[rasalpool]

They blew their chance by voting No for a New Arena . They had the money to Support the Seahawks and Mariners . But they became stingy with dealing with the Sonics . The People should be blamed . Not Clay Bennet

[futuristxen]

They didn't need a new arena is the thing. Sports teams shouldn't feel so entitled. The Key Arena is a fine venue. Clay Bennet just wanted to put a team in OKC. So he stole the Sonics.

[rasalpool]

Originally Posted by futuristxen

They didn't need a new arena is the thing. Sports teams shouldn't feel so entitled. The Key Arena is a fine venue. Clay Bennet just wanted to put a team in OKC. So he stole the Sonics.

The Arena is over 40 years Old

[HKF]

The problem was the Sonics had no chance to make any money from the lease. It was inevitable unless someone like Steve Ballmer was going to build an arena himself.

[Pimped Out]

The thing is though, the franchise is not going to make more money by moving to that newer stadium in OKC

[Cinco de Mayo]

Originally Posted by futuristxen

The Key Arena is a fine venue.

Disagree there...

[Dre™]

I would say longterm they'd regret their decision, but they'll get a team within 7 years.

[Roscoe Sheed]

No, Stern is to blame for not forcing that edited of an owner to stay in Seattle. A team that has been in a city for 40 years should not be allowed to move under almost any circumstance. Stern is a terrible commissioner. He is an autocrat. I've despised him for years.

[Diable]

The taxpayers are under no obligation to vote for more taxes.The NFL has a stadium fund that helps to fiance new stadium.In the NBA you continuously have owners acting as extortionists.If you don't give me everything I want I'm taking my ball and going somewhere else.Not only do they ask the taxpayers for hundreds of millions for new building...they then want the local authorities to hand over the lion's share of the revenue generated by the taxpayer's investment.The Packers are owned by the city of Green Bay,they've had the same facility for decades and they've had no problem with the revenue or the maintainence...It's not a coincidence.

[luther]

I think the city has some responsibility, but I think they did the right thing in their decision. Multimillionaire and billionaire owners could gain their own financing for arenas--and they often don't need them to begin with. Many older arenas are fine, just not state-of-the-art. Well, that's life. You are not owed a state-of-the-art facility in which to run your business. Some of the most beloved arenas over the past few decades have been the old ones, not the new ones. But NBA teams are more concerned with their corporate sponsors and luxury box revenue than with giving fans a place to watch good basketball, and so they need arenas designed for that. I understand it. It's their right. It's their business. But cities--the common taxpayers, most of whom will never sit in a single luxury box and for whom even regular ticket prices are steep--should not have to pay for it.

Cities can get benefits from a good-drawing team/arena. And that's great. Some partnership makes sense, financially. But it's not the teams' right or due. Seattle was strong enough to refuse. It's a shame they lose their team, but I think they did the right thing anyway. I only wish it would have some effect on other cities with their teams. (I doubt it will.)

[Chan]

The guy who practically owns a Starbucks on every corner in the Northwest didn't want to spend a dime on a new arena. Clay Bennett didn't want to spend a dime on the new arena. These are the owners of a team who failed put quality product on the floor for years, and yet they demanded the city pay every penny on a multi-billion arena. 20 win teams don't get to demand ****.