naa

I think they are coming for this season.

The City of Seattle is making Bennett's case. Why do I say this?

Midtowner, and other lawyers can correct me if my next statement is wrong; but the City of Seattle is the Plaintiff and they are the ones suing Bennett to honor the lease. (here is where I might need correcting)

Therefore, it is their burden to prove (or show by preponderance) that Bennett needs to honor the lease and that his offer for cash payment does not satisfy the lease.

However, what the city is doing is

1) trying to show Bennett never intended to stay in Seattle

2) trying to show Bennett is deceptive

3) trying to appeal to the judge (and the public) that since Bennett can't be trusted, he shouldn't be allowed to leave Seattle.

Essentially, that is what I see from the City of Seattle on this case. And IMO they are failing on each point.

Bennett, on the other hand, in his defense - is saying that he satisfied the terms of the contract with Howard Schultz (to try to get a new arena here in Seattle for a year) and that since Bennett has the OK from the NBA to move and given the horrible relationship that exists from the Seattle leadership (from trying to make him bleed and thus sell the team), he should be allowed to opt out of the 'lease' with the city early in exchange for market value of the remaining 2 years.

Anybody (midtowner, etc) please correct me if Im wrong.


Now, here is my take.

Nickels is a fool and basically made Bennett's case. He sat on the stand admitting that the city interfered with Bennett getting an arena up here. The city not only refused to meet with Bennett when he first bought the team, not only passed I-91, but the city then went and put political pressure on Olympia not to consider Bennett's Renton proposal (which translates into, you better not fund ANY other arena unless it is IN Seattle). ...

Nickels all but HAD to admit to that because the evidence proves it. Therefore, Nickels just destroyed Howard Schultz case right there - since Seattle interfered with Bennett's 'Good Faith Effort'. Howard instead should be suing the City of Seattle - and I suspect that Howard's case be thrown out or EASILY won by Bennett.

Nickels also proved Bennett's point that He and the City have an irrepairable relationship because they want him to bleed. He sat on the stand and he AND lead attorney Lawrence appeared on LOCAL TV saying they intend for Bennett to stay and lose money in the hopes that the team will stay (ie, he will sell to local ownership).

Are these people idiots or what???? They JUST PROVED Bennett's side!! And further, Bennett's lawyers are competent enough to destroy just about everything the city has presented.

The ONLY point the city has made so far from their pov is that 1) the Sonics did enter into a lease with the city and Key arena was created (ie the Coluseum was upgraded). That's IT.

All of the questions to Bennett about the emails, all of the this and that about Bennett's intention; this is all trying to appeal to the judge (and the public) but it really has NO WEIGHT on the case. It is no preponderance.

What the City should be showing, is Washington law and how contracts should be honored. And that the Sonics are such a value to the community that no money offer could be accepted to satisfy the lease consideration. And because of that, and the fact that Bennett agreed to the obligations of the original Sonics owners - that he should honor the lease.

But is the City doing this? NO. It almost seems to me like the city's lawyers/case are Pro Bono up against the top law firms (Bennett's) in the nation.

I mean, the city is REALLY REALLY trying to appeal to public opinion, there's so many 'what do you think' about Bennett or what he 'said/did' kind of "NEWS" being published - yet NOTHING about Washington Contract Law.

The good faith effort stuff, well that should be Howard Schultz's case; not the city's.

__________________
Oklahoma City, RENAISSANCE CITY!