Originally Posted by betts

That's my point. Even if Schultz feels an OKC lawsuit is not going to have a chance of winning, just the threat of a lawsuit with an uncertain end might be enough to put off a prospective buyer. Then, if they can't get the legislature to do anything, it would be even more offputting. So, we could end up with a team in limbo.....no owner but the trust. What if the legal case goes past the 2010 date when the lease with Seattle expires? Who signs a lease with the team if the lease is up in Seattle but there's no owner? Schultz wouldn't have the authority to do so, and how could a trust sign a binding lease? For what length of time would the lease run? Who would negotiate the lease? There are so many questions it's ridiculous. Again, I think Schultz would have had a much stronger case if he just asked for the team back, and forgot about the trust. This could become a convoluted mess. I'm sure he doesn't want it back, however, because if he couldn't find a buyer, he'd be back at square one.