David Stern is a joke and insult to fans

Post #21 » by **TASTIC** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:10 am

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archi ... nics_back/

Who blinks first?

GO SEATTLE Supersonics

Mr. Sun · Post #22 » by **Mr. Sun** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:34 pm

^^ WoW TASC, what a new twist!

I'll laugh my ass off if Schultz obtains a temporary restraining order preventing Bennett from moving. :lol:

walkingart · Post #23 » by **walkingart** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:10 pm

Go7enKs wrote:
Well you know. Maybe they just say: "Why should WE pay for an Arena when our owner is a billionaire?".

Can you really blame them?

Maybe because the revenue generated by that team in taxes, parking, and an increase in profits for local businesses is worth the cost of an arena plus millions more over a 25 year life span.

JustMoe · Post #24 » by **JustMoe** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:34 pm

If this works out and the Sonics stay in Seattle, then Howard Schultz definitely will be my new hero

Mr. Sun · Post #25 » by **Mr. Sun** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:55 pm

The exchanges detail a breach of contract, Yarmuth said. He also cites McClendon's comments last August to the (Oklahoma) Business Journal in which the billionaire founder and chief executive of Chesapeake Energy said: "We didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle; we hoped to come here [Oklahoma City]."

That looks like a clear breach of contract if there is a written stipulation in the sales contract that says the new owners must use good faith efforts to remain in Seattle.

Bennett and the NBA have a REAL legal problem here.

Seattlesun · Post #26 » by **Seattlesun** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:54 am

note also that a term of the sale for howard schultz was that bennet write and sign a letter promising to honor the lease in seattle thru 2010. obviously, they are trying to move prior to 2010, thus the breach of contract.

NaplesSunsFan · Post #27 » by **NaplesSunsFan** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:44 am

Mr. Sun wrote:That looks like a clear breach of contract if there is a written stipulation in the sales contract that says the new owners must use good faith efforts to remain in Seattle.

Bennett and the NBA have a REAL legal problem here.

Just for the fun of it, is anyone on this board a lawyer? Is there really something here? Sure it's screwed up, and the former owner may be doing this just to show face, but does he have a chance to actually win?

Mr. Sun · Post #28 » by **Mr. Sun** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:58 am

NaplesSunsFan wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Just for the fun of it, is anyone on this board a lawyer?

No, no.... but I did stay at a certain motel once....

Rescission for breach of contract is cut and dried under contract law.

In this case the core issue for the court to decide is this: Would seller had sold the team knowing there was no intention on part of the buyers to keep the team Seattle. Would seller had sold knowing it was the absolute intention of the buyer(s) to move the team?

Were buyer(s) aware that it would had placed them in an disadvantage to disclose their total commitment to move the team to both the seller, NBA and City of Seattle? (Here will be a good idea to do some newspaper research during the sale process)

Usually in selling a sports team a great deal of emphasis is placed on whether new owners intend to keep a team in a city, and can be the difference in a sale or not.

It doesn't look good for the owners of the Sonics at this point with their public statements and emails.