Winnipeg, Phoenix, Seattle and why relocation is awful

It looks like the Phoenix Coyotes are going to be around Glendale, Arizona for at least another year. TSN's Dave Naylor writes that the city council there voted 5-2 to give the team a $25 million subsidy if they haven't found a buyer by the end of the 2011-12 season. As Joe Yerdon writes, that subsidy should keep them there for at least another year, if not longer, and that means Winnipeg probably isn't getting a team this summer. Of course, that won't make everyone happy; it was only decided after a hilarious council meeting (described perfectly by friend of the blog Dennis Tarwood) that featured plenty of comments both for and against the idea, and it's sure to meet with criticism from the Goldwater Institute, many Canadian hockey fans and media outlets, economists and others. However, while there are substantial issues around hockey in Phoenix that still need to be addressed, keeping the team there is a good thing from this perspective.

It's not that economic arguments should be written off entirely. Having a league directly subsidize a team (as the NHL has been doing with Phoenix over the last while) is very problematic for the perception of that league, and it's also troubling from a financial point of view. Having a city council potentially hand out that kind of money to what's supposedly a professional, for-profit sports franchise isn't necessarily a great idea either; I can't speak for the taxpayers of Glendale, but they can decide if that's the best use of their money or not. It's certainly not the greatest long-term solution. However, there are positives to keeping the team in Phoenix, and those need to be recognized.

Read more...

Kevin Nesgoda on the Pacers, Vancouver and Seattle

Much has happened since my initial post last week about the rumours of the Indiana Pacers potentially moving to Vancouver. The story's spread everywhere from CTV to Newsday to the Indianapolis Business Journal, with many sites claiming there's nothing behind it. Vancouver Canucks owner Francesco Aquilini, the rumoured potential buyer of the team from current owners Herb and Mel Simon, gave a very interesting statement to CTV, though, saying he has "no immediate interest in purchasing an NBA basketball team."

That's a pretty weak denial, especially considering the "immediate" part. Prospective owners of sports franchises rarely make their interest known publicly well in advance, particularly when relocation is involved. Moreover, the initial report stated that any deal was at a very early stage, so Aquilini could be telling the complete truth here and still purchase an NBA franchise a month down the road (if he had immediate interest then). As I wrote the first time around as well, the Pacers are far from the only troubled NBA franchise as well, so even if this particular move comes to naught, Aquilini's comments suggest that he may look at the possibility of a new Vancouver team down the road.

In any case, I figured it was worth trying to get some more information on the Indiana circumstances, so I contacted Kevin Nesgoda, who wrote the original piece on the matter for Bleacher Report. In addition to his work at Bleacher Report, Kevin runs Biased Sports. He's also a big basketball fan and passionately supported the Seattle Sonics before they were abducted by one Clayton Bennett. He runs ihateclay.com as well, a site devoted to criticizing Bennett and trying to bring basketball back to Seattle. My interview with Kevin on the Pacers, Vancouver and Seattle is below. Thanks to Kevin for taking the time to answer my questions!

Andrew Bucholtz: Can you provide any details on how and when you first heard about Aquilini's supposed interest in the Pacers (i.e. a Pacers source, someone on Aquilini's end, someone with the NBA or a politically-connected type?)? Obviously, I don't expect you to reveal your source but it would just be helpful to have an idea of which side this is coming from.

Kevin Nesgoda: I have a few people in the know about the situation and first heard about it from a friend who works for one of the Los Angeles teams. He’s always been right about everything he’s ever told me and an extremely credible source. He told me about Clay Bennett buying the Sonics two weeks before it even hit newspapers or news stations in Seattle or OKC.

A.B.: What made you decide to write about it?

K.N.: In hopes that Pacer fans can unite and do what they can to protect their team and keep it in Indy. It’s horrible when a team has to move. Especially if a team has been there for 30 plus years. It’s not fair to the fans.

A.B.: How serious do you think these rumours are? Is it just a negotiating ploy for leverage, or is there a chance the team will move?

K.N.: I think it’s very credible. From what I get the talks between Simon and Aquilini have been very quiet. If Simon can’t get a new deal worked out with the city of Indianapolis he will sell the team. Aquilini then will file the paper work for relocation and start the ball rolling on getting the team to VBC.

A.B.: How does this compare to the Sonics' situation, in your mind?

K.N.: It’s extremely similar: an out of town owner with a ready arena and deep pockets looking to buy a struggling franchise. Though I think Aquilini will be more upfront about what is going to happen. He won’t make false promises about keeping the team in Indy. He’ll buy it and get the team to Vancouver ASAP. It won’t hang in the air like it did for two years in Seattle.

A.B.: In your opinion, if the NBA had a completely free choice about what city to relocate a struggling team to, would they pick Vancouver, Seattle, or somewhere else? Why?

K.N.: I think Vancouver is definitely a bit more attractive than Seattle or Kansas City. It’s bigger than both cities, has a huge Asian market and could envelope the Seattle market on top of everything. Stern said he regretted what happened in [the NBA's] previous run in BC and following closely on how Stern works, I’m convinced he would like to make up for it. Giving Vancouver another team would make a lot of sense, since Vancouver’s economy is extremely strong right now.

A.B.: Have you heard anything more on the situation since your initial Bleacher Report post?

K.N.: Nothing substantial, but if Simon can’t get something worked out, look for him to move fast on the sale.


A.B.: On the Sonics, obviously, losing the team meant a lot to you from your Biased Sports post. Do you think the majority of Seattle residents feel similarly, or have they forgotten and moved on to other sports?

K.N.: There is a small contingent, mostly the diehard fans that are extremely broken up about it and are doing everything in our power to get a team back to Seattle. There are a lot of pissed off people around the area; most have said the NBA is dead to them until Stern is out as commissioner. A lot of people now focus on the Sounders. Sadly, Seattle is a huge bandwagon town and they’ll jump on whoever is winning at the time.

A.B.: Is there enough political will in Washington to get the necessary KeyArena renovations done without a firm promise of a franchise?

K.N.: No. We had a bill up in the Senate that didn’t create any new taxes and the money was mostly raised by people from out of town, but we couldn’t get it to a vote, which I don’t get because the money is raised in Seattle and spent in Seattle. It should never have to go to a state vote. Just expand the tax: then the money for the arena is raised by money spent at the arena and the city makes a profit after three years.

A.B.: Has the economic situation affected this at all? How so?

K.N.: It has a bit, but with the construction jobs created and having an arena that would create over 300 jobs and then stimulate the businesses around the arena it would have been a lot more beneficial to the city. But the idiots in charge in the city and state don’t see it that way.

A.B.: Are you optimistic that Seattle will ever get another NBA team? If so, how long do you think it will take?

K.N.: We’ll get one eventually. I am thinking it won’t be until the NBA lockout happens. There could be six teams that have to fold or relocate and since most new arenas actually lose money, KeyArena, even not renovated, will look like a palace.

A.B.: How would a team in Vancouver affect the chances of Seattle getting a team? Would it help Seattle's chances due to the rivalry between the cities or hurt them because of Vancouver's proximity?

K.N.: I think it would create a true northwest division. Seattle, Vancouver and Portland would be a great series of rivalries. It would be the I-5/Canadian 1 rivalry. If Vancouver actually got a team, I think Seattle would get it in gear on getting a team. I guess a free $30M from Clay Bennett this year or a free $225M from the city of Seattle and Steve Ballmer wasn’t enough.

Thanks again to Kevin for taking the time to answer my questions. Check out his Bleacher Report work here and his Biased Sports site here.

Aquilini to bring Indiana Pacers to Vancouver?

The Canucks may be out of the playoffs, but it may be a busy offseason for owner Francesco Aquilini. Kevin Nesgoda of Bleacher Report writes that rumours are swirling in Indiana regarding Aquilini's potential interest in purchasing the NBA's Pacers and relocating them to Vancouver. Nesgoda's initial report has been cited by some politically connected sites in the area, including Capitol Watchblog and Howey Politics, and the B.C. media are starting to look into it as well; Don Taylor mentioned the idea on Sportsnet Connected's Pacific edition a few minutes ago.

At first, this seems like a somewhat implausible rumour, but upon further reflection, it makes a lot of sense. First off, the NBA was not entirely a failure in Vancouver the first time around. Attendance was bad, but much of that was due to poor on-court performance by the team and ineptitude on the part of the management. The team also wasn't really given much time; they were only in Vancouver for six years, and it's tough to build support from scratch for a new professional sport in that amount of time, especially when you're starting with a horrible expansion team. Look at how things looked for the Raptors back around 2001 compared to their outlook today.

Moreover, since the Grizzlies left in 2001, basketball's become much more prominent in the Lower Mainland. Part of that's due to demographic changes and increased grassroots support. A lot of it's due to Steve Nash becoming a two-time MVP and one of the game's top stars; Nash, now a co-owner of the Vancouver Whitecaps, frequently makes return visits to his home province to play charity games with other NBA stars (which are often packed), host training camps and clinics and build his Steve Nash Youth Basketball program, which has quickly become the most prominent program for young players throughout their school years and is endorsed by Basketball BC and Canada Basketball. Nash has got a lot of people out west interested in hoops, particularly those from younger demographics, and he's built a strong infrastructure of youth clubs that a professional team could reach out to. That's proven key in selling big-time soccer in the province, and it could be significant for selling pro basketball.

This also makes sense on a geographic level. Ever since the Seattle Supersonics left last summer, the NBA has been very unexposed in the Pacific Northwest. Their lone franchise in the area is Portland, which is helpful, but is significantly smaller than either Vancouver or Seattle and too far (a six-hour drive) to make for easy travel from Vancouver. Plenty of Canadian hoops fans used to head down to Seattle (a two-and-a-half to three-hour drive) for Sonics games and then drive back in the same night; you can't do that with Portland. Metro Vancouver has 2.1 million people and Metropolitan Seattle has 3.2 million people; that's a sizable population base to write off entirely, so you have to think that the NBA is considering returning to at least one city and possibly both.

Now, consider both cities. I would dearly love to see another team in Seattle, but it's looking very grim at the moment [Brian Robinson, Sonics Central - in a related note, I spoke with Steven Pyeatt last summer, who co-founded Save Our Sonics with Robinson]. The NBA is very unhappy with KeyArena, as I found out during my time covering the team's relocation trial last summer. They're not going back to Seattle without extensive renovations to that building or a new building. The latter has never seemed too likely. Renovations seemed possible, particularly under the Steve Ballmer group, but Robinson reports that the state legislature appears as unwilling as ever to consider funding part of the project even during this era of stimulus projects. As he writes, no one even appears interested in working with the Ballmer group:

"Nobody should accuse Ballmer of not doing his part. That ownership group made an absolute flurry of personal appeals throughout the state. Guess what? Nobody cares. I have never seen such a callous disregard for business leaders than we have in this state."

Throw in the general distaste about the way the team left Seattle, and that situation certainly doesn't appear particularly promising. Miracles can happen, but one might be needed to get a NBA franchise to return to Seattle in the near future.

Vancouver is a much more promising situation. For one, NBA commissioner David Stern told ESPN's Bill Simmons [via Henry Abbott of TrueHoop] that having the Grizzlies leave Vancouver was his biggest regret from his tenure so far [Noah Love, The National Post]. "I wish we hadn't had the Vancouver experience," he said. "Great city, and we disappointed them and we disappointed ourselves." Now, of course, Stern followed up by saying "I don't think we can go back," but take that with a grain of salt; I have a hard time believing that Stern would ever completely rule out returning to a city if the circumstances are right. In any case, that's certainly more positive than his recent comments about Seattle. As Neate Sager pointed out in the aftermath of the Simmons interview, there's every reason to believe Vancouver could have worked for the NBA, which explains perhaps why Stern was waxing nostalgic for the Grizzlies:

"The Grizzlies caught every bad break possible during their six-year run -- you know the whole litany with Bryant Reeves, Stevie Franchise Killer and a 63-cent Canadian dollar. However, looking at the fact the Raptors were recently valued at more than $400 million US by Forbes magazine, you can only wonder what could have been in Vancouver."

Another huge point in Vancouver's favour is the ownership. Aquilini is a very wealthy man and has done well with the Canucks so far. About the only tarnish on his reputation is the court fight [Ian Mulgrew, The Vancouver Sun] with Tom Gaglardi over how the Canucks deal went down, but he came out on top and with his good name largely intact. Aquilini isn't a Jim Balsillie-esque renegade or a blogging/feuding/tweeting maverick like Mark Cuban; he's a respected businessman who tends to play by the rules. I can't see Stern having a big problem with him wanting to join the club.

Something else that helps this idea is the facilities. Yes, General Motors Place isn't the newest facility in the world, but it's been extensively renovated since its 1995 construction and makes tons of money for the Canucks. It's owned and operated by the Canucks and Aquilini, so no burdensome lease would be required, and it's already chock-full of premium suites and has more on the way, including a swanky all-inclusive club [Nucks Misconduct]. Moreover, NHL teams and NBA teams tend to be very good fits together; the seasons are roughly the same length and take place over the same period, and the leagues have worked out scheduling to accommodate each other quite nicely. GM Place might need some minor alterations to host NBA basketball, but I doubt they'd be too severe. From that perspective, Vancouver's probably right up there with Kansas City in terms of ready-to-go facilities for a prospective NBA team.

Finally, consider the economic factors involved. The NBA has been hit hard by the downturn so far and cut 80 league jobs last year [Jon Saraceno, USA Today]. Plenty of franchises are suffering, including the Detroit Pistons, who merited a bad-news finance story on the league's own website, and the New Orleans Hornets, who traded Tyson Chandler for a few bags of money, hurting their own playoff chances in the process [Mark Fightmaster, bloggingstocks.com]. It looks like Simmons' apocalyptic predictions of the No Benjamins Association may be coming home to roost.

Specifically, the Pacers appear to be in trouble. Pat Early, the team board's vice president, said the franchise could lose $30 million this year [AP via ESPN]. They're trying to renegotiate their lease and at the moment say they have no intention of leaving, so the Vancouver rumour could all be a clever leak for leverage or even less than that. However, keep in mind that we've heard that song before from a certain owner while he was in the middle of planning to hijack a team to a new city. This is only a vague and far-off rumour at the moment, but it does make a lot of sense. Expect Vancouver to get some consideration as a NBA market in the future. That may or may not be for a relocation of the Pacers, but there are plenty of other troubled franchises that could come knocking. The Grizzlies may roar again.

Sonics reaction: the morning round-up

As I wrote in my Out of Left Field post on the Sonics settlement earlier this morning, there are only two scenarios by which this abrupt reversal on the city's part makes sense in my mind. The first is that they've actually obtained a more substantial guarantee of a replacement team than was indicated in the settlement deal: the second is that they were hornswoggled into accepting a bunch of cash and a number of vague promises for the future in return for their franchise.

This second, more depressing scenario, which I picked as seeming more likely at the moment, seems to be the predominant belief in Seattle for the present. As columnist Steve Kelley of The Seattle Times wrote today:

"Basketball died in Seattle Wednesday afternoon. It died because too many people who should have cared didn't. It died of neglect. It died because all of the powers-that-be stopped paying attention. ... Basketball is dead, and don't look for any miracle resurrections. Chances are good that an entire generation will grow up in this town without the NBA to watch."

Jim Moore of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, who generously took the time to speak with me earlier in the day, relates a great interview with writer Sherman Alexie in his column:

"I can't believe this is even happening."
Neither can Sherman Alexie, the author and Stranger contributor and witness who testified during the Sonics trial on the fans' behalf. The longtime season-ticket holder likened the players to Greek gods, and now they're gone.
"There's death and divorce, No. 1 and 2 in terms of stress and grief, and this is No. 3," Alexie said.
A year and a half ago in his Death Watch series of Stranger columns about the Sonics, Alexie said he cried 20 times since the sale of the team to Clay Bennett and the Oklahoma City group. Many more tears were shed Wednesday night.
"The Sonics were indigenous to the city," he said. "They were created here, their entire history existed here, and now they've died."
Alexie recognizes that the settlement made economic sense, but said: "I didn't realize that was our fight. The court case was never about that. The city decided to put a monetary figure on the love of the game and love of the Sonics. I didn't expect that to be an issue."

Moore's Post-Intelligencer colleague Art Thiel is also unhappy:

"Now we know the price of possession.
Now we learn the cost of neglect.
The 'man possessed,' Clay Bennett, showed that he will do just about anything to gratify himself and his fellow Oklahomans by offering another silly payment for NBA ball, yet one the Seattle political leadership lacked the guts to refuse.
Obliterated for cash is 41 years of sports and civic history. So much for the city's passionate courtroom argument that the pro basketball team was of irreplaceable value.
New York, if you fancy the Space Needle, bring your checkbook and a really big hacksaw. We'll deal. As with the Sonics, it's privately owned and not used by a majority of voters, and its structure is a World Fair relic that maybe could use an upgrade.
To paraphrase a famous punch line by Winston Churchill, we know what we are. We're just quibbling over price. ... As for the additional $30 million due in 2013 if Bennett hasn't helped get another franchise for Seattle -- please. Bennett being forced to help Seattle scrounge a team is like hiring Yosemite Sam to be an anger-management counselor.
Besides, as Bennett has proven throughout this sordid affair, $30 million to him and his petrol pals is like $100 to the rest of us. They'll make that in the next month's gas-price gouges, and won't have to pay it for five years. And how about that five-year wait? In today's economy, is anyone betting on anything five years out?
The notion that the NBA will create an expansion team -- probably in tandem with a second city, for a scheduling- friendly 32-team league -- is based on two wafer-thin assumptions: That the national domestic market will be flush, and that the 2009 Legislature in a declining economy will authorize tax money to trick up KeyArena on spec, as opposed to the three other times it said no when the economy was good and Seattle had a team. Good luck with that."

Seth Kolloen of Sports Northwest Magazine and Enjoy the Enjoyment, who generously took the time to do an interview with me the other day, weighs in on the NBA's illusory promises:

"This thing about how "the NBA agrees that a renovated KeyArena is an acceptable facility" is silly. It doesn't matter what the NBA says--it matters what an owner says. An NBA owner could play in the Ingraham High gym if he felt like it (ok, not really, but you get the idea)."

Constable Echelon over at Hotdog & Friends discusses both the despair in Seattle and the league-wide implications of this decision (language warning, if you care about that).

"I’m currently studying a little revolutionary era France. I’ll admit it’s always been a little hard to wrap my head around the idea of a society so unjust that the only recourse for the common man was to take to the streets, round up those responsible, and cut off their heads. I imagine that insatiable bloodlust started with those people feeling like I feel right now.
Obviously I’m being dramatic. It’s just a basketball team. In theory I’ll get over this.
I know that professional sports owners don’t care about me. I’m poor. I have maybe a couple hundred bucks a year to give them. My chief benefit is the ambience I help provide for the people in the suites. They only care about me when I’m the only exploitable revenue stream, and if a team is counting on regular fans to keep it profitable they are fucked.
...
The current NBA business model requires a massive amount of public money to keep teams profitable. Someone has to pay for Kenny Thomas’s contract, after all. Now Seattle has provided a delightful example for the league to scare the shit out of other markets with. We’re a nicely above average region replete with affluent demographics that’s out of the way enough that people don’t get too outraged at how we’ve been treated. If the league doesn’t care about our 41 years of rock solid fan support and consistently winning basketball teams, what hope does anyone have?"

Mr. Baker at SonicsCentral blames the political leadership for selling out.

"No team for the fans, cash for the city, an IOU from Clay Bennett if we cash the IOU from the State of Washington, nothing for the fans.
We were screwed. That offer was not going to get worse with time, and with a court win, they took money from somebody that has money, but the mayor, Mayor Nickels, said it wasn’t about the money in his testimony; it was about enforcing the lease, and retaining NBA basketball in Seattle; neither happened.
Thanks for almost rising to the challenge Mayor Nickels.
I hate Clay Bennett, I watched him lie, and now I watched Mayor Nickels let him get away with it."

And now, some reaction from the rest of the league:

Henry Abbott of TrueHoop talks about how this case affects the fans.

"It was never, in my mind, an Oklahoma City vs. Seattle thing.
It's an owner vs. fans thing.
Sports operate in a bizarre realm. The fans, who are the paying customers, provide the revenue, passion, and love that make any league worthwhile. But those same fans who are such an essential part of the franchise have no legal standing at all. They have no signed agreements. The team has no obligation to them at all.
So fans are, legally, vulnerable. And although everyone acknowledges they are central to the enterprise, they can be trampled by owners, who pay for the right to do what they would like with a team.
I'm from the school of thought that says just because you have the tiger by the tail doesn't mean you must yank. I'm for respecting the people involved, even if you can get away with hurting them. That's character.
Instead we have something that's something like the worst marriage ever, back in the days before women had rights at all. Both partners play key roles, but one can lie, cheat, hit, and all the rest of it, while the other can only be stoic."

John DeShazier of the New Orleans Times-Picayune, who understands how close his own city came to losing their team to Oklahoma, despises the way Seattle fans were treated.

"It's business, so it doesn't have to be nice, neat and topped by a ribbon.
It's business, so it can be packed full of half-truths and outright lies, with passions strewn throughout a city and region and fans left to feel used and ignored.
It's business. But that doesn't mean it's not heartless, disingenuous and undeserving what Clay Bennett and his Oklahoma City ownership group did to Seattle. It doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye and thank the heavens it wasn't New Orleans that was preyed upon by a group of men who attempted to deceive so often and so poorly, they comfortably would have fit on the witness stand for the BALCO grand jury. ... But in the history of moves -- from the Colts sneaking out of Baltimore in the dead of night, to Art Modell dragging his Cleveland Browns franchise to Baltimore, to the Grizzlies moving from Vancover to Memphis and the Hornets from Charlotte to New Orleans -- few have been more littered by deception from an ownership group.
It's business, so at the end there's no guarantee everyone will be holding hands and singing.
But that doesn't mean anyone should feel comfortable with how this deal came about, doesn't mean anyone deserves what Seattle got, the way Seattle got it."

By contrast, Berry Tramel of the Oklahoman (a paper owned by Clay Bennett's inlaws), is gloating and encouraging Oklahomans to feel no shame.

"When the Sonics come to Oklahoma City, most everyone west of Spokane and lots of folks east of there will look at OKC and quote Gomer Pyle.
Shame, shame, shame!
Shame on Oklahoma City for swiping the Sonics from the loving arms of Seattle. Shame on Oklahoma City for not waiting on an expansion team.
Don't buy it. Don't listen to it. Don't let anyone spoil your celebration. Don't let anyone make you feel guilty.
Because here's what major-league ballteams do.
They move. Always have, always will. ...
If the NFL can leave Greater Los Angeles, where's the calamity in the NBA leaving Seattle?
The Seattle crowd likes to warn Oklahoma City that if Clay Bennett can put the screws to Seattle, he will do the same thing to his hometown.
Maybe. Maybe not. Frankly, I'm not all that interested in a history lesson from a city that built a new palace for the Seahawks and a new palace for the Mariners and then wants to start lecturing other cities, warning them about the dangers of giving into disgruntled franchise owners."

There are still a few voices with a bit of optimism, suggesting they believe in the first scenario or at least think settlement was a better option than continuing to fight it out. Among them is Kelley's Times colleague Jerry Brewer, even though he still casts severe doubts on the success of this strategy in today's column:

From M-V-P chants to M-O-U rants. Oh, how the Sonics have fallen. The city, after exhibiting a chest-poking resolve to keep the Raiders in their KeyArena lease, folded. Once intent on letting the Sonics go only with a guarantee that NBA basketball would return to Seattle, Mayor Greg Nickels settled for a tub of cash and a promise from the NBA to be nice. David Stern won't shoot spitballs at Nickels anymore. Stern will keep the mayor updated on relocation or expansion opportunities ("Um, sorry, mayor, nothing yet. Call back next century, OK?"), and he won't curse after hanging up the phone. ... Perhaps if all parties had negotiated with sincerity and purpose from the beginning, this predicament could've been avoided. In the end, the city stopped playing hardball because it couldn't win with that approach. Not with Czar Stern leading the NBA. So will diplomacy yield better results? Who knows? Right now, it's just awkward seeing the combatants refraining from sticking their tongues out at each other.

By contrast, John McGrath of the Tacoma News-Tribune appears to be a confirmed believer in the first scenario, and he's sure the city will get another team in the near future:

"But once you have concluded the grieving process, understand this: The NBA is coming back to Seattle, coming back to KeyArena, coming back in green and, yes, in gold.
A franchise owned by Oklahomans who envision the dour, robotically efficient San Antonio Spurs as the model of pro-basketball success is leaving, to be replaced by a franchise owned by Seattle businessmen who’ve got this intriguing notion that the winning and consistently entertaining Sonics teams of the George Karl era might be a more pertinent blueprint.
The Sonics will return because the city of Seattle backed out of a fight that would’ve rendered the “winners” as bloodied and battered as the 1950s middleweight boxer who prevailed over Jake LaMotta in a split decision.
Beyond draining tens of millions of dollars – pocket change – from the bottomless bank account of Bennett and his buddies, forcing the Oklahoma owners to fulfill the final two years of their team’s KeyArena lease accomplishes precisely what?
It sours fans, further poisoning pro basketball’s already toxic climate in Seattle. Two seasons of Spurs Lite was tough enough. Can you imagine two more seasons?
More important, two years of attempting to humiliate Bennett – a man I sense is constitutionally incapable of saying “pardon me” after spilling his coffee on a fellow first-class airline passenger, much less humiliation – forever dooms Seattle’s chances of reconciling with the NBA.
Sure, the league is run by a commissioner, David Stern, whose every breath contributes to a smug alert. When he spoke on behalf of Bennett’s half-baked campaign for a thoroughly modern, $500 million arena in King County, Stern championed the proposal less as an opportunity than a threat.
If the Sonics leave, he said in so many words, Seattle can kiss the NBA goodbye.
The posture was firm, the rhetoric inflexible. More recently, behind the scenes, Stern was quite more amenable to a truce with Seattle: Let this team go, we’ll have your back the next time there’s a franchise-relocation opportunity.
As city of Seattle attorney Tom Carr, speaking to KJR a few minutes after the settlement-disclosure press conference, put it: “Having the NBA pleased with you is a lot better than having the NBA mad at you.”
In other words, suck it up, and try to consider David Stern less as the czar of an evil empire than a friend of the disenfranchised.
Just a hunch, but I’m predicting an NBA team calling itself the Sonics tipping off at KeyArena for the 2011-12 season."


Let's hope he's right.

And the Sonics are gone...

Well, the details of the Sonics settlement have finally come out [Sharon Pian Chan and Jim Brunner, The Seattle Times], and it looks like they will in fact be moving to Oklahoma City sooner rather than later in exchange for $75 million dollars ($45 million if the city gets another NBA team within five years). That's much better than the $26.5 million Bennett offered in February before the trial, but it leaves me with plenty of questions for the city. Their whole case revolved around the idea of "specific performance", the idea that money alone could not replace an NBA team. What about the passionate testimony from writer and fan Sherman Alexie? What about Mayor Nickels' testimony [Greg Johns, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer] about being an eternal optimist, where he said "A lot can happen in two years?" What about the testimony from economist Andrew Zimbalist, who said he couldn't put a dollar value on what the Sonics bring to the community? What about the city's arguments, repeated over and over, that you can't replace the team with money? It seems to me that they've gone back on their entire arguments and decided you can quantify the team's value after all. The city will surely claim that this was the best possible option, but if they had had the guts to wait for Judge Pechman's ruling, the team might not have left at all. They took the safe route out, and sold the Sonics down the river (or perhaps one of the east-west highways) for 75 million pieces of silver. Betrayal is certainly more profitable these days.

Sonics: How bizarre is this?

Now that's highly unusual: The Seattle Times is reporting [Jim Brunner and Sharon Pian Chan, The Seattle Times] that the Sonics and their owners have apparently agreed on a settlement, only hours before Judge Marsha Pechman was supposed to issue her ruling in the case. The timing of this is bizarre, as I don't see what either side has to gain by settling now. For the city, their aim throughout has been to try and enforce "specific performance" to make the team play at least two more seasons in Seattle, so it wouldn't seem to make sense for them to take a cash buyout at this stage when Judge Pechman might have ruled in their favour, and it's hard to imagine Clay "Buccaneer" Bennett agreeing to the Sonics staying in Seattle any longer than necessary. The other odd aspect to the timing is that both sides have already been fighting dirty: often, settlements are reached in cases like this one to try and prevent incriminating information from coming out in court, but it's hard to picture what else could come out in this one: we've already had scandalous e-mails, "Machiavellian" PowerPoint presentations and enough mudslinging for a federal election. If the Sonics were able to secure a buyout of the lease, then this makes sense for them, but I have no clue why the city would agree to that before at least finding out Judge Pechman's decision. There's apparently a press conference at 5 p.m. today: I'll have more details as they come out.

Update: 4:09 P.M. ET. The settlement is confirmed via an order from Judge Pechman, but still no details to be found.

On the Ground: Steven Pyeatt

Photo: Steven Pyeatt of Save Our Sonics. [Photo from http://stevenpyeatt.com/].

As part of the preparation for Judge Pechman's decision [Greg Johns, Seattle Post-Intelligencer] later today on the future of the Sonics, here's the next installment of On the Ground, featuring an interview with Steven Pyeatt, the co-founder of Save our Sonics. Steven has been one of the most influential figures in the fight to keep the team in Seattle, working with co-founder Brian Robinson and the impressive team they've pulled together (including former Sonics star Slick Watts). He's helped organize rallies (including the one I covered), e-mail and letter-writing campaigns, and much, much more. If the Sonics do survive in Seattle, his efforts will be a large part of the reason why. There's an excellent Seattle Times profile on him by Ashley Bach. Anyways, here's my questions and his answers.

Q: What’s the mood like in Seattle? Do people still feel there’s a chance to keep the franchise, or are they resigned to losing it?

A: The mood is mixed. A segment is so upset with the NBA that they will stop following the NBA if they abandon this market, a large segment is still focused on doing whatever it takes to keep a team here, and some still don’t realize that the relocation approval was conditional and for this year only. That segment doesn’t realize that this isn’t a “done deal” but when they learn that they tend to get back on the “Save Our Sonics” train.

Q: Do you think the rallies and popular expressions of support will make any difference in the end?

A: Going into this deal, Brian and I honestly thought the fan movement was a valuable piece of the puzzle but in the end would have little effect on the outcome. What has amazed us is how much the “Save Our Sonics” effort has impacted the situation. We have flooded elected officials with emails whenever this issue is on someone’s plate, gathered more than 300 people to travel to the state capital with just a few hours notice, taken over the Governor's campaign kickoff event, and had over 3000 people come to the rally at the courthouse to start the trial (we were hoping just to break 1000). The people have stepped up so much it is humbling to be a part of this movement. The claims by Bennett that no one cared couldn’t be heard over the chants of “Save Our Sonics” echoing through our downtown.

Q: What do you think was the city’s strongest argument or piece of evidence presented during the trial?

A: The testimony by Virginia Anderson (former director of Seattle Center) and the people in charge of running Key Arena did fantastic jobs in their testimony. They destroyed any claim that Key Arena was not a viable facility, that the relationship between the team and the city was dysfunctional, or that there would be no way they could continue “business as usual” through the end of the lease. This is a key part of the case because the judge would not want to continue the relationship if it looked like the next two years would be nothing but bickering over what kind of hotdogs to sell or how often to sweep the floors.

Q: What do you think was PBC’s strongest argument or piece of evidence presented during the trial?

A: PBC’s legal team was amazing. Considering they took on a client that had no case they actually were able to at least present something that would cause people to think. They did an excellent job of embarrassing the Mayor, and the private parties that were working to keep the team here, but in the end they had nothing that showed that the city did anything to undermine the ability of PBC to perform on the lease. Coupled with Clay Bennett compounding his lies by piling on more unbelievable statements it is going to be very hard for a judge to find any reason to let PBC out of the lease.

Q: Is there anything you think the city could have done better during the process leading up to the trial? If so, what?

A: I was very impressed by the effort of the city in this case. They left no stone unturned and really did a great job of “getting the dirt” on Clay Bennett, David Stern, and the rest of PBC. We all wanted to see Stern on the stand but the court in NYC blocked it saying that the city got the information they needed from others and in the end they had so it wasn’t that they could have done better, but we sure wanted to see him come unglued on the stand.

Q: What about during this trial?

A: I would have liked to see them follow a line of questioning with Nick Licata, the President of the City Council when the city adopted our Initiative [ed's note: Seattle Initiative I-91, which strictly regulated the public funding of sports arenas] as an ordinance, that showed that the ordinance was a result of public pressure and a complete change in the level of support from the city. It was portrayed by PBC as an attempt to lock PBC in so they could bleed them when in reality it was the people demanding that the city enforce the lease to buy us time to get a deal done to keep our team. In the end that is nothing but nit picking on my part. The key to winning the case was showing that the lease was clear in its terms, that Bennett knew those terms before he bought the team, agreed to honor those terms when he bought the team, and that the losses would not cause him undo harm if required to honor the contract. The city did a fantastic job of getting the important parts into evidence and defended the lease well.

Q: If Judge Pechman rules in favour of PBC buying its way out of the lease, do you think there is still any hope for keeping the team (i.e. appeal, the Schultz lawsuit, or something else), or will that mean they’re definitely gone?

A: Yes, there is still hope. There does not seem to be any way this team gets to move for this upcoming season without a negotiated solution and that requires a team named the Sonics in Seattle long term. If the legal process continues to play out this team will not be moving before the end of the lease no matter what happens. If that road continues there is a significant risk that Clay could lose the team and no smart businessman would ever take that risk when there are options for “Win/Win” deals out there.

Q: If the city is allowed to enforce the "specific performance" clause, do you see the Sonics remaining here any longer than 2010?

A: Yes. We think that two years of “lame duck” status is more than just losing $60 million, it is hard to the league and their revenues and supporters that they cannot endure. In January we will have a funded Key Arena expansion package and with local ownership ready in the wings we see no way the NBA wouldn’t want to resolve this for everyone.

Q: If the team leaves, do you see Seattle ever getting another NBA franchise? If so, what timeframe do you think is likely?

A: Eventually, but that means building an arena on spec and having a lot of work to find a team and a deal that a local ownership group is willing to do. We are very proud in Seattle of having all “home grown” teams. We never “took” a team from another city and see that as a point of pride. Expansion would be preferred because we wouldn’t have to put a another city though what we have just dealt with.

Thanks to Steven for taking the time to answer these questions in such detail: there's obviously a lot on his plate at the moment. Here's his bio paragraph:

Steven Pyeatt is a Kirkland area businessman who was born and raised in the Seattle area. Steve has been active in his community in both grassroots political and charitable organizations including 15 years as a Football Official. He was a candidate for King County Council in 2005 and has served on commissions for King County and the City of Bothell. In addition Steve was active in the regions effort to keep the Seahawks in Seattle in 1996. During this successful 14 month campaign, Pyeatt organized more than 950 members and coordinated significant lobbying of our local business and political leaders.

On the Ground: Jim Moore

Photo: Jim Moore, Seattle Post-Intelligencer sports columnist. [Photo from the Seattle Post-Inthttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifelligencer].

Without further ado, I present the second installment in the On the Ground interview series. The subject this time is Seattle Post-Intelligencer sports columnist, . Here's my questions and his answers:

Q: What’s the mood like in Seattle? Do people still feel there’s a chance to keep the franchise, or are they resigned to losing it?

A: The mood here isn't good. I think people are hopeful that the city has a good case but are more resigned to the thought that the Sonics will win and leave town soon.

Q: Do you think the rallies and popular expressions of support will make any difference in the end?

A: No, I don't think the rallies or fan support matters. Hate to say that, but I don't. The judge even intimated during the trial that fan sentiment wasn't her chief concern.

Q: What do you think was the city’s strongest argument or piece of evidence presented during the trial?

A: The specific performance part of the lease that requires the Sonics not just to pay for the lease but to play at KeyArena.

Q: What do you think was PBC’s strongest argument or piece of evidence presented during the trial?

A: That two partners should not be forced to stay together when there's so much acrimony.


Q: Is there anything you think the city could have done better during the process leading up to the trial? If so, what? What about during this trial?


A: Just a personal feeling, I thought the PBC side was better prepared with its arguments.

Q: If Judge Pechman rules in favour of PBC buying its way out of the lease, do you think there is still any hope for keeping the team (i.e. appeal, the Schultz lawsuit, or something else), or will that mean they’re definitely gone?

A: It won't mean they're definitely gone, but it will move from possibly gone to probably gone. City officials have indicated they will make some kind of move in that event, possibly a temporary restraining order so they'll have time to explore further options.

Q: If the city is allowed to enforce the "specific performance" clause, do you see the Sonics remaining here any longer than 2010?

A: I do see the city staying until 2010. but that will be it. I don't think Bennett will sell the team. He seems pretty hellbent on taking the Sonics to Oklahoma City one way or another.

Q: If the team leaves, do you see Seattle ever getting another NBA franchise? If so, what timeframe do you think is likely?

A: Yes, I think the Sonics will get another franchise. My guesstimate is 2015 after another arena is built.

Thanks to Jim for taking the time to do this. Here's his bio paragraph:

Jim Moore grew up in Seattle. He's 51, and has been at the Post-Intelligencer for 26 years. He covered the Sonics as the beat writer from 1989-96 and the 2000-01 season. He was a huge fan as a kid, but his love for the NBA has faded to the point that it won't be a big deal to him if the team leaves, though he hopes it doesn't.

On the Ground: Seth Kolloen

Photo: Seth Kolloen, the executive editor of Sports Northwest Magazine and founder and sole proprietor of Enjoy The Enjoyment. [Photo from Enjoy The Enjoyment].

One of the rules of journalism in general is that you get a better story if you're at the event instead of writing about it from afar. That's why large papers have bureaus all over the world, and also why they have beat reporters travel with teams instead of watching the games on TV and writing about them from home. I've found this to be true with my own writing at the Journal: when I've taken road trips with teams, I can usually come up with something much more interesting than if I just phone the coach afterwards and ask questions based on the game summary.

As with any rule, this has exceptions: Will Leitch made a very nice career out of not going to events over at Deadspin, and I'm sure his successors A.J. and Rick will keep that trend largely alive. It's quite possible to do great things without personal coverage, but still, on the whole, I think there's a fair bit to be said for being there in person. That's why I decided to get up at 3 a.m. and make the long drive down to to Seattle the other week for the opening day of the Sonics trial and the rally that followed: I could have just written my column from afar, but I think I got a much better understanding of the issues around the proposed relocation from spending a day studying it up close and personal.

Unfortunately, the demands of regular work meant I had to follow the rest of the trial from B.C., but I was still able to keep up with it, thanks to the excellent coverage from local media sources like the Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Still, I'm sure I would have been able to cover it even better if I had the time to be there all week.

However, there is another alternative to get a better sense of these situations: talking to those who are there. In this particular case, most of the local media types there probably have a far better understanding of the details than myself, as they've been there as the situation's developed. In general, though, talking with other journalists can reveal a lot more about a situation than just what they can fit in their stories or pieces: I know from my own experience in the media that much of the best stuff often gets cut due to space, angle or other concerns. Ever wonder why so many print journalists get invited onto radio or TV shows to discuss specific issues (not just in sports, but in every type of media coverage)? I'd venture that the primary reason isn't usually because of their looks or the sound of their voice: it's because it's their job to be well-informed, and thus, they often have interesting things to say.

That's why I'm kicking off a new and hopefully recurring feature on this blog, entitled "On the Ground." I'm hoping to run it whenever there's a city-specific issue I'm writing about to compare local perspectives with my own detached one. The idea is to get in touch with local types (usually from some form of the media, but not always) who have detailed knowledge of what's going on, grill them with a bunch of questions and post the questions and answers here. If you're interested in being featured in this segment in the future, drop me a line .

We'll start things off with the Sonics trial. Judge Marsha Pechman is set to hand down her verdict later this afternoon, so to lead up to that, I present the first series of "On the Ground" interviews with Seattle types, all of whom I asked the same set of questions. First up: Seth Kolloen, of the excellent Sports Northwest Magazine and Enjoy the Enjoyment. My questions and his unedited answers are below. There's a lot of great stuff from him in there.


Q: What's the mood like in Seattle? Do people still feel there's a chance to keep the franchise, or are they resigned to losing it?

A: Casual fans pretty much assume the team is gone. There's a small cadre of dedicated fans, led by the amazingly effective Brian Robinson and Steven Pyeatt at SonicsCentral.com/Save Our Sonics, who are closely following the case and holding out hope that one of these court cases will prove out.

Q: Do you think the rallies and popular expressions of support will make any difference in the end?

A: Depends on what you mean by "the end." The rallies definitely forced local politicians to try to hold the team to their lease--the last thing politicians want is a highly organized, motivated, angry group against them. Save Our Sonics threatened to disrupt our incumbent governor's reelection kickoff, so she met with them the day before to get on their good side. So if the city wins the court case, and the team stays for two more years, it will have been the fans who did that...if that forces Bennett to sell, you can thank the fans. But, more than likely, whether the Sonics stay hinges on Howard Schultz' seeming longshot case to force the team to stay, and the outcome there won't have anything to do with the fans.

Q: What do you think was the city's strongest argument or piece of evidence presented during the trial?

A: For their case, it's simply the language of the lease. The lease clearly spells out that "specific performance" is required--meaning that the team isn't supposed to be able to get out of the lease with any kind of cash settlement.

Q: What do you think was PBC's strongest argument or piece of evidence presented during the trial?

A: That the city was involved in a plan to undermine their own tenant and force them to sell, now being called the "poisoned well" argument. It was sort of an odd situation where both sides' testimony was completely full of shit: You had PBC saying "Why would we ever talk about moving the team to Oklahoma City? What a crazy notion!" (b.s), and the city saying "Try to undermine PBC and force them to sell? What an awful idea!" (also b.s.). If the judge rules that the city and the PBC have an irreparably damaged relationship, she may let the team out of the lease.

Q: Is there anything you think the city could have done better during the process leading up to the trial? If so, what? What about during this trial?

A: They could've been a little more discreet with their plans to try to force the PBC to sell, but considering how fast the situation was moving, that's almost hoping for too much. If the city and lawyers and consultants had only met face to face, with no notes or something, they never could've gotten anything done. During the trial--much was made of the judge being tough on the city, but I think if you're a judge deciding a case in which your own city is a party, you almost have to err on the side of skepticism, if only to make the decision more likely to stand up on appeal.

Q: If Judge Pechman rules in favour of PBC buying its way out of the lease, do you think there is still any hope for keeping the team (i.e. appeal, the Schultz lawsuit, or something else), or will that mean they're definitely gone?

A: If the city loses, I think the team is gone. The city would have to seek an injunction to keep the team here, but, more importantly, they'd have to put up a bond to pay for any losses the team incurred while staying here during the appeal--estimated in the tens of millions. I think at that point, non-basketball-fans would say, "hey, wait--why are we paying for this again?" And if the team moved, the remedy hoped for in Schultz' case, to "unwind the sale", would be more undoable. Plus the Schultz case is going in front of the same judge--if she ruled for PBC here, it's hard to imagine her ruling against PBC in an even more difficult to prove case.

Q: If the city is allowed to enforce the "specific performance" clause, do you see the Sonics remaining here any longer than 2010?

A: Possibly--if Schultz wins his case, and/or if the NBA don't want the black eye of a lame duck team, and they and the city work something out.

Q: If the team leaves, do you see Seattle ever getting another NBA franchise? If so, what timeframe do you think is likely?

A: Maybe, but I think it would be a disaster--at least at the start, just like Charlotte has been. The NBA's percieved heartlessness here has turned off so many fans, I think they'll be leaguesona non grata for at least ten years. And for the youngsters, you've got the resurgent Trailblazers right down the road, who not only have Nate "Mr. Sonic" McMillan as coach, but local boy (Garfield High, my alma mater, what what!) and University of Washington star Brandon Roy as their star player.

Thanks again to Seth for taking the time to do this. Here's his bio paragraph, written specially at my request:

For Seth Kolloen, executive editor of Sports Northwest magazine and founder and sole proprietor of EnjoyTheEnjoyment.com, a Sonics game at the Kingdome was the very first pro sporting event he saw live. During the 1996 Sonics/Bulls finals, he convinced the managers of the chain drug store where he worked to set up a portable TV near the checkout counter so he could watch the games.

Hope you enjoyed this new segment: be sure to post suggestions or thoughts on it in the comments, or e-mail them to me directly. More of these to follow later today!

Sonics: Signs seen at the protest

"Signs, signs, everywhere a sign/Blocking out the scenery, breaking my mind/Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?" - "Signs," The Five-Man Electrical Band [Andrew Bucholtz photo]

Signs seen at the aforementioned Sonics' rally...

"The NBA: Where deception happens."

"Hey Clay, I'm a fan possessed!"

"Burn In Hell, Bennett!"

"Hey Aubrey, white-out doesn't work on e-mails!"

"Not aBout fAns."

"Clay: Owners come and go, but e-mail is forever."

"NOklahoma."

"Hey David: Donaghy called: He can't fix this one!"

"E-mail, lieS, decePtion, collusioN"

"The NBA: Where team-stealing happens."

"Hey Clay, I'm a man about to be repossessed."

"soNics Belong in seAttle"

"Don't steal our 41 years."

"No Bennetts Allowed."

"Stuck Fern"

"The NBA: Where douchebags run the league."

"We're fans possessed: keep the team in Seattle!"

"Boo hoo, Clay, no team for you."

"Once in a lease, you're on a leash: no buyout!"

"The NBA: Where fixing the 2002 Western Conference Finals happens."

"God, Save our SuperSonics."

To close, an excerpt from Gary Payton's speech:
"This team should not move, I don't think they are going to move, and I want to see them turn it around here in Seattle."

Sonics: Rallying to save a franchise

Photo: Sonics fans rally outside the U.S. District Courthouse in Seattle on June 16. (Andrew Bucholtz photo)


The most fascinating aspect of my June 16 trip to Seattle to watch the opening day of the city's lawsuit against Clay Bennett and the Sonics' ownership (the Professional Basketball Club, or PBC) turned out to be outside the courtroom. The legal arguments and back-and-forth testimony were quite interesting, but they couldn't compare with what happened when court closed for the day.

Over 2,000 Sonics fans gathered on the courthouse steps around 4:00, and many of them didn't budge for an hour, even though more were filing in all the time. They came in a variety of Sonics jerseys, creating a sea of green and gold that washed over the yard, around the fountain and right up the courthouse steps. They came in full voice, as well, chanting "Save Our Sonics" at the top of their lungs. They came to provide the proof that the city still cares about NBA basketball, contrary to what Bennett and the PBC were trying to show inside the courthouse. They came with signs as well, many of them brilliantly innovative and creative (a full listing to come later).

Some of the fans undoubtedly showed up for the star power of the day, former Sonic players Gary Payton and Xavier McDaniel, who made their promised appearance and gave great speeches. More of them, though, were there on the idea that it might somehow help. Walking out with a franchise in the dead of night is one thing, but it's more difficult to leave when you're involved in a messy court trial and arguing that the city's fans have deserted you, only to see them show up en masse to prove you wrong.

Sadly, though, the NBA isn't about the fans any more. If it was, you'd think they'd be taking these latest Donaghy allegations very seriously, as that cuts to the heart of the game, instead of issuing perfunctory denials. You'd think they'd be loathe to abandon one of the largest markets in the league, which had faithfully supported its team for 41 good and (more often) bad years, to relocate to Oklahoma City. You'd think the commissioner wouldn't describe his ideal Finals matchup as "Lakers v. Lakers". Hell, you'd think they might even give an expansion team more than six seasons to grow its fanbase before shipping it off.

None of those ideas really matter any more, though, as the game, like every other professional sport, is now big business. One of the key points of the Sonics trial so far is how KeyArena went from a venue that David Stern praised glowingly, saying "It's intimate, the sightlines are great, the decorations are terrific," to a building that he described as "not an adequate arena going forward" in less than 13 years. It's not due to the attendance or the accommodations for regular fans: as came out in Virginia Anderson's testimony and cross-examination, the bigger issue is that it wasn't the only premium venue in town after Safeco Field and Qwest Field opened, meaning that many companies decided to transfer their investments in suites and club seating to those locations. Stern doesn't hate KeyArena because it only seats 17,000: he hates it because it doesn't have as many opportunities to pull in massive corporate revenue, and he also hates it because he saw the city buy the Mariners and the Seahawks expensive new arenas while his league didn't get one.

In any case, the rally was an incredible sight to see. The fans and the city really do still care about their team.http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif We'll find out soon if they still have a team to care about...

Related:
- Eric Neel's excellent ESPN piece on the rally [Page 2]
- More of my musings on the trial and its broader implications [Queen's Journal]
- Dan Raley's coverage of the rally [The Seattle Post-Intelligencer]
- Jim Caple has a good piece on the trial as a whole and how ridiculous it is [Page 2]

Sonics: Day I Recap

Courtside Entrance


Not here... [Mike C. Peck photo, via Wikimedia]



But here... [Andrew Bucholtz photo, taken via cell phone so poor-quality]

Well, the first week of the city of Seattle's lawsuit against the Sonics ownership (Professional Basketball Club, or PBC)* has wrapped up with plenty of interesting material to write about. However, there's now a break until Thursday, when the final witnesses, wrap-up testimony and closing arguments take place. To keep the trial fresh, I'll be presenting a recap of each day of testimony so far with my evaluations of each witness, the lawyers and the overall winners from each day. This post will cover Day I (Monday, June 16), where I had real court-side seats with the rest of the media covering the trial. I'll have Day II up later tonight, Day III and IV Wednesday and Day V Thursday morning. I was only able to attend the trial in person on Day I due to other work commitments, so this first one will probably be the most detailed, but I've been following the rest of the case pretty closely with the help of excellent coverage from Percy Allen and Jim Brunner of The Seattle Times, Art Thiel and Greg Johns of the The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Seth Kolloen of Sports Northwest Magazine and Enjoy the Enjoyment, among others. In the end, it will all come down to whether Judge Marsha Pechman decides to enforce the "specific performance" clause of the lease, forcing PBC to play out the next two years in KeyArena, or if she allows them to buy out the city and move the team. Anyway, without further ado, here's the first recap, from last Monday.

*It may be significant that Clay Bennett's group has such a generic name. Howard Schultz's group was called the Basketball Club of Seattle, and most other NBA franchises' groups have either the city or the team name in the ownership group name: perhaps Bennett didn't want to be too tied to either the city of Seattle or the Sonics' name?

Here's a recap of what's transpired to date. At the end of each section, I'll put my opinion on which side benefited the most from that portion of the trial.

Monday (complete transcript available here via The Seattle Times): Between the opening statements from both sides, the testimony from Mayor Greg Nickels, former Seattle Center director Virginia Anderson and former KeyArena manager Jyo Singh, there was a lot to talk about.

Opening statements:

Attorney Paul Lawrence gave the city's opening statement, and did a very impressive job in my mind. He kept it short and concise, but drew powerful parallels to the situation in 1993 when the team said that their facilities in the Seattle Coliseum were inadequate, which resulted in the city's involvement to the tune of $84 million dollars in the construction of KeyArena. Lawrence also referenced the benefits the Sonics bring to the community, and said the city will have experts testify about both the tangible economic benefits of having an NBA franchise as well as the less quantifiable benefits of increased civic unity and pride. He made a good point about how Bennett and the Sonics are dismissing the economic benefits an NBA franchise provides to Seattle, but used the same arguments to convince Oklahoma politicians to provide massive public funding for the arena upgrades there. Additionally, Lawrence talked about how they plan to show that the Sonics' ownership knew the team's facility and lease situation when they purchased the team in 2006, demonstrating that they were fully aware of the issues when they took over the lease and thus shouldn't be able to get out early.

"They, in short, understood that risk, and the NBA warned them of that risk," he said. "They can afford the losses that they knew were coming."

Perhaps Lawrence's most powerful point (and one that will certainly be one of the more interesting parts of the trial) referred to Bennett's long trail of incriminating e-mails, which the city's hoping to use to show that Bennett was never serious about trying to keep the team in Seattle. In fact, Lawrence said that Bennett applied for relocation to the NBA and secured a deal with Oklahoma City right after his infamous "man possessed" e-mail (which he maintains referred to keeping the team in Seattle). Lawrence also talked about how Bennett rejected any talk of a partially publicly-funded renovation KeyArena out of hand, and refused to meet with the mayor to discuss the project, instead offering a $500 million arena in suburban Renton, to which the ownership group contribution would be "nominal" and "negligible" (in Bennett's own words). In summary, he outlined a very strong case for the city.

Unfortunately for Sonics fans, Bennett has quite the legal team on his side as well. His head lawyer, Brad Keller, also gave a very good opening statement, and he only improved as the day went on. Keller argued that the concept of economic viability was built into the original lease, and that KeyArena was no longer viable due to the changed economic situation, namely the spread of luxury arenas across the NBA and the opening of two new stadiums in Seattle (the Seahawks' Qwest Field and the Mariners' Safeco Field). Keller skillfully avoided blaming the city for the lease agreement, telling the court, "You'll see that it's not anyone's fault. The world in which this lease operated changed." He argued that the Renton arena proposal was a genuine effort, despite the lack of contributions from PBC, and claimed that they spent over $2 million on the proposal. He also took a shot at the state legislature, arguing that their lack of support for the project indicates the true importance placed on basketball in Seattle. "Olympia [the state capital]'s unwillingness to act may say something about the perceived role of NBA basketball in Seattle," he said.

Keller also promised to introduce evidence that Seattle city officials were scheming with the Steve Ballmer/Matt Griffin group of proposed local owners to try and force PBC to sell the Sonics. He went on to detail the shortcomings of KeyArena, claiming that it's well below NBA standards and prevents the franchise from being successful. "The city has known that these guidelines hamstring its NBA tenant and prevent it from being profitable," he said. There was plenty of conflicting testimony on the arena throughout the trial thus far: the city agrees that it's no longer ideal but believes it could work with significant renovations, while the Sonics tried to paint it as the ninth circle of hell.

Opening Statement Verdict: Seattle by a nose.

Plaintiff's first witness: Mayor Greg Nickels

The city began its case by calling Mayor Nickels to the stand. Unfortunately, his testimony was long (over two hours), but not particularly impressive. City lawyer Jeffrey Johnson stumbled over his words a couple of times, and seemed to be presenting a relatively leading line of questioning, rare in direct testimony. Nickels spoke about his long involvement in the city's public service, his proposals to revitalize and renovate KeyArena (which began in the Schultz years) and his desire to keep pro basketball as the facility's anchor tenant. He offered three different options to Schultz for the arena's future, all involving partial city funding of extensive renovations and a renegotiated lease more favourable to the team.

Nickels said he was unhappy when he learned that Schultz had elected to sell the franchise to an out-of-town group (PBC) instead of pursuing renovation options.

"My reaction was one of disappointment in large part because we thought with these three options we’d come up with something that would work for the ownership and the city," he said.

During his direct testimony, Nickels also discussed the contacts he had with Bennett, which were of a surprisingly limited nature. They talked on the phone within a week of the sale and met for lunch later that week, but little progress was made, as Nickels favoured a dramatic renovation of the existing facility, which Bennett seemed unwilling to consider.

Nickels got absolutely roasted on cross-examination, though, as Keller seemed to channel Perry Mason to pick his story apart. The worst part for the Sonics' fans watching was that he appeared unprepared and unable to tell a consistent story. Keller asked if he had been working to try and create a sale to the local ownership group led by Ballmer and Griffin, and Nickels responded that he supported the sale, but hadn't been working towards it. Keller then played a clip from Nickels' video desposition where he asked an almost identical question and Nickels responded, "Yes." The same embarrasing situation occured again when Nickels refused to characterize the Sonics-Seattle relationship as "economically dysfunctional" and was then revealed to have done exactly that in his desposition. I'd be more understanding if these were long-ago comments of his dredged up from an obscure interview, but these were directly contradictory responses to almost the same questions posed on the court record by the same lawyer only weeks ago. In a trial where one of the city's key arguments is that Bennett and McClendon have been lying and changing stories all along, it severely damages their own credibility when the mayor directly contradicts himself several times in the span of a couple weeks. He also made it tough to believe that he's really in this because he cares about the team as opposed to seizing a political opportunity when he revealed that he hadn't been to a Sonics' game in six or seven years. Granted, the team wasn't very good for much of that span, but given the propensity of politicians to be drawn to large crowds and the NBA's seating style, where celebrities get great airtime from their courtside seats, you'd think he would have bothered to show up at least once in that period if he had any regard for the Sonics.

Keller also forced Nickels to reveal that senior officials in the mayor's office, including deputy mayor Tim Ceis, had been working closely with former Sonics president Wally Walker ever since July 2007, who had strong ties to the proposed local ownership and was trying to help them acquire the Sonics. A key part of this evidence was Exhibit 599, an July 24 e-mail from Walker to wireless magnate John Stanton, part of the local ownership group. The incriminating passage reads "I met with the city today and felt better about my message of fighting Clay’s attempts to leave. Make it too expensive and litigious for him. I get the impression they were in total agreement and that they (administration) understand the value of buying more time." As Keller pointed out, this was long before the team made an official request for an arbitrated solution to allow them to exit their lease (which happened in the third week of September) and before the city filed its lawsuit in response, which involved Nickels stating that the city was "lawyering up" (where they set aside a million dollars to retain Slade Gorton and his firm to fight to enforce the lease). Nickels maintained that he didn't know the specific dates or topics discussed in the meetings with Walker, and that the city subsequently following Walker's strategy of "making it too expensive and litigious" wasn't related to any dealings with Walker, but that's somewhat difficult to believe, to be honest.

Again, the problem here is more the optics than the specific actions taken. It's hard to paint Bennett and the rest of his gang as evil villains hell-bent on whatever nefarious activities would get them out of Seattle when the city was fighting almost as dirty to try and keep them. As Jerry Brewer of The Seattle Times wrote Friday, "There are no victims in this trial. There are only villains, villains on both sides, villains who made shameful and dishonest choices along this road to hostility. Everybody's exposed. Everybody's dirty. The Raiders may have started it, but that shouldn't excuse the city from playing in the mud. This trial is the Oklahoma Raiders against the City Swindlers."

Jeffrey Johnson established some key points during his redirect examination of Nickels, including that Bennett never asked to renegotiate the KeyArena lease and never offered to contribute to a renovation, pro basketball revenues account for "a significant portion" of the KeyArena revenues and that the city never actively lobbied against Bennett's proposal for a Renton arena, even though a suburban arena would compete with KeyArena for concerts and other events. Nickels said he felt having the Sonics remain in the region was more important in the long run.
"In the larger scheme of things, we’re part of a region and having the Sonics continue to be part of the region is good for the greater community," he said. He also made it clear that the lease made no reference to other NBA arenas: thus, it shouldn't matter that what was "state of the art" at the time isn't any more. Still, despite the ground regained on redirect, Nickels proved a poor witness for the city's case due to his concessions on cross-examination. Never a good sign when your first witness helps the other side more.

Mayor Nickels Verdict: A big step forward for PBC, which is unfortunate as he was a key city witness.


Plaintiff's second witness: Virginia Anderson, former Seattle Center director


Anderson, who was the director of Seattle Center from 1980-2006 and thus a key participant in the Sonics drama over the years, turned out to be a very strong witness for the city. City attorney Greg Narver, who handled her examination, wasn't nearly as strong, though: he made his points and his line of questioning was solid, but he sometimes stumbled over his words and he had to be reminded to slow down a couple times by Judge Pechman.

For those not from the Seattle area, the center is primarily an arts and culture facility with various theatres and galleries. It included the Sonics' original home, the Seattle Coliseum, where the team played for 20 years. The center is 75 per cent privately funded and 25 per cent publicly funded, and Anderson described it as "the nation’s best gathering place." She said its goal is to "inspire the human spirit and bring a diverse community together," qualities the city has tried to ascribe to the Sonics throughout the trial. Her testimony was made more compelling by her admission that she doesn't particularly like basketball, but still thought it was "absolutely" worth it to keep the Sonics in town. She also talked about how the combination of an arts center and a sporting facility draws fans to both who probably wouldn't go otherwise: "There are a lot of people who find their way of coming together around arts, many others who find it around sports, and others who find it around the international fountain." That all speaks to the city's key point that the Sonics provide an intangible, unquantifiable benefit to Seattle that can't be replaced with dollars. Fans already know this, but they'll have to convince Judge Pechman.

Anderson also spoke about her involvement with the construction of KeyArena. Originally, team owner Barry Ackerly had planned to build an entirely privately-funded arena on a different site, but the city offered to help with the construction of a new "state of the art" arena on the grounds and core of the old Coliseum. Only a couple of supports from the old arena remained: the rest of the facility was rebuilt from the ground up. Interestingly, the partnership allowed the Sonics to define "state of the art", which means that they certainly liked it at the time.

At any rate, Anderson's testimony established plenty of other facts that won't help Bennett and his Raiders (of the Seattle SuperSonics instead of the Lost Ark). The city provided a substantial amount of funding for KeyArena, including paying part of the cost ($10 million) up front, which was to be recouped over time via the lease's revenue-sharing provisions. They also borrowed the necessary remainder of the money on their own credit rating and at their own lower rate, thus assuming much of the risk involved and also diminishing their borrowing capacity to deal with other civic projects. A memo of understanding (Exhibit 41) drafted in early 1993 between the city and the team that Anderson said provided the "framework for the lease" included provisions that the Sonics would help out in the community, buttressing the city's case that they are a valuable addition to the area. Anderson signed the lease for the city, illustrating her deep knowledge of it, and she also spoke of how the 15-year term was a compromise between the 10 years the team wanted and the 20 years the city preferred. Her direct testimony demonstrated that the Sonics were originally quite happy with both the building and the lease, thus showing that it clearly wasn't always the "worst in the league" as Stern described it [The Associated Press via ESPN.com].

Anderson's most impressive performance was under cross-examination from defence attorney Paul Taylor, though. Where Nickels collapsed under tough questioning, she sat ramrod-straight and refused to budge an inch. Under cross-examination, it came out that the arena was on track for its budget projections right until the construction of the Mariners' new home at Safeco Field was completed in 1999, taking a substantial part of the luxury suite market, a significant revenue source for the Sonics and the city (which was then further diluted when the Seahawks' and Sounders' Qwest Field opened in 2002 and an events centre opened in Everett shortly thereafter). She talked about how important on-court success is to the team's financial health, as one year up to 40 per cent of their revenue came from the playoffs, making a strong case that a franchise successful on the court could still make a profit in KeyArena. If the team went all the way to the Finals and won a championship, she estimated that they would double their season revenue from that playoff run.

Anderson's best testimony came when Taylor tried to get her to portray the lease as a lose-lose situation, though.
“Both sides are losing money," she said. "I wouldn’t characterize it as both sides have lost.”
She pointed out that both the slumping economy and the other new buildings would still have negatively impacted the Sonics if they had built their own arena, and they would have suffered the full losses in that scenario instead of splitting them with the city. She also wittily refuted Taylor's assertion that the fans' interest in the team had declined, saying, “Well, there’s a lot of buzz around them and a lot of excitement around this trial.” She discussed the cyclical nature of sports, saying that every franchise has heights and troughs. "They’re in the trough right now," she said. "There will be a time when it comes back up. People buy their season tickets because they know it would bottom out and come back up.”

Taylor tried to get in a last shot by referring to an assessment from the KeyArena task force that suggested even if the Sonics sold out every seat, they’d still be $6 million below the NBA average in ticket revenues. However, Anderson held her ground, reiterating that that didn't include playoff revenues or other revenue streams like concessions and advertising and didn't mean the team would lose money. "That does not say they’re not breaking even, it says they’re below the NBA average," she said. "It’s not a fair statement to say that they’d be losing money.”

On redirect, Narver got Anderson to establish that the Sonics' declining attendance and revenues, as well as their poor play and dismal future prospects, had received considerable coverage in the press long before Bennett bought the team in 2006. She also showed that the loss of suite revenue from the competition with Qwest and Safeco had been well-publicized, the city had saved the team considerable money on KeyArena's construction by retaining the land and part of the structure of the old Coliseum (the team saved an estimated $15 million from the structural savings alone), and that Howard Schultz had frequently spoken publicly about the losses he incurred while running the team.

Virginia Anderson verdict: A big win for the city.

Plaintiff's third witness: Jyo Singh, director of communications, events and facilities for the Seattle Centre and a former KeyArena manager.

On direct examination from Greg Narver, Singh testified that he'd been in his current job for three years and had served as the KeyArena manager for eleven years before that. He worked closely with the Sonics in both capacities. He told the court that he had daily interactions with Sonics staff and there were regular biweekly meetings between his city staff and the Sonics staff. He said there had been a good working relationship between the two groups over all of his fourteen years despite the changes in ownership and the acrimony that developed between the city and PBC, as both staffs don't let outside influences impact their professional dealings with each other. As such, it was a pretty neat rebuttal of PBC's claim that forcing the Sonics to play at KeyArena for two more years (which is what the case is essentially all about) would strain a dysfunctional relationship and make staging the games impossible. "I don’t see any reason why the relationship should become acrimonious or difficult because they’re our major clients," Singh said. He also offered the example of the Thunderbirds, Seattle's Western Hockey League junior team who played at KeyArena for many years including this past one, but will be moving to a new arena in suburban Kent for next season. Singh said there was no change in that relationship when it was learned the team was moving.

Singh also testified about the many improvements the city has made to the arena over the years at the request of the Sonics, frequently at its own expense. He said the city had spent $5.5 million in capital improvements since the arena opened, many of which were for the Sonics' primary benefit. These included installing a ring of video advertising boards ($1.3 million), upgrading the suite level ($1 million), installing new sound and lighting systems four years ago to bring the arena up to new NBA standards in those areas, enhancing the scoreboard and building a lounge for players' families to watch games. The city often turned areas they were renting to other tenants into facilities the Sonics could use to generate revenue, such as the FSN Lounge (built out of a storage/catering space) and the Lexus Lounge (built out of four or five suites). Singh also stated that the city spent an extra $150,000 annually on KeyArena maintenance. He then discussed the initial reaction of the Sonics, the NBA and the public to the facility, which he described as "superlative".

David Stern thought it was a great arena as well at the time, as this video shows (a Mitch Levy interview with him on the pay-per-view broadcast of the first Sonics game there on November 4, 1995). The city tried to introduce this video during Singh's testimony, but it was ruled inadmissible on a hearsay objection by the defense. The city also tried to call Levy to testify, but they apparently were too late adding him to the witness list [Jim Brunner, The Seattle Times]. They also tried to call David Stern, but U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in New York decided that he wouldn't be ordered to testify. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems odd to ban what could be crucial evidence on a hearsay charge when you've already shot down the conventional ways to use it. Most of the Sonics' arguments rest on the idea that KeyArena is a decrepit pit unsuitable for an NBA team, something Stern has been eager to support recently. The opinion of the NBA commissioner is pretty important as well, so it would have been a victory for the city to be able to demonstrate how quickly that opinion's changed. Still, this is a judge trial, not a jury one, so that might have less credence.

Here's a transcript of the best part of the Stern interview:

Levy: "How does our KeyArena stack up, and how do you like it so far?"

Stern: "It's very special to me. I know what a struggle it was for the Sonics and the Ackerly family. They very much wanted to have this team playing in a beautiful building. It's intimate, the sightlines are great, the decorations are terrific. I think the city of Seattle should be very much proud of what's going on here tonight."

Compare that to his comments to The Associated Press on March 26 of this year [via The Seattle Times]:

"While taking questions about an NBA relocation subcommittee's recommendation to move the Sonics to Oklahoma City, Stern said, 'The reason that this journey began was because KeyArena was not an adequate arena going forward and there were a lot of recommendations made for another arena ... but the tax revenues and the various contributions weren't forthcoming.

Quite the contrast, no?

In any case, Singh offered some more interesting information. He talked about how he'd visited 14 or 15 NBA arenas as part of his job as arena manager, and most of them were of comparable quality to KeyArena. He said that having NBA basketball provides a boost to the facility in quantity and quality of concert bookings, due to the supposed prestige and arena standard involved. That should go a ways to show that the Sonics do bring other benefits to the city, a key part of their case. He also said that bringing Seattle University basketball to KeyArena, which there have been discussions about, couldn't replace the Sonics' impact due to the smaller audience, the fewer dates and the lower quality of play.

Taylor began his cross-examination of Singh by attempting to get him to comment on a report created by HOK consultant Russ Simmons, which PBC retained him to produce to analyze KeyArena. The city objected on hearsay grounds, and also on the grounds of trying to introduce expert testimony without having the expert present for questioning. Taylor admitted the hearsay, but referenced a couple of complicated legal exceptions to try and allow the report's introduction. Narver said they didn't apply, as they were designed to introduce regular business records, while this was a specially-generated report. As it was almost time to adjourn, Judge Pechman decided to consider the arguments of both sides and reserve judgement until the next day, thus ending Day I of the trial.

Day I verdict: PBC comes out slightly on top here due to the excellent performances by their lawyers. Brad Keller, in particular, had Mayor Nickels on the ropes all day during cross-examination, which is extremely worrying for the city given how important his testimony was to their case.