The only thing I am worried about from an OKC perspective is this idea that the case would set a precedent that any team can move whenever they find a more profitable situation. Now, that's what any other business can do, just about, but the court may not want to set such a precedent and I really don't even think the NBA would want it read that way.

Of course, the other precedent would be that a lease can force you to operate your business in a specific location, even if that means significant losses. IMO, that's scarier, but it just depends on how much she buys into the idea that the Sonics mean so much to the area that it shouldn't leave two years early. I think that she can play both sides in this situation and say "yes, the Sonics do provide an intangible benefit, but we know they are leaving in just two years and that fact alone greatly mitigates the intangible benefit, since that benefit is greatly reliant on the perception that the organization is synonymous with the community for the long term".