Do you guys think Seattle will accept a buyout from the leas

grantpb · Post #1 » by **grantpb** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:27 am

from the lease?

If you are NOT from OKC or Seattle, I'd like to hear what people think about this. Because obviously those two groups are going to be biased. Do you guys think the city of Seattle will end up accepting a buyout and taking a big check in order to let the Sonics leave? Or do you think they will end up enforcing the lease and making the team stay and bleed Clay Bennett out for a little bit?

Blame Rasho · Post #2 » by **Blame Rasho** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:33 am

They shouldn't... they should fight till the bitter end.

Texas Longhorns · Post #3 » by **Texas Longhorns** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:59 am

Yeah, there's no reason to give up.

Vindicater · Post #4 » by **Vindicater** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:06 am

who cares, sonics fans have proven there not worthy (as a whole, i know some are worthy) why not move it to a city that DESERVES a team

Post #5 » by **JStockLivesOn** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:34 am

Vindicater wrote:who cares, sonics fans have proven there not worthy (as a whole, i know some are worthy) why not move it to a city that DESERVES a team

That's a bold, insulting, and ridiculous claim. The fans in Seattle DESERVE better than this rape of basketball decency.

SeattleAirick · Post #6 » by **SeattleAirick** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:36 am

what city deserves this team more than seattle? i know you can't be talking about oklahoma

pr0wler · Post #7 » by **pr0wler** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:55 am

Vindicater wrote:who cares, sonics fans have proven there not worthy (as a whole, i know some are worthy) why not move it to a city that DESERVES a team

First of all, it's "they're" not "there". Secondly, it's obvious you haven't been following the Sonic/Clay Bennett threads much because there have been many stat breakdowns that show their attendance is far from poor. In terms of percentage of seats filled the Sonics have done very well...and even in this dismal season the numbers haven't been that bad. Try again.

Puertorique · Post #8 » by **Puertorique** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:18 am

If anything the Hornets are the one's that would have a viable reason to relocate due to attendance. Considering the Katrina after math down there and the TV rights etc.. play into it also and put them in a complete different position.

What happened in Seattle looks like a complete theft of a pro team. The owners bought the team and never made a serious attempt to keep the team there.

ljp24 · Post #9 » by **ljp24** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:13 pm

Puertorique wrote:If anything the Hornets are the one's that would have a viable reason to relocate due to attendance. Considering the Katrina after math down there and the TV rights etc.. play into it also and put them in a complete different position.

What happened in Seattle looks like a complete theft of a pro team. The owners bought the team and never made a serious attempt to keep the team there.

i hope you never own a business.

Post #10 » by **JStockLivesOn** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:31 pm

ljp24 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

i hope you never own a business.

Location: Oklahoma City.

ljp24 · Post #11 » by **ljp24** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:54 pm

JStockLivesOn wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Location: Oklahoma City.

Yeah, after pledging New Orleans support, let's move them less than five years after Hurricane Katrina!! :bowdown:

There wont be any negative PR on the national level or anything

Post #12 » by **JStockLivesOn** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:57 pm

His point wasn't that they SHOULD do that. His point, to my eyes, was that moving New Orleans doesn't make much sense, but moving Seattle makes even LESS.

Rah Fentons · Post #13 » by **Rah Fentons** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:11 pm

If the only source for info on this issue, has been from reading posts on this board ............ then the reader is woefully misinformed.

The vast vast majority of posts at this site come from Seattle. And all your reading is Seattle spin and embellishment.

There's a lot of angles to this issue the Seattle posters don't want to talk about and don't want to accept. And I won't waste much more of my time with attempting to counter their spin.

But here's the bottom line.

A. The NBA team in Seattle has been losing money for years, long before Bennett bought the team.

B. They need a new arena to become profitable.

C. Seattle refuses to find a solution to the arena problem.

D. The NBA cannot continue to keep a team in Seattle based upon the faint hope that after years of wrestling with this issue, Seattle will build an NBA approved arena.

E. And thus, the team is moving to the next best location.

It is that simple.

The only way the KeyArena will work in the future is if the players agree to a new CBA that cuts their salaries in half.

This issue has been debated in Seattle for years before Bennett even bought the team. And even with the hammer of an out-of-town owner, who had told them the team is leaving unless an arena plan is approved, they still could not find a resolution.

Seattle will have to lose the NBA before they can get their political problems solved, if even then. Their local politics is a mess.

And the Hornets are doing well in New Orleans. With help from the State of Louisiana, the Hornets will be in New Orleans for many many years.

yearsago · Post #14 » by **yearsago** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:20 pm

As a Sonic fan, I think I would be willing to accept a buyout under the following conditions (IF Howard schutlz's lawsuit fails)

1)Keep all colors, history, name etc
2)Must have a team no later than 2010-2011 season
3) at least 50 million for buyout.

jenn_gp · Post #15 » by **jenn_gp** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:22 pm

grantpb wrote:from the lease?

If you are NOT from OKC or Seattle, I'd like to hear what people think about this.

Did some of you (and I won't name names) even read this part of the original post? Stop making this into another argument thread, they're not asking for your opinions.

Rah Fentons · Post #16 » by **Rah Fentons** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:32 pm

jenn_gp wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Did some of you (and I won't name names) even read this part of the original post? Stop making this into another argument thread, they're not asking for your opinions.

Just providing more information and another side to this issue thats very much lacking at this forum.

I don't know how anyone can have an opinion with half of the picture being presented, and that half being presented unfairly.

jenn_gp · Post #17 » by **jenn_gp** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:39 pm

^I just don't like the road this appears to be going down. The OP asked for NON Sonics and OKC fans to reply.

Post #18 » by **snaquille oatmeal** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:32 pm

to answer the question, yes Seattle will accept a buy out. this has nothing to do with the fans. if it did the fans would keep the sonics in Seattle. this has everything to do with the city politics. if the city wanted to keep the sonics they would have acted upon it a long time ago, but they didn't because they prefer to keep their football and baseball team instead. if the city claims that is as broke as claims it is they will take the money. no need to keep the team that is going to leave anyway and let them go for nothing. "sign and trade baby!".

grantpb · Post #19 » by **grantpb** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:49 pm

any other opinions now that we are back on topic?

Post #20 » by **bennith13** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:19 am

Oh Lord... now that OKC thinks they have a team the crazies are coming out.

I think that people outside of Seattle or maybe OKC really know little about what has gone on or what is going one. It would be hard for the average fan to give a reasonable response.

I want to propose some arguments to what the OKC poster said.

A. The NBA team in Seattle has been losing money for years, long before Bennett bought the team.

The team has been terrible for almost 10 years now. The one year we were good we made money. Also the spurs and heat were losing money while they were winning. Perhaps the topic of losing money in the NBA is much larger then Key Arena. I would argue that a team in OKC would lose the team and the league much more money then the terrible Sonics have lost the last few years.

B. They need a new arena to become profitable.

Really we just need a new lease. A new arena would be nice, but really an remodel would be a good compromise. Most people in Seattle now agree that we need a new arena solution. Its to bad Howard Schultz didn't keep the team because with a decent owner something would have been worked out. No one in the state of Washington was or is going to give a dime to the scum that is Clay Bennett.

C. Seattle refuses to find a solution to the arena problem.

Same as the above argument. You had to just reiterate that so you can justify why your city is not stealing a team.

D. The NBA cannot continue to keep a team in Seattle based upon the faint hope that after years of wrestling with this issue, Seattle will build an NBA approved arena.

Its hard for people from OKC to understand this because they have never had a team but as long as there is even just a little hope people in Seattle will fight to keep the team. Thats what real fans of a team do and despite Clay Bennett and Davids Sterns best efforts to encourage apathy of the fans here and alienate the fan base people are still fighting.

Besides why should the city settle. Even if David Stern said we will get a new team in a few years why should be believe him? He is a liar and he associates with people who lie regularly.

E. And thus, the team is moving to the next best location.

The team is trying to move to where the owner lives. The team is trying to move to a city willing to bend over backwards for Clay and David. The team is trying to move to Clay Bennett's home town because he writes the best love letters to David Stern.