Wow, Percy, I think you and Brewer are grossly overreacting. The Sonics' main point in entering the PowerPoint was to show the city had unclean hands in enforcing the lease. I just finished reading the entire document, and to be honest I got the impression that the city was not a part of it.

There was a fair amount of describing how the potential new owners should interface with the mayor and the city, often in not terribly up-front ways (make it the mayor's problem). I certainly got the impression that the potential new ownership group was going to use the city's litigation as a tool, but I didn't get the impression that the group and the city were acting as co-conspirators to use the litigation against the Sonics. Of course Keller is going to spin his line of questioning to make it look as bad as possible for the city. He picked out phrases to make it look like the city and ownership group were engaging in some Machaivellian scheme to bleed Bennett dry. He's a good lawyer, and if you base your judgment purely on today's deposition, I can see how it looks bad. But you have to read the entire document to gain a full perspective on what really happened, which I'm sure the judge will do. And keep in mind, this meeting happened after Bennett had already made his relocation plans clear.

Don't worry brett, Percy pretty much prefaces his entire entry with the statement "I don't need a law degree."

He needs a little bit better grasp of contract law, quite frankly. The "poisoned well" document shows that the attempt to bleed Bennett came AFTER his mentioning of possibly moving the team. Also, people such as Wally Walker, Slade Gorton, Matt Griffin, et al do not represent the city. Walker was hired on as a consultant, not as an active representative of the efforts to bleed Bennett.

Percy and Jim Brunner need to take a step back from sensationalistic journalism. This isn't Law and Order, it's not Perry Mason. No one is going to call a surprise witness. The facts are cut and dry.

Hi, My comments are about Percy and Jerry’s (Sonics case exposes city's dirty hands, too) articles today.

The lawsuit is about a breach of contract, it’s a legal case. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think Senator Gorton broke any laws by trying to broker a deal to save the team while continuing to represent the City. In fact, isn’t that part of his job, keep the Sonics from being relocated?

Let’s put this perspective, Mr. Bennett and the NBA are taking the Sonics out of the city, they aren’t negotiating a sale of the team, as David Stern says “it’s a done deal”. There is no possible way they are going to sell the Sonics back to a group of local investors.

It’s an impossible situation. The only thing the local businessmen and city lawyers should be even remotely be criticized for, is not working together to buy the team from Howard Schultz when the Sonics were originally put up for sale.

Now the Seattle Times sports staff is criticizing the only group of people that have actionably tried to save the Sonics from leaving. Open your eyes, the Sonics have been kidnapped and it’s going to take a miracle to get them back. I really don’t care what the strategy is to keep the Sonics in Seattle, as long as its legal, we shouldn’t disregard any option at our disposal.

A poison well approach, if done correctly and legally, could definitely provide leverage and potentially force a sale. Mr. Bennett also has the right to do a poisoned pill strategy to prevent a hostile takeover. He doesn’t have to, since the NBA has already colluded with him to move the Sonics, but it’s certainly within his legal rights.

We need to play some hardball to get the Sonics back. Keeping the Sonics in town two more years buys us some time to wrestle the Sonics back from Mr. Bennett. Jerry and Percy as much as I like your articles, this one I don’t understand. Are you expecting Mr. Bennett to sell us back the team on the open market or through some other civilized negotiation process?

The coverage of the trial on this blog, aside from a couple key screw-ups, has been great, but the conclusions of this post definitely jump the gun.

In testimony reported here by Griffin, also made the point very clear that the overriding goal was to keep the Sonics in Seattle. He said that his group was fine if it were Bennett's group owning the SEATTLE Supersonics.

All the Sonic's legal team did was show that the City, knowing that A. Bennett had no intent on being in Seattle, B. Looking for a way to break the lease, C. Was indirectly involved in exploring OPTIONS for forcing Bennett's group to sell to owners who would keep the team in Seattle. The strategizing was initiated by concerned Seattle area citizens, not the City of Seattle.

You're buying into the Sonic lawyers' spin job that this was evil and Machiavellian. It was simply one counter strategy to Bennett's truly Machiavellian ploy to systematically poach this team from Seattle.

Holding the Poachers to the "specific performance" terms of this lease is the core issue here.

What will happen?
A) The judge will order the owners of the Sonics to pay between $10 million and $60 million to the City of Seattle as damages for breaking this lease.

B) The Sonics will be told that because the loss of this professional sports franchise can not be replaced by monetary remedy, "specific performance" will be enforced and the Sonics must stay in Seattle.

If A, then the Sonics may choose to pay rather than appeal the amount, because it gives them the best chance to leave town before next season.

If A, then the City of Seattle will appeal to delay the move of the Sonics. If this appeal is granted, then the Sonics will likely not move by this next season.

If A, because this is the same judge, the Schultz lawsuit will be much less promising.

If B, the Howard Schultz lawsuit grows much more interesting.

If B, the Sonics owners will appeal the lease case and ask for a different judge for the Schultz case.

I normally like your writing, Percy, but you completely whiffed on this one. The Sonics put on a good show for the gallery yesterday and it clearly worked with the folks who don't know anything about the law which evidently includes most, if not all, of the writers for the Times. As you know, the Times ran a headline saying the City was conceding the case only to apologize a short time later. A similar apology should be issued here.

Assuming that Gorton was representing the City when he met with Walker is like assuming that all Marines hate dogs because one threw a puppy off a cliff. Gorton not only has numerous clients, he also has the right to do things that serve his own interests. The City was told of his interest in keeping the team in town as well as his involvement with potential ownership groups. It's a stretch of cosmic proportions to suggest that he was acting as the City's agent in his off hours and unless he billed the City for his time when he was meeting with Walker, Griffin, Ballmer, etc, then there is NO CONNECTION between the City and the Powerpoint.

Speaking of which..... if you actually READ the Powerpoiint (instead of simply relying on the defenses biased interpretation of it) you would see that it is both well written and completely harmless. It's a contingency plan. It's background information. It's talking points. It is NOT a smoking gun. And there is NO indication that the City was involved in its creation.

It’s too bad you fell for the dog & pony show.

Percy I feel like your on Bennett's payroll.

The powerpoint does little to incriminate the city, as has been mentioned it shows the goal was to keep the Sonics in Seattle, AFTER Bennett made it clear his intentions were to move. I hope Peachman bases her decision on facts, laws and intent not the show the PBC lawyers have tried to make, which the times reports seem to be buying

Percy, I just lost all respect for you-- and I had a bunch!
It is very clear you did not read the PowerPoint presentation, and are being dazzled by the theatrics and bull$hit of Keller. You are a prime candidate for being on any of his jurys.
Those antics have little effect on the strong minded, which thankfully includes Judge Pechman.

The poison well powerpoint is proof positive of the incompatability between the Sonics and the potential ownership group identified by Seattle leadership. Specific performance was already out the window. Now it just got run over by an 18-wheeler.

Reading the document and taking into account both the testimony and identities of the witnesses - as well as the fact that the city and the "concerned citizens" share the same counsel and "common goal" between them of keeping the team in the city - it's not hard for the judge to infer that they were working in concert to "bleed dry" the new owners.

Regardless of when the document was drafted, it makes apparent that the potential buyer group knew they would have a chance to acquire the team with the support of the city primarily because the city was going to litigate rather than negotiate with the new owners. Why did you think they believed the opportunity existed - because the city was willing to negotiate with the new owners? Or because they knew the city would put everything into court?

One of the posters above me makes this very point in noting that the power point shows the incompatibility of the city and the new owners.

Not to mention all of the references in the document to the lease being the "worst deal in the league" making it very difficult to operate profitably (see e.g. the reference to the city taking an additional $77mm in revenue), which contradicts what the city has been trying to establish - something many people don't think was a reasonable position for the city to take.

Just take a look at the low revenue multiple imputed to the sale price prior to selling to Bennett and compare it to those of other teams. The team wasn't even a crown jewel back then.

Moreover, with only two years remaining on the lease, specific performance - which is a longshot in any breach of contract case - seems out of the question here on these facts.

The city is getting crushed by its litigation strategy - it has tried to act as if it's simply a victim in this whole debacle, when in reality it never liked the new ownership group (because they knew the team would ultimately either be leaving at the end of two years or perhaps sooner) and probably never intended to give them an inch. You people keep talking about the fact that it's a bench trial, but I can assure you that federal judges absolutely care about matters such as credibility and the forthrightness of the parties. That's where the city is really suffering now. Their witnesses are getting shredded in many instances and looking evasive or downright dishonest. Not that Bennett looks any better, but on the whole the city is not doing well.

I just can't believe people were so stupid to put all of these things down in written form, the new owners included. And you should never put a "good faith best efforts" term in a contract because it just ends up in litigation - like right here. I can't believe that the Sonics put that in their contract and should have kept it limited to "commercially reasonable efforts."

As a lifelong fan of the team, all of this sickens me, but what bothers me the most is the conduct of the sellers and the city. That's where most of the blame should lie. If they wanted to keep the team in Seattle, they could have made it happen - you sell to a local group and/or the city could have put something on the table that was reasonable.

Whether you believe that Bennett had any intention of keeping the team in Seattle is almost irrelevant to me given that virtually everyone realized that, once the sale closed, the team would be gone in two years unless some real concessions would be made by the city. I also think most have realized that, having discovered that the new owner was likely to move the team in any case after the lease expired, the city is engaging in litigation just to try to force Bennett to sell rather than to enforce the lease or because Bennett failed to negotiate in good faith. Simple, bare knuckled strategic litigation for holdout value. Unfortunately, they brought the wrong fighters into the ring.

My wife and I both feel the same way about the recent "discoveries" in this trial -- so what?

This trial should be about Bennett's attempt to break the lease and nothing else. If there's nothing in the lease to allow Bennett to leave before 2010 (buyout clause, attendance clause -- the M's had those way back when, first-class facility-clause -- the Seahawks supposedly had that one way back when), then that's it, end of story.

The city should stay in there and keep hammering that point home and never let the Sonics up off the court.

The other owners in the NBA are rooting for Bennett because if he can break a lease, so can they when they all want bigger buildings.

If we're going to be forced to read about stuff that doesn't matter, why aren't we hearing about KeyArena was just fine for the NBA in 1995, but obsolete just 13 years later?

We've been to the O-Rena in Orlando. The suites are on the top level of seating. That's BS. We've also been to Staples Arena (for an Arena Football game). I'd prefer KeyArena to either of those places.

The economy of the NBA today is such that an intimate building (which Stern liked in 1995 and there's a YouTube video out there to prove it) loses out to something like the Tacoma Dome (which didn't draw any big crowds while the Sonics were winning).

Once again, I'd still like to know why Bennett (if he's a man possessed to stay here) rejected the Muckleshoots' offer of (basically) a free arena in Auburn.

If the T-Birds believe they can be successful in Kent (and they should be), then I believe the NBA can work in Auburn (just like it works in Auburn Hills, MI)

Hasn't the judge ever seen Major League? One way to get a team moved is to disenchant the fan base. One reason those BS poll results favor the Sonics is because the current ownership was trying to lose on purpose last season.

There's no other reason for trading Ray Allen for journeymen and -- when the Sonics were starting to re-learn how to win in midseason -- trading Thomas, Szczerbiak and West to contenders for even bigger crap players than they already had.

Two of those crap players (Barry and Newble) were released to return to the team that traded them (Barry) and go to a team that went to the Finals (Newble).

It should be irrelevant what Gorton, et al, tried to do to keep the team here.

If there's a lease, Bennett and co. should have to abide by it (especially because they should've known about it -- and the building -- and the local politics when they got here to buy the team) and if they don't have it, say goodbye to the NBA when the next wave of new arenas comes around.

After all of the recent nonsense, I can't believe there's a commissioner out there dumber and less concerned about the financial health of his league than Selig, but Stern is da man.

But given the previously mentioned incompatibility and the city's obvious involvement in imposing economic hardship on Bennett, no judge in their right mind would force this dysfunctional relationship to continue.

And the sonics are not a unique tenant to Seattle, as Mariners, Seahawks and Huskies also bring civic pride to the community. That takes care of the intangible argument. Now just calculate the tangibles and get it over with.

I think the PBC won its case on Friday. I did read the Poison Well power point. Whether prepared by McGavick! or Walker, what a tedious exercise! Full of obvious observations, poorly organized and lazily presented. But what really struck me was how cynical it was. Its "roadmap" is all about how to manipulate public opinion and key politicians.

I urge you all to read the opening statements of both sides from Monday in the transcripts available on the PI web site. They show exactly what each side is trying to prove. In my opinion, PBC has proven their case, and Friday's testimony was the topper. Specific performance will not be enforced if the landlord attempts to undermine the business of the tenant. Friday's testimony shows that the Griffin Gang, with Walker and Gorton, conspired to make life difficult for the PBC, thereby forcing a sale to themselves. The city's position is that they were working as private citizens, with no involvement from the city. But then they hired Gorton and Walker, and the plan unfolded pretty much as they had set it out over the summer. Hiring those two was a colossal and fatal mistake. It absolutely proves the city was trying to undermine the tenant. Didn't the city also refuse to sign suite leases with a termination clause? The judge will have to say that both sides are conspiring against the other, and in such a case, will grant the divorce with the settlement to be figured later.

The PBC also has a pretty good case on hardship. It is certainly true that the PBC has made some of its problems. But three ownerships over the last 8 years have been unable to meet the debt service on Key Arena. The PBC was aware of the losses and contributed to widening them, but still the economics of the lease are a hardship on the tenant.

The city's attempt to prove indirect economic benefit from the lease is weak. All they've proved, if the judge didn't know it, is that you can find an economic expert to give you any conclusion you want. The intangible benefit case is even worse. The city's proven that Sherman Alexie has a burning man-crush on LeBron James, but PBC proved general indifference to the Sonics - if even 28% of the fans who've paid for tickets don't show, how much community-building benefit can there be? Also, the judge may not look at intangible benefits from a theoretical popular, stable team - she might just consider the total lack of goodwill for this particular lame-duck team.

I would say that on the grounds of unclean hands, severe and worsening hardship, the deteriorated relationship between the parties, and the lack of provable benefit from specific performance, the PBC will win this case. The judge will refuse to keep together parties who conspired against each other - it's a recipe for endless conflict. Hiring Walker and Gorton will be the key errors, and the refusal to even negotiate a settlement offer will be an ugly stain on Mayor McCheese's record. Perhaps he will find a new career expelling hot air about global warming in the Obama administration.

Gorton does look like a sleaze, but much of this stuff is rather irrelevant in terms of the lease and whether it can be broken. Judges always surprise me.

So I'm wondering if Bennett offered Percy a job with the Oklahoman after the Sonics leave... IF they do leave...

This is starting to look a little fishy buddy

Don't see where Gorton has done anything but try to broker a deal to keep nba basketball in Seattle. That's job security for you Perc. You should be celebrating him not dis'in him. Who poisened the well anyway? Gorton wa just using the mess that clay got himself into to help Seattle.

The city of Seattle cannot force Clay Bennett to sell the team to a Seattle based ownership.

What the city of Seattle has done is actually hamper any potential person to operate a business in the KeyArena with a profit margin.

There has to be a reason why Schultz sold the Sonics? Because he was losing money in Key Arena.

There has to be a reason why Bennett wants to move the team?

Because he is losing money in KeyArena.

And who owns KeyArena??

It's plain and simple folks; even Perry Mason knows this.

Clay tried to take the Spurs back in the 90s, but was out-classed, outspent and bought out. To say he's a sneak is a total understatement. His idea with Seattle was to take a team and manufacture dissent, which is what he attempted with the Spurs.

Of course, as no Okie can handle a Texan, we saw where that went. The management of the Spurs decided they'd just bury him in money and paperwork and he ran home to his back-slapping buddies to devise a plan.

And that's where we are today. The sneak is back and he found the best route: buy the entire stake, drain the team of talent, brew dissent, then pack up and pull out.

Its so sad that a blog devoted to something this big, the tem LEAVING town gets 18 responses to a friday blog posting. The mariners Game threads get Hundreds. Nobody friggen cares , I truly believe that.

Wait a minute! What Gorton and his group "meant by that" is we were really trying to be hospital to Clay Bennett and looking out for his best interest?

Why can CB commit Purgery and say, What I really meant was...?

this court case is HUGE but the draft is thursday and there are rumors of a trade

# 2 pick and blount for wilcox and the 4 pick!

durant green and beasley all 3 from the dc area and durant and beasley are buddies

line up could go

watson/ chalmers
durant
green
beasley
collison/ blount

wow!

add some youth and depth to the bench with the 4 second round picks and this could be a really fun team to watch!

i am a believer and know the sonics will stay in the end! so i am looking to the future!

i got the rumor from the new espn mock draft!

seattle has lost the case because city of seattle hired gorton and his plan was to make current sonics owners go bankrupt. Seattle sonics will now move to oklahoma city next year. Game over.

Clay is bleeding himself. Those of you who think Seattle lost its case on Friday, please tell me: what exactly did the city do to make Bennett lose money? He knew the terms of the lease before he bought the team; knew that he would be losing money for the duration of the lease, unless the team made the playoffs; he then went on to gut the team of its best players, putting out the worst product in franchise history. All the while, he announced his intentions to move the team to OKC before the 12 month good-faith period was up. What did the city do to cause any of this? How can a meeting between a few people who are loosely, at best, affiliated with the city and trying to keep the team here constitute an action of "bleeding dry" Clay Bennett? Especially after Bennett publicly let his intention of moving the team be known? I would love for one of you to explain it to me.

Wow, over-reacting? Why is that a surprise. Besides lawyers, journalists are some of the biggest l i a r s in the world.

What's the deal? No new posts since last Friday? This story didn't just disappear, did it?

he Sonics got a lot of mileage from their "unclean hands" defense. They established a paper trail between former U.S. Senator Slade Gorton, who is the lead attorney for the city, and local investors intent on buying the Sonics.

Gorton has been up front about his passion to retain NBA basketball in Seattle, but that passion is undermining the city's case.
---Percy, it is not about the left and right side balance of evidence for a paper trail, it is about the 'who sinnned first' philosophy. To me, and, maybe I am wrong, but it appears to me that the infamous April 18, 2008 e-mail proves that Clay was trying to get the team out of town....
lame duck season doom in Seattle or can we move here (okc). - Ward quote.
doing best we can. I'm a man possessed. The game is getting started.-Clay quote.
that's the spirit. I want to see basketball here (okc) next season.-Ward quote
me too clay - mcclendon

--- NOW, the real question is not the 'paper trail,' but, if you wil, the 'perpetrator trail.' This is a case of finding out WHO sinned first.

Did the city find out that PBC was secretly working things out to move to OKC so they THEN allowed Slade the Blade and Wally Walker to get together to discuss a 'bleed' plan? Or, was the city involved with Slade's decision to do a Machievellian bleed plan?

Real questions. And, the real answers will decide the fate of the Sonics staying in Seattle, or 'here' as in 'there.', as in, 'okc'