More News on Sonics Lawsuit

[Laramie]

If any of these lawsuits make it to a higher court, they won't have a leg to stand on.

Many of the judges in the Seattle courts are elected officials, so don't be surprised if it is granted.

The higher courts will overturn or throw out these suits, the relief sought isn't grantable.

A long shot if Shultz may win his suit; however, it's going to be difficult for him to sell to locals with Ballmer being the only applicant.

The courts can see through much of this, the relief sought that Shultz is asking isn't grantable through the courts--The NBA legal staff will file on this one because they have a right to approve their own ownership groups and Ballmer is definitely not being approved.

...and Shultz will at least say he tried.

[Midtowner]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of these are in federal District Court. There, the judges are appointed by the President upon advice and consent of the Senate. Their appointments are for life.

[Laramie]

I stand corrected, I do remember reading that--my bad!

[RabidRed]

There's a reaons why people in Seattle hate Clay Bennett, and it's not just because he isn't a local owner. It's because he clearly never made a good effort to stay here or to at least try and make the Sonics watchable.

You say all of this evidence of money and time spent trying to get an arena in Seattle so that the Sonics could stay there. Explain to me how, after 12 months, he only came up with 1 pathetic arena proposal that he knew never stood a chance anywhere. I can give you just as "good" of an arena proposal if you give me 12 minutes.

Just in case the OKC media doesn't tell you, he could have put a Sonics team that could contend for the playoffs, which would in turn have sold out the KeyArena almost every night. He could have had Durant, Ray Allen, and Rashard Lewis on the court at the same time, but of course that would allow the Sonics to win and would not help Bennett and Co convince the NBA that they should relocate to Oklahoma City.

It's a joke what the OKC media is telling you about the situation up in Seattle. They're trying to tell you that big bad Seattle and the meanies in the Washington State legislature are beating up little Clay Bennett no matter how hard he tried when he's only trying to do the right thing and make a profit in his business and that him losing money or moving to Oklahoma City is not his fault in any way. The OKC media could tell you you were dead and you'd believe them

Would you show a link to what you just said? Much of what I have read in the OKC media is a regurgitation of what is being printed or said from Seattle.

The Sonics had a choice when the new owners took over. Keep the present team together and be limited by the high salaries they were paying. They chose to get rid of the salaries in favor of creating a younger team and more draft picks. They got lucky with last year's draft picking up an all star in the making. They should have a good draft this year as well. Several people out there that they can use. It appears they are trying to build a team for the future that will really contend for playoffs and maybe an NBA championship.

From what I see there was no love lost when Schultz owned the team and not much future with the team members they had. It appears Schultz was at his ropes end with improving the team or making a profit with the climate in Seattle. He sold the team when he had a chance to sell way about the market value and tried to make it look like he was trying his best to keep the team in Seattle. Truth be known he was doing cartwheels at making the sale and didn't care what happened after he pocketed his change. Say what you want, Bennett and company made an effort to keep the team in Seattle. It was a win win for them. Get a arena with a good lease and make money in a good market or short of that move to OKC which was showing signs of being a good market also and city and state govenments willing to embrace the team in a heart beat. He gave it a chance in Seattle, now it's time to see if they can make a go in OKC.

Who knows what will happen in OKC. Maybe the new wears off and the ticket sales fall off. Then Bennett and company will have another choice to make. Do they keep them in OKC or find another home for them. Maybe at that time Seattle has worked up a plan and funded it for a new arena. If Seattle hasn't completely distroyed what good feelings the ownership and NBA has for them, they might be able to get the team back. I would think though that with the present runs at making the team stay till the contract with the Key is over and the suits filed by Schultz and others, will lessen the chances of that ever happening. What Seattle and those representing the interests there should do is make the transition to OKC as smooth as possible in hopes that the NBA will look favorable to the return of a team there. Otherwise they will be destined to never in the next decade get a team and will forever appear to be sore losers. Only the high ground will save them at this point.

[Laramie]

There's a reaons why people in Seattle hate Clay Bennett, and it's not just because he isn't a local owner. It's because he clearly never made a good effort to stay here or to at least try and make the Sonics watchable.

As long as Bennett's efforts exceeded those of Howard Shultz', Shultz chances of winning this suit is like that of a one legged-man in a butt-kicking contest.

[RabidRed]

As long as Bennett's efforts exceeded those of Howard Shultz', Shultz chances of winning this suit is like that of a one legged-man in a butt-kicking contest.

You didn't read about the service man returning to Iraq in the DOK did you? I might put my bets on him!

[Easy180]

There's a reaons why people in Seattle hate Clay Bennett, and it's not just because he isn't a local owner. It's because he clearly never made a good effort to stay here or to at least try and make the Sonics watchable.

You say all of this evidence of money and time spent trying to get an arena in Seattle so that the Sonics could stay there. Explain to me how, after 12 months, he only came up with 1 pathetic arena proposal that he knew never stood a chance anywhere. I can give you just as "good" of an arena proposal if you give me 12 minutes.

Just in case the OKC media doesn't tell you, he could have put a Sonics team that could contend for the playoffs, which would in turn have sold out the KeyArena almost every night. He could have had Durant, Ray Allen, and Rashard Lewis on the court at the same time, but of course that would allow the Sonics to win and would not help Bennett and Co convince the NBA that they should relocate to Oklahoma City.

It's a joke what the OKC media is telling you about the situation up in Seattle. They're trying to tell you that big bad Seattle and the meanies in the Washington State legislature are beating up little Clay Bennett no matter how hard he tried when he's only trying to do the right thing and make a profit in his business and that him losing money or moving to Oklahoma City is not his fault in any way. The OKC media could tell you you were dead and you'd believe them

I think I've read every single Sonics related article on the Times and PI over the past year and a half and still come to the conclusion that both parties in this situation are equally at fault...Your government has had 4 years to get something done and they did nada...Aside from passing a vindictive I-91 that is

Numerous times with numerous owners Olympia has sent them packing...I think too many folks in Seattle thought the league was just bluffing...Well guess what...They weren't

As for the one proposal made over 12 months...The legislature wouldn't even put it to a vote so why bother spending millions more when you know they won't even let it hit the floor?

This lawsuit festival won't do anything but prevent the NBA from returning to Seattle for a long long time

[Laramie]

RabidRed: "You didn't read about the service man returning to Iraq in the DOK did you? I might put my bets on him!"

Give me some excerpts from what you have read? I'm totally clueless.

Sounds as though we had a hero return with one leg that kicked more than butt in Iraq?

[SoonerDave]

srkboy:

Serious question here (or for anyone else who can answer):

What portions, if any, of the sales contract between the Bennett group and Schultz specified the terms of what constituted "good faith efforts"?

If Schultz had been truly so worried about keeping the Sonics in Seattle, identifying the acts of specific performance necessary to meet a contractual demand of "good faith acts" could easily have been enumerated, and ownership retained in full by Schultz had they not been met.

It isn't magic; you incorporate language to the effect of the original owner retaining 51% of the team upon initation of the agreement, and then a transfer of the remaining 49% to Bennett upon completion of items x, y, and z within so-many days certain that demonstrated whatever measure of "good faith" he wanted. But I don't think he did that - again, if he did, I'd love to see it. "Trying to create a winner" or "trying to make the team successful" isn't legal performance language - heck, I could argue that not "folding" the team is "trying" to make it succesful. It needs to be in writing - somehow - and to me that's why all this retrospective righteous indignation from Schultz sounds so terribly disingenuous.

Again, if there was language about good faith efforts in that sales contract, I'd love to see it, and have a lawyer read it to see if I'm anywhere near in the right ballpark. Contrary to that, I think all this legal nonsense is talk from a former owner who realized too late that the people pursuing his (former) franchise were serious - and now that the NBA has made the move "official," there's a great deal of hindsight CYA'ing going on...and Schultz won't mind spending a few million of his own fortune if it buys him even a bit of posterior-coverage in the public eye.

-sd

[RabidRed]

RabidRed: "You didn't read about the service man returning to Iraq in the DOK did you? I might put my bets on him!"

Give me some excerpts from what you have read? I'm totally clueless.

Sounds as though we had a hero return with one leg that kicked more than butt in Iraq?

Link Great story and someone to be proud of.

[Kerry]

It is really no more simple than this - Schultz excepted payment in full and cashed the check. Once you do that you have almost no chance of getting anything back. I learned that the hard way one time and I won't make that mistake again. I bet Schultz won't either.

[Midtowner]

It is really no more simple than this - Schultz excepted payment in full and cashed the check. Once you do that you have almost no chance of getting anything back. I learned that the hard way one time and I won't make that mistake again. I bet Schultz won't either.

You sold a basketball team and had an understanding of a good faith obligation to deal with the current home city before moving and you weren't able to get your team back when you petitioned a court to place the team into a constructive trust which would in turn convey the team to local ownership who was interested in keeping the team?

Good news!

[Kerry]

Well OK - not exactly the same thing. However, Schultz is asking the judge to define "good faith effort" and insert a new clause into the agreement for what happens if Bennett does put forth a good faith effort. Sincs Bennett didn't put either of them in the letter and Schultz accepted the letter and payment then I don't see any way the judge goes against both of their wishes at the time and insert them now.

It's a joke what the OKC media is telling you about the situation up in Seattle. - srkboy23

No, It is a joke what the Seattle media is telling you about the situation in Seattle. See, two can play this game.

[Midtowner]

Well OK - not exactly the same thing. However, Schultz is asking the judge to define "good faith effort" and insert a new clause into the agreement for what happens if Bennett does put forth a good faith effort. Sincs Bennett didn't put either of them in the letter and Schultz accepted the letter and payment then I don't see any way the judge goes against both of their wishes at the time and insert them now.

I'm pretty sure that Washington case law or statutes will give us a good idea of what "good faith" means in Washington. The restatement (which is a secondary law source, not authoritative, but very persuasive) says that there's an implied covenant of good faith in every transaction between the parties to make sure that the contract is executed.

A couple of issues pop out at me immediately -- the covenant is generally understood to be between the parties. Seattle was not a party to this contract, but merely a third-party beneficiary, and even that is arguable.

My understanding is that the 'deal with in good faith for 12 months' issue was in a side letter, not even in the actual contract. If that's the case, a court is probably going to be reluctant to unwind the deal on something it would deem to be an immaterial breach.

The major performance here was selling the team for $350M. That happened.

It's arguable whether Bennett, et. al. were in bad faith at all. It's arguable that Seattle even has standing here. It's arguable that the contract was no longer executory, but fully performed. it's arguable that even if all this stuff goes against the PBC, it's an immaterial breach anyhow, maybe compensable by some monetary damages, but the mother of all equitable remedies, conveyance into a constructive trust??? I think the chance of that remedy being granted here is about the same as Oklahoma State winning a national title in football next season.

[Kerry]

I'll take your word for everything Midtowner. What do you think about the company Schultz is using to bring the lawsuite with. The Company filling the lawsuit wasn't an owner of the Sonics. Could it be argued that only the LLC that originally owned the team be the only entity that can file a lawsuit on its behalf?

This just in from the A.P. - Las Vegas is reporting an unusally high number of wagers from the Pacific NW betting the OSU Cowbys will win the NC next year.

[betts]

Here's the link to the purchase contract. Look at the last document, #21, I believe. The three sections that jumped out at me, although I have no idea precisely what they mean, were 5.3, 7.3 and 9.6. I wondered if 7.3 was a blanket statement covering any other written materials between the buyer and seller, and I had no idea was 9.6 meant. 5.3 sounded like it was giving the buyer a lot of discretion on what he could do regarding accepting a lease or other offer. What do you lawyer types think?

http://www.king5.com/sharedcontent/n...-exhibits3.pdf

[andy157]

Here's the link to the purchase contract. Look at the last document, #21, I believe. The three sections that jumped out at me, although I have no idea precisely what they mean, were 5.3, 7.3 and 9.6. I wondered if 7.3 was a blanket statement covering any other written materials between the buyer and seller, and I had no idea was 9.6 meant. 5.3 sounded like it was giving the buyer a lot of discretion on what he could do regarding accepting a lease or other offer. What do you lawyer types think?

http://www.king5.com/sharedcontent/n...-exhibits3.pdf

betts, did you happen to read exhibit #19 4(G) dated 11/1/06 on page 7 of the document? What are (would be) your thoughts, or opinions? Would that constitute a breach of the contract under 7.3(A), or (B) of exhibit #21? Based upon any of the e-mails and/or A.M. statement? I'm not saying there was or was not a breach. I'm no Lawyer, just curious if you think #19 may be a factor. I see now what made Stern mad enough to slap A.M. with that $250,000. fine.

[flintysooner]

I've given up both my amateur psychology and amateur legal hobbies.

[betts]

betts, did you happen to read exhibit #19 4(G) dated 11/1/06 on page 7 of the document? What are (would be) your thoughts, or opinions? Would that constitute a breach of the contract under 7.3(A), or (B) of exhibit #21? Based upon any of the e-mails and/or A.M. statement? I'm not saying there was or was not a breach. I'm no Lawyer, just curious if you think #19 may be a factor. I see now what made Stern mad enough to slap A.M. with that $250,000. fine.

Here's the statement in question:
"The team does not have any present intention of, or agreement or arrangement with respect to selling, relocating or otherwise transferring the assets of the Team, other than exploring the alternatives to relocate the Team to a new arena in the greater Seattle, Washington area."

I believe Exhibit 19 is the contract with the NBA, not with Schultz, if I read it correctly. I don't know if that means the NBA would have to sue Bennett to enforce this. I also don't know if the side letter would be linked to this document as well, since that includes the provision that a new arena and lease are part of the conditions, which this statement doesn't mention.

I'm no lawyer either. If I read this correctly, the "sweet flip" e-mail still doesn't constitute fraud, as it and Ward's later e-mail regarding his possibly selling if the team gets a new arena would not violate this since that would imply the team would stay in Seattle were that to happen. I think they could sell at any time, as long as the team remained in Seattle. As far as McClendon's statement goes, I suppose it's going to hinge on interpretation of the statement. "We didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle, we "hoped" to move to Oklahoma." I don't have any precise quotes here, but I'm positive that in McClendon's interview, he also said that Seattle "still has time to come up with an arena and the team will stay if that happens".

So, is "hope" the same as "intention"? I don't know. Are actions more important than words? That will require at least a lawyer to determine.

[andy157]

I've given up both my amateur psychology and amateur legal hobbies.

Hobbies are therapeutic. Studies have shown that 1 hour of productive and meaningful use of ones spare time will add 1 minute to your life. Hopefully you've found others to fill the void.

[Laramie]

RabidRed:

Thanks for the link, that was a very touching article!

[Kerry]

So I have to spend an hour to gain 1 minute. Doesn't seem worth it to me. What would I do with the extra minute? Since that is one minute it at the end of my life it would probably just another minute of coughing and hacking. No thanks, I'll pass.

[OKCMallen]

I'm pretty sure that Washington case law or statutes will give us a good idea of what "good faith" means in Washington. The restatement (which is a secondary law source, not authoritative, but very persuasive) says that there's an implied covenant of good faith in every transaction between the parties to make sure that the contract is executed.

A couple of issues pop out at me immediately -- the covenant is generally understood to be between the parties. Seattle was not a party to this contract, but merely a third-party beneficiary, and even that is arguable.

My understanding is that the 'deal with in good faith for 12 months' issue was in a side letter, not even in the actual contract. If that's the case, a court is probably going to be reluctant to unwind the deal on something it would deem to be an immaterial breach.

The major performance here was selling the team for $350M. That happened.

It's arguable whether Bennett, et. al. were in bad faith at all. It's arguable that Seattle even has standing here. It's arguable that the contract was no longer executory, but fully performed. it's arguable that even if all this stuff goes against the PBC, it's an immaterial breach anyhow, maybe compensable by some monetary damages, but the mother of all equitable remedies, conveyance into a constructive trust??? I think the chance of that remedy being granted here is about the same as Oklahoma State winning a national title in football next season.

Seattle is not suing based on the good faith parol agreement. Seattle is suing based on the KeyArena lease. Schultz is suing based on the good faith argument. So, you're right, I don't think Seattle could even establish standing based on the good faith/constructive trust suit.

[BDP]

There's a reaons why people in Seattle hate Clay Bennett, and it's not just because he isn't a local owner. It's because he clearly never made a good effort to stay here or to at least try and make the Sonics watchable.

But you now love the guy who put this team in this situation in the first place!? Bennett has had only a mere fraction of the time to put together a watchable team that Schultz did. You're being ridiculous now and it's clear that it's who has been selectively sifting through media to find whatever trumped up and specious argument you can find and you're buying it all. We'll grab for anything when we're falling.

You say all of this evidence of money and time spent trying to get an arena in Seattle so that the Sonics could stay there. Explain to me how, after 12 months, he only came up with 1 pathetic arena proposal that he knew never stood a chance anywhere. I can give you just as "good" of an arena proposal if you give me 12 minutes.

Pathetic? He came up with a world class plan to give you an arena on par with your football and baseball facilities. It's the city and state that wanted to hang on to a pathetic arena and wouldn't talk about funding for anything else in any way. Jeez, that is one hard position for you to justify. And, really, why WOULDN'T an owner try and come up with the biggest and best plan? Face it, Bennett came up with the best plan and the state and city hung on the worst plan, one that got them in this situation in the first place. JUST ASK SCHULTZ!

Just in case the OKC media doesn't tell you, he could have put a Sonics team that could contend for the playoffs, which would in turn have sold out the KeyArena almost every night. He could have had Durant, Ray Allen, and Rashard Lewis on the court at the same time, but of course that would allow the Sonics to win and would not help Bennett and Co convince the NBA that they should relocate to Oklahoma City.

This is grabbing at straws. You're reaching. Aren't they getting an extra first round and second round draft pick this year? That's the future. A future that could have been in Seattle if they had even tried to work with the group. You could have had Durant, Ray Allen, Rashard Lewis, a new arena, local ownership, actual support for the team and blah blah blah. But that's the problem. All you're doing now is thinking about what could have been done, but you guys said no for four years and now you want someone else to pay for that!? That's pretty sad.

It's a joke what the OKC media is telling you about the situation up in Seattle. They're trying to tell you that big bad Seattle and the meanies in the Washington State legislature are beating up little Clay Bennett no matter how hard he tried when he's only trying to do the right thing and make a profit in his business and that him losing money or moving to Oklahoma City is not his fault in any way. The OKC media could tell you you were dead and you'd believe them

I'm sorry, but I read the very same facts in your media. Is the city not suing to keep them team in Seattle where it loses money, has no prospect for a new arena, has no future plans whatsoever to upgrade the Sonics facilities on par with that of your other teams? Is Schultz not suing to reneg on his sale leaving the PBC out all the money they spent trying to get an arena built there and without a team? These are simple facts and I don't need Seattle or Oklahoma media to explain to me that this is all out of vengeance.

The PBC has offered to get your city out of debt in regards to Key arena and give you market value for the lease. Seattle to the PBC: "no way, if you're leaving you must lose money first". Seattle has given them two options: give up the team or bleed cash for two years. Is your media saying any different? Are you justifying this? Do you think that just because it didn't work out for your side then everything was done in bad faith? Come on, grow up. Some things just don't work out, but if you think that an extensive effort was not made to get an arena built from Schultz through Bennett, then you're kidding yourself.

You can tell it's unraveling when you start saying that this is all because of how the PBC managed the team. YOU KNOW that they bought a struggling team that was in that position because of Schultz and Seattle government, not Bennett, and you know, as a Sonics fan, that they have made moves to upgrade their team for the near future. And you know that Bennett's plans were not only not even considered by the legislature, but that the city actually passed measures to make sure it'd be hard for them to do a similar deal with municipal funds. You know the message was clear from Seattle and Washington from the beginning that it was in no way interested in helping them upgrade the Sonics facilities. You may have not liked the timeline, but it didn't take very long for the people of Seattle to get together and tell the owners where they stood.

Have you only been following this since the BOG approved the move or maybe only since the PBC bought the team? None of this is new. Seattle and Washington took a principled stand this time around and said no to assisting professional sports. I actually have great respect for that. More cities should do it, so we can stop this whole cycle. But I can not respect the fact that a bitter community simply wants to punish these owners for the results of their very stand. It has undermined the entire principle that supposedly was the motivation for not funding any arena project. It's not the owners fault that Washington has been unable to reconcile their core principles with the realities of the business of professional sports today. Washington has clearly stated that it has a great deal of contempt for the way the NBA has treated them, but then it wants nothing more than to be a part of the NBA.

Look, this is all very dirty and I probably couldn't sleep at night if I was involved. But I have a hard time believing that you were on the steps of the capitol or city hall supporting any kind of funding for arena upgrades or assistance. Or that you were pleading with officials to try and meet the PBC half way. If you're like most vocal Washingtonians, you were actually protesting and supporting measures to actually make it as hard as possible for anything to get done.

It's completely disingenuous now to argue that Bennett didn't do enough, either with the team or with infrastructure efforts and it's nothing but vindictive to suggest the PBC should bleed cash at Key trough the end of their lease or that they should forfeit their team so someone else can do what he tried to do, especially in light of officials' refusal to even entertain Bennett's offers from day one. What you're really saying is that Bennett just didn't jump high enough to clear all of the extra hurdles and resistance that Washington put in his way. I mean, are trying to tell us you were just kidding now? That refusing to work with him, refusing to consider his proposals, and that the passage of I-91 were just some sort of friendly hazing directed at the new guy and if he just said, "ok, I know you guys are just goofin on me, let's get serious now", then he'd have had some sort of warmer response today than he did when he was officially campaigning for new infrastructure? Come on, seriously. The refusal to entertain Bennett's efforts was the will of people and now they want him to pay for that.

And to be clear, that's my opinion based on the facts, not one fed to me from any media editorial. And if you want to know my opinion on the Oklahoma media: it sucks. It has a poor handle on what is going on, as usual, and it has a clear and cushy bias towards Bennett and McClendon et al in everything they do. But, again, and you know this, that doesn’t change the nature or motivation of the lawsuits being filed by the city and in federal district court.

[OKCMallen]

Bdp Ftw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1