Sorry if I am double posting, I am a new user (gold) and never saw my posts reply on another thread, thought I would try posting a new one to see if its now showing.

Anyhow a lot of breaking news on the Sonics lawsuit on espn today/tonight

ESPN - E-mails key in Schultz's suit to reverse Sonics sale - NBA (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?id=3362659)

A question & answer session posted with a legal expert from ESPN, just a couple of the questions here (please see link for all of them)

Q: Schultz has been reviled in Seattle since he sold the team. Isn't this just a public relations stunt to allow Schultz to improve his public image?

A: The lawsuit is more than a public relations stunt. The allegations against Bennett and his group are serious and seem to indicate a fraud at the time of the sale. The chronology of the e-mails is compelling evidence that will allow Schultz to push Bennett and his group into a bad corner. If it were a PR stunt, both Schultz and Yarmuth would be holding press conferences and making dramatic statements. Neither would comment to ESPN.com beyond what is said in the lawsuit. The language of the suit is lean and spare. If anything, it understates the case. Their conduct and their lawsuit are clear indications they are serious about their allegations and their attempt to undo the sale.

Q: How does Schultz's suit relate to the city of Seattle's lawsuit to bind Bennett to the KeyArena lease, which is scheduled to go to trial June 16?

A: Both lawsuits are in the same courthouse and could easily end up before the same judge. The lease litigation led to the discovery of the damning e-mails that are the basis for Schultz's case. The cases, added together, present Bennett with serious problems. Both jeopardize his bid to move the team to Oklahoma City. If he loses the lease case, he can still try to buy his way out of the lease by increasing his offer beyond the $26 million bid that the city rejected. If he offered $50 million or a bit more, the city would likely be obligated to give it serious consideration. Even if the city were to reach a buyout agreement with Bennett before the six-day trial begins in June, the Sonics owner will still need to deal with Schultz's suit. If Bennett loses the Schultz case, he loses the franchise.

If either suit is successful in postponing the Sonics' move beyond the start of the 2008-09 season, according to the NBA Constitution, Bennett's group will need to reapply for relocation before the NBA Board of Governors.

Lester Munson, a Chicago lawyer and journalist who reports on investigative and legal issues in the sports industry, is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

Munson also gave the Seattle a 55 to 60 % chance of winning this suit and keeping the sonics in ESPN chat.



And the newest article posted a couple hours ago on ESPN, this is only some of the article, please see the link right below for the full article.
ESPN - Newly revealed e-mails could cause headaches for Sonics owner - NBA (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3365972)

A filing by the city of Seattle this week in federal court in New York includes e-mails to and from Bennett that show the NBA was concerned last summer that Sonics owners may be breaching their contractual promise of good-faith efforts to find a new arena in Seattle.

In court documents provided Thursday by attorneys representing the city, Bennett stated in an e-mail to Sonics co-owner Aubrey McClendon last Aug. 13 that the NBA was looking into issues "relative to certain documents that we signed at closing that may have been breached."

Bennett wrote that president of league and basketball operations Joel Litvin was looking into the possible breach.

Earlier that day, Bennett had written an e-mail to McClendon referring to the fallout from McClendon's comments to an Oklahoma business publication that "we didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle, we hoped to come here."

"Yes sir we get killed on this one," Bennett wrote to McClendon. "I don't mind the PR ugliness [pretty used to it], but I am concerned from a legal standpoint that your statement could perhaps undermine our basic premise of 'good faith best efforts.'"

NBA commissioner David Stern fined McClendon $250,000 for his comment. The city is citing it as evidence Sonics owners lied to Seattle when asserting they weren't trying to move the team.

I've been saying this is serious. ESPN Radio on Wednesday said they had three legal experts who specialize in contract law look at all the known public facts. All three said that Bennett was in big trouble and could lose the franchise. Exactly the same as this Munson guy from Chicago wrote. Clearly, the email from Clay Bennett to McClendon shows he was concerned with the legal ramifications from McClendon's comments alone. God forbid did he ever dream the e-mails on top of AM's comment would become part of discovery in a legal suit. No, this doesn't look good and this is serious.

Seriously, what were they thinking? Why in the world would they put this all in email????? If they had just spoken on the phone, none of this would be happening.

I found a link on the Seattle site of the ESPN legal expert Munson giving Seattle a 55 to 60% chance of keeping the Sonics on radio here

950 KJR - Seattle's ONLY All Sports Station (http://www.kjram.com/main.html)

Even Muson (the espn legal guy) is saying that the OKC owners have to be wishing they never knew what email was, and how its really killing them.

Schultz hired a firm that is not in the business of losing. Richard Yarmuth is one of the hardest hitting attorneys in the nation and they are finding evidence against Bennett by the hour. Yarmuth stopped the Seattle Mariners from being moved otu of Seattle, this is not new to him, he is batting 1000 when it comes to stopping teams from being moved. If they get their injunction and the team is FORCED to stay in Seattle during the trial, chances are Seattle is going to keep them. Schultz is investing lots of money into this case and has deep pockets and is determined to clean up his image in Seattle as he has taken a huge hit with the public in Seattle.

Some info on their Legal Team

Antitrust. Has litigated antitrust suits, both as counsel for plaintiffs and defendants, involving the motion picture industry, timber industry (including a successful 6-month trial in federal court), cattle industry, mint industry and others.

General Litigation. Cases include the defense of fraud claims in the sale of Kentucky Derby winner Real Quiet; defense of charitable foundation in challenge to testamentary capacity of major donor; representation of King County in litigation against the Seattle Mariners, to prevent then owner George Argyros from moving the team from Seattle; defense of several Seattle law firms as their counsel in cases where they were sued; representation of Weyerhauser Real Estate Company in several protracted lawsuits involving its development at Snoqualmie Ridge.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have spoken to several who say fraud is difficult to prove. I would think that to do something as serious as remove a team, you would have to prove fraud beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are a couple of things that come to mind. The contract between Bennett and Schultz also tacitly includes the NBA as a partner, because the sale to Bennett and any possible move could only happen with the consent of the NBA. Regardless of any intent or hope to move the team on the part of the owners, it was clear there was no hope or intent on the part of the NBA. There had to be a failure on the part of Seattle to live up to the second half of the following sentence for the NBA to allow a move: "It is our desire to have the Sonics and the Storm continue their existence in the Greater Seattle Area and it is not our intention to move or relocate the team, so long, of course, as we are able to negotiate an attractive successor venue and lease arrangement."

I do think it is interesting that, in their lawsuit, Schultz' lawyers completely left out the highlighted part of the above sentence. Was there concern on their part that it was prejudicial to their case? It is the key part of the agreement with Schultz. The first half of the sentence has a completely different meaning if you leave out the second half. The "intent" of the ownership group can only be understood if the sentence is whole.

I can understand, if an arena was built and Bennett still tried to move the team, that fraud could be claimed. But, since the second half of the above sentence was never fulfilled, there is no concrete evidence to prove that fraud absolutely existed. It will come down to actions versus e-mails, and there are conflicting e-mails. Ward's e-mail about possibly selling the team if an arena was built, the "sweet flip" e-mail, the e-mail in July of 2007 about discussing an arena with Sabey.....all of those directly contradict the fact that there was intent to defraud at the time of purchase.

There may be other e-mails that contradict intent to defraud as well. Obviously, the lawyers used the ones that were most prejudicial in their lawsuit, and the ones designed for maximum effect in the press.

The bottom line, however, is that the NBA would never have allowed a move if an arena had been built, and so any actions that would allow the group to defraud Seattle would not have been approved. There was a built in fail-safe for Seattle in the sale.

On the nose Betts

Did you listen to the interview with Munson from the radio broadcast I posted? Munson goes into a lot more details in the interview. At one point saying when he first heard of the lawsuit he gave it 0% chance and thought it was just nothing more than grandstanding. However after having read it, he was shocked at how strong the lawsuit actually is and actually gives Seattle better odds of winning than Bennett. He also gives more details on the actual lawsuit and thinks Seattle has a really strong case.

I have read that more emails are going to be released and Munson talks about reading them (ones that are not yet released) and says its all rather damning. Mention that one email talks about Bennett's intention to move the Team to OKC two days before actually buying the team! He also talks about how the Arena deal was basically overblown on purpose to ensure a failed deal, that we are going to be seeing a lot more coming out over the next couple weeks.

Can anyone please explain how Bennett and company were dumb enough to type all this out in emails? Why on earth would you ever commit to writing two days before buying the team that you intended to move them? Why oh why?

When asked to give a % of the case for Seattle, again he said he gives it a 55% to 60% chance in favor of Seattle, that Bennett would make a profit that the team would be sold for higher value than what he had paid.

I cannot find the link. I guess we will have to see what the e-mails say. What I wonder is why Slade Gorton, just a couple of days before Schultz filed his lawsuit, said he was willing to talk to the NBA about an expansion team because he was quite sure the Sonics were moving. He'd seen all the e-mails. If he thought they were so damning, I'm not sure why he would have said that.

However, if there are truly e-mails stating that the arena deal was overblown on purpose, that would be a massive problem. It would also be stupid, since the Orlando arena will cost at least $450 million, the Muckleshoot estimate was over $400 million, the Brooklyn arena is over $600 million as well. There's no reason to think a new arena in Seattle wouldn't have cost that much.

The radio interview with Munson (espn top legal guy)

950 KJR - Seattle's ONLY All Sports Station (http://www.kjram.com/main.html)

On the right side

Softy | 10 am - 1 pm
Dick Baird 4-24 - 04/24
Lester Munson 4-24 - 04/24

Click the "Lester Munson 4-24 link to listen

Why doesn't Bennett just agree to play in Seattle through 2010 and the City's lawsuit goes away. Then they only have to deal with Schultz who by the way, already said they exhusted all efforts to find a local buyer.

I Schultz does get an injunction, as is speculated, then they should drop the lawsuit. Because if so, it's virtually impossible for the team to play in OKC in 2008/9. They might as well save some money.

He also talks about how the Arena deal was basically overblown on purpose to ensure a failed deal, that we are going to be seeing a lot more coming out over the next couple weeks.

I did not hear this in his statement. And again, unless there is specific evidence of this, all the arena data around supports that price. If Bennett truly has information that the mayor knew the Key Arena remodel was going to cost more than $300 million, that is supportive as well.

Betts

Read the lawsuit, I might be confusing the text of the lawsuit with what he said on that point, it was said or written something about not so much the price I think as the fact that the deal was made under circumstances that were meant to fail, something about delivering it at bad time, right before the house was going to retire for some period of time, thus ensuring it would get no kind of time to be looked at, let alone considered, etc.

I read it. That's the same bs posted on the Seattle forums. First of all, the legislature knew an arena was going to be presented to them as early as July the year before when Bennett announced he would need a new arena to keep the team in Seattle. The city of Seattle could have come up with it's own arena proposal, as could the legislature have done. Look what Mick Cornett did in OKC. He had an arena plan drawn up, presented it to the Sonics' owners and got NBA approval. Bennett didn't have to come to him.

Nickels just kept talking about the Key Arena, when the side letter clearly stated that the Key Arena was not an acceptable venue. If Schultz wants to hold Bennett to the side letter, he will have to admit that it clearly stated the Key was not an option.

Secondly, Bennett presented his proposal in February, and the legislature didn't adjourn until the middle of April. Look how quickly the OKC legislature passed tax benefits for the Sonics. It took a matter of days.

The bottom line is that the city of Seattle and the state of Washington had zero interest in coming up with a new arena proposal. That is patently obvious. Chopp even stated in in plain English.

It is clear, in looking at the costs of arenas around the country that the price for the arena was perfectly in line with other similar arenas.

Schultz is going to have a hard time proving either the price was out of line, or the legislature didn't have enough warning.

And his lawyer was stupid to leave half the sentence in the side letter out of the lawsuit, as it looks like he was afraid that the judge would notice that an arena was required to keep the team in Seattle. If he's so sure that his case is good, the whole sentence should have been included. It looks bad to alter a statement that's in the public record.

Well I am glad that you feel good about this, but after reading this Munson guy and listening to him, I am not feeling very good about it. Why would the top legal guy of espn flat out say that this case is in favor of Seattle?

What gets to me the most is, in my opinion if Larry, Curly and Moe could have just talked to one another and not had this all in writing, none of this would be a issue!

I see this statement, talking rather than email, a lot.
Assume for giggles and grins there was zero intent to ever play a day in Seattle.
Assume someone knew the team could not be purchased unless there was a dog and pony show put on to pretend Seattle was the cultural and bball center of the universe.
It seems some suggest it would have been ok to out and out lie if done so in a less detectable way.

For what it's worth, I don't think they lied. I do think they knew that short of coming in and building an arena 100% out of their own pockets the prospects of a new arena fell somewhere between no and hell no. As they were not required to do the arena on their own as part of the deal, choosing not to has nada to do with good faith.

I'm not near as impressed as the espn folks are with the suit. the whole concept of kill this deal but let me keep my profit and don't make me take the team back is just somewhat silly.

Why would the top legal guy of espn flat out say that this case is in favor of Seattle?


Why? Because they're just like every other 24x7 news station. Ratings. Nasty, costly litigation between butthurt billionaires and seemingly slighted cities is just too lucrative for them. If there wasn't a fight, there would be no news and they'd go back to reciting stats and discussing the draft. So they'll prolong it. The mainstream press does the same thing with stories that aren't really stories. They've gotten more mileage out of bird flu than should be legal. Lightning kills more people. Hell...LAWNMOWERS kill more people.

I'm not saying that the lawsuit is going to fail or succeed, but sports media will milk it for more than it's worth and it's in their best interest to make a mountain out of a molehill...So don't be shocked when their "experts" take statements out of context and leave entire sentences out of quotes to make their point more valid. CNN, Fox, and MSNBC do it all day, every day.

It is entertaining. I like it better than the political entertainment that's become kind of boring.

I think if we could get Larry Ellison involved and expand the drama to include the Microsoft guys - maybe even lure in Bill Gates with Ellison's participation - then this could provide some interesting twists.

I actually have tuned in to some of the sports radio shows. I have to say these are actually more mind numbing than expected however.

Alas - still no NBA quality arena in Seattle and no plan for one. Over the past 3 years only 4 plans have seen the light of day.

1. Bennett's $450 arena in Renton
2. Ballmers $300 Key remodel that doesn't meet the requirments of the Schultz agreement
3. Muckelshoots that cost $470 million but no funding mechanism available.
4. Seattle Cockroach that cost $1.2 billion on land that won't even be available for 10 more years.

Seattle might have a chance if they just had an arena. But they don't. Schultz said publicly that he tried everything to get an arena deal done in Seattle. Bennett spent more time and money then Schultz did and offered to pay 3X more towards an arena then Schultz did.

He also talks about how the Arena deal was basically overblown on purpose to ensure a failed deal


This is the only statement that, if true, would indicate a lack of bad faith. Everyone's freaking out for some reason, when the BEST most SHOCKING statement they have it a half-truth. Come on guys, let's not hit the panic button yet.

This is the only statement that, if true, would indicate a lack of bad faith. Everyone's freaking out for some reason, when the BEST most SHOCKING statement they have it a half-truth. Come on guys, let's not hit the panic button yet.

Exactly.... all they have half-proven at this point is intent, which does not even speak to fraud or a lack of a good-faith effort.

Before this all came out Slade Gorton was the Seattle SUPERHERO that would save this whole situation. But, like someone posted above, even he has seen the evidence (probably more than the public has seen) and yet he is ready to talk settlement.....

Unless there is something more damning yet to come out, I think the Seattleites are getting set up again for disappointment....

Obviously, the lawyers used the ones that were most prejudicial in their lawsuit,

I think right now they just have to show cause of action. The PBC's lawyers will bring up the context of the language and then you don't know if the judge will think it's enough for summary judgment. It has to be a pretty clear rule of law or have strong precedence to be given a summary judgment and I don't know enough about these kinds of cases to even guess how a district judge will rule.

Really they just have to show that there is enough to go to trial and with these other e-mails there may be. Then you have to remember that this is not a criminal case, and so there is no "reasonable doubt" standard. That is, if the court finds that it's most likely that the PBC violated the side agreement, then the court can rule for the plaintiffs.

Will the remedy be to void the sale? That seems extreme to me, but it seems that's what the trust is for. They feel the court will be more sympathetic to put it in a trust than hand it back to Schultz. I assume Shultz will also have to hand back the $350 million.

I think it's a bunch of BS simply because no one even tried to work with Bennett. So they kind of sabotaged his efforts and then sued him. However, it's a civil case, so they may be able to make a successful argument. In which case the PBC, especially Mclendon and other "giddy" owners in these e-mails, will only ave themselves to blame. Bennett seems to have worked his butt off, even if what he really wanted was to move to OKC. I think he understood the process, understood that Seattle was to be given a chance, and he worked to give them that chance in good faith. However, it seemed to be over the heads of some of these other guys that Oklahoma City was only to be considered if Seattle didn't want to step up.

More and more this is beginning to look like just another OKC good ole boy debacle. Even if all of this is ruled in the PBC's favor, it's clear that some of the secondary owners just lacked the intelligence or sense to "get it". It seems Bennett knew what was up and was unable to explain to these guys, especially McClendon.

As I pointed out above only 4 plans have seen the light of day. They accuse Bennett's plan of being over the top but it was the cheapest of the 3 that met the requirement of agreement.

1. Bennett's $450 arena in Renton
2. Ballmers $300 Key remodel that doesn't meet the requirments of the Schultz agreement
3. Muckelshoots that cost $470 million but no funding mechanism available.
4. Seattle Cockroach that cost $1.2 billion on land that won't even be available for 10 more years.

How can it be the cheapest and still be over the top? Plus, of the 4 plans, Bennett's plan made it fiurther along in the process than any of the others.

Bennett's plan - made it to a vote in committee where it was defeated
Ballmer's plan - reject by legislature without being voted on
Muckelshoot plan - never was proposed to legislature
Seattle Cockroach - just some computer animated drawings

If an email comes to surface that basically says "Let's propose an arena and have it be wayyyy overpriced so that the gov't will turn it down so it looks like we tried" then there will be major shift.

BTW, does anyone know if Bennetts side is looking into getting emails or whatnot from Seattle officials?

worthy cook - yes they are looking at the city emails. The latest filing by PBC indicates that they will make the case that the City of Seattle is trying to put them out of business by holding them to a lease that the City itself has said causes a financial hardship with the sole intent of trying to assit a local potential ownership group accure the team. If true, PBC could file a RICO lawsuit against Ballmer, Schultz, and the City of Seattle. Supposidly Bennett's lawyers have evidence in the form Powerpoint presentations from the Ballmer group indicating such a plan was being executed.

For those like me that had to look it up:

RICO = Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

:)

If this does end up blowing up and the Sonics stay in Seattle, you have to seriously question if you would ever want any of these people invovled in a future OKC ownership gruop, hell even if they win this was all still a MAJOR screwup.

What does that say about their skill to run a ownership? Would they make the same goofball screwups with the team?

Are there any other possbile ownership groups willing to step up in the area? Is there anyway the city could own the team, much like how the city of Green Bay owns the Packers and not any ownership group?

I guess they are better than having an owner like Schultz that took a good team and made it suck and then sold it to an out of town group only to change his mind and then sue to try and get the team back. Talk about someone playing the Seattle fans like a yo-yo.

It seems some suggest it would have been ok to out and out lie if done so in a less detectable way.

For what it's worth, I don't think they lied. I do think they knew that short of coming in and building an arena 100% out of their own pockets the prospects of a new arena fell somewhere between no and hell no.

I honestly don't care if they lied, I just care if they were stupid enough to get caught lying, that would end up costing OKC a team!

The bottom line is just getting a team here by whatever means, once we have a team no one will remember or care how we got it and it will be all water under the bridge! I am not saying I think they lied, I really don't care, just get a freaking team here already!

So what you're saying is, can we trust Clay and the group for anything in the future?

My answer is yes, it doesn't show that they are bad business men, they were doing business. What they were bad at, and I don't have a problem with, is lying. Which obviously means they are use to telling the truth, I don't have a problem with that.

So what you're saying is, can we trust Clay and the group for anything in the future?

My answer is yes, it doesn't show that they are bad business men, they were doing business. What they were bad at, and I don't have a problem with, is lying. Which obviously means they are use to telling the truth, I don't have a problem with that.

More than likely, it probably means they're used to not being held up to scrutiny as in Oklahoma, this crew generally gets their way.

you have to seriously question if you would ever want any of these people invovled in a future OKC ownership gruop, hell even if they win this was all still a MAJOR screwup.

Well, it may not matter what any of us think, because I know that the 28 who voted for this group to move them to Oklahoma City would seriously question if they want these people to own another team in their league.


More than likely, it probably means they're used to not being held up to scrutiny as in Oklahoma, this crew generally gets their way.

Very true. Not only do they usually get their way, but they have convinced many that whatever they do is good for the city and have gotten people defend actions people wouldn't otherwise defend, simply because it's them doing it.

these guys are billionaires, they should know to be using prepaid cell phones when talking shady business

hell, I'm only a thousandaire and I know that

Or they're just not use to being shady.. as much as you appear to be.

Whatever you want to say about all this, these guys wanted a team in OKC. If you thought otherwise at the time they bought the team you're naive. Having said that, no one can say they didn't give Seattle and Washington state the chance to keep them there. Other then filling lawsuits.
In the contract with Schultz it seems plain that he was trying to get out from under the ownership while hoping that it would stay in Seattle. However the contract showed that he was willing to sell if the team could not find a suitable arena to play in. No one argued that Key was suitable. Schultz had argued that for years. Bennett and company made an attempt to get a new arena with no one interested in funding that project just as Schultz had tried. That's about all Bennett was expected to do. To say he didn't act in good faith just doesn't fly and a judge will have a hard time saying otherwise.
Say what you want about Bennett and company, they are trying to make OKC and Oklahoma a better place. Yes they have money but I assure you they could have invested that in something else besides a sports team and the returns would have been much better. Let's give them credit for trying to improve the quality of life in Oklahoma.

:congrats: :cheersmf:

Some valid points raised, these guys weren't too bright for obvious reasons. I agree, we may not care if they own a group, but the NBA's BoG will care. The NBA doesn't want another George Shinn. Bennett is on his way to becoming a hated owner.

As said above, just get a team somehow already!

I think I may shy away from all Sonic topics until June. There is just too much of a wish wash going on right now.

Some valid points raised, these guys weren't too bright for obvious reasons. I agree, we may not care if they own a group, but the NBA's BoG will care. The NBA doesn't want another George Shinn. Bennett is on his way to becoming a hated owner.

As said above, just get a team somehow already!

Can you provide a link or quote of this? The only thing I can see bad about GS is he told everyone what they wanted to hear be it here or in NO.

I'm not sure that Stern feels that Bennett and company are not good owners. I think one of the reasons we are being rewarded with a team is Bennett's responding to Stern in a time of need (asking for help with the Hornets and getting it from Bennett).

I have a feeling that after the smokes clears, OKC will be seeing NBA for some time to come. Start deciding where you want to sit in the Ford center now...:tiphat:

Are you kidding me?

How many times have you thrown a text message or e-mail together and it's all general discussion and business planning? I mean, c'mon, my partners and I ALWAYS throw out different scenarios and ideas to dialogue on various deals we are working on. E-mail is just one median and it's really easy since you have mobile pdas etc and online all the time. What these guys should have done was CC their attorney on all of this communication and see if they could say that was attorney-client privileged (I don't know if that can fly or not) but I can totally see how they did this as I and my partners have done this many times discussing deals we are working on. Our deals are quite smaller than $350mil but I'm sure most of you can appreciate looking back in your sent items of your Outlook or Treo or Blackberry etc ... and if it's business talk with colleagues or associates you can see how insane it is.

maybe they have a really good case against pbc but I think they have to be grasping at this ... and if this is overturned and pbc "gives" back the team to the previous owners, our justice system is again playing in gray areas that we have no absolutes!

Say what you want about Bennett and company, they are trying to make OKC and Oklahoma a better place. Yes they have money but I assure you they could have invested that in something else besides a sports team and the returns would have been much better. Let's give them credit for trying to improve the quality of life in Oklahoma.

In other words - Don't question! Don't second-guess! Fall in line!

Are you forgetting March 4th? We have a right to question.

In other words - Don't question! Don't second-guess! Fall in line!

This is a message board. Feel free to question all you want. Hope this isn't about ***** envy tho..lol j/k

In other words - Don't question! Don't second-guess! Fall in line!

wow it was like you were waiting for someone to defend PBC in any way so you could throw this comment out there......

based on the post you picked, your comment is a bit of a stretch..... you made it sound like rabidred said "they can kill babies cause they are helping OKC."

This is a message board. Feel free to question all you want. Hope this isn't about ***** envy tho..lol j/k

I know you wrote you are kidding but can a guy even have ***** envy? The Freud I am thinking of reserved that for women. I'm most definitely a man.

Women have ***** envy?

I know you wrote you are kidding but can a guy even have ***** envy? The Freud I am thinking of reserved that for women. I'm most definitely a man.

We are both correct.

Male ***** envy
I worked with Freud in Vienna. We broke over the concept of ***** envy. He thought it should be limited to women – Woody Allen in Zelig

While not the same kind of ***** envy as that typically referred to in psychoanalysis, the phrase "***** envy" or "small ***** syndrome"[1] is also sometimes used to describe the envy of a male over another male's *****. Although this subconscious or conscious envy may solely be based on the idea that a larger ***** is universally more satisfying and appealing to a sexual partner, other implications arise from the fact that a large ***** has been seen in many cultures as a symbol of high masculinity, dominance and power. While this whole matter has probably always been a part of human psychology, recent developments have made the issue slightly more public in the western world.

The media attention given to ***** size and some women being vocal in their opinions of ***** size have led some men to state their envy of others with larger *****es. Television shows such as Sex and the City and Ally McBeal popularised the ***** size issue when characters in these TV shows stated their preference for well-endowed men over more modestly-endowed men. Also, in the 1977 film Annie Hall, Woody Allen's character, upon hearing the question asked by the title character about ***** envy, replied that he "was one of the few males that suffered from it". This conception of Freud's theory is usually the explanation behind the term ***** envy.

Men can underestimate the size of their own *****es, see Perceptions of ***** size.
:tiphat:

Ah *****!

:backtotop

Jerry Brewer | Swappin' e-mails with Stern and those gents from Oklahoma City who bought the Sonics | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/jerrybrewer/2004369714_brewer24.html)

Chalk one up for another Dbag in Seattle. I'm really starting to hate seattle more and more. Wanna-be elitist ass hats. :numchucks

I have a Larry the Cable Guy attitude on that particular column

"that was funny, Ii don't care who ya are, that was funny right there"

I'm really starting to hate seattle more and more. Wanna-be elitist ass hats. :numchucks

mmonroe, Just remember the vast majority of people in Seattle couldn't care less. The NBA is the last thing on the minds of many (most) in Seattle. The fact is, it's a great American city. Don't let all this spoil your feelings about Seattle. Unless, of course, you hate them anyway due to other things. Which, if that is the case, it's too bad. It's a great place.

Well.. in june i'll be in jersey, new york, and connecticut. July, I will be in central and northern california.. i may just have to drive up to seattle while i'm at it.

He said, she said, email, text message, what does it matter.

All of these owners knew Bennett when he was with the Spurs. Stern and the other owners had a problem with Seattle, bad lease, bad arena, and a bad owner. They wanted someone to come in and either get a new arena deal and lease done, or get them out of town. Bennett was willing to take the heat. This thing is not done yet.

We can pick this apart all we want but a Federal Judge is going to get the next ball rolling, so all we can do is sit back and wait. It doesn't matter how many so called high power lawyers throw their two cents in, no one know for sure how this will end.

What's really annoying about all this is that I heard from two people very closely connected to Tom Ward and Bill Cameron last spring, on two separate occasions and from two people who don't even know each other, that they were fine with keeping the Sonics in Seattle. Tom Ward said he was planning on flying up to games, and both he and Bill Cameron apparently said they thought having a team in Seattle would be good for business, as they could make new contacts. I was told the Tom Ward info right before the legislature adjourned and the Bill Cameron info was given to me in late spring or early summer. So, I know that regardless of what they hoped, they were prepared to stay in Seattle.

To my way of thinking, Schultz is behaving no more ethically than he is accusing Bennett et al of doing. He had already had discussions with several cities about moving the Sonics. He knew, when he allowed the one year time frame to be put in the side letter that the owners clearly were thinking about moving the team unless the got a new arena and a good lease. It should have been no concern of his if they sold the team if they got a new arena in Seattle, because his purported concern was keeping the team there. Of course, if he'd already had discussions with other cities, I would assume that implies either intent to or interest in moving the team. He's said nothing during this entire process. If he actually thought Bennett presented his arena plan to the legislature too late, or if he thought the cost of the arena was too high, why wasn't he calling Bennett telling him so. Why wasn't he calling Stern complaining? Why wasn't he giving interviews in the Seattle newspapers? He's had the extra $150 million from Bennett for almost two years now, and if he can manage to get the team back, he'll get to sell it again for at least that much. He has nothing to lose, but it's not ethical behavior. He knows Bennett would have kept the team in Seattle if an arena had been built, because he would have to have done so by NBA rules.

One thing that really bothers me about many of these posts is that I am hearing people say it does not bother them if they lied. I would like to say that I want a team here very much. If I have to sell my soul to get a team then it is not worth it. It is sad that we have people professing to the world a disclaimer that they have no problem if they lied. What does that say about us? Yes, we are all human and make mistakes but if you make a policy to say it is okay to lie just so we get a team then that really says something about how desperate we are.

I want a team based on our merits, not on our deception and lies. It troubles me that we have those in our own group that are openly admitting that it is okay.

Maybe I just grew up in a different generation.

Paul

One thing that really bothers me about many of these posts is that I am hearing people say it does not bother them if they lied. I would like to say that I want a team here very much. If I have to sell my soul to get a team then it is not worth it. It is sad that we have people professing to the world a disclaimer that they have no problem if they lied. What does that say about us? Yes, we are all human and make mistakes but if you make a policy to say it is okay to lie just so we get a team then that really says something about how desperate we are.

I want a team based on our merits, not on our deception and lies. It troubles me that we have those in our own group that are openly admitting that it is okay.

Maybe I just grew up in a different generation.

Paul

You know I would normally agree with you, but playing nice will not get us a pro team and I personally don't care how they get it here minus drinking baby's blood.

If this were most everyday life kinda thing, I am 100% with you, but if we have to lie, cheat and steal to get a team here, I am ok with it and you know what, in a couple years so will everyone else, no one will even remember or care.

You know I would normally agree with you, but playing nice will not get us a pro team and I personally don't care how they get it here minus drinking baby's blood.

If this were most everyday life kinda thing, I am 100% with you, but if we have to lie, cheat and steal to get a team here, I am ok with it and you know what, in a couple years so will everyone else, no one will even remember or care.


There is a thing called integrity and you are admitting that you have none. If you are willing to tell the world you have no integrity, then it is hard to believe anything you say. Your statements make us sound worse than those we are bashing in Seattle. I for one do not want something that we have to "lie, cheat and steal" to get. With an attitude like that there is no wonder we keep getting criminals in political office.

Paul

I agree with Nathaniele, however I think once we get the team we need to get Coburn and Waxman together to shift the focus from steroids to sports subsidies....focus, as (omg can't believe I am doing this) the seattle guy says on "more important things".

There is a thing called integrity and you are admitting that you have none. If you are willing to tell the world you have no integrity, then it is hard to believe anything you say. Your statements make us sound worse than those we are bashing in Seattle. I for one do not want something that we have to "lie, cheat and steal" to get. With an attitude like that there is no wonder we keep getting criminals in political office.

Paul

I just really want a team, and as the old saying goes, nice guys always finish last. Do you think the fans of Baltimore cared how they got the Ravens? Beyond cleavland fans hating the Ravens, does anyone else really give 2 cents how the Ravens got their team?

You are right, I wouldn't want this in politics, which is one reason I can't vote for a repbulican again (at least this time around).

I don't condone lying, stealing and cheating, but this is big business and lets face it, the biggest wrong of this whole mess isn't the possibility that they lied to get the Sonics, its that they got "Caught" lying! If these guys hadn't left a paper trail we wouldn't even be talking about this and none would be the wiser!

If we just sit around playing nice waiting for a team, its gonna be 100 years before we see one and I think situation is a lot different than normal life and you can't apply this situation to others and at least I am being honest about it and not being all PC.

-You are right, I wouldn't want this in politics, which is one reason I can't vote for a repbulican again


There is MINIMAL difference between republicans and democrats in these regards. Good grief..Al McCaffery and Jim Roth are allegedly these super progressive Dems and they BOTH strongly endorse the "corporate welfare" stuff, all the while folks like Sally Kernservative and Mike Reynolds say no to it....

I just really want a team, and as the old saying goes, nice guys always finish last. Do you think the fans of Baltimore cared how they got the Ravens? Beyond cleavland fans hating the Ravens, does anyone else really give 2 cents how the Ravens got their team?

You are right, I wouldn't want this in politics, which is one reason I can't vote for a repbulican again (at least this time around).

I don't condone lying, stealing and cheating, but this is big business and lets face it, the biggest wrong of this whole mess isn't the possibility that they lied to get the Sonics, its that they got "Caught" lying! If these guys hadn't left a paper trail we wouldn't even be talking about this and none would be the wiser!

If we just sit around playing nice waiting for a team, its gonna be 100 years before we see one and I think situation is a lot different than normal life and you can't apply this situation to others and at least I am being honest about it and not being all PC.

There is a difference between playing nice versus condoning lying and announcing it to the world. I want a team as much as anyone else and I am not saying they lied. I just really cannot believe that someone would openly announce to the world that they do not care if they lied as long as we get the fruits of that lying. Take the team out of the equation. I am talking about honesty an being worthy of trust. You are saying that it does not matter. This is reminiscent of the "Character doesn't matter" argument of the Bill Clinton era. Character does matter. If a person does not tell the truth then it does not matter what they say because you cannot trust them. It is a moral issue of right and wrong. It is not okay to lie to get what you want period. Come on people! Stand for what is right!

This is a character issue that I am talking about. If Oklahoma City has to lower itself to telling the world that character does not matter so the world will think we are "Big League" then this is a sad day in America.

Paul

I think we are looked down upon by the country for being so naive as to think that Clinton was more of a liar than any of the other guys that whats going on with this stuff. Turn off your Fox news for a day champ and read a book or something.