Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Closing Arguments


I cannot believe that Bennett's attorneys have managed to poison an otherwise clear-cut case: Lease signed, lease broken. How the hell did anything else become relevant?

Posted by Sam M. | June 26, 2008 12:28 PM

Bye-bye Sonics?

Posted by Hernandez | June 26, 2008 12:48 PM

So, what will it mean if all your predictions are totally off and the case comes out the other way?

Posted by Horton | June 26, 2008 12:59 PM

the parties will be back in court no matter what she rules. how is that relevant to enforcing a lease without an escape clause?

Posted by max solomon | June 26, 2008 1:03 PM

1) This should be a clear-cut case.
2) Upon what mandate has the city been working behind the scenes trying to find buyers for the Sonics?
3) Seattle is blowing an opportunity to stand up to the NBA and slam the door on their asses as they leave town.

Posted by Timothy | June 26, 2008 1:40 PM

Clay Bennett & Co. haven't broken the lease. I don't get what the City of Seattle is suing about yet. I'm all for keeping the Sonics here, but who is suing who for what at this point? Clay hasn't broken the lease (yet) and the Sonics are still playing in Seattle. Lawyers out there -- don't they have to technically break the lease before Seattle can sue?

Posted by Danny | June 26, 2008 4:33 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.