This poll question is being asked by our very own Doug.

Pretty cool poll, question, huh? The context of the poll (at HornetsCentral) was stated to be:


This one's just for fun, but since the LA government was wanting George Shinn to guarantee that the Hornets would return to NOLA after next season, would it be appropriate to require New Orleans to finally support the Hornets as a condition for the Horents return?


The 3rd option was also worded slightly differently:
I'm from New Orleans and I owe the Hornets nothing. THEY owe ME!

Sorry about that Doug....the 3rd options. Unfortunately, our software wouldn't allow me to enter that many characters.

I think you hit the nail right on the head Doug. If this is what N. O. wants then put up or shut up. It's not very nice but if they want to play hardball?????

The contract is fairly strong as far as keeping the Hornets at home. I'm not really sure as to the enforcability issues and I really don't have time to research it. Just glancing at it, however, it seems to me that the enforcability of some of those provisions is questionable.

Of course, I'm just a 1st year law student, and I'm sure some bigtime lawyers put that novel together. Without question they knew what they were doing.

They need to worry about a lot more than basketball in Louisiana.

I think they should shorten the lease term and put options in it. That way it mitigates the Hornets' long term risk of moving back. If they go back and it works, everyone will be interested in a long term agreement. This way they don't have to gurantee them anything, but it would also be a gesture of confidence and make the decision to go back easy.

The only way that the city/state should guarantee support to the Hornets (back in LA) is if the Hornets actually decide to move back there -- or are at least on the fence about it.

I have a copy of the 87 page contract and damned if I know what that thing would require the Hornets to pay in the event of a breach. Something pretty darned high -- actually, perhaps it would be unenforceable in that regard.. who knows?

Is the contract even enforceable any longer, with the current changes that have taken place since it was signed?

To answer that, I'd have to do two things:

1) Read the whole contract, probably outline it, organize it for the purposes of answering that, and then analyze all of the relevant info.

2) I'd have to research how the contract terms are enforceable applying the common law, the restatement, and other relevant law.

Also, I'm not even sure I could adequately answer that given my current educational state. Give me a few years or at least until I finish my second semester of contracts :)

Also, I'm not even sure I could adequately answer that given my current educational state. Give me a few years or at least until I finish my second semester of contracts :)

Study hard, because this physician will be needing your services in a few years! :)

Study hard, because this physician will be needing your services in a few years! :)

Nothing new on that contract. To unravel that thing would take more time than I have. It'd never get to court. I think that if Shinn wants out of the deal, he'll probably strike a deal with OKC to pay for the breach out of some sort of a bond issue. The voters will support it, and we'll pay another penny's worth of sales tax for awhile in exchange for an NBA franchise.

Shinn is of course constrained by whatever Stern says. Thus far, all indications are that such a move as I described above wouldn't be allowed. A lot probably depends on whatever the statisticians are saying about NO's ability to support an NBA franchise.

Then, we have the Sonics.. that's a whole other ball game :)

I wonder if anyone here has a good beat on what their intentions are? Are they in it to pressure Seattle into building an arena for the team, then selling the team back at a substantial profit? Or are they in it to bring the Sonics to OKC to enjoy the obvious marketing tie ins with our local fast food chain?

What is so sad about this situation:

Oklahoma City has outstanding support for a team that was never willing to persue OKC as a permanent home.

I'm banking that the Supersonics will eventually call Oklahoma City home.

OKlahoma City Supersonics

I am a huge NBA fan and always have been so it was a dream come true for me when the Hornets came to town. I also love this team and have only misssed 5 games in OKC over the last 2 years. That being said the Hornets are not our team. This is a very tricky situation since George Shinn has already moved this team once ( and not because of poor attendance ) David Stern has to do this the right way. Let the team go back to NO and let them fail after a couple of seasons and then let them move. Otherwise it is a pr nightmare and gives the NBA a black eye that they really don't need after the Kobe Bryant and Ron Artest nightmares. Do I want the team here? Yes I do. but not if we are going to end up being the bad guys for "stealing" the team.

As I recall, we were forced to guarantee a certain amount of profit because their was question about OKC sustaining the team. Why should it be any different for NOLA? Because they're Black?

Playing the race card now? Could it be that NOLA was the official home of the Hornets? Could it also be that OKC guaranteeing a profit was the price to pay to play in the "Temporarily Host A Displaced NBA Team" sweepstakes?

Only playing the race card because it was already played a million times in this situation, to great ridiculousness.

Why are the Hornets OWED to New Orleans?

Just as OKC was a question mark as to its ability to sustain the team, NOLA is as well, so I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be held to the same standards.

I suspect that if the Sonics move here we will be far worse bad guys in the eyes of the media than if the Hornets had stayed . We will have a taken a team from a bigger city that was the original home of the franchise, a team that has a 40 year history with that city and that city's only national title.

The first year the Hornets were here virtually every sportswriter in the media was saying that New Orleans hadn't supported the Hornets well, that bringing them back was taking recovery money away from the city and that the team should stay in New Orleans. I think, at the end of the first year here, had David Stern told the city of New Orleans that OKC would buy out their contract, he would bring the All Star game there to help the recovery process and that as soon as the city was on it's feet and big enough to support two professional teams he would give the next franchise to them, there would have been little protest outside of New Orleans and Louisiana.

I think David Stern made a big mistake with this situation. If the Sonics move here (which is still an if) and the Hornets fail, they're going to end up in a fourth city (and, to quote a friend "Be the Larry Brown of franchises") which may not suit them as well as Oklahoma City would have. Clay Bennett and his group went out and purchased the Sonics primarily because the Hornets weren't available and weren't staying. Had the Hornets stayed in OKC, they might have been content with 49% of the team and a Pacific Northwest owner for the Sonics might have been found, or Schultz might have had to keep the team and found a solution there. It would have been better for everyone except the 20,000 or so fans of the Hornets in New Orleans.

I'm sure Stern would like to see these two teams in OKC and KC in some combination.

Only playing the race card because it was already played a million times in this situation, to great ridiculousness.
So that makes it right?


Why are the Hornets OWED to New Orleans?
Only because they are the home of record for that team and the NBA says that's where they should be (at least for now).


Just as OKC was a question mark as to its ability to sustain the team, NOLA is as well, so I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be held to the same standards.
I don't necessarily disagree. But they are a franchise of the NBA and subject to its dictates. The NBA says the Hornets belong to NOLA, apparently regardless of sustainability. That's not necessarily fair, but that's the way the cookie crumbles with a monopoly.

double post

So that makes it right?

No, that makes it satire. As if they should get some special treatment in the name of Affirmative Action.