The Trial/City Rolls Over Thread

DoctorEvil · Post #21 » by **DoctorEvil** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:27 pm

The PBC team (Keller) is great at putting on a show, making witnesses look dumb and confused, and shifting the issues towards the irrelivant. These tactics work on the weak-minded (such as certain sportswriters), but will have NO effect on a seasoned, intelligent judge.
The FACTS of the case are still about the specific performance clause, and whether or not Bennett can break it. So far he hasn't shown any reason.

His own study said having the Sonics in OKC should generate $171M per year there, and he went before our senate looking for a new (ultra-expensive fully taxpayer funded) arena claiming all kinds of economic benefits for the state. Now he turns around and says he lied, and having a team is really worth ZERO. Licata's testimony is worthless, since he is a politian, and the city's expert (Zimbalist) is perhaps the world's foremost. Bennett even tried to hire him! So the economic impact is at best underterminable, which lends credence to the point that the benefits are indeed intangible and specific performance should be allowed. Don't be FOOLED because Keller made him admit he copied parts of his report-- they were DEFINITIONS and STANDARD PARAGRAPHS that should be copied word for word! The judge will focus on what he said, not whether Keller made him cry.

As for the "unclean hands" argument, it rarely gets used and the offending act would have to be very serious in order to be considered. In this case, AFTER Bennett announced his intention to break the lease and move the team, Walker got with some folks who might be able to do something to keep the team in Seattle. Nothing wrong with that. If you actually READ the PowerPoint Presentation, it is very clear that the city had NOTHING to do with it. Of course part of the plan would be to hold the thieves to the lease. Duh. This claim of unclean hands is a desperate reach.

Pechman is giving PBC every opportunity to present its case, and seemingly upholding all of their objections while stifling the city. I suspect she will rule for the city-- and the way she conducted the trial will leave little grounds for appeal.

So chill out. Don't be so easily swayed by slick talking salesmen and hypersensitive sports writers.
I think our biggest worry is what Bennett might do if he loses. Trade all 4th year and above contracts for 2012 picks?

DoctorEvil · Post #22 » by **DoctorEvil** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:42 pm

Actually, my BIGGEST FEAR is that as Howard's case draws near, Stern and Bennett might offer a settlement of a future expansion team for Seattle IF all lawsuits are dropped and the area has a taxpayer-funded arena (or Key remodel) in place by a certain year. We keep name and colors, but get screwed with the expansion rules (no top-3 picks, etc). Such a settlement would both suck and blow.
I HOPE we hold out to get this team back into local hands.
I don't want some future crap team-- I want THIS one!!
(j/k, I like this team! We could be good if Presti wanted.)

djthesonicsfan · Post #23 » by **djthesonicsfan** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:43 pm

Doctor, you've diagnosed the situation perfectly.

djthesonicsfan · Post #24 » by **djthesonicsfan** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:43 pm

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/sonics/

The PI just published the Findings of Fact for both the city & Bennett. The city did a great job. I'm more confident than ever they will win their case. Then it'll be up to Schultz.

bobcatsinfour · Post #25 » by **bobcatsinfour** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:08 pm

ESPN.com says the ruling will come down today. What a busy day for basketball. I hope 100% that the ruling goes your guys way, but am just curious to know if it can be appealed.

jenn_gp · Post #26 » by **jenn_gp** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:30 pm

^Yes either side can appeal, but I doubt Bennett will. He's expected to run out the rest of the lease--at least that's what he's claimed when testifying.

jenn_gp · Post #27 » by **jenn_gp** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:01 pm

Closing comment highlights from Brad Keller, Sonics attorney:

Keller says this case wouldn't even be happening if there wasn't a specific "home game" clause in the contract. He says the KeyArena lease has created a dysfunctional relationship between the city and the Sonics.

DUH!

Kellersites in Washington Trust Bank v. Circle K (1976) “A suit for specific performance will not lie if there is an adequate remedy at law available to the injured party. It has long been held in Washington that there is an adequate remedy at law in damages for the breach of a lease agreement. Consequently, the trial could did not abuse its discretion in denying the Bank’s request.”

Yeah, because the Sonics are the same as a gas station Quick-E-Mart! If this is as close as he can get, he seems to be grasping at straws to me. Plus, he sites some judgement that is over 30 years old.

Paul Schniderman was just on KJR saying he doesn't think there will be a verdict today...maybe a written statement within the next few days. Weird, I thought it was all supposed to go down today.

jenn_gp · Post #28 » by **jenn_gp** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:29 pm

Next Wednesday, July 2nd at 4pm the verdict will come down.

jenn_gp · Post #29 » by **jenn_gp** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:41 pm

Two more days until we hear the verdict.

I'm nervous.

yearsago · Post #30 » by **yearsago** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:42 pm

In Lawrence we trust.

colombianbrew · Post #31 » by **colombianbrew** » Tue Jul 1, 2008 9:23 am

For me there are two reasons to keep the team around. The first is that it nulls the NBA's decision to allow the team to move and forces them to go through it all again (with a lot more dirty laundry being aired). Secondly, they want to build a team. Presti isn't going to put rebuilding on hold just to screw Seattle. Bennet would be an idiot to tell him to do that. The team will improve, though we probably won't be talking playoffs in the two year window.

yearsago · Post #32 » by **yearsago** » Tue Jul 1, 2008 5:38 pm

I'm pretty confident about this, usually I am very nuerotic

jenn_gp · Post #33 » by **jenn_gp** » Tue Jul 1, 2008 6:12 pm

One more day...

pr0wler · Post #34 » by **pr0wler** » Wed Jul 2, 2008 12:12 am

Anyone else nervous? I am.

If they lose the case, does this pretty much mean they're gone for good? Or if we win the next trial of Bennett vs Howard Schultz is that more important anyway?

yearsago · Post #35 » by **yearsago** » Wed Jul 2, 2008 5:05 am

pr0wler wrote:Anyone else nervous? I am.

If they lose the case, does this pretty much mean they're gone for good? Or if we win the next trial of Bennett vs Howard Schultz is that more important anyway?

I think people who are inclined to freak out, will freak out if the City loses the case.

Even if we lose

1)We get a appeal

2)If Schultz files a injunction, just as good as the city winning the case.

We don't want to have Schultz to file, so obviously it would be better if the City won.

I'm not really nervous, which is good for me.

jenn_gp · Post #36 » by **jenn_gp** » Wed Jul 2, 2008 2:22 pm

^I heard Schulz would have to pony up $40 million for that injunction, anyone else hear that?

If that's true, and the city loses, what are the odds he's willing to put up that kind of money?

Pr0wler- My stomach has been in knots since yesterday and I had a hard time sleeping last night...I'm nervous. This case could make or break our chances of keeping basketball in Seattle.

TheUrbanZealot · Post #37 » by **TheUrbanZealot** » Wed Jul 2, 2008 2:31 pm

I have 2 fears when it comes to this case:

1 - the power of a judge willing and wanting to set a legal precedent. NEVER underestimate the power of this, I'm sure other people with legal knowledge will attest

2 - the judge de-valuing the "non-objective". In other words, not understanding the human element of having a team for a community. This case is NOT just about specific performance. It's about the community not wanting/willing to let go of a franchise. Specific performance is just the scapegoat to hopefully help justify it (over the next 2 years)

Captain_Morgan · Post #38 » by **Captain_Morgan** » Wed Jul 2, 2008 5:07 pm

Is this the final verdict??

jenn_gp · Post #39 » by **jenn_gp** » Wed Jul 2, 2008 7:30 pm

^Well, it's really not over if the city loses the case. They can and should appeal...plus Howard Schultz can put up an injuction on the team to stay until his court case is finished. Who knows how long a potential appeal + Howard Schultz's case would take.

The city needs to win this...I don't expect Clay to appeal if the Sonics lose. He's prepared to spend two more lame duck seasons here in Seattle.

OldSchoolNoBull · Post #40 » by **OldSchoolNoBull** » Wed Jul 2, 2008 7:37 pm

I have two questions:

1.Is it 4PM PST or 4PM EDT when the verdict is to be read?

2.I read in an article today that the Schultz trial would be heard by the same judge as this trial - if that is true, then if the verdict for this trial is in favor of the organization rather than the city, doesn't that make the idea of the judge deciding in favor of Schultz nonsensical, since it would be in contrast to ruling in favor of the organization in this trial?