clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

When he says the sky is green didn't he mean the sky is falling?

Aubrey, Aubrey, Aubey. I sense deep problems with this testimony.

Realistically we could all have some fun with is. As someone stated in an earlier post the concensus seems to be that each and every comment he made at any time came with an asterisk attached. Additionally he wants us to believe that nowhere did they have a single conversation about his matter, nor did they provide answers to a lot of the questions posed in e-mail. The suspension of belief required to buy this story is appalling. Essentially the PBC have become characters on the show Lost. Simply letting statements hang off in the air, never asking obvious questions, and I suppose having the course of their real lives just fade away into commercial breaks or irrelevan memories whenever there is a real question to be asked or answered.

Reading the article my biggest question is "Why did he buy the Sonics."

It wasn't to keep a team in Seattle. He takes the company line about a great opportunity in a huge market, but never bothered to visit the Key Arena, see the team, and knows nothing about the region including potential arena sites. You'd thikn that at least once in their good faith process they would have briefed the shareholders on what the options were.

If you believe his testimony he had nothing more than a passing interest in owning a professional spots team in Oklahoma. he just kind of "got involved" when Clay called and it seemed like a good investment.

As an investment however there is a lot to be desired. He claims that he has only the most basic understanding of the NBA financial model. He claims to have had no desire o knowledge of the teams financial situation for years before they bought it, during heir ownership, or how it could improve if they got an arena done either in Seattle or Oklahoma. He simply states over and over again "Clay had that handled."

He also makes it appear as if there was absolutely no discussion whatsoever amongst the PBC regarding what constituted good faith and best effort. It simply wasn't an issue for them.

The fact that this good faith "wasn't even an issue" is going to be a killer in the Schulz case. It certainly represents negligence in my mind if, knowing that this is a material consideration for the sellers you make a binding committment that you will work towards something, yet never even make an attempt as an organization to define what will be done.

If there are any doubts that this was an issue for the deal then what he says about the deal coming together is very damaging, again in the Schulz case: he lays out that it was made clear any potential owners that the one year good faith was a requirement to do the deal and that all members of the PBC undrestood this. When you take that fact, combine it with the fact that they never even made a group effort to determine good faith or get updates on the status of the good faith then I think that, at the very least they were negligent. In the terms of the law, Fraudulantly Negligent.

I can't wait until the Litvin Depo comes out. I'll have the total packet on Monday for Couch, Ceis, etc.