Some interesting quotes from various elected officials regarding the sale of the Sonics:
Seattle City President Nick Licata says, "'they chose profits over our offer.'" Egads! A business that is losing money on an annual basis actually cares about it's bottom line? The horror.
Seattle City Councilman Richard McIver acknowledges "it's in Seattle's financial interest that the team leaves the state altogether rather than go to a suburban venue." I argued as much in comments at Sound Politics here, and in another comment thread I said this:
Specifically on the Sonics, it would be disastrous for Seattle if the team moved to Bellevue or Renton rather than out of state. Then not only would Key Arena lose its major tenant, but the combined competition between the Sonics new facility and the new Everett Events Center would dramatically diminish the economic viability of Key Arena (Nick Lacata's musings not withstanding) - a big hit to an already struggling Seattle Center. Maybe that's not a bad thing if you don't live in Seattle, but inherently the Seattle City Council and Mayor are tasked with looking out for the City's best interest, which they don't seem to be doing by essentially daring the Sonics to move across the lake.
Meanwhile, state Sen. Margarita Prentice, Chair of the Senate Ways & Means Committee, says "'I have given up on Seattle. I'm not surprised that the team gave up on Seattle. With all the hostility they faced from the City Council...and the kind of hesitancy on the mayor's part.'"
There are obviously many different opinions about how the Sonics should or should not be supported, and I think the departing owners deserve criticism for how the team handled working with state and local governments. For example, they were a bit too strident and didn't appear to bring the issue up early enough in the legislative session to actually have a good chance of getting what they wanted. But that being said, it seems undeniable the City of Seattle has done a poor job of looking out for its interests. Now the City has to try and deal with out-of-town owners who aren't going to think twice about moving the team if the City keeps up it's current approach.
Whether you like the Sonics or not, that's not impressive performance.
UPDATE: Link fixed in third paragraph.
UPDATE UPDATE: Errors in first sentance fixed.
Posted by Eric Earling at July 19, 2006 07:33 AM | Email ThisI mean, if they can ponder xx billion on foolish tunnel, what's another $350 million
Pelz, Nickels (dimes), et al; why not pull a "takings" and just buy the team...
Posted by: righton on July 19, 2006 07:44 AMAnd is it any wonder the government is so inept? Wait until the city tries the tunnel. Money will never be a consideration!
Posted by: Fred on July 19, 2006 07:47 AMSeriously?
Imagine that. The mindset of the American Democrat is impossible to understand.
Perhaps it's the genetic "union" streal present in many of the species?
Posted by: Hinton (Former Seattleite) on July 19, 2006 07:53 AMDespite Bennett's claims, I don't think he has any intention of keeping the team here. Only 1 of two things can happen which would keep a team here. Either 1) The New Orleans Hornets decides to petition the NBA to stay in OKC, in which case the Sonics as they exist now, would probably work out some deal to stay, or 2) The Sonics move to OKC after the lease is up, and the Hornets (or some other struggling team) moves here.
Either way, I don't support a full public financing of a new facility, especially when the previous renovation isn't even paid for yet.
Posted by: Palouse on July 19, 2006 08:04 AMCould well be that "profit" isn't a dirty word down there.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 19, 2006 08:27 AMHow big of a party do we get to throw once all these freeloading, whining, drug addicts leave town?
Posted by: H Moul on July 19, 2006 08:31 AMFor those who want pro sports in this state, band together and tell the owners to run the franchise as a business. Any group that can pay seven and eight figure salaries to the participants can come up with the financing for their playgrounds. There are only so many tax dollars to go around and pro sports should not be here at the expense of other services (roads, parks, senior centers, etc.)
Posted by: Burdabee on July 19, 2006 08:37 AMAnd when they all leave, our state will lose millions is revenue and we will be worse off. Plus, think of the ~$10 mil that the players charities bring to our state. Yeah lets get rid of that too, especially Jamie Moyer cause kids don't need the money.
I am not for "bending over" for the sports teams, but we need to look at all aspects of having them before we say goodbye to the revenue. I don't think our City Council is very far sighted and doesn't have a grasp on the situation....which isn't suprising. They need to think of our city as a whole and what will be best for all citizens.....which even if you could care less about the Sonics, you should care about what they bring to Seattle and our populace.
Shultz and Walker are also very stupid (though successful) in that they bought the team knowing what the lease was and the financial terms. They should have been working that from the beginning to help rectify this. There are other ways to fix this situation and we need to look at all of them.....here's one small one that the M's get....the Ivar's area outside Home Plate is a great revenue generator for the club, why don't the Sonics setup a similar area? Or create a building/bar right on the Center and not in the arena? It could be linked by walkway thus making it easy to get to? Why are our politicians or the teams thinking creatively? Probably because both are use to living off the public "tit".
Posted by: Dengle on July 19, 2006 08:53 AMI voted against the subsidies for Key Arena, Safeco, and Qwest Field
Consumer electronic stores the Good Guys and Future Shop closed because they were unsuccessful
Instead of subsidizing professional sports teams and Paul Allen, the government should concentrate on providing quality schools, fixing the roads, and building vanilla infrastructures
Chosing the most expensive option like the downtown library and the waterfront tunnel is not an efficient use of our limited taxpayer dollars
Prof sports:
A publicly funded subsidy divided amongst highly talented practitioners.
Solution:
Since prof sports are now a well recognized socialist function of govt, then the practitioners would need to submit competitive bids for the franchises ... just a Boeing and Lockheed bid to build airplanes.
So:
1. Sports would become agencies of govt. ... just like universities and museums and parks.
2. In order to run a prof sports team, an organization/sponsor would have to bid for the privilege.
The bid would, presumably include a profit. The effect would be to eliminate the tax subsidy associated with athlete depreciation and appreciation of the team's value.
3. If no one bid, the sport would die or find a way of reducing its costs.
Posted by: Stephen Schwartz on July 19, 2006 09:00 AMThe departing owners deserve criticism for running the franchise into the ground with piss-poor personnel decisions and alienating the fan base with their arrogance. How they handled negotiations with government officials is way down the list of things they screwed up.
The major reason 80 percent of the locals could care less about what happens to the Sonics now is the former ownership group spent five years giving us no reason to care.
Still got your Calvin Booth jersey? Jim McIllvaine? Vin Baker? Billy Owens? Rueben Patterson? (his would be black and white striped) Vladimir Stepania?
I haven't given a damn about the Supes in more than four years, thanks to Howard, Wally and the boys. Now they're leaving. Toodles.
And now maybe Wally can finally go back to Portland. Never wanted your sorry arse in '78, and you surely aren't wanted now.
Posted by: jimg on July 19, 2006 09:07 AMIf these franchises bring so much revenue to the area, then why do tax payers need to subsidize them? They obviously cost more than they bring in.
Unless I am completely missing something the numbers do not add up. If so much was being brought in we should be able to have a sales tax reduction, not increase.
All these charities that benefit from the teams. Do you think it is honest for the government to tax us so that a third party can give it to a charity of their choice? If the government wants to support charities, then be honest with the tax payer and do it directly instead of through sports franchises.
Posted by: Fred on July 19, 2006 09:47 AMSports teams will locate in major cities even if you don't cave into their extortion demands - they'll just have to pay their team of whining drug addicts less.
Posted by: H Moul on July 19, 2006 09:59 AMThey are bringing in sales tax revenue to our region because of visitors to the games and our own populace that spends money going to the games. Yes, these people will find a way to spend the money elsewhere, but maybe not so it supports our state & economy. I again, don't believe in giving all the money to them, but then again because of what they bring the City/State we should help them to be successful so we can reap some of those benefits. Also remember that the City is running the arena too and we are thus a vested interest in it. Even if they Sonics leave we the people will be on the hook for it.
The charity money isn't necessarily from the teams, but the players who are paid a salary....yes you can extrapolate that back to the tax breaks and money spent on the arena's, but that really doesn't make a difference to the players as they are paid that money. Now the teams aspect you are correct, they are taking some revenue and giving it back via charity and maybe not a big deal vs. the amout they get from the taxes. However, to think that the city should just give that to charity that isn't right....just like the $12 mil for a drunk tank....not wise there either...which btw - if the sonics go can all the programs for bums/homeless/drunks/illegals go too? they are costing us more anyways. How do we sell that off? :-)
Posted by: Dengle on July 19, 2006 10:20 AMWally did well for the owners and has done some good work for the team. What I criticize Wally on is that he was part of the negotiations that got us the current arena and revenue sharing and he was part of the sale to Shultz and knew the issues. Then he talks about how unfair it is....well he knew since he was part so he needs to buck up and say so or at least not say he wasn't. But you can't criticize his investment advice as he made tons for not only himself but his clients and that is what he is supposed to do.
Posted by: Dengle on July 19, 2006 10:24 AMTrivia note to file under what will it matter 100 years from now: Contrary to what we're hearing and reading in the media the "Supes" are NOT the first pro team to bring a championship title to Seattle or the NW. The Seattle Metropolitans pro hockey team did in 1917 when they won the Stanley Cup.
Posted by: hector on July 19, 2006 10:28 AM
When this story broke yesterday, I was all over it and I have been following it closely for the past 24 hours. I have also been following the failed negotiations between the Sonics ownership and various levels of government in getting a win-win deal done that would keep the Sonics in the area.
Yes, Sonics ownwership was a bit naive in how hard it would be to get a deal done and how long it would take. But I am much more angry at the Seattle City Council, particularly Nick Licata, and the mayor's office. From what I have read, these two government organizations have been monumental pains in the ass to deal with and have maintained very confrontational, disrespectful attitudes. We all remember Mr. Licata's remarks that pretty much said that the Sonics and Storm bring no benefits whatsoever to Seattle.
Now, its up to the City Council and the mayor to at least try to work out a deal with the new owners. All I know about the new owners I have learned in the past 24 hours, and frankly I trust them a lot more than I trust our local government. I am willing to give the new owners my support in working out a deal to keep the Sonics in Seattle. I know that it will be very challenging, but perhaps the threat of the Sonics leaving will help to bring about a deal that works for everyone - the City of Seattle (or Bellevue, or Renton), the new owners, and the fans.
If the Sonics end up leaving, I will not blame Schultz and the other 59 former owners. Now the responsibility of working out a deal rests on the new owners and our local government. They have 12 months to work something out, or we will likely lose the Sonics and Storm forever.
Posted by: Gary on July 19, 2006 10:37 AMI would be very suprised if the Supes stay after the one year period. I say this, because the new owner form OKC is the very same guy who has been trying to bring a franchise to OKC.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on July 19, 2006 10:53 AMPlease. If there's one thing synonymous with the Sonics fall from 1996 NBA finalists to winning one playoff series in the last eight years, it's team President/CEO/Part Owner, Wally Walker.
Milwaukee had to beat down the door to complete that trade, as Walker balked. Blame the Bucks for putting too much stock in Payton and Mason; don't credit Walker for pulling off a deal he had no intention of completing until the other party begged him. And begged him.
And even if credit for the Milwaukee deal were to go to Walker and Rick Sund, that in no way makes up for countless blunders on over-paid stiffs, and talent run out of town by the guy. If not for Isiah Thomas, Walker would be considered the worst exec in the NBA.
If not for the fact taxpayers won't be held hostage by another pro sports franchise, no longer having to deal with the idiocy of Wally Walker would be the lone bright spot in this deal.
Posted by: jimg on July 19, 2006 10:58 AMAs I recall, Schulz "saved" the Sonics for Seattle; there was concern at the time that the team would be sold and moved. Whether you support the Sonics or not, you have to concede that any local businessman would be loco to "help" Seattle.
The new owners have said they have no plans to move the team. I think it would be more accurate to say that Seattle and the state have until the end of the next legislative session to come up with a facility package. If they don't, the attitude of the new owners and Schulz will be, "You had your shot."
I think it's clear Seattle will be waving goodbye to the Sonics. As much as I dislike Queen Christine it appears she did what she could. The hurdle was the Seattle City government. Nick Licada, for better or worse, is now the face of Seattle...and his infamous quote is now the motto.
IMO, if professional basketball returns it will be to Bellevue or Renton.
Posted by: South County on July 19, 2006 11:09 AMYes there is sales tax paid for people coming to the games, both from locals and people coming from other regions. But there are also people who live here that cannot afford to go to the games (as well as people who have absolutely no desire to go to the games) who are also paying the increased tax. If the additional taxes received due directly from the existance of the sports covered the expense incured by the city/state, then sales taxes would NOT have to be increased. As it is a money loosing proposition, sales taxes needed to be increased - hurting the people that cannot afford the tickets the most.
Posted by: Fred on July 19, 2006 11:20 AMPersonally, I don't follow Pro-Basketball that much anymore. College Basketball is a lot more interesting. The Sonics leaving frees up Key Arena for alot more other uses, like more College Games, State High School Championships, etc. It is one of the prime, indoor concert venues. There are plenty of uses for it besides Basketball games (as opposed to football or baseball stadiums).
I was for the Mariners and Seahawks proposals because they maid economic sense and were replacing an outdated, broken-down facility. The Sonics have a decent facility (from the fans standpoint). Their problem is NBA economics are out-of-wack. There are too many teams losing money due to the outrageous salaries the NBA pays. The NBA has priced itself out of the market.
I say thanks for the memory Sonics and best wishes on your future. Say yes to good economic choices and no to bad ones. The Sonics situation is a bad one. So is the NASCAR track, even if they want to build the track. All that money put into a facility for only one to two events per year and a restriction on no outside organizations using the track for racing (i.e., local racing organizations would be disallowed to use the track for their own races). Why have a facility for only one to two events per year for what it was designed for? How does that make sense? If you want the facility for concerts or other non-racing events, then build a outdoor concert amphitheater or whatever facility best suites the event. Don't build a race track. Race tracks are for racing and should be able to be used by all levels of racing, including the local associations.
Posted by: tc on July 19, 2006 12:11 PMHow about if all the people who want to keep the Sonics in Seattle just put up the $200,000,000 with their own money! If 200,000 sports fans (only about 1 out of every 20 people in Western Washington) each put up $1000 of their own money, that would do it! Richer people can kick in more and poorer people less. They would be the actual owners of the stadium and share in the benefits. Since professional sports and stadiums are so overwhelmingly desired in Washington, it should be easy to get 200,000 sports fans to voluntarily pay a nominal amount for something as valuable as a Sonics stadium, right?
Of course the stadium owners would get tickets at a discounted price - or maybe at an ordinary price, whatever it takes to cover the costs of putting on a game. Those of us who don't kick in any money because we don't give a rat's a** about hockey games or whatever they're playing, should have to pay double if we want to see a game. Hell, charge me triple for admission - I don't care.
If only one out of five people in Washington (which would be more than a million) contributed a mere $20 a month to Sonics, in less than a year there would be more than enough to make a wonderful stadium . If they're not willing to voluntarily pay a mere $20 a month for such valuable entertainment, then shame on them for even thinking about forcing other people who don't care about Sonics at all to pay.
Welfare is welfare, and mooching is mooching; and it's all stealing if you take it from someone who earned and wanted to keep it for something else.
Posted by: ken on July 19, 2006 12:30 PMThe era of pro sports blackmailing cities into subsidies is over. If OKC wants to bend over to attract a team, that's their problem. They'll learn soon enough - if they're lucky, they won't have to implode a still-not-paid-for arena to do so.
Posted by: bowow on July 19, 2006 12:37 PM
I agree with you completly on the NASCAR track. It doesn't make any sense to me either. I also have heard that even if they build the NASCAR track there is no gurantee a race will come here. That for a race to come to this new track another track would have to give up a race, because they do not add races for new track. If this is true than that makes the track even more riduculous.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on July 19, 2006 12:43 PMThe increased sales taxes are not only because of the Sonics. They have been increased by our gov and cover many things. The amount on ticket sales is only a small portion....the amounts on the food, beverages and other items is where the greatest amount comes. Losing those will affect our city....so will the loss of some of the restaurants and bars in the area that make lower QA so attractive to live and work.
Hinton,
I don't believe the taxes would make up the difference and I do not believe that we shoujld spend $300 mil on a new stadium. However, I do believe that something can be worked out to help keep the Sonics in Seattle and help Seattle pay for the Seattle Center and it's debt. Lossing the Sonics will not help our city.
Posted by: Dengle on July 19, 2006 02:08 PMBefore you give too much credit to Seattle leaders for doing something right, look at the sweet offers they were willing to make to satiate the Soops - mostly with our tax dollars.
Posted by: Jeffro on July 19, 2006 02:57 PM"They were pretty adamant that they wanted a full $220 million investment and no one was going to give them that... The public would have gone crazy if we had subsidized to that amount. I would have preferred that the Sonics stay, and (that they) had entertained our offer of having a modest renovation in KeyArena and taking care of the debt... But that wasn't sufficient for the owners, and they chose profits over our offer."
I think he's just stating facts. Why the sneering insinuations implying Nick said something wrong?
Posted by: Sstarr on July 19, 2006 03:19 PMAs far as pro athletes and charitable work so what? There are numerous people and groups doing equally or more important work we never hear about. Charitable work will survive and thrive.
Posted by: kowabunga on July 19, 2006 04:04 PMIt would be nice if a group of millionaires put up the money to build a new arena. But more likely, a group of millionaires will spend a much smaller amount of their own money encouraging susceptible (ie. corruptible) politicians to spend a much larger amount of tax money to build them an arena.