clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Oh lordy, lordy, lordy...

You've all read this:

Good lord. I try to break this bad boy down and it is almost impossible. It is just laughable. I am going to lead off with the fact that I simply don't understand how this document cannot undermine Clay Bennetts entire argument in the Seattle court.

I am going to lay out right now that I believe that there are two possible options here.

Option 1 may suprise you. I think it is possible that OKC has joined the fray in a good way. They could have decided that the goal righ now is for EVERYBODY is to just continue to make this mess so damn bloody that the league has no choice but to resolve it via expansion. There seems to be clear reference in this document to the teams ability to assign their interest to a qualified NBA member. The league cannot risk the downside here. They need ball in both OKC and Seattle and OKC is letting them know that the pressure is from all sides, not just one.

Option 2 is that Clay asked them to write a letter which attempts to clearly quantify the damages he would be incuring. They quote the cities lawsuit almost to a letter, citing difficult to define benefits, an irrepairable loss, etc. but then say that if the team were to leave then the adjusted book value of the arena. I expect the lawyers to say "See, how can you have any more damages than the total of your investment in the building?

It is a joke of a document. They practically quote the city's case verbatum.

If Clay Bennett signed a documen that stipulated he would move the team in 2010 then he was signing an agreement without authorization. A team may only relocate with league approval and at the last minute he was granted a LIMITED approval which is only binding for his year. If he doesn't move this year he has to re-apply. If he is denied then he cannot move. I would bet a million bucks that somewhere in that lease are the worders "subject to National Basketball Association rules and bylaws."