friendly reminder:

http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/02/net_losses

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=266691&source=mypi

Please stop dwelling so much on objections -- e.g., who makes them, who wins them, etc. They're really not that important. There are many reasons an attorney might make an objection, and he may not care if it's sustained or not. He may just want to break up the other attorney's rhythm, or give his witness a chance to regroup and take a breather.

On the flip side, an attorney may try to admit evidence knowing full well that the other side will object and that the evidence may not come in; there's no harm in trying to get it in, and you can't get it in if you don't try. There's no jury here to impress.

Which goes to the point of "scoring" impressive arguments -- I guarantee Judge Pechman is not swayed by slick lawyer tricks or minor errors in presentation (such as Johnson's "momentary freeze"). In a bench trial the substance is important, and today the city had a good day. Bennett's credibility is crippled; the owners knew the team was losing money when they bought it; the city showed how the team adds intangible benefits to the community; the lease says what it says. Keller has been unable to combat any of this, no matter how impressive his delivery is.

And if you're looking for "slam dunks," wait until the closing. That's when a lawyer puts it all together, and when he's allowed to really "argue." Questioning witnesses is all about the lob pass... the closing is the dunk.

On the economic impact question - If the city/area is getting $180 mil a year, why wouldn't they put up $300 mil for a better facility?
Because those figures are non-sensical, as they only represent stirring the pot of money already here. Boeing and Microsoft bring in IMPORTED monies, for example.
If there is one dollar of imported money, the person can spend 80 cents of it in the store, because the IRS gets 20 cents. That means you have a multiplier of 5 to 1 - a person working on IMPORTED money can support 4 or 5 others. Total.
Remember the player's salaries and team workers are paid by money from the local population, not imported cash. If a MS or Boeing worker doesn't go to a game, they can spend that money on other local commodities. Net cash flow equals zero.

The net cash flow is not zero. The whole idea is that the team brings in others to come and spend money. Those others hail from other parts of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and road warriors supporting visiting teams.

However the key to drawing the "others" is having something worth seeing.

Does that account for $180,000,000 a year?

Well Said Geezer. No theatrics are needed during a federal bench trial, none at all. PBC attorneys are putting on a show for their clients, and Mr. Johnson knows that. If 40 is "too young," then I have no idea what 20 years of experience means these days. In the end, it will all come down the facts and legal arguments made - not the theatrics.

It is sad it has come to this. The money being spent to keep the Sonics there, could have gone to keeping them without all of the drama. If the Sonics do come to OKC, Seattle will have a great start as an alternative entertainment destination. The Circus!

What is the direct economic impact of visiting opponents and enterouge?

The 180 Million is hard to account for. Hosting some play offs would sure help. I sure don't have inside information as to the economic impact. The huskies tried to show the economic benefits but did not convince anyone..

I wonder what portion of the financial obligation the sonics are expected to cover. Can the storm, concerts, and other events help make up the difference? I know when LA hosts concerts such as coldplay people fly in, stay in hotels, eat out, and spend money.

All this said a quality sonic team will draw fans look at Portland, people are jumping on the rip city bandwagon.

Sman:

Why don't you OKC folks concentrate on the facts. It was reported this week during trial that Seattle has budgeted (or was it spent?) only $1M in fees so far in the fight to keep the Sonics here. No, spending $1M would not have gone far in getting an arena approved in legislature in time...as you seem to reason.

Thank you...come again...please feel free to grace us with your intellegence and blast our city anytime.

Well dog gone, dawggone. Your assumption being that you have indeed blessed this board with your intelligence...stay at your end of the latte bar and on one will be hurt. Fact is, I was blasting these procedings being necessary in the first place...only 1 million thus far, yes that is an impressively low amount of money. I am sure the 65% of the people that voted they did not care if the Sonics left or felt it would not make a difference, agree wholeheartedly with you. My post was not intended to be an analysis of say someone with your keen legal awareness. There were opportunities for the Sonics to stay there without all this. If you think saying Circus, which was directed at this court process, blasted your city...AZ?, then you have obviously missed the many slams of OKC by the fine people of Seattle, including the sports writers. This is between Seattle and the Claymations. OKC is just the possible destination. I think I had a right to make my post, although you and the other aspiring or expiring attorneys may wish to keep the board limited to your intellectual, latte smacking, legal briefs. Of course these are only my opinions. I felt the need to respond, since you all but called me out into the street, but I will probably leave the rest to the real court, which is not the slam dunk many of you previously thought. Take care dawg! No harm intended.

Huh?...wow, I went through a wirlwind of emotion with that post...

You are wrong on so many accounts I don't know where to start...but no, latte's do not tast good in 114 degree weather...and if you were questioning my being a seattleite, yes, I rode my bike down to Ray's boathouse and went to the beach on a weekly basis as a kid.

Have fun with the cows...