What?! You mean a group of Oklahoma City billionaires, desperate to bring a major league team to their home city, had no intention of keeping the Sonics in Seattle when they purchased the team? Who’d a thunk?
OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma City energy tycoon says the group that purchased the Seattle SuperSonics hopes to move the NBA franchise to Oklahoma City, but he acknowledges the team could make more money in the Pacific Northwest.
“But we didn’t buy the team to keep it in Seattle; we hoped to come here,” Aubrey McClendon, chief executive of Chesapeake Energy, told The Journal Record for a story in Monday’s edition. “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.”
[…] “We started to look around, and at that time the Sonics were going through some ownership challenges in Seattle,” McClendon told the newspaper. “So Clay, very artfully and skillfully, put himself in the middle of those discussions and to the great amazement and surprise to everyone in Seattle, some rednecks from Oklahoma, which we’ve been called, made off with the team.”
That’s right, Clay Bennett — the guy the easy marks at the Seattle Times editorial board judged to be negotiating in good faith — “artfully and skillfully … made off with the team.” Hoity-toity editorialists comfort themselves by dismissing bloggers like me as unserious, but they do their readers a disservice when they infuse their coverage with the kind of naivete that comes from their solemn dedication to establishmentarian objectivity:
There have been whispers and shouts that SuperSonics owner Clay Bennett is only buying time until he can move the teams to his home state of Oklahoma. This is an unfair claim. Bennett has done nothing to suggest that moving the teams is a foregone conclusion.
No, I guess it was never a foregone conclusion, but with Bennett and the other owners willing to lose money in Oklahoma City — in fact, preferring it over making a modest profit in Seattle — it would take a helluva sweet deal to keep the team in the region. You know, something like a free half-billion dollar arena from which they keep all the revenues. Bennett and his buddies never negotiated in good faith (hell, they never even negotiated,) they always intended to move the team to Oklahoma City, and they laughed at the naive, big city rubes who ever believed otherwise. You don’t get to be a billionaire by taking the first deal slapped on the table, yet that’s exactly what the Sonics asked WA state and local officials to do.
Unless the NBA intercedes for the good of the league, the Sonics are moving to Oklahoma City. All the talk thus far has been little more than a charade to keep hopeful fans in their seats until the Key Arena lease expires in 2010.
According to David Stern, this post does not exist.
Goldy,
On the rare occasion that something you say isn’t MorOn.org groupthink, I gotta give you credit. Good post. Though, in typical Dem fashion, you just point out problems and offer no solutions.
I seem to recall something in the purchase contract that says Bennett’s people were required to negotiate in good faith. Clearly, this was never their intent and now some loudmouth in their group made it official.
Since you’re part of the Dem machine in WA and no right-thinking Dem politician acts without the machine’s approval, how about you bring it up at your next peyote circle? Get all the background you need at http://www.SaveOurSonics.org or http://www.SonicsCentral.com.
Though I rarely read this site any more and have grown weary of Bunny Boy’s verbal masturbation in every thread, I do pop in now and then — much like gawking at a car wreck. Glad to see I’m not missing too much.
P.S. You know that beer you owe me from way back — the thing about decoding what your kid said (or something like that)? Please just take the five bucks and donate it to Richard Pope’s campaign. :)
1) Bye bye Sonics. Who gives a fuck?
2) Yeah the fake Mark does what every Publican does – attacks Goldy for not offering any solutions then – yes wait for it – proceeds to not offer any solutions.
I know Marky – you were perplexed. You couldn’t see a way to have someone else’s kids fight this battle for you just the way the righties are handling Iraq – send someone else’s kids. Not George Bush’s kids, Mitt Romney’s kids – someone ELSE’s kids.
Fans should just stay away from the Key Arena and not even watch the games on TV.
Follow college basketball instead.
There’s no better revenge than burning a hole, no matter how small, in a greedhead’s pocket.
proceeds to not offer any solutions.
His solution is to vote for the guys with an “R” next to their names.
See an “R” fill in the circle. That’s always been surreal Mark’s solution.
Mark, there aren’t any solutions. To paraphrase Jerry Reed, Clayboy and the Redneck Mafia got the goldmine, and Seattle got the shaft. All that we Sonics (and Storm) fans should ask for is the city to negotiate with the NBA to keep the rights to the names and histories of the franchises, and let Clayboy take his Carpetbaggers where ever there’s a city dumb enough to prostrate itself before his feet and acquiesce to his demands.
Maybe in 10 or 20 years, when (somehow) a new multi-purpose arena becomes more feasible, the government of whichever area said arena resides in will be able to attract another carpetbagger to bring their franchise(s) to the Puget Sound area to revive the Sonics and Storm.
But don’t bet on it. With the situation as it stands, I doubt any NBA owner would bother bringing their teams to Seattle, so you’d better get ready for the inevitable reality of having the Portland Jail Blazers as the only NBA team within 800 miles.
And we may talk a lot about imploding assholes on this board, but could you imagine the day when Sonics fans would have no choice in getting their NBA fix other than going to, or rooting for……Portland?
It’d make Mt. St. Helens look like a whoopie cushion!
I don’t understand this. If the Sonics have become a rich man’s foible, isn’t there a rich man in Seattle who might like to own the team?
What confuses me is the role of the public in this. Say Jeff Bozo bought the team. Would Jeff want the rest of us to attend games? Should we pay or be paid? Are we part of the audience or the entertainment?
Another query. Why, in the age of the net, are teams still bound to specific cities? Wouldn’t it make more sense to brand them like stadiums?
Imagine … if Jeff bought the team he could rename the Storm to the Amazons! Then the Amazon Amazons could play the Trump Babes for the WNBA championship!
Of course it might be more difficult to find one buyer for the Storm and the Sonics so the Sonics would, of course, have to be bought by Boeing. Naturally they would call their team the Dream, the Boeing Dream. I would expect Apple to get into the gane very quickly … imagine the white sateen uniforms on the Apple Pickers!
This new approach to team ownership opens other possibilities as well. Why not let churches buy teams/ The LDS might very well want the Priests for an NBA team. Of course this would open interesting possibilities for each Priest having his own WNBA team.
As Goldy says, “who woulda thunk?”
One down two to (I think that’s the right version of to) go!
No need to worry about Seattle becoming a second class city W/O sports teams: Seattle IS a second class city with sports teams.
Sell stock in the team.
Team profits = profits for stockholders.
Oh wait: vile capitalism.
Nevermind.
Let the overpaid crybabies throw a tantrum in someone elses corner
SJ@6:
“I don’t understand this.”
Cleary, you do not.
“If the Sonics have become a rich man’s foible, isn’t there a rich man in Seattle who might like to own the team?”
Ugh, SJ, a rich man in Seattle just SOLD the team to these guys.
You might go out and purchase a program to keep up.
…proceeds to not offer any solutions.
The solution undoubtedly involves opening up the public purse for private gain. That and jailing folks is the wingnut solution for any and all social problems.
clearly you have never been involved in biz discussions or negotiations. They purchased the team to make money, to invest, to take profits, that’s the goal of any owner, no matter how “benevolent” they seem.
They will make more money in Seattle when/if a new arena is built. But, there are issues and Seattle is not willing to jump (yet).
So, you float somewhere that you actually always intended to move the team….but you don’t do this via the main guy, but a secondary owner/spokesperson, etc.
Now, predictably, panic rises…and “your beloved” Sonics might move….
Quick, quick, approve that arena. Seattle/KC pays, owners get a bargain, everyone is happy. Of course, he people who have to pay for it get shafted.
So let the Sonics move, who cares. That should be the real outcome of this.
With the loss of ray allen, who really cares what happens to the sonics. With the watered down league and over inflated salaries it’s going to be years before the sonics see the playoffs again.
#9 Proud To Be An Ass says:
Yeah, can you believe SJ. He foolishly thought there was more than one rich man in seattle.
Marvin,
I guess we can cross out the other 57 folks who chipped in to buy the team along with Howie Schultz back in ’01. No matter…there’s more where they came from. Funny, none of these esteemed locals took the bait. Local knowledge? I merely point out that SJ appears to be deluded, not that he cannot count.
Sure, lots of rich men in Seattle.
As long as they believe they can get the taxpayers to foot just about the entire bill for their toy, however, those rich men can rot in hell.
Sports teams should be seen by those rich men as mechanisms to demonstrate that they’re studly (faux) jocks. They should be viewed as playthings and hobbies, not profit centers. I don’t expect to profit from my hobbies, nor to have someone else buy the stuff I use for those hobbies. So I don’t see why those rich men should feel entitled to profit from, or to have the taxpayers buy stuff to support, their hobbies.
Me @ 8:
Actually, it’s been done before, but I don’t believe it’s been done in the US at the major-league level. Some clubs in fringe sports have done it here, and it’s also worked reasonably well with soccer clubs in the major professional leagues in Great Britian.
I don’t think the Green Bay Packers don’t quite qualify as a publicly held venture, though I can’t really dredge up the details. I think it’s actually something of a co-op instead.
@2 Clay Bennett’s intention of moving the Sonics to Oklahoma is a problem that doesn’t require a solution.
@2 P.S., reading Roger Rabbit’s comments is, and always has been, a voluntary activity. Glad to hear SOMEONE has been getting off on it! Need a paper towel?
@2 So Marky … who should pay for the $500 million arena? You? Are you volunteering?
@6 SJ’s best post ever.
I’ll add to the chorus here…
I get ticked off every time I go by the two taxpayer-funded playgrounds we already have. I’ll be damned if I’m willing to pay for ANOTHER one, especially since we just renovated Key Arena (I still want to call it the Coliseum)a decade ago.
And anybody who thought the Oklahoma boys were going to keep the teams here anyway was just being naive. I mean seriously.
So go Sonics. It was fun but not another half billion dollars worth of fun. Take your NASCAR pals with ya.
-OneMan’s opinion
@12 It wouldn’t make any difference if the Sonics were the best BB team in the galaxy. It’s still a private business, and taxpayers still shouldn’t subsidize it. Howie or Clay or whoever owns the team should buy his own damn arena. It’s a business expense. And that way, he can build exactly what he wants.
@16 Three words: Green Bay Packers
I read yesterday in the papers that I-5 through downtown Seattle will have to be rebuilt in a few years at a cost of $2 billion. If any taxing jurisdiction has a loose $500 million lay around …
laying
@24:
…and that’s the reason I get ticked off whenever I see the stadia: I believe the rise of Tim Eyman and his ilk can be directly traced back to the railroading of those boondogles down the public’s collective throat. Not that they weren’t around before that but I’m convinced that they got an audience as a direct result of the stadium deals.
-OneMan
Say what you will about Mark (and y’all will, I know) but he was right about one thing:
You see? I believe that it is true that these guys have a contract that requires that they negotiate in good faith. And one of their own just admitted publicly that they are not doing this. This creates liability HELL for these A-holes.
I’m just sayin’…couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of guys.
@27
I haven’t followed this as closely as I should have, but I think you and Mark are probably hitting the nail on the head. It also explains David Stern’s odd defensiveness about the whole situation. I think he’s known all along that Bennett is not genuine about his desire to stay in Seattle and is covering his ass (hence my reference in comment #1).
RealMark @ 2: seem to recall something in the purchase contract that says Bennett’s people were required to negotiate in good faith. Clearly, this was never their intent and now some loudmouth in their group made it official.
I can suggest a solution for ya. Should be right up your alley, too. Why don’t you sue the f*ckers, instead of whining about this blog not offering any solutions?
re 2: In typical wingnut fashion, you are a complete lying asshole and an idiot, to boot.
#22 Roger – you furry little guy. A Most Excellent Comment!!
(See! I do agree with you sometimes!)
DL @ 27: FINALLLY! Someone who can read. My point was that there supposedly is a contract with a good faith clause. My proposed solution was for our elected “leaders” to HOLD THEM TO IT and for Goldy to bring up the issue at the next Dem group hug and groupthink session. I even gave links to info resources.
Apparently, I forgot that I need to speak verrrry slowwwwly when dealing with Lefties.
There are other solutions out there, too: http://www.eventscenterfacts.com.
Bunny Boy @ 18: You’re the only one using up Kleenex boxes with your every post.
As for tax dollars… If you don’t like public investment in sports, how do you feel about mandatory, but little-seen million-dollar “art” projects paid for with public dollars?
feckless loosey-goosey @ 30: Name ONE lie in that post.
32 Mark
I never figured you were bad. I just thought you were drawn that way.
re 33: Marky Mark and his funky butt: The following quotes from # 2 are lies:
“On the rare occasion that something you say isn’t MorOn.org groupthink, I gotta give you credit. Good post. Though, in typical Dem fashion, you just point out problems and offer no solutions.”
“Since you’re part of the Dem machine in WA and no right-thinking Dem politician acts without the machine’s approval, how about you bring it up at your next peyote circle? Get all the background you need at http://www.SaveOurSonics.org or http://www.SonicsCentral.com.”
Or examples of the way you’ve deliberately warped your mind so that every action that takes place fits into your ideology.
You are like Colonel Cathcart with his black eyes, feathers in his cap, and tight bombing patters.
If I had a few minutes to type it out, I’d make a satirical post written by an ersatz you describing several basketball plays as if they were free-market activities. “Whoa!! Looks like Allen’s not maximizing profits in terms of completed free fro’s this evenibg. I’d say, this CEO needs to find a new corporation to play with! BooYa!!!!
“You don’t get to be a billionaire by taking the first deal slapped on the table”.
Nor do you get to be a billionaire by buying a business with the expectation of being “thrilled to break even” because it’s “great for the community”.
I suspect they’re playing both Seattle and Oklahoma City off against each other to see which city’s political class is foolish enough to give them the biggest subsidy.
feckless @ 36
M@2: “I gotta give you credit”
How is this a lie? Only I know whether or not I give credit.
M@2: “Good post”
Are you saying that Goldy’s post it bad? Agree or not, it is opinion and not fact — and I’m the only one that knows whether it is my honest opinion.
M@2: “…you… offer no solutions.”
Point out one solution offered by Goldy in his original post.
M@2: “[Goldy is] part of the Dem machine in WA…”
He has admitted as much — that he is associated with the Dem party in the state and that he has participated in actions to promote the party’s agenda.
As to the rest… Perhaps I was mistaken about the peyote. Maybe it is just some AWEsome weeeeeeeeed.
@37 Sure!
Some folks get to be billionaires by:
inheritance (Walmart, the Saudi princes)
theft (Saudi princes, Russian oligarchs inter alia)
being lucky to be buddies with Bill G. (Allan)
marriage (Kerry)
Geld bedeutet nicht sachel … to mix lingustic metaphors.
Who knows what lurks in the minds of evil men, only the shadow knows … and she is very quiet.
Roger @ 19:
One square of toilet paper, single ply, should do it.
Sharkboy at 37:
Wow! Captain Obvious strikes again!
I am not sure how long Sharkantsee worked on that theory, but I bet it hurt his brain for a week afterward.
OF COURSE THEY ARE PLAYING THE CITIES OFF EACH OTHER. This has been going for decades. I am liberal, I love sports but we can not subsidize what really amounts to a rich man’s toy. It is not a public trust to own a team. If you think that, where is my share of the profits?
re 38: You are willfully thick-witted and stupid. I know you think it’s clever, but a really stupid person doesn’t have to try.
That’s how stupid you’ve made yourself.
Another query. Why, in the age of the net, are teams still bound to specific cities? Wouldn’t it make more sense to brand them like stadiums?
Most if not all Japanese pro baseball teams are named after their corporate owners. The Hanshin Tigers by the Hanshin Railway Co, for example. It’s been an accepted practice for a long time.
The NBA vetoed the plan for FedEx to buy the Grizzlies and rename them the Memphis Express, so I guess we aren’t ready for this level of branding here yet.
LeftFoot@41
Where is your share?
How about the secondary economic benefits to the area?
How do you feel about megabucks going to subsidize some self-important “artiste’s” public project?
There are a many, many expenses borne by the public that do not benefit everyone. Personally, I resent my dollars going to protect the Far Left’s hate marches.
feckless Loosey-Goosey @ 42:
Guess I shouldn’t be surprised to see that you’re just as thick-headed and slow-witted as ever.
@43 rEAL mARK
Numerous studies agree that there is no net economic gan from an NBA team, indeed dependimg on the subsidy and location there may be a loss to competing businesses.
What “megabucks” are you referring to? I dount the entire public art budget for the City would pay more than a couple of salaries in the NBA. AND when we buy a piece of art .. it appreciate, remains here and serves the public for nearly free.
I do agree we subsidize a number of things … the Locks, waterfrony properties on lake Washington, The Symphony, The Opera, … some of these even serve the average guy!
Mark at 43
I see sports as separate from the arts. I see world history in the arts left behind. I don’t see history, other than records, left behind by sports.
Your argument is valid, I just don’t agree. Using the cumulative argument for justifying public financing of private play toys is just wrong. It is not the same as looking at a Chagall or listening to a symphony.
LeftFoot @ 46:
True… Art is separate from sports. However, both are non-essential to the basic sustenance of human life. They are both elective expenses. In the case of art, all of the expense is borne by the public with little to no economic return. For sports, you at least have the potential for a secondary economic impact (hotels, restaurants, etc.).
To borrow a Leftie anti-war argument, how dare Seattle spend $6.5 million per year on art (or any other elective expense) when people are going hungry and have limited access to healthcare? Perhaps staring at Hammering Man will make them forget their growling bellies.
Besides — considering the increasing waistlines in this country — perhaps we should do a bit more admiring of athletic prowess instead of navel gazing.
Jew @ 45:
There are conflicting projections about the economic gains to an area. However, if the net economic result to the area is even zero, why should there be an objection? Did you read about the financing model for the King County Events Center? Consumption taxes.
As to art appreciating in value, any gains are irrelevant until it is sold. Perhaps they have, but I’m not aware of the city selling any statues recently.
“Megabucks?” Spending six figures on some welded-together pile of “found objects” is as offensive as paying a bratty athlete a couple of million for a season.
LeftFoot @ 46:
Just wondering… Where do you draw the line between the public financing of a Chagall vs. a Piss Christ?
You mean the city Moonbat!s were hoodwinked? What other crap is missed by these IDIOTs?
Wait a minute… these Moonbat!s were/are/and will be supported by the Northwest’s Lunatic Moonbat! Fringe – ASSWipers!
@47 you need to be consistent
a. If yu beleive in the free market then sports should be regulated by that, The inane athlete salaries ought to show up on everyone’s tax bill. As it is, the athletics billionaires have manages to create a wierd market they make $$ and the cities subsifize the salaries.
I have no objection to public support of sports, but the %^$ model is wrong.
b. Again I challenge you to tell me of this six figure item .. even then is 100,000 still “megabucks?”
Besides that, I do not understand why one needs to sell something to enjoy it. If I own a Rothko painting I enjoy seeing it and, unllike Ichiro (whom I enjoy “owning” too)the painting only needs to be bought one and does not depreciate.
c. If the NBA is a civic service, as you suggest, then maybe the NBA should be nationalized? Why are they allowed to inflate the market by controlling who has teams? What do you think players would earn if there were a real free market and anyone who wanted to start a team could do so?
Before all the BS on why we ned the NBA to maintain quality, tell me what gripe you have against “amateur” college sports?
re 48: Just wondering: Would a flag burning amendment mean that conservatives believe that there are principles that trump private property rights?
Should a person be able to burn their own Chinese-made American flag? If not. Why not?
I’m a lifelong b-ball fan, but the day the Sonics move will be great cause for celebration, much like when a swarm of mosquitoes decides to leave your backyard and move to your neighbor’s. Remember when the Seahawks actually hired moving vans and were moving to LA? We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and brought ’em back. The legislature did the same thing after we voted down the Safeco field. Don’t let it happen this time!!! Contact your reps.
@52
I have a thought. Why do we want the NBA? Because it si entertaining. OK, but we have two professional college BB teams. Why not take whatever public dollars that would have gone into the Stuporsonics and put into a PUBLIC arena for Seattle’s collegiate sports teams?
This wold be a win-win-win. The colleges would make more $ w/o having to spend anything for a campus facility.
Jew @ 50
I don’t disagree that the model is screwed up. Or, at the very least, inconsistent.
Would you agree that one role of an area’s government — be it city, county, state — is to ensure the survival of said area? And would not the survival of an area depend on a healthy economy?
With that in mind, wouldn’t it be appropriate for the government to fund any project that doesn’t have moral/legal downsides (e.g. drug dealing) that results in a net gain to the area’s economy?
The problem, of course, is that you can cook the books however you want in order to support an argument. I’m sure someone could concoct a study that says the munchie purchases of patchouli-soaked HempFest attendees far outweigh the chardonnay purchases of the opera crowd.
There is no simple solution. Personally, I want the Sonics to stay in town, but I’m also annoyed with the dishonest fashion in which pro sports teams (and politicians) handle their business. This was the point of my original post: a deal is a deal and the City of Seattle must hold Bennett to both agreements. One, he should not be let out of his lease. Two, he must be forced to negotiate in good faith.
Now, as to your art value argument. You said that art is an economic investment, that it appreciates. I simply pointed out that the financial appreciation is irrelevant if there is no intent to sell. (OK, I guess the city could borrow against the art’s value, but…). A Rothko on a wall has just as much value as a child’s crayon scribbles UNTIL it is either sold or otherwised monetized (e.g. insurance claim, etc.). Furthermore, if looking at the painting brings you pleasure, does that pleasure diminish if it later turns out that it is a fake?
Again, unless the city plans to get into the art speculation business, the economic benefits are an irrelevant argument.
Lastly, I recall numerous newspaper articles touting some six-figure public art installation. SOMEONE is making a serious profit if you could build 4 or 5 low-income houses for the cost of some sculpture. Perhaps public art should use some sort of a prevailing wage formula. In other words, they get the cost of materials plus a reasonable hourly rate for the artist’s time — say, the equivalent to a teacher’s salary.