View Full Version : Seattle Still Pissed



Pages : [1] 2

bucktalk
09-04-2011, 04:01 PM
Spent four days in Seattle this past week. Was amazed how many in Seattle are still pissed about loosing their NBA team. Seems like OKC still leaves a bad taste for Seattle folks. Wasn't sure how I should have responded to some of the rude comments...

dcsooner
09-04-2011, 04:10 PM
BuckTalk, No response is the best response because nothing you could say would change their opinion. We have a team, they don't and won't unless they do what is necessary to do so, end of story.

bucktalk
09-04-2011, 04:24 PM
What bothered me was how vicious some were about OKC! The worst comments came from our airport shuttle driver who freely spewed misinformation to about 30 of us on the shuttle!! Grrrrr...

Steve
09-04-2011, 05:28 PM
Speaks more badly about Seattle than OKC. I seriously doubt such vitriol would greet visitors here if the situation were reversed.

lasomeday
09-04-2011, 05:41 PM
I was in Washington this summer, and I have cousins that live in Seattle. I had to wear my Thunder shirt one day just to see what they would say. They told me they were glad they were gone and they are happy just having a girls team.

I just laughed!

bandnerd
09-04-2011, 06:09 PM
What kind of misinformation was he sharing?

Thunder
09-04-2011, 06:36 PM
Ignore them. They are just a bunch of minority crybabies whom are extremely jealous of not being able to see the dudes (more like drool at them) on the basketball court in their broken-down arena. It is not Oklahoma or Oklahoma City's fault.

Tydude
09-04-2011, 06:56 PM
they should just give up and move on in they lives because they will probley not getting a NBA Team

Double Edge
09-04-2011, 07:10 PM
I don't really have a dog in this fight, don't care about pro-sports all that much and didn't keep up with the boys who brought them here but in case you forgot, or never knew, the accusations were the new owners came to town, lied to everyone and left with the team. I'm sure that bad press left a life long impression about OKC on a few in Seattle, justified or not. Did the owners really do anything to attempt to repair that damage or did they not really care, sour grapes, we don't need Seattle etc?


E-mails obtained by lawyers for the city of Seattle show Sonics owners were talking enthusiastically last April about moving the franchise to Oklahoma City — despite telling the public and the NBA they were still interested in keeping the team here.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004339103_sonicsheds.html

Soonerus
09-04-2011, 07:16 PM
They need to get over it, it happens and they really have nobody to blame but themselves...

Double Edge
09-04-2011, 07:18 PM
They should blame themselves that our leaders would lie to them about it?

bluedogok
09-04-2011, 07:33 PM
If their Seattle based owner haven't of sold the team to owners based in OKC it wouldn't have been an issue. He had to have known it was their intention to buy a team to move to OKC after the Hornets experience. If he didn't he was pretty dang clueless.

Double Edge
09-04-2011, 07:38 PM
I think everyone knew that was their full intent from the beginning. So if they lied about it, why? It was good for their business, it was the only way they could pull it off? What was the need to be dishonest other than for their personal gain? It appears to me they were damn poor ambassadors for the state.

dmoor82
09-04-2011, 08:07 PM
Well Double Edge,after OKC's wildly sucsessful tenure with the Hornets EVERYONE knew OKC was trying to pursue an NBA franchise,infact Bennet's same group tried to buy the Hornets to no success.Howard Schultz should be public enemy #1 in Seattle,everyone knew when the SuperSonics were sold TO AN OKC BUISNESS GROUP that this was their intent to bring said team to OKC.When people from Seattle or National sportswriters dog OKC it shows a lack of class imo,what did the people of OKC or the Thunder fans ever do to deserve such bashing that has taken place?Were we not supposed to be happy we got an NBA team?or were we supposed to embrace and wildly support the Thunder like we have to prove everyone wrong!

Double Edge
09-04-2011, 08:10 PM
Yes, the OKC fans are winners and the owners are winners. Don't know how you can expect to go to Seattle and be loved, considering. Maybe you can explain that to me, or more importantly to them next time you go there. The ends justify the means? Like I said, I don't care about the Thunder, Clay Bennet or his buddies. The ill will and allegations of less than honest dealings from Okies does concern me.

Celebrator
09-04-2011, 08:27 PM
Sorry to hear about your experience bucktalk. If anything, Seattleites reaction to this whole situation has taught me that although Seattle may be a beautiful place on the outside, many of the people there are arrogant, rude, and deeply unhappy folks...and my sister lives there, I know from experience! Must be the crummy weather most of the year. Boy, that must stink. I would rather live here ANY DAY!

dankrutka
09-04-2011, 08:54 PM
This isn't so simplistic. Seattle leaders lied, the City failed to provide an arena, and Clay Bennett lied through his teeth. Seattle had good fans for a long time. I don't blame them for being mad, but they shouldn't be mad at OKC FANS. and most Seattle residents aren't. Don't make thus so black and white. It's more complex than that. I'm still extremely happy we have the Thunder, but I understand that there are some conjugations. I hope Seattle gets another team someday.

Double Edge
09-04-2011, 08:57 PM
In the meanwhile, about the last thing OKC needs is for Thunder fans to go to Seattle and be douchebags.

venture
09-04-2011, 09:07 PM
In the meanwhile, about the last thing OKC needs is for Thunder fans to go to Seattle and be douchebags.

Best way to do this? Stop bringing it up...regardless of what side people are on. Don't even mention it and move on. The complex people get of needing to "have the last say" is what keeps rehashing something that should be over and done with.

ljbab728
09-04-2011, 09:09 PM
In the course of my business I talk on the phone frequently with businesses in Seattle which my company does business with. I always identify myself, my company, and where we are located. I have often expected to get some kind of remark, even if in jest, about OKC, but I've never heard anything. They are always very courteous. Maybe they don't want to jeopardize a business dealing but I've had nothing but good experiences.

Barry Luxton
09-04-2011, 10:11 PM
In the meanwhile, about the last thing OKC needs is for Thunder fans to go to Seattle and be douchebags.

People from here are probably going to be douchebags about this until the Thunder pack up and leave town for greener pastures ten or fifteen years from now. Then they'll know how the people of Seattle feel.

ljbab728
09-04-2011, 11:51 PM
People from here are probably going to be douchebags about this until the Thunder pack up and leave town for greener pastures ten or fifteen years from now. Then they'll know how the people of Seattle feel.

Who is being a douchebag? Do the fans in Seattle have a right to be unhappy? Yes. Do they have a right to carry a grudge against anyone from OKC several years later? No. As I said, in my contact with people in Seattle, I'm not seeing that. I'm sure there are always going to be some who just can't give it up though.

MikeOKC
09-05-2011, 01:09 AM
I'm curious how many here have actually sat down and watched the much-lauded documentary 'Sonicsgate'? If nothing else, it should help people here in Oklahoma City to understand the anger a little bit and maybe be a little less judgmental.
The full movie is online here:
http://sonicsgate.org/movie/

ljbab728
09-05-2011, 01:19 AM
I'm curious how many here have actually sat down and watched the much-lauded documentary 'Sonicsgate'? If nothing else, it should help people here in Oklahoma City to understand the anger a little bit and maybe be a little less judgmental.
The full movie is online here:
http://sonicsgate.org/movie/

I watched it some time ago and it still gives no reason for grownup people to be unreasonable years later. We are friendly with Japan and Germany after World War II. Surely the citizens of OKC and Seattle can get along after the moving of a sports franchise where no one died.

MikeOKC
09-05-2011, 02:02 AM
I watched it some time ago and it still gives no reason for grownup people to be unreasonable years later. We are friendly with Japan and Germany after World War II. Surely the citizens of OKC and Seattle can get along after the moving of a sports franchise where no one died.

But rabid football and basketball fans make for some pretty unreasonable grownup people.

ljbab728
09-05-2011, 02:39 AM
But rabid football and basketball fans make for some pretty unreasonable grownup people.

That's true anywhere in the country.

dcsooner
09-05-2011, 02:58 AM
best way to do this? Stop bringing it up...regardless of what side people are on. Don't even mention it and move on. The complex people get of needing to "have the last say" is what keeps rehashing something that should be over and done with.

agree

kevinpate
09-05-2011, 07:13 AM
But rabid football and basketball fans make for some pretty unreasonable grownup people.


There are shots to help cure that ... buckshot for one.

Double Edge
09-05-2011, 07:44 AM
I didn't say anyone was being a douchebag. But if you put all the anti-Seattle sentiments together while going there it would come off that way, ie, wear a Thunder shirt in Seattle for reactions and then treat everyone like depressed crybabies who should just get over it.

bucktalk
09-05-2011, 12:49 PM
Some of the misinformation given by the shuttle driver in Seattle include:
1. "Tulsa" built the Thunder a new arena to play in.
2. The Sonics were traitors after Seattle promised to build a new arena for them.
3. People of OKC can't be trusted.
4. Most of Seattle was finally glad the Sonics left and said, "don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you."

kevinpate
09-05-2011, 01:15 PM
Maybe some folk are just pissed because it rains so much, but having zip control over it, they need a scapegoat.
Maybe not.

betts
09-05-2011, 04:57 PM
It all boiled down to the fact that the owners got tired of losing money and the city was completely intransigent about the lease. If the city had rewritten the lease to allow the owners to at least break even we probably wouldn't have anything to talk about. Plus basketball was the sports stepchild: the Seahawks and Mariners got new stadiums and the Sonics didn't. And the straw that broke the camel's back was the city not so politely telling David Stern to ****off when he tried to help. He's a bad man to cross. He refused to allow the Grizzlies, Trailblazers and Hornets to move under equally dire economic circumstances because the cities played nice.

Larry OKC
09-05-2011, 10:12 PM
Now betts, you know as well as anyone that what you are saying isn't entirely the truth either, esp when you state that a new stadium wasn't built for the Sonics when they were built for the other pro-sports teams. The fact is, the Sonics got their new stadium first. It was still being paid for and they wanted a new one? The lease they had was perfectly acceptable by the parties when they signed it. The City had at least 3 offers on the table that required various levels of financial input from the owners, starting at NOTHING. The more the owners were willing to commit, the more the City would and the more revenue would go to the team. Schultz declined and decided to sell the team instead. Those offers were still on the table for Bennet. He declined. A remodel was perfectly acceptable to Stern (he even went to the legislature to secure funding). Then when Bennet bought the team, a remodel was not acceptable, only a new facility would do. At one point Bennet stated that the owners wouldn't be willing to contribute anything even for a new arena. Then he said that they were willing to use about $100 million of naming rights money (to a building they don't own, so it wasn't even their money but the Seattle's). Stern changed his position and supported Bennet. Then after the Sonics relocated, Stern changed his position again and said a remodel would work to get another team. Wouldn't be at all surprised if a new owner demands a new arena, Stern will flip-flop again. There was only 2 years (?) left in the lease anyway.

betts
09-06-2011, 09:01 AM
Larry, the readers don't want to again hear a discussion of your platform versus mine, and there are quite a few facts glossed over in your post above, leading to as many "errors" as you say mine has. Let's narrow it down to this: Seattle wasn't willing to spend the money to keep the Sonics and Oklahoma City was willing to give the money to get them. Whether that's right or wrong depends on how much of a sports fan you are, or how much you think having a sports team benefits a city. If it comes down to the same issue here someday, then we'll get what we pay for. Seattle fans should be angry because they never really had a chance to vote on whether they wanted to build a new arena to replace the outmoded Key, unless you consider Initiative 91 their chance to vote. If so, they voted against subsidies and they lost the team. They found out you can't get something for nothing when it comes to the NBA. Right or wrong, until cities buy their own teams, owners get to decide where a team is located and all the high flown discussions of what is "right" or "fair" are just words.

Larry OKC
09-06-2011, 11:54 AM
Betts, they don't have to read either one of our posts. However, you know I am not going to let the kind of misinformation you continue to perpetuate, stand unchallenged. You want to put in your two cents, yet get ruffled if someone disputes what you posted with the actual facts. Facts that you are aware of. Opinions are all well and good but they need to have the facts to support them. Please let me know which part of my post was factually incorrect. If I left some point out, so be it, trying to stick to the error itself, offering some background with it. I pointed out where yours was in error. Just trying to keep you from repeating the same errors. Just as if whomever is saying #1 above ("Tulsa" built the Thunder a new arena to play in), was presented with the correct facts (it was OKC and the majority of the voters agreed to fund the remodeling of a 5 year old building...they didn't get a new arena ... at least not yet) and they continued to keep repeating the misinformation. Did I say anything in that post about it being "right" or "wrong" or "fair"? Who was getting "something for nothing"? Seattle had paid and was still paying for it when the continued demands came their way. IIRC, I-91 did not prohibit subsidies, but it did require a ROI. Just as a bank requires that you pay back the loan.

betts
09-06-2011, 12:18 PM
Well then, you might change your post to show that the Sonics got a remodel, not a new arena. And Ackerman was the owner who agreed to the terms of the contact, not Schultz, so the "both parties" who agreed to the contract were not both present at the time of the sale. Regardless, these are philosophical differences, not right and wrong, here. You have one point of view and I another, but the people in Seattle with your point of view don't have a team. And that's the bottom line.

Double Edge
09-06-2011, 12:23 PM
And many Seattleites don't welcome Okies visiting their city...

Thunder
09-06-2011, 12:57 PM
Guys, just look on the bright side... Seattle is closer to Yellowstone. :LolLolLol

Larry OKC
09-06-2011, 10:34 PM
Well then, you might change your post to show that the Sonics got a remodel, not a new arena. And Ackerman was the owner who agreed to the terms of the contact, not Schultz, so the "both parties" who agreed to the contract were not both present at the time of the sale. Regardless, these are philosophical differences, not right and wrong, here. You have one point of view and I another, but the people in Seattle with your point of view don't have a team. And that's the bottom line.
betts: Granted it was built on the same footprint as the previous, and kept the same roof line, nearly everything else about it changed. This wasn't just a "remodel" by any stretch of the imagination. It was completely gutted to the support beams, they even lowered the floor of the arena by 35 feet. Didn't each successive owner of the Sonics know what the terms of the lease/contract were? Weren't those terms transferable? So yes, each party agreed to the terms even if they weren't present when originally signed. If they didn't agree, they should have negotiated new terms as a condition of the purchase or not make the purchase at all.

betts
09-06-2011, 11:58 PM
It was a poor remodel, whether basically from the floor up or not. Have you ever been in the Key? Ever been in the AA Center in Dallas? The Key feels and looks old and it's built like an arena from a different generation. But again, who cares about any of that? It wasn't financially feasible for the owners to have a team there and so there isn't. The fans in Seattle can whine and moan, but they made no attempt to make it financially feasible, nor did their government, so the team left. There's no owner loyalty when a city doesn't care if they lose money or not. And there won't be here either. You don't care and I do, so I'll vote one way and you'll vote another. Whether we've got a team here in 20 years or not will depend on whether more people feel like me or more feel like you. There's really nothing to discuss until there's something to vote about.

dcsooner
09-07-2011, 04:37 AM
It was a poor remodel, whether basically from the floor up or not. Have you ever been in the Key? Ever been in the AA Center in Dallas? The Key feels and looks old and it's built like an arena from a different generation. But again, who cares about any of that? It wasn't financially feasible for the owners to have a team there and so there isn't. The fans in Seattle can whine and moan, but they made no attempt to make it financially feasible, nor did their government, so the team left. There's no owner loyalty when a city doesn't care if they lose money or not. And there won't be here either. You don't care and I do, so I'll vote one way and you'll vote another. Whether we've got a team here in 20 years or not will depend on whether more people feel like me or more feel like you. There's really nothing to discuss until there's something to vote about.

Betts, I feel like You!!:)

kawititnow
09-07-2011, 05:22 AM
Moving teams to a new city is nothing new in the NBA:

1960: Minneapolis Lakers moved to Los Angeles
1971: San Diego Rockets moved to Houston
1971: San Francisco Warriors moved to Oakland
1979: New Orleans Jazz moved to Utah (Salt Lake City)
1984: San Diego Clippers moved to Los Angeles
2001: Vancouver Grizzlies moved to Memphis
2002: Charlotte Hornets moved to New Orleans
2008: Seattle SuperSonics moved to OKC

okcpulse
09-07-2011, 05:42 AM
I don't really have a dog in this fight, don't care about pro-sports all that much and didn't keep up with the boys who brought them here but in case you forgot, or never knew, the accusations were the new owners came to town, lied to everyone and left with the team. I'm sure that bad press left a life long impression about OKC on a few in Seattle, justified or not. Did the owners really do anything to attempt to repair that damage or did they not really care, sour grapes, we don't need Seattle etc?


E-mails obtained by lawyers for the city of Seattle show Sonics owners were talking enthusiastically last April about moving the franchise to Oklahoma City — despite telling the public and the NBA they were still interested in keeping the team here.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004339103_sonicsheds.html

Double Edge, think about it. People won't agree with how things were handled by Clay Bennett and it was obvious his underlying intention all along was to move the team from Seattle to OKC, but you have to view the entire picture.

1) Mayor Mick Cornett visits NBA headquarters in the early 2000's to discuss a possible expansion franchise. Is told repeatedly that's not an option. Even gets laughed out of the office on one occasion. So we've now established that an expansion team is out of the question.

2) Hornets temporarily relocate to OKC during repairs from Katrina. Success motivates Clay Bennett to make an offer to George Shinn. George Shinn refuses.

3) Howard Schultz puts the Sonics up for sale. Clay Bennett purchases the team, and almost immediately the bloggers and sportwriters, namely from Seattle, begin attacking Clay Bennett's character before he even announces any plans about the team.

4) Clay Bennett announces his intentions to keep the team in Seattle, provided they come up with a plan for a new arena (or remodel, I can't remember which). Bloggers and sportwriters don't change their tune about Bennett, or about people in Oklahoma, who somehow got dragged into the mess.

5) After several proposals on the table, a cold attitude from the public and no clear picture from Seattle's local leaders on financing a new arena, it's already clear to Bennett that Seattle won't work out, as long as he's the owner.

6) Deadline passes, Clay announces the team will relocate to OKC. After entering into a settlement agreement with Seattle and dealing with an attempted lawsuit on behalf of Howard Schultz, the team relocates in 2008.

Clay Bennett bought the team with a two plan approach. Move the team to OKC if things don't work out in Seattle. If Seattle DID surprise him, he probably would have sold the team back to another owner for a profit and approached Shinn with an even bigger check. And he knew Seattle wouldn't build him an arena. Let's get serious about this. As I have asked dozens of times before, what would Clay have done if Seattle cemented a proposal for a new arena before the deadline? I agree Bennett should have been upfront about his intentions, but that wouldn't have changed a thing about the attitude the national press or Seattle has toward Oklahoma, sports or no sports. Deal or no deal, they didn't like the fact that an Okie was the owner of their team. Plain and simple.

Has anyone even considered approaching this strategically without framing it in politics?

Double Edge
09-07-2011, 06:41 AM
Double Edge, think about it. People won't agree with how things were handled by Clay Bennett and it was obvious his underlying intention all along was to move the team from Seattle to OKC, but you have to view the entire picture.

No need to recap (and leave out a few pertinent facts.) Besides having lived through it while not really being a sports fan, I did pick up most of the pieces as they happened. I also just spent 2 hours the other night watching the movie linked upthread. Did you? I don't read sports blogs and I could care less what they had to say from the git-go.


Point repeatedly ignored, the perception of many in Seattle is the operators in this deal were not upfront with the people of Seattle, which seems to be well documented and not believably explained away by those involved. You can yammer on and on about how good it was for OKC, how it was going to happen anyway, which may all be true, but it isn't going to change the way it went down, with one thing said to the people of Seattle, while actions and emails show intents were otherwise.

TaoMaas
09-07-2011, 07:01 AM
...basketball was the sports stepchild: the Seahawks and Mariners got new stadiums and the Sonics didn't.

I think this is the bottom line. Seattle thought it was New York, L.A., or Chicago. It's not. None of their sports teams are upper-tier, so they were ripe for one of them to be picked off. I think there are several villians in this situation. After the success that the Hornets had in OKC, it should have been no surprise that we'd go looking for a team. So, when Clay Bennett was looking to buy the Sonics, Seattle HAD to know that there was a target on their back. Did Bennett lie about his intentions for the Sonics? Yes, I believe he did. However, IMHO, the people of Seattle, their city officials, and the owner of Sonics passed up an opportunity to "speak now or forever hold your peace" when all this started going down. I also think David Stern needs to be tossed into the mix because the move would never have happened without his support. Everyone can point fingers as much as they like, but it's just going to be a big circle.

betts
09-07-2011, 08:25 AM
No need to recap (and leave out a few pertinent facts.) Besides having lived through it while not really being a sports fan, I did pick up most of the pieces as they happened. I also just spent 2 hours the other night watching the movie linked upthread. Did you? I don't read sports blogs and I could care less what they had to say from the git-go.


Point repeatedly ignored, the perception of many in Seattle is the operators in this deal were not upfront with the people of Seattle, which seems to be well documented and not believably explained away by those involved. You can yammer on and on about how good it was for OKC, how it was going to happen anyway, which may all be true, but it isn't going to change the way it went down, with one thing said to the people of Seattle, while actions and emails show intents were otherwise.

Since we're now discussing this, it doesn't really matter what Clay Bennett said in private e-mails that were never meant to be made public (although I agree it was foolish of them to put anything of a sensitive nature in an e-mail). If Seattle had built an arena, the Sonics would still be there. Clay Bennett might or might not be the owner, but it wouldn't manner. They would still have a team. David Stern wanted a team in Seattle more than in OKC and it was only the rudeness and intransigence of city and state politicians that caused him to give in and allow the team to move. It was not in the NBA's best interest to have a team in OKC rather than Seattle and so it was with the greatest regret, I can guarantee you, that he allowed it to happen. If Stern had sniffed an arena deal in Seattle, Bennett could have filled the world's e-mail inboxes and the team would never have moved.

Double Edge
09-07-2011, 01:45 PM
No one knows what would have happened "if" what happened didn't happen. Probably Okies wouldn't be getting bad lip when we go through Seattle though.

Double Edge
09-07-2011, 02:00 PM
If the boys hadn't lied and been caught at it...

If the new owners number one priority from the git-go wasn't to move the team...

If the past owner had not been disingenuous with the fans about not selling the team to a group who's number one priority was to move the team...

If the city hadn't settled over the broken lease...

etc...

The fans would probably still be pissed. But they would have less to be pissed about IMO.

okcpulse
09-07-2011, 05:19 PM
If the boys hadn't lied and been caught at it...

If the new owners number one priority from the git-go wasn't to move the team...

If the past owner had not been disingenuous with the fans about not selling the team to a group who's number one priority was to move the team...

If the city hadn't settled over the broken lease...

etc...

The fans would probably still be pissed. But they would have less to be pissed about IMO.

I agree, but I saw the documentary. There was a need for a recap because both sides are guilty and people fail to see Seattle's shortcomings. My point in the recap is that Seattle began bashing OKC before Clay even announced his intentions. Fans included. People need to quit playing the victim in this whole fiasco. I felt remorse for Seattle until I began paying attention to how people there felt from the get-go. Blogs, media, fan mail, documentary, whatever. It's worthless to me if disgusting things are being said from the other side of the fence immediately after the sale itself was announced.

The fans aren't even pissed about a bunch of emails. That's just fuel for the fire. They are pissed because their team was 'stolen' from them. If they were pissed about losing the team, fine. But the onslaught of blanket trash talk is a turn off. So, my position is this. Clay Bennett bought the team. He approached Seattle about a new arena or relocate the team to OKC. Seattle failed to produce an arena. Team relocated. It's history now.

betts
09-07-2011, 05:29 PM
They can join the club: The Pilots, Colts, Dodgers, Giants, Senators, Clippers, Spurs, Grizzlies, Hornets, etc. It happens. I feel bad for the fans, just like I feel bad for the fans of any team that moves. However, psychological health is all about moving on: time for them to move on and either work towards getting another team or celebrate the fact that they're saving ALL that money. Personally, every time I buy something in OKC it makes me happy to think that I'm paying for more new things for the city. That included our arena and upgrades. Looking good......

MustangGT
09-07-2011, 05:48 PM
Guys, just look on the bright side... Seattle is closer to Yellowstone. :LolLolLol

Considering that all the geological experts say the fallout will travel toward the SE and not the NW the intelligent thought is SO WHAT as you are woefully unaware of prevailing weather patterns. Before posting it would help if you were educated about the matter at hand first.

Seattle acted stupidly, as was to be expected and they lost out. Too bad so sad. Their fault they lost out.

Larry OKC
09-07-2011, 05:57 PM
It was a poor remodel, whether basically from the floor up or not. Have you ever been in the Key? Ever been in the AA Center in Dallas? The Key feels and looks old and it's built like an arena from a different generation. But again, who cares about any of that? It wasn't financially feasible for the owners to have a team there and so there isn't. The fans in Seattle can whine and moan, but they made no attempt to make it financially feasible, nor did their government, so the team left. There's no owner loyalty when a city doesn't care if they lose money or not. And there won't be here either. You don't care and I do, so I'll vote one way and you'll vote another. Whether we've got a team here in 20 years or not will depend on whether more people feel like me or more feel like you. There's really nothing to discuss until there's something to vote about.
Nope I sure haven't (have you?). However, someone who has been there called it a "model NBA arena", that someone was none other than Stern (I have seen the footage, you can find it out there on the internet). Also, the "remodel" as you characterize it was to the exact specifications of the team owners. If it was "poor", then the owners are too blame.

The lease as written WAS 'financially feasible" when it was written, if it wasn't why would the owners have agreed to it? Why would the NBA (Stern) sign off on it? If not mistaken Stern also called it a model lease. Again, at least 3 different offers were on the table to the previous and new owners, but depending on how much they wanted, they were going to have to share in the costs.

However it is NOT any governments responsibility to make any private, for-profit business "financially feasible". That is the responsibility of the business owner.

The following is a general comment...

To OKC's credit (and esp Mayor Cornett), they did their best to stay out of the mess (not "actively"/"officially" pursuing a particular team), they didn't need to, as Clay Bennett et al, did the dirty work. The City claims they never talked to ANYONE in the NBA about a team until AFTER they had announced they were relocating. Now if you believe that or not, is up to you. The same "OKC is trying to steal our team" accusations were flying our way from Hornet's fans. No doubt that the Louisiana media took up the cause when OKC was added to the team name, when Bennett offered to buy the Hornet's etc. Can't blame the Seattle folks for doing the same. I am sure the same will happen here one day when someone tries to "steal" the Thunder. All of that is what it is.

betts
09-07-2011, 07:33 PM
I've been in it. I like visiting NBA arenas, and have been in a bunch. If it's a current model NBA arena, I'm the pope. The people calling it that are the apologists for their refusal to build a new arena for the owners. It's shabby, outmoded-looking and tiny. They say it has "great sight lines." That means "it's a stretch to come up with something positive to say about it so we have to talk about sight lines." Why did Ackerman agree to a lousy lease and a mediocre remodel? Not everyone who has money has common sense or knows anything about owning a basketball team. If you love sports, and you have enough money, owning a team seems like a dream come true until the bills start piling up. I will admit that if I were a billionaire, I'd be one of the Thunder owners. But, people don't get rich losing millions every year and, especially if the team isn't winning, red ink grows tedious rather quickly, I bet.

It may not be the government's responsibilty to make any private, for-profit business financially feasible, but it then follows that it is the business owner's right to attempt to find another location where it may be more financially feasible, where the government is willing to try to make it more feasible. It's not his responsibility to lose money so a team stays with its' fans. As I've said, people with your point of view don't have sports teams in their city. That's a choice that can be made. The voters in OKC were more interested in having a team than touting government's lack of responsibility to make a team financially feasible. Again, that choice has been made and we'll see what they think when it's time to vote again. Undoubtedly you and I will have to square off again, if I'm still living here.

Larry OKC
09-08-2011, 02:37 AM
betts: OK, so you are calling Stern a liar?? Or maybe you are saying he is an "apologist"? Why did the NBA/Stern sign off on the lease? Even if the team owner doesn't know anything about owning a team, one would think the league and their experts would be aware of such things and advising the owner. But maybe you are right. Since we both agree that the NBA has had a broken business model for a while now, maybe they don't have a clue either. Fair enough. I agree Stern can't be trusted, any more than I would trust Bennett to correctly make change for a dollar, much less enter into a long-term business agreement with him where he gains the financial revenue from a building he doesn't own or paid to improve. Seattle insisted that the lease that Bennet agreed to, be honored. I would expect OKC to insist the team honor the lease with us. That's right, we did insist on that after they signed the lease and Schultz was threatening a lawsuit to rescind the sale and keep the team in Seattle. How quickly the importance of honoring leases became when it was our lease that was being threatened. Seattle was willing to make improvements, the greater the amount, the higher the contribution would be from the team. Starting at Zero contribution from the owners.

You said it yourself, the key to the team making money is to turn it into a winning team. You have said it before, the point where a team makes a profit is often in the playoffs (Seattle made that point during the trial). He could lower payroll there as he did here (most of the trades made ended up saving the team money). He could have raised the prices in Seattle like he did here. IIRC, there was a 36% increase over Sonics prices, and in some cases more than 200% over Hornets prices. All of that is in the owner's control no matter where the team plays.

We are in agreement again, the Key is "tiny". Strangely enough, our arena got smaller and is dangerously close to the the smallest seating capacity of NBA arenas. After the improvements, there was a net loss of 960 seats, dropping it from #14 all the way down to #28 (maybe even lower now).

Thunder
09-08-2011, 02:52 AM
And they're still doing it. :-O

During a Presidential debate. I think they are hoping for a new President to help them.

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/11/2009/10/sonics.jpg

:LolLolLol

CaptDave
09-08-2011, 09:53 PM
But rabid football and basketball fans make for some pretty unreasonable grownup people.


:yeahthat::

RodH
09-09-2011, 03:18 AM
I tried to resist commenting but I can't. The people of Seattle under-estimated OKC and over-estimated Seattle relative to OKC. I think that some of them are still pissed because they cannot imagine a scenario where lowly OKC could get the better of them in a fair contest. I do not think that they fully appreciated the serious challenge that a group of Oklahoma businessmen could make. This was not the first time that one of their teams had been threatened. They had managed to overcome the challenges in the past. No third-rate city like OKC could be expected to be able to ultimately prevail. I believe that they saw OKC as a pawn that was being used to strengthen the bargaining position. I believe that they felt that no persons in their right mind would choose OKC over Seattle. It just could not happen. The NBA owners would not approve it. As far as they were concerned, that flat, dusty, unsophisticated town in flyover country would be a place that the other teams would want to avoid at all costs, especially if the other choice was their great city. They failed to realize that their perception of OKC was not necessarily the reality. Had Las Vegas or San Diego or almost any other city gotten the team under the same circumstances they would not be as upset. But because it was Oklahoma, they must have cheated somehow. They did not see OKC as a serious threat so they did not do all they likely could have to keep the team. OKC has grown and is continuing to grow stronger. Those who are in competition with OKC and have not been paying attention could find themselves in a similar situation as Seattle.

Snowman
09-09-2011, 05:36 AM
Nope I sure haven't (have you?). However, someone who has been there called it a "model NBA arena", that someone was none other than Stern (I have seen the footage, you can find it out there on the internet). Also, the "remodel" as you characterize it was to the exact specifications of the team owners. If it was "poor", then the owners are too blame.

The lease as written WAS 'financially feasible" when it was written, if it wasn't why would the owners have agreed to it? Why would the NBA (Stern) sign off on it? If not mistaken Stern also called it a model lease. Again, at least 3 different offers were on the table to the previous and new owners, but depending on how much they wanted, they were going to have to share in the costs.

However it is NOT any governments responsibility to make any private, for-profit business "financially feasible". That is the responsibility of the business owner.

The following is a general comment...

To OKC's credit (and esp Mayor Cornett), they did their best to stay out of the mess (not "actively"/"officially" pursuing a particular team), they didn't need to, as Clay Bennett et al, did the dirty work. The City claims they never talked to ANYONE in the NBA about a team until AFTER they had announced they were relocating. Now if you believe that or not, is up to you. The same "OKC is trying to steal our team" accusations were flying our way from Hornet's fans. No doubt that the Louisiana media took up the cause when OKC was added to the team name, when Bennett offered to buy the Hornet's etc. Can't blame the Seattle folks for doing the same. I am sure the same will happen here one day when someone tries to "steal" the Thunder. All of that is what it is.

It may have been model right after it was built and the lease may have been model after it was signed, that was decades ago. The cost structures changed after contracts with the players changed over time. The Key arena remodel was a compromise, the owner wanted a new arena and wanted to build it in the same location that they built one of the other current pro arenas many years later.


OK, so you are calling Stern a liar?? Or maybe you are saying he is an "apologist"? Why did the NBA/Stern sign off on the lease? Even if the team owner doesn't know anything about owning a team, one would think the league and their experts would be aware of such things and advising the owner. But maybe you are right. Since we both agree that the NBA has had a broken business model for a while now, maybe they don't have a clue either. Fair enough. I agree Stern can't be trusted, any more than I would trust Bennett to correctly make change for a dollar, much less enter into a long-term business agreement with him where he gains the financial revenue from a building he doesn't own or paid to improve. Seattle insisted that the lease that Bennet agreed to, be honored. I would expect OKC to insist the team honor the lease with us. That's right, we did insist on that after they signed the lease and Schultz was threatening a lawsuit to rescind the sale and keep the team in Seattle. How quickly the importance of honoring leases became when it was our lease that was being threatened. Seattle was willing to make improvements, the greater the amount, the higher the contribution would be from the team. Starting at Zero contribution from the owners.

You said it yourself, the key to the team making money is to turn it into a winning team. You have said it before, the point where a team makes a profit is often in the playoffs (Seattle made that point during the trial). He could lower payroll there as he did here (most of the trades made ended up saving the team money). He could have raised the prices in Seattle like he did here. IIRC, there was a 36% increase over Sonics prices, and in some cases more than 200% over Hornets prices. All of that is in the owner's control no matter where the team plays.

We are in agreement again, the Key is "tiny". Strangely enough, our arena got smaller and is dangerously close to the the smallest seating capacity of NBA arenas. After the improvements, there was a net loss of 960 seats, dropping it from #14 all the way down to #28 (maybe even lower now).

Seats only matter as much as price per seat they can charge, the seat count went down but the corporate suites and clubs replacing them should make more per square foot. Along with that another difference between Key and Chesapeake is space for retail, bars, restaurants, and other amenities outside of the arena's bowl; the Key does not compare with modern arenas in this area, Chesapeake was built with space for them, the modern model for arenas is to not just get money from people while in the arena seats but keep more of the entertainment money with the owners/NBA than the local businesses around the arena that they do not see a dime from.

dcsooner
09-09-2011, 05:46 AM
I tried to resist commenting but I can't. The people of Seattle under-estimated OKC and over-estimated Seattle relative to OKC. I think that some of them are still pissed because they cannot imagine a scenario where lowly OKC could get the better of them in a fair contest. I do not think that they fully appreciated the serious challenge that a group of Oklahoma businessmen could make. This was not the first time that one of their teams had been threatened. They had managed to overcome the challenges in the past. No third-rate city like OKC could be expected to be able to ultimately prevail. I believe that they saw OKC as a pawn that was being used to strengthen the bargaining position. I believe that they felt that no persons in their right mind would choose OKC over Seattle. It just could not happen. The NBA owners would not approve it. As far as they were concerned, that flat, dusty, unsophisticated town in flyover country would be a place that the other teams would want to avoid at all costs, especially if the other choice was their great city. They failed to realize that their perception of OKC was not necessarily the reality. Had Las Vegas or San Diego or almost any other city gotten the team under the same circumstances they would not be as upset. But because it was Oklahoma, they must have cheated somehow. They did not see OKC as a serious threat so they did not do all they likely could have to keep the team. OKC has grown and is continuing to grow stronger. Those who are in competition with OKC and have not been paying attention could find themselves in a similar situation as Seattle.

Very well stated. Concur!!

bombermwc
09-09-2011, 09:08 AM
Not to mention the fact that the Sonics were sold several times in a short period of time. And then they knowingly sold to an out-of-state group....duh what do you think they are going to do? Why do out-of-state folks buy teams? To move them....derrrr. If they didn't believe that from day 1, then they're just stupid. Then all of a sudden, a coupld Seattle money folks say they want to buy it now that the team might move. Where were they when they were for sale before? And as for the arena, they're still paying that thing off because of how they built it. It's almost as old as the Myriad and has had very little remodel work done. The last ig remodel was back in the mid 90's and that's when Stern's interview was. That's 2 generations of areans in the past. And if you wait that long to do anything to a building (or replace it) in the pro world, you're behind the times.

It's OKC's job to keep the team at this point. We will have to build a new arena at some point, and i think we all understand that it will be part of a MAPs project in the future. It fits nicely into the timeline at some point and the owners/city agree pretty well on that. It's not coming up soon, but it will be in the next 15 years....which isn't that long ago. By then CHK Arena will be almost 30 years old..and due for a replacement...just as the Myriad was. And by then, the Myriad will be almost 50 and due to be torn down and replaced with the new Arena....on land the city already owns and has a bigger footprint.