RealGM

This was posted on RCF, and I know most of you post on there as well, but in case any of you didnt see it I thought I would post it here also.

Here is the message:

Dear Mr. Gilbert,

On Friday April 19th, you will join other NBA owners and vote on Clay Bennett's proposal to relocate the Seattle SuperSonics franchise in Oklahoma City. Less than a month ago, a subcommittee of three owners visited Oklahoma City and recommended league approval.

We the undersigned strongly urge you to vote against the proposed measure. We have dealt with having a storied sports franchise ripped from our city recently and words cannot describe the feeling that each and everyone of us had.

Mr. Gilbert, you can join Mark Cuban who has said, "I'm going to wait to get all the information, (but) my preference is the Sonics stay in Seattle. My prejudice is against having a Dustbowl Division in this part of the country because I don't think in the big picture that helps the NBA and I think the bigger market helps the NBA. My prejudice is to vote them in but like everything else in the NBA, (the vote) will be 29-1."

Your vote counts Mr. Gilbert, make it count for the fans in Seattle.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

http://www.petitiononline.com/cavs1970/petition.html

Hell no, get the Sonics out of Seattle.

I wrote in to the Plain Dealer regarding the subject, and they haven't even addressed it. It just shows how out of touch Cleveland is with its history. Of course the league shouldn't let the sonics ownership move the team on a whim before they even play out their lease, which should have been the minimum standard for a good faith attempt to keep the team in the city. But the league is full of businessmen who want this alternative in case they find themselves in a similar situation with a bad team not making money. So yeah, cleveland, watch out. Because if one day, you don't feel like paying extra taxes while you're working in a downtrodden economy, you might lose your sports teams.

I can't figure out why the NBA owners want the Sonics out of Seattle and into Oklahoma City. It is a much smaller market, and as soon as the Sonics have a bad season they will stop showing. I haven't done a ton of research into the situation, but it all seems odd. I think only 2 owners voted against it the other day, so there must be more to it that we just don't know.

I believe the Sonics have to pay a $40 million relocation fee that gets split between the other teams. So for each team, that's 1.4 million reasons to vote yes.

Also it protects their own backside in case something ever goes drastically wrong in their city and they want to move their team as well.

The underlying issue is that Seattle has voted to not build a new arena for the Supersonics. Which generally means lower revenue. That is why the Sonics are moving and why I really don't have a problem with the move. While I am actually against public financing of stadiums and arenas it is commonplace in the landscape at present. Understand that the Cleveland area would not have kept the Cavs, Indians or gotten the Browns back had they not built new stadiums/arenas for those teams.

GoLebron wrote:I wrote in to the Plain Dealer regarding the subject, and they haven't even addressed it. It just shows how out of touch Cleveland is with its history.

There is a big difference between what happened in cleveland and what happened in seattle.

In cleveland, the city offered to build a new stadium for the Browns, Model said he was fine with the old stadium, then he left for a new stadium while the team was selling out every game. Model could have got most of what he got in leaving by instead staying and simply asking for it.

In Seattle, the team has been begging for a new arena and keeps being told no and fans aren't showing up for games. Seattle has been in the bottom third in league attendance for at least 6 years. In 04-05 they won 52 games and went to the 2nd round of the playoffs, yet only drew 16,475 fans/game. The reason, their arena is too small. 16,475 was 97% capacity. They have good reasons for needing a new arena and the city won't build one.

Look at the deal Dan Gilbert gets with the Q. I believe the lease on the Q is $1/year, the Q holds 20,562 people, the lease not only covers the cavs games, but also includes all revenue from all events held at the Q (tickets and concessions) all year. That includes concerts and events, the hockey team Gilbert brought here, the new arena football team, etc.

Is it too much for the Sonics to ask their city for something comparable so they can compete financially?

Interesting you should bring up the new arena deal. Their arena was completely refurbished one year AFTER the Gund was completed. Now I know that doesnt techincally make it newer, but its not like its in a horrible condition. There are plenty older and worse arenas around the league. What really upsets them though is that both the Mariners and the Seahawks have got new stadiums built for them in the past 10 years.

I'm with you, it kinda sucks that owners have that kind of stranglehold on the teams. But that is the environment that everybody has to deal with. You either do whats needed or someone else will.