Sonics settlement?

Sonics and city of Seattle negotiating settlement

By Darnell Mayberry
Staff Writer
The city of Seattle and the SuperSonics are negotiating a settlement to their lease dispute, a Seattle City Councilman said Wednesday, but the status of former owner Howard Schultz’s lawsuit is holding up a resolution.

“I hear that they were trying to work one up but I didn’t know whether they were successful or not,” said Councilman Richard McIver. “And I thought it was around something where (the Sonics owners) were trying to get Seattle to involve Schultz’s suit withdrawal and that didn’t come out, so I guess it fell apart.”

McIver said any settlement would have to be approved by the Seattle City Council.

Other officials connected with the case declined comment.

Judge Marsha Pechman is scheduled to announce her ruling in the case at 6 p.m. central time.

During the trial, which ended on Thursday, Sonics owners argued that KeyArena was no longer a competitive NBA venue and was at the root of the team's financial problems, which began before Oklahoma City investor Clay Bennett and others bought the team in 2006 .

Seattle leaders filed the lawsuit last fall to keep the Sonics from moving to Oklahoma City.

During the six-day trial the city claimed the owners couldn't buy out the last two years of the lease because a dollar figure couldn't be put on the value that the 41-year-old franchise brings to the city.

Witnesses, including Bennett, estimated during the trial that the team could lose upwards of $60 million over the last two years of the lease .

The Sonics' lead attorney, Brad Keller, argued that the relationship between the city and the owners was a failed marriage and that the Sonics shouldn't be forced to stay under the city's roof for the final two years when a financial remedy was available.

The owners also contended in their case that the city's lawsuit was part of a plan to keep the Sonics in Seattle and hurt them financially so they would consider selling the team to a group of Seattle-area investors.

City officials denied taking part in any plan to bleed the owners and said they had told Bennett in 2006 that they intended for the Sonics to honor the terms of the lease at KeyArena.

Sonics and city of Seattle negotiating settlement | NewsOK.com

Wow, I was way wrong in saying there was no way at this point! Makes sense, though.

IF SEATTLE WINS:
Roughly $11 mil in rent, very limited extra cash due to Sonics as a business doing poorly there. Clay & Co. out millions and millions. Only small chance of Sonics ultimately staying in Seattle.

IF PBC WINS:
Clay only pays the $11 mil in rent, maybe a little more, and he's gone to OKC. City: gets that money, but it's almost certainly less than the $26mil offered. Zero chance of Sonics ultimately staying in Seattle.

IF SETTLE:
Clay pays $26 mil and gets to leave immedaitely. Seattle pays off KeyArena debt and on to trying to lure another team. Better chance of luring NBA team than if Seattle loses, but no guarantees.

Yeah, that's pretty much the only course of action that has ever made sense. We'll see if it can work out.

Do you think the PBC should only settle if they can get some sort of assurance or resolution on the Shultz case? I kind of think they should settle either way.

I think it's asking a lot of Seattle to make that a dealbreaker. Seattle technically has no control over that. Also, if makes Schutlz's lawsuit LESS beneficial to win at all- someone in SEA might own the team, but it's leased to play in Oklahoma City with no lease in Seattle. At that point, who would even want to step forward and own the team?

Like it was brought up on another board, do you think the city has received indications on the judge's resolution?

It's possible. I doubt it, but it is possible. Really, just logic dictates the city should settle. The "best case scenario" fork in the road for Seattle was about two years ago. Now it's rock and sucky place, and they can roll the dice or take some guaranteed money...but it's even EASIER than that...if they "roll the dice" they are still without local ownership with a team leaving in 2 years and they will get about half as much money. They're essentially giving up 15 million (or whatever) to have the Sonics for two more years.

That's a good point.

The PBC needs to just settle this case and let the other chips fall where they may.

No idea. But the city has to know its financial stake. Whether they win or lose this case, the only way for them to get paid well and paid now is through a settlement. If anything, they may be beginning to feel that their political obligations have been made, both objectively and superficially. I think that's been the only thing holding up a settlement and the only thing motivating all of this ligitgation. So, if they feel they are at a point where they can say they tried as hard as they could to stick it to them and still got paid, well, then a settlement is probably in their best interest. They will look like fools if they wait 2 years, the Sonics leave, and they have debt on an areana with no tenant that has I-91 saddled to it.

BINGO BDP! Give that poster a prize!

I agree with you about what Seattle should have done however, given Seattle's stance up to and during the trial, it would seem odd that they would settle only hours/minutes away from a ruling.

I agree....why waste all that public money on lawyers then settle? It's pretty stupid. All of the results discussed in this thread were all blatantly obvious well before the trial began. One side will win, the other will lose, and there are the predictable precipitates of each scenario.

What a joke of a story. Nobody really knows if they even are talking.

Seattle folks (deputy mayor Tim Ceis) are all declining to comment. I wonder if something is being worked out?

Yeah, I wonder if this is even old news....stuff that was being discussed during the trial rather than today.

A city council member says at some point they were negotiating when no negotiations have apparently taken place at all in months and months...that's a story in my world.

This was just posted on the Seattle Times website. Looks very promising:



July 2, 2008 2:01 PM
Godden: Looks like a settlement for Sonics and city

Posted by Jim Brunner

Colleague Sharon Chan reports that she just asked Seattle City Councilmember Jean Godden if the mayor is settling with the Sonics owners.

"It looks like it, but I'm afraid what little I know is sworn to secrecy until after the mayor's press conference," said Godden. A press conference is scheduled for 5 p.m.

Another source confirmed there is a settlement.

Which is an hour after the ruling is supposed to be reported, right?

Yes, they said the ruling was to released on the 'net by 4PM west coast time.

SETTLEMENT REACHED!

http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=8609152

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

This has got to mean the Sonics will move almost immediately.

Read the report news9 is referencing...rumor.

Sworn to secrecy? Quick, someone ask Slade Gorton what is going on.

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

A settlement is binding and wouldn't bring endless appeals, which is what is likely no matter the ruling later today.

This is great news! I really believe the club could move in the very near future. Plenty of time to get settled and ready for the 2008/09 season!

Now it's looks like a done deal...(I hope)

Local News | Sonics, city settle lawsuit | Seattle Times Newspaper