NBA team soon to be formerly known as the Sonics...

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.

 

And again, there is literally NO EVIDENCE that Clay "flat out lied" or "intentionally represented himself."

 

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

 

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?

 

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

 

What's worse, being a "liar" or an indian-giver?

 

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

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.

 

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.

 

Why did these emails surprise people? Why is this still an issue?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

Man, I need to learn posting economy from bdbbq. Excellent post.

 

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.

 

Schultz has no chance...a very weak effort to save face in the Seattle area...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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****.