Quote:
Originally Posted by BDP
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".
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerry
Worthy Cook - yes I am OKC2008. I am not worried about spies Saberman. I have spent the last 10 months on that web site defending the OKC position and then switched my stance on everything yesterday after closing arguments and not a single person has questioned the switch. They seem to think I am somehow enlightened now. I just want to give them as much confidence as I can going in to 3:59 PM Thursday and then watch them all go bananas after 4PM.
|
Kerry, I've been reading your quote for many months over there, love the way you get the going, like throwing gas on a fire, it drives them crazy.
BDP, I don't think this will set a precedent for sports teams over all. There will be to many points involved in the decision, it would make it hard from any other team to match the situation as it has unfolded in Seattle. They would't be able to pick certain situations and use them as grounds to break their lease.
Just my though.