You hold him, I'll hit him!

SEATTLE - As noted in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer story, written by Greg Johns, Settlement unlikely as Sonics, city head to trial, a settlement is not expected in the case that begins on Monday, June 16, 2008. It has been my contention that there isn't a meaningful benefit to settling for either side since Howard Schultz filed his case against Clay Bennett's ownership group.
The fraud that is the Bennett's ownership group, as alleged by Howard Schultz' lawyer, Richard Yarmuth, put the city in the position of collecting depositions it had, and had planned prior to Schultz making his claim, and moving on to the subject that it actually owns, the two years left on the current lease. The city has its own reasons to keep the NBA playing in Seattle (once they get out the door it is unlikely you are going to get the NBA back), so they are able to stick to the part of the case that they can win and would result in getting what they want. Had the city gone after the fraud the result would have been, at best, a judge not having a direct party in the case having a claim to the team, other than as an occupant of a custom remodel to a public building.
The city doesn't have as much leverage as it could have after winning the court case. Removing the buyout as an option that is only available IF the city, the mayor in particular, thought that would be acceptable. The problem for the mayor, and the city, is that it has many leases to enforce and it just can't have public money spent on a custom remodel for a unique tenet and have that tenant break a lease and leave. That's bad policy, it is bad politics, consider that he wants to remake the entire Seattle Center site, including Key Arena (warning, big file).
Having an anchor tenant is a priority, knowing that there is at lease one person willing to gift $150 million to Key Arena is motivation enough. Imagine trying to sell the idea of remaking the Seattle Center with many public/private partnerships while Clay Bennett is acting as the worst example you could find.
It just makes sense on a bigger scale to enforce this lease, maintain continuity with an anchor tenant in a custom building.
Schultz will follow up with the other question of the actual team, the fraud part of Bennett's business model.


On the Bennett side, he only has one team to bargain with. Give it back to Schultz and he is out a team, worst case in the city trial is that he waits out two years and then leaves. If the NBA really would leave Seattle as the largest edia market in the United States of America without and NBA team, then their threats make sense, that they would not return. So, Stern and Bennett could care less about burning this bridge, they are chasing short money in Oklahoma City.
They have nothing to lose as long as you assume, as I do, that they have no dignity to begin with. They simply do not care about you, get over it.

Bennett's biggest problem is that he will have to return to face the same judge in the Schultz trial, after having shown his ignorance of the lease, and lied through his teeth to remake the past efforts to relocate to OKC ASAP as something other than they clearly are. Bennett got some no-so-good advice from David Stern's NBA before the end of the 12 month good faith best efforts period had ended, rather than warn Bennett that his efforts to relocate to OKC for the 2007-2008 season are a breach of good faith best efforts, the NBA simply said there wasn't enough time to ram the request through the NBA Board of Governors, and relocation committee. The league, in the Schultz trial, is a participant with Bennett, it has teams it wants to move from markets that want them gone.

If Bennett is going to let go of the Sonics it will not be without a promise of another team for OKC. It isn't Seattle waiting on a promise, I think it is Bennett. That promise can not be made, or kept, until everybody moves on the the Schultz trial. If Bennett loses the Sonics to Howard Schultz he, Bennett, can point to the league as assisting him with his relocation efforts that lead to him losing the team.

Who is a direct party to which case? Who has more than one team or can create new teams? Answer those questions to find your answer, and you will not find it as a direct party in next week's trial.

The City of Seattle vs. Clay Bennett, Aubrey McClendon, is not where this situation can be solved. A missing part of all of this is the Fall elections, and the State of Washington living up to its signed letter and fund the rest of the Key Arena remodel. The NBA simply can not complete a resolution, short of losing the trial, without remodel funding committed to the project.

Enjoy next week's show everybody, but that is just not where the resolution resides.

I appreciate the hopeful expectations of all those at SonicsCentral.com , I share your optimism for a resolution that sets things right for the City of Seattle, NBA, Sonics, more importantly the fans, I just have not ever seen this trial not happening. They have no shame, this is not about shame, this is about having a legal right to keep the team here (an owner getting bad advice from the NBA), for Bennett to have a team (more bad advice from the NBA, and the NBA becoming a direct party to court action that would be resided over by Judge Marsha Pechman, the loss of control of the league and ownership of a team by the NBA would be unbearable.

Have a great day,
Mr Baker

Sent from my iPhone (which will be turned off if I am in the courtroom, I promise).

Schultz suit against Sonics delayed until July

The Schultz vs Bennett trial has been delayed, postponed until after the City of Seattle vs. Bennett concludes.

Have a great day,
Mr Baker

Sent from my iPhone

Next Defense for Clayton Bennett: Evil Twin?

While reading the variety of truthy accounts of Clayton Bennett's deposition, I was doodling, thinking, what will be the next defense for him. Then it came to me: Evil Twin.

Bennett: "I'm having a conversation that is raising the notion of Oklahoma City as a potential relocation option, notwithstanding my ongoing commitment to efforts in Seattle." - Clayton Bennett, as reported by Jim Brunner of the Seattle Times.

That appears to be the best defense for somebody, or two bodies, to work best efforts in two different states, that is, to be of two states of mind. What better way to show two different states of mind than to claim (as in many soap operas) that there is an evil twin. The real Clayton was the guy in Olympia, Renton, near Seattle, in fron of the NBA Board of Governors, emailing David Stern, signing purchase agreements with Howard Schultz that claimed that his goup would provide a long-term ownership presence in the Seattle area as a condition of sale.
It was an evil twin he could call something that sounds like Clayton, has a cheesy mustache, and is actively working against the good faith best efforts of the real Clayton Bennett.

Lawrence followed up: "Did you write back to Mr. Ward and say, 'Oh, Tom, you've got it wrong, I'm not -- I'm not saying anything about wanting to get the team to Oklahoma City, I'm talking about my commitment to keep the team in Seattle'?", as reported by Jim Brunner of the Seattle Times.

At this point the evil twin wrestles the computer away from Clayton. . .

Bennett: "No, I did not. I just dropped off. I knew where Tom and Aubrey were relative to their interests and I knew where I was and that was the statement I made, so I dropped off. And also I think I was responding to other e-mails at the time.", as reported by Jim Brunner of the Seattle Times.

That is a puzzle, how could Clayton get out of this one?

Bennett: "No, I did not. I just dropped off. I knew where Tom and Aubrey were relative to their interests and I knew where I was and that was the statement I made, so I dropped off. And also I think I was responding to other e-mails at the time.", as reported by Jim Brunner of the Seattle Times.

No Clay, no! Go for evil twin, just yell out EVIL TWIN, squirt out some crocodile tears and reallly feel the boo hoo words you used to mock the fealings of your employees.

"So, just so it's clear, four days after you were a man possessed to keep the team in Seattle, you were asking discussions with the NBA about the option of relocating the Sonics to Oklahoma City. Is that fair?" Lawrence asked.

Bennett: "I'm having a conversation that is raising the notion of Oklahoma City as a potential relocation option, notwithstanding my ongoing commitment to efforts in Seattle.", as reported by Jim Brunner of the Seattle Times.

NO, NO, NO!!! EVIL TWIN, not "I'm having", but "The EVIL TWIN is having".
Forget it, never mind. The judge would likely see right through the Evil Twin defense.

Love the team. The owner, not so much.
I would be happy to have the team here for two more years, as long as the owner doesn't plan to put on a uniform and play. I can differentiate.

Originally posted at SonicsCentral.com (story#1939, 2008-06-07 1:17:56 pm), user comments caused it to be removed from view.

It’s on you, Clay and OKC

As reported today in the Oklahoma City newspaper, The Oklahoman ( NewsOK.com ), staff writer Randy Ellis reports that the attorney for Howard Schultz has responded to the letter sent by OKC to the Schultz group back on May 8th. The letter from May 8 claimed that the owner of the Sonics, Bennett or Schultz, would be responsible for the remodel of the Ford Center that is being done in preparation for the relocation of the Sonics.

The response by Schultz's attorney, Richard Yarmuth, is of the opinion (shared by many, here, there, and those not recently kicked in the head by a horse) that the agreement is with the Bennett group and not with whomever owns the Sonics.

"It is not correct that Oklahoma City has contracts with ‘the owners of the team, whomever they may be...,” Yarmuth wrote. "The city's contracts are with the Bennett Group, and no one else.
"If the Bennett Group is successful in retaining ownership of the Sonics and moving the team to Oklahoma City, then your contracts presumably will be valid and enforceable against them. However, if it comes to pass that the Bennett Group loses its franchise rights — as a result of the ...(Schultz) lawsuit or otherwise — then your contracts with the Bennett Group will be of no legal force or effect against any other party who winds up owning the team.”
Dan Mahoney, spokesman for the Sonics' current owners, said Thursday they would have no comment.
Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett also declined to comment . . . NewsOK.com

Here is the gist of the OKC claim:

In Oklahoma City's earlier letter to the Schultz Group, the city stated it would be spending as much as $120 million on projects to upgrade the Ford Center and build a practice facility in anticipation of the Sonics arrival.

Back to Mr. Yarmuth's points:

Yarmuth said he believes Oklahoma City has at least three choices.

•Wait until the lawsuits affecting the team's status are resolved before spending public funds.

•Continue spending public funds on improvements, knowing that "from a taxpayer perspective...betting on the Bennett Group poses a real risk, given the uncertainty of future events.”

•Ask the team's Oklahoma owners to indemnify the city against any losses it could sustain before spending any more money.

"While Oklahoma City may be eager to begin improvements and construction of its sports facilities, the city has no existing obligation in this regard and cannot expect to hold anyone else responsible for the city's choice if the city's choice turns out to be wrong,” he wrote.
At least three lawsuits are pending that challenge efforts by Sonics owners to move the team to Oklahoma. NewsOK.com

Well, duh.

Clay, you lose to Howard, you may owe your hometown $120 million dollars. The PBR will enjoy the upgrades!
Originally posted at http://sonicscentral.com

Have a great day,
Mr Baker

Sent from my iPhone

The Court Case has been Filed for the Trial on June 16

Eric Williams in his Tacoma News Tribune blog has posted a link to some court filings, including the points each side is planning to argue in the trial that is to begin June 16, 2008.
Mr. Williams provides us with a brief outline and a link here (please, see his blog post here for more).

The city’s argument is pretty straight forward: The Sonics signed a lease to play all of its games in KeyArena until Sept. 2010. The KeyArena lease contains a specific performance clause stating that fact, and the city wants the team to honor its contractual obligation.

The city does not want to let the Sonics buy their way out of the lease because the city believes they are a unique tenant that cannot be replaced, and they bring intangible benefits to the city that cannot be reasonably calculated.

The Sonics will argue that the city will not be impacted economically by the team leaving and a buyout of the lease can be reasonably calculated. They also will argue that the city has unclean hands, pointing to its relationship with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer’s group that tried to get Clay Bennett’s ownership group to sell the Sonics to them. The Sonics also will argue that the specific performance clause would impose undue hardship on the franchise.

The case as filed is 54 pages long, includes familiar arguments, some familiar names, and a table of exhibits that takes up nearly half of the document (please, click here for a direct link to the case document Mr. Williams has posted on the Tacoma News Tribune).

Mr. Williams also provides a link to the city's filing that argues for Mitch Levy and Sherman Alexie (you are going to have to go to his blog and click the link there, he did the work to get it and post it).

I do not have a problem with the team playing here, the players do not have a problem playing here, how the owner of the team feels about the city is not my problem, and not the court's problem. Suck it up Clay, crybaby.

I have clean hands, and that's all you need to know about me.

Originally posted at http://sonicscentral.com/

Have a great day,
Mr Baker

Sent from my iPhone

“it will be a bloodbath in that courtroom”

Greg Johns, of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, has some entertaining quotes from a lawyer not involved with the City of Seattle vs. Profession Basketball’s court case. Nothing new, or nothing that you haven’t been warned about by regular writers and posters on SonicsCentral.com, “it will be a bloodbath in that courtroom” - Longtime Seattle attorney Randy Aliment

He says this:

Aliment said both sides have hired the best trial lawyers in Seattle and he expects a no-holds-barred situation should the case proceed as scheduled.

“You’ve definitely got a three-ring circus going now,” Aliment said. “From a straight legal standpoint, this thing is just about unprecedented. I’m thinking one of the only other comparable situations was when Al Davis and the Oakland Raiders filed suit and things got stupid down there. That one actually went to trial.”

And he says that:

Is there room to settle?

“From the city’s standpoint, forced occupation here is going to be a difficult proposition because the team would only be here two years, the NBA is going to be upset and the prospects for a team long-term are problematic,” Aliment said. “Some type of mediated solution where Bennett can take his toys back to Oklahoma and the city gets a different team, or Bennett gets a new team and we keep our Sonics, would obviously be the best.

“But it’s going to take participation by the NBA and other owners to approve something like that,” he said. “That’s a tall order, as evidenced by the fact it hasn’t been done yet.”

But this isn’t anything like what’s really going to happen. The Al Davis trial happened in 1982, pre-ESPN ruling the world, pre-internet, pre-hyper news cycles.

David Stern has a “three-ring circus going”, only, he isn’t the lion tamer, or ring master, but by choice as the circus clown.

Read the rest of A Sonics trial may get ugly — expert. NBA should push for fast settlement, veteran lawyer says by Greg Johns of the Seattle PI.
Originally posted at http://sonicscentral.com

Have a great day,
Mr Baker

Sent from my iPhone