Bennett To Sonics Players: 'Boo Hoo'

Troy McClure · Post #41 » by **Troy McClure** » Wed May 28, 2008 4:41 am

DeezXXnutZ wrote:
Why isn't any Sonic fans blame going towards Howard Schultz for selling the team right out from under your noses..?

OMG you're right! No Sonics fan has never ever thought of that! Blame Schultz! That Has never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever..........ever been discussed!

DeezXXnutZ · Post #42 » by **DeezXXnutZ** » Wed May 28, 2008 6:18 am

Troy McClure wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

OMG you're right! No Sonics fan has never ever thought of that! Blame Schultz! That Has never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever..........ever been discussed!

I get your sarcasm....I just don't spend a lot of time on your board and didn't see anyone mention it in this thread...

Ex-hippie · Post #43 » by **Ex-hippie** » Wed May 28, 2008 3:40 pm

DeezXXnutZ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I get your sarcasm....I just don't spend a lot of time on your board and didn't see anyone mention it in this thread...

There are some who say Schultz is actually more to blame than Bennett. That makes no sense to me -- the guy who sells out to the devil is culpable, but not as much so as the devil himself. But yes, Schultz does deserve a good amount of the blame. In fact, I will say that the biggest weakness in his pending lawsuit is the fact that he knew the fix was in, and that the side letter from Bennett was just a stunt to help him save face. He can't claim to have been defrauded if he didn't reasonably rely on the fraudulent statement. And if Bennett's team wants to defend the case 100% honestly, they can effectively say: "come on, Howard, you knew as well as we did that it was all a bunch of BS and we were here to hijack the team from Day One," and they'll probably have a winner. It will also be the last nail in their public relations coffin, but a legal winner.

HeavyP · Post #44 » by **HeavyP** » Thu May 29, 2008 5:54 am

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... ns28m.html

Links to everyone being deposed.

yearsago · Post #45 » by **yearsago** » Thu May 29, 2008 2:05 pm

DeezXXnutZ wrote:
Why isn't any Sonic fans blame going towards Howard Schultz for selling the team right out from under your noses..?

....

yearsago · Post #46 » by **yearsago** » Thu May 29, 2008 2:07 pm

Oh and for the record, Schultz has been hammered relentlessly in Seattle.

Ex-hippie · Post #47 » by **Ex-hippie** » Thu May 29, 2008 10:00 pm

Brent Gooden is an interesting figure in all of this. He's really playing the evil minion/sycophant role perfectly, isn't he?

djthesonicsfan · Post #48 » by **djthesonicsfan** » Fri May 30, 2008 3:24 pm

Ex-hippie wrote:There are some who say Schultz is actually more to blame than Bennett. That makes no sense to me -- the guy who sells out to the devil is culpable, but not as much so as the devil himself. But yes, Schultz does deserve a good amount of the blame. In fact, I will say that the biggest weakness in his pending lawsuit is the fact that he knew the fix was in, and that the side letter from Bennett was just a stunt to help him save face. He can't claim to have been defrauded if he didn't reasonably rely on the fraudulent statement. And if Bennett's team wants to defend the case 100% honestly, they can effectively say: "come on, Howard, you knew as well as we did that it was all a bunch of BS and we were here to hijack the team from Day One," and they'll probably have a winner. It will also be the last nail in their public relations coffin, but a legal winner.

Ok... relevent. But just to continue the point, what about Schultz's reply that he refused another higher offer because the guy wouldn't sign the best efforts agreement?

wiff · Post #49 » by **wiff** » Fri May 30, 2008 9:36 pm

djthesonicsfan wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Ok... relevent. But just to continue the point, what about Schultz's reply that he refused another higher offer because the guy wouldn't sign the best efforts agreement?

^^^^Yeah that always seemes to be forgotten. The guy from San Jose would have paid something like 70 million more.

Still Howard, none the less, sold the team to a crooked cowboy and even though he turned down a larger offer he still need to be accountable for what he did do.

But I do give Howard some credit for selling to the guy who was willing to sign the best efforts agreement.

I think that may be the one reason why he hasn't been completely buried in this mess.

Ex-hippie · Post #50 » by **Ex-hippie** » Sat May 31, 2008 2:25 am

Was it ever substantiated that that really happened? I did hear that Schultz turned down more money from someone (I think it was Larry Ellison?) who was going to move the team to San Jose. Can that be proven? I admit I had forgotten about it. If so, then it definitely makes the legal case better.

wiff · Post #51 » by **wiff** » Sat May 31, 2008 2:36 am

Ex-hippie wrote:Was it ever substantiated that that really happened? I did hear that Schultz turned down more money from someone (I think it was Larry Ellison?) who was going to move the team to San Jose. Can that be proven? I admit I had forgotten about it. If so, then it definitely makes the legal case better.

That is the story but I have no idea if they still have the offered contract lying around but I'm sure they could call someone to the witness stand if they needed to.

colombianbrew · Post #52 » by **colombianbrew** » Sat May 31, 2008 3:17 am

I'm sure if the offer were ever formally made then there will be a paper trail. As a successful businessman he is probably used to keeping good records. If not, the Ellison probably has something which could be obtained or at least there should be a good old email trail.