PDA

View Full Version : Bennett being sued for Sonics.......



SoonerKnight
4/15/2008, 11:01 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8037850?MSNHPHMA

Claiming he was misled by new owner Clay Bennett, former Seattle SuperSonics owner Howard Schultz is planning to file a lawsuit in hopes of rescinding the sale of the team, according to a report in the Seattle Times.

The Starbucks mogul sold the team in July 2006, but maintains he believed Bennett would make a good faith effort to keep the team in Seattle.

Attorney Richard Yarmuth, whose Seattle-based law firm Yarmuth Wilsdon Calfo is representing Schultz, told the paper he plans to sue Bennett's ownership group in the next two weeks.

Said Yarmuth: "The damages that are being sought is to rescind, unwind the transaction. It's not money damage. It's to have the team returned. The theory of the suit is that when the team was sold, the Basketball Club of Seattle, our team here, relied on promises made by Clay Bennett and his ownership that they desired to keep the team in Seattle and intended to make a good-faith effort to accomplish that."

But recently released e-mails from as early as two weeks after the sale seem to show there was never any intention to keep the team in Seattle.

Aubrey McClendon, part of Bennett's ownership group, also caused a stir when he told the Oklahoma Business Journal, "We didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle; we hoped to come here [Oklahoma City]."

While Bennett has haggled with the state over a potential new facility and hired local lobbyists and an architectural firm, Yarmuth told the Times that has no bearing on the suit.

"We're talking about fraud at the time the contract was signed. It's not merely what activities, good faith or otherwise, were engaged in after the contract was signed so far as lobbying for a new stadium."

ssracer
4/16/2008, 01:43 AM
Seattle was the one not wanting to build a new arena to keep the Sonics there, but yet it's Bennett's fault for not trying to keep them there? If Schultz does get the sale rescinded, is he gonna build a new arena himself? Even he said he didn't like KeyArena. About the only thing Seattle has done to try and keep the team there is say the Sonics signed a lease to play there through the 09-10 season.

boomersooner28
4/16/2008, 04:42 AM
Dude...sell it back to the jackass and let him have his ****ty team in his ****ty city with his ****ty arena. Bennett can have a new team in OKC soon enough.

badger
4/16/2008, 07:54 AM
Maybe Seattle is like Tulsa in that they will vote down all tax measures to improve the city, yet complain when anything is going wrong due to lack of funding. In Tulsa, we complain about our roads, bridges, government, buying a new baseball stadium, a new city government office, a new BOK center and the smell of the river. Seattle complains that they're losing the Sonics, yet did nothing to keep them in the way of a new stadium that would have pretty much guaranteed that the old owner would have kept them and they would have stayed.

I say... Tulsa should have voted for the River Tax, and Seattle should have voted to fund a Key Arena replacement. The swan song they're singing now is just the chickens coming home to roost... and they're roosting in a crappy arena, not a strange river :D

Ash
4/16/2008, 08:35 AM
Wow. Badger doesn't just mix metaphors, she throws them in the blender.

:D

poke4christ
4/16/2008, 09:48 AM
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8037850?MSNHPHMA

Claiming he was misled by new owner Clay Bennett, former Seattle SuperSonics owner Howard Schultz is planning to file a lawsuit in hopes of rescinding the sale of the team, according to a report in the Seattle Times.

The Starbucks mogul sold the team in July 2006, but maintains he believed Bennett would make a good faith effort to keep the team in Seattle.

Attorney Richard Yarmuth, whose Seattle-based law firm Yarmuth Wilsdon Calfo is representing Schultz, told the paper he plans to sue Bennett's ownership group in the next two weeks.

Said Yarmuth: "The damages that are being sought is to rescind, unwind the transaction. It's not money damage. It's to have the team returned. The theory of the suit is that when the team was sold, the Basketball Club of Seattle, our team here, relied on promises made by Clay Bennett and his ownership that they desired to keep the team in Seattle and intended to make a good-faith effort to accomplish that."

But recently released e-mails from as early as two weeks after the sale seem to show there was never any intention to keep the team in Seattle.

Aubrey McClendon, part of Bennett's ownership group, also caused a stir when he told the Oklahoma Business Journal, "We didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle; we hoped to come here [Oklahoma City]."

While Bennett has haggled with the state over a potential new facility and hired local lobbyists and an architectural firm, Yarmuth told the Times that has no bearing on the suit.

"We're talking about fraud at the time the contract was signed. It's not merely what activities, good faith or otherwise, were engaged in after the contract was signed so far as lobbying for a new stadium."

This situation with seattle is probably one of the most one sided arguments I've ever seen. Seattle's side is no where close to correct on this. From these quotes, it seems that Shultz is suing based on what Bennett desired. That is just plane morronic. Big deal, so he wanted the team in OKC. That's not that hard to figure out. Him and everyone involved were oklahomans!!!! His actions showed plenty of effort to keep the team in seattle. He performed these actions without problem because it was obvious that it would be fruitless and seattle wouldn't cooperate. That's the whole reason he bought the team.

This lawsuit is completely groundless. You can't sue someone because he lied about what he wanted. In life, it's not about intentions, it's about actions, and Bennett's actions were fine. Seattle supporters have no case here (no just this case, in general). The only real basis I've seen for keeping the team in seattle is tradition and keeping seattle and others happy. Some argue seattle is a better fiscal location, but when you compare the two it doesn't appear that way. OKC is willing to fron the cash and has proven support. Seattle won't front the cash and their support has been waining.

Have faith oklahomans, we are in the right. Now let's just hope that that's enough.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
4/16/2008, 12:48 PM
you guys are so completely off on this it isn't even funny. seattle doesn't give a crap about the sonics, heck they barely supported them during the years when they were in the finals. there is a reason allen owns the mariners, the seahawks and the portland trailblazers.

this is simply a pr move by the owner of a company that has a huge chunk of its business in seattle.

picasso
4/16/2008, 01:09 PM
Maybe Seattle is like Tulsa in that they will vote down all tax measures to improve the city, yet complain when anything is going wrong due to lack of funding. In Tulsa, we complain about our roads, bridges, government, buying a new baseball stadium, a new city government office, a new BOK center and the smell of the river. Seattle complains that they're losing the Sonics, yet did nothing to keep them in the way of a new stadium that would have pretty much guaranteed that the old owner would have kept them and they would have stayed.

I say... Tulsa should have voted for the River Tax, and Seattle should have voted to fund a Key Arena replacement. The swan song they're singing now is just the chickens coming home to roost... and they're roosting in a crappy arena, not a strange river :D

yeah because the taxes we've already approved have been used so glowingly.

how about we spend the money we have more wisely? novel idea I know.

picasso
4/16/2008, 01:10 PM
you guys are so completely off on this it isn't even funny. seattle doesn't give a crap about the sonics, heck they barely supported them during the years when they were in the finals. there is a reason allen owns the mariners, the seahawks and the portland trailblazers.

this is simply a pr move by the owner of a company that has a huge chunk of its business in seattle.

yep, he's the bad guy and is trying to save face.

OUDoc
4/16/2008, 08:59 PM
Bennett should sue Schultz for wasting his time with this stupid lawsuit.
And for charging too much for coffee.

BigRedJed
4/16/2008, 09:07 PM
What's interesting in this case is something most people haven't thought about or discussed. The Sonics have now signed an agreement with the City of Oklahoma City for the Ford Center that basically says they are contractually obligated to move here and lease the FC for 15 years if/when two things happen:

The existing Key Arena lease is terminated, either due to a buyout or the expiration of the current lease term. One or the other will eventually happen. A certainty.
The NBA Board of Governors votes to allow the Sonics to relocate.So basically, once these two things happen (number one is a certainty, either now or two years from now), the Sonics HAVE to move to Oklahoma City, or face the same type of buyout situation they now do with Seattle, except they would have to buy out 15 seasons instead of two. This is a clever little poison pill that has been thrown into the process.

Unless the NBA BOG votes "no" on Friday (improbable), or votes to delay a decision (unlikely), the team is bound to the OKC lease, an obligation that would transfer to future owners. If they vote yes on Friday, it's all over except for the crying.

Regarding Schultz and his lawsuit, it is mostly without merit. While the e-mails were naive in nature, since these guys should have expected litigation and discovery, they had reached such an impasse with Seattle by the time they were sent that any sane businessman would have been crazy to not start considering fallback postitions. In fact, they had said all along that if Seattle refused to budge, the team would be moved. Seattle not only refused to budge, they publicly ridiculed the owners' requests.

The Schultz lawsuit is part of a classic confuse and delay tactic. The leak of the e-mails was poorly timed, if that was all that was forthcoming. They should have waited until immediately before the BOG meeting for the greatest impact, if that was all they had. The leak of the e-mails was timed so that then Schultz could file his action, and then the Governor and Washington's Senators followed it up with requests to delay, citing the complexities of the recent developments. Of course, "recent developments" were the result of their co-conspirators' very actions.

It's all they have at this point. If the NBA BOG votes yes, getting it undone would be next to impossible. Clever, on the part of the OKC group.

Soonerus
4/16/2008, 09:31 PM
The chances of recission are slim and none...

Ash
4/16/2008, 09:33 PM
I'm beginning to think that Big Red Jed is actually Clay Bennett. Who'da thunk it?

Soonerus
4/16/2008, 09:34 PM
I'm beginning to think that Big Red Jed is actually Clay Bennett. Who'da thunk it?

I was thinking Mick Cornett...

BigRedJed
4/16/2008, 09:46 PM
The chances of recission are slim and none...
Is that a fancy lawyerin' term, sort of like "rescission?" ;)

BigRedJed
4/16/2008, 09:48 PM
And nope, I'm nobody important. Plus, if I were Clay, the team would be named the "Oklahoma City _________." I'm guessing he'll do otherwise.

Soonerus
4/16/2008, 09:52 PM
Is that a fancy lawyerin' term, sort of like "rescission?" ;)

recission is the more commonly used term in the profession...fyi...

Ash
4/16/2008, 09:52 PM
I'm guessing he'll do what the marketing consultants tell him to do regarding the name.

Scott D
4/16/2008, 10:04 PM
Bennett should sue Schultz for wasting his time with this stupid lawsuit.
And for charging too much for ****ty watered down coffee with fufu names.

fixed :)

BigRedJed
4/16/2008, 10:16 PM
I'm guessing he'll do what the marketing consultants tell him to do regarding the name.
He's the same guy who named the "Oklahoma" Redhawks. Of course, he has powerful partners in this one, so hopefully the position I am talking about on here will get some momentum behind it.

Mixer!
4/17/2008, 02:11 AM
There's an idea: name the NBA team "Redhawks", and the PCL team can go back to using "89ers".

poke4christ
4/17/2008, 07:47 AM
The only reason I can think that Shultz would do this is for the publicity and public love. He can't really want the team back, and obviously he must know the suit is groundless. Even with a sympathetic judge and jury, it's hard to see this one going his way. Maybe Oklahomans should boycott startbucks in protest. Yeah, there's a fat chance of it following through, but its a thought.