It's whether the city is entitled to specific performance of its lease. The Sonics want out, but are currently enjoined by a temporary injunction issued by the District Court saying they can't move pending the outcome of the current suit.

There will be a trial on June 12th after which I'm sure the judge will take the matter under advisement for a short period of time and issue a ruling.

The people in Seattle are sort of right -- that this is the issue. The outcome has not yet been determined.

I will say as I have said before that specific performance is something called an "equitable remedy." Equitable remedies mean that the party will be ordered to do something. Generally, in court, we award cash damages. Courts prefer to award cash damages and generally will only award equitable relief when cash is inadequate.

The Sonics' attorneys will doubtless be arguing that Seattle is entitled to the amounts due under the lease, just like if a tenant moved out of an apartment early.

The city of Seattle will be arguing that aside from the value (which is a loss to them) the city receives from the lease, there are a lot of indirect benefits, i.e., sales tax revenue, economic impact, etc. which come as a direct result of the existence of this lease. They will also argue that even if those indirect remedies are enforceable, the equitable relief should still hold since it's in the contract.

Both positions have their merits. Hazarding a guess as to how this goes would be fruitless at this point. We'll see sometime after the 6-day trial.

For us future Sonics fans, the question is really this: Should we be saving our pennies to buy tickets in 2008, 2009, 2010 or 2011?

There is no equitable remedy short of Shultz' cockamamie lawsuit that'll keep the Sonics in Seattle past the 2010 season.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!