Has anyone else heard this story?

4/17/2007 10:27:25 PM

coming to Greensboro

4/17/2007 10:28:31 PM

Oklahoma I think.

4/17/2007 10:29:16 PM

A group of investors from OK City bought them awhile back so yeah everyones seen the likely writing on the wall.

The city and ownership has been unable to work out financing for a new arena deal for awhile now

4/17/2007 10:30:24 PM

Rejected! Don't you bring that weak financing action!

4/17/2007 10:32:17 PM

Don't know much about Ok, but is that a great city to have a team? In other words, is it a lucrative move?

[on another note, way to run from my [old] question rally. But i'll let you slide RDU].

4/17/2007 10:33:37 PM

Does this mean the Hornets are moving back to NO?

4/17/2007 10:33:42 PM

Quote :

"On April 17, 2007, majority owner Clayton Bennett said that the team likely will not play in Seattle beyond the 2007-08 season. The Sonics did not file a relocation application with the NBA before a March 1 deadline, so they are obligated to play in Seattle for one more season."

4/17/2007 10:34:06 PM

the sonics use to be my team back in the payton/kemp days. rooting for the team made me want to really go to seattle and it became one of the cities i've most wanted to visit. still havent made it over there yet. i guess i'm gonna have to change my destination to oklahoma city now. weeeeee.

4/17/2007 10:59:48 PM

I don't agree with this move. I know that Ok is not as appealing as Seattle. Add to that the history and prestige of that organization. Maybe I'm nostalgic.

4/17/2007 11:04:26 PM

Quote :

"Rejected! Don't you bring that weak financing action!"

terribly done

4/17/2007 11:05:38 PM

OKC and Kansas City both have sparkling new buildings with luxury boxes already sold.

4/17/2007 11:06:10 PM

Quote :

""On April 17, 2007, majority owner Clayton Bennett said that the team likely will not play in Seattle beyond the 2007-08 season. The Sonics did not file a relocation application with the NBA before a March 1 deadline, so they are obligated to play in Seattle for one more season.""

1. Bennett I think is from Oklahoma City.
2. I know that the Sonics do not own the Key Arena, where the Sonics play.
3. David Stern made a public statement at some point saying that the Sonics have the worst lease in the league, Seattle needs to decide whether it wants to keep their team or not (he was highlighting the arena issue, and saying Washington State should put tax money toward renovating Key Arena). http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2407965
4. Oklahoma City have overwhelming supported the New Orleans Hornets. This is a kind of "San Antonio Spurs" effect though, as they're the only game in town.

I don't think the city much cares (much like half the cities in the NBA it seems), so hello Oklahoma!

What do the Hornets do? Didn't Shinn want to move there?

[Edited on April 17, 2007 at 11:22 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2007 11:21:33 PM

^^^

you think you're better than me?

4/17/2007 11:29:18 PM

Stay on topic please. Or leave.

4/17/2007 11:34:12 PM

Fuck Shinn

4/17/2007 11:40:52 PM

look

for the record i think you're ALL better than me..

4/18/2007 12:12:57 AM

im fully expecting this team to change names to the Twisters or something retarded about tornadoes....and

Quote :

"I know that Ok is not as appealing as Seattle."

it rains all the time in seattle, how is that appealing?

4/18/2007 12:32:31 AM

Its a cool city on the water

People take trips there

Who the fuck goes to Oklahoma city unless they have to?

4/18/2007 12:47:04 AM

sonic twists

4/18/2007 12:56:38 AM

What kind of idiot thinks OKC is more appealing then Seattle?

4/18/2007 2:21:20 AM

Quote :

"What kind of idiot thinks OKC is more appealing then Seattle?"

4^ thinks so evidentely.

4/18/2007 2:36:05 AM

Quote :

"I don't agree with this move. I know that Ok is not as appealing as Seattle. Add to that the history and prestige of that organization. Maybe I'm nostalgic. "

doesnt matter, the seattle fans and the city gov. will not build a new arena and the one they play in is way to old

that was the deal breaker / OK did a bang up job supporting the Hornets last year and showed that they could compete for a host city / expansion team / relocation spot

4/18/2007 10:34:40 AM

Seattle is a horrible city for sports, anyhow.


Here's to the Seahawks and Mariners abandoning that place as well.

4/18/2007 10:42:44 AM

Bring back Detlef.

4/18/2007 10:59:18 AM

Bring back Hersey Hawkins

4/18/2007 11:02:21 AM

Wow Earl actually mada legit sports thread.

Anyway OKC has really supported the Hornets the past two seasons so moving the team there is good for the NBA and for the owners. Sure OKC is not some fantastic place to visit, but it's not any worse than ghetto ass Memphis or Milwaukee.

4/18/2007 11:16:55 AM

not sure seattle is bad for the seahawks...they do have the loudest damn stadium in the nfl i believe

4/18/2007 11:42:49 AM

FUCK!!!!!!!!!!

I hate the NBA but I like any Seattle team

I'd hate to see them leave after all the great years they had there

Especially leaving to fucking Oklahoma City

They were talking about building a new arena just south of Seattle (Renton) but I don't think that's going through.

Seattle natives give overwhelming support to the Seahawks and Mariners but don't want to give tax money to build a new arena. Especially since they just build Safeco Field and Seahawk stadium within the last 8 years.

Quote :

"it rains all the time in seattle, how is that appealing?"

Sure it rains a good amount in the winter but Seattle is one of the most beautiful cities in America
Obviously you haven't been there



[Edited on April 18, 2007 at 11:55 AM. Reason : yo]

4/18/2007 11:49:32 AM

Quote :

"They were talking about building a new arena just south of Seattle (Renton) "

really, i havent heard about that

4/18/2007 11:51:58 AM

^the owner of Seattle said he would contribute 100 mil but the other 300-400 mil had to come from the tax payers

"As of February 13th, 2007, the new ownership has stated it plans to build a new $500 million dollar arena in Renton, Washington.[5] and is asking for $400 million in tax subsidies from the state and city. The new owners have not committed to a contribution of their own and will not take any responsiblity for cost overruns. The Oklahoma City based Sonics owners have shown due-diligence with regard to keeping the teams in the region: the ICON Venture Group was selected to manage the arena development [2]; the architectural firm HOK Sport was chosen to design the new facility [3]; the city of Renton was selected to host the new arena [4]; and former Sonics player and coach Lenny Wilkens was named Vice Chairman. [5] Owner Clay Bennett announced that the site for the new $500 million "King County Events Center" would be a 21-acre site to be purchased from the Boeing Company located in Renton, Washington."

[Edited on April 18, 2007 at 11:57 AM. Reason : yo]

4/18/2007 11:56:40 AM

if I were from Oklahoma, I would rather see an NFL team come than NBA.

With that I also know that it would be hard to compete with college football in the state...

4/18/2007 11:59:38 AM

Quote :

"im fully expecting this team to change names to the Twisters or something retarded about tornadoes....and"

How many Jazz clubs are there in Salt Lake City?

How many major lakes are there in Los Angeles?

i'm not saying they wouldn't change their name, it's obviously an option (North Stars, Oilers, Hurricanes), but it's not required...

4/18/2007 12:07:36 PM

I'm soooo glad we didn't inherit The Whalers as our mascot

4/18/2007 12:17:15 PM

knowing this site, every NHL thread would become nothing but a string of fat jokes

4/18/2007 12:39:41 PM

I dont like this era of owners taking cities hostage by demanding public financing for arenas.

Its complete bullshit.

I mean i love sports so i dont mind shelling out some of my tax dollars for a sports team.

But its absolutely ridiculous to make people who don't care about sports pay for them.

I dont understand how speding money to lure a sports team instead of funding schools, paving roads, or *gasp* LOWERING taxes continues to happen.

Public officials have really pulled the wool over everyones eyes with these "look how much revenue it will bring to the city". Those arguments have been debunked many times over. It's clear that it causes a transfer of revenue rather than an increase large enough to justify the expense.

4/18/2007 1:47:53 PM

Quote :

"Seattle natives give overwhelming support to the Seahawks and Mariners but don't want to give tax money to build a new arena. Especially since they just build Safeco Field and Seahawk stadium within the last 8 years."

Well, I wouldn't either.

Besides, as far as benefits to a city and revenues, football and baseball would take precedence I think.

4/18/2007 2:23:57 PM

^^don't agree with you on many issue but you are right there

I think people should have the chance to donate money to the cause

I love sports of almost any kind but having people who could give a rats ass about sports pay for a new stadium total bullshit

4/18/2007 2:41:04 PM

Quote :

"I mean i love sports so i dont mind shelling out some of my tax dollars for a sports team."

But you don't want to support "poor people".

You are one backwards person. Fact.

4/18/2007 2:43:30 PM

Quote :

"Besides, as far as benefits to a city and revenues, football and baseball would take precedence I think."

??? I would think a bball arena would be the second most profitable venue a city could have given the right location where people would take advantage of the areas amenities.

Baseball: 30k x 81 home games.
Basketball and/or hockey arena: 17-20k x 41 home bball games + other events such as concerts, conventions, or shows.
Football: 60k x 10 games (including preseason). Keep in mind that in the NFL tailgating is large and that takes away from money being used in the surrounding area. Plus, the other events are limited to large outdoor concerts and soccer games... which MAYBE happen 5 times a year.

Having taxpayers pay for a football stadium would be the least worthwhile to the community IMO..


[Edited on April 18, 2007 at 4:39 PM. Reason : x]

4/18/2007 4:37:22 PM

i dont know the specifics but you've also got to factor in the maintenance costs...ie 81 games is a lot more profit from ticket sales and concession sales than 41 or 8...but its also extra time/money to clean up after each game, have people to run concessions/ushers, etc

4/18/2007 5:46:25 PM

just to reiterate

Quote :

" Who the fuck goes to Oklahoma city unless they have to?"

and yeah, i agree with rallydurham too. i'd vote for a mayor that said "the city will put up half the costs of a new arena, but no more. if you can't afford the arena, you can't afford to be a professional sports franchise owner."

its tough shit for the bobcats. we (charlotte voters) said no to a new arena for Shinn, then they give Bob one without a vote. And surprise, no one goes to their fucking games.

/rant

4/18/2007 9:35:56 PM

burlington

4/18/2007 10:18:01 PM

Quote :

"I would think a bball arena would be the second most profitable venue a city could have given the right location where people would take advantage of the areas amenities."

That's just it. No sports are "profitable" for the city. Some might be less expensive than others, but all of them are exorbitantly expensive.

Sports are a very small business. The revenues of a sports team compared to total city revenue is somwhere between 1/10th of a percent (0.1%) to 1/2 of a percent (0.5%).

Where do the revenues of sports teams go to? Well over half of it goes to players & owners. They don't always live in that community. They often vacation and spend their money elsewhere.

Does attendance generate revenue? Sure. By taking away revenues from local movie theaters, restraunts, etc. There is really no net gain, and certainly not nearly enough to offset all of the expenses.

Sports franchises do not promote economic growth in a community. That has been proven by over 50 years of data.

So to make the community pay for them is absurd.

4/19/2007 3:29:41 PM