Sonics owner tells NBA he wants to move team to Oklahoma City
 

Sonics owner tells NBA he wants to move team

Bennett has until March 1 to file for relocation; group offers to buy team

SEATTLE - The Seattle Supersonics' new owner told the NBA on Friday he plans to move the team to Oklahoma City.

Clay Bennett had set a Wednesday deadline for having a plan to replace KeyArena, which he says is outdated. He and the city are in a dispute about the arena lease.

He has until March 1 to file for relocation with the NBA if he wants the team to play the 2008-09 season anywhere besides Seattle. The Sonics are the city’s oldest major professional sports franchise.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21598500/



This is not a surprise to people in Seattle. This guy has been talking about moving the team since he bought it if he didn't get a brand new arena. But, Seattle does not react well to ultimatums from its sports teams and would rather kiss a team goodbye than yield to the demands of spoiled owners and athletes. The Mariners have the legislature to thank for Safeco Field after taxpayers voted down a new stadium back in the Kingdome days.

I remember when we had the Hornets down here. It was really great for the city -- we also had some of the best attendance in the NBA.

If Seattle can't support the team, we will.

Seattle's been supporting the team for many years. We created Key Arena for the team...the former building was basically gutted for them. They still haven't paid off the current building, yet they want a new one...even though the team seems to be getting worse and worse. What Seattle won't do is pull out all the stops - including building a new $300 million basketball arena - just because a team doesn't like the building they're playing in now.

Reminds me of Bud Adams - asked for millions of dollars of improvements to the Astrodome, then turned around and demanded a new stadium. I was proud of Houston for standing up to the blackmailing. Of course, my parents are still paying taxes to pay off the improvements to the Dome. :rolleyes:

Professional sports teams can help put a city on the map, but I always am left with a bad taste in my mouth when a franchise holds a city for ransom if there isn't a new stadium built with city funds, etc.

Do you know - despite the dire predictions, Houston actually continued to exist when it did NOT have a NFL team? YES - it did!

Yeah. Also check with Los Angeles.

If the team was doing well, and people wanted to go to the games, I think taxpayers would be more inclined to go for it. But, the team has sucked for years and tickets cost so much now that people can't afford the $120 it costs to see a game from halfway up the arena.

The Arena (formerly called the Seattle Coliseum) was completely renovated in 1995 for $120 million, $74 million of which was paid for by the citizens of Seattle. The team says it's outdated and they need a bigger place...but if they can't fill the seats in the current house, why should we build them a bigger one?!

Sounds like when the Hornets moved to New Orleans. They had all the support in Charlotte but the owner wanted a new arena. Imagine how the owner felt when he had to temporary moved them to OK City after Katrina.

Shinn felt great. Oklahoma City bought 12K season tickets for a temporary team that wasn't playoff material. We also had an attendance average around 18K over the years the Hornets were here.

I'd rather have an NHL team here. Maybe once the Sonics are gone we can think about starting fresh with a new team... :) Of course, we'd have to build them an arena too.

They probaby did better in Oklahoma City than they are doing in New Orleans. They did well in Charlotte, but Shinn pi$$ed off the whole city. That's why they left Charlotte.

Now only if the Bobcats can win some games....:rolleyes:

The Hornets did better in OKC than the majority of teams in the NBA do in much larger cities. I guarantee that a Sonics ticket in OKC will be a tough ticket to get ahold of once they move here.

I think Oklahoma City is a pretty nice place.

It's OK, to coin a phrase.

Reality is, though, that whenever a team is "new" to an area, it generally does very well.

After a couple of years of average to dismal performances the luster wears off.

Then the owner demands a new arena with luxury skyboxes, the parking franchise, concession profits and, of course, doesn't want to spend a penny of his/her/their own -- or they'll take their team and go home. Home will be the next city willing to spend a lot of money to have a major sports franchise -- whether the long term sports dollars to support the team are there or not.

I also know that it's easy to be critical when you live in a city with the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL as well as a couple of more minor professional teams.

Of course I'm also a little jaded because I lived in Baltimore when Bob Irsay literally sneaked his team (The Colts) out of town in the middle of the night to move to Indianapolis.

With the new Sprint center in K C, I truly do not know if they/we will support either a new NHL (Possibly the Raptors) or A NBA Team?

Had National Ice Hockey and NBA Teams and they both moved.:rolleyes:

While there is only so much money that can be paid out by the fans, The Chiefs are by far the biggest draw! Then the lowly Royals where they do not have a fan base even in SW Mo!

Be nice to have both teams in a new great arena, I do not know if they would last with the money grubbing owners!:mad:

As above poster said, it is blackmail by the owners!:eek:

Owners will push for a new stadium every 5 years. They'll generally ask for something that is larger. What that means is a stadium that has less seats but more luxury boxes. They'll also push for bigger portions of sales from things like concessions. How will they finance it? By forcing the city to issue public bonds. At the same time, the public sees no benefit, traffic becomes an issue, other businesses suffer, etc.

So let them move. In fact, encourage them to move.

-Rudey

Update
 

As of yesterday afternoon's court ruling, it's official: the "Sonics" are moving to OK City. Feelings here in Seattle are mixed.

Feelings in OKC really aren't.

FWIW, I think Seattle made out very well on the settlement.

In the sense that they got an assload of money, sure - however, now they have to wait for the crumbling abortion of the Memphis Grizzlies to pack up and move to Seattle in a few years so the fans can endure about 6 years of losing then OJ Mayo packing up and hauling ass to LA (all under the tidy moniker "Sonics" that city officials are so proud to keep), while the goodwill of the fan base is absolutely pissed on in the interim, so there's that side too.

Enjoy your new owner - remember, though, that the cackling douche will come for more cash as soon as feasible.

Clay Bennett's family has been involved in Oklahoma City since his wife's great-great grandfather reputedly packed up his brothel in Denver (I can't verify that, but I have heard it), moved to OKC and started up a Newspaper. I've never met the man, but I know many who do. He's by all accounts a pretty decent person.

As far as having his hand out, the city has already provided him with an arena built in '95, which is getting a $150M makeover this Summer, courtesy of a recent bond issue.

I'm sure he'll be back for more cash -- and I'm also quite sure that the people of Oklahoma City will happily fork it over. We've had some pretty good success with public works projects over the last couple of decades and many see an NBA franchise as confirmation that our sales tax and bond dollars have been well-spent.

As far as Bennett ever turning a profit on that team, considering the amount he is out at this point (350M for the purchase of the team and up to 75M to move), that's probably not going to happen for awhile.

How many people live in Oklahoma City and the surrounding area? I know folks have said that the Hornets games had good attendance when they were there, but that was a limited engagement and a novelty. Novelty wears off; what happens when the team isn't new anymore, the team stinks, and ticket prices go up? Is the population of that area big enough to support the team? Or are they going to have to rely on the same small core of people to go to every game?

The Key Arena is essentially a new arena. Not on the outside, since it was the original Coliseum, but the inside was completely gutted in the 90s. Why would we want to pay another $250 MILLION to renovate it again just 10 or 15 years later? We renovated it the first time according to what the Sonics owners wanted, and the past several years they haven't even come close to selling it out. In the end many Seattlites just got tired of the constant whining from team owners, especially the owners from out of state that I think everyone knew would want to move the team - that was the first thing I thought of when I heard that some out-of-towner had bought the Sonics.

At least we got to keep the nickname, colors, etc. so that we can bring back the Sonics another time if we want to. I'd personally much rather have a NHL team.

You are so ridiculous it's hilarious.

OKC is filled with a bunch of idiots if they think their tax dollars are well spent on this and you are amazing for thinking someone just LOVES losing money on a sports team. Heck if you love losing money so much why don't you offer to purchase some of the liabilities off Bennett...I'm sure since it's so unprofitable he'd gladly turn it over to you.

We're about a 1.5M MSA.

It's tough to speculate as to how we'll support a 'down' team. Remember, when the Hornets came to OKC, they were one of the worst teams in the league. In the first year, if you don't count the poorly-attended NO games, we were 9th in the NBA in attendance. That year, the team was sub .500. We had 18 sellouts or better. 2006 was comparable, but I wasn't able to find any exact numbers.

We put 85,000+ butts in seats for all of the Oklahoma U. football games, so I think we can support the team. We did well with the sub-.500 Hornets, but we'll see. I think we'll be able to support the team. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll quote this post in a few years and have a good laugh at my expense.

According to Stern, the arena didn't meet NBA criteria. I don't really have anything bad to say about the Key. I'm sure it's a fine facility. I don't have anything more to go on. OKC's Ford Center was built in '95 as an "NBA-ready" facility. It's getting $150 million worth of improvements to bring it up to par for the new team. Comparing two arenas, I'm sure, is apples to oranges.

I was struck by one of Bennett's comments last night at his press conference when he mentioned that the Ford Center was limited in that it doesn't have enough seats (19,675).

A new arena is probably in the works. OKC has had a series of public works programs geared at improving the city. Somoe of the tentative drawings I've seen on OKC's next big round of public works programs include a new, larger arena.

OKC has passed all of these public works programs by a very wide margin.

It would have been odd to have the Oklahoma City Sonics. I think Bennett's decision to take the trophies/record/etc. was the wrong one. I think all of that ought to remain in Seattle.

NHL is good stuff. I think the Grizzlies may be heading your way soon enough.

I don't think OKC was focused on making a profit here.

We all know it's probably going to hemorrhage money. To be honest, I think most folks here are fine with that.

It has always seemed to me that the cities that people think of most often are the ones with professional sports franchises. They're on TV often, as well as in newspapers and on radio.

Personally, I get sick of owners demanding bigger arena/stadiums with more luxury boxes, etc. However, I suspect that the hidden return to a city like OKC may be more important than the actual profits (or lack thereof) brought in by a professional team.

My guess is that businesses may be more likely to embrace (and move to) a city with a team and that having one could be more of a draw for talented employees, etc.

Comparing the benefits for a city like Seattle, which has other professional sports, and OKC, which doesn't, may be the real apples and oranges piece of this equation.

Agreed. The knock on OKC for a long time is that there wasn't much to do here. Our city's leadership recognized this in the 90's and decided it was a matter of public investment. We've pumped billions into our entertainment districts, schools, etc. We're now spending a good amount to pay for an NBA team.

Our Chamber of Commerce was very high on the NBA, regardless of the price, primarily due to the intangible things the NBA can bring to a marginal city like OKC.

I heard a local news station report that we've already sold 11,000 season tickets just two days after the phone lines opened.

I guess we'll be able to support the team for at least one season.

???? What are you talking about???

I think there are "transparent" benefits for the image of a city to have a professional sports franchise that go beyond the dollars and cents that can be directly attributed the gate, consessions, parking, luxury boxes, tourism, etc.

Among them is the name mention on national and local sports, news, etc.

It's the proverbial publicity that money can't buy.

These things all have a literal dollar value that can be calculated by economists - it's actually a straight-forward process (and, as an aside, if you can't put a dollar value on it then it doesn't matter as far as the bond issues go).

Even accounting for these extra benefits, publicly-funded stadiums are generally a financial disaster for the city, and essentially account for every citizen paying for an incredibly rich ownership group to get richer.

You might want to check out some of the sports business resources out there - Maury Brown, for instance, does a great job at his site.

I absolutely agree on the publicly funded stadium issue. It's kind of a reverse Robin Hood, taking money from the poor for the benefit of the rich.

Both of my brothers-in-law are attorneys (one is the former head of the Ohio Municipal League) who deal heavily in bond(s) and bond issues and my sister-in-law does as well with her Masters in City Administration. My other sister-in-law works for a firm that negotiates stadium naming rights, etc., but I try to ignore that -- she's still OK. Anyway, I'll let them deal with the specific economics.

I'm not talking about bond issues, though. I'm more interested in the way people "feel" about a city and its reputation.

Having grown up in a city (Columbus, Ohio) which, at that time, had no professional teams, but was surrounded by cities of roughly the same size (Cincinnati and Indianapolis -- and, slightly larger population-wise Cleveland and Pittsburgh), industrial base and demographics which had franchises, the ones with pro athletics were considered "major" cities and ours was really not. (Unless, of course, you want to count Ohio State as a professional football team)

Perhaps that kind of thing can be quantified, but I would be suspect of the conclusions because there are so many hidden variables.

Anyway, had there not been a bombing, Oklahoma City was generally not an area that I thought about (until our son went to Norman for college) except during tornado season. When the NBA moves there, though, I'll hear about it a lot.

It seems to me that if there were not benefits -- hidden or not -- no city would care about having a professional team. The "big time" cities have them. At least that's the way it appears to me -- and I've lived in a bunch of them (Baltimore, Milwaukee, Detroit, New York and Denver). I was living in Baltimore when Robert Irsay sneaked the Colts out of town literally in the middle of the night.

ETA that I've also visited and/or televised games in almost every city with a franchise as well as many with "only" major college teams. There's a different attitude.

The Sonics have played at the same location for 40 years - I assure you there's nothing wrong with Key Arena...it's perfectly regulation, or the NBA wouldn't allow games to be played there. What Bennett and other owners don't like is that it's not HUGE. I think it seats around 17,000. It's not a place designed for fine dining before a game, so it doesn't have real restaurants like you'd see at some sports arenas or airports. But it's modern enough that it has tons of concessions areas and plenty of women's bathrooms...that should be a testament to how recently it was renovated, because as women know, older arenas have few women's facilities! :) Anyway, we're still paying for the renovations to Key Arena, which now I guess will be used just for concerts and high school basketball tournaments.

I did actually look into the renovations Seattle did. Calling the Key "old" is definitely a misnomer. There are maybe only a couple of structural elements which are old. The rest was complete gutted.

Best of luck in getting a new team. I hope our new team in OKC works out.

Benefits? National status? You think people care about any city in Colorado because of the Rockies or the Nuggets? Give me a break. Outside of a handful of cities in America, everything else is fly-over territory.

And it's great that you've arbitrarily picked some random thing in a city for the prominence factor. Not a well known university, museum, zoo, beach, mountain resort, etc...you picked a sports team, made a ridiculous statement, and qualified it with a "I think".

I think you make no sense.

You're an idiot. Have something against sports, were you always picked last as a kid?

Are you a neo-nazi?

-Rudey

How do you figure this? Are you saying this is the case for all major sports?

It is generally the case but I don't know enough about hockey and soccer to say that.

The reason it works is that the revenue streams for the luxury boxes usually are tied to the owners and a percentage of the fees from general ticket sales are used to back the bonds for the stadium's construction.

http://www.google.com/search?q=new+s...ri&rls=en&sa=2

I figured I would let you look at the google results if you're really interested.

Yeah, I do think "people" care. And I do think the Rockies, Nuggetts, Broncos, Avalanche, Rapids and our other professional teams are associated with the city and its reputation.

Remember, the average person isn't college graduate and probably couldn't name a museum in most cities -- even some who live there -- but they can probably name the local professional team. My comment wasn't an arbitrary pick -- it's my opinion.

I almost always qualify my opinion with "I thinK" or something like that because I'm clearly not laboring under the assumption that I'm perfect.

You can decide who you think makes "ridiculous" comments, and I'll make my own decision as well.