Sonics to OKC: Presser in 20

[nickagneta]

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.

Orthwein tried doing the same thing in Foxboro. He knew he had a long lease in existence and tried like hell to do everything he could to buy out and get it shortened.

As you said and as I stated earlier the difference is the commissioner. Paul Tagliabue didn't allow Orthwein to move the team without a fight from the NFL headquarters. David Stern not only backed but appeared to spearhead the move to OKC from Seattle for Bennett.

I feel for the fans of the Sonics. I went to college in Cleveland and for a brief time became a fan of Clevevland sports and thought it a travesty what occured to the Browns, one of the storied franchises in NFL history. I know, if only from afar how it feels.

But I still believe an owner has the right to move his franchise, no matter how dispicable his actions might be in procurring the right to do so. Sorry.

Besides we all know owners never make the big bucks on the year to year profits of the teams. Where most American sports franchises make their biggest profit is at the sale of the team. The equity these teams incur from the time they are bought until the time they are sold are usually pretty obscene numbers. That's where the owners make their money.

Look at the Krafts in New England.

Kraft bought Foxboro stadium and the land around it for $7.1 million. Orthwein offered Kraft in 1993 $75 million to get out of the lease so that he could move the team to St Louis. Kraft countered by buying the Patriots for $172 million.

He then spent $325 million to build the new stadium in Foxboro.

But Gillette paid him over nine figures for the naming rights to the stadium. Almost all the parking revenue generated for the stadium now belongs to the Krafts, the mall and hotel going up will be huge money makers and for krafts probable $500 million investment in the team and stadium he has probably already made back a huge chunck of that and if he sold it today could get upwards towards $750 million to $1 billion dollars for the entire entity.

Not to shabby. The Krafts could possible net upwards of $500million to $700million in profit from the sale of that team when all is said and done. Of course accountants will make sure it isn't nearly that much on the books for tax purposes (profit is a funny and flexible world in the realm of corporate purchases).

That is where the Krafts and most owners make the real money.

[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.


 

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!

Please, we could spend another day debating Sterns role in this. This has David Sterns blood all over it. David Stern hooked Bennett up with Seattle. You just have to follow the dotted lines from New Orleans after Katrina to OKC to Seattle.

My opinion is if you buy a sports franchise you should be a fan first. This isn't the business to get into to make huge money. That being said, nobody wants to lose money. Just like other businesses there are good owners, bad owners and in between owners.  Some owners like Bennett have less Business Ethics than others.

Yeah. I love a good debate. especially when I'm on the right side.
Actually I don't think we are on opposite ends, anyways.

I already gave you a TP for another thread last night. It's nice to hear you separate the worthiness of TP's from just having like opinions

[iowa plowboy]

It'll be exciting to have another NBA team at least within driving distance.  I went to the two games the C's played in OK City.  The atmosphere is phenominal.  The fans are polite and loud.  Even when we had a tanking team playing there, the place was packed.  I have no idea why the Hornets went back to New Orleans.

I got banned the last time I commented on the Sonic's move.  So I'll limit my commentary.  I don't believe that the city or the state should be involved in this at all. However, suffice it to say I don't feel sorry for the people of Seattle at all.  If they're willing to pony up for all kinds of bizarre things that just takes money out of their pockets, they should have been willing to pony up for something that generates probably as much tax revenue as anything in the state of Washington.  Based on that, Bennett should have expected them to cooperate with him.

[dlpin]

But I still believe an owner has the right to move his franchise, no matter how dispicable his actions might be in procurring the right to do so. Sorry.

Actually, that is not how it works in pro sports. No one has the "right" to move a team. They have the right to request permission from the league to do so, and even then they can only move when their lease is up. Bennett had to ask permission from the league to move, and that permission was only granted for this year, and pending the sonics being able to get out of the lease with the city. And even then they had to settle and pay way more then they owed the city to get out of the lease.  Had the league denied his request he wouldnt be able to move, just as he would have been punished monetarily had he simply up and moved the team elsewhere without settling the lease with the city.

[nickagneta]

But I still believe an owner has the right to move his franchise, no matter how dispicable his actions might be in procurring the right to do so. Sorry.

Actually, that is not how it works in pro sports. No one has the "right" to move a team. They have the right to request permission from the league to do so, and even then they can only move when their lease is up. Bennett had to ask permission from the league to move, and that permission was only granted for this year, and pending the sonics being able to get out of the lease with the city. And even then they had to settle and pay way more then they owed the city to get out of the lease.  Had the league denied his request he wouldnt be able to move, just as he would have been punished monetarily had he simply up and moved the team elsewhere without settling the lease with the city.

Actually considering US Antitrust Laws, that is how it works.

See Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission vs the National Football League circa 1980

http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/450565

A jury ruled against the NFL in the antitrust suit and the NFL later settled with the LACC for $19.8 million in damages. The verdict has been held up under appeal as well.

If the owner of a team has a legal standing, no matter how unscupulous, to move a team that ownership group has the right to do so, wether league approved or not. Major League Baseball is the only American sporting league that is exempt from this law.

So Bennett had the right to move once the lease was waived. NBA permission or not. He made life miserable on the leaseholders, who settled for the multimillion dollar settlement and then Bennett exercised his right.

[dlpin]

But I still believe an owner has the right to move his franchise, no matter how dispicable his actions might be in procurring the right to do so. Sorry.

Actually, that is not how it works in pro sports. No one has the "right" to move a team. They have the right to request permission from the league to do so, and even then they can only move when their lease is up. Bennett had to ask permission from the league to move, and that permission was only granted for this year, and pending the sonics being able to get out of the lease with the city. And even then they had to settle and pay way more then they owed the city to get out of the lease.  Had the league denied his request he wouldnt be able to move, just as he would have been punished monetarily had he simply up and moved the team elsewhere without settling the lease with the city.

Actually considering US Antitrust Laws, that is how it works.

See Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission vs the National Football League circa 1980

http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/450565

A jury ruled against the NFL in the antitrust suit and the NFL later settled with the LACC for $19.8 million in damages. The verdict has been held up under appeal as well.

If the owner of a team has a legal standing, no matter how unscupulous, to move a team that ownership group has the right to do so, wether league approved or not. Major League Baseball is the only American sporting league that is exempt from this law.

So Bennett had the right to move once the lease was waived. NBA permission or not. He made life miserable on the leaseholders, who settled for the multimillion dollar settlement and then Bennett exercised his right.

First of all, as you said, once the lease situation was resolved. Second of all, the Al Davis situation was unique and depended on a number of circumstances. More recently, for example, lawsuits were decided in favor of seattle and minnesota allowing them to keep their baseball teams.

[nickagneta]

But I still believe an owner has the right to move his franchise, no matter how dispicable his actions might be in procurring the right to do so. Sorry.

Actually, that is not how it works in pro sports. No one has the "right" to move a team. They have the right to request permission from the league to do so, and even then they can only move when their lease is up. Bennett had to ask permission from the league to move, and that permission was only granted for this year, and pending the sonics being able to get out of the lease with the city. And even then they had to settle and pay way more then they owed the city to get out of the lease.  Had the league denied his request he wouldnt be able to move, just as he would have been punished monetarily had he simply up and moved the team elsewhere without settling the lease with the city.

Actually considering US Antitrust Laws, that is how it works.

See Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission vs the National Football League circa 1980

http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/450565

A jury ruled against the NFL in the antitrust suit and the NFL later settled with the LACC for $19.8 million in damages. The verdict has been held up under appeal as well.

If the owner of a team has a legal standing, no matter how unscupulous, to move a team that ownership group has the right to do so, wether league approved or not. Major League Baseball is the only American sporting league that is exempt from this law.

So Bennett had the right to move once the lease was waived. NBA permission or not. He made life miserable on the leaseholders, who settled for the multimillion dollar settlement and then Bennett exercised his right.

First of all, as you said, once the lease situation was resolved. Second of all, the Al Davis situation was unique and depended on a number of circumstances. More recently, for example, lawsuits were decided in favor of seattle and minnesota allowing them to keep their baseball teams.

As I mentioned, MLB is the only league, heck, maybe Roy can clarify this, they may be the only industry/company with the anti-trust exemption. That means that they can restrict the movement of their teams. If the owners in Seattle and Minnesota wanted to move the team but the league didn't allow it, the teams have no legal standing to move. Hence the courts would uphold the movement.

Link me to the cases you are refering to, I'm not familiar with them or I just can't remember them.

Everything but baseball is different in regards to team movement.

[nickagneta]

BTW dlpin, I've enjoyed the conversation and I can feel your anger over the situation with every word you type. I can't imagine if the Celtics were ripped out from under me after being a loyal fan for the past 35 years or so. it must hurt.

So TP4U for the convo, and when I can again, a TP for the hurt you're feeling.

[CoachCowens]

But I still believe an owner has the right to move his franchise, no matter how dispicable his actions might be in procurring the right to do so. Sorry.

Actually, that is not how it works in pro sports. No one has the "right" to move a team. They have the right to request permission from the league to do so, and even then they can only move when their lease is up. Bennett had to ask permission from the league to move, and that permission was only granted for this year, and pending the sonics being able to get out of the lease with the city. And even then they had to settle and pay way more then they owed the city to get out of the lease.  Had the league denied his request he wouldnt be able to move, just as he would have been punished monetarily had he simply up and moved the team elsewhere without settling the lease with the city.

Actually considering US Antitrust Laws, that is how it works.

See Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission vs the National Football League circa 1980

http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/450565

A jury ruled against the NFL in the antitrust suit and the NFL later settled with the LACC for $19.8 million in damages. The verdict has been held up under appeal as well.

If the owner of a team has a legal standing, no matter how unscupulous, to move a team that ownership group has the right to do so, wether league approved or not. Major League Baseball is the only American sporting league that is exempt from this law.

So Bennett had the right to move once the lease was waived. NBA permission or not. He made life miserable on the leaseholders, who settled for the multimillion dollar settlement and then Bennett exercised his right.

First of all, as you said, once the lease situation was resolved. Second of all, the Al Davis situation was unique and depended on a number of circumstances. More recently, for example, lawsuits were decided in favor of seattle and minnesota allowing them to keep their baseball teams.

As I mentioned, MLB is the only league, heck, maybe Roy can clarify this, they may be the only industry/company with the anti-trust exemption. That means that they can restrict the movement of their teams. If the owners in Seattle and Minnesota wanted to move the team but the league didn't allow it, the teams have no legal standing to move. Hence the courts would uphold the movement.

Link me to the cases you are refering to, I'm not familiar with them or I just can't remember them.

Everything but baseball is different in regards to team movement.

If I remember correctly MLB has a special Anti-trust law but the other sports leagues are under a broader anti-trust law.

[dlpin]

BTW dlpin, I've enjoyed the conversation and I can feel your anger over the situation with every word you type. I can't imagine if the Celtics were ripped out from under me after being a loyal fan for the past 35 years or so. it must hurt.

So TP4U for the convo, and when I can again, a TP for the hurt you're feeling.

thanks for the TP, but Im a celtics fan. That situation just bothers me on many levels, from the political to the standpoint of a regular fan. This is a part of a bigger picture that bothers me, one where fans are pawns fed manufactured BS by insiders who are too afraid to ask the real questions as billionaires get richer by providing substandard product. But I digress.

[dlpin]

As I mentioned, MLB is the only league, heck, maybe Roy can clarify this, they may be the only industry/company with the anti-trust exemption. That means that they can restrict the movement of their teams. If the owners in Seattle and Minnesota wanted to move the team but the league didn't allow it, the teams have no legal standing to move. Hence the courts would uphold the movement.

Link me to the cases you are refering to, I'm not familiar with them or I just can't remember them.

Everything but baseball is different in regards to team movement.

The cases are the ones that brought the Mariners to seattle (the city sued because the league had promised a team, the city built the facilities, and no team was brought in to replace the seattle pilots or whatever the name was) and the one that forced the Twins to play through their lease in Minnesota.
In any case, perhaps I am using an overly legalistic definition of "right." Owners have no right to move. If their intended move is blocked by a league, they can sue to allege some other infringement of their rights. In Al Davis' case, he argued that rule 4.3 of the NFL, which stipulated that a 75% approval was needed to move a team, infringed the antitrust law. The court actually recognized that leagues had the right to restrict franchise relocation, but that rule 4.3, in the way it was specifically written, was unlawful. Rule 4.3 has since then been rewritten and has not yet been challenged by lawsuits.

[SamuelAdams]

They don't even have a place to practice lined up....

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/369707_sonx05.html

"OKLAHOMA CITY -- When the New Orleans Hornets arrived in Oklahoma City weeks before the 2005-06 season, one of their first priorities was to find a place to practice...."