PDA

View Full Version : OKC threatens to sue the Sonics



Ash
5/10/2008, 07:04 AM
if they don't move here no matter who owns the team in the end. So even if Schultz were to win his suit, which seems all but impossible, or Bennett was forced to sell...OKC wants the team!

http://newsok.com/city-says-nba-team-must-move-here/article/3241788/?tm=1210398890

Also an interesting blurb in the DOK about a poll conducted by a group wanting to buy the Sonics from Bennett to keep the team there. A little more than a third of the people polled were willing to vote a measure in to keep the team there.

Apparently, Sonics fans should STFU. If people are so passionate and loyal to the team why couldn't they even back the plan that was proposed.

Dio
5/10/2008, 07:54 AM
It's about time we started playing offense on all this legal b.s. A few people up there are passionate about the Sonics, and I feel sorry for them losing their team, but the city as a whole either doesn't give a crap, or thinks they have a divine right to a team no matter how much money the team loses. I-91 will prevent any team from locating inside Seattle city limits, and I've heard the emails the judge won't allow to be plastered all over the media indicate Seattle city officials were actively working against the Renton site Clay Bennett was looking at. These guys are starting to make Gene Stipe look like Billy Graham.

Civicus_Sooner
5/10/2008, 11:20 AM
I like this new attituded on our behalf!

:)


Williams wrote Oklahoma City will spend as much as $120 million on projects to upgrade the Ford Center and build a practice facility. He wrote Oklahoma City would be obligated to sue on behalf of its taxpayers to force the team to relocate. He wrote the city also could seek damages.
He wrote, "Damages ... will be substantial.”

bri
5/10/2008, 11:48 AM
Wow, maybe OKC is a major-league town after all. Petulance, FTW!

BigRedJed
5/10/2008, 12:02 PM
I mentioned this a couple of weeks ago or so. The thing that the people responding to that story on newsok.com are not understanding is that this poison pill was designed in the event of Seattle winning its lawsuit, and had nothing to do with Schultz's lawsuit. Remember, his lawsuit was filed after the lease was negotiated and signed.

It would probably have little effect on Schultz if he prevails (highly unlikely), because the sale to Clay's group would be voided and any contracts they agreed to would probably become unenforceable.

But it's a brilliant tactic in case the City of Seattle prevails in its lawsuit (they are only suing to hold the Sonics to the final two years of the Key lease, and there is a reasonable -- albeit less than 50/50 chance -- that they could succeed in their suit). It's the stick that makes the carrot appealing (the carrot being potential cash settlement to Seattle for allowing early Key lease termination). Without OKC being able to force the team to relocate or pay a huge amount in damages if they stay, Seattle could continue to try to tie up the team for a couple of years in hopes of a legitimate team sale emerging to save the day for them. It takes sale of the team to Seattle investors (remember, this would NOT be the voiding of the Schultz deal) off of the table as a financially feasible option. Any new owners would face a bloodbath of a lawsuit (in which OKC would likely prevail) if they chose to not relocate.

This was all triggered by the BOG voting for the relocation, which was the final requirement stated in the lease that now binds the Sonics to the Ford Center no later than 2010.

Seattle's best hope for keeping the team there is for Schultz to prevail, and that is not very much hope at all.

Ash
5/10/2008, 12:42 PM
Interesting points, BRJ. A question, though, why does the letter state specifically that the team comes to OKC no matter who the ownership group is, if this only works regarding the team staying in Seattle for the lease?

BigRedJed
5/10/2008, 01:12 PM
Well, that statement does hold true for anyone... ...except Schultz's group and then only if the original sale is voided. All IMO.

The tactic was devised prior to Shultz's filing, and based on the belief at the time that the team's current owners' actual ownership of the team was not in question. Now that Schultz's lawsuit has emerged, they are stretching the tactic to include him, but that (the power of the OKC lease) would be on much more shaky legal ground if (and only if) he prevails in court. Basically, only as it relates to Schultz, it is posturing on the part of OKC. Again, my opinion.

But if any other scenarios currently in play win out, it provides a huge disincentive for a sale to some other party, which effectively renders the City of Seattle lawsuit an excercise in futility. Based on the knowledge they had at the time of the lease execution (no Schultz lawsuit), it's a pretty smart tactic.

Also, as far as making the City of OKC a viable lawsuit target, it really doesn't. Basically, all the lease did was require the team to move here after they had no further obligation to Seattle under the terms of the current Key lease. This could be accomplished either via the expiration of the lease (in 2010) or by a lease buyout. Neither situation would involve OKC taking a team that had a legal obligation elsewhere.

Civicus_Sooner
5/10/2008, 01:38 PM
Just thinking out loud here, no inside infor or real legal knowledge but wouldn't this suit also benefit from any precident set by the lease trial about to begin?