One cannot count on making a profit when the team is sold. Case in point. Neither Paul Allen (Trailblazers) nor Michael Heisley (Grizzlies) have been able to even find a buyer for their teams, much less make a profit. Why? Both teams are stuck in their respective cities and they're money losers. Howard Schultz was only able to make the profit he did because there was an option to move the team if a new arena was not built (which is why it is so hypocritical of him to be protesting now). He'd be another $40 million in the hole and still have the team if there hadn't been an option to move. If it were such a financial windfall, people would be falling all over themselves to buy those three teams.

Also, as we have learned from the housing market, one cannot always count on rapid appreciation in value, even if it has occurred in the past.

The Sonics' owners are taking a financial risk. That's why I was and am in favor of the city doing it's part.

Can we have a separate thread for all of this David Glover nonsense?

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

I point out information, that the Sonic's own experts agree with and you call it nonsense - quite the anti-intellectual statment. Are you the kind of person who believe dinosaur bones are really a hoax? I understand many want a basketball team at any cost to others - I just happen to be one that thinks that the subsidies to benefit is a high cost to citizens. A business that can't stand on it's own sounds like an unsound business model from a truly free enterprise standpoint.

And I pointed out that what you say about the Sonics' experts agreeing with you is pure advocacy to show something at trial, yet you fail to address that and continue to spew further nonsense which has absolutely nothing to do with the trial.

Recall I pointed out that when one economic expert testifies as to a fact, you have to have another economic expert which testifies as to the opposite. The goal of which is to muddy the water enough to show that both methods are complete voodoo and hopefully, in the Sonics' case, save them millions of dollars in liability. It's not perjury. You can't perjure yourself by advocating an opinion, which is what you see happening here. These economic experts are advocating their professional opinions because that's what they've been paid rather handsomely to do. What you see is trial advocacy. You're reading too much into it.

I'm all for a spirited debate on what should and shouldn't be public funding, but please don't hijack threads just to make an off-topic point.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

You are right David, we knew that the "subsidies to benefit it" would be a high cost.. We knew that the Sonics could not stand on their own and that it would require tax dollars to make it happen.

We even had a vote on it.

Why would we vote to subsidize the Sonics and have a problem with subsidizing the sonics? You're acting like we were tricked or something. We were not handed a poll saying, "Do you like the NBA?" We were asked, "Would you be willing to use tax money for the NBA?" We answered, "Yes please!"

Seattle also voted in 2006 on this issue, and they voted not to subsidize the Sonics.

I'm done with this.

I see a thread call news on Sonic's Lawsuit with 20+ pages of comments. I was pointing out the contradiction in what the Sonic's experts testify in court to and what the Sonics, PR and Ad Machine said in OKC. Seems like the Sonic's Trial and how it impacts OKC and pointing out inconsistency would fit here. If I started a new thread someone would probably decry I should have just said it here - not a new thread. So now I understand you think $200,000,000+ public subsidy makes sense - I don't.

And I pointed out that different economic experts can serve different purposes, and what they say has less to do with reality and everything to do with trial advocacy. If this is your argument, it's just a non-starter. I don't expect you to know much about trial advocacy. I happen to know a thing or two about it. That is exactly what is going on here.

If you can't see how the addition of several new millionaires to the economy plus several jobs, plus filled restaurants and hotels downtown won't be a boon to the economy, then I suppose we can't help you.

If you think the economics of a city is some sort of zero-sum game, i.e., guns vs. butter, then again, we can't help you.

You're entitled to your opinion. We all know what it is. Here, we are talking about legal issues and a trial. You want to talk about the use of a public subsidy and to do that, you want to interrupt a conversation about a very interesting lawsuit. Be polite and start your own thread. Trust me, people will not ignore you. You're a celebrity now

That should be your topic.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Perhaps you can have the Village city council pass an Oklahoma version of I-91.

WORD!

Why is anyone responding to anything DG writes? He doesn't get it, he doesn't want to get it, and he will never get it. DG, your object is heard and overruled 68% to 32%.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

While I don't agree with most of DG writes - who cares if he writes it? If you don't like it don't respond. Maybe someone else will. I know anyone who writes anything anti-sonics is the anti-christ around here...

That's putting it lightly.

I just mind that he wants to talk about the bond election in a thread about the lawsuit. If he wants to talk about the bond election, post in a thread about it or start a new one. I'm not okay with him comandeering the active threads of this forum so that he can self-promote.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Mid - gotcha - point taken.

The Sonics have filed a motion to exclude Tim Ceis testimony as a rebuttal witness.....

" In discovery, the city repeatedly instructed Cies not to answer questions about his discussions with K&L Gates and consultant Wally Walker on these matters by asserting the attorney-client privilege. The City should not be allowed to now ambush the PBC on the last day of the trial by impliedly waiving this same privilege in its questioning of Ceis."

"Alternatively, if such testimony is allowed, a waiver of the Cities attorney-client privilege should be declared and the City should be ordered to immediately produce all communications with K&L Gates and any City personel reflecting efforts to procure a local buyer or force a sale"

http://www.950kjr.com/cc-common/mlib...1214337378.pdf

So what does all this mean exactly?^^

Thanks, southside! Here's the motion (which seems quite reasonable to me) as graphic images, which is what the PDF file contains. I've omitted page 8, the certificate of mailing page.















What it means, traxx, is that either (a) the rebuttal witness should not be permitted on the grounds stated in the motion, or (b) if allowed, before the testimony is given, PBC should be given copies of all documents (e.g., e-mails, etc.) which relate to the "Poisoned Well" presentation and matters surrounding it. Sounds like a good motion to me, either way.

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

Thanks Doug! I think it's a good motion that will be granted either way.

I am no lawyer but I think the Sonics lawyers have caught the city's attorneys ill prepared yet again. the ruling should be interesting

I haven't really been keeping score, but my general impression is that PBC's lawyers have done much better in presenting their case than Seattle's lawyer's have. I think that you have it right, dcsooner, when you say "ill prepared."

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

Didn't that Seattle lawyer get a million to do this?

I could lose a lot more efficiently for a million dollars. Hell, I would do it for half that.

hehe.

I think what they did was set aside a million at the beginning of litigation for legal fees.

Tomorrow the trial concludes. Does anyone know how long Judge Pechman has before having to render a verdict?

Any idea on when she is going to rule on this motion?

Did anyone listen to KREF this morning at about 8:00 or after? They were going to have the news 9 legal analyst on to talk about the Sonics trial and get his opinion. I had to get out of the car before he came on. I was just interested in what he thought.

Most seem to think she will release her decision with in 10 days after the trial. At the conclusion of the trial she should tell when she will release her decision.