More News on Sonics Lawsuit

I doubt so too, but think about it- as it stands, the court is sitting in equity anyway as the fact finder and law-decider...the BEST facts have been put forth by the city.... Maybe it's a bad idea, but maybe not a completely baseless idea, to move for a directed verdict. Assuming that should Judge Pechman decide NOT to give a directed verdict at this point, PBC still gets to present its principal case....


But then again, about 300 minutes are left of Seattle's time, which they are saving. If PBC tried a directed verdict, I assume those 300 minutes could be used. Meh, too complicated to figure out and a bad idea anyway, but it would be cool.

Can someone explain what a directed verdict is for the blue collar guys here?

In this case, it would mean that the judge would say that the plaintiff has not met its burden of evidence after putting its case on and therefore, the defense wins.

-- basically, we're just yammering.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

When there's actually a jury, if the judge thinks there's no question of fact at all, the judge is allowed to decide the case as a matter of law and require the jury to enter a certain verdict.

Sonic's own experts testified in court that OKC could be worse off when team moves here. Hmmm so what is the truth? What we are told now or then? Somebody is lying. Sonics | Sonics argue team has little economic impact on Seattle | Seattle Times Newspaper

Look who's back.

Economic experts are largely hired guns. If the PBC had hired this expert, he would be singing a different tune.

-- or do you really think that Seattle approached him and asked him to conduct an unbiased study which would be presented whether it was favorable to their position or not?

Surely you're not that naive.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

You lost David. Move on.

I don't see the problem with this argument. Seattle has 3 professional teams and lots of tourism. Losing one team is not going to have as great of an impact as say the Packers moving from Green Bay would. A professional team is going to make far more of an impact on a city with one or no professional sports than it will on a city with several.

It's kinda like the Dodgers didn't hurt New York too bad financially when they moved as much as they helped Los Angeles. The Dodgers helped LA's economy and image far more than it hurt NY. Remember LA wasn't the same city in the 50s that it is now.

HAHAHHA, out of all of the FAVORABLE evidence presented in the case over the last 4 days, you clinch on this. Classic.

What we need you to do is go "do-good" on the Crosstown/railroad thing. Or expose Sally Kern as a bigot that has no place in our state government. KTHXBAI.

The question was what is the truth? Read what the Sonic's expert testified to - then comment. My point is about OKC economic impact. ""In your view, Oklahoma City might be worse off for having the Sonics move there?" Lawrence asked.

"Yes," said Humphreys.

Midtowner this expert was hired by PBC. Wasn't he? Or am I mistaking?

He's coming back for 15 minutes of shame.

The worse off, I'm not so sure about. As far as economic impact, most sports economists say there is very little direct positive economic impact to having a team. Zimbalist actually does say that there is positive economic impact in western cities with a team located more than 200 miles from the nearest professional sports team, as people from outlying areas tend to travel to see a team. There is also at least one sports economist (cannot remember which one) who says that the first team a city gets is the only one that has a positive economic impact that is significant. That is because of attracting businesses and people due to improved quality of life. So, it's not completely unreasonable to say that the economic impact of having the first team in OKC is different from the economic impact of the third team in Seattle. Hosting playoffs or the NBA finals are different, because they do bring in people from outside the area who stay in hotels and eat at restaurants, similar to the Big Twelve Tournament situation, and if you have a team, you have a chance of hosting playoffs or finals.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I wasn't voting for a new arena because of it's demonstrated dollar economic impact. I was voting for intangible economic impact and quality of life issues. So, this doesn't bother me at all.

David, as someone has pointed out, you lost. So maybe it would in fact be best for you to move on. It really doesn't matter to a Sonic fan what the man said. I agree this statement seems to contradict previous claims of a great economic impact the team will bring to OKC. Nevertheless, no matter who's saying what, be it the truth, half truth, a big lie, or a little white lie, these things can be overlooked, disregarded, or whatever it takes, just as long as we get the Sonics. Thats the bottom line, end of story.

I just find it incredibly humorous that what I was saying is now backed up by the Sonic's expert testimony - under oath. It is amazing to see the ability of many on this list to dismiss contradictory information. I am interested in what people think the truth is. Is it what OKC and the legislature was told by the Sonic's advertising and lobbyists or what their experts are saying in court now? It can't be both.

Come on, David. Are you really making the argument that what one expert says is the 'truth,' vs. what another expert says? Who's to say another 'expert' can't be found to refute this theory.

We all know, that as noted above, these experts differ on their findings and opinions all day long, and for you to think you've got something to stand on here, some self-proclaimed smoking gun, well, is incredibly naive. Even you should know the make-up of this forum is smarter than that. You're slipping...................

And that is direct economic benefit. This expert did not quanify the distant indirect results or the intagible benefit to a city having a top-tier league in town.

Oh crap...I just responed to a troll...

Things are not going well for the City of Seattle in court. Sonics' lawyer is showing the city is trying to drain the owners of money and reputation in order to get them to sell. I think this case is about over.
Minute-by-minute: Day 5 at Sonics vs. Seattle trial | Sports | KING5.com | News for Seattle, Washington

June 20, 2008 11:04 AM Seattle Times
Seattle's lead attorney Paul Lawrence all but concedes defeat

Posted by Jim Brunner

Seattle's lead attorney, Paul Lawrence, all but conceded defeat just now.

The city has been frustrated by Judge Marsha Pechman, who has overruled numerous objections this morning by Lawrence during the aggressive questioning of former Sonics President Wally Walker. At one point she also told Lawrence he was reading court rules incorrectly.

Pechman cut off Lawrence when he was asking Walker about his basketball career and connection with the Sonics, including Walker's presence on the 1979 Sonics championship team.

Pechman said she'd seen Walker play and didn't need to hear more about his NBA career.

"I appreciate that your honor, but we do have to make a record for our appeal," Lawrence said.

TRAVIS PITTMAN / KING5.com didn't say for an appeal. I would have thought he would have put that in his court room blog if that was said.

If said I would concur that he is admitting defeat. With Walker's testimony I don't see any way the judge will rule in favor of the city. In fact there maybe a chance that he lets the Sonics leave without paying out the lease.