More News on Sonics Lawsuit

Cas, Ill give you that about the 3K; you only quoted what you read in the paper.

But I can tell you, they were mostly from the schools - because I work at WAMU and have to pass by the courthouse on the way home. Almost nobody in the 25-55+ range was there (other than the former Sonics players and reporters). That was my point, along with the 'exaggeration' posted by some of the media. It wasn't to embarrass you or anything - I apologize if you took it that way. ...

__________________
Oklahoma City, RENAISSANCE CITY!

guys, this quote from the PI pretty much sums up the trial thus far:

Taylor, who lost out on many exchanges with former Seattle Center director Virginia Anderson on Monday, pounded away at Zimbalist, an embarrassing conclusion to a shaky day for the city.

The ONLY thing I'd add to that is ".. conclusion to ANOTHER shaky day for the city."

Something you guys didn't hear, but was on the news up here - was the interviews from the city attorneys. It is VERY VERY CLEAR that the city has no case and is trying to use political sympathy to win their case (as was aformentioned by someone on the forum). I'll paraphrase what the LEAD ATTORNEY for the CITY said on the news "we asked him questions and he answered. we asked him if he was a man possessed and he said yes, for seattle. All you need to do is look at his actions after that and draw your own conclusions. We're hoping that is what Judge Marsha will do."

How POLITICAL does that sound? Does that even sound like a competent attorney? with FACTS and a POSITION or even a winning hand? I, for one, am embarrassed by all of this - as a citizen of Seattle. These guys (Nickels, Lawrence, Walker, et al) are making Seattle look worse than any place that is supposedly First or World Class. We look like a freaking village in China - no clout or sense!

Here's what the PI had to summarize: "It was another mixed day for the city, whose lawyers didn't press Bennett as much as many observers believed they should have on the e-mails and his apparent intent to move the team to Oklahoma City."

I'd substitute mixed for the word disappointing.



I'd put the score as

- Yesterday Bennett 3 Seattle 0 (but they got a base hit from Ginny Anderson but no run made it home)

- Today Bennett 2 Seattle 0 (nothing has stuck for the city, even the 'grilling' of Bennett).

so Bennett is up 5 to 0 for Seattle. Third inning is tomorrow!

__________________
Oklahoma City, RENAISSANCE CITY!

Yeah, these jokers in the NW are toast. Wouldn't it be funny if the Sonics came here without a major exit fee? haha

That would be the best possible news! Haha, they get to OKC and end up aying only 10 million instead of what they offered.

Minute-by-minute: Day 3 at Seattle vs. Sonics trial | Sports | KING5.com | News for Seattle, Washington

Day three trial blog

Give me the play by play, or just tell me if we're winning or not, I don't want to take the jump and read for 8 minutes...

The play-by-play you're looking for will appear by clicking on the link.

__________________
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. --Master Yoda
Facts can change opinions, opinions cannot change facts.

in a nutshell, not appearing to go near on as well as Seattle forum folks are telling themselves, but it's not clear sailing from the Pacific to the Oklahoma River either.

I think we may have to wait at least until 2009 before the Sonics come here. I think the lawyers will keep grandstanding.

The real important question is..

Are we going to give them a hick name like the Oklahoma Tornados? If so.. I hope we lose in every way.

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!

In reading what is being presented it appears the the City of Seattle considers the Sonics very important to the city. As I would paraphrase, important to the fabric of the city. They have pointed out how important it is to have players go to schools and such to improve the "fabric".

Well I think an astute judge would give the city three choices:
1: Let the team leave and pay off the lease.
2: Have the team stay one more year and forgive the last year's lease.
3: Since the team is so important to the "fabric", forgive the last two years lease in
return for the team to stay those two year.

Otherwise the judge should look at this an consider that all the arguments are tongue in cheek and the city just wants to bleed the team before they leave.

If the team is so terribly important to the fabric of the city, why did its' populace pass I-91 shortly after Bennett bought the team? Why did the mayor refuse to consider at least putting the arena up to a vote? Why did he and the city council not lobby the state legislature to seriously consider the arena bill? My take is that the team is terribly important to the fabric of the city as long as Bennett was willing to pay hundreds of millions for the team, assume all losses AND build a multimillion dollar arena. Where was any gesture by the city showing Bennett, David Stern and the NBA how important the team was to them?

I'd say the city's position boils down to

(a) the lease requires your uniqueness to remain a part of our collective for the
full term, and money can not replace that uniquenees of the team being here
(b) you knew it was a bad for your side lease when you assumed it, and signed it
anyway
(c) you're a business man and a deal is a deal in the city's view.
(d) Since that oughta get the city home, we may as well get in some discovery on the Schultz suit and save our savior some dough

Does that prevail? I'm no fed black robe, so not for me to say, but they sure seem to think that's enough, and not just the fans, as that's the way the lawyers seem to be playing it.

did not have to wade into the swamp

I know I should understand this. Oh well, smarter people then me.

Good points, but it takes a stronger showing to invoke the court's equity power for specific performance. What you're saying speaks to the validity of the contract...no one disagrees that the lease must be honored. Now, must it be honored by paying all the rent, or by actually staying in Seattle. That's the showing that seattle must make. From wiki:

Orders of specific performance are granted when damages are not an adequate remedy, and in some specific cases such as land sale. Such orders are discretionary, as with all equitable remedies, so the availability of this remedy will depend on whether it is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

There are certain circumstances where an order of specific performance would not be granted. Such circumstances include:

1. specific performance would cause severe hardship to the defendant
2. the contract was unconscionable
3. the claimant has misbehaved (no clean hands)
4. specific performance is impossible
5. performance consists of a personal service
6. the contract is too vague
7. contracts terminable at will
8. contracts requiring constant supervision
9. contract lacking mutuality.
10. contract made for no consideration.

Current witness sounds a little silly....


10:10 a.m. - When asked what Seattle without the Sonics would be like, Alexie says it would be like comparing himself to Shakespeare. He says college and high school basketball in the area doesn't make the same impact. As a season ticket holder, Alexie is asked about how full KeyArena is. Alexie says it's simple -- when you win or when a big time opponent is in town, more people show up. Alexie giving an example of 2004-2005 season in which the Sonics unexpectedly made the playoffs and went deep into the playoffs. He metions one of his favorite moments was the potential game-winning shot Ray Allen took in Game 6 of their playoff series that year with the San Antonio Spurs. Allen missed the shot, but Alexie said there was something "about that moment between the mystic and the real" that makes it a favorite memory.

10:03 a.m. - Alexie is asked how loud fans are at Sonics games. Alexie says very loud "when they're winning." He also says it gets pretty rowdy when it's a matchup against a big opponent. When asked about racial makeup of Sonics fans, Alexie says when a big time opponent comes or other big things happen, you see "a lot more black people" than at many other Seattle venues. He also makes reference to an increase to Asian-Americans in the crowd when the Houston Rockets and their star Yao Ming comes to town, etc. Alexie mentions that he is Native American and says if makes him feel special to see the diversity. He's also comparing the NBA to mythology, saying LeBron James will be looked at like Hercules in 100 years.

Good stuff.

FWIW, this has all been said about umpteen times in the course of this thread. Before people open their mouth and say stupid things, e.g. "a lease is a lease," they should read the damned thread as well as Doug Loudenback's blog post regarding the matter.

Such uneducated, lazy statements barely merit a reply.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Ordinarily, if I were an attorney for the Sonics, I'd just stay on my feet throughout this testimony objecting based upon relevance. Considering the "clock," however, I guess it's just smart to let them waste their time on a useless witness and pass on cross.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!