Comments on Unsettling

The simple answer is that they settled because they thought they were going to lose.

And probably be handed their defeat in a 90-page, career-ending legal decision from Judge Pechman taking them to task not only for their underhanded, but inept strategy.

They're leaving. That's the point when we were going to stop being subjected to the drama, right?

I'm not sure this argument works; you can't really put a dollar value on a human life, either, but it regularly happens in our legal system.

As far as how much sense any of this makes - it comes down to garbage in, garbage out. The business model has the public assuming the risk so owners and players realize the profit. Ostensibly this is worth it because of the intangible benefits and prestige that comes with an NBA team. Yet, when the owners have to settle, the only dollar value they put forward is the contracted lease amount...the intangibles and prestige obviously have no market value to them. They only want it to have value to us so it increases their profit.

Good riddance; I only hope we have the sense to realize the 'extra' $30M isn't worth what we'd spend for the honor of losing more money and dealing with more unrealistic demands.

Josh, glad to know you're on KUOW in a few minutes; I've been listening to KJR all morning (which I almost never do), and those guys are seriously losing their shit.

Again, here's Seattle's problem. Every argument has a counterargument Josh, you'not Einstein because you found one. They negotiated in court. The judge made each side nervous they'd lose in order to get them reach a settlement.

@2 nails it. It's over. There's no need for endless debate Seattle. $45 million agreed, and it's more than the $26.5 offered period. I have to agree that the $30 million is only face saving and will never be paid. You can construct an argument how it works, but it requires pretty tortured logic.

For once, left coast nails it.

So, when do we get a decent curling, NHL, or other expansion team here, for those times when sports fans like myself aren't going for the cheap Husky tix to the Mariners games or watching the primo soccer action from our season ticket seats?

Can we use the $30 million for THAT instead? Cause, other than the Storm ...

Next stop, Okie Arena.

Actually it's pretty simple. If Olympia approves a funding mechanism (allow the current restaurant/car rental tax to be used to upgrade the Key) by next year and Seattle does not have an NBA team to replace the Sonics by 2013 Bennett pays another 30 Mil. to the City. How is that hard to understand? And the fact that Stern said the Key is OK for upgrade means no 500 mil Sports Palace in Renton or anywhere else. It's as good a deal as the city was going to get, not to mention they got rid of the worst team in the NBA.

@6, for God's sake, shut up about the curling already. We get it. You're a Canadian rube. Great stuff.

If we give Clay back his $45MM can he take Will in Seattle somewhere else?

@8, it's not simple. The Legislature has one, and only one year 2009, to approve that tax. Do it in 2010, no $30 million. Then, the state has to put in at least $75 million into the Key in order to get $30 million from Bennet but only if the NBA won't okay another team and then only after 2013. So, the state has to carry $75 in debt for 4 years. Finally, it has put $75 million in with the blind faith that the NBA team that may come will be happy with the renovations (the new Sonics owners weren't last time). The only sure thing is that the state will not get $75 million in value for $75 million put into the Key. Bennet's betting $30 million that no one in the Legislature is going to take that risk.

Josh (and Napoleon), in reaching your judgments about who was going to win, I'm sure you read the case law cited by each of the parties and came to a conclusion as to which way it leaned, based on the facts that came into the record during trial.

What's that? No? You're just going by your subjective observations of how the judge reacted to each side's lawyers in the courtroom, plus your gut instinct as to why a party would or wouldn't settle? Well, I'm sure that's just as good.

It's great that the media covering this trial knew so much about the law!

Yup.

@10
They still got 45 mil and rid of the worst team in the NBA. But what debt? The state sets up the mechanism that will provide 75 Mil for a key rehab (which it needs anyway) not money in the bank. Like this: The city sells bonds to raise the cash and the state allows a tax to pay it off. That's how it works. So nothing is due upfront, just an obligation to pay off the debt. The city any the new owners put up the rest. And if there is no NBA team for sale, no expansion, or no team that wants to move, Bennett pays another 30 mil. in 5 years. IMO, a pretty good deal.

Lawyers constantly make deals that "contradict[] the central arguments you made in court." It's our job to make the most favorable case we can, regardless of whether our rhetoric is consistent with a potential settlement. Meanwhile, a lot of clients take deals that the lawyers wouldn't, if it was left up to the lawyers. But the client's the boss.

@13, yep, that meets the definition of debt, and the state has to pay interest on it. The team that was moving said the rehab was necessary, not everyone agrees. Paying $75 million to get $30 million is not a good deal.

@15, kind of. The debt service on the $75MM would come from tourist taxes (hotels, car rentals, restaurants, etc.), not the state's general coffers.

Just read some articles on The Oklahoman's website, newsok.com. The links are a kick. In top viewed local stories, "Oklahoma City gets NBA team" is right over "Dog sex tapes lead to arrests."

@16, and I guess whether Bill Clinton had sex with Monica did depend on your definition of "sex".

@1 is right.

The settlement deal is charade to have us miss the fact the city was going to lose and they knew it they aren't going to get the 30 mill so they fucked up with the trial they could've gotten $$$$ anytime.

yes exactly -- a 90 page opinion detailing Gorton's unethical conduct, how city leaders lied, etc. was feared...rather a big downside in politics to have a US judge rule you have unclean hands ...or lied.

PC @19:

The "unclean hands" info was already public when the settlement occurred.

Even a judge repeating it wouldn't make it any worse.

It was still most likely the city would win.

What Nickels was probably afraid of was the following situation: the city won, kept the team for two more years, and had nothing to show for it but a big financial hole on the Key Arena payments and a permanently pissed off NBA. (Now, they're cash positive and only have a pragmatically greedy NBA! Whee.)