Sonics could leave name in Seattle

[samikeyp]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3310713

Fans of professional basketball in Seattle might not be able to convince the SuperSonics to stay. But if the franchise leaves for Oklahoma City as widely expected, the team name might stay behind.

During a breakfast meeting for team sponsors Friday in Santa Monica, Calif., team owner Clay Bennett said he wants to negotiate a settlement in which he will take the team's players and coaches, but leave the team's name, colors and 41-year history behind for another franchise to adopt, The Seattle Times reported.

Sonics spokesman Dan Mahoney confirmed Bennett's statement on Monday.

In its $26.5 million settlement offer to Seattle leaders, the team's ownership group said, "We understand the city's desire to reserve the Sonics name for a future franchise and will support the city's effort with the NBA on this issue," according to the report.

The city and the franchise's owners are currently in a legal dispute over the team's attempts to buy its way out of the lease for Key Arena and move to Oklahoma City for next season. A trial is scheduled for this summer, unless both sides agree to a settlement.

The Sonics and Oklahoma City have reached a preliminary agreement on a lease at the Ford Center pending NBA approval of the team's relocation.

The deal would not become official unless NBA team owners approve the Sonics' relocation in a meeting next month and until the team can escape its lease in Seattle that runs through 2010.

Four owners on the NBA relocation committee are expected to join NBA commissioner David Stern in Oklahoma City on Tuesday to tour the Ford Center and meet with city and team officials, NBA spokesman Tim Frank said, according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

A spokesman for Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire said Bennett last spoke with Gregoire on March 5, and that their conversation left the governor encouraged about the city's chances of landing another NBA franchise and retaining the Sonics name and identity.

However, Gergoire also came away from that conversation convinced that Bennett would not sell the Sonics to a local buyer.

"He made it very clear to me -- and not in a nasty way at all -- in his words, unequivocally, 'Not for sale.' ... At some point, we have to accept that," Gregoire told the Times earlier this month.

[samikeyp]

A friend of mine in OKC told me names like "Twisters" and "Tornados" are being tossed around.

[Findog]

A friend of mine in OKC told me names like "Twisters" and "Tornados" are being tossed around.

Bombers

Mascot can be a Ryder Truck.

[eisfeld]

A friend of mine in OKC told me names like "Twisters" and "Tornados" are being tossed around.

:sleep lame joke

[remingtonbo2001]

It'll be the Cherokee.

[Spurminator]

A friend of mine in OKC told me names like "Twisters" and "Tornados" are being tossed around.


Los Twisters

[MajorMike]

Bennett is using his last bargaining chip. He is telling the city if they stop him from going next year he will take the rights to the name. If they let him go, he leaves the name. Pretty smart.

[BillsCarnage]

This is the best way to do it. If the team is going to move there's not much the city can do to prevent it at this point. But, leaving the name/identity w/ Seattle is a wise move; similar to what the Browns did with Cleveland.

[Purple & Gold]

Bennett's an asshole. Seattle fans deserve better.

[ducks]

Bennett's an asshole. Seattle fans deserve better.
because sonics are title contenders or make the playoffs?

do the sonics sell out?

[Purple & Gold]

because sonics are title contenders?

Because they've been there forever and have supported their team since the get go. People are willing to buy the team to keep it in the city. He never had any intent in keeping the team in Seattle.

[ducks]

Because they've been there forever and have supported their team since the get go. People are willing to buy the team to keep it in the city. He never had any intent in keeping the team in Seattle.
why is the other owner the jerk
he did not hide his interntions of trying to keep the team in seatle
the other owner did not care
he is the one that people should say is the asshole

[Purple & Gold]

why is the other owner the jerk
he did not hide his interntions of trying to keep the team in seatle
the other owner did not care
he is the one that people should say is the asshole

I agree the other owner is more of a jerk. Boycott Starbucks.

But this owner is also an asshole. Trying to break a lease is beyond pitiful.

[MajorMike]

Because they've been there forever and have supported their team since the get go. People are willing to buy the team to keep it in the city. He never had any intent in keeping the team in Seattle.


The people don't care. They won't pay for them to stay; they wouldn't pay for them to stay before Bennett had the team.

The Sonics have only been there since 67; they were an expansion team the same year as the San Diego Rockets.

Milwaukee Bucks came in the league the next year; think anyone would care if they weren't in Milwaukee other than people that lived in Milwaukee?

What about the Charlotte Hornets and New Orleans Jazz who came in shortly after them? How 'bout the Vancouver Grizzlies?

They play in the oldest building in the NBA.

The whole arguement about it being a Seattle insititution is old and stale. The people of Seattle had 2 chances and the city and state govts each had a chance respectively and all balked every time. If the people loved them so much they would have paid the extra penny-on-a-dollar sales tax like OKC is going to. The people of Seattle make Bennett out to be the scapegoat because they don't want to look at the fact they are the ones that let the team down; through two owners.

Crappy building, crappy support, crappy fingerpointing. Seattle deserves everything it is getting. Maybe next time they will step up to the plate instead of waiting for someone else to force their hand then finding out it was too late.

Seattle is about to be NBA-less and it is TODF (their own damn fault). They just refuse to admit it.

[Findog]

because sonics are title contenders or make the playoffs?

do the sonics sell out?

They have been one of the better fanbases in the League. Blame Bennett or the municipal government for not bending over to meet his demands, but this isn't on the Seattle fans. Shows what you know.

[Findog]

The people don't care. They won't pay for them to stay; they wouldn't pay for them to stay before Bennett had the team.

The Sonics have only been there since 67; they were an expansion team the same year as the San Diego Rockets.

Milwaukee Bucks came in the league the next year; think anyone would care if they weren't in Milwaukee other than people that lived in Milwaukee?

What about the Charlotte Hornets and New Orleans Jazz who came in shortly after them? How 'bout the Vancouver Grizzlies?

They play in the oldest building in the NBA.

The whole arguement about it being a Seattle insititution is old and stale. The people of Seattle had 2 chances and the city and state govts each had a chance respectively and all balked every time. If the people loved them so much they would have paid the extra penny-on-a-dollar sales tax like OKC is going to. The people of Seattle make Bennett out to be the scapegoat because they don't want to look at the fact they are the ones that let the team down; through two owners.

Crappy building, crappy support, crappy fingerpointing. Seattle deserves everything it is getting. Maybe next time they will step up to the plate instead of waiting for someone else to force their hand then finding out it was too late.

Seattle is about to be NBA-less and it is TODF (their own damn fault). They just refuse to admit it.

:blah :blah :blah :blah

[Purple & Gold]

The people don't care. They won't pay for them to stay; they wouldn't pay for them to stay before Bennett had the team.

The Sonics have only been there since 67; they were an expansion team the same year as the San Diego Rockets.

Milwaukee Bucks came in the league the next year; think anyone would care if they weren't in Milwaukee other than people that lived in Milwaukee?

What about the Charlotte Hornets and New Orleans Jazz who came in shortly after them? How 'bout the Vancouver Grizzlies?

They play in the oldest building in the NBA.

The whole arguement about it being a Seattle insititution is old and stale. The people of Seattle had 2 chances and the city and state govts each had a chance respectively and all balked every time. If the people loved them so much they would have paid the extra penny-on-a-dollar sales tax like OKC is going to. The people of Seattle make Bennett out to be the scapegoat because they don't want to look at the fact they are the ones that let the team down; through two owners.

Crappy building, crappy support, crappy fingerpointing. Seattle deserves everything it is getting. Maybe next time they will step up to the plate instead of waiting for someone else to force their hand then finding out it was too late.

Seattle is about to be NBA-less and it is TODF (their own damn fault). They just refuse to admit it.

Charlotte and Vancouver came in shortly after them?? WTF are you smoking.

And while the arena is old it's in a great part of Seattle and not a rundown arena like the one in San Diego. You're just an opportunistic okie feeling entitled to another cities team.

[MajorMike]

They have been one of the better fanbases in the League. Blame Bennett or the municipal government for not bending over to meet his demands, but this isn't on the Seattle fans. Shows what you know.


Yeah, shows what you know.


Wednesday, November 8, 2006

Initiative 91: Seattle rejects sports subsidies

By ANGELA GALLOWAY
P-I REPORTER

Seattle voters likely doomed the Sonics' future in the city Tuesday -- but don't count the suburbs out yet, the team's new owners said.

"The team hopes to relocate to a new facility outside of Seattle, but within King County," Clayton Bennett, chairman of the Oklahoma-based ownership group, said in a statement.

Initiative 91, which aimed to slap down taxpayer-funded subsidies for professional sports teams, was leading by an overwhelming margin Tuesday.

I-91 would prohibit Seattle from supporting teams with city tax dollars unless such investments yield a profit on par with a 30-year U.S. Treasury bond, currently about 4.75 percent.

Chris Van Dyk, who headed the campaign, called any claims that state lawmakers legislators might now authorize a publicly subsidized arena in elsewhere in Western Washington "baloney."

"With this kind of vote in the city of Seattle, it's extremely unlikely that any tax subsidy would make its way through the Legislature, particularly one without a public vote," as Bennett has called for, Van Dyk said. And "on the outside chance that one did, we would work to block it."

I-91 was launched early this year after the previous owners of the Sonics and the WNBA Storm intensified demands for a more lucrative lease and major KeyArena overhaul. The I-91 campaign was bankrolled by the Service Employees International Union.

Jim Kneeland, a local consultant representing Bennett, stopped short of saying there's no chance of a long-term future for the team in the city.

"If you were a betting person, you would assume it will be outside of Seattle," Kneeland said.

There was no organized opposition to the measure, but some civic leaders, including Mayor Greg Nickels, said it went too far.

"We are not in the business (with the city's) opera or symphony or ballet or sports to make money for the city treasury," Nickels said recently.

"What we're trying to do is have a high variety of cultural activities."

Technically, it's unclear how effective the measure might have been at forcing politicians' hands. I-91 would have restricted only city taxes, and Seattle's newest venues were subsidized with county and state revenues.

But Bennett indicated the message it sent was clear.

"Other cities in King County have expressed great interest in becoming the new home of the Sonics," he said.

The new owners insist that they hope to keep the teams in Western Washington. But to stay, Bennett has said, they must have a new arena funded with taxpayer contributions.

[MajorMike]

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

P-I Endorsement: Say no to I-91

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

Seattle voters will decide whether to impose tough financial requirements on any new city deals with pro sports teams.

We believe this is an overly prescriptive route, part of a larger trend toward ballot-box dictation of decisions that can be better made through the give-and-take of legislative debate. Seattle voters should say no to Initiative 91.

It's worth noting that newspapers sell more copies when a sports team is winning games. That said, we admire the energy that went into gathering signatures to put I-91 and the intent of the measure's writers to emphasize more important functions of government than providing homes for pro sports teams. If there were some way to impose the rules on other communities' investments, taxpayer funds would indeed be used more intelligently. And, without a doubt, pro sports owners suddenly would discover the previously well-hidden ability to run their franchises like businesses. The pay differences between teachers and ballplayers just might ease slightly.

I-91, however, would impose requirements on Seattle that would limit the city's ability to negotiate what might be worthwhile deals. It would require that the city receive a rate of return to be set in part based on 30-year Treasury bonds.

Part of the reason for the measure is the ownership threats to move the Seattle Sonics. It's possible the city can reach some viable, mutually beneficial arrangement to keep them. But, so far, city officials have shown a keen understanding of public skepticism. We think they should be expected to exercise sound judgment without I-91.

[MajorMike]

The Times endorses

Vote "no" on city sports initiative


Seattle voters should vote no on Initiative 91 and focus on more important things.

A city should have the right to enter into a partnership with a business without having to worry about a guaranteed financial return, even if that business is a professional sports team. I-91 would essentially strip Seattle of its ability to host professional sports teams by requiring a return for taxpayer investment in stadiums. The initiative, sponsored by the come-again stadium fighters Citizens For More Important Things, defines the rate of return as nothing less than that of a 30-year U.S. Treasury bond.

The initiative would create a restraint to business made worse by allowing individual residents to legally challenge any stadium deal.

Seattle was tough with the previous, local SuperSonics ownership group. There is no reason to believe city leaders are going to enter into a stinker deal with the new owners from Oklahoma.

The new ownership says it wants to find a way to improve KeyArena or build somewhere else in the region, such as Renton or Bellevue. I-91 would ensure that the SuperSonics leave their home of 40 years for the Eastside or Oklahoma City. That would be a real loss for Seattle Center.

Seattleites should also consider the Seahawks and Mariners. What happens to those organizations in the future? Seattle should not shut its door to professional sports.

The SuperSonics might not be delivering like a 30-year bond, but the team still has a positive impact on businesses and on the intangible nature of four decades in Seattle.

[MajorMike]

Yes on I-91 stopped tax subsidies for pro-sports stadiums. Now, it is up to the legislature to listen to the people.

Yes on I-91 is about setting priorities, about spending tax dollars on the things that matter most, about the Sonics paying their own way, about the legislature listening to the voters.

To help with the Yes on I-91 "Respect the Vote" campaign, click here.

With professional basketball now pitting sports tax boosters against the people's pocketbooks, Citizens for More Important Things is leading another fight for fiscal sanity in stadium funding. The existence of Initiative 91 has already significantly impacted negotiations between the Sonics and the City. After Initiative 91 passes, there will be no more giveaways, period.

For conservatives, not being able to say no to the extravagance of professional sports means government will never say no to anybody for anything. Moderates wonder at the gullibility of elected officials when doused with the snake oil of pro-sports as a tool for economic development. Liberals are angry at a government that chronically underfunds education and social services but has a blank checkbook for rich boys with big toys.

These are difficult battles. They are happening all across America, and most are won by the pro-sports moguls. At least in Washington State, because of the efforts of thousands of Citizens For More Important Things contributors and volunteers, the moguls have not been able to run roughshod over sane public policy and the taxpayer's pocketbooks.

Citizens for More Important Things has a single agenda--focus on what matters most, on more important things, and leave sports entertainment to the private sector. We cross partisan boundaries, and bring together normally opposing voices. We simply question the reasonableness of any government that would subsidize private entities whose average player salaries are in the millions of dollars per year. Teachers should be so lucky.

The supporters of publicly subsidized sports franchises argue that pro-sports bring people together as communities, to see and enjoy the art of sport. No doubt. But there are many things in public life that are great for any city. At some point, we have to weigh the cost, and set priorities, in light of the fairness of the subsidy to these very well funded private enterprises. This is what Initiative 91 does. It makes pro-sports teams pay their own way, and fairly share the cost.

Stadiums and professional sports are powerful symbols. Voters, the public, sports fans, the media all pay close attention to these debates. Because the outcome not only changes skylines when sports promoters win, the shadow of the debates falls across public hearings and discussions of public spending for schools, highways, and many other more important things. The obvious, unanswered question is nagging and simple: If they can pay for stadiums, why can't they pay for what we need?

Formed in 1995, Citizens for More Important Things has long been a voice of reason in the debate over spending tax money for professional sports subsidies in Washington State. We are thankful to all who have helped us, and who are helping this year.

[MajorMike]

In Seattle, Initiative 91, sponsored by Citizens for More Important Things, calls for the city to receive a fair-value return -- currently 4.9 percent -- on any property, goods and services it provides to any for-profit professional sports organizations. At issue is the plight of the Seattle SuperSonics and the WNBA's Seattle Storm, whose new owner, Clay Bennett, has given the city one year to agree to either refurbish or replace KeyArena. An Oklahoma City businessman, Bennett likely will move the teams if the city fails to comply. The teams' previous owner, a company directed by Starbucks Corp. chairman Howard Schultz, could not reach such an agreement with the city, causing Schultz to sell the team, he said.

[Findog]

Yeah, shows what you know.


They're still paying for the renovations done on Key Arena 12 YEARS AGO. They also approved the use of taxpayer funds for Safeco Field and Qwest Field. Are they going to have to pay for a new facility every 12 years?

Not that it matters:



"But we didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle; we hoped to come here," McClendon said. "We know it's a little more difficult financially here in Oklahoma City, but we think it's great for the community and if we could break even we'd be thrilled."

Yeah, shows what you know.

[Findog]

Who is Citizens for More Important Things? Do they speak for all of Seattle? There is currently a group of local investors trying to buy the team from Bennett and get a new facility done. He won't put the team up for sale.

Seriously, do a little research.

[MajorMike]

Again, your little whiner point the finger at someone else attitude. Bennett tried 3 times to get a new arena, then to get another across the bay. He was voted down everytime. The people voted him down. The fans. They know the cost. They let the Sonics go. No on to blame but themselves. No one. Whine and cry foul all you want, the truth is in black and white - they voted no, the city voted no, the state voted no. TODF.

[MajorMike]

Who is Citizens for More Important Things? Do they speak for all of Seattle? There is currently a group of local investors trying to buy the team from Bennett and get a new facility done. He won't put the team up for sale.

Seriously, do a little research.

Wow, showing your ass, are you?


Where politics and sports mix
By George Tanber
Special to ESPN.com
(Archive)
Updated: November 6, 2006, 6:28 PM ET

In Seattle, Initiative 91, sponsored by Citizens for More Important Things, calls for the city to receive a fair-value return -- currently 4.9 percent -- on any property, goods and services it provides to any for-profit professional sports organizations. At issue is the plight of the Seattle SuperSonics and the WNBA's Seattle Storm, whose new owner, Clay Bennett, has given the city one year to agree to either refurbish or replace KeyArena. An Oklahoma City businessman, Bennett likely will move the teams if the city fails to comply. The teams' previous owner, a company directed by Starbucks Corp. chairman Howard Schultz, could not reach such an agreement with the city, causing Schultz to sell the team, he said.


Here's a link so you can actually read about what's going on instead of making it up as you go.

LINKY DINK (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2651493)

[Purple & Gold]

Again, your little whiner point the finger at someone else attitude. Bennett tried 3 times to get a new arena, then to get another across the bay. He was voted down everytime. The people voted him down. The fans. They know the cost. They let the Sonics go. No on to blame but themselves. No one. Whine and cry foul all you want, the truth is in black and white - they voted no, the city voted no, the state voted no. TODF.

He won't sell the team and is trying to break a lease. How exactly was he trying to keep the team in Seattle??

[Findog]

Again, your little whiner point the finger at someone else attitude. Bennett tried 3 times to get a new arena, then to get another across the bay.

Bennett asked for the city to build him a $500 million arena when Safeco Field and Qwest Field didn't cost anywhere near that, even adjusted for inflation. The facility in Oklahoma City cost $91 million, and not all of the difference is made up in property value differences between Seattle and OKC.


He was voted down everytime.

Which is what he wanted, make an unreasonable demand and get rejected. I wonder what would have happened if they had agreed, since the last thing he wanted was to keep the team in Seattle.


The people voted him down. The fans. They know the cost. They let the Sonics go. No on to blame but themselves. No one. Whine and cry foul all you want, the truth is in black and white - they voted no, the city voted no, the state voted no. TODF

You just don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The ownership group itself admitted they never had any intention to stay and deliberately did everything they could to alienate the fanbase and the muncipal and state government. Yeah, he "tried" and "did everything he could." So the municipal govt didn't click their heels and bend over fast enough for Howard Schultz. I guess it didn't matter that they are still paying on the last set of renovations to the place and had already approved two other facilities. The two Sonic ownership groups were just simply impatient.

[MajorMike]

He won't sell the team and is trying to break a lease. How exactly was he trying to keep the team in Seattle??


OLYMPIA — Seattle Sonics owner Clay Bennett announced today that the team wants to build its new $530 million basketball arena in Renton.

Bennett called Renton a city “on the verge of a transformation” and predicted a new arena there would “trigger vast economic development.”

He told the Senate Ways and Means Committee today that the Sonics and Storm made the decision last night, after weighing the Renton site against one in Bellevue.

Alex Pietsch, Renton’s economic-development director, said he learned of the selection at 1:30 p.m. today. Bennett is asking for at least $300 million in taxpayer money to help pay for the new arena, which could cost as much as $530 million. The request has drawn skepticism from lawmakers.


Sonics unveil proposed arena

By GREG JOHNS AND CHRIS McGANN
P-I REPORTERS

OLYMPIA -- After months of conjecture, Clay Bennett and his partners put a visual face on their new arena concept Monday with the release of architectural drawings of the proposed Sonics facility in Renton.



· 2 Sonics owners: No gay marriage
And the new principal owner of the NBA franchise also told a House committee in Olympia that a public vote on the proposal is no longer a deal breaker.

"I'm open to whatever the right answer is, whatever leadership recommends and whatever's right for this region," Bennett told lawmakers.

The public -- as well as lawmakers -- can now picture the 20,000-seat building Bennett has planned for the site, which was announced two weeks ago.



This computer drawing shows how a proposed new arena for the Seattle Sonics may look if it is built as planned on a site owned by The Boeing Co. at the south end of Lake Washington. (Professional Basketball Club LLC)
As expected, the $500 million project would be a rather glamorous addition to the current Boeing property at the south end of Lake Washington. Large glass exteriors and open walkways would greet visitors to a massive structure nearly double the size of KeyArena.

Bennett unveiled the drawings in Olympia on Monday night, while meeting with members of the House Finance Committee.

"We think it's critical," said Jim Kneeland, a spokesman for Bennett. "It gives people a sense of the magnitude of the project. Compared to KeyArena, it's a much larger and more flexible venue."

The proposed facility would be about 730,000 square feet, according to Kneeland. KeyArena stands at 400,000 square feet. That figure does not include parking structures also planned for the Renton project.


Bennett proposes that the Sonics will provide $100 million towards the expected $530 million cost of the arena. He expects the state to provide $330 million, and Bellevue/Renton and private financiers to provide the balance of $100 million. It’s important to note that the stadium itself is expected to cost $360 million, while the land value is estimated at $170 million, which he assumes will be donated.


Dear Governor Gregoire

We appreciate the time and interest you have devoted to our effort to find an acceptable new home for the Sonics and Storm in the region. From the outset, you recognized that the region needs to develop a world class multi-purpose arena to serve as a home for major sporting events, concerts, large conventions and large corporate meetings. Virtually every tier-one community in the country has already built such a facility or is in the process of doing so.

We believe the potential for such a venue extends far beyond professional basketball and has the opportunity to benefit the entire region. An excellent example was the news last week that Denver was chosen as the site for the next Democratic National Convention to be held at the Pepsi Center, which is an example of the kind of facility we are proposing here in Puget Sound.

Since assuming ownership of the Sonics and Storm on November 1, we have tried to work as quickly as possible to develop a reasonable proposal that will meet the needs of both the teams and the region. Our group has retained ICON Venue Group and HOK Sport to help shape the vision for the new facility and provide a reasonable estimate of the costs for this multi-purpose complex.

We have said since the very beginning that we want to develop a financing model that is fair to all parties, and which would include the ability for us to make a reasonable return on our investment over time.

As we have explained to you in our discussions, the complexity of the project is greater than even we anticipated. In addition to working with the cities that might be the site of this building, we have also worked with a number of stakeholders, including major employers in the region. These stakeholders have uses for the building but also want to ensure that it is appropriately located to best meet their needs and not disrupt regional transportation corridors. Finally, we have been confronted by construction costs that are rising on a daily basis and have made the project more expensive than other recent arenas.

We currently are considering two sites: one in Renton near "The Landing," the City's new mixed-use retail and housing development, and the other near the Bellevue central business district in an area known as "auto row." Both sites have significant advantages and challenges. We continue working with both City governments in an effort to determine the most acceptable location for a major arena. Both cities are now considering whether such a project is an acceptable use for the future of their city.

Costs

From the work that has been done by our architects and consultants, we estimate that the cost of the building itself will be between $340 million and $360 million. That does not include the cost of the land, parking and infrastructure, which we estimate could add $150 million to $170 million more to the project. We are working with both municipalities on ideas that could help to contain the costs for parking and infrastructure to bring down the total cost of the project.

The building itself would be between 700,000 and 800,000 square feet and would seat at least 18,000 for basketball. In addition it would be designed so it could accommodate NHL Hockey, Arena Football, concerts and large meetings or conventions. It is likely that in whichever location it is built it will encourage the development of one or more hotels near the facility that would need to be built with private dollars.

Operating structure

Since the beginning we have anticipated forming a Public Facilities District similar to the ownership structure of Safeco Field and Qwest Field. Initially we held the view that the Sonics ownership group should operate and control the building; however, it has become clear that the Sonics are really only one tenant in a much larger building project. As a result we are now also evaluating operating structures that share both the decision-making and any revenue that comes from the building. We are still exploring how best to structure an approach that could work for all parties. We would very much appreciate input from you and King County officials about thoughts on an acceptable structure.

Investment

To make this project work, it is clear that we will need at least $300 million in revenue sources authorized by the state. These would be taxes collected only in King County and would also require the approval of the King County Council and Executive. This would largely include using revenue sources that were used for Safeco Field, Qwest Field and the Kingdome, including the restaurant tax and the rental car tax.

These are taxes that are already in place and will be available because of the early retirement of bonds for the other facilities. We also acknowledge that some of these fund sources will need to be reserved for the arts in King County.

It has also become clear that the City where the multipurpose facility is located will need to make an investment against revenues that will be returned to it through increased economic activity in the City as a result of the arena.

Finally, as we have said all along, there will need to be a private investment in the new arena. There are several factors that keep us from providing you an absolute number on the amount of private investment today. There is still a great deal of modeling going on about the potential financial return of the building and the benefit it will provide the team. My obligation to the Sonic ownership group is that I not enter into any transaction that does not give us at least a fair chance to earn a reasonable profit over time.

The amount of our contribution is made more complex by the financial realities of a team with a non-economic lease and poor financial performance that will likely lead to losses of $50 million or more before we can get into a new arena. The magnitude of those losses has to impact the amount we can contribute toward an arena.

However, we do recognize that for the project to move forward there is a need for a significant private contribution and we are continuing to do the work that will allow us to come forward with an acceptable level of contribution to a new arena. We clearly would not ask the Legislature to take final action or King County to authorize any taxes for an arena until we could clearly define the extent of private contribution.

There are many issues that need to be resolved before we can ask the Legislature to act. However, we wanted to provide this update of our thinking on this arena project for you and the Legislature to consider.

Regardless of whether the Sonics are a tenant in a new facility, it is only a matter of years before there will be general recognition that a complex like we are proposing is needed in the region. The Sonics can be an important part of making the building work for the community.

We need to resolve the future of the Sonics. We are doing all we can to ensure the team has a future in this region. We feel the same need to get the team's future location resolved so that we can devote full attention to improving on court performance.

While we have helped give some clarity to the potential of this project, it is now in the hands of the two local governments we have identified to determine if the Sonics and the construction of a multi-purpose facility have a role in the future of their City. Each City has worked with us cooperatively up to this point and now must make independent decisions about whether it is in their interest to proceed.

We appreciate the support and guidance you have provided us. We expect to provide a definitive proposal as soon as practicable and keep you aware of all new developments.

Best Regards,

Clayton I. Bennett, Chairman
Professional Basketball Club, L.L.C.

[Findog]

Wow, showing your ass, are you?




Here's a link so you can actually read about what's going on instead of making it up as you go.

LINKY DINK (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2651493)

CFMT is just one municipal advocacy group. Save our Sonics is in FAVOR of using public funds to build a new facility. But I guess they don't count since that doesn't fit your convenient narrative. You don't know the history of what went on there. The Sonics got their new facility 12 years ago, the taxpayers are still paying for it, and they came back hat in hand almost as soon as the renovations were done. The position of the govt wasn't "We'll NEVER build you a new facility, you just need to wait your turn."

Schultz was impatient, while Bennett is a vulture. I know you're excited about getting a team in OKC, but you don't have to deny the facts.

[MajorMike]

Which is what he wanted, make an unreasonable demand and get rejected. I wonder what would have happened if they had agreed, since the last thing he wanted was to keep the team in Seattle.


Lol, yeah; he planned that all along. He laid millions out on the line because he knew that the people then the city then the state would all reject new arenas so he could then move 2 years later. It was all a part of his great scheme. What a genius he is!

[Findog]

haha, CaptainMike posted a press release from Bennett as evidence of good intentions.

:lmao

I guess I'll post briefings by Ari Fleisher to support my contention that there were WMDS in Iraq.

Are you fucking serious?

:lmao

[Findog]

Lol, yeah; he planned that all along. He laid millions out on the line because he knew that the people then the city then the state would all reject new arenas so he could then move 2 years later. It was all a part of his great scheme. What a genius he is!

He is a genius, he bought the team, initiated a plan to alienate the host community, and then threw up his hands and said he'd done all he could. Reminds me of Bush saying that all attempts to work with Hussein to disarm had failed.

[MajorMike]

CFMT is just one municipal advocacy group. .

Oh wait, I thought you just asked who they were.



Schultz was impatient, while Bennett is a vulture. I know you're excited about getting a team in OKC, but you don't have to deny the facts.

I have all the facts. Fact is Bennett was going to move them all along and the Seattle people were too stupid to call his bluff now it is their loss.

I don't want an OKC team, I'm a Spurs fan. I'll never be an OKC fan, I don't live in OKC, I don't give a flip. Point is, you all are just plain wrong. You want proof then you get it then you refuse to read what is in front of you.

Q: Did Seattle approve a proposal they knew was going to doom their chance of keeping the Sonics?
A: Yes.

Q: Did the city of Seattle turn down Bennett's request for a new arena?
A: Yes.

Q: Did the state of Washington turn down Bennett's request for state money to put the team somewhere else?
A: Yes.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me, no matter how you conspiracy theorist want to spin it.

When the voters and govt of Seattle let the Sonics down, OKC was quick enough and smart enough to step in. They deserve it.

[Extra Stout]

$530 million for a basketball arena. Yeah, that proposal was made in good faith. Sure. Whatever. It's beside the point.

We make the mistake in this country of tying professional sports franchises to our civic identities. San Antonio does it as much as anybody else, and probably more because it's a smaller city. We've constructed a code of civic ethics around support of professional sports franchises. If the games sell out, the city is more moral. If attendance is sparse, the city is immoral.

We also developed a false social contract, as a result of emotional investment, where a "moral" city that supports its team has an ownership stake in it, as if it were a public good, rather than a privately owned business.

The private business owner exploits that civic emotional attachment to the team and thereby extorts the city.

I see two solutions to the problem. One, we institute a government takeover of professional sports franchises and make them public goods run by respective cities. Since they already are subsidized by taxes, this just transforms corporate welfare into public entertainment welfare. If one has qualms about seizing -- make that stealing -- billions of dollars of somebody else's assets, such a course is untenable. Likewise, many would have a problem shelling out tax money to purchase the teams outright.


Or, we stop being so juvenile and recognize that pro sports are just entertainment, that being a "major-league" city has only a tangential impact on quality of life, if even that, and let loose this emotional stranglehold pro sports owners have over their communities. If they think they can get a better deal elsewhere, fine.

Seattle isn't going to be a worse place to live because the Sonics leave. At worst, casually acquainted men will have to find something else to talk about during the winter. We make the mistake of thinking that sports matter.

Nobody looks at San Diego and says, "Yeah, it's beautiful and the weather's perfect almost all the time, but they've lost not one, but two NBA teams! What a terrible city!" Nobody thinks less of Vancouver because the Grizzlies couldn't hack it there.

[mikejones99]

San Diego and vancouver > Seattle. Sonics died a few years ago when they gave away all their players and sold the team