Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Emergency Contraception Emerge... | Late in the Afternoon at Cal A... »

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Politics Sonics’s Offensive

Posted by JOSH FEIT on April 18 at 18:05 PM

The Sonics sent a letter to the city today saying the city needs to decide whether or not it’s going to commit to $200 million worth of renovations and a new Key arena lease by next month. (The Sonics said they’d be willing to kick in about $18.3 million.) Hat tip: Seattlest.

What always bugs me about the Sonics’s line is this spin, always faithfully reported, as it is here in the AP story:

In February, majority owner Howard Schultz threatened to possibly move or sell the city’s oldest major league professional sports franchise, saying the team has lost about $60 million in the past five years, blaming a revenue-sharing lease with the city of Seattle that lasts until 2010. Unlike nearly all of their NBA rivals, the Sonics don’t keep the revenue from luxury suites, parking and concessions at home games. NBA commissioner David Stern called the Sonics’ lease the worst in the league and last week said that inaction on the issue has shown that the city is “not interested in having the NBA there.”

What the stories rarely add is this context: The city already lent the team $77 million to renovate the Key just 10 years ago—with debt service the bill stands at about $130 million according to the city. And while the Sonics were supposed to pay down the debt with their revenues, the city is actually subsidizing those payments to the tune of $2.2 million a year since 2000. (Nearly $3 million last year.)

Permalink

CommentsRSS icon

1

You'd think they'd come down a little to create an APPEARANCE of compromise. I think the Sonics owners the ones that don't want to be in Seattle.

Posted by trevor | April 18, 2006 10:42 PM

2

Yay, maybe they will really leave. One down, two to go!

Posted by gfish | April 18, 2006 11:09 PM

3

$18 million is just insulting. Truly chicken feed for the computer, coffee, and cell phone bajillionaires who currently own the team (and for whom, if nothing else, just losing money on the Sonics in perpetuity is actually probably a pretty good deal come tax time).

The NBA's gonna love the prestige and media revenue they will find in Reno or Oklahoma City...

Posted by Mr. X | April 18, 2006 11:15 PM

4

Oklahoma City will probably get the Sonics, and they can have them.

Posted by Gomez | April 18, 2006 11:20 PM

5

Bye-bye.

Posted by Slam dunk | April 19, 2006 9:36 AM

6

Speaking of offensive:

Sonics is the plural of Sonic (well, SuperSonic) -- thus, its possessive form only takes a ', not a 's.

Where were you in grade school, bitch?

Posted by ap style | April 19, 2006 9:39 AM

7

I personally don't care if the Sonics leave or not, but I suspect that if the Sonics up the contribution to at least 40 to 50 million (Richard McIver said he'd accept 40 million), the arena deal can be done. Don't be suprised if they get it done with an increased contribution from the Sonics.

Posted by Peter | April 19, 2006 9:40 AM

8

I suspect that if the Sonics up the contribution to at least 40 to 50 million (Richard McIver said he'd accept 40 million), the arena deal can be done.

Read the letter. It's a non-negotiable offer, according to the Sonics.

But just think of what they could do with $18 million Oklahoma City! Or Reno! That's a lot of $1.99 casino buffets.

Posted by Explorer | April 19, 2006 10:08 AM

9

Explorer, as I recall, the letter said "not less" than $18.3 which reading between the lines implies the possibility for negotiating upwards.

As I said, I won't lose any sleep if the Sonics didn't pony up more $$$ and left town. Let the Key be used by the Rat City Rollergirls, an indoor Lacrosse franchise:), or other artistic and creative events.

Posted by Peter | April 19, 2006 10:45 AM

10

I agree with letting the Sonics walk and putting the Key to better use... but let's not kid ourselves: indoor Lacrosse and roller derby will not fill the Key, even with a restructure. Part of the Sonics gripe is that the Key is difficult to expand and restructure.

They'll need to do what other second and third tier cities like Little Rock, Omaha and Birmingham do with their arenas: run a bunch of big money concerts, special sporting events, and wrestling shows. There's no money in roller derby or minor sports.

Posted by Gomez | April 19, 2006 10:58 AM

11

The problem with letting the sonics go is that the key will still lose lots of money. Tours hate coming to key arena because the liquor laws are ridiculous and there is more paperwork to set up a concert there than anywhere else. We'll not only lose 41 nights of revenue, but also continue to lose concerts to venues like the tacoma dome.

Posted by Nate | April 19, 2006 11:35 AM

12

Caught in all this stupid posturing are the Storm, the only professional sports team in Seattle I have ever (or likely will ever) watched. On an emotional level, I want them to stay. But I'd rather have them leave than cave in to this bullshit maneuver. David Stern's proclamation only makes me add "Don't let the door hit you on your way out".

Posted by guinevere | April 19, 2006 4:05 PM

13

I find it hard to believe that the owners of the Sonics, especially Schultz, bought the team as a legitimate investment. They would be better off investing their money in the stock market. They bought the team to make themselves look good, not to make money.

When I first saw the post title, I thought it said that the Sonics are offensive. I completely agree.

Posted by keshmeshi | April 20, 2006 12:38 PM

Comments Closed

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