Two Words

Sonic Rings

By dernbiebs on 05.19.17 8:11am

SODO or bust!

Don’t give up on SODO. If you’ve ever been to a game at the Key/Coliseum, you’ve had to deal with the worst traffic and parking experience in Sports in Seattle. That’s really all I need to say.

By UpForTheDownStroke on 05.19.17 8:27am

I checked my temperature...currently sitting at "awesome"

so I’m good.

By sofa-king on 05.19.17 8:29am

Sofa, if you ever change...

my life will be devoid of meaning.

Greened for awesomeness.

By Paul Rogers on 05.19.17 6:09pm

SODO is by far

the better option in all areas…design, public money, transportation infrastructure. It’s not even close. So naturally the city will go with the Key!

By SuperSonics2.0 on 05.19.17 8:31am

Paul,

Curious what your thoughts are about the long term health of sports franchises at Key Arena. No doubt that the Key Arena proposers have connections the SoDo group couldn’t dream of, but does it not concern you that the teams would be playing in a city owned arena operated by a third party? Could you see a potential owner looking at the fact that they will be locked into Key Arena for 60+ Years with limited ways to create revenue and even less opportunity to grow it in the future, and choosing not get involved? Or choosing to get involved anyways and down the road when they have had a couple bad seasons and aren’t making as much money at the arena, cut on things like pay roll and fan experience?

It sounds like you just want a damn team, I totally get it. But, and the mods have discussed this a lot, 20 years from now matters too. Thses groups (I don’t think OVG has been confirmed this but it’s assumed) are locking us into this scenario for a very long time and down the road if one of the franchises becomes upset, I’m not saying we will be in this same situation again, but they will look for a way to change it and I doubt it’ll be in a way that’s favorable to fans.

By itsanospreybich on 05.19.17 8:35am

It honestly doesn't concern me

I’m not going to say your nightmare scenario is impossible. But I just don’t see it happening.

The leaders of OVG and AEG are really smart guys who walk in social circles that you and I will likely never be a part of. They walk among NBA and NHL owners. They likely talk to them almost every day. These guys know what team owners need from an arena to make money. I know many think these guys are getting into this to do a music only venue, but I don’t buy that at all. They are investing a significantly higher amount than they did in Kansas City. They will want primary tenants. I simply don’t believe they would get into this unless they knew they could attract and land team investors.

Similarly, these team investors are also really smart guys. It’s not like the old days when some guy who struck it rich as a car salesman can buy a team. We are talking about billion dollar investments. Any investor that has the cash and who can survive league vetting is going to be smart enough to look at an arena lease and know if it’s a good long term plan. They won’t come here unless they have high confidence they can make it work.

So if these particular arena investors are confident they can attract sustainable team owners, and if those sustainable team owners are confident that they are signing a sustainable arena deal, that’s good enough for me.

By Paul Rogers on 05.19.17 6:18pm

Conversely, I don't think that Sodo will have no trouble attracting investors, if it can get a street vacation

Pretty much for all the reasons you describe, very accurately btw. I don’t see an advantage for any of these proposals based on the "securing a team" argument. The green lighted project will secure the teams, unless we functionally end up with two green lights as a result of a street vacation for Arena Co. and a selection for SC, at which point we’ll see some real competition.

I also want to point out that your reference to "many" who think the SC groups want to do a music-only venue doesn’t match what I read. I’ve seen very few posters who assert that they are only in it to do that. I’ve seen many more who understand that they wouldn’t take this risk without knowing that they can get by successfully if that’s the end result. I think the "many" actually understand that they would love to have both teams. That’s the true money-maker. And that’s the point of their venture. They want a true money-maker. Why wouldn’t they?

The leagues will come, no matter who is ultimately successful in producing an Arena (IMO!). The SCC is preventing a "free market" solution by denying the street vacation. Remove that impediment, and lets see where the teams land. Remove that obstacle, and I’d bet Brian Robinson’s concerns would evaporate (because of overt action on the part of Arena Co.), and we’d see an alternative solution to the Seattle Center that makes much more sense for that district.

By cortone on 05.19.17 6:53pm

Regarding the "many"

Maybe I’ll do a poll on that question. I wouldn’t be surprised if a large chunk of Sodo or Bust people (which make up 30% of us) also buy into the Music Only argument.

By Paul Rogers on 05.20.17 9:30am

It would be interesting

I have to admit I am very surprised by that many respondents for the "or Bust" and need to roll back some of my interpretation and opinion of your responses (a little, let's not get out of hand here!). There are the hazards of an internet poll of course, but I can’t quite gauge why there would be a concerted effort to try and skew that particular voting option short of a true preference for it. I’m also shocked that there aren’t more SC proponents of any flavor.

I understand and respect voters for their choice of "or Bust." I don’t believe it’s a valid question to ask, to be honest, because I think teams come when we have an arena period, not because it is in Location A versus Location B.

I’m only slightly over the fence into the "Prefer Sodo" group. I think the risk of getting/not getting a team is roughly equal with any of these proposals, but I’m not willing to risk even the low-chance outcome, hence I "Prefer." Objectively, Sodo is best by my evaluation (by far), and for me as a fan who would attend games, Sodo is best. I can see a game in their first season, and maybe one a year after that, or I can ride the Sounder into Seattle a few times a year, every year. Pretty simple choice for me.

I wonder if a multi-choice option focusing specifically on that voting result would reveal the most? Because Music-only? Because Hansen? Because access? Because 100% private? Because Public Benefits? Because all? Can a poll allow multiple options to be chosen?

By cortone on 05.20.17 10:19am

But, just as your own post states. . . .the magic word is "IF and "CAN". Your last paragraph/sentence says it all.

"IF these particular arena investors are confident they CAN attract sustainable team owners, and IF those sustainable team owners are CONFIDENT that they ARE signing a sustainable arena deal, that’s good enough for me."

Unless you’ve got more intel than you’re sharing. . . ..that’s a lot of BIG "if’s" for my tastes.

By kinsesu on 05.19.17 8:09pm

There's also a lot of ifs

in assuming that the teams will want to leave Key in 20 years. There are ifs in every one of these proposals.

By Paul Rogers on 05.20.17 6:31am

I don't think it's an 'if' that whatever venue the Sonics are in will be due for an upgrade in 20-ish years. It's a given.

Granted, those 20 years are after the arena opens, so that’s 23-27 years down the road from right now, or even farther as the Seattle Process time-warp occurs. And lets be conservative with the longevity estimate, and say 30 years. Which looks easier to renovate at that point, the 30-yr-old building getting its first reno in an arena district, or the 90-something building getting its 4th reno in a public park? Even if the SC upgrade is a complete rebuild so that the relative ages are negligible, its still in a public park.

And if there’s an exclusivity clause? SC doesn’t get the renovation at all, Bellevue/Tukwila/unknown get a new arena and team(s). I’d say that’s the likely outcome even without the exclusivity clause, because of the Seattle Process on a public asset in a neighborhood where population density has skyrocketed.

By cortone on 05.20.17 6:57am

of course

But you are assuming they won’t want or be able to renovate Key when that time comes.

By Paul Rogers on 05.20.17 7:37am

And you are assuming the they will want to or will be able to

How hard was the reno to accomplish in the early 90s (including the failed effort in Sodo)? How hard is it this time? What would lead you to expect it to be easier next time? Where will the teams play if they do? What do they plow under to increase the footprint?

By cortone on 05.20.17 10:35am

I'm assuming nothing in 20 years

I don’t even assume that they’ll want a bigger footprint then.

By Paul Rogers on 05.20.17 10:57am

Okay, but in that light, neither am I, beyond the fact that they will have to do something

Then, or within a few years.

By cortone on 05.20.17 11:13am

Prefer Sodo, but open to Key Arena if it brings the NBA/NHL

These groups have adequately addressed my concerns about whether Key Arena could be remodeled into a world-class facility that is economically viable for the NBA and NHL. But I think the city needs to proceed VERY carefully if they choose the Key Arena option. I expect the following from the city, given we won’t know the answer to "…if it brings the NBA/NHL" until after the buildings are built (or at least approved).
1- I expect the city to ascertain precisely how both groups will structure these deals to provide incentive for not just one but two franchises to share Key Arena and have agreements that allow each franchise to be economically viable given the number of parties at play here. I think it’s a reasonable fear that the NHL will come to Seattle but the economics of the arena will make it very challenging to also add an NBA franchise.
2- Do NOT agree to any sort of exclusivity agreement. Should the fear in #1 come to fruition, it’s great to have a back-up plan especially when you have a group that wants to own an NBA franchise.

By ksmith1984 on 05.19.17 8:42am

I really hate the possibility of exclusivity

and I fear that it’s a deal breaker for each group. Even if there’s a clause that exclusivity would be void if they fail to attract teams, that would mean they failed to attract a team.

By itsanospreybich on 05.19.17 9:06am

Agreed on both of these points

By Matt Tucker on 05.19.17 12:46pm

Yeah. Exclusivity should be out.

By Speedcat on 05.19.17 6:11pm

The City...

Has no incentive to do number 1…there is no reason for them to negotiate that into the contract. They just want the Key Arena to make money (for some reason)

By blykmyk44 on 05.22.17 11:43am

Prefer Kraken, but open to Metropolitans if it brings the NHL

By Thane of Cascadia on 05.19.17 8:43am

Prefer relocation of Coyotes to Seattle with a Sodo location and renaming team to Seawolves

By Jeff - j1012 on 05.19.17 8:52am

Kraken >>>>> Seawolves

but i’m sure they’ll go with Metropolitans anyways.

By Rydogg on 05.19.17 9:02am