Beware of Schultz

[sonic-ben]

Law suit... could take the Team back from you...


difficult but a possiblity


then you may taste a pinch of seattlites pain... of lost

[fivas14]

Nah, there's no way you guys get back the Sonics, Schultz knew the new owner (can't think of his name ATM) would move the team.

[m23uza1hem36]

I don't think that's possible....there paying up to 75 million dollars.

[dilbert719]

I don't think that's possible....there paying up to 75 million dollars.

That's to the city of Seattle, not to Schultz. The money Bennett is paying has absolutely no bearing on the Schultz case whatsoever. It's a long shot, to be sure, but the Supersonics may not be truly dead yet. Not that I really have a dog in this fight, since I'm a Sixers fan, but this could result in the team being taken away from Bennett. If that happens, I suspect Stern will find another team to sell to Bennett and move to OKC.

[S0yb3anB0y]

Nah, there's no way you guys get back the Sonics, Schultz knew the new owner (can't think of his name ATM) would move the team.

How can you be proud of that statement?

[Tony Plow]

I don't think that's possible....there paying up to 75 million dollars.

That's to the city of Seattle, not to Schultz. The money Bennett is paying has absolutely no bearing on the Schultz case whatsoever. It's a long shot, to be sure, but the Supersonics may not be truly dead yet. Not that I really have a dog in this fight, since I'm a Sixers fan, but this could result in the team being taken away from Bennett. If that happens, I suspect Stern will find another team to sell to Bennett and move to OKC.

Or an expansion team. If that happens, I predict Kansas City or Louisville gets one too.

[fivas14]

Nah, there's no way you guys get back the Sonics, Schultz knew the new owner (can't think of his name ATM) would move the team.

How can you be proud of that statement?

When and where did I say I was proud of that statement?

[Buckeye-NBAFan]

I don't think that's possible....there paying up to 75 million dollars.

That's to the city of Seattle, not to Schultz. The money Bennett is paying has absolutely no bearing on the Schultz case whatsoever. It's a long shot, to be sure, but the Supersonics may not be truly dead yet. Not that I really have a dog in this fight, since I'm a Sixers fan, but this could result in the team being taken away from Bennett. If that happens, I suspect Stern will find another team to sell to Bennett and move to OKC.

Or an expansion team. If that happens, I predict Kansas City or Louisville gets one too.

The NBA won't expand until they're ready to put a team in Vegas, which isn't any closer now that we have the ref scandal.

[The Favero]

The NBA won't expand until they're ready to put a team in Vegas, which isn't any closer now that we have the ref scandal.

If you recall, the city of Las Vegas totally HATED having the All-Star game there. It brought in too many "Thugs" and "Gangsters" and scared off the bread and butter of most of Vegas' core patrons, rich white people. I don't think Vegas wants a team, it would be a bad idea for players to have that many distractions available 24/7, not to mention the "possibility" of gambling.

[oksportsguy]

The possibility that the Judge will reverse this sale are slim. Even if there is merit to the complaint, waiting 2 years to file and having the case sit another year, till Spring'09, after 3 years they are not going to unwind this sale.

[oksportsguy]

Here is a problem for the Schultz lawsuit:

http://www.newsok.com/article/3267822/

[mnkinga23]

I don't think that this lawsuit is in the best interest of anyone involved besides Howard Schultz. In the remote chance that Schultz wins the lawsuit, the city of Seattle is automatically out 22.5 million. That number could be expounded by this scenario:
75 mil (money allocated by the city toward renovation to Key Arena as proposed in settlement)
+22.5 mil (half of the money paid by the PBC to the city of Seattle in settlement)
+30 mil (money stipulated by settlement if a team doesn't come to Seattle within five years)
-----
127.5 million total
Sure, if Seattle doesn't allocate the seventy five million for the renovation, they wouldn't be in line for the additional thirty million but let us assume that they are serious about returning the NBA to Seattle. With the team being taken away from Clay Bennett's PBC, the sale of the team has to be presided over by someone. Schultz would like the team to be returned to him so that he can sell to another prospective buyer, but this is where the NBA comes into the lawsuit. All teams, even though owned by individuals, are products of the NBA; and the owners themselves have to be approved by the NBA (ex. Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals being owned and operated by MLB during their move to Washington). The NBA would most likely end up being the executor of the sale of the franchise to new owners. By this time, the whole situation would have become a PR nightmare for David Stern and the NBA, and Stern would probably take it out on Seattle. The team would most likely be sold to someone that was planning to move them to Kansas City, Las Vegas, etc. Oklahoma City and Seattle would be out a team and millions of dollars. Seattle would have a permanent scarlet letter from the NBA, and there would be no way for them to get another team back there. Seems like an awful lot to go through for one year of basketball (2009-2010)

[McG]

I don't think that this lawsuit is in the best interest of anyone involved besides Howard Schultz. In the remote chance that Schultz wins the lawsuit, the city of Seattle is automatically out 22.5 million. That number could be expounded by this scenario:
75 mil (money allocated by the city toward renovation to Key Arena as proposed in settlement)
+22.5 mil (half of the money paid by the PBC to the city of Seattle in settlement)
+30 mil (money stipulated by settlement if a team doesn't come to Seattle within five years)
-----
127.5 million total

I think you're a bit confused on the facts regarding the scenario that Schultz wins his lawsuit. Let me clear it up for you:

1. The city will be required to pay $22.5 million IF the Sonics play in Seattle for either the 2008-09 or 2009-10 seasons. Schultz did not file an injunction to keep the team in Seattle so this is impossible for 2008-09 and also unlikely to be cleared up after the Spring 2009 trial after appeal. If Schultz wins the lawsuit/appeal and the sale is voided the earliest the Sonics would come back to Seattle is llikely the 2010-11 season, thus no $ changes hand between Seattle-PBC.

2. Where are you getting the $75 million? If you're referring to the $ the PBC settled with Seattle that already includes $22.5 + $22.5 + $30 = $75. And if you're considering the money Seattle would be willing to spend on a Key Arena model than this number is irrelevant as the City doesn't 'lose' this money, they spend it on a Key remodel that would be required anyways.

You are correct on the $30 million that would be lost though. I hope this makes sense.

[Tony Plow]

I don't think that this lawsuit is in the best interest of anyone involved besides Howard Schultz. In the remote chance that Schultz wins the lawsuit, the city of Seattle is automatically out 22.5 million. That number could be expounded by this scenario:
75 mil (money allocated by the city toward renovation to Key Arena as proposed in settlement)
+22.5 mil (half of the money paid by the PBC to the city of Seattle in settlement)
+30 mil (money stipulated by settlement if a team doesn't come to Seattle within five years)
-----
127.5 million total

I think you're a bit confused on the facts regarding the scenario that Schultz wins his lawsuit. Let me clear it up for you:

1. The city will be required to pay $22.5 million IF the Sonics play in Seattle for either the 2008-09 or 2009-10 seasons. Schultz did not file an injunction to keep the team in Seattle so this is impossible for 2008-09 and also unlikely to be cleared up after the Spring 2009 trial after appeal. If Schultz wins the lawsuit/appeal and the sale is voided the earliest the Sonics would come back to Seattle is llikely the 2010-11 season, thus no $ changes hand between Seattle-PBC.

2. Where are you getting the $75 million? If you're referring to the $ the PBC settled with Seattle that already includes $22.5 + $22.5 + $30 = $75. And if you're considering the money Seattle would be willing to spend on a Key Arena model than this number is irrelevant as the City doesn't 'lose' this money, they spend it on a Key remodel that would be required anyways.

You are correct on the $30 million that would be lost though. I hope this makes sense.

It is either 30 now and another 45 IF Seattle both remodels or rebuilds Key (funds in place within one year) and gets a new team within five years. Or reverse the figures (one or the other).

[mnkinga23]

I wish I knew how to take the quotations from one person's post and place them in my own but in answer to McG's post:

From the settlement;

Contineent Payment. On the fifth anniversary of the Settlement Agreanent, PBC will pay
the City a tump rurn of ffrirty Million Dollars ($30,000,000) unless one of the following occurs:

B. By December 31, 2009,1egis1ation has not been enacted by the Washington State
Legislature to provide the necessary statutory authority to enable the City or, if necessary,
King County to access public monies or public revenues sources sufficient to fund one quarter
of the total cost of the proposed Key Arena renovation ($75 million escalating at
the Seattle area construction cost CIP) which, together with a comparable amount to be
provided by the City, completes the public sector component of the Key Arena
renovation project budget ($300 million escalating at the Seattle area construction cost

That is where the 75 mil came from. If the team is returned and then subsequently leaves, they are out of these funds.

It was 45 mil upfront and another 30 mil as Tony Plow said. And if Schultz won the lawsuit, meaning that the sale and subsequent move of the team were unlawful, why in the world would they spend the 2009/10 season in Oklahoma City?

[mnkinga23]

That copy and paste job on the settlement document didn't go so well but I hope that you get the jist.

[McG]

I wish I knew how to take the quotations from one person's post and place them in my own

Click the "Quote button at the top of anyone's post when replying.

B. By December 31, 2009,1egis1ation has not been enacted by the Washington State
Legislature to provide the necessary statutory authority to enable the City or, if necessary,
King County to access public monies or public revenues sources sufficient to fund one quarter
of the total cost of the proposed Key Arena renovation ($75 million escalating at
the Seattle area construction cost CIP) which, together with a comparable amount to be
provided by the City, completes the public sector component of the Key Arena
renovation project budget ($300 million escalating at the Seattle area construction cost

That is where the 75 mil came from. If the team is returned and then subsequently leaves, they are out of these funds.

The City of Seattle is never 'out of those funds' as, in this situation, they are still being spent on Key Arena upgrades. Saying they 'lose' the money is like arguing that you 'lose' money when purchasing any good a store. The money would still be invested on necessary arena upgrades.

And if Schultz won the lawsuit, meaning that the sale and subsequent move of the team were unlawful, why in the world would they spend the 2009/10 season in Oklahoma City?

This situation is referred to as an 'appeal' in the legal world and is a very common comeback (if you will) to any lawsuit. The PBC/NBA would most definitely appeal any lawsuit that countered their cause. A very basic example in everyday life would be an inmate convicted of murder and sentenced to death 'appealing' the court ruling for a number of years to escape punishment. I hope this makes sense.