Look, I'm not here to be combative. I do, however, take issue with the assertion that Seattle is simply indifferent towards keeping the Sonics. The poll PBC has sighted is meaningless to the overall lease suit. The poll states that 57% of the respondants believe that they "would be worse off" if the Seahawks or the Mariners left. The reader of this poll is left to infer that Seattle values the Seahawks and Mariners considerably more than the Sonics. This is very misleading. My guess is that 57% of the respondants didn't value the Mariners and Seahawks statistically the same but the question/poll was shaped in such a way as to combine the two fan bases. This same poll also indicates that if either the Seahawks or Mariners left, 43% of the respondants either wouldn't care if they left or would prefer that they did. 43%! We're talking about two enormously succesfull (at least financially/commercially) franchises within their own respectives leagues. No one, at least in their right mind, would argue that because a poll found that nearly half of Seattle respondants are indifferent to the Seahawks/Mariners that they are not financially viable nor incredibly popular amongst its fans. As for the Ballmer poll, it was not a question of "wanting" or "not wanting" the Sonics...it was a question of public dollars being used for the Sonics arena.

Let's look at this from the Seattle fan's point of view. Out of town owner buys team, issues threats to move unless $400M publicly financed arena is built in a blighted part of Puget Sound, trades best two players, cuts ties with local media, owner publicly admits they never intended to keep the team in Seattle, limits player appearances and concludes his ownership with the worst Sonics record in 41 seasons. Somewhat strange, that after all of this...the PBC took the time to poll Seattle citizens on how much they value the Sonics. My guess is that PBC conducted no such poll before the acquisition.

Couple of other things. First off, in regards to specific performance, you're right...judges have hesitated to keep two disfunctional parties together...as enforcing the lease would in fact do. But this not a case where the City can simply go out and find another tennant to play 41 home games and provide the economic impact NBA franchise can for the surrounding community/businesses. Also, after 40 years of civic/corporate partnership between the Sonics and Seattle, the disfunction was generated by the PBC intentionally lowering the quality of its product and trying to break the lease. Second point, the Schultz suit and the "clean hands doctrine." You mention the case is laughable and most believe it barely has legs. I would be interested as to why you believe its laughable specifically as to the sales agreement and side letter between PBC and Schultz. Also, I'm guessing by "other people" you mean legal minds. I would love to hear their opinion as well. As far as the "clean hands doctrine"...the only thing I have seen to support this is an article in the Oklahoman. Forgive me, but I don't see how it's possible to "sink a ship" that was never intended to sail. Especially when it has subsequently been discovered that the PBC was intending to fleece Washington tax payers for the purposes of a "sweet flip." I'm guessing you are aware that when the Washington State finance committee sent a list of questions to Bennett and Co., looking to get specifics on certain items (including how much the public could anticipate in the way PBC $$) the PBC never responded. Never.

You asked me which side I would prefer to be on....two months ago I would have conceded defeat...after perusing the depositions...I would say the City and Schultz have a very strong case. "That's why they play the game." In a perfect world, the NBA would give the Hornets back to OKC and keep the Sonics in Seattle.