Comments on Decision in Sonics Case Due Today at 4pm

God I can't wait for this to be over. Maybe then you'll have something interesting to post.

What would interest you, Mr Poon?

Anything but the Sonics. The Sonics aren't even interested in the Sonics.

Josh why would the Sonics owe revenue sharing? Wasn't the deal that they would share revenue from the new posh seating that didn't sell, therefore there was little revenue to share?

The question the city should have asked current and past Sonic owners: Would the contract have allowed the Sonics to leave at any time by only paying the base rent? Could the Sonics have left in 1997 saying the deal for revenue sharing and the specific performance clause that induced the city to make the deal no longer was in effect?

Josh...this little game where you keep introducing the idea that the City could be compensated by free tix is bullshit. As a taxpayer of Seattle, I'd find such a solution to be the worst-possible outcome.

If you want tix, then go buy tix. A large proportion of the citizens of Seattle just want our money where we can put it to more important use around the City.

...and, Tom Carr on the cover of Sports Illustrated? Perhaps if the City had fought this case with a unified voice against the NBA, then we might see that story line. As it is, Mr. Mayor and Ceis have been diluting that message for months.

Send the Sonics packing, and put a bull-dog of a collector on their ass until we've been reimbursed every penny we're owed. Anything short of that will be further corporate welfare given to the NBA.

Josh - So, down with Ceis, up with Carr? Really? Am I reading that right? Really? Ceis = incompetent loser; Carr = superstar? Really? Quick! Someone call Batman, Wonder Woman and Green Lantern! Josh is stuck in Bizzaro World and he needs their help to get out! Either that or I'm stuck in Bizzaro World. Help! Help!

u are unemployed

It all comes down to whether the judge is all about contracts, or all about being pro-monied-interests.

If she's all about contracts, the Sonics will be forced to live by the terms of their contract.

If she's about the money, we'll be ripped off yet again.

and, Mr Poe for the win @1.

I don't understand -- why would anyone want to keep in town a team whose ownership wants to leave? That can't be good for anyone.

@10 - I agree. As if this season wasn't pathetic enough, the city wants two more years of a lame-duck, non-competitive team with zero fan interest? Really?

There are only two satisfactory outcomes:
1. New owners sell the team (not gonna happen)
2. They leave immediately and the city gets paid (hopefully more than the owners were offering by at least the amount of our legal fees for the lawsuit).

@10 and @11;

The two years (or even just one more year) gives us time to find a way to keep basketball in the city. NBA can avoid a serious public relations nightmare by giving a new team to Seattle or Oklahoma (a variety of different scenarios can create this).

Bottom line: if the city loses this case, then goodbye to the sonics immediately and NBA basketball is gone for a looooong time (eg. Kansas City and San Diego).

Mr. Poe, you should consider something else to occupy your prodigious slogging time.

I do whatever the hell I want, and I get away with it, a'thank you.

@10 and 11, both Mariners and Seahawks owners wanted to leave at times. Was it not worth the effort to keep those teams here?

And if I hear "But the Sonics suck!" one more time, I'll puke. Teams suck. Franchises, on the other hand, have great years AND terrible years. If the Sonics leave, we're losing a franchise, not just the current team of hacks.

@14 -- no, IMO, it was not worth the effort to keep the Mariners or Seahawks. But I'm not a sports-watcher so I'm basically just pissed at having to subsidize their businesses with my tax money.

And, no, there will not be a "PR disaster" if the Sonics depart -- the NFL seemed to survive not having a team in LA, for example.

If you want an NBA team in Seattle, then let the Sonics go and petition to get an NBA franchise with owners who want to stay. But 2 years of lame-duck ball seems incredibly stupid. Is that what you really want to shell out $$$ to go see?

Josh: Here's hoping the city gets didly/squat, so that every city in the nation learns that pro sports teams aren't worth the bother -- they are traffic and financial nightmares.

Will in Seattle: You are trying to set yourself up to believe that, if the judge doesn't require specific performance, she must be corrupt, but it's not that simple. Go read the Wikipedia entry on "Specific Performance" (no, I didn't edit it), and you will see that it is almost never imposed. As a matter of common law tradition, every contract has a moneary value and can be broken by paying that ammount.

Word to Timmothy @ 5. The sooner as the Sonics pack up and leave, the sooner Sherman Alexie will conclude that Seattle has no soul and follow them. Then the rest of us can stop reading his drivle and get back to gentrifying Ballard and enjoying our sushi and mega-yachts.

Josh - are you paying attention? This case will not decide how much the Sonics owe the city. That's a separate issue - not to be decided at 4pm today.

The reporting about the case has mentioned this a couple of times.

So whether Judge Carr rules that the Sonics have to pay or play (or both) won't decide how much.

It's like how "sentencing" is a different part of criminal trials than "guilty or not guilty"