Things are looking better and better for the Sonics. The array of lawsuits against their ownership are demonstrating that even more evil lurks in Clay Bennett's computer than previously thought. As I wrote a while ago, "Given that the e-mails came out of discovery in the city lawsuit, who knows what other dirty laundry might show up to aid the various cases for keeping the Sonics?" Some more dirty laundry has in fact come tumbling out of the closet, which should push the credibility of Bennett and his group into negative numbers if it wasn't there already.
The best of the newly-released e-mails, which came as part of Howard Schultz's lawsuit to unwind the sale, showed that two days before he bought the team, Bennett was already contemplating a "sweet flip" to obtain another team and move them to Oklahoma City if by some chance an arena solution materialized in Seattle. ESPN legal analyst Lester Munson had a great column stating that the new information gives Schultz a substantial case (thanks to Seth Kolloen for the link). As Munson writes, "The allegations against Bennett and his group are serious and seem to indicate a fraud at the time of the sale. The chronology of the e-mails is compelling evidence that will allow Schultz to push Bennett and his group into a bad corner." This might even be enough to make fighting this lawsuit out all the way better than using the leverage it provides, as I advocated previously, but there's still the risk of a loss taking away all the city's bargaining power, and you can bet that the NBA won't be in a hurry to negotiate with a city that tried to take it out in court.
The best aspect of Schultz's lawsuit is that it advocates revoking the sale and turning the team over to a "constructive trust," administered by a judge, which would then sell the franchise to local ownership. Thus, Schultz isn't in it to get the team back, which strengthens his case: it allows him to argue that the sale was fraudulent without him benefiting if it is voided. Munson called the "constructive trust" language "a brilliant idea," and considered it one of the key components in making the case "more than a public relations stunt."
Another fantastic e-mail that came out later in the week showed that the NBA itself questioned Bennett's "good-faith efforts" after Aubrey McClendon's ill-advised comments to the Oklahoma Journal-Record. The Seattle Times has a great list of the key e-mails that have been released so far: reading those, it becomes even harder to understand David Stern's assertion that "Clay, as the managing partner and the driving force of the group, was operating in good faith."
As more information comes out, it's looking increasingly likely that there's still a chance to keep the Sonics in Seattle, particularly with the Schultz lawsuit. Hopefully, this will prove that pro sports franchises and their owners can't just selectively pick and choose which laws to adhere to. This kind of blatant lying to facilitate a potentially fraudulent purchase wouldn't be acceptable in the corporate world, so it shouldn't be acceptable in the sports world. The sad thing is, though, this situation was pretty obvious ever since Schultz sold the team to Bennett. Just about everyone knew he would do anything to get a team to Oklahoma, but if he hadn't slipped up by revealing such in detailed and indiscreet e-mails, he'd likely already be there. This should serve as a warning to sports fans everywhere: be very, very careful with out-of-town owners, particularly if they have interests in another market without a team. Many of them will try to move, and it's unlikely that they'll all prove as incompetent as Bennett has.
Despite all this incriminating evidence about Bennett's intentions that should cause concern among NBA management, Stern is still sticking to his guns about moving the team. That demonstrates that this isn't entirely about relocation, or media markets: it's really about the public paying for teams' arenas, a huge goal of Stern's. Oklahoma City is willing to throw public money at the NBA, while Seattle is more reluctant: in Stern's view, that seems to make up for its other obvious deficiencies, such as being the country's 45th-largest media market. As Henry Abbott pointed out in this excellent TrueHoop piece, "Right now, the way it commonly happens is that teams ask for a sweetheart deal, and if they don't get it, they leave for somewhere that will give a sweetheart deal. All that happens with the blessing of the NBA, an organization that serves the owners." The lawsuits, the incriminating information, and the court proceedings will undoubtedly help the case to keep NBA basketball in Seattle, but in the end, the city and the state will still have to come forward with some money. It doesn't have to be a ridiculous plan like Bennett's $500 million arena in Renton: the Ballmer alternative keeps sounding better and better, but in the end, there will still need to be public money involved. The amount, the source and the terms are up for debate, but public funding of arenas to some degree is a necessary evil these days: if your town isn't willing to pony up the cash, some other city inevitably will.
Related:
- Henry Abbott has more on how this case is casting a shadow over an otherwise great playoffs.
- Abbott on how Aubrey McClendon's honesty makes him "4% more likable than the other owners" (a comparison to Josh Howard recently admitting to smoking marijuana).
- A hilarious-in-retrospect October 1, 2006 piece from the Tacoma News-Tribune's Frank Hughes, which features Clay Bennett serving lamb testicles to unsuspecting Seattle businessmen (is that ever a metaphor!), and also the following paragraph: "Ask anyone who knows Clay Bennett, and most say he is straightforward, a "straight shooter" as they say down here. He might not always give you an answer, they say, but he does not lie. He is a tough negotiator, but fair. He knows when he has leverage, and is not afraid to use it to his advantage, but does not necessarily take advantage of people."
- Seth Kolloen on Clay Bennett's inferiority complex over at Enjoy the Enjoyment.
- Greg Johns of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on how the city plans to pursue its lawsuit.
- Seattle Times columnist Jerry Brewer has a hilarious mock e-mail exchange with David Stern and Clay Bennett.
- The Times' Percy Allen has a good piece on Richard Yarmuth, Howard Schultz's lawyer, who was involved in the city's lawsuit against the American League after the Pilots left town that resulted in the league granting the town the Mariners franchise (the same lawsuit current city representative Slade Gorton spearheaded).
- A post at Hotdog and Friends showing that Bennett was happy to hold a gun to Oklahoma legislators' heads as well. They also have a good post on how David Stern defies logic. (Thanks to Deadspin for the link).
Showing posts with label Howard Schultz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Howard Schultz. Show all posts
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
Sonics: A super-sized challenge
Today, the NBA owners voted 28-2 to allow Clayton "Buccaneer" Bennett to relocate the Seattle SuperSonics to Oklahoma City. The only franchises opposed to the move were Mark Cuban's Dallas Mavericks and Paul Allen's Portland Trail Blazers, which is disappointing: you'd think Bennett's blatant lies might have caused a few other owners to question the wisdom of this move, especially given that the idea is to relocate from the 14th largest media market to the 45th.
Of course, Bennett is now claiming that it's all a big misunderstanding. As the Associated Press reported, "When he wrote, 'I am a man possessed! Will do everything we can,' he meant he was determined to find a way for the Sonics to remain in the city, Bennett contended." That might fly if your name is David Stern and you don't find it necessary to actually study e-mails by one of your ownership groups that could show misrepresentation and fraud in their purchase of a franchise. Unfortunately, it seems that the majority of the owners have the same attention to detail as Stern, as Stern told Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter Greg Johns. "I would say none among the 30 owners questioned the good faith of Clay Bennett as the leader of this franchise and accepted his assurance that he'd acted in good faith," Stern said.
Apart from the irony of an overly pompous man like Stern who prides himself on acting smarter than everyone else making a grammatical slip-up (none among the owners accepted his assurance?), this also seems to indicate that the NBA owners aren't especially interested in Bennett's underhanded dealings. Of course, it's in their advantage to favour him: if robber barons like Bennett can simply pack up and leave for more favorable climes when they aren't given free arenas at public expense, it gives each owner more leverage in their negotiations with their own cities. Helping Bennett isn't good for the league, but it's advantageous for many individual franchises, particularly those looking for new arena funding from the public purse. That doesn't make for good optics, though: as Basketball Prospectus contributor Maury Brown wrote last November, "Watching an ownership group purchase a team with the transparent means of hijacking them to another city, or using relocation as an extortion ploy to get a new arena, is enough to make any fan nauseous."
In the end, though, basketball in Seattle isn't irrevocably doomed: the challenges have just gotten bigger. There's always the chance the city will receive an expansion team, and Bennett seems amicable to leaving behind the team name and history. What would be even better, though, would be retaining the current team. That's still possible, especially with the tri-pronged array of court battles yet to be fought: Howard Schultz's lawsuit to get back the team, the city's lawsuit to enforce the team's lease through 2010, and a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Sonics' season-ticket holders who feel Bennett misrepresented the team's plans to stay in Seattle to them to convince them to buy tickets. Given that the e-mails came out of discovery in the city lawsuit, who knows what other dirty laundry might show up to aid the various cases for keeping the Sonics?
Also, Bennett seems to be feeling the strain: in a recent brief in the city case, he accused Seattle leadership of a "Machiavellian plan" to force him to sell the Sonics to local ownership. Bennett accusing anyone else of being Machiavellian is quite humourous: as Seth Kolloen of Enjoy the Enjoyment wrote, "This is like the Unabomber accusing his brother and the FBI of conspiring to get him arrested." If Bennett continues with this wave of ridiculous protests, he might hurt his own case and damage the league's image of him, making a forced sale more palatable.
Kolloen also makes the excellent point that the Sonics have Slade Gordon on their side, a man whose lawsuit was responsible for the city receiving the Mariners after the Seattle Pilots fled town. Gordon has a vast array of experience, including serving as the state's attorney-general and a U.S. Senator: he's a good man to have in your corner in this kind of dispute.
Even if Schultz can't get the team back, it's worthwhile to keep in mind that Seattle has a powerful group of owners-in-waiting as well. Steve Ballmer, Jim Sinegal, Matt Griffin and John Stanton are the kind of owners this league wants, with plenty of cash to throw around. They've also made an excellent proposal for a refurbishment of Key Arena, and are willing to commit substantial amounts of their own money to the task: $150 million of the $300 million total, which is far better than the $100 million Bennett offered towards his ridiculous $500 million arena plan in Renton. I'm quite sure that plan was nothing more than an elaborate facade to try and show good faith, as the $300 million Bennett was asking for in money from the state (note: I know the numbers don't add up, but Bennett didn't specify where the extra $100 million was to come from in the story I found: perhaps the city of Renton?) was patently ridiculous given his own miniscule contribution. By comparison, the Ballmer plan looks fantastic. Additionally, the city of Seattle was on board with their contribution, and the state didn't reject the proposal out of hand, but rather said they would form a task force to study it next year. The offer is officially off the table, but Griffin told Seattle Times reporter Jim Brunner his group might still be interested if the state comes through with the money.
Despite the above reasons for minor optimism, this is still a very dark day for Seattle, and the NBA as a whole. As ESPN's Tim Keown pointed out, it's unfortunate that this situation developed during one of the most exciting NBA seasons in years. It's as if someone drew a moustache on the Mona Lisa, and it makes it difficult for multi-sport fans like myself to wholeheartedly commit our interest to the NBA when they allow these ridiculous acts of piracy. Bill Simmons perhaps summed it up best in the "Note to David Stern" he inserted into the middle of his MVP picks column. "This was your Bay of Pigs," he wrote. "This was your Watergate. This seedy, incomprehensible saga stained your legacy -- it did -- and the sooner you publicly admit that you handled this situation appallingly from start to finish and do your best to make amends, the better off you will be. I'm speaking for all of us here: We don't want to follow a league in which anyone's franchise can be basically hijacked on a billionaire's whim. You need to fix this. You need to fix this right now." Truer words were never spoken.
Of course, Bennett is now claiming that it's all a big misunderstanding. As the Associated Press reported, "When he wrote, 'I am a man possessed! Will do everything we can,' he meant he was determined to find a way for the Sonics to remain in the city, Bennett contended." That might fly if your name is David Stern and you don't find it necessary to actually study e-mails by one of your ownership groups that could show misrepresentation and fraud in their purchase of a franchise. Unfortunately, it seems that the majority of the owners have the same attention to detail as Stern, as Stern told Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter Greg Johns. "I would say none among the 30 owners questioned the good faith of Clay Bennett as the leader of this franchise and accepted his assurance that he'd acted in good faith," Stern said.
Apart from the irony of an overly pompous man like Stern who prides himself on acting smarter than everyone else making a grammatical slip-up (none among the owners accepted his assurance?), this also seems to indicate that the NBA owners aren't especially interested in Bennett's underhanded dealings. Of course, it's in their advantage to favour him: if robber barons like Bennett can simply pack up and leave for more favorable climes when they aren't given free arenas at public expense, it gives each owner more leverage in their negotiations with their own cities. Helping Bennett isn't good for the league, but it's advantageous for many individual franchises, particularly those looking for new arena funding from the public purse. That doesn't make for good optics, though: as Basketball Prospectus contributor Maury Brown wrote last November, "Watching an ownership group purchase a team with the transparent means of hijacking them to another city, or using relocation as an extortion ploy to get a new arena, is enough to make any fan nauseous."
In the end, though, basketball in Seattle isn't irrevocably doomed: the challenges have just gotten bigger. There's always the chance the city will receive an expansion team, and Bennett seems amicable to leaving behind the team name and history. What would be even better, though, would be retaining the current team. That's still possible, especially with the tri-pronged array of court battles yet to be fought: Howard Schultz's lawsuit to get back the team, the city's lawsuit to enforce the team's lease through 2010, and a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Sonics' season-ticket holders who feel Bennett misrepresented the team's plans to stay in Seattle to them to convince them to buy tickets. Given that the e-mails came out of discovery in the city lawsuit, who knows what other dirty laundry might show up to aid the various cases for keeping the Sonics?
Also, Bennett seems to be feeling the strain: in a recent brief in the city case, he accused Seattle leadership of a "Machiavellian plan" to force him to sell the Sonics to local ownership. Bennett accusing anyone else of being Machiavellian is quite humourous: as Seth Kolloen of Enjoy the Enjoyment wrote, "This is like the Unabomber accusing his brother and the FBI of conspiring to get him arrested." If Bennett continues with this wave of ridiculous protests, he might hurt his own case and damage the league's image of him, making a forced sale more palatable.
Kolloen also makes the excellent point that the Sonics have Slade Gordon on their side, a man whose lawsuit was responsible for the city receiving the Mariners after the Seattle Pilots fled town. Gordon has a vast array of experience, including serving as the state's attorney-general and a U.S. Senator: he's a good man to have in your corner in this kind of dispute.
Even if Schultz can't get the team back, it's worthwhile to keep in mind that Seattle has a powerful group of owners-in-waiting as well. Steve Ballmer, Jim Sinegal, Matt Griffin and John Stanton are the kind of owners this league wants, with plenty of cash to throw around. They've also made an excellent proposal for a refurbishment of Key Arena, and are willing to commit substantial amounts of their own money to the task: $150 million of the $300 million total, which is far better than the $100 million Bennett offered towards his ridiculous $500 million arena plan in Renton. I'm quite sure that plan was nothing more than an elaborate facade to try and show good faith, as the $300 million Bennett was asking for in money from the state (note: I know the numbers don't add up, but Bennett didn't specify where the extra $100 million was to come from in the story I found: perhaps the city of Renton?) was patently ridiculous given his own miniscule contribution. By comparison, the Ballmer plan looks fantastic. Additionally, the city of Seattle was on board with their contribution, and the state didn't reject the proposal out of hand, but rather said they would form a task force to study it next year. The offer is officially off the table, but Griffin told Seattle Times reporter Jim Brunner his group might still be interested if the state comes through with the money.
Despite the above reasons for minor optimism, this is still a very dark day for Seattle, and the NBA as a whole. As ESPN's Tim Keown pointed out, it's unfortunate that this situation developed during one of the most exciting NBA seasons in years. It's as if someone drew a moustache on the Mona Lisa, and it makes it difficult for multi-sport fans like myself to wholeheartedly commit our interest to the NBA when they allow these ridiculous acts of piracy. Bill Simmons perhaps summed it up best in the "Note to David Stern" he inserted into the middle of his MVP picks column. "This was your Bay of Pigs," he wrote. "This was your Watergate. This seedy, incomprehensible saga stained your legacy -- it did -- and the sooner you publicly admit that you handled this situation appallingly from start to finish and do your best to make amends, the better off you will be. I'm speaking for all of us here: We don't want to follow a league in which anyone's franchise can be basically hijacked on a billionaire's whim. You need to fix this. You need to fix this right now." Truer words were never spoken.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Sonics: The smoking e-mails
Wow. Just when it looked like the earth (or the gaping pit known as Oklahoma City) was about to open up and swallow the Sonics, the Seattle Times finds solid proof that Clay Bennett, Aubrey McClendon and Tom Ward have been lying through their hat all along about trying to keep the team in Seattle. City lawyers preparing to sue the Sonics if they break their lease found some fantastic e-mails between the ownership group. In terms of pure evidence of blatant lies, these easily surpasses most of the Nixon tapes and is up there with Monica Lewinsky's famous dress. Just read this exchange from April 17, 2007, during the one-year grace period where they were supposedly making every effort to stay in Seattle:
Ward: "Is there any way to move here [Oklahoma City] for next season or are we doomed to have another lame duck season in Seattle?"
Bennett: "I am a man possessed! Will do everything we can. Thanks for hanging with me boys, the game is getting started!"
Ward: "That's the spirit!! I am willing to help any way I can to watch ball here [in Oklahoma City] next year."
McClendon: "Me too, thanks Clay!"
Compare that to Bennett's statement last August after McClendon was fined by the NBA for publicly announcing the group's plans to move. "It is my hope we will see a breakthrough in the next 60 days that will result in securing a new arena for the Sonics and Storm in the Greater Seattle area," Bennett said then. Back in April, he pledged to make a "good faith" effort to keep the team in Seattle.
Even better is an e-mail Bennett sent to NBA commissioner David Stern in August after the McClendon story: "You are just one of my favorite people on earth and I so cherish our relationship Sonics business aside. I would never breach your trust. As absolutely remarkable as it may seem, Aubrey and I have NEVER discussed moving the Sonics to Oklahoma City, nor have I discussed it with with ANY other members of our ownership group, I have been passionately committed to our process in Seattle, and have worked my ass off. The deal for me has NEVER changed: we will do all we can in the one year time frame (actually fifteen months) to affect the development of a successor venue to Key Arena, if we are unsuccessful at the end of the timeframe, October 31, 2007, we will then evaluate our options. I have never wavered and will not. Further I must say that when we bought the team I absolutely believed we would be successful in building a building."
This e-mail shows Bennett's arse-kissing skills in their full brilliance (and also, perhaps a bit of a conflict of interest for Stern?), along with his dire need of a lesson on punctuation. What's more important, though, is how he has been blatantly caught in a lie to the commissioner of the NBA. The other e-mails prove he discussed moving the team with both McClendon and Ward several months earlier, and was anything but "passionately committed" to Seattle: indeed, he told them he was "a man possessed" who would do everything to get the team out of town. Anyone in the same room as Bennett in the near future might not want to sit too close: his nose could unexpectedly grow a couple of feet.
Another really interesting piece of information can be found in the above e-mail, which also contains Stern's response to Bennett. "you and i are fine; i have been acting on the premise that everything you say about aubrey and your efforts is true--well before you said them; it pains me to to see the situation you are in, and i have difficulty conjuring a happy ending in seattle, but i appreciate your efforts and greatly value our friendship. i have a meeting with the ref advisory board on monday morning, which i will spend the day tomorrow preparing for, but we should try and talk early in the week--so i can calm you down. in friendship, david."
Well, the head of the NBA also could use some lessons in capitalization and punctuation. It's not entirely shocking to see such a lovely e-mail from Stern, who after all, served as Bennett's presenter when he was inducted into the Oklahoma Sports Hall of Fame last November. Funnily, as Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Jim Moore wrote in his great piece on the Stern-Bennett relationship, Stern usually tries to act more intelligent than everyone else. "You don't know pompous until you've met David Stern, who talks condescendingly to the media and always sounds like he thinks he's smarter than you," he wrote. Apparently, his brilliance extends to writing poorly-punctuated uncapitalized love-in e-mails to his buddy Bennett.
What's more interesting is how this response really showcases Stern's bias in this situation: according to his e-mail, he presumed Bennett's claims of innocence even before Bennett offered them. Is that really the response the NBA commissioner should be taking to serious allegations in a sport so recently rocked by scandal? The e-mail exchange shows the depth of the Stern-Bennett ties. It will be interesting to see if Stern's at all upset to find out Bennett's been lying to him for months, or if he knew all along the "keep the team in Seattle" rhetoric was hollow. In any case, Stern's conflict of interest seems pretty apparent, and he should recuse himself from the upcoming April 17-18 Board of Governors deliberation on the move.
These e-mails should cast significant doubt on the proposed relocation. Do the other owners and governors really want a guy in their club who blatantly lies to the NBA commissioner, the media and everyone else? That might be even worse PR for the league than Mark Cuban's ill-fated attempt to ban bloggers (apart from himself, of course). In fairness to Cuban, he may have ridiculous policies towards bloggers, but even he recognizes that moving a team from Seattle to Oklahoma City is a terrible idea. Hopefully, some fellow owners will join him and listen to former U.S. Senator Slate Gordon (the lawyer representing the city of Seattle)'s plan to force Bennett to sell to local heroes Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, Costco CEO Jim Sinegal, Seattle developer Matt Griffin and wireless magnate John Stanton: wouldn't you rather have those guys, their megabucks and their squeaky-clean by comparision images over a group that even co-owner McClendon described as "some rednecks from Oklahoma" who "made off with the team"?
There's one other possible outcome here: the return of former owner Howard Schultz, the Starbucks chairman and CEO who sold the Sonics to Bennett in the first place. Seth Kolloen, the executive editor of Sports Northwest Magazine, has a great piece about this on his blog. Schultz, as the previous owner, had Bennett sign a good-faith clause (Update: Link to a July 20 story by Jim Brunner of the Seattle Times confirming the good-faith clause) when he sold the team, which the e-mails clearly show him violating. Kolloen consulted University of Washington professor Joel Ngugi on if this could be enforced, and he came to the conclusion that it would probably have to be Schultz who took Bennett to task, rather than the city. However, it seemed from Ngugi's response that there's a pretty good chance Schultz could win (I included all of Ngugi's comments that Kolloen posted to make sure I wasn't misrepresenting him).
"Generally, even absent a specific 'good faith' term in a contract, every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing," Ngugi wrote. "As you can expect, it is notoriously difficult to determine if particular conduct comes within this definition. However, willful evasion of the spirit of a contract and lack of diligence in performing a specific term would usually come within the heart of the definition. The problem, of course, is determining if the good faith obligation assumed by Bennett and Company here was part of the spirit of the contract. ... The fact that Bennett and Company seemed not to have been acting in good faith during the negotiations of the contract (not just during its performance stage), however, raises other issues as well.It means that his lack of good faith goes to the very formation of the contract--because it vitiates [ed: law talk for 'invalidates'] the quality of consent given by the other side... Misrepresentation and fraud make the contract invalid."
That's awfully compelling. It's unclear if Schultz would be willing to step back in, but Starbucks is apparently looking for feedback on how to improve its lagging sales: saving an historic local franchise in your brand's global headquarters and recasting your CEO as a hero instead of a traitor in the process sounds like a pretty good start to me.
Update: Some more related pieces:
- Henry Abbott's piece on TrueHoop, where I first found this.
- Seth Kolloen's original post: he's been right on top of this situation.
- Commenter Charlie Anthe has some good analysis on this mess over at The Foghorn, particularly with respect to how it might cause more damage to the NBA's image.
Ward: "Is there any way to move here [Oklahoma City] for next season or are we doomed to have another lame duck season in Seattle?"
Bennett: "I am a man possessed! Will do everything we can. Thanks for hanging with me boys, the game is getting started!"
Ward: "That's the spirit!! I am willing to help any way I can to watch ball here [in Oklahoma City] next year."
McClendon: "Me too, thanks Clay!"
Compare that to Bennett's statement last August after McClendon was fined by the NBA for publicly announcing the group's plans to move. "It is my hope we will see a breakthrough in the next 60 days that will result in securing a new arena for the Sonics and Storm in the Greater Seattle area," Bennett said then. Back in April, he pledged to make a "good faith" effort to keep the team in Seattle.
Even better is an e-mail Bennett sent to NBA commissioner David Stern in August after the McClendon story: "You are just one of my favorite people on earth and I so cherish our relationship Sonics business aside. I would never breach your trust. As absolutely remarkable as it may seem, Aubrey and I have NEVER discussed moving the Sonics to Oklahoma City, nor have I discussed it with with ANY other members of our ownership group, I have been passionately committed to our process in Seattle, and have worked my ass off. The deal for me has NEVER changed: we will do all we can in the one year time frame (actually fifteen months) to affect the development of a successor venue to Key Arena, if we are unsuccessful at the end of the timeframe, October 31, 2007, we will then evaluate our options. I have never wavered and will not. Further I must say that when we bought the team I absolutely believed we would be successful in building a building."
This e-mail shows Bennett's arse-kissing skills in their full brilliance (and also, perhaps a bit of a conflict of interest for Stern?), along with his dire need of a lesson on punctuation. What's more important, though, is how he has been blatantly caught in a lie to the commissioner of the NBA. The other e-mails prove he discussed moving the team with both McClendon and Ward several months earlier, and was anything but "passionately committed" to Seattle: indeed, he told them he was "a man possessed" who would do everything to get the team out of town. Anyone in the same room as Bennett in the near future might not want to sit too close: his nose could unexpectedly grow a couple of feet.
Another really interesting piece of information can be found in the above e-mail, which also contains Stern's response to Bennett. "you and i are fine; i have been acting on the premise that everything you say about aubrey and your efforts is true--well before you said them; it pains me to to see the situation you are in, and i have difficulty conjuring a happy ending in seattle, but i appreciate your efforts and greatly value our friendship. i have a meeting with the ref advisory board on monday morning, which i will spend the day tomorrow preparing for, but we should try and talk early in the week--so i can calm you down. in friendship, david."
Well, the head of the NBA also could use some lessons in capitalization and punctuation. It's not entirely shocking to see such a lovely e-mail from Stern, who after all, served as Bennett's presenter when he was inducted into the Oklahoma Sports Hall of Fame last November. Funnily, as Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Jim Moore wrote in his great piece on the Stern-Bennett relationship, Stern usually tries to act more intelligent than everyone else. "You don't know pompous until you've met David Stern, who talks condescendingly to the media and always sounds like he thinks he's smarter than you," he wrote. Apparently, his brilliance extends to writing poorly-punctuated uncapitalized love-in e-mails to his buddy Bennett.
What's more interesting is how this response really showcases Stern's bias in this situation: according to his e-mail, he presumed Bennett's claims of innocence even before Bennett offered them. Is that really the response the NBA commissioner should be taking to serious allegations in a sport so recently rocked by scandal? The e-mail exchange shows the depth of the Stern-Bennett ties. It will be interesting to see if Stern's at all upset to find out Bennett's been lying to him for months, or if he knew all along the "keep the team in Seattle" rhetoric was hollow. In any case, Stern's conflict of interest seems pretty apparent, and he should recuse himself from the upcoming April 17-18 Board of Governors deliberation on the move.
These e-mails should cast significant doubt on the proposed relocation. Do the other owners and governors really want a guy in their club who blatantly lies to the NBA commissioner, the media and everyone else? That might be even worse PR for the league than Mark Cuban's ill-fated attempt to ban bloggers (apart from himself, of course). In fairness to Cuban, he may have ridiculous policies towards bloggers, but even he recognizes that moving a team from Seattle to Oklahoma City is a terrible idea. Hopefully, some fellow owners will join him and listen to former U.S. Senator Slate Gordon (the lawyer representing the city of Seattle)'s plan to force Bennett to sell to local heroes Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, Costco CEO Jim Sinegal, Seattle developer Matt Griffin and wireless magnate John Stanton: wouldn't you rather have those guys, their megabucks and their squeaky-clean by comparision images over a group that even co-owner McClendon described as "some rednecks from Oklahoma" who "made off with the team"?
There's one other possible outcome here: the return of former owner Howard Schultz, the Starbucks chairman and CEO who sold the Sonics to Bennett in the first place. Seth Kolloen, the executive editor of Sports Northwest Magazine, has a great piece about this on his blog. Schultz, as the previous owner, had Bennett sign a good-faith clause (Update: Link to a July 20 story by Jim Brunner of the Seattle Times confirming the good-faith clause) when he sold the team, which the e-mails clearly show him violating. Kolloen consulted University of Washington professor Joel Ngugi on if this could be enforced, and he came to the conclusion that it would probably have to be Schultz who took Bennett to task, rather than the city. However, it seemed from Ngugi's response that there's a pretty good chance Schultz could win (I included all of Ngugi's comments that Kolloen posted to make sure I wasn't misrepresenting him).
"Generally, even absent a specific 'good faith' term in a contract, every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing," Ngugi wrote. "As you can expect, it is notoriously difficult to determine if particular conduct comes within this definition. However, willful evasion of the spirit of a contract and lack of diligence in performing a specific term would usually come within the heart of the definition. The problem, of course, is determining if the good faith obligation assumed by Bennett and Company here was part of the spirit of the contract. ... The fact that Bennett and Company seemed not to have been acting in good faith during the negotiations of the contract (not just during its performance stage), however, raises other issues as well.It means that his lack of good faith goes to the very formation of the contract--because it vitiates [ed: law talk for 'invalidates'] the quality of consent given by the other side... Misrepresentation and fraud make the contract invalid."
That's awfully compelling. It's unclear if Schultz would be willing to step back in, but Starbucks is apparently looking for feedback on how to improve its lagging sales: saving an historic local franchise in your brand's global headquarters and recasting your CEO as a hero instead of a traitor in the process sounds like a pretty good start to me.
Update: Some more related pieces:
- Henry Abbott's piece on TrueHoop, where I first found this.
- Seth Kolloen's original post: he's been right on top of this situation.
- Commenter Charlie Anthe has some good analysis on this mess over at The Foghorn, particularly with respect to how it might cause more damage to the NBA's image.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
