Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« New Reasons to be Repulsed by ... | A Lung, a Nail, and an Intenti... »

Friday, February 17, 2006

Politics The Sonics’ Empty Bellevue Threat

Posted by JOSH FEIT on February 17 at 15:36 PM

Sonics V.P. Terry McLaughlin scoffed at the recent city study that showed Key Arena could make a profit without the Sonics, telling the Seattle Times that the findings only hold up if the team leaves the region.

His point being: If Bellevue builds a new arena, it would steal a portion of the profitable concert business from Key Arena.

Here’s why that’s an empty threat: Because it works both ways. That is, Key Arena will steal concert buisness from Bellevue too.

That’s a big problem for the Sonics. In order for the Sonics to be profitable they need all the revenue from the 20 or so concerts that currently come through Key. This is the NBA model. Since the NBA business plan is unworkable with its crazy high salaries, they ink deals all over the country that give teams the revenue from the concerts. (At Key, the city gets the money from concerts.)

The Sonics wouldn’t set up shop in Bellevue because it couldn’t guarantee them enough concert money.

Permalink

CommentsRSS icon

1

wait.. the city gets the money from the concerts, which the sonics need, which is why they should stay at key? I don't understand.

Posted by huervos | February 17, 2006 3:43 PM

2

City currently gets the revenues of concerts at Key...We're the landlord.

The bill in Olympia would change that. (And if the Sonics went to Bellevue, I'm sure they'd get a deal where they'd get the revenues from the concerts there as well.)

The only reason the Sonics "need" the money (as do all other NBA teams) is cuz the NBA's business model of paying sky high salaries isn't profitable. So, they've gone into the Stadium/Mall/Entertainment biz.

The Sonics were never supposed to get the concert revenue at Key, but now they're clamoring for it.

Posted by Josh Feit | February 17, 2006 3:53 PM

3

The Sonics Empty Bellevue Threat

How often?

Posted by Rory | February 17, 2006 3:55 PM

4

I'm all for firing the sonics.

Posted by seattle98104 | February 17, 2006 4:01 PM

5

A-ha! Now I understand perfectly-- thanks Josh.

I hate to not speak American for a moment, and I fucking love the sonics and go to as many of their games as possible, AND I'm not against a little taxpayer subsidy to keep a good team in town, but I'm tired of getting dicked around by billionaires and in this case, fuck 'em. Go to Bellevue and be the "Bellevue Supersonics" if you want (the rest of America: "who?").

I'll still go to your games when I can, though it will be far less convenient for me. I can't even believe this idea is still on the table when we haven't finished paying for their shit from the nineties. And who's to say they're not just gonna demand more ten years from now after we've already stuck ourselves with their current proposal. We should all be laughing in their faces.

Posted by huervos | February 17, 2006 4:19 PM

6

Hey, how about some names of state reps that are on the fence with this? I'm in the mood to make some phonecalls.

Posted by mason | February 17, 2006 4:29 PM

7

Huervos,
Try five years.
Check this out:
NBA arenas built before 1960 lasted an average of 59 years.
NBA arenas built in the 60s lasted an average of 30 years.
(You see where this is going.)
In the 70s an average of 25 years.
In the 80s, an average of 20 years.
And judging, from Key Arena (revamped in 1995) the downward trend continues.

Of the NBA arenas currently in use, the average age is 10 years. Only 6 have been in service more than 15 years, and most of these are already slated for replacement.

Posted by Josh Feit | February 17, 2006 4:30 PM

8

They WILL demand more in 10 more years. The Key is an older building. After we put $260mil into it in 2010, by 2020 it will be outdated again, and they will need more money, which is when they will start getting the tax revenues. At the same time, right around then, Seahawks Stadium and Safeco Field will need repairs and updating, and they will expect public money from them. This will mean more taxes. On top of that, McCaw Hall will need money for upkeep as they are not meeting their revenue projections. Add it up.

Posted by Meinert | February 17, 2006 4:31 PM

9

I say that not one dime of taxpayer money should be spent on any of these stadiums unless the city owns a share of the team, and the team can not leave, ever.

Posted by SDA in SEA | February 17, 2006 9:14 PM

10

The "Bellevue Supersonics". Ha ha!

Posted by Justin | February 17, 2006 11:06 PM

11

Boycott Starbucks.

Posted by Raw Data | February 18, 2006 7:38 AM

12

Good information Josh - opponents need to get their clear talking points in a row.

The Big Heat is on - and people like sports teams.

In Bellevue they woud still be the Seattle Sonics. It is a suburb - Microsoft is in Seattle to the rest of the world.

Posted by U Smith | February 18, 2006 1:25 PM

13

But, oh, maybe the Bellevue Sonics --- back then, remember the Annaheim Dodgers...... that was funny for the whole world

Posted by U Smith | February 20, 2006 3:43 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).