Sonics to OKC: Presser in 20

[fairweatherfan]

i have nothing to say that hasn't already said, but I live in Seattle and this is crap.  Definitely disappointing.  That team has a history here.  It's bull...

I wonder if the Seattle fans can at least get a discount on NBA League Pass so they don't have to dish out 150 bucks to watch the Oklahoma feed of the team they have been following for 41 years.

Fun...

What this all means.

EXPANSION

Yup.  One more watered down team will be added to the league in a few years to undo the injustice of a team packing up and leaving Seattle.

See: Charlotte NBA

See: Cleveland NFL

Stern did say pretty sternly (I guess he would have to) that Seattle was under no circumstances in any expansion plans the league might develop.  It'll be interesting to see if that was just posturing to push for the renovation or not.  I personally don't think they'll get one for awhile (10+ years) because I don't think the league wants to be seen as a pushover that will replace any team that moves away.  But I hope Seattle gets basketball again sooner than later.

Yeah, because the city of Charlotte had to wait forever for a new franchise!

Sorry, don't take that the wrong way fairweather, but Stern talks out of both sides of his mouth so often that he was the leading candidate to play Two Face in the upcoming Batman movie for a while.

If Seattle ponies up big dinero then they'll get another franchise fast. If they say they aren't building a new arena for a new franchise anytime soon, they don't get a franchise, and finally if some ridiculously free spending multi trillionaire wants to pay the NBA a quarter of a trillion dollars to buy into the league and build their own arena for the opportunity to put a team in Seattle, then Seattle will get a franchise.

Money talks and Stern listens, to money anyway.

You're right, money does always talk, and enough resources would probably get it done more quickly, but I don't think the league will be inclined to put a team there without an offer they can't refuse, since it undercuts their leverage with the next city that won't pony up for the new megastadium. 

In Charlotte the team left because the owner had turned off most of the fanbase by acting like a total scumbag, financially and personally; Seattle had a good, though relatively small fan base until OKC came into the picture.  The NBA is always trying to get bigger, and the league wanted the growing Southeast market but knew the Hornets had poisoned the well in Charlotte, so they expedited the move and threw a new team in.  Seattle is seen as a flat population in a small market part of the country - they would have kept the team there if their stadium deal was made, but they aren't going to be in a rush to install a new squad in that kind of market.

I agree with you that Stern is after the bottom line, but I think he prefers to pressure cities into upgrading, rather than the risk of cities saying "let em go, they'll give us another one in a few more years when we can better afford it.", and he definitely favors cities the league sees as demographically desirable.  I definitely hope you're right, though, despite another crappy expansion.

[nickagneta]

People need to understand this is business.

I love the Demoulas Market Basket down the street from me. Best food prices and quality around. If I go to Stop & Shop or Shaw's I'm spending $50-$75 more a week in groceries and stuff.

But if they decide to close that store and put up a new one a half hour drive away I'm screwed. But I can't do anything about it. It's not my store. I am just a customer.

When it comes to sports, we are all customers. I feel for the city an fans in Seattle. I have an uncle who lives near Everett and he's a gigantic Sonics fan and has been since before DJ played there. He's devastated. But he realizes that that is the way of big business.

He doesn't want some ungodly tax or something to pay to keep the team there. He already pays for League Pass and goes to 20-25 games a year. That's all he wants to pay or can afford. And that's a lot compared to his neighbors who he says could care less if the Sonics leave since they haven't been that good since Kemp and Payton left town.

Besides he says that the proposed new arena was like another 20-25 minute ride away for him. He wouldn't have been able to attend anymore games because it would have been almost an hour ride each way just to go to the game.

Sorry, I digressed, back to my point. Unless the fans of the city can do something to appease an owner of a franchise when they want a new arena, that city and those fans should expect to lose their team.

Unless of course that team is a cornerstone franchise in the league in a large market.

The Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls will and would never be allowed to leave those cities. The Pistons and Sixers might not be allowed to leave those cities. Everyone else is fair game.

[RebusRankin]

The thing is the NBA keeps leaving bigger markets (Vancouver, Seattle) for smaller ones (Oklahoma City, New Orleans, Memphis). That just doesn't seem to be good business. Particularly when you consider that many of these new markets (New Orleans, Memphis) have poor attendance. Why not keep the Sonics in Seattle and move Memphis to Oklahoma City?

[CoachCowens]

People need to understand this is business.

I love the Demoulas Market Basket down the street from me. Best food prices and quality around. If I go to Stop & Shop or Shaw's I'm spending $50-$75 more a week in groceries and stuff.

But if they decide to close that store and put up a new one a half hour drive away I'm screwed. But I can't do anything about it. It's not my store. I am just a customer.

When it comes to sports, we are all customers. I feel for the city an fans in Seattle. I have an uncle who lives near Everett and he's a gigantic Sonics fan and has been since before DJ played there. He's devastated. But he realizes that that is the way of big business.

He doesn't want some ungodly tax or something to pay to keep the team there. He already pays for League Pass and goes to 20-25 games a year. That's all he wants to pay or can afford. And that's a lot compared to his neighbors who he says could care less if the Sonics leave since they haven't been that good since Kemp and Payton left town.

Besides he says that the proposed new arena was like another 20-25 minute ride away for him. He wouldn't have been able to attend anymore games because it would have been almost an hour ride each way just to go to the game.

Sorry, I digressed, back to my point. Unless the fans of the city can do something to appease an owner of a franchise when they want a new arena, that city and those fans should expect to lose their team.

Unless of course that team is a cornerstone franchise in the league in a large market.

The Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls will and would never be allowed to leave those cities. The Pistons and Sixers might not be allowed to leave those cities. Everyone else is fair game.

The only difference is the NBA is a monopoly. If Demoulas asked your City for 10 million to build a new state of the art Store. Your City would say see you later. We can get Hannafords or Market Basket to come in.

Thankfully not all owners are like Bennett. The fans of Seattle already ponied up 74 million 13 years ago. Bennett bought the team and then asked for a sweeheart deal or he would move. He knew full well that the Seattle legislature wouldn't like the deal, especially when introduced late in a legislative session. He got what he wanted but had to pay more than he intended.

There is nothing stopping other owners from pulling a similar move except a conscience and/or ties to their City.
 

[nickagneta]

People need to understand this is business.

I love the Demoulas Market Basket down the street from me. Best food prices and quality around. If I go to Stop & Shop or Shaw's I'm spending $50-$75 more a week in groceries and stuff.

But if they decide to close that store and put up a new one a half hour drive away I'm screwed. But I can't do anything about it. It's not my store. I am just a customer.

When it comes to sports, we are all customers. I feel for the city an fans in Seattle. I have an uncle who lives near Everett and he's a gigantic Sonics fan and has been since before DJ played there. He's devastated. But he realizes that that is the way of big business.

He doesn't want some ungodly tax or something to pay to keep the team there. He already pays for League Pass and goes to 20-25 games a year. That's all he wants to pay or can afford. And that's a lot compared to his neighbors who he says could care less if the Sonics leave since they haven't been that good since Kemp and Payton left town.

Besides he says that the proposed new arena was like another 20-25 minute ride away for him. He wouldn't have been able to attend anymore games because it would have been almost an hour ride each way just to go to the game.

Sorry, I digressed, back to my point. Unless the fans of the city can do something to appease an owner of a franchise when they want a new arena, that city and those fans should expect to lose their team.

Unless of course that team is a cornerstone franchise in the league in a large market.

The Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls will and would never be allowed to leave those cities. The Pistons and Sixers might not be allowed to leave those cities. Everyone else is fair game.

The only difference is the NBA is a monopoly. If Demoulas asked your City for 10 million to build a new state of the art Store. Your City would say see you later. We can get Hannafords or Market Basket to come in.

Thankfully not all owners are like Bennett. The fans of Seattle already ponied up 74 million 13 years ago. Bennett bought the team and then asked for a sweeheart deal or he would move. He knew full well that the Seattle legislature wouldn't like the deal, especially when introduced late in a legislative session. He got what he wanted but had to pay more than he intended.

There is nothing stopping other owners from pulling a similar move except a conscience and/or ties to their City.
 

Actually I think all owners are like Bennett. It's give me the sweatheart deal or else because I need to make money. I'm a firm believer that the business owner can do whatever he wants with his business. It's his. If the populace isn't willing to pay for the arena, they stand the chance of losing the team.

My Demoulas example is no different. Demoulas says they are putting up a new store. Do you think they are going to pay for the land to put that store up? Hell no. The city finds land, develops it and leases it to the new store and any other commercial ventures they can put there. The store doesn't buy the property. The taxpayers lease it to them.

If Demoulas doesn't think the deal is sweet enough they go elsewhere and then the city tries to get Hannaford Bros or Shaw's or someone else. Either way the taxpayers are paying.

But the taxpayers benefit as well with taxes that business has to pay and the necessary services that business provides.

I am actually proud of Massachusetts for standing up against the local sports teams and telling them to build their own places. Top ten markets with lots of money shouldn't have to pay for the new arenas. New York, Chicago, Boston, LA, San Francisco, Miami, and Houston are all areas that should never have the people pay for the arenas.

An example. Let's say the Rockets want to leave Houston because the people won't provide an arena, I say let them. The city of Houston should know that another team will come in there and build their own place because the value of the property and the guaranteed money from the supporting fans will pay for the arena in a decade. Now for all I know the Rockets own their arena. But I hope you understand the hypothetical point.

People need to stand up to these owners and let them assume the risk because unlike that Demoulas example, they really aren't providing needed services to the community. They are only providing entertainment.

[CoachCowens]

People need to understand this is business.

I love the Demoulas Market Basket down the street from me. Best food prices and quality around. If I go to Stop & Shop or Shaw's I'm spending $50-$75 more a week in groceries and stuff.

But if they decide to close that store and put up a new one a half hour drive away I'm screwed. But I can't do anything about it. It's not my store. I am just a customer.

When it comes to sports, we are all customers. I feel for the city an fans in Seattle. I have an uncle who lives near Everett and he's a gigantic Sonics fan and has been since before DJ played there. He's devastated. But he realizes that that is the way of big business.

He doesn't want some ungodly tax or something to pay to keep the team there. He already pays for League Pass and goes to 20-25 games a year. That's all he wants to pay or can afford. And that's a lot compared to his neighbors who he says could care less if the Sonics leave since they haven't been that good since Kemp and Payton left town.

Besides he says that the proposed new arena was like another 20-25 minute ride away for him. He wouldn't have been able to attend anymore games because it would have been almost an hour ride each way just to go to the game.

Sorry, I digressed, back to my point. Unless the fans of the city can do something to appease an owner of a franchise when they want a new arena, that city and those fans should expect to lose their team.

Unless of course that team is a cornerstone franchise in the league in a large market.

The Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls will and would never be allowed to leave those cities. The Pistons and Sixers might not be allowed to leave those cities. Everyone else is fair game.

The only difference is the NBA is a monopoly. If Demoulas asked your City for 10 million to build a new state of the art Store. Your City would say see you later. We can get Hannafords or Market Basket to come in.

Thankfully not all owners are like Bennett. The fans of Seattle already ponied up 74 million 13 years ago. Bennett bought the team and then asked for a sweeheart deal or he would move. He knew full well that the Seattle legislature wouldn't like the deal, especially when introduced late in a legislative session. He got what he wanted but had to pay more than he intended.

There is nothing stopping other owners from pulling a similar move except a conscience and/or ties to their City.
 

Actually I think all owners are like Bennett. It's give me the sweatheart deal or else because I need to make money. I'm a firm believer that the business owner can do whatever he wants with his business. It's his. If the populace isn't willing to pay for the arena, they stand the chance of losing the team.

My Demoulas example is no different. Demoulas says they are putting up a new store. Do you think they are going to pay for the land to put that store up? Hell no. The city finds land, develops it and leases it to the new store and any other commercial ventures they can put there. The store doesn't buy the property. The taxpayers lease it to them.

If Demoulas doesn't think the deal is sweet enough they go elsewhere and then the city tries to get Hannaford Bros or Shaw's or someone else. Either way the taxpayers are paying.

But the taxpayers benefit as well with taxes that business has to pay and the necessary services that business provides.

I am actually proud of Massachusetts for standing up against the local sports teams and telling them to build their own places. Top ten markets with lots of money shouldn't have to pay for the new arenas. New York, Chicago, Boston, LA, San Francisco, Miami, and Houston are all areas that should never have the people pay for the arenas.

An example. Let's say the Rockets want to leave Houston because the people won't provide an arena, I say let them. The city of Houston should know that another team will come in there and build their own place because the value of the property and the guaranteed money from the supporting fans will pay for the arena in a decade. Now for all I know the Rockets own their arena. But I hope you understand the hypothetical point.

People need to stand up to these owners and let them assume the risk because unlike that Demoulas example, they really aren't providing needed services to the community. They are only providing entertainment.

Seattle stood up to Bennett like you said Ma. stood up to local sports teams. That tells me not all owners are like Bennett.

There are sweetheart deals and then there are sweetheart deals like Bennett asked for. Basically he wanted the Seattle area to finance everything and only pay 100 million on future revenue through surcharges.

[LarBrd33]

Favorite team of all time:  2008 Boston Celtics
Second Favorite team of all time:  1996 Seattle SuperSonics

I attended about half of their home games with my dad (pre-internet when I wasn't really able to follow the Celtics).  I loved that team so much.  Gary Payton.  Shawn Kemp.  Det... I still have several posters.  I got to see them play Jordan in his prime... Magic Johnson's return to the NBA as "Buff" Johnson... the hated Jazz... the hated Charles Barkley...   That Sonics team was great.  I cared about them a great deal.  Key Arena was the loudest place in the NBA at that point and the team seemed to have a habit of coming from behind at the end of games.  My dad would pull me out of class so we could wait in line for special "family pack" tickets.  Basically you got a ticket to the game, a hot dog and a coke for $7 bucks.  You couldn't beat it.  I was 13 years old at the time and we didn't have a ton of money.  We would get there in the morning to be first in line and sit there until a couple hours before tipoff when the limited seats went on sale (by the way, since the arena was so small it made it so every single seat in the house was a pretty solid seat... it's a much smaller venue than the Garden... part of the problem, I guess).  The line would grow and grow and grow.  We'd chat with fellow Sonics fans all day and exchange stories while we all built more and more excitement for the game.  Good times. I still have all the programs from the games I attended.  This is the year we made it to the finals against Jordan.  Incredible experience.  Gary Payton is my third favorite player of all time behind Larry Bird and Paul Pierce.  

The next year Pitino showed up on the Celtics and we joined the internet revolution.  We were finally able to follow our true love (Boston) by listening to the games via online radio broadcast.   But the experience I had following that Sonics team definitely helped to strengthen my obsession with basketball and turn me into the hardcore Celtic nut that I am 12 years later.

The fanbase hasn't really been the same, imo.  Of course, going from a title contender to mediocre lotto team doesn't help the situation.   I attended a few games over the years (usually when they faced Boston) and the place was pretty lifeless in comparison.  I was actually really looking forward to the Durant era though.  I didn't really embrace the team this year, because I knew the Oklahoma move was inevitable.  But seriously Durant has the potential to be the greatest sports player EVER to play in Seattle.  He has the potential to be bigger than Payton, Kemp, Griffey Jr, Ichiro, Arod, Randy Johnson, etc...  I really wanted to see it happen.  I was more than willing to make Seattle my #2 favorite team and watch that kid grow up.   For the few diehards in this city, I can understand their pain.  Everyone on this board is a hardcore sports fan... try to understand...  if losing the Sonics could be considered horrible then losing the Kevin Durant era could be considered tragic, in my opinion.   It'd akin to the Cavs leaving Cleveland a year after LeBron's rookie year.   Disgustingly sad for sports fans.  Even sadder that the majority of fairweather fans in this region don't yet comprehend what they lost.  In 5 years it may be more apparent when they see what Durant becomes. 

I'm hoping that in 3 years Durant finds a way to Boston.    

[nickagneta]

People need to understand this is business.

I love the Demoulas Market Basket down the street from me. Best food prices and quality around. If I go to Stop & Shop or Shaw's I'm spending $50-$75 more a week in groceries and stuff.

But if they decide to close that store and put up a new one a half hour drive away I'm screwed. But I can't do anything about it. It's not my store. I am just a customer.

When it comes to sports, we are all customers. I feel for the city an fans in Seattle. I have an uncle who lives near Everett and he's a gigantic Sonics fan and has been since before DJ played there. He's devastated. But he realizes that that is the way of big business.

He doesn't want some ungodly tax or something to pay to keep the team there. He already pays for League Pass and goes to 20-25 games a year. That's all he wants to pay or can afford. And that's a lot compared to his neighbors who he says could care less if the Sonics leave since they haven't been that good since Kemp and Payton left town.

Besides he says that the proposed new arena was like another 20-25 minute ride away for him. He wouldn't have been able to attend anymore games because it would have been almost an hour ride each way just to go to the game.

Sorry, I digressed, back to my point. Unless the fans of the city can do something to appease an owner of a franchise when they want a new arena, that city and those fans should expect to lose their team.

Unless of course that team is a cornerstone franchise in the league in a large market.

The Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls will and would never be allowed to leave those cities. The Pistons and Sixers might not be allowed to leave those cities. Everyone else is fair game.

The only difference is the NBA is a monopoly. If Demoulas asked your City for 10 million to build a new state of the art Store. Your City would say see you later. We can get Hannafords or Market Basket to come in.

Thankfully not all owners are like Bennett. The fans of Seattle already ponied up 74 million 13 years ago. Bennett bought the team and then asked for a sweeheart deal or he would move. He knew full well that the Seattle legislature wouldn't like the deal, especially when introduced late in a legislative session. He got what he wanted but had to pay more than he intended.

There is nothing stopping other owners from pulling a similar move except a conscience and/or ties to their City.
 

Actually I think all owners are like Bennett. It's give me the sweatheart deal or else because I need to make money. I'm a firm believer that the business owner can do whatever he wants with his business. It's his. If the populace isn't willing to pay for the arena, they stand the chance of losing the team.

My Demoulas example is no different. Demoulas says they are putting up a new store. Do you think they are going to pay for the land to put that store up? Hell no. The city finds land, develops it and leases it to the new store and any other commercial ventures they can put there. The store doesn't buy the property. The taxpayers lease it to them.

If Demoulas doesn't think the deal is sweet enough they go elsewhere and then the city tries to get Hannaford Bros or Shaw's or someone else. Either way the taxpayers are paying.

But the taxpayers benefit as well with taxes that business has to pay and the necessary services that business provides.

I am actually proud of Massachusetts for standing up against the local sports teams and telling them to build their own places. Top ten markets with lots of money shouldn't have to pay for the new arenas. New York, Chicago, Boston, LA, San Francisco, Miami, and Houston are all areas that should never have the people pay for the arenas.

An example. Let's say the Rockets want to leave Houston because the people won't provide an arena, I say let them. The city of Houston should know that another team will come in there and build their own place because the value of the property and the guaranteed money from the supporting fans will pay for the arena in a decade. Now for all I know the Rockets own their arena. But I hope you understand the hypothetical point.

People need to stand up to these owners and let them assume the risk because unlike that Demoulas example, they really aren't providing needed services to the community. They are only providing entertainment.

Seattle stood up to Bennett like you said Ma. stood up to local sports teams. That tells me not all owners are like Bennett.

There are sweetheart deals and then there are sweetheart deals like Bennett asked for. Basically he wanted the Seattle area to finance everything and only pay 100 million on future revenue through surcharges.

Actually Boston has stood up to ownerships but it was the ownerships that left. The previous regime at Fenway wanted a new park. They said they had to have it to sell the team. They didn't get it. Team sold and the Fenway Group tried for an arena. No go, so they refurbished Fenway. They could never move the team because baseball has the power to stop them so they were stuck.

The Jacobs wanted the city to build them an arena. The owners of the Bruins fought for years over the building of a new Garden. But the Celtics weren't going to build one and the Bruins ownership knew they would never make the money elsewhwere that they could make here. So they stay and eventually after getting infrastructure promises built their own building.

The infrastructure is the only thing Massachusetts will give a team and it's because of that 25 year fight with the Bruins.

The Celtics have a sweet deal with the Jacobs, they aren't going to try to build a building until the Bruins make them homeless.

The Pats were going to move to St. Louis when the state refused to build Orthwein a stadium in Boston but the team was sold to Kraft, the owner of Foxboro stadium instead. Kraft wanted the state to build a stadium in Boston too. He said he'd pony up a ton of the cash but wanted the city and state to contribute because it would be a convention center also. The state refused and the team courted Providence and Hartford before the state said they would give the Krafts infrastructure in Foxboro if they stayed there.

Infrastructure is all that anyone will get in Massachusetts but it's because the Sox can't move and the other teams won't because the know how profitable owning a sports franchise in Boston is.

It's hard to compare Boston to non top ten markets. Especially non top ten markets that are in a non growth mode and/or don't have a good economic environment/situation. The Boston economy is excellent and because of high tech and education and research centers around Boston, Boston will always remain that way. If a team leaves Boston there will be another the very next year negotiating to come in here.

That's why Boston can play hardball and that's why the owners here may be perceived to be different and caring about the teams and their fans, but they really aren't all that much different from Bennett.

[indeedproceed]

People need to understand this is business.

I love the Demoulas Market Basket down the street from me. Best food prices and quality around. If I go to Stop & Shop or Shaw's I'm spending $50-$75 more a week in groceries and stuff.

But if they decide to close that store and put up a new one a half hour drive away I'm screwed. But I can't do anything about it. It's not my store. I am just a customer.

When it comes to sports, we are all customers. I feel for the city an fans in Seattle. I have an uncle who lives near Everett and he's a gigantic Sonics fan and has been since before DJ played there. He's devastated. But he realizes that that is the way of big business.

He doesn't want some ungodly tax or something to pay to keep the team there. He already pays for League Pass and goes to 20-25 games a year. That's all he wants to pay or can afford. And that's a lot compared to his neighbors who he says could care less if the Sonics leave since they haven't been that good since Kemp and Payton left town.

Besides he says that the proposed new arena was like another 20-25 minute ride away for him. He wouldn't have been able to attend anymore games because it would have been almost an hour ride each way just to go to the game.

Sorry, I digressed, back to my point. Unless the fans of the city can do something to appease an owner of a franchise when they want a new arena, that city and those fans should expect to lose their team.

Unless of course that team is a cornerstone franchise in the league in a large market.

The Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls will and would never be allowed to leave those cities. The Pistons and Sixers might not be allowed to leave those cities. Everyone else is fair game.

The only difference is the NBA is a monopoly. If Demoulas asked your City for 10 million to build a new state of the art Store. Your City would say see you later. We can get Hannafords or Market Basket to come in.

Thankfully not all owners are like Bennett. The fans of Seattle already ponied up 74 million 13 years ago. Bennett bought the team and then asked for a sweeheart deal or he would move. He knew full well that the Seattle legislature wouldn't like the deal, especially when introduced late in a legislative session. He got what he wanted but had to pay more than he intended.

There is nothing stopping other owners from pulling a similar move except a conscience and/or ties to their City.
 

Actually I think all owners are like Bennett. It's give me the sweatheart deal or else because I need to make money. I'm a firm believer that the business owner can do whatever he wants with his business. It's his. If the populace isn't willing to pay for the arena, they stand the chance of losing the team.

My Demoulas example is no different. Demoulas says they are putting up a new store. Do you think they are going to pay for the land to put that store up? Hell no. The city finds land, develops it and leases it to the new store and any other commercial ventures they can put there. The store doesn't buy the property. The taxpayers lease it to them.

If Demoulas doesn't think the deal is sweet enough they go elsewhere and then the city tries to get Hannaford Bros or Shaw's or someone else. Either way the taxpayers are paying.

But the taxpayers benefit as well with taxes that business has to pay and the necessary services that business provides.

I am actually proud of Massachusetts for standing up against the local sports teams and telling them to build their own places. Top ten markets with lots of money shouldn't have to pay for the new arenas. New York, Chicago, Boston, LA, San Francisco, Miami, and Houston are all areas that should never have the people pay for the arenas.

An example. Let's say the Rockets want to leave Houston because the people won't provide an arena, I say let them. The city of Houston should know that another team will come in there and build their own place because the value of the property and the guaranteed money from the supporting fans will pay for the arena in a decade. Now for all I know the Rockets own their arena. But I hope you understand the hypothetical point.

People need to stand up to these owners and let them assume the risk because unlike that Demoulas example, they really aren't providing needed services to the community. They are only providing entertainment.

Seattle stood up to Bennett like you said Ma. stood up to local sports teams. That tells me not all owners are like Bennett.

There are sweetheart deals and then there are sweetheart deals like Bennett asked for. Basically he wanted the Seattle area to finance everything and only pay 100 million on future revenue through surcharges.

Actually Boston has stood up to ownerships but it was the ownerships that left. The previous regime at Fenway wanted a new park. They said they had to have it to sell the team. They didn't get it. Team sold and the Fenway Group tried for an arena. No go, so they refurbished Fenway. They could never move the team because baseball has the power to stop them so they were stuck.

The Jacobs wanted the city to build them an arena. The owners of the Bruins fought for years over the building of a new Garden. But the Celtics weren't going to build one and the Bruins ownership knew they would never make the money elsewhwere that they could make here. So they stay and eventually after getting infrastructure promises built their own building.

The infrastructure is the only thing Massachusetts will give a team and it's because of that 25 year fight with the Bruins.

The Celtics have a sweet deal with the Jacobs, they aren't going to try to build a building until the Bruins make them homeless.

The Pats were going to move to St. Louis when the state refused to build Orthwein a stadium in Boston but the team was sold to Kraft, the owner of Foxboro stadium instead. Kraft wanted the state to build a stadium in Boston too. He said he'd pony up a ton of the cash but wanted the city and state to contribute because it would be a convention center also. The state refused and the team courted Providence and Hartford before the state said they would give the Krafts infrastructure in Foxboro if they stayed there.

Infrastructure is all that anyone will get in Massachusetts but it's because the Sox can't move and the other teams won't because the know how profitable owning a sports franchise in Boston is.

It's hard to compare Boston to non top ten markets. Especially non top ten markets that are in a non growth mode and/or don't have a good economic environment/situation. The Boston economy is excellent and because of high tech and education and research centers around Boston, Boston will always remain that way. If a team leaves Boston there will be another the very next year negotiating to come in here.

That's why Boston can play hardball and that's why the owners here may be perceived to be different and caring about the teams and their fans, but they really aren't all that much different from Bennett.

I might be the only dumb dumb here that doesn't get it, but what you do mean in more definite terms when you say 'infastructure', Nick?

[nickagneta]

Expanded roads, expanded subways, new subway stations, new highway exits. I think they may have gotten some one time tax breaks too. What they didn't get was a $250 million stadium and all the infrastructure that would go with it and the lack of paying property taxes.

Regarding Fenway, the Sox wanted the city to take over a large portion of Brookline Avenue under eminent domain and give it to them and then pay for a special Mass Turnpike exit, redirecting of the entire Green Line subway, and relocating of all the displaced businesses and re-structuring of all the roads in the area. Unfortunately the Boston Pheonix was going to be one of those businesses displaced and they raised hell in the media and with a group of other local businesses.

With the convention center, well that was just a giant cluster you know what. Apparently Kraft didn't bow down at the feet of the South Boston political machine and the whole deal came crashing to the ground. Suddenly any and all cash subsidies and infrastructure monies coming out of the city's pockets disappeared and that whole thing was done. Without Boston's city monies going to the part ownership due to the convention center, the deal was over.

Kraft wanted the state to put up a ton of money for Foxboro as well but I think Finnerty fought tooth and nail against it and had a ton of support from western Mass politicos so Kraft was ready to go to Hartford. But Hartford became a problem when the site of the stadium was discovered to have contaminated ground so Kraft bit the bullet and took the infrastucture only deal and the rest is history.

But Boston is proof that Sports teams can own there arenas and still prosper. But again that might have to do with the size of the city and the money within the economic enviroment of the city.

[CoachCowens]

People need to understand this is business.

I love the Demoulas Market Basket down the street from me. Best food prices and quality around. If I go to Stop & Shop or Shaw's I'm spending $50-$75 more a week in groceries and stuff.

But if they decide to close that store and put up a new one a half hour drive away I'm screwed. But I can't do anything about it. It's not my store. I am just a customer.

When it comes to sports, we are all customers. I feel for the city an fans in Seattle. I have an uncle who lives near Everett and he's a gigantic Sonics fan and has been since before DJ played there. He's devastated. But he realizes that that is the way of big business.

He doesn't want some ungodly tax or something to pay to keep the team there. He already pays for League Pass and goes to 20-25 games a year. That's all he wants to pay or can afford. And that's a lot compared to his neighbors who he says could care less if the Sonics leave since they haven't been that good since Kemp and Payton left town.

Besides he says that the proposed new arena was like another 20-25 minute ride away for him. He wouldn't have been able to attend anymore games because it would have been almost an hour ride each way just to go to the game.

Sorry, I digressed, back to my point. Unless the fans of the city can do something to appease an owner of a franchise when they want a new arena, that city and those fans should expect to lose their team.

Unless of course that team is a cornerstone franchise in the league in a large market.

The Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls will and would never be allowed to leave those cities. The Pistons and Sixers might not be allowed to leave those cities. Everyone else is fair game.

The only difference is the NBA is a monopoly. If Demoulas asked your City for 10 million to build a new state of the art Store. Your City would say see you later. We can get Hannafords or Market Basket to come in.

Thankfully not all owners are like Bennett. The fans of Seattle already ponied up 74 million 13 years ago. Bennett bought the team and then asked for a sweeheart deal or he would move. He knew full well that the Seattle legislature wouldn't like the deal, especially when introduced late in a legislative session. He got what he wanted but had to pay more than he intended.

There is nothing stopping other owners from pulling a similar move except a conscience and/or ties to their City.
 

Actually I think all owners are like Bennett. It's give me the sweatheart deal or else because I need to make money. I'm a firm believer that the business owner can do whatever he wants with his business. It's his. If the populace isn't willing to pay for the arena, they stand the chance of losing the team.

My Demoulas example is no different. Demoulas says they are putting up a new store. Do you think they are going to pay for the land to put that store up? Hell no. The city finds land, develops it and leases it to the new store and any other commercial ventures they can put there. The store doesn't buy the property. The taxpayers lease it to them.

If Demoulas doesn't think the deal is sweet enough they go elsewhere and then the city tries to get Hannaford Bros or Shaw's or someone else. Either way the taxpayers are paying.

But the taxpayers benefit as well with taxes that business has to pay and the necessary services that business provides.

I am actually proud of Massachusetts for standing up against the local sports teams and telling them to build their own places. Top ten markets with lots of money shouldn't have to pay for the new arenas. New York, Chicago, Boston, LA, San Francisco, Miami, and Houston are all areas that should never have the people pay for the arenas.

An example. Let's say the Rockets want to leave Houston because the people won't provide an arena, I say let them. The city of Houston should know that another team will come in there and build their own place because the value of the property and the guaranteed money from the supporting fans will pay for the arena in a decade. Now for all I know the Rockets own their arena. But I hope you understand the hypothetical point.

People need to stand up to these owners and let them assume the risk because unlike that Demoulas example, they really aren't providing needed services to the community. They are only providing entertainment.

Seattle stood up to Bennett like you said Ma. stood up to local sports teams. That tells me not all owners are like Bennett.

There are sweetheart deals and then there are sweetheart deals like Bennett asked for. Basically he wanted the Seattle area to finance everything and only pay 100 million on future revenue through surcharges.

Actually Boston has stood up to ownerships but it was the ownerships that left. The previous regime at Fenway wanted a new park. They said they had to have it to sell the team. They didn't get it. Team sold and the Fenway Group tried for an arena. No go, so they refurbished Fenway. They could never move the team because baseball has the power to stop them so they were stuck.

The Jacobs wanted the city to build them an arena. The owners of the Bruins fought for years over the building of a new Garden. But the Celtics weren't going to build one and the Bruins ownership knew they would never make the money elsewhwere that they could make here. So they stay and eventually after getting infrastructure promises built their own building.

The infrastructure is the only thing Massachusetts will give a team and it's because of that 25 year fight with the Bruins.

The Celtics have a sweet deal with the Jacobs, they aren't going to try to build a building until the Bruins make them homeless.

The Pats were going to move to St. Louis when the state refused to build Orthwein a stadium in Boston but the team was sold to Kraft, the owner of Foxboro stadium instead. Kraft wanted the state to build a stadium in Boston too. He said he'd pony up a ton of the cash but wanted the city and state to contribute because it would be a convention center also. The state refused and the team courted Providence and Hartford before the state said they would give the Krafts infrastructure in Foxboro if they stayed there.

Infrastructure is all that anyone will get in Massachusetts but it's because the Sox can't move and the other teams won't because the know how profitable owning a sports franchise in Boston is.

It's hard to compare Boston to non top ten markets. Especially non top ten markets that are in a non growth mode and/or don't have a good economic environment/situation. The Boston economy is excellent and because of high tech and education and research centers around Boston, Boston will always remain that way. If a team leaves Boston there will be another the very next year negotiating to come in here.

That's why Boston can play hardball and that's why the owners here may be perceived to be different and caring about the teams and their fans, but they really aren't all that much different from Bennett.

But Bennett is going to a a smaller market than Seattle. Seattle is no slouch with it's industries such as high tech, aircraft, Forest products, etc.    

Bennet had no intention of staying there or trying to make it work. He knew what he was buying. The Red sox owners made it work in their current location. Bennett didn't even want to entertain discussions about improving Key arena. I just can't equate the 2.


 

[nickagneta]

People need to understand this is business.

I love the Demoulas Market Basket down the street from me. Best food prices and quality around. If I go to Stop & Shop or Shaw's I'm spending $50-$75 more a week in groceries and stuff.

But if they decide to close that store and put up a new one a half hour drive away I'm screwed. But I can't do anything about it. It's not my store. I am just a customer.

When it comes to sports, we are all customers. I feel for the city an fans in Seattle. I have an uncle who lives near Everett and he's a gigantic Sonics fan and has been since before DJ played there. He's devastated. But he realizes that that is the way of big business.

He doesn't want some ungodly tax or something to pay to keep the team there. He already pays for League Pass and goes to 20-25 games a year. That's all he wants to pay or can afford. And that's a lot compared to his neighbors who he says could care less if the Sonics leave since they haven't been that good since Kemp and Payton left town.

Besides he says that the proposed new arena was like another 20-25 minute ride away for him. He wouldn't have been able to attend anymore games because it would have been almost an hour ride each way just to go to the game.

Sorry, I digressed, back to my point. Unless the fans of the city can do something to appease an owner of a franchise when they want a new arena, that city and those fans should expect to lose their team.

Unless of course that team is a cornerstone franchise in the league in a large market.

The Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls will and would never be allowed to leave those cities. The Pistons and Sixers might not be allowed to leave those cities. Everyone else is fair game.

The only difference is the NBA is a monopoly. If Demoulas asked your City for 10 million to build a new state of the art Store. Your City would say see you later. We can get Hannafords or Market Basket to come in.

Thankfully not all owners are like Bennett. The fans of Seattle already ponied up 74 million 13 years ago. Bennett bought the team and then asked for a sweeheart deal or he would move. He knew full well that the Seattle legislature wouldn't like the deal, especially when introduced late in a legislative session. He got what he wanted but had to pay more than he intended.

There is nothing stopping other owners from pulling a similar move except a conscience and/or ties to their City.
 

Actually I think all owners are like Bennett. It's give me the sweatheart deal or else because I need to make money. I'm a firm believer that the business owner can do whatever he wants with his business. It's his. If the populace isn't willing to pay for the arena, they stand the chance of losing the team.

My Demoulas example is no different. Demoulas says they are putting up a new store. Do you think they are going to pay for the land to put that store up? Hell no. The city finds land, develops it and leases it to the new store and any other commercial ventures they can put there. The store doesn't buy the property. The taxpayers lease it to them.

If Demoulas doesn't think the deal is sweet enough they go elsewhere and then the city tries to get Hannaford Bros or Shaw's or someone else. Either way the taxpayers are paying.

But the taxpayers benefit as well with taxes that business has to pay and the necessary services that business provides.

I am actually proud of Massachusetts for standing up against the local sports teams and telling them to build their own places. Top ten markets with lots of money shouldn't have to pay for the new arenas. New York, Chicago, Boston, LA, San Francisco, Miami, and Houston are all areas that should never have the people pay for the arenas.

An example. Let's say the Rockets want to leave Houston because the people won't provide an arena, I say let them. The city of Houston should know that another team will come in there and build their own place because the value of the property and the guaranteed money from the supporting fans will pay for the arena in a decade. Now for all I know the Rockets own their arena. But I hope you understand the hypothetical point.

People need to stand up to these owners and let them assume the risk because unlike that Demoulas example, they really aren't providing needed services to the community. They are only providing entertainment.

Seattle stood up to Bennett like you said Ma. stood up to local sports teams. That tells me not all owners are like Bennett.

There are sweetheart deals and then there are sweetheart deals like Bennett asked for. Basically he wanted the Seattle area to finance everything and only pay 100 million on future revenue through surcharges.

Actually Boston has stood up to ownerships but it was the ownerships that left. The previous regime at Fenway wanted a new park. They said they had to have it to sell the team. They didn't get it. Team sold and the Fenway Group tried for an arena. No go, so they refurbished Fenway. They could never move the team because baseball has the power to stop them so they were stuck.

The Jacobs wanted the city to build them an arena. The owners of the Bruins fought for years over the building of a new Garden. But the Celtics weren't going to build one and the Bruins ownership knew they would never make the money elsewhwere that they could make here. So they stay and eventually after getting infrastructure promises built their own building.

The infrastructure is the only thing Massachusetts will give a team and it's because of that 25 year fight with the Bruins.

The Celtics have a sweet deal with the Jacobs, they aren't going to try to build a building until the Bruins make them homeless.

The Pats were going to move to St. Louis when the state refused to build Orthwein a stadium in Boston but the team was sold to Kraft, the owner of Foxboro stadium instead. Kraft wanted the state to build a stadium in Boston too. He said he'd pony up a ton of the cash but wanted the city and state to contribute because it would be a convention center also. The state refused and the team courted Providence and Hartford before the state said they would give the Krafts infrastructure in Foxboro if they stayed there.

Infrastructure is all that anyone will get in Massachusetts but it's because the Sox can't move and the other teams won't because the know how profitable owning a sports franchise in Boston is.

It's hard to compare Boston to non top ten markets. Especially non top ten markets that are in a non growth mode and/or don't have a good economic environment/situation. The Boston economy is excellent and because of high tech and education and research centers around Boston, Boston will always remain that way. If a team leaves Boston there will be another the very next year negotiating to come in here.

That's why Boston can play hardball and that's why the owners here may be perceived to be different and caring about the teams and their fans, but they really aren't all that much different from Bennett.

But Bennett is going to a a smaller market than Seattle. Seattle is no slouch with it's industries such as high tech, aircraft, Forest products, etc.    

Bennet had no intention of staying there or trying to make it work. He knew what he was buying. The Red sox owners made it work in their current location. Bennett didn't even want to entertain discussions about improving Key arena. I just can't equate the 2.


 

If there is a Boston based owner that can be compared to Bennett its James Busche Orthwein. An out of town buyer of a franchise who's only intention in buying the team was to move it to the midwest.

He saw the ability to get a franchise and move it to his hometown in and be the local hero. The Pats wer embroiled in their own lease situation as well. The difference is that the NFL did everything they could to keep the Pats in the 5th largest television market. The NBA is actually helping the owner.

Maybe your beef is with David Stern.

My point about him not being so different is that all these owners want to make money. Maybe it's a stretch but if the city of Cincinnati offered the Cavs a deal that would make them an extra $50 million in profit every year do you think the Cavs stay in Cleveland?

What about the Hawks? Do you think for one minute that if the city of Chicago decided they wanted a second franchise and offered the Hawks a deal that netted them $30 million a year more in profit that they would be headed north?

The owners care about the money and if Grousbek and the Celtics suddenly had their lease changed that was going to cost them millions more per year and the city of Providence was offering them a sweetheart deal that garnered them millions more in profit that you don't think that the Grousbeks wouldn't at least listen for a good long while?

That's all I'm saying. I don't think Bennett is any larger of a villian than any other owner can or will be if it comes down to making money and getting what they want for their franchise.

BTW TP4U. Great discussion!

[Frontierboy]

The new name of the franchise will be "OKClay" as a response to his moving the team

[dlpin]

If there is a Boston based owner that can be compared to Bennett its James Busche Orthwein. An out of town buyer of a franchise who's only intention in buying the team was to move it to the midwest.

He saw the ability to get a franchise and move it to his hometown in and be the local hero. The Pats wer embroiled in their own lease situation as well. The difference is that the NFL did everything they could to keep the Pats in the 5th largest television market. The NBA is actually helping the owner.

Maybe your beef is with David Stern.

My point about him not being so different is that all these owners want to make money. Maybe it's a stretch but if the city of Cincinnati offered the Cavs a deal that would make them an extra $50 million in profit every year do you think the Cavs stay in Cleveland?

What about the Hawks? Do you think for one minute that if the city of Chicago decided they wanted a second franchise and offered the Hawks a deal that netted them $30 million a year more in profit that they would be headed north?

The owners care about the money and if Grousbek and the Celtics suddenly had their lease changed that was going to cost them millions more per year and the city of Providence was offering them a sweetheart deal that garnered them millions more in profit that you don't think that the Grousbeks wouldn't at least listen for a good long while?

That's all I'm saying. I don't think Bennett is any larger of a villian than any other owner can or will be if it comes down to making money and getting what they want for their franchise.

BTW TP4U. Great discussion!

Moving for profit, that is one thing. Its another to do everything you can to make the situation so acrimonious that the city allows you to break a lease early. Bennett wasn't trying to move a team at the end of a lease... he started trying to do so over three years prior to the end of that lease.
To do so, he put up the most outrageous proposal in the history of basketball (i wont go over the details again), and, just to stir things up, making sure no players or coaches actually interact with the city. Of course, the city did its thing too, but we can't lose perspective that it wasn't as much about whether they could move the franchise, but about when and how.

Of course, Stern did its thing too. If there wasn't such blatant conflict of interest, a good comissioner would never have allowed this to happen. To satisfy the whims of his personal friend, he tarnished the NBA's reputation, alienated the nation's 12th TV market (who doesnt remember his threats of seattle never getting a team unless they were "nice" in the trial), and certainly reduced overall league profitability.

Forbes has a special on NBA teams not too long ago. Only about 1/3 of the teams make a profit before the luxury tax payments kick in. Even the Utah Jazz, one of the league's most succesful small market teams, only turns up a profit after luxury tax payments are received. OKC will just be another team to grab from that pool of money. And Bennett would never have gotten such a favourable deal from OKC if he wasnt the mayors main campaign financer and his family owned a good section of OKC's media. The city will profit minimally from this, AND Clay has the possibility of opting out of his lease there after 6 seasons.

Now, I am certain Seattle will get another team, and it is going to suck, because it will either dilute talent further, or it is going to be at the expense of another fanbase being held hostage by billionaires. Charlotte's owner was already complaining about his sponsorhip deals, threatening to leave. Memphis owner is doing his "talent for a dime" to sell its team. They will soon get the seattle treatment.

[papa shuttlesworth]

This subject depresses me.  I semi-closely followed the Sonics while Ray Allen was there.

Before the owners' vote to relocate, I emailed Wyc and asked him to vote against it.  My basic argument was why would anyone become a fan of a franchise and sport after they witness a longstanding, historically-successful team in one of the country's largest and richest markets leave?  If it could happen to Seattle, it could happen anywhere.

As was discussed earlier in this thread, I understand that owners (even the best ones like in MA) will always be looking for the best deals to maximize their profits.  All we can hope is that they are somewhat altruistic and recognize their fan base.  If making money is your number one goal, there are many better options out there than pro sports.

What sickens me the most is David Stern.  The Seattle situation is why I booed him loudly at Game 6.  His public friendship with Clay Bennett and steadfast refusal to support Seattle is just wrong.  He went out of his way numerous times to badmouth the city and state, despite that interview when Key Arena opened where he exclaimed how great it was... just ten years ago.  If he is friends with Clay and believes that the "Seattle" Supersonics are a lost cause, that is fine.  But I think he has an obligation as the commissioner of the league to at least feign interest in the fans and provide some encouraging words.  Compare this situation with Sacramento, where Stern is working with the city and the Kings to help a deal get done.  I'm about to break my laptop it makes me so mad.

Sorry for the rant, it just hits close to home.  I am from near Hartford and the Whalers broke my heart.  Since that day I swore never to watch a minute of hockey every again.  I don't want kids in Seattle and other markets to have to make the same blood oath about basketball.