RealGM

Is anybody else paying close attention to what's going on in the courtroom right now? I honestly thought there was about a 10% chance of this happening but it looks like the City is actually going to lose the case. It seems like Judge Pechman has had it out for us since the very beginning, overruling the City on about a 5-1 ratio. She's also letting the team absolutely grill Wally (this is the first good thing he's done for ANY ownership) and she seems to absolutely love their 'bleed them dry' theory. I am glad I didn't go to any of the hearings because I really don't think I could take watching her snide remarks in person. What an absolute b!tch. To make it worse she's actually from Washington! You can follow along on the Times and PI blogs, but I wouldn't recommend it...

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/s ... l/2008/06/

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/sonicstrial/

The PI and Times are just posting sensationalist crap.

Don't do that to yourself.

The City will win the lease case. Journalists and sports hosts are in love with the theaterics from the PBC.

Its all about the lease, its a rock solid contract.

I hope so but the more I think about it the more I feel like the PBC case is actually plausible. Think of it as simply as an owner-tenant argument, where you may be able to prove that the owner willingly developed a strategy to make the tenant lose money. This is a HUGE deal and from everything I've read this is the major point Pechman is considering in the case. When you get down to her level (and take all love of sports away) the outcome seems more like a coin flip to me.

If this is indeed the main factor for Pechman at least it gives the Schultz lawsuit a better chance as his allegations of under-the-table plans is quite similar to the PBC's. This is the only comfort I can find in what's happening right now.

The lawsuit boils quickly down to a few main points...

- No one's arguing about the existence of the specific use clause.

- Bennett wants to pay off the lease and play in OKC. He claims there's no damage to Seattle if he pays off the balance of the lease in full.

- The city claims the balance of the lease is only a small portion of what's at stake. They've claimed civic pride (uncalcuable) & increased economics (huge, but calcuable). They've proven this to my satisfaction at least.

- The city also pointed out they put city money into the 1995 redesign built to the then Sonics specifications. Uncontested.

- Much of Bennett's financial struggles have been demonstrated to be of his own making (eg premature announcement of move, deconstructing the team, etc).

This case is already won.

I think a lot of the arguments against the City are irrelevant in this case.

Also, most of the PBC's arguments seem self-inflicted. For example, with what's going on today with Wally's "Poision Well" testimony, none of that would have happened if Clay would have kept his mouth shut and just ran out the remainder of the lease. I am happy to see that Wally and a group stepped up and tried to cook up a plan to keep the team here. At the time, Clay wasn't living up to his Best Faith Efforts.

Clay's "Unclean hands" argument is self-inflicted because he didn't hold up to his end of the bargain when he (now he says he's not sure of everything) signed the lease. He created this mess between him, the city and fans by trying to bail out of his lease contract early.

Also, Clay claims if he is held to the lease it will be a financial hardship for him, but when asked under oath he said it won't impact him very much at all.

I agree with Yearsago..the PBC shows a flair for the dramatic, and everyone thinks that means they are winning the case. IMO most of their arguments have been irrelevant to the case at hand.

The city has demonstrated it's all about the lease and the performance clause. A deal is a deal, and Clay didn't live up to it.

Why shouldn't the City be overruled? They proposed a bunch of crap motions in limine that reeked of "we should be able to argue everything we want to but the other side shouldn't be able to argue anything." The judge probably knows more about the law than anyone in here does...

And what happens if we win? Bennett is forced to sell? Yeah...the guy's already lost millions [supposedly] and taken the matter through the relocation process and a trial. I don't see those as the actions of someone who's unsure what they want to do. Winning the trial means two years of watching a **** franchise trot a half-assed line-up out on the court. Big deal.

Sweezo's spot-on. There is nothing about what happened Friday that would suggest that the city's chances of winning this trial are a given. The city totally f'd this up.

Bennett won't sell the team if he loses, which has been the city's motivation in the first place.

There's an awful lot to lose here and Schultz better be damn sure he'll win his case. This doesn't look good at all...

The City certainly doesn't look good, but I still don't see how the City's willingness to play hardball to keep the team here really affects whether the lease is enforceable or not. It either is, or it isn't.

And if it is, does anyone expect Bennett and his ownership group to sell? Given what we've learned about Bennett and Co. thus far, in terms of their willingness to overpay for a franchise, incur losses, spend money to make it appear as if they're making an effort to keep the team in Seattle, and go through a trial where they're pestered by lawyers and made out to be nothing short of evil incarnate...why would they fold now?

Does anyone expect Stern to come in and put pressure on Bennett to sell? Or is Stern more likely to support Bennett and make Seattle bleed in order to set an example? In order to show other cities that are waffling about building new arenas exactly what happens when you don't do what Stern and the appropriate owner wishes?

If we win, we cost some millionaires a few million dollars. And we still don't have an NBA franchise. And our taxpayers, who didn't want to fund a new arena, will have spent quite a bit of money to fund the court case. Remind me who wins here?

Sherman Alexie made a comment about how keeping the team here for two years would be worth it. Anyone else here feel that way? I doubt you do, because the team was awful this year admist rumors the team was moving...and attendance declined, and nobody even bothered posting on game threads on here.

Sweezo wrote:The City certainly doesn't look good, but I still don't see how the City's willingness to play hardball to keep the team here really affects whether the lease is enforceable or not. It either is, or it isn't.

And if it is, does anyone expect Bennett and his ownership group to sell? Given what we've learned about Bennett and Co. thus far, in terms of their willingness to overpay for a franchise, incur losses, spend money to make it appear as if they're making an effort to keep the team in Seattle, and go through a trial where they're pestered by lawyers and made out to be nothing short of evil incarnate...why would they fold now?

Does anyone expect Stern to come in and put pressure on Bennett to sell? Or is Stern more likely to support Bennett and make Seattle bleed in order to set an example? In order to show other cities that are waffling about building new arenas exactly what happens when you don't do what Stern and the appropriate owner wishes?

If we win, we cost some millionaires a few million dollars. And we still don't have an NBA franchise. And our taxpayers, who didn't want to fund a new arena, will have spent quite a bit of money to fund the court case. Remind me who wins here?

Sherman Alexie made a comment about how keeping the team here for two years would be worth it. Anyone else here feel that way? I doubt you do, because the team was awful this year admist rumors the team was moving...and attendance declined, and nobody even bothered posting on game threads on here.

Again...I agree. There's no way that the NBA or Bennett will back down at this point, regardless of the outcome of the trial. There are a lot of people that are discounting the P-I article written by Jerry Brewer, in which he basically said that the city's case could be in real trouble. I'm not so sure I agree with that...just because the burden of proof is still heavily on the PBC.

Based on the way Pechman is reacting to the PBC's defense, they seem to have a real shot here just based on how messy this whole thing could be if the Sonics were forced to stay for two years. She may decide that it's better to go ahead and have them pay the damages and leave than to put everyone through two more years of lame-duck hell.

This past year was difficult enough. If there isn't anything solid on the table (and ethical) that can be done in the two years that they would be here to keep the PRESENT Sonics, why not just play ball, settle, and let them go? I'd rather know that we're going to eventually get the NBA back here than risk losing it forever. With every day that passes, the already slim possibility of keeping this version of the Sonics is getting smaller. I don't want two more years of the basketball purgatory we all just witnessed. Well, those of us who peeked through our collective fingers and saw it, anyway...

Hey Sweezo you are the lawer in here, I am just curious on what you think the city has done right in the case?

I also agree with you that either the lease is enforcable or it isn't.

But I do think it is worth it. Two years is a long time in the sports world. A lot can happen. Sure worst case for Seattle fans is the team still moves and both the city and Bennett bled.

But best case Shultz's wins his case and Bennett takes it in the shorts.

I really view this as part one of a two part trial.

Plus when the city wins the case, Shultz's won't have to deal with OKC and their whole lease BS when he reclaims ownership of the team.

Totally agree with wiff. And so far so good.

Reading the accounts from both trial blogs, and taking some of the inherent bias the reporters should have into account, my guess is that the city is getting an ass-whooping.

Licata put a big dagger into the city's case (by the way, F you, Licata) regarding the economic impact of losing the team, and the city hasn't shown any conclusive evidence to refute that claim. And the judge appears to be siding with the Okies on nearly every objection.

The judge apparently found some case law that neither side has touched on. I wonder what that is. But up to now everything I've read says that most of the precedents out there favor the Okies.


Regarding whether it's worth it to keep the team here for 2 lame duck seasons: it most definitely is. Bennett won't sell the team and Stern will back him. But it does give the city some bargaining leverage to get another team or arrange some kind of team swap. I know that's not as good as keeping the team we have, but I think it's better than nothing. If the city loses, I believe Stern that he will hold a grudge and the NBA is over here for years, maybe decades.

Reading the accounts from both trial blogs, and taking some of the inherent bias the reporters should have into account, my guess is that the city is getting an ass-whooping.

The city is not getting a ass whopping, please stop reading these sports journalists who are eating up all the theaterics bullcrap that the PBC lawyers are putting out there.

wiff wrote:Hey Sweezo you are the lawer in here, I am just curious on what you think the city has done right in the case?

I'm hesitant to really weigh in too heavily at this point as anything more than a fan, partly because I've had a hard time really reading up on what's going on in the trial because it just makes me mad, and partly because...leases and contracts aren't typically my thing. Criminal, wills, bankruptcy, environmental, and family law issues are more my style...

But, really, as far I can tell the issue's about the lease...I don't see the judge letting too much stuff in as anything more than the judge simply letting the PBC make their argument and, ideally, attempting to head off any possible appeal issues.

We have to understand that we have nothing to lose by the Sonics staying an extra two years. Think about it:

- Stern, as long as he is commish, will not allow Seattle to have an NBA franchise even if Seattle loses
- There is already 1 foot out the door to OKC, so any effort is better than no effort at all
- A lot can happen in 2 years

The biggest key though, again, is City win or lose, Stern is NOT going to allow an NBA franchise in Seattle 2010 or beyond. At least as not as long as he is commish. Stern is due to be replaced soon anyways, so I'd rather roll the dice with Seattle staying 2 years even if it means boycotting the games.

Sweezo wrote:Does anyone expect Stern to come in and put pressure on Bennett to sell?

You ask a fair question Sweez. If the city wins the case, I don't think Stern will pressure Bennett into selling. I also don't think Bennett will feel any pressure from himself or any other owners of the PBC. It sounds like the PBC is prepared to go the distance money-wise, based off of Clay's testimony. What I don't get then is why are the Sonics claiming "Financial Hardship" as one of the arguments against the city? Bennett himself said it won't be a financial hardship to him if the Sonics have to stay another 2 years. I'm just finding it really difficult to vision a d-bag liar (Bennett) winning this case.

I don't think Bennett will sell if the city wins this case, but I do think as we get closer to Howie's court date, there may at the very leaset be some serious contemplating coming from the PBC side.

I have been visiting the forum a few times a day throughout the trial. Why wasn't anyone posting anything about it? Geez, in times like this, I pictured just about everyone in the forum would come in here and give their two cents about what's happening. Seeing just this one thread makes me feel like everyone's given up hope....that's sad.

yea it's sad
I wish somebody can let me know how the trial is going.
I am not even from the Seattle area. It feels like walking in the dark now, which sucks bad.

The best place to read about the trial is on the Sonicscentral site.

^That's where I've been catching up on all the latest as well.

As an english avid fan of all seattle teams this whole saga stinks to high heaven and my heart goes out to you guys.all the best...DONT GO SONICS!!!