6&ProductID=321)

Okla-homey
3/30/2008, 07:49 PM
Jet noise is the "Sound of Freedom." At over a hundred smackers a barrel, refinery stink is the "Smell of Money."

BlondeSoonerGirl
3/30/2008, 08:22 PM
Heh.

Stinky.

jaux
3/31/2008, 01:44 PM
OKC Dribblers

silverwheels
3/31/2008, 04:47 PM
The Oklahoma City Ribs.

DrRube
3/31/2008, 04:56 PM
Oklahoma City Airmen

yermom
3/31/2008, 04:58 PM
i like that one

Soonerus
3/31/2008, 09:24 PM
OKC Casey's

Soonerus
3/31/2008, 10:01 PM
...next season...almost a certainty now...

BigRedJed
3/31/2008, 10:19 PM
Thanks for the update.

Soonerus
3/31/2008, 10:21 PM
merged...again...darn....

BigRedJed
3/31/2008, 10:21 PM
NOT ME!

Mjcpr
4/1/2008, 08:28 AM
Oklahoma City Sonic

http://www.bobanddan.net/images/fanSubmitted/sonic.jpg
http://www.gichamber.com/cwweb/sonic.gif

GrapevineSooner
4/1/2008, 08:54 AM
Oklahoma City Sonic

http://www.bobanddan.net/images/fanSubmitted/sonic.jpg
http://www.gichamber.com/cwweb/sonic.gif

Presented by Bob and Dan? :confused:

Mjcpr
4/1/2008, 09:55 AM
I have no idea what that is, I found it via GIS. :D

yermom
4/1/2008, 11:10 AM
OKC Footlongs?


what's he doing to that coney?

BigRedJed
4/1/2008, 11:13 AM
Yeah, it really is too bad that the Sonics name doesn't look like it's going to work out. Any time an OKC player rejected somebody, he could say "DON'T YOU BRING THAT WEAK TOT ACTION!!"

in-bKq1vQQo

yermom
4/1/2008, 11:15 AM
that would be awesome

BigRedJed
4/1/2008, 11:16 AM
They could play a little snippet of that video every time.

bri
4/1/2008, 12:33 PM
The limeade is even more awesomer. It looks like it's stoned as hell. :D

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/228/443843155_e43924ae8f.jpg

tommieharris91
4/1/2008, 01:22 PM
The limeade is even more awesomer. It looks like it's stoned as hell. :D

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/228/443843155_e43924ae8f.jpg

What the hell is that creepy yellow thing in the back?

yermom
4/1/2008, 01:24 PM
i think that's Louie the Lightning Bug

bri
4/1/2008, 01:32 PM
Indeed it is. Which was a chick, by the way. Totally threw me off.

Pricetag
4/1/2008, 04:40 PM
You can see all those and more in some hot mascot-on-mascot action (of the dodgeball variety) at halftime of a Tulsa Talons game sometime this season. I'm not telling which one, though. I don't want a big crowd just at that game and not the others.

bri
4/1/2008, 08:11 PM
See, dodgeball sounds much better than the musical chairs layup contest they had them do last year. Although that was funny as hell to watch. :D

redpurple
4/7/2008, 06:15 PM
for sure?

redpurple
4/7/2008, 06:16 PM
also what will they be called (sorry im posting alot to start a new thread)

mfosterftw
4/7/2008, 10:59 PM
Oklahoma City Sonic
http://www.bobanddan.net/images/fanSubmitted/sonic.jpg

Looks like Bob has discovered a Moron Dog...

Mjcpr
4/10/2008, 12:10 PM
Emails discovered about moving to OKC while publicly saying they waned to keep the team there. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3339895)

I doubt it matters though since the Seattle folk probably don't have good feelings in the first place. :D

Dio
4/13/2008, 10:47 PM
Emails discovered about moving to OKC while publicly saying they waned to keep the team there. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3339895)

I doubt it matters though since the Seattle folk probably don't have good feelings in the first place. :D

Eh, lots of light and not much heat. It's just a desperation move by Seattle to try to manipulate the BOG vote.

Ash
4/13/2008, 11:50 PM
The way the PR is going, it will be the most hated franchise in the league for several years.

Dio
4/14/2008, 12:07 AM
The way the PR is going, it will be the most hated franchise in the league for several years.

Maybe not. Vote here, then check the results: http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/index

We're actually holding our own on this one.

Mjcpr
4/15/2008, 12:43 PM
Eh, lots of light and not much heat. It's just a desperation move by Seattle to try to manipulate the BOG vote.

Another lawsuit forthcoming. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3347564)

Ash
4/15/2008, 01:19 PM
Well, if not the most hated...the most sued franchise in the league.

Mixer!
4/15/2008, 01:50 PM
Even if the court found favor with starbuck-man's argument, Stern and the other owners would just vote to contract the team and award Bennett & Co. an expansion franchise.














...I think. :O

BigRedJed
4/15/2008, 02:06 PM
I suspect that is mostly Schultz trying to save face. He still has to live in Seattle. He was already pretty unpopular for demanding a new arena when he owned the Sonics. In his defense, he sold the team to Clay and Co. for far less than he could have sold to investors from Fresno who were pretty much guaranteed to relocate with no effort to stay in Seattle. He obviously truly believed the OKC guys would make an honest effort to stay, or he would have taken the bigger payday.

But most of that stuff, including the e-mail evidence, is a last-ditch effort by Seattle to get the BOG to vote against the move. It won't work.

Also, those e-mails came AFTER Clay had put a huge amount of effort towards an arena deal and had basically been given F-you after F-you by EVERYONE. That was after the Washington legislature (their last hope for putting a deal together) had made it clear they would not bring a vote to the floor before the one-year deadline. Game over. The handwriting was on the wall at that point, and as businessmen they HAD to be examining their options.

That said, it was pretty ill-advised (to the tune of a quarter of a million) for Aubrey to make his comments, and those e-mails seem a bit naive. These guys have surely been the subject of legal action before, and that (the e-mails) is the type of stuff that makes life difficult.

I don't think it will amount to much, but I want to point out yet again that, like I have been saying for nearly two years, getting that team here is still not a cakewalk.

BigRedJed
4/15/2008, 02:12 PM
And to add one thing, the fact that people in Seattle still don't recognize what a liability Key Arena and the Sonic's lease is astonishes me. I have read every page of that lease (around a hundred pages), and it is an abomination.

Not to mention that arena, while it might "feel" OK, is so woefully unequipped for the modern game and its required revenue streams that it is almost laughable. It would be similar to OKC hosting an NBA team in a finish-upgraded Myriad -- *ahem* -- Cox Center, or the LNC. Might be a fine place to see a game, but you'd better have an owner who is happy with taking losses in the tens of millions every year. Which means you probably also have an owner who is happy to lose. Not a very good equation.

Pricetag
4/15/2008, 02:54 PM
That said, it was pretty ill-advised (to the tune of a quarter of a million) for Aubrey to make his comments, and those e-mails seem a bit naive. These guys have surely been the subject of legal action before, and that (the e-mails) is the type of stuff that makes life difficult.
McClendon seems like a total loose cannon. All that I've heard about him are the things he's done to shoot the effort in the foot. I have to wonder how someone with such a lack of restraint can become so successful in business.

BigRedJed
4/15/2008, 04:29 PM
Well, that's an interesting question. My impression of him is that he is entirely results driven, willing to gamble on things and risk quite a bit if it's part of a larger vision that he believes is correct. That's why you see him paying too much for properties in NW OKC, or Arcadia. "Too much" in today's dollars/value, that is, but I think if his hunches are right it will ultimately pay off, either in dollars or personal satisfaction.

I'm guessing a willingness to jump agressively on gut instinct can pay handsomely in the energy business, but of course it could also break you. So far he's apparently been pretty good with his instincts. That said, there was a time a little over a decade ago when Chesapeake was practically bankrupt. They made a fairly radical decision (one that might have even seemed desperate at the time) to get completely OUT of oil exploration, and stick strictly to gas. Seems like it worked out pretty well for them.

Pretty much the apparent business opposite of him is Larry Nichols of Devon, who is considered to be pretty conservative. Back before the bust of the eighties, just about everyone and his dog was investing in a trendy field in Texas. Nichols specifically said no to getting involved in it, and his board wanted his head. He also was nervous about the industry in general, and instead of incurring more debt (like Everyone and his Dog), he paid off the existing debt and sold off lots of Devon's properties.

Fast forward a couple of years, the trendy field was bust, Everyone and his Dog were putting their petroleum engineering degrees to use by working at 7-11 or sweeping floors at Wal-Mart, and Devon became the only company to weather the energy bust without laying a single person off. Larry Nichols' board now thinks he walks on water.

I think the unifying factor between both men, however, is being wise and ballsy enough to follow an educated hunch despite what conventional wisdom tells them. Lots of people have good ideas, or have a hunch regarding what needs to be done based on their learning or experience, but not everyone can jump off the precipice with only the FAITH that their wings will work. There's always the risk that your body will soon lie broken at the bottom of the cliff, and most people, deep down, are cowards. I guess that's why some people are gazillionaires and most of us are not.

yermom
4/15/2008, 04:44 PM
well, and even the sun shines on a dog's *** some days ;)

not that either of those guys aren't smart, i don't know much about them, but some people also just get lucky

i'd imagine there are more broken bodies at the bottom of that cliff than there are people with working wings, even with the same level of intelligence and courage

but anyway, when do the Oklahoma City Slickers start playing in the Ford Center?

BigRedJed
4/15/2008, 04:48 PM
Yep. There are definitely FAR more broken bodies. That's why so many people never jump. And I'm sure luck has a lot to do with it. Of course, some people make their own luck.

Slickers my ***.

yermom
4/15/2008, 04:50 PM
:D

rainiersooner
4/15/2008, 11:31 PM
This has been a real painful episode for me. I grew up in Seattle but went to college at OU and had an amazing time: loved the people I met and the friends I made. I'd love to see you guys get an NBA team; it would do really well in OKC. But, I grew up on the Sonics. I took my son to Sunday's (last?)game at the Key - stood for 10 minutes with him on my shoulders chanting "Save our Sonics," reminiscing on the days of Payton, Kemp, Ray Allen, and all that. It would be great if the NBA would award OKC an expansion team (if OKC is the great market we think it can be, why not?) and we could keep our team...we'll see. Boomer!

BigRedJed
4/16/2008, 12:04 AM
Personally, I wish you could keep your team too. Nobody with any sense a couple of years ago expected Seattle to completely yawn their way out of the NBA, and nobody expected the New Orleans Hornets to lead the west division and be a favorite for the NBA finals.

Barring these two things happening, the Oklahoma City Hornets would have been playing the Seattle Supersonics in a brand new Seattle arena a couple of years from now. I'll guarantee you that was the long-term plan of a number of key people when the OKC investors bought the Sonics.

Okla-homey
4/16/2008, 05:58 AM
Yet another reason they should be the Oklahoma Whatevers.

The House passed a bill earlier this week waiving state income tax on players salaries as a gift. Mind you, a gift. It's not a pot sweetener because they're coming here regardless.

That means some power forward who makes 3 million a year won't pay state income tax on the portion of his salary earned playing games in Oklahoma.

That p1sses me off.

just sayin'.

Mjcpr
4/16/2008, 08:28 AM
Yet another reason they should be the Oklahoma Whatevers.

The House passed a bill earlier this week waiving state income tax on players salaries as a gift. Mind you, a gift. It's not a pot sweetener because they're coming here regardless.

That means some power forward who makes 3 million a year won't pay state income tax on the portion of his salary earned playing games in Oklahoma.

That p1sses me off.

just sayin'.

Yeah, I'm not loving that either. What direct financial benefit to OKC and/or Oklahoma remains if sales and income taxes are off limits?

Was income tax waived on all NBA players or just the home guys or what? Sheesh.

Ash
4/16/2008, 08:38 AM
Yet another reason they should be the Oklahoma Whatevers.

The House passed a bill earlier this week waiving state income tax on players salaries as a gift. Mind you, a gift. It's not a pot sweetener because they're coming here regardless.

That means some power forward who makes 3 million a year won't pay state income tax on the portion of his salary earned playing games in Oklahoma.

That p1sses me off.

just sayin'.

Seriously?

I don't mind tax incentives, that's just par for the business course it seems. But to completely waive it off for no other reason than to placate these guys...???????

Okla-homey
4/16/2008, 08:44 AM
Yeah, I'm not loving that either. What direct financial benefit to OKC and/or Oklahoma remains if sales and income taxes are off limits?

Was income tax waived on all NBA players or just the home guys or what? Sheesh.

Methinks the way it works is thusly. If you play a game in Oklahoma, ordinarily income derived from playing in that game, like any income earned in the state, would be taxable. But the House voted to waive it. Because, well, the state has plenty of money and stuff I guess. Estimates put the gift at between 40 and 60 million.

Someone please remind the education mafia of this the next time they come moaning for tax cash please.

BigRedJed
4/16/2008, 11:16 AM
The "gift" everyone is talking about is an expansion of the long-running, very successful state Quality Jobs program to include NBA jobs. Typically the program has been used to lure manufacturing jobs to Oklahoma. 500 companies already participate in the program, in precisely the same way the team will be doing so.

In a nutshell, the program gives the TEAM a tax rebate equal to income taxes paid by the personnel, including visiting players (the way the NBA works is that players pay income tax on a game-by-game basis, in the cities in which they play that night).

The team is expected to bring 170 jobs to Oklahoma, with a $70+ million payroll. Of course, those people will be buying homes, products and services while they are here, so much of that payroll will be spent in Oklahoma, thus further bolstering the economy. The team is expected to have a total annual economic impact of $170 million in the state, not to mention the difficult-to-quantify exposure and quality-of-life improvements, which it is hoped will lead to more company relocation to and job expansion in the state.

And basically, the program is revenue neutral; it doesn't take money out of the state coffers that wouldn't be here without the team, whose business plan from the beginning included Quality Jobs incentives. They have ALREADY pitched these incentives to the NBA Board of Governers as part of the financial package that will make them competetive.

It's $4 million per year in rebates that won't be paid unless it is 100% offset by $4 million in team payroll income tax. The $60 million figure is based on the length of the program, 15 years. It is NOT like the state is writing a $60 million check to the team. There is also a cap on the incentives, not to exceed Oklahoma's top income tax rate.

Additionally, the state receives state income taxes from the aforementioned hotel, restaurant and goods and services sales on game nights and on money spent by players, team employees and their families. The state, overall, will actually gain significant revenue thanks to the team, should it relocate. It's a big-picture thing.

I find it hard to believe that the State of Oklahoma will not receive far, far more than $4 million per year in DIRECT ECONOMIC BENEFIT over the next 15 years by having this team in the state. Impossible to believe, actually.

Oh, and rural legislators threw in an amendment that took additional state sales tax earned at games and distributed it directly to the rural communities, so most of the state will actually be seeing additional direct benefit that they wouldn't be seeing otherwise.

I said weeks ago on here that the Quality Jobs act would be expanded to the team, and nary a peep was heard from anyone. NOW it ****es you guys off? It's OK to give to a small manufacturing plant in Ada that is part of a billion dollar corporation in another state, but not to an organization that brings a fairly large number of highly-paid jobs to the state (not just players), and will have a huge ripple effect in service jobs (Ford Center employees, hotel and restaurant employees citywide)?

Guys, this is a very common strategy used by the state to lure quality employers here. I ask again, is it any different that we're giving it to a sports company owned by multi-millionaires than a manufacturing company owned by multi-millionaires? I think most of the heartburn over this is based on a lack of understanding over exactly what is happening here, and in some instances reeks of class envy.

BigRedJed
4/16/2008, 11:39 AM
Here's an article from the Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004284044_sonics15m.html) that mentions the Quality Jobs act proposal as a part of the package to convince the NBA BOG that the team would be viable here. It's from a month ago.

The Governor and state representatives were an active part of the presentation made to the NBA BOG, and at the time assured David Stern and the BOG representatives that the Quality Jobs act would be expanded to include the team in its definition of "quality jobs." This was an integral part of the package that convinced the BOG to support the relocation, not an afterthought. It was rushed through the legislature with emergency so that it would not be an unknown or a "loose end" as the BOG makes their final decision this week.

People who are now characterizing it as an after-the-fact "gift" are either ill-informed or disingenuous.

Pricetag
4/16/2008, 12:32 PM
Wow, I never realized that sports players had to pay state taxes in all the states they play in. That's crazy.

rainiersooner
4/16/2008, 12:44 PM
Wow, I never realized that sports players had to pay state taxes in all the states they play in. That's crazy.
We all do - e.g., if you're a consultant for McKinsey and you spend 2 days a week in New York, 2 days in Dalls, and 1 day in San Francisco, you are considered to be earning income in each specific state on those days and would owe tax to each state. You can deduct taxes paid in foreign states against taxes paid in your state of domicile.

BigRedJed
4/16/2008, 01:08 PM
If it bugs people that the millionaires who own the Sonics are the ones benefitting from the Quality Jobs program, maybe you should check out a partial list of the companies who have or who continue to receive the same rebates:

American Airlines
Boeing
The Hertz Corporation
America Online
Chesapeake Energy
IBM
Whirlpool Corporation
Halliburton Energy Services
Lucent Technologies
Avaya
Southwest Airlines
Dell USA
Farmers Insurance Group
Conoco Phillips
Devon Energy
The Hartford
Tyson
DirecTV
Bar-S Foods
Tracker Marine
AT&T Wireless
Bank of Oklahoma
Staples
OfficeMax
York International
Michelin North AmericaI could go on and on. The Quality Jobs program has paid out more than half a billion dollars in rebates since its inception in the nineties.

Oh, and some food for thought: should companies like Tulsa's Williams Companies or Syntroleum Corp, who are recipients of the program, be forced to put "Oklahoma" in their name, or take "Tulsa" out of their mailing addresses? Maybe they could just use a street address and a ZIP code. After all, WE'RE ALL footing the bill for them.

Listen, I applaud the State for using the Quality Jobs incentive to help lure the team here. It's great when state lawmakers actually help out a tiny little bit with the heavy lifting. And, of course, as a state taxpayer I am still happy that the state will actually end up making more revenue than it is putting on the table, thanks to sales taxes and the like that will be generated should the team relocate.

But if you guys think $4 million a year in revenue-neutral incentives somehow overshadow the ONE BILLION DOLLARS PLUS that OKC taxpayers and local business have spent to be in postition to lure a team, you are wrong.

BigRedJed
4/16/2008, 01:17 PM
And, hopefully last thing: Homey, when you say "some power forward who makes 3 million a year won't pay state income tax on the portion of his salary earned playing games in Oklahoma," you are just dead wrong. Those players will be paying state income tax just like you, me, or anyone else.

OU Adonis
4/16/2008, 01:54 PM
You know Jed I agree with just about everything you say.

For once. :eek:

Ash
4/16/2008, 02:00 PM
Sounds like Jed has a horse in this race.

yermom
4/16/2008, 02:12 PM
i don't get the "Oklahoma" vs "Oklahoma City" thing. how many NBA teams are named for the state?

also, it's like "it will be both of ours, but we'll keep it at my house"

Frozen Sooner
4/16/2008, 02:24 PM
i don't get the "Oklahoma" vs "Oklahoma City" thing. how many NBA teams are named for the state?

also, it's like "it will be both of ours, but we'll keep it at my house"

Utah.
New Jersey.
New York (otherwise they'd be the New York City Knickerbockers).

BigRedJed
4/16/2008, 02:43 PM
Sounds like Jed has a horse in this race.
Yep. My horse is named "Oklahoma City." I'm very passionate about seeing a return on the hundreds of millions of dollars my fellow citizens and I have invested in the past fifteen years. I also want to see one more tangible reward for the immeasurable amount of work that city leaders, visionaries, everyday worker bees (and myself to a very modest degree) have put into placing OKC in this position.

This is NOT a competition with the state of Oklahoma, another one of my greatest loves, nor is it at the expense of any other city in this fine state. This is only about OKC achieving a return on its own significant monetary and labor investments, and I believe the state as a whole will see a significant return on OKC's investment in itself over the past 15 years. A high tide floats all boats.

This has been a direct result and a part of a grand vision that OKC put into place in 1993 to pull itself up by its own bootstraps. Now that we have succeeded in doing so, everybody else wants a piece of the action, or to take credit. Well, if that is allowed to happen, it will be a sad day for those most basic of Oklahoma values, self-reliance and hard work.

yermom
4/16/2008, 02:48 PM
maybe Golden State? it's still a pretty small minority

New Jersey and Utah suck anyway

New York can go either way, lot's of people refer to NYC as just "New York"

either way, it's pretty obvious where Oklahoma City is, it's not like anyone outside of Oklahoma is going to think much about weather it's OKC or Oklahoma

BigRedJed
4/16/2008, 03:18 PM
I don't think New York needs much help marketing itself. In fact, when someone tells me they are flying to New York, I personally usually assume they mean NYC. The Nets have a complicated history of name and venue changes (they used to be the New York Nets, among others). They have been semi-homeless often through their history and sometimes not attached to a particular city. It's very possible that they will soon be the Brooklyn Nets, BTW.

The difference is that nationally OKC has an extreme identity problem, or more precisely, a LACK of identity. MAPS, subsequent initiatives, NBA relocation and many other efforts are part of an overreaching attempt to change national perception of this city. Look, OKC's opportunity to be a major league city didn't just "happen," or fall into our laps, Hurricane Katrina notwithstanding. It took WORK. And MONEY. And VISION. And YEARS.

Utah might be a fair comparison, but so would teams from emerging cities like Columbus, Charlotte, Jacksonville, Memphis, etc.

If the Blue Jackets were the Ohio Blue Jackets, do you think most people would know they were from Columbus? What about Tennessee Grizzlies? Are they from Nashville? Florida Jaguars? Miami? Tampa? I GUARANTEE YOU that if the Green Bay (a small city, BTW) Packers were the Wisconsin Packers, a lot of people would probably think they were from Milwaukee, or would at least think think Green Bay was a Milwaukee suburb.

Oklahoma City today is in a similar place to where Phoenix or Nashville were 20-30 years ago. We are emerging. We have some things working in our favor. But we need all the help we can get. A city placing its name on a major league sports franchise is a part of that equation.

yermom
4/16/2008, 03:26 PM
Nashville?

i guess there is Indiana too

BigRedJed
4/16/2008, 03:30 PM
Nashville?

...
What's the question?

Ash
4/16/2008, 03:34 PM
Golden State

BigRedJed
4/16/2008, 03:40 PM
And where are they from again? Sounds like somebody had an error in judgment to me.

royalfan5
4/16/2008, 03:48 PM
Why not have OKC and Tulsa share the Sonics like the old Kansas City-Omaha Kings?

Ash
4/16/2008, 03:48 PM
Minnesota

yermom
4/16/2008, 03:52 PM
Golden State

i already mentioned them :P

Ash
4/16/2008, 03:52 PM
i already mentioned them :P

Dang. Sorry bout that. Didn't see it, obviously.

:D

yermom
4/16/2008, 03:53 PM
What's the question?

20 or 30 years ago, i think Nashville was a pretty well known place, i'm not sure though

BigRedJed
4/16/2008, 04:11 PM
Actually, Nashville has only been considered a "hot" or "it" city for the past decade or so from a business relocation standpoint. Believe it or not, it is not much larger than OKC (MSA).

Prior to the nineties, Nashville was almost exclusively known for the country music it produced. Incidentally, the nineties was when Nashville first landed major-league sports franchises.

yermom
4/16/2008, 04:24 PM
as opposed to OKC that's been known for...

BigRedJed
4/16/2008, 04:28 PM
Why not have OKC and Tulsa share the Sonics like the old Kansas City-Omaha Kings?
It's questions like this that unneccessarily lead to OKC-Tulsa strife on this board. It's difficult to answer this question without sounding like I'm taking a shot at Tulsa, and it couldn't be further from the truth. But in a nutshell, it's because the team coming here has absolutely nothing to do with Tulsa. And because the team won't have to water down its identity to be successful.

Listen, I hope Tulsa people jump all over the team, and help it become even more successful. There is no reason they shouldn't. It's a team with a geographic connection to them, at the very least. But Tulsa has had pretty much ZERO to do with this team coming here, save Kathy Taylor coming here to lend her support at the BOG presentation, which I thought was admirable of her and of Tulsa.

If T-town suddenly landed an NFL or MLB team, I would be all sorts of fired up to go to games, and would become a fan. And I would expect the team to have Tulsa in its name.

silverwheels
4/16/2008, 06:58 PM
Minnesota

That's probably because the "Minneapolis-St.Paul ______" doesn't sound that nice.

Okla-homey
4/16/2008, 07:30 PM
I understand there are passions involved in this whole thing. I also understand if these franchises were such golden gooses, Seattle would be doing WTF it took to keep them there. I think its important to consider the experience of cities like Portland and Sacramento who are both on record as proving the presence of the team is a net "wash" economically speaking.

Put another way, I defy anyone to prove a major league sports franchise in their town equals is a net economic game for the community. The experience of Sacramento and Portland indicates money spent on season tix is money not spent at restaurants and/or other local entertainment venues.

Anyhoo, any way you slice it, these NBA guys are getting a multi-million dollar gift at the expense of all Oklahomans. IMHO, its frankly kinda laughable to assert a sports franchise employing 170 that produces no tangible product is even remotely on par with the economic impact of real live brick and mortar industries who locate in our state.

BigRedJed
4/16/2008, 07:40 PM
So if there is no benefit, why is everyone's panties in a bunch that it not have "City" in the name? Let us have our folly.

Okla-homey
4/16/2008, 07:55 PM
So if there is no benefit, why is everyone's panties in a bunch that it not have "City" in the name? Let us have our folly.

Folly on bro. Just skip the tax gift and I'm all good. I've called my state senators office and voiced my concern. We'll see how it goes.

Soonerus
4/16/2008, 08:16 PM
....cry, cry, cry....ignore the NBA for years and now cry...they are the laughing-stock of America...

BigRedJed
4/16/2008, 08:17 PM
And, I find it laughable that you don't recognize the value of 170 highly-compensated people, a few of them multi-millionaires, moving into the state, buying homes, automobiles, dinner, clothes... ...paying housekeepers and bartenders, waiters and waitresses, yard men, tailors, dry cleaners, grocery checkers, doctors, accountants and attorneys and on and on and on...

I find it laughable that people still assert that there is no real value for a heretofore unmentioned, backwater (from a national perspective) city to suddenly have its name mentioned nightly on ESPN and elsewhere, DAILY in the same breath as New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Boston...

I find it laughable that people can't grasp the simple concept of "revenue-neutral," and still cling to the idea that this is somehow being done on the "backs of Oklahoma taxpayers." It's NOT. Oklahoma taxpayers are not going to give up a thin dime that existed before the team first pays it into the coffers, and in fact taxpayers stand to gain measurable revenue, based on sales tax, whether you believe it or not.

First it was a "gift" being given after the fact. Well, that has now been disproved. Then it was "players not having to pay income tax." Wrong again. What next? Homey, first you use baseless, incorrect, non-factual arguments and now we're supposed to accept your new REPLACEMENT assertions at face value?

I suppose it's debatable exactly how much value a team brings to a city, but I have maintained all along (for years, on this board) that the biggest reasons behind getting a team here were not about directly increasing tax revenue, they were about marketing Oklahoma City as a player, an up-and-coming city. As a MAJOR LEAGUE city. Secondly, I have maintained that getting entertainment options like this are quality-of-life improvements that will attract new business and industry, and will help keep young, educated, creative types in the city and state and make it easier to recruit the same from out of state. Anybody who disputes that these things have already been happening in Oklahoma City thanks to MAPS improvements and will only be heightened by an NBA team moving here is wasting their time with me.

I have seen it with my own eyes. I was involved in the Oklahoma City business community before MAPS, and have worked downtown (and for downtown) for close to two decades. When MAPS was passed, it passed by the slimmest of margins. It was passed as a "build it and they will come" intitiative. One that included the ultimate goal of securing a major league sports franchise, BTW, and so far IT HAS BEEN DEAD ON. MAPS passed by the slimmest of margins, and until late into the development, had detractors saying the same types of things that you and others are now saying, and they were dead wrong. Sorry.

MAPS and the Oklahoma City renaissance have now made international waves, and I personally have hosted people from many other states, in fact, other countries who have been stunned by what was accomplished here, and what we still hope to accomplish. Many of them hope to copy much of what we've done here. Actually, replicating this success has become a cottage industry for a number of consultants.

So we're just going to stick to our pathetic little misguided gameplan, despite your (I'm sure) well-intentioned warnings to do otherwise.

BigRedJed
4/16/2008, 08:24 PM
as opposed to OKC that's been known for...
Excactly my point.

Oklahoma City needs to be known for something other than the bombing and tornados. This is a part of fixing that.

yermom
4/16/2008, 08:58 PM
Excactly my point.

Oklahoma City needs to be known for something other than the bombing and tornados. This is a part of fixing that.

that's why i thought the Nashville comparison was weird

BigRedJed
4/16/2008, 09:10 PM
Well, in all fairness, Nashville was only known for ONE thing. They weren't like New York or LA, known for dozens, or even hundreds, of things. Reasonable comparison, I think. Nashville is only recently "hot."

Okla-homey
4/17/2008, 07:33 AM
see below.


And, I find it laughable that you don't recognize the value of 170 highly-compensated people, a few of them multi-millionaires, moving into the state, buying homes, automobiles, dinner, clothes... ...paying housekeepers and bartenders, waiters and waitresses, yard men, tailors, dry cleaners, grocery checkers, doctors, accountants and attorneys and on and on and on...

I find it laughable that people still assert that there is no real value for a heretofore unmentioned, backwater (from a national perspective) city to suddenly have its name mentioned nightly on ESPN and elsewhere, DAILY in the same breath as New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Boston...

...and Green Bay Wisconsin. And America's most dysfunctional city, Detroit. Methinks you overrestimate a smidge the relative significance of having an major league franchise in town in the mind of most Americans. Portland is known for, what? cement? Cleveland is still a punchline, despite the fact it has the Indians, Cavs and Browns

I find it laughable that people can't grasp the simple concept of "revenue-neutral," and still cling to the idea that this is somehow being done on the "backs of Oklahoma taxpayers." It's NOT. Oklahoma taxpayers are not going to give up a thin dime that existed before the team first pays it into the coffers, and in fact taxpayers stand to gain measurable revenue, based on sales tax, whether you believe it or not.

In my simple mind. "Revenue neutral" in this context is fancy talk for a situation in which it costs OKC "X" to do thing, and the thing brings in "Y" in revenue and "X" = "Y". Explain to me again how that is a win for the state? Especially since the NBA tax gift bill gives the state tax revenue back for fifteen years? And how does Chickasha, Madill, Stroud and Waurika realize any benefit at all under this scheme?

First it was a "gift" being given after the fact. Well, that has now been disproved. Then it was "players not having to pay income tax." Wrong again. What next? Homey, first you use baseless, incorrect, non-factual arguments and now we're supposed to accept your new REPLACEMENT assertions at face value?

With all due respect counselor, I don't think anything was disproven. What happened was you made unsupported counter-assertions designed to cloud the issue by stating the tax gift package is not a direct rebate of players income tax to the guys who are assessed the tax liability under existing state law.

I realize this gift package doesn't involve opening up the state's vault and wheelbarrowing millions over to the team that wouldn't be there otherwise because if the jillionaire player don't play here, they would pay no taxes. But, no matter how you slice it, the NBA tax gift package insures the team and its jillionaire players that have been pre-determined to come to OKC will NOT be wheelbarrowing millions to state coffers in the form of taxation they otherwise would be required to cough up.

Now, I'm just a dumb redneck from Ardmore, so I understand these things are tough to grasp for Okies like me, but I fail to see how a state income tax rebate gift that is rebated to the "team" doesn't find its way to the pockets of the players in the form of compensation. Otherwise, this tax gift package is the equivalent of a statutory shakedown because the state has the power to take the income tax which it will do. But instead of keeping that money and spending it on our kids education or whatever, under the bill, the state will hand it back over to the team? In exchange for what? luxury boxes for the legislators?:rolleyes:

Look, if MAPS wants to send over wheelbarrows full of cash to the team, by all means, fill those suckas and roll 'em on over. Just don't implicate the rest of the state who could sure use the money and who won't realize any revenue from the teams presence, because, as you've stated, bringing the team is "revenue neutral" -- for OKC that is.

I suppose it's debatable exactly how much value a team brings to a city, but I have maintained all along (for years, on this board) that the biggest reasons behind getting a team here were not about directly increasing tax revenue, they were about marketing Oklahoma City as a player, an up-and-coming city. As a MAJOR LEAGUE city. Secondly, I have maintained that getting entertainment options like this are quality-of-life improvements that will attract new business and industry, and will help keep young, educated, creative types in the city and state and make it easier to recruit the same from out of state. Anybody who disputes that these things have already been happening in Oklahoma City thanks to MAPS improvements and will only be heightened by an NBA team moving here is wasting their time with me.

I have seen it with my own eyes. I was involved in the Oklahoma City business community before MAPS, and have worked downtown (and for downtown) for close to two decades. When MAPS was passed, it passed by the slimmest of margins. It was passed as a "build it and they will come" intitiative. One that included the ultimate goal of securing a major league sports franchise, BTW, and so far IT HAS BEEN DEAD ON. MAPS passed by the slimmest of margins, and until late into the development, had detractors saying the same types of things that you and others are now saying, and they were dead wrong. Sorry.

MAPS and the Oklahoma City renaissance have now made international waves, and I personally have hosted people from many other states, in fact, other countries who have been stunned by what was accomplished here, and what we still hope to accomplish. Many of them hope to copy much of what we've done here. Actually, replicating this success has become a cottage industry for a number of consultants.

I applaud what OKC has done to make it a cool and fun town. In fact, me and Mrs Homey are spendng our upcoming 26th anniversary weekend in the newly renovated Skirvin Hotel in your fair city and will doubtless spend money downtown. That said, my feelings on this are simple. If OKC wants an NBA franchise and the "glory" that comes from having it named the "OKC Whatevers," then OKC Citians need to pay the freight bill, and leave the rest of the state out of it.

So we're just going to stick to our pathetic little misguided gameplan, despite your (I'm sure) well-intentioned warnings to do otherwise.

BigRedJed
4/17/2008, 08:36 AM
Well, you're apparently STILL not reading what I'm writing. The Quality Jobs act rebates to the team will be revenue neutral TO THE STATE, AT WORST. The rebates paid will be directly covered by the income tax paid by team employees, and CAPPED at the amount listed. Should the payroll exceed that amount, Oklahoma keeps the difference. This is likely to happen eventually.

But beyond that, the STATE sales taxes generated in Oklahoma City on game nights will almost certainly increase over what they would have without a team. I know you suggest this might not be the case, or that sales tax dollars spent related to a game are just replacing tax dollars that would otherwise be spent elsewhere, but I disagree with that assertion. If nothing else, we will capture Okie dollars that might otherwise go to NBA games and other entertainment options in Dallas and elsewhere, and some new, out-of-state dollars coming to OKC (a substantial number of Wichita, Amarillo and Wichita Falls NBA fans came to Hornets games too -- I talked to them).

What is beyond dispute, however, is that NBA players and team staffers, most with high-paying jobs, NEW jobs to the Oklahoma economy, will be spending money on goods and services in our state, putting Oklahomans to work, and putting yet MORE sales taxes into the state coffers.

So when I say it is revenue neutral, I mean, AT WORST it won't cost Oklahoma any money that the team isn't directly replacing (dollar for dollar) in income tax, income tax that doesn't come if they do not. The reality is that it will make Oklahoma a bit wealthier, it just won't capture ALL of the taxes that YOU'RE itching for it to.

Regarding how it benefits other cities, I already mentioned that rural legislators specifically added an amemdment that lays claim to all of the sales tax directly related to the game. Everybody is lining up at the feed trough on this one.

And BTW, the Oklahoma Quality Jobs Program tips its hand with its name; this is typically not about bringing large numbers of unskilled jobs to Oklahoma, it specifically targets highly compensated professionals, though the rules have been stretched to accomodate some call center and other jobs.

But I guess the biggest problem I have is why you are suddenly hot and bothered about a program that has existed for over a decade, and has extended these same benefits (cash payments to rich guys equal to the income taxes paid by their employees) over 500 times before this week. Is it because it is the NBA? Is it because it mostly benefits Oklahoma City? Have you not really thought your motivation through? I understand and respect someone who is just fundamentally opposed to tax cuts or rebates for business, but I don't think that describes you.

Homey, your aggravation to me reeks of class envy (I expected better of you), plus resentment that Oklahoma City is receiving the bulk of the benefit (about what I expected).

Okla-homey
4/17/2008, 08:46 AM
Homey, your aggravation to me reeks of class envy (I expected better of you), plus resentment that Oklahoma City is receiving the bulk of the benefit (about what I expected).

I'm not a fan of corporate welfare, especially for ventures of this nature. Just because several other entities have benefitted from this shady stuff doesn't make it right. Look, I'm pretty libertarian in my leanings. I say let the team sink or swim on its own merits. I don't approve of greasing business to come here by giving them sweetheart tax abatements. Instead, how about lowering everyone's state tax liability, not just fat cats. That way, everyone will have more money to spend, thus stoking the economy in the finest traditions of trickle-down economics which is a theory of which I generally approve.

And for the record, I have beleived for years that our state tax code is bad for business. Its probably why we have so little manufacturing in this state despite a large, reasonably well educated workforce and the fact we're a right-to-work state.

Also, all I'm saying is if OKC wants to have naming rights, they need to pony up and leave the rest of the state out of it. The state tax gift dealio is the straw that broke this camels back.

BigRedJed
4/17/2008, 08:55 AM
Well first of all, you'll likely get your wish of no "City" in the name. I'm just saying it's wrong.

And secondly, Oklahoma City HAS ponied up. Far, far more than the state has agreed to. Like I've said, I think people who haven't lived in OKC during the MAPS era don't really grasp what it took to get here, and think this has just landed in our lap. But if you really want me to detail the billion+ dollars that got us to this point, and the hundreds of millions that the OKC taxpayers and business community have spent directly related to securing this team, I will.

Scott D
4/17/2008, 09:08 AM
...and Green Bay Wisconsin. And America's most dysfunctional city, Detroit. Methinks you overrestimate a smidge the relative significance of having an major league franchise in town in the mind of most Americans. Portland is known for, what? cement? Cleveland is still a punchline, despite the fact it has the Indians, Cavs and Browns


What purpose does this statement have? And why the hell would you think that Detroit is the most dysfunctional city in the country?

OU Adonis
4/17/2008, 09:55 PM
It seems that some people have problems with people in basketball trunks making a lot of money, but if they were in suites it would be ok.

And trust me, Cleveland, Detriot and Portland have A LOT more PR than OKC does. The ONLY thing OKC is known for is the bombing. If we didn't have the bombing the people outside of Oklahoma would be totally clueless about the city.

Frozen Sooner
4/17/2008, 10:02 PM
True story-when OU was sending me love notes trying to get me to come to Norman, I'd never heard of Oklahoma City before. When they told me that my flight would be landing there, I honestly thought "Dang, there's an Oklahoma City?" I thought Tulsa was the capitol.

Sorry, guys. Geography classes here usually consist of "Eh. They're all roughly that way" with a gesture southwesterly.

silverwheels
4/17/2008, 10:24 PM
Sorry, guys. Geography classes here usually consist of "Eh. They're all roughly that way" with a gesture southwesterly.

So we're out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean? :D

BigRedJed
4/18/2008, 05:58 AM
True story-when OU was sending me love notes trying to get me to come to Norman, I'd never heard of Oklahoma City before. When they told me that my flight would be landing there, I honestly thought "Dang, there's an Oklahoma City?" I thought Tulsa was the capitol.

Sorry, guys. Geography classes here usually consist of "Eh. They're all roughly that way" with a gesture southwesterly.
Thanks for making my point, Froze. People who think everybody knows about Oklahoma... ...live in Oklahoma.

And I hope you meant southEASTerly, or I'm suddenly REALLY concerned about the state of public education in Alaska.

Okla-homey
4/18/2008, 06:10 AM
Well, not to worry. The team got its welfare payment from the entire state.

At least it looks like the pols involved are inclined to urge naming the team for the whole state that gave it the gift.

This from this morning's World:


Governor signs bill to lure SuperSonic boom

By MICK HINTON World Capitol Bureau
4/18/2008

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Gov. Brad Henry signed a tax-incentive bill Thursday to attract the Seattle SuperSonics to Oklahoma City.

"This legislation brings us one step closer to landing an NBA franchise and further confirms that Oklahoma is truly a big-league state," Henry said.

The House on Thursday voted 67-32 for Senate Bill 1819, which contains a $60 million tax-incentive package over 15 years. [like I said, someone please remind the OEA of this the next time they come hand wringing for more money for edukashun.]

The Legislature wanted to complete the deal before the National Basketball Association's Board of Governors meets Friday about moving the team from Seattle to Oklahoma City.

House Speaker Chris Benge, R-Tulsa, said, "This puts our state at a different level, to interact with different people" across the country.

Benge spoke three times on the House floor Thursday to defend the push to give the tax incentives to the SuperSonics organization. The money won't go to individual players. [riiiiight Chris.]

During floor debate, some opponents talked about corporate welfare, with millions of dollars being given to rich businessmen.

Rep. John Wright, R-Broken Arrow, said some private individuals are angry about the issue. The tax exemptions mean that the team would not be paying its share for such things as heating assistance for the poor and other programs that other taxpayers have to fund, he said.

Rep. Dave Dank, R-Oklahoma City, said the owners are being called "millionaires and billionaires." "I prefer to call them proud Oklahomans willing to bring a major-league team to a minor-league city." [some folks call it a kaiser blade. I call it a slingblade]

Noting that the owners have put up $350 million to buy the team, he said, "There's a good chance this is a losing proposition for years to come." [yes, by all means, lets use public money to offset a bad business decision made by the guys who bought the franchise to bring it here. A-Maze-Ing.:rolleyes: ]

The bill would allow the SuperSonics to receive rebates on the taxes paid by players from opposing teams when they play in Oklahoma City.

BigRedJed
4/18/2008, 06:42 AM
Well, we've already debated this ad nauseum, so I'll leave most of your comments alone and let my previous posts stand. But the one thing that I haven't addressed is related to your last comment, regarding the "bad business decision." These guys are rich for a reason (well, a couple have family money): they know how to invest their money. I PROMISE you they could have invested their $350 million plus in something with a guaranteed return, and these days one far, far better than even the best case scenario on an NBA team.

Therefore, if they knowingly invest in a likely losing proposition there MUST be something else at work. Perhaps it is merely ego. But I will postulate that it is more altruism than anything else. These guys, for the most part the same people who each gave $1 million plus to the Hornets both years they were here -- just to support the idea of NBA hoops in OKC -- simply believe in their hearts that bringing a team here will take our city and our state to the next level. They believe in Oklahoma City and in Oklahoma, and are willing to put a significant portion of their wealth on the line (with not only an unlikely significant return but perhaps a significant annual loss) to bring US a better, more exciting, and more promising future, again for reasons I have previously stated.

I know you and I fundamentally disagree on this, but I for one don't think it's uncalled for for the taxpayers of this city and of this state to pull out all reasonable stops to help mitigate those potential losses and ensure we as a city and state are able to turn this opportunity into many more opportunities to come.

I for one say congratulations to the city and to the state for being visionary and proactive, and for creating a new future for ourselves, our children and grandchildren.

OUDoc
4/18/2008, 09:03 AM
Look, you guys can debate the details all you want. I just think it'll be cool to have our own NBA team, and it's worth a little coin to get them here. I'm not even an NBA fan and I can see this. Should public money be spent on this? Eh, maybe not, but since some of that money comes from me, and a majority of us feel like I do, what's the problem? There's a lot of programs I think are worthless that my tax dollars go into, it's about time something cool happened with some of that money. Getting an NBA team is definitely cool.

Mixer!
4/18/2008, 10:30 AM
My only concern is that if the energy sector comes crashing down again, OKC could lose the team. I wonder how far the price of a barrel would have to fall before the owners started sweating about the costs and looking for new local owners/investors before they consider selling the team. :pop:

rainiersooner
4/18/2008, 12:00 PM
Speaking as someone who is about to lose my beloved Sonics because of the inaction and dismissive and elitist attitude of SOME politicians in my state towards the role of sports in a community - I've heard the arguments before. Obviously, you've got to take care of education and health first...but once you've done that, you cannot underestimate the contribution and "value-add" of a professional sports franchise in a city. I think it's absolutely worth the money your politicians have wisely been securing for an NBA team. I just wish it wasn't at the expense of my team...but that's another story for another day.

Frozen Sooner
4/18/2008, 12:07 PM
It's quite obvious that the only two things that money can possibly be spent on is education or an NBA team.

Ever.

No other budget items ever have or ever will exist.

Okla-homey
4/18/2008, 12:19 PM
It's quite obvious that the only two things that money can possibly be spent on is education or an NBA team.

Ever.

No other budget items ever have or ever will exist.


and strippers. Don't forget strippers, And the Stipe family.;)

OUDoc
4/18/2008, 01:02 PM
and strippers. Don't forget strippers, And the Stipe family.;)
We could have had multi-million dollar strippers and we're getting Kevin Durant? :mad: :mad: :mad:

SoonerInKCMO
4/18/2008, 01:39 PM
Jed makes me want to move back to OKC.

I wonder if Chesapeake is hiring... I should check out their website.

Scott D
4/18/2008, 02:48 PM
Well, we've already debated this ad nauseum, so I'll leave most of your comments alone and let my previous posts stand. But the one thing that I haven't addressed is related to your last comment, regarding the "bad business decision." These guys are rich for a reason (well, a couple have family money): they know how to invest their money. I PROMISE you they could have invested their $350 million plus in something with a guaranteed return, and these days one far, far better than even the best case scenario on an NBA team.

Therefore, if they knowingly invest in a likely losing proposition there MUST be something else at work. Perhaps it is merely ego. But I will postulate that it is more altruism than anything else. These guys, for the most part the same people who each gave $1 million plus to the Hornets both years they were here -- just to support the idea of NBA hoops in OKC -- simply believe in their hearts that bringing a team here will take our city and our state to the next level. They believe in Oklahoma City and in Oklahoma, and are willing to put a significant portion of their wealth on the line (with not only an unlikely significant return but perhaps a significant annual loss) to bring US a better, more exciting, and more promising future, again for reasons I have previously stated.

I know you and I fundamentally disagree on this, but I for one don't think it's uncalled for for the taxpayers of this city and of this state to pull out all reasonable stops to help mitigate those potential losses and ensure we as a city and state are able to turn this opportunity into many more opportunities to come.

I for one say congratulations to the city and to the state for being visionary and proactive, and for creating a new future for ourselves, our children and grandchildren.

I've decided that Homey's hidden agenda is that he spent too much of his life in South Carolina and Alabama. Two states that don't have any major league level professional teams in any sport. ;)

I'd also like to counter that whole bad business move nonsense. For the most part very successful at the time franchises are not for sale, therefore one that isn't getting a great deal of community support and is losing money is going to be the one for sale. Also, having a pro franchise brings money into the community from players being relatively local to the area and spending their money there to visiting teams bringing money in via fans and players/staff.

I certainly don't hear people griping about how terrible San Antonio has things with their singular major league pro franchise.

reevie
4/18/2008, 05:04 PM
The Mayor just said on KOCO that the team name will be Oklahoma City XXXX. Maybe the Oklahoma City Sonics.

BigRedJed
4/18/2008, 06:04 PM
Good. Hope everybody stays on board with that view.

As for whether it stays "Sonics," that's entirely up to Seattle at this point. They can pull in their claws, go quietly into the night, get a MASSIVE cash settlement, and I predict they will soon (in relative terms) once again have a team there known as the Seattle Supersonics.

Or, they can try to keep it tied up in court, continue their strategy of bleeding the ownership, be generally mean, uncooperative and vindictive as they have for nearly two years, with regrettable result. If they choose that path, there will never again be a team there known as the Sonics, and the team might STILL be named something else when they get here.

hurricane'bone
4/18/2008, 09:06 PM
I just want to apply for a job.

PDXsooner
4/20/2008, 08:49 AM
actually, seattle people as a whole really don't care, hence the reason they voted against funding a new arena, and for the most part the people of seattle are fairly apathetic towards the sonics.

what you're hearing now is the vocal minority.

BigRedJed
4/20/2008, 03:39 PM
I think the number of people who are active fans of a team in a given city are typically a minority anyway.

In Seattle it was exacerbated by a few years of mediocre to poor on-the-court performance, and expecially by taxpayer-funded building fatigue. They have been hit hard by pro team facilities needs/requests in the past few years, and were simply tired of feeling held hostage. Unfortunately for them, this led to more or less cutting off their collective noses to spite their collective faces.

They passed citizen initiatives to limit the options politicians had to fund sports facilities, and politicos, who are always good at voting which way the wind blows, knew they would get on the public's bad side by openly advocating taxpayer-involved arena funding. Washington, BTW, is actually a very populist state, and it showed during this process.

The fundamental difference between Oklahoma City's and Seattle's (or really any other city's) ability to provide facilities is the magic of the MAPS program. We already had a decent arena (extremely basic, but great bones) with absolutely no debt service (no other city in the league has this advantage), and were able to fund an arena improvement using the same innovative mechanism, which will again leave us with a debt-free facility.

See, despite how straightforward the penny sales tax, save-and-then-spend funding mechanism seems, pretty much no city in America has ever used it, at least on the MAPS scale.

Selling bonds to build a facility like that (the typical way of doing it) saddles the commnity with debt for years or in fact decades, cripples their ability to build more infrastructure (by consuming their bonding capacity), and drives up the overall cost of the project. Think about the difference between the purchase price of your house and the price you actually pay over the life of your 30 year mortgage (usually far more than double).

An example: when Oklahoma City built the Myriad (now the Cox Center) in the early seventies using traditional funding (bonds), they committed a large portion of their bond capacity to the project. The building cost around $20 million, if I remember right. The city paid debt service on that building until well into the 1990s, just before constuction began on the Ford Center. The Ford Center's nearly $200 million combined building and renovation costs (this excludes the $25 million estimated cost for an unattached NBA practice facility, also paid for by the recent extension) will have been fully funded with only about 2 1/2 years of a penny sales tax (original MAPS/Finish MAPS Right, plus the recent Big League City extension).

The fact that the Sonics are still contractually saddled with debt payments they agreed to help fund for the 1990s remodel of Seattle's even then hopelessly out-of-date (from a modern league revenue standpoint) Key Arena is a large part of what is crippling the team today. The city and the team are both still absorbing huge remodel costs from more than 10 years ago, and it renders the team grossly unprofitable.

All of that gives a huge competetive advantage to our city when they do something like try to lure an NBA team, because they/we don't have to service debt, interest payments and the like. It saved literally many tens if not hundreds of millions in the overall cost of the building project, something that everyone from national sports analysts to Seattle politicians and reporters failed to account for when they dismissed OKC as a less attractive market than Seattle. Other cities still don't get the lessons we learned with MAPS, and we're still using it to our advantage in many fields; this just being the latest example.

BudSooner
4/20/2008, 09:17 PM
Scott, don't forget the Carolina Panthers.
Notice the lack of "North" in the name, the team is located in Charlotte.
After all, the fighting Spartanburgs would sound rather silly.

;)

reevie
4/20/2008, 09:21 PM
The Panters did play their first year or two at Clemson. Playing in South Carolina was a factor in dropping the North.

Ash
4/20/2008, 10:32 PM
We should call them the Oklahoma City Old Horizontals considering how the city has whored themselves (and us) like a $2 hooker to get them here.

Gandalf_The_Grey
4/21/2008, 04:26 AM
They should call them the Oklahoma City Dumbasses to represent the people who are against better business.

Scott D
4/21/2008, 05:22 AM
Scott, don't forget the Carolina Panthers.
Notice the lack of "North" in the name, the team is located in Charlotte.
After all, the fighting Spartanburgs would sound rather silly.

;)

Eh, what Reevie said. The Panthers played in South Carolina (at Clemson I believe) while their stadium was being finished in North Carolina. Same with the Tennessee Titans, they played early on in Memphis and Vanderbilt while they waited for the stadium in Nashville to be built. :)

Ash
4/21/2008, 11:29 AM
They should call them the Oklahoma City Dumbasses to represent the people who are against better business.

Oklahoma City Redasses for the people that are so dang touchy about this topic.

No, no, no, we can't poke fun at the silliness surrounding an NBA team. It's a very, very serious topic. :rolleyes:

Dio
4/21/2008, 11:38 AM
How about the OKC Boarded-Up Skirvins, Ash?

Dio
4/21/2008, 11:39 AM
Or the OKC Playing AAA Baseball In A Parking Lots?

Dio
4/21/2008, 11:40 AM
Or the OKC Fill In The Canal-We Liked The Dusty Alley That Used To Be There's?

Dio
4/21/2008, 11:41 AM
Or The OKC What Happened To That Ugly Empty Lot Next To The UHaul Building's?

Dio
4/21/2008, 11:42 AM
Or the OKC Incomparable Myriads?

Dio
4/21/2008, 11:43 AM
Or The OKC Big Empty Hostess Factory Full Of Pigeons And Bums?

Dio
4/21/2008, 11:44 AM
Or the OKC What Do We Want To Do Tonight- Spaghetti Warehouse or O'Briens?

BigRedJed
4/21/2008, 11:44 AM
That canal cost taxpayers $23 million, and from what I've heard, the city has only made a few hundred thousand from the boat rides in nearly 10 years. If that's not a waste of taxpayer dollars, I don't know what is. I agree. Fill it in.

And that $20 million downtown library? Did you know that they actually LOAN books to people for FREE? How the hell is THAT going to pay for itself? I say run those scoundrel city council members out of town on a rail.

Dio
4/21/2008, 12:04 PM
Just make sure it's not a light rail.

BigRedJed
4/21/2008, 12:07 PM
Good lord. That would be terrible.

yermom
4/21/2008, 12:09 PM
That canal cost taxpayers $23 million, and from what I've heard, the city has only made a few hundred thousand from the boat rides in nearly 10 years. If that's not a waste of taxpayer dollars, I don't know what is. I agree. Fill it in.

And that $20 million downtown library? Did you know that they actually LOAN books to people for FREE? How the hell is THAT going to pay for itself? I say run those scoundrel city council members out of town on a rail.

what a bunch of crap, they really don't know how to use our tax money do they?

actually, some more for higher ed would be nice

Ash
4/21/2008, 12:09 PM
The Oklahoma City Panacea

Gandalf_The_Grey
4/21/2008, 12:10 PM
We should call them the Oklahoma City Old Horizontals considering how the city has whored themselves (and us) like a $2 hooker to get them here.


Oklahoma City Redasses for the people that are so dang touchy about this topic.

No, no, no, we can't poke fun at the silliness surrounding an NBA team. It's a very, very serious topic. :rolleyes:

It seems like you are pretty "touchy" about this topic....

Ash
4/21/2008, 01:01 PM
It seems like you are pretty "touchy" about this topic....

Of course I am. The NBA is a very, very serious subject. No joking allowed. Just name calling and very long treatises by Big Red Jed.

Gandalf_The_Grey
4/21/2008, 01:04 PM
If you don't like Big Red Jed...ignore him..it is really simple ;)

Ash
4/21/2008, 01:08 PM
If you don't like Big Red Jed...ignore him..it is really simple ;)

I don't have any problem with Big Red Jed.

He's obviously very passionate about this subject. I don't fault him for that.

I just can't help but be amused at how serious an internet discussion of the NBA turned out.

:D

Mjcpr
4/21/2008, 01:12 PM
It's only the innernets!!11

BigRedJed
4/21/2008, 01:13 PM
"Namecalling?" Are you ****ing serious? I'll cop to the longwinded posting. No doubt about that. But if there is something I DON'T do often on this board, it's namecalling. Knock yourself out checking my 15,000 or whatever posts on this board; you'll be awfully hard-pressed to find me name-calling in an actual debate or when its directed in anger at someone.

I checked our posting from last night, and some other posts on this subject, and about the only namecalling I could find was YOU calling me "elitist," which frankly didn't bother me.

So when you talk about people "being touchy," you should look inward. Plus, you should ask yourself if I really namecalled anywhere in these posts, or if maybe you are trying to "win" an Internet debate with cheap, dishonest tactics and diversion. If you'd really like, I will call you a name. How about "little boy who cried wolf?"

Ash
4/21/2008, 01:21 PM
"Namecalling?" Are you ****ing serious? I'll cop to the longwinded posting. No doubt about that. But if there is something I DON'T do often on this board, it's namecalling. Knock yourself out checking my 15,000 or whatever posts on this board; you'll be awfully hard-pressed to find me name-calling in an actual debate or when its directed in anger at someone.

I checked our posting from last night, and some other posts on this subject, and about the only namecalling I could find was YOU calling me "elitist," which frankly didn't bother me.

So when you talk about people "being touchy," you should look inward. Plus, you should ask yourself if I really namecalled anywhere in these posts, or if maybe you are trying to "win" an Internet debate with cheap, dishonest tactics and diversion. If you'd really like, I will call you a name. How about "little boy who cried wolf?"

Relax. That reference wasn't aimed at you, although I guess it now applies.

And I didn't call you or anyone else an elitist. I was trying to make a point about one-sided arguments concerning the fact that the label had been thrown out there.

And the "treatise" remark was just me ribbing you.

As for touchy....exhibit A in quotes above. Exhibit B in quotes below.


I don't have any problem with Big Red Jed.

He's obviously very passionate about this subject. I don't fault him for that.

I just can't help but be amused at how serious an internet discussion of the NBA turned out.

BigRedJed
4/21/2008, 01:25 PM
Hey, I get touchy when someone wrongly accuses me of namecalling. That's one thing on this board that I take a really dim view of, and leads to lots of problems. People have lost their posting privileges on here for namecalling.

So when you flippantly accuse me of it, some people are bound to believe it actually happened, even without a cited example. That IS serious business, to me anyway.

BigRedJed
4/21/2008, 01:29 PM
"Relax. That reference wasn't aimed at you..."

That and smileys are the last refuge of someone who wants to stir the pot and incite on a message board and then back out of it unscathed. At least in my experience.

BlondeSoonerGirl
4/21/2008, 01:30 PM
I think it's kinda serious based on the fact that people just seem so unaware of things. Like when we voted - how many people did you hear/know of that said 'I don't care about basketball so I'm not voting for a basketball team'? They really had no idea what the vote meant, what they should consider before voting and what the ramifications were.

This is kinda the same. It's not as simple of having a priority list and making sure things like schools, roads, etc. are dealt with before any other priority NO MATTER WHAT, OMGDANGHELL!

:kelvin:

Now don't misunderstand me - I know those things are of the utmost importance and impact all of us in some way or another and need attention. They are at the top of the priority list for a reason and I think we all agree on that.

I'm just saying that if folks stop and see the bigger picture - the vision - they'd see that once we build our local economy and start doing things to make our city more viable in many, many ways they'd see that things like schools and roads would be fixed/improved and would benefit much more quickly. But you'd have to go to #4 on the priority list which makes it look like we don't care about 1, 2 or 3.

The longterm vision is very exciting. And as long as OKC keeps voting to give a few cents here and there and keeps things rolling we're gonna be sitting pretty.

I'm proud of us.

Mjcpr
4/21/2008, 01:31 PM
http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270911970_db35fdd4ca.jpg

BigRedJed
4/21/2008, 01:38 PM
Better, more vibrant city = more people living in it, and higher property values

More people and higher property values = more sales taxes collected and more ad valorem taxes collected.

More sales tax collected = better streets, more police and fire protection, better parks

More ad valorem tax collected = better schools

Better streets, public safety, parks and amenities + better schools = better, more vibrant community

Rinse, repeat.

Ash
4/21/2008, 01:40 PM
"Relax. That reference wasn't aimed at you..."

That and smileys are the last refuge of someone who wants to stir the pot and incite on a message board and then back out of it unscathed. At least in my experience.

I've explained myself as much as I care to. If you don't want to see it that way, nothing I can do.

Ash
4/21/2008, 01:40 PM
http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270911970_db35fdd4ca.jpg

:D

Gandalf_The_Grey
4/21/2008, 01:42 PM
If you say "vibrant" one more time, I am going to report you for name calling!!

BigRedJed
4/21/2008, 01:43 PM
The problem is that too many people take a micro rather than a macro view towards building a community. Leadership that truly wants to create a great city, or improve the one they have, has to pay attention to all aspects of life, varied interest and values sets. The only way to build a great community is to take a holistic approach.

BigRedJed
4/21/2008, 01:47 PM
I've explained myself as much as I care to. If you don't want to see it that way, nothing I can do.
Whatever. You're the one who openly and baselessly accused me of namecalling. Your credibility is waning.

Gandalf_The_Grey
4/21/2008, 01:50 PM
Personally I think we should tell the NBA to stick the Sonics up their *** and then take the money we will save and build golden brick school houses in the city!!!

Ash
4/21/2008, 03:00 PM
Whatever. You're the one who openly and baselessly accused me of namecalling. Your credibility is waning.

LOL

I see what the problem is.

Tough thing about the innerweb is that things get misunderstood if you don't word it just right.

I should have posted "...just namecalling. Or long treatises if you're BRJ."

Sincere apologies BRJ, FWIW. I really wasn't accusing you of namecalling. It did happen in this thread, though...or maybe it was the other very serious thread about the NBA. But anyway, that's what the "namecalling" ref was about. :cool:

In terms of credibility. This is one of the funniest concepts on innerweb boards considering people post under aliases, some of which are the names of fictional characters or body part euphemisms.

abc123pickle
4/21/2008, 10:26 PM
hey im a small time poster here and die hard sooner fan, just a little thing to pass the time during this kinda dead period, here is a free football simulation kinda game it is pretty cool and a new season is getting ready to start in a few days i believe, if ne one is interested heres the link, http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=7197806

Ash
4/21/2008, 10:31 PM
A spammer. LMAO. Well, now this thread has it all. ^^^^^

abc123pickle
4/21/2008, 10:33 PM
hey now, just thot id let u on to something to pass the time... o well its kinda fun and doesnt take up much time

BigRedJed
4/21/2008, 11:30 PM
Pickle, seriously, spam isn't cool here, and most would view that post as spam. I just checked your posting history, and it looks like you really have made legit posts in the past, so I'm going to chalk it up to you learning your way around here and just suggest you go back and edit out your half dozen or so posts where you were posting links to that site. That way somebody else won't come along and give you the red spammer card of death, which is a permanent vacation.

Frozen Sooner
4/21/2008, 11:31 PM
Too late. abc123pickle is now abc123relish.

BigRedJed
4/21/2008, 11:37 PM
LOL

I see what the problem is.

Tough thing about the innerweb is that things get misunderstood if you don't word it just right.

I should have posted "...just namecalling. Or long treatises if you're BRJ."

Sincere apologies BRJ, FWIW. I really wasn't accusing you of namecalling. It did happen in this thread, though...or maybe it was the other very serious thread about the NBA. But anyway, that's what the "namecalling" ref was about. :cool:

In terms of credibility. This is one of the funniest concepts on innerweb boards considering people post under aliases, some of which are the names of fictional characters or body part euphemisms.
It's cool, Ash. All I'd like to point out is related to the "credibility" issue. This isn't some board with a huge transient population. A lot of the people on here have been posting here for 5, 6, 7 years and beyond. A lot of us, by now, know each other personally, have read literally thousands of posts by each other, have been to tailgates and games, have hung out together, met for meals and drinks, have done business and even travelled together.

There is a place for "credibility" on this board that's not laughable or funny. I can name people on this board who I trust and believe in as much as or more than some of my "real-life" friends, or even some members of my own family.

BigRedJed
4/21/2008, 11:38 PM
See pickle? I wasn't kidding!!

BigRedJed
4/21/2008, 11:40 PM
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/pkt/img/ar13.jpg

Ash
4/22/2008, 12:06 AM
It's cool, Ash. All I'd like to point out is related to the "credibility" issue. This isn't some board with a huge transient population. A lot of the people on here have been posting here for 5, 6, 7 years and beyond. A lot of us, by now, know each other personally, have read literally thousands of posts by each other, have been to tailgates and games, have hung out together, met for meals and drinks, have done business and even travelled together.

There is a place for "credibility" on this board that's not laughable or funny. I can name people on this board who I trust and believe in as much as or more than some of my "real-life" friends, or even some members of my own family.

I understand that. I also understand that I'm not part of that club. All I'm trying to do is lighten it up a bit in my own twisted way.

The NBA is a good thing for OKC. But it's not nearly as serious, IMHO, as this thread has gotten. There are much more important things in life than sports.

Gandalf_The_Grey
4/22/2008, 03:24 AM
More important things in life than sports.....bane him!!

Dio
4/22/2008, 07:05 AM
There are much more important things in life than sports.

Now that's just crazy talk.

;)

Theskipster
4/23/2008, 08:58 AM
Schultz has officially filed. He also claims to have an email dated two days before the sale from Bennett to his co-owners where Bennett claims that if the Arena deal actually goes through, they will just perform a "sweet flip" and still be in a really good position to bring a team to Oklahoma City.

The actual complaint:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2008/04/22/2004366926.pdf

BigRedJed
4/23/2008, 09:14 AM
...Bennett claims that if the Arena deal actually goes through, they will just perform a "sweet flip" and still be in a really good position to bring a team to Oklahoma City...
Well whaddya know. Pretty much EXACTLY what I've been saying on this board since 2006. And making a "sweet flip" doesn't equal bad faith in buying the team. It means they were working to get an arena deal done, stabilize the Sonics' position in Seattle, turn a profit, and be in great position to buy a beleagered Hornets team or other squad.

Sounds like good business, not bad intentions.

Theskipster
4/23/2008, 09:42 AM
Well whaddya know. Pretty much EXACTLY what I've been saying on this board since 2006. And making a "sweet flip" doesn't equal bad faith in buying the team. It means they were working to get an arena deal done, stabilize the Sonics' position in Seattle, turn a profit, and be in great position to buy a beleagered Hornets team or other squad.

Sounds like good business, not bad intentions.

It's still really sleazy to flat out lie and intentionally misrepresent yourself in order to obtain something you could not get otherwise, no matter how good business it is.

The big problem for Bennett is that there is enough evidence now for a decent chance to get a preliminary injunction against all actions that could hinder the courts ability to grant the relief requested.

BigRedJed
4/23/2008, 10:01 AM
It's still really sleazy to flat out lie and intentionally misrepresent yourself in order to obtain something you could not get otherwise, no matter how good business it is.

The big problem for Bennett is that there is enough evidence now for a decent chance to get a preliminary injunction against all actions that could hinder the courts ability to grant the relief requested.
How is it sleazy? Schultz and Bennett BOTH recognized that Bennett could use OKC as a "hammer" to get an arena deal done. Schultz had been trying to no avail for several seasons. He was giving up, and bleeding profusely. He found guys who agreed to leverage their city to get a deal done and stabilize the team in Seattle. That's it. Clay agreed to try, and did. The fact that he intended to flip the team for a profit if a building deal emerged is irrelevant. He tried to perform, and was only hampered by the absolute refusal to cooperate on the part of the City of Seattle and State of Washington.

Schultz stood on a podium with Clay the day of the purchase, and listened with a smile on his face while Clay told Seattle that they needed a new building deal within a year or the team was going bye-bye.

What would have been sleazy and possibly would have given Schultz some traction in his case would have been to uncover e-mails where Clay said "**** 'em. Even if we get an arena deal, we're gonna move to OKC." Buying a struggling business with plans to fix it and then sell it for a profit is not sleazy; it's good business. It's pretty cut and dried, if you ask me.

BigRedJed
4/23/2008, 10:06 AM
And again, there is literally NO EVIDENCE that Clay "flat out lied" or "intentionally represented himself."

yermom
4/23/2008, 10:09 AM
still, if he spent the same type of energy to get them to stay in Seattle, vs getting a team in OKC, they might be staying there

i'm not saying they have a case, but the motivations aren't really the same

BigRedJed
4/23/2008, 10:18 AM
Dude, he spent millions of dollars on the effort to stay there, at least he says he did. I don't disbelieve him. If you read my earlier posts on this matter and actually listen to how I lay it out, he and his group would make a couple hundred million dollars extra profit by getting a building deal done in Seattle, flipping the team, and buying a bankrupt Hornets team (which was the clear assumption in 2006).

He spent a lot of time, money and effort in Seattle, and basically came back with a big "**** you" every time. They were completely arrogant, and thought there was NO chance he would leave Seattle for OKC. They were negotiating from a position of imagined strength.

I think it's unfair to say Clay didn't try to get them to stay in Seattle; he gave it every effort, especially early. Ultimately, he got tired of being cast as a villain (they have fought unfairly during this entire process), saw the handwriting on the wall that they were not going to play along, and started making contingency plans to come to OKC. Who can blame him for that?

yermom
4/23/2008, 10:23 AM
i'm not blaming anyone, but if he was from Seattle, it would likely be a bit different. as it is, it works out for us, i guess they want a do-over or something

if the former owner really gave a ****, i don't see why he would sell to them in the first place

Dio
4/23/2008, 10:54 AM
What's worse, being a "liar" or an indian-giver?

Theskipster
4/23/2008, 11:01 AM
And again, there is literally NO EVIDENCE that Clay "flat out lied" or "intentionally represented himself."



The Oklahoma City group told BCOS at the time it purchased the team that "it is our desire to have the Sonics and the Storm continue their existence in the Greater Seattle Area and it is not our intention to move or relocate the
team."


On July 18,2006, as requested as a part of the sale, Bennett wrote a side letter

on the stationary of defendant The Professional Basketball Club, LLC, Mr. Bennett wrote to Mr. Schultz that "it is our desire to have the Sonics and the Storm continue their existence in the Greater Seattle Area," and specifically denied any "intention to move or relocate" the Sonics if the group could negotiate a lease arrangement.





a. In an email written by Clay Bennett just two days before the sale, Mr.
Bennett confided to his co-owners that he was comfortable with the Purchase Agreement's good faith provision because, in the event a Seattle arena deal could be negotiated, the Oklahoma City group could simply sell the team in a "sweet flip," and leave Seattle, and the Oklahoma City group "would still be in good shape for something in OKC."


It was their intention to move the team to Oklahoma City or sell it if the arena deal actually went through, you know it and I know it. And now there is an email that is pretty indisputable unlike the earlier emails.

He gave every effort and spent the money because he had to try as a condition of the sale, not because he wanted to keep the team in Seattle. He was willing to give it a full effort because there was a really good chance it would fail and he knew it was the only way to keep the team.

He completely fulfilled the good faith part, but that doesn't mean he didn't lie and completely misrepresent himself about what he really wanted to do with the team.

Dio
4/23/2008, 12:05 PM
He completely fulfilled the good faith part, but that doesn't mean he didn't lie and completely misrepresent himself about what he really wanted to do with the team.

What part of the side agreement binds Bennett to keep the team if Seattle had built a new arena? How long is he required to keep it? Bennett owning the team and the team staying in Seattle are 2 different things. If Bennett gets the arena deal done, then sells for a profit, does Schultz then have a right to a share of Bennett's profit?

Theskipster
4/23/2008, 12:34 PM
What part of the side agreement binds Bennett to keep the team if Seattle had built a new arena? How long is he required to keep it? Bennett owning the team and the team staying in Seattle are 2 different things. If Bennett gets the arena deal done, then sells for a profit, does Schultz then have a right to a share of Bennett's profit?

There is nothing in the side agreement that keeps Bennett from doing just that.

The side agreement basically says that Bennett must make a good faith effort to secure an arena before moving the team and Bennett also needed to reaffirm his desire to keep the team in Seattle.

That's why the Schultz case was a giant long shot before this last email showing that Bennett was not being honest with the former owners about his intentions. Bennett did make a good faith effort and he can show it. However, he cannot claim that his primary desire was to own a team in Seattle.

Schultz's suit will most likely fail in the end because the good faith effort is the main key to the sale. But the last email showing that Bennett was not being honest with Schultz about his intentions gives his case enough credibility for a judge to consider a preliminary injunction against moving or selling the team while the trial continues which would be a very significant blow to Bennett's plan.

NormanPride
4/23/2008, 12:36 PM
Why did these emails surprise people? Why is this still an issue?

Cam
4/23/2008, 01:55 PM
Schultz is only trying, in vain, to save face in Seattle. At the end of all of this, he'll be able to throw his hands up in the air and say "I tried". It's complete BS. He knew all along that OKC was going to be used for leverage to get a new arena in Seattle.

Seriously, how long doe it take to decide on a new stadium proposal? This issue has been going on far longer than Clay and Co have owned the team. It's funny how the selective memory of people is on this.

BigRedJed
4/23/2008, 05:46 PM
...It was their intention to move the team to Oklahoma City or sell it if the arena deal actually went through, you know it and I know it. And now there is an email that is pretty indisputable unlike the earlier emails...
Dude, read my freaking posts before trying to take me to task. I have never disputed either of your statements quoted above, in fact I have said for nearly two years that I believed this was the intention of the owners. I would however reverse the order of the intentions, at least in Clay's case.

The part that I made bold is the magical phrase that precludes this from being bad faith on his part. If he gets the arena deal done, they have stabilized the franchise in Seattle. At that point, he is free to sell the team to someone, provided the team stays in Seattle, and he has fulfilled the letter and the spirit of his agreement with Schultz.

In fact, I would go so far as speculating that there was a gentleman's agreement between Clay and Schultz to sell back to Schultz or bring him and/or other local owners into the group after the arena deal was done. This would have likely turned into a complete buyout at an acceptable markup, which would be justified by the team's strengthened position of having a new building and being relieved of the burdensome Key Arena lease.

Everybody conveniently forgets that Schultz had been trying to get a deal done there for a long time, was losing millions per season, and was vilified there nearly as much as Clay is now. People HATED him for asking for a new building, and/or a reworking of the Key lease.

And of course, Schultz knew about option B (moving to OKC if no arena deal emerged), because HE WAS ONE OF THE ARCHITECTS OF THAT LEVERAGE. HE EVEN SAID THAT HE SOLD THE TEAM TO MAKE THE THREAT OF LEAVING REAL, since his Seattle ties made the relocation threat less believable, in hopes of getting Seattle off of their asses. Like I said before, he stood on the podium and WATCHED Clay promise to leave Seattle if no arena deal emerged.

There is no shadyness there. NONE. Clay and his boys never promised to own that team for the rest of their lives. Again, buying a failing business, turning it around and then flipping it for a profit is NOT shady, and in my opinion, that was originally option A. Of course, I think they were also very comfortable with option B (moving to OKC), if it came to that, and you are seeing the results of that now.

Dio
4/23/2008, 05:52 PM
There is nothing in the side agreement that keeps Bennett from doing just that.

So why are you acting like the "sweet flip" email is the gunman on the grassy knoll?

birddog
4/23/2008, 07:42 PM
seattle dropped the ball. bennett made an effort to get an arena deal done.

local ownership sold the team because they couldn't get a deal done and now they feel like they've been stabbed in the back by a group of owners that couldn't find a solution either?

they should have never sold the team to an owner in a prospering city that just housed the hornets with great success. if they couldn't see that coming a mile away, they don't deserve a team.

BigRedJed
4/23/2008, 08:19 PM
Man, I need to learn posting economy from bdbbq. Excellent post.

Scott D
4/23/2008, 09:16 PM
eh I don't know, seems the burden of proof is on Schultz to prove that Bennett intended all along to move the Sonics. If Bennett's team can put doubt on that even if it's by proving that he tried for a deal to make the Sonics viable in Seattle and sell them to someone else in the Seattle area, then the decision should end up in his favor.

At this point I still lean more towards Schultz just doing this to save face for his terrible coffee empire.

Soonerus
4/23/2008, 10:06 PM
Schultz has no chance...a very weak effort to save face in the Seattle area...

Theskipster
4/24/2008, 07:40 AM
So why are you acting like the "sweet flip" email is the gunman on the grassy knoll?

Gunman as in this email will keep the Sonics from coming to OKC? No.
Gunman as in this email is the first one that shows Bennett's true intentions and can't be explained away? Yes.

Bennett claimed over and over before he bought the team that his desire was to keep the franchise in Seattle. And if he had to go to Oklahoma City he would, but that wasn't his first choice.

The email clearly lays out that that his desire is getting a team to Oklahoma City, NOT keeping the franchise in Seattle.

Here is why I am saying the email is significant.

1. Clay Bennett said things he knew to be false in order to manipulate people. The email along with his public statements show that. I call that lying. I think lying is wrong and sleazy.

2. The email is enough to show that Clay Bennett falsely represented his intentions and because of the email the judge has a reason to consider a preliminary injunction.

The judge really didn't have anything to grant a preliminary injunction before this email that Clay couldn't have had easily dismissed. I don't believe Schultz will come close to winning the case because Bennett fulfilled the letter and spirit of the contract. But Schultz doesn't have to. A preliminary injunction can severely hurt Bennett and is almost as good a win for Schultz in terms of his end goal Not be considered a villain in Seattle anymore.




Dude, read my freaking posts before trying to take me to task. I have never disputed either of your statements quoted above, in fact I have said for nearly two years that I believed this was the intention of the owners. I would however reverse the order of the intentions, at least in Clay's case.

....

Again, buying a failing business, turning it around and then flipping it for a profit is NOT shady, and in my opinion, that was originally option A.


The email clearly says otherwise.

I should also make it clear that I really want an NBA team in OKC. I'll be very happy the day it is announced that the Sonics are coming to Oklahoma City.

BigRedJed
4/24/2008, 08:28 AM
...I don't believe Schultz will come close to winning the case because Bennett fulfilled the letter and spirit of the contract...
See, that statement disproves every other point you're attempting to make. Clay did not lie at any point. The closest I have seen to dishonesty out of him was in apparently telling Stern that he and his partners had NEVER spoken about moving to OKC. It was unneccessary to say this (clearly not true since OKC had already been publicly discussed as a relocation option; they would have been silly not to at least discuss it). Not only was it unneccessary, I'm sure Stern didn't believe it when it came out of his mouth. He knows better.

But, back to his dealings with Schultz; Clay didn't mislead anybody. He told Schultz and everybody else that he intended to right the ship, get an arena deal, and ensure the franchise's long-term future in Seattle. He declined to tell everyone that should he accomplish this he ultimately planned to sell the team for a profit because it was irrelevant and frankly nobody's business. Barring a new arena deal, he said, he would move the team to a city that wanted one.

Nowhere - NOWHERE - in that paragraph, which is clearly what he stated to everybody, is there a lie, a misrepresentation. or even a half-truth. He has performed PRECISELY the way in which he told everyone that he would.

Dio
4/24/2008, 11:13 AM
Gunman as in this email will keep the Sonics from coming to OKC? No.
Gunman as in this email is the first one that shows Bennett's true intentions and can't be explained away? Yes.

Bennett claimed over and over before he bought the team that his desire was to keep the franchise in Seattle. And if he had to go to Oklahoma City he would, but that wasn't his first choice.

The email clearly lays out that that his desire is getting a team to Oklahoma City, NOT keeping the franchise in Seattle.

Here is why I am saying the email is significant.

1. Clay Bennett said things he knew to be false in order to manipulate people. The email along with his public statements show that. I call that lying. I think lying is wrong and sleazy.

2. The email is enough to show that Clay Bennett falsely represented his intentions and because of the email the judge has a reason to consider a preliminary injunction.

The judge really didn't have anything to grant a preliminary injunction before this email that Clay couldn't have had easily dismissed. I don't believe Schultz will come close to winning the case because Bennett fulfilled the letter and spirit of the contract. But Schultz doesn't have to. A preliminary injunction can severely hurt Bennett and is almost as good a win for Schultz in terms of his end goal Not be considered a villain in Seattle anymore.




The email clearly says otherwise.

I should also make it clear that I really want an NBA team in OKC. I'll be very happy the day it is announced that the Sonics are coming to Oklahoma City.

So are you saying you believe Bennett would have brought the Sonics to OKC EVEN IF Seattle built a new arena? Because that's the deal- people can **** all over Clay about his "intentions", but from day one the deal was "Seattle, you have a year to build an arena, and we'll keep the team here." SEATTLE never stepped up and did it. So in my mind, it really doesn't matter that Clay had a plan B all along, because SEATTLE never lived up to the conditions Schultz agreed to for Plan A. Period. Now Schultz wants to **** and moan like Clay kicked sand in his vagina? Bull****.

BigRedJed
4/24/2008, 12:42 PM
You hit the nail on the head, Dio. The only way Clay misrepresented himself is if they only planned to bring the team to OKC, even if an arena deal emerged. Plans to ultimately re-sell the team after performing (securing an arena deal and a longterm lease), if Seattle allowed them to perform, are immaterial.

BigRedJed
4/24/2008, 12:48 PM
That's why Aubrey's comments of last year were more damaging than any of these e-mails. I suspect that all along he basically just wanted and wanted to dispense with all of the bull****. Unfortunately, that would have constituted a breach, and Clay knew it.

Not to mention that Clay was probably more interested in the profit potential of staying in Seattle than Aubrey was. Not that Clay needs money, but there is a world of difference in the net worth of both men.

Theskipster
4/24/2008, 12:49 PM
Here is what I am saying.

Clay said that he wanted to keep the team in Seattle. Clay did not actually want to keep the team in Seattle. This is a lie. Lies are bad.

Dio
4/24/2008, 12:55 PM
Here is what I am saying.

Clay said that he wanted to keep the team in Seattle. Clay did not actually want to keep the team in Seattle. This is a lie. Lies are bad.

And all I am saying is: We'll never know if he was lying or not, because condition #1 in this whole deal was a new arena, and that never happened. He would have left that team in Seattle if the city/state built the arena, and used his huge profits from the sale of the Sonics to get a different team for OKC.

BigRedJed
4/24/2008, 01:02 PM
Here is what I am saying.

Clay said that he wanted to keep the team in Seattle. Clay did not actually want to keep the team in Seattle. This is a lie. Lies are bad.
What I'm saying is, where is the proof that he did not actually want to keep the team in Seattle? Jeebus. IF THEY BUILD AN ARENA IN SEATTLE, THEY MAKE A "NICE FLIP." THE TEAM STAYS IN SEATTLE UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES! What is so difficult to understand about that???!?

It is most certainly NOT a lie. HOW IN THE HELL IS IT A LIE??!!? It's not even a shaded truth.

BigRedJed
4/24/2008, 01:05 PM
And all I am saying is: We'll never know if he was lying or not, because condition #1 in this whole deal was a new arena, and that never happened. He would have left that team in Seattle if the city/state built the arena, and used his huge profits from the sale of the Sonics to get a different team for OKC.
And I would say that based on the e-mail that was EXACTLY what he intended to do. At the very least, the first part of it, meaning new arena = team stays in Seattle and Clay & Co. then sell for huge profit. It's a very, very simple and basic business transaction, and it is not dishonest, immoral, or "bad."

BigRedJed
4/24/2008, 01:08 PM
If anything, the e-mail proves that he actually was willing to keep the team in Seattle with a new arena, instead of only planning to move, as some have suggested. That e-mail actually PROVES good faith on his part.

Frozen Sooner
4/24/2008, 01:15 PM
The City of Seattle gave me a kidney once.

Theskipster
4/24/2008, 02:45 PM
Here is the lie. It really is simple.

What Bennet says: "I really want to keep the team in Seattle. If I can't then I will take the team to Oklahoma City"
What Bennet believes: "I really want to take the team to Oklahoma City. If I can't I will keep the team in Seattle and sell it."

Aubrey flat out said they bought the team to bring it to Oklahoma City.

Bennett told Aubrey and Ward before the sale that, the good faith agreement to try to get an arena isn't a problem. Because even if they do they will just sell the team and try again to get a team to Oklahoma.

Do you not understand that what Clay and the ownership group really wants and has always wanted is to get the team in Oklahoma City?

yermom
4/24/2008, 03:11 PM
it's to get A team to OKC

if the area thing went through, they'd sell. that's apparently been pretty upfront the whole time.

the good faith thing is that he tried. he tried enough to keep his side of the bargain.

Dio
4/24/2008, 03:41 PM
Do you not understand that what Clay and the ownership group really wants and has always wanted is to get a team in Oklahoma City?

Fixed, but yermom beat me to it.

Clay said he'd try to get an arena built up there, but he never once said he'd own the team forever.

Dio
4/24/2008, 03:47 PM
Read this article about Howard Schultz before he sold the team to Clay Bennett, and tell me who's lying.



http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2002777731_soni02.html

Thursday, February 2, 2006 - Page updated at 12:56 PM

Schultz: Sonics may leave without cash
By Percy Allen

Sonics owner Howard Schultz said the team could be forced to sell or move if the state Legislature doesn't set aside $200 million to refurbish KeyArena.

As their playoff prospects continue to dwindle and the sea of empty red seats at KeyArena grows exponentially each game, Sonics chairman Howard Schultz issued his strongest demands to city officials and state legislators who have appeared to turn a deaf ear.

Before Wednesday's 111-107 victory over Golden State, Schultz said he wasn't making a threat, but promised the team will leave Seattle or sell if it doesn't win support for a taxpayer-financed $200 million expansion of KeyArena and reach agreement on a more lucrative lease to replace the one that expires in 2010.

"We want to stay here," Schultz said. "We love this city. We raised our kids here. We built our businesses here and we're being forced to accept a set of circumstances that are not acceptable. We can't continue to lose this kind of money."

A six-person panel appointed by Mayor Greg Nickels is studying what improvements need to be made to the arena and is expected to give a report that endorses the Sonics' renovation to the city and state legislature, a team spokesman said.

Schultz believes the Legislature would have to appropriate funds before the session ends on March 9 because the session begins again in January 2007, leaving the Sonics less than ample time to complete renovations before 2010.

"We've asked [president] Wally Walker to begin to seek other alternatives in view of the fact that it appears that March 9 is going to come and go and we're not going to get what we've asked for," Schultz said. "It's a tragic situation. I don't think we've ever thought we'd be here."

Schultz said the team is seeking a deal involving KeyArena similar to what the Seahawks and Mariners received. Both teams were given state-financed funds to build state-of-the art stadiums.

He was also upset by comments council president Nick Licata made in a Sports Illustrated story.

When asked if the city would suffer lasting damage if the Sonics moved, Licata said: "On an economic basis, near zero. On a cultural basis, close to zero. We would still have two sports, and plenty of cities our size don't have three."

"I read that and said, 'Who is this guy representing?' " Schultz said. "And he also made the comment that the Sonics and Storm did not contribute anything in terms of economic value to the city. We're aghast at that. We have our own economic study that strongly suggests we generate over $200 million a year in economic real value to this region."

Walker and executive vice president Terry McLaughlin have met with Bellevue city officials about a possible move across Lake Washington.

Schultz also revealed that the team has had discussions with a city official that has offered to give the Sonics a blank check and promised to build them an arena, but declined to reveal which cities the team was negotiating with.

The Sports Illustrated article said San Jose city officials have contacted the Sonics and Oklahoma City, Las Vegas, Norfolk, Va., and Anaheim, Calif., are also possible destinations.

Should the Sonics sell, Walker said he would seek the highest price to appease minority owners who bought the team for $200 million in 2001 and have lost $58 million over the past five years. Owners were also forced to answer a '05 cash call totaling about $17 million.

Over the last five years, Charlotte sold for $300 million, Boston ($360 million), Phoenix ($401 million) and Cleveland ($375 million).

"We're on a collision course with time and we can't wait," said Schultz, chairman of Seattle-based Starbucks. "If people want to make me the villain, that's their prerogative, but I'm here to tell you that we've tried for almost two years to meet the elected officials halfway and we're not getting anything back."

If Schultz couldn't get anything done in his own city in 2 years, how can he say Bennett didn't act in "good faith" when he ran into the exact same roadblocks Schultz did?

Theskipster
4/24/2008, 04:02 PM
Read this article about Howard Schultz before he sold the team to Clay Bennett, and tell me who's lying.



If Schultz couldn't get anything done in his own city in 2 years, how can he say Bennett didn't act in "good faith" when he ran into the exact same roadblocks Schultz did?

Schultz has lied worse than Bennett ever did. And from the motion Bennett filed against Seattle, it sounds like he has proof that Seattle makes everyone else look like total angels in comparison.

BigRedJed
4/24/2008, 04:38 PM
Here is the lie. It really is simple.

What Bennet says: "I really want to keep the team in Seattle. If I can't then I will take the team to Oklahoma City"
What Bennet believes: "I really want to take the team to Oklahoma City. If I can't I will keep the team in Seattle and sell it."
There is NO EVIDENCE of this. Total speculation on your part. Where's the proof? He said he would give a good faith effort to getting an arena, and he did. He spent a ****load of money on said effort. SEATTLE is the entity that made no good faith effort, WHATSOEVER. And if you read Dio's above link, from 2006, it's obvious that was their mindset from the beginning. Absolute arrogance, complete refusal to even consider making things better for investors who were taking a bloodbath. In fact, they didn't even try to conceal their indifference and contempt. Clay walked into a buzzsaw of "we don't give a **** about you or your problems... ...or your team."

Aubrey flat out said they bought the team to bring it to Oklahoma City.
Do you not recognize that different partners may have had different goals? Aubrey has a track record of getting whatever he wants by paying sometimes outlandish prices. He wanted a team in OKC, even if it was a financial loser to bring it here. Aubrey is a billionaire four times over. $50 million (his investment) doesn't really mean that much to him. It means a hell of a lot more to Clay and to some of the other investors. Sure, Clay is really freaking rich. But not Oprah rich, like Aubrey. If Clay could be part of a $200 million net flip and still get a team here eventually (the prevailing thought at the time was that the Hornets go bankrupt in NOLA, which could still happen), he probably would do it.

There were/are a number of investors in this deal, and it's entirely possible that each and every one had slightly different personal goals. That's the nature of business partnerships. Aubrey made an unfortunate comment, but that doesn't mean that's the way Clay or even the rest of the members felt.

The way that LLC most likely worked is that they set Clay up to run the business (nothing against Clay, but he probably had more time to run a basketball team than they did), gave him some directions ("Clay, we trust you to do the right thing and use your NBA experience to help us eventually get a team here, and hopefully make some money, maybe not in that order... ...now we've got multibillion dollar corporations to run, just keep us posted on the progress...").

Bennett told Aubrey and Ward before the sale that, the good faith agreement to try to get an arena isn't a problem. Because even if they do they will just sell the team and try again to get a team to Oklahoma.

Do you not understand that what Clay and the ownership group really wants and has always wanted is to get the team in Oklahoma City?
Like others have said, to get A team to Oklahoma City. A team. Clay was empowered by his partners to do as he saw fit. If he got an arena deal done, they made a crapload on the flip, and were still first in line for the next team (which was likely to be the Hornets, or the Grizzlies, or an expansion, or whatever), it would still make them happy. They knew that they would still get a team here, eventually.

Nobody has EVER denied that one of their biggest longterm goals was to get a team to OKC. They even mentioned that during the purchase, saying it would get their foot in the door in the league, and allow them to help bring a team here at some point. THEY SAID IT MORE THAN ONCE, IN PUBLIC VENUES, FERCRYINOUTLOUD!

They knew that if they got the deal done to save the Seattle market, David Stern would be incredibly indebted to them (especially in light of their support of the Hornets while they were in OKC). An eventual team relocation or expansion to OKC would be a foregone conclusion at that point, with the same investors on board. The only variable would be when.

Mixer!
4/24/2008, 05:07 PM
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/977/trainwreckhr7.jpg

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/285/trainwreckis0.jpg

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/5164/trainwreckwx9.jpg

BigRedJed
4/24/2008, 05:46 PM
...Bennett told Aubrey and Ward before the sale that, the good faith agreement to try to get an arena isn't a problem. Because even if they do they will just sell the team and try again to get a team to Oklahoma...
I keep reading this incredulously. What the hell is the problem with this? "If we get the arena deal done, we flip the team, make an assload of money, and are really well positioned to jump on the next opportunity to bring a team to OKC."

If the chips fell in whichever direction, they were willing to roll with it, with the faith that they could turn it into a positive for them and/or for their community.

It wasn't a huge gamble for them. They knew that ultimately they could/would get a team in OKC; they were just biding their time and trying to make money/gain experience in the interim.

Scott D
4/24/2008, 07:57 PM
I haven't figured out if skipster doesn't want to see the situation for what it is, or just can't see it for what it is.

I'm about ready to lean to the third camp which is that Starbucks is a high priority in skip's life, either that or he worships at the altar of lackofcojones bayless. ;)

Soonerus
4/24/2008, 08:57 PM
Schultz has NO CHANCE, NO CHANCE...

CORNholio
4/27/2008, 05:01 PM
Nobody in Seattle seemed to care as much when they thought the team might relocate to Las Vegas or Kansas City, but when OKC was announced as the destination of choice those Frasier Crane wannabes got their panties all in a wad about how big of a market they had and how OKC was so inferior and that is when the legal **** hit the fan.
I also find the hypocrisy of politicians accusing some one of telling half truths and having hidden agendas to be extremely funny.

Mixer!
4/27/2008, 08:41 PM
I haven't figured out if skipster doesn't want to see the situation for what it is, or just can't see it for what it is.Or it could be that he's getting his jollies antagonizing BRJ into replying ad infinitum to his contrarian nonsense.


That's why I say when it comes to this thread:
6IpHHtl8gC4

CobraKai
4/28/2008, 01:12 PM
Here is what I am saying.

Clay said that he wanted to keep the team in Seattle. Clay did not actually want to keep the team in Seattle. This is a lie. Lies are bad.

Huh? Clay said he wanted to keep the team in Seattle IF they build a new arena. He never said "I want to keep teh team in Seattle, period." There was always a condition. How a person could twist this around is beyond me...

birddog
5/15/2008, 09:08 PM
did i hear it right today that they are deciding on outlaws or thunder as the name?

Soonerus
5/15/2008, 09:10 PM
That is just some dumb newspaper poll...

birddog
5/15/2008, 09:12 PM
that's what i like to hear.

Soonerus
5/15/2008, 09:14 PM
that's what i like to hear.

Trust me it is not official so don't go back bustin'a gut to your Sonics homers...

Gandalf_The_Grey
5/15/2008, 09:17 PM
Can't we just call them "The Oklahoma City Not Tulsa Team" or "The Team Formally known as the Seattle Supersonics"

Ash
5/15/2008, 09:19 PM
Can't we just call them "The Oklahoma City Not Tulsa Team" or "The Team Formally known as the Seattle Supersonics"

How about just use a symbol? :D

silverwheels
5/16/2008, 02:43 AM
did i hear it right today that they are deciding on outlaws or thunder as the name?

I hope the team name is neither of those.

birddog
5/16/2008, 03:45 AM
I hope the team name is neither of those.

indeed. if it wasn't for the damn baseball team in cincinnati (and to a much lesser degree, liverpool) we'd have our team name.

silverwheels
5/16/2008, 02:46 PM
indeed. if it wasn't for the damn baseball team in cincinnati (and to a much lesser degree, liverpool) we'd have our team name.

The Reds? As a Liverpool fan, I can't disagree with that too much. :D

birddog
5/16/2008, 03:03 PM
yeah, i dig oklahoma city reds. it's a beauty.

although gunners or arsenal would be just fine with me. atleast they're really original to the states.

Mixer!
5/17/2008, 12:15 AM
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9513/ballhawgs2sv9.gif

silverwheels
5/17/2008, 01:56 PM
Ugh.