Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on City Taking Sonics to Court

1

It's over 10 megs, but if anyone wants to read it you can find it at:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/09/24/2003899710.pdf

Posted by Blue Eyed Buddhist | September 24, 2007 3:15 PM
2

when they want us to pay for an arena they boast about how much they bring to the region. when they want to leave, they only want to pay a little of that to get out. look, either you are valuable to us or not... you can't have it both ways.

i don't want to have public money pay for you. but you cannot take our money and our investment and leave. no, you will have to make good if you want out early. make good on the money, make good on our investment, and make good on all the other supposed benefits you will be taking from us.

Posted by infrequent | September 24, 2007 3:33 PM
3

No leaving early for the Okies, not matter how much the potential settlement. They want to play hardball? Seattle fans have been through a lot more than these jackasses. I am excited for this brawl.

Posted by Clint | September 24, 2007 3:59 PM
4

@2 - Sort of. The argument is that the city already built Key Arena under the premise the Sonics would be here through 2010 (a poor financial decision on the part of the city, but it was the decision nonetheless).

The Sonics bring some good to the local economy, just not enough good to justify building yet another new arena. Since Key Arena is already here, the city would lose income if the Sonics left early.

Posted by Mahtli69 | September 24, 2007 4:22 PM
5

@4 yeah -- that's what i meant to get at. not only would we lose money if they left early, but we would lose all the benefits. when we agreed to renovate the key, we did so with financial aims in mind, and intangible aims as well. even if the okies can pay the financial concerns (so the city is even if they stay or go) we still lose the intangibles.

i say let them go, but make them pay enough so that the city (we) don't lose money and are compensated for the other related benefits we would be losing.

Posted by infrequent | September 24, 2007 4:41 PM
6

just to be clear: i want the city to fight for the sonics to stay only if that is the most financially viable option. if breaking their lease requires a payment that will make the city more money, then let them go... anything less, then they should be stuck here until the lease is up (or at pay even if they don't play here).

Posted by infrequent | September 24, 2007 4:46 PM
7

I think we now have a fourth big-league sport in this city: screwing the Okies 8 ways to Sunday. Hooo-ahhhh!

Posted by croydonfacelift | September 24, 2007 10:32 PM
8

if they leave - with an empty Key Arena - then the losses will be staggering

stupid rubes, Seattle is a landlord, no rent, no income, big problems

tap tap tap into your pocket for tax money

Posted by lloyd rockefellar | September 24, 2007 10:43 PM
9

THE KLINGON EMPIRE IS REAL - HEAR SEATTLE ROAR

Posted by BINESAH KAFONGAH | September 24, 2007 10:47 PM
10

God, lawyers and sports owners are like four-year-olds with bigger vocabularies.

Posted by Greg | September 25, 2007 7:40 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).