 |  |
| |
Sports |
July 2008
Categories
|
The city of Oklahoma City has told Howard Schultz and his former co-owners that the Sonics will have to play in OKC or they'll sue them. You can see the article in newsok.com right here. In a nine-page letter sent Thursday, an assistant municipal counselor for Oklahoma City wrote "there is an expectation by City leadership and citizens that the owners of the Team, whomever they may be, will honor all of the Team's contractual obligations with the City -- including the contractual obligation to relocate to Oklahoma City and to play home games at the Ford Center for the duration of the term of the lease." 5/9/08 newsok.com I guess OKC's hypocrisy knows no bound. They want the Sonics to break their Seattle lease to play in OKC. But on the other hand, they want to enforce a lease where maybe a former owner make takeover the team and didn't agree to the OKC lease. Remember, when Clay Bennett and company bought the Sonics, they agreed to take on the lease. Hmmm...this case keeps on getting interesting by the minute. 6 Comments |
I don't see how OKC could have any lease with the Sonics. The Sonics already have a with the city of Seattle and as far as I know the current lease has to end before a new lease can begin. If OKC whats to sue anyone they should only be able to sue Clay Benet and company for promises they know they could not make at the time the got OKC to raze tax's. If OKC is compiling they should of waited to vote on the mater until the team is or was ready to move.
Reading the letter, and the "lease" it is pretty clear that the only one that could be in trouble is Bennett. Schultz is protected in this deal by the courts decision and the fact that the NBA would have to vote to approve a relocation in the future, one that would never be applied for by the new owner.
I don't understand OKC's premise. If the original sales agreement is overturned by the courts and Howard gets his team back, how can OKC sue since the original sale is fraudulent. If I were a con artist, I would pay close attention to this outcome. Even though I would have scammed the "prey" my agreement with them would be legally binding and I would get to keep the merchandise anyway?
Wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that if the original is bogus, that all following agreements would be bogus too. Yes, Clay Bennett would be the one who could be sued.
I think the biggest thing here....and the one thing that OKC fails to grasp....is the validity of the "lease" signed in OKC is pending the Schultz case. If it is proven in that case that Bennett committed fraud and signed the sale documents under false pretenses, the lease with OKC never existed. This is no more than OKC puffing up their chest and making noise because they know how very close they are to seeing their dream flutter away. Clayton Bennett may be a powerful business man, but nobody can accuse him of being a smart one. If he loses this court case with Schultz, he will have no one but himself to blame for leaving the trail that spelled his downfall.
Shouldn't they be suing Bennett?
Its kind of like someone buying a car with a bad check then leasing it to an unsuspecting third party. You don't sue the original owner whose car was stolen, you sue the thief.
Forget all this oklahoma suit and everything else people. ITS ALL ABOUT THE TRIAL IN JUNE! THE TRIAL IN JUNE IS EVERYTHING IN THIS CASE. I would be very surprised if it even gets to the trial but the bottome line is; THE TRIAL IN JUNE! all will be settled then!