Reply With Quote
A friend of mine in OKC told me names like "Twisters" and "Tornados" are being tossed around.
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 iden y.
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.
A friend of mine in OKC told me names like "Twisters" and "Tornados" are being tossed around.
Bombers
Mascot can be a Ryder Truck.
lame joke
It'll be the Cherokee.
Los Twisters
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.
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/iden y w/ Seattle is a wise move; similar to what the Browns did with Cleveland.
Bennett's an asshole. Seattle fans deserve better.
because sonics are le contenders or make the playoffs?
do the sonics sell out?
Last edited by ducks; 03-25-2008 at 01:16 PM.
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
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.
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 insi ution 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.
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.
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 en led to another cities team.
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.
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.
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.
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 en ies 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.
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.
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:
Yeah, shows what you know."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."
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.
Again, your little whiner point the finger at someone else at ude. 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
