HELL NO!!!!

They are out of here. Just like Boeing did years ago, this time we are not losing any revenue for the state. LET THE SONICS GO!!!!!!!!!

This lawsuit will eventually keep the sonics here until the lease ends, which will only give politicians that much more time between now and 2010 to put a taxpayer funded package in place.

I'm all for the Sonics staying - if they pay they own way, in entirety. If we the taxpayers have to fund them, we should garner on all profits in proportionate to our funded amount...including stadium naming rights. Why, when taxpayers fund a stadium, do the sports teams reap the benefits of naming rights? Wrong...all wrong.

It has never felt like Bennett was acting in good faith to keep the Sonics here--unless the ownership group gets a deal so sweet they can't say no. Personally, I don't know if the loss of the team can be calculated. And if getting a new stadium means extending the existing hotel/rental car tax (which I think is largely paid for by tourists), I would be for it. I'd hate to have to drive my son down to Portland to see an NBA game. This year will be interesting, if Durant is as good as many people think.

This story is so old. We went to a Sonics game, and it was b-o-r-i-n-g!!! The Sonics main attraction is Kevin Callabro, and without his commentary, I'd wish the Sonics goodbye with a boot. These owners have proved themselves whiny little kids with attitude.
See ya!

Everyone keep talking about the Sonics. What about the Storms? Who brought a championship to Seattle in 2004.Bennett had no plans on keeping neither team here. I really hope they work something out,because I would hate to see Seattle lose two good teams.

To add to Brian K's comments - its not only the hotel/rental tax that is paying for KeyArena (and potentially the new arena), its also includes a restaurant tax - which local residents pay for each time you eat out. These taxes are not just a tourist tax - but a hidden tax on the locals.

Let The "Go Sooner Sonics" Go.
They make more money in one game than i do in a lifetime, and they want ?me? to buy them an arena???? HEHEHEHEHEHEH. They Funny!!

They want an arena that bad, im sure they carry enough money for an arena. . .On Them!

Let the Sonics GO! Like hell i want to pay for another stupid stadium. Ohh yah and if I do can I afford the tickets, heck no! Let the SONICS go then lets get our elected idiots out of office in Seattle.

Yes these Oky boys can take that team and put it somewhere. I am tired of the whining.. Why couldn't they just find a local buyer??SEE YA !

Let them go, let's make this a hockey town.......

LET THEM GO! LET THEM GO! LET THEM GO!

I lived through Mayor Lionel Wilson's $26 million eminent domaine battle (which he lost, by the way) to keep the Raiders in Oakland back when they headed for LA and this is just as ridiculous as that was. Other than the players and owners mega-dollar contracts giving those of them that live in the area the money they spend here, I still do not see where having a basketball team contributes appreciably to the local economy. The same fans that currently spend on Sonics jerseys etc. will make up for the loss of Sonics-oriented local expenditure by refocusing on the Seahawks, Mariners, or Sounders and buying souvenier items from those teams.

I remember the dire predictions of huge negative impacts to the local food and lodging industries when the Raiders were leaving Oakland and again when the Kings were threatening to leave Sacramento. However, I also remember the real impact of the Raiders leaving being negligible and more recently reading findings that the Kings' consultants estimates were hugely overstated.

Let's keep our heads on straight on this. It's a basketball team - something fun to watch live if you don't mind paying the rather notable fare for parking, food, and drink. As such, it has a VERY small number of individuals (some of whom live locally and others who don't) who account for the vast preponderance of the organization's salary expenses. It's not an identity, it's not an indicator of the value or prestige of Seattle or the Puget Sound on the whole (if that is the case, that's an even sadder state of affairs), it's a game and a business (just like Seattle politics).

I understand fully that it is a business's responsibility to do everything in its power to maximize its profits and, equally, it is the customers' responsibility to maximize the value they receive for their expenditures. The point at which those two responsibilities meet is referred to as a transaction. How about the Seattle city government letting the free market system work as it is supposed to (a situation that has worked remarkably well for the Puget Sound area in the past) and let the Sonics owners do what they want to with their team. Let's move on something with a bit more relevance than whether an organization with, I guess, no more than 50-100 local employees decides to stay here or relocate.

Does this little show sound way too familar:
1. Team Owners rattle sabers -build us a new fcility or we're leaving.
2. Elected officials won't make the hard decision. Say Bye Bye. Let's put it to a vote of the people.
3. People vote and say "NO".
4. Elected officials say we're going to build it anyway.

You must admit it worked for Baseball and Football why not Basketball.
If the owners want to leave town so bad let them cash out the contract and take a bus out of Washington.

For that matter, it seems to me that it not only worked for Baseball and Football - it also worked for Light Rail.

Why do some people keep saying that we voted no on two stadiums but they built them anyhow? We never voted down any stadium. We ONCE voted down a really bad sales tax increase to pay for the Mariners stadium and then overwhelmingly the people demanded that the state find a way to fund on with user taxes. They did. Then the people VOTED FOR using the same taxes for a stadium for the Seahawks.

Building a new Events Center makes financial sense for the region. Other cities build them with 100% taxpayer money and in many cases do not have any major league sports teams to use them.

We have the ability to do this with a substantial private investment AND keep the NBA AND have a very good chance of bringing the NHL to town if we could just insert some common sense and logic into the process rather then the knee jerk (and always misinformed) emotional responses that we see on this issue.

Lastly NO ONE can make ANY logical case that the region is better off in any way without the NBA being here. So why would we want to shoot ourselves in the foot?

Right now the issue is keeping the teams in Seattle by forcing them to honor their lease. That protects the investment we already made in Key Arena and will more than likely end up with the teams in local ownership.

Tampa Bay Mariners
LA Seahawks
Oklahoma Supersonics
nuff said

I think it's too bad Paul Allen already owns the TrailBlazers or we wouldn't be having this conversation!

Goodbye and take your not-much-higher than minimum wage jobs with you so we do not have to listen to the politicos sound off about them. Instead let's spend our money to get more industries in the area which bring in new wealth from outside the city, county, state, and nation. Microsoft and Boeing typify these types of endeavors. Basically, spending hundreds of millions so we can pass the same dollars around is not a worthwhile system. Or do we want the dollar to continue to sink so it is far less than the current par against the loonie; drops further against the Euro where it was at par five years ago; etc., etc.

I can't believe this. Key Arena was built to the exact specifications of the NBA and the Ackerley family. Because of this Seattle never got an NHL team because the seating capacity is not enough to accomodate the ice surfaced. Outside of Seattle the league refers to Key Arena as "remodeled". as I recall it was torn to dust and rebuilt from the ground up. Seattle is a great NBA town. if the Sonics go, then the Clippers, Wizards, Nets, and possibly Sixers would all find themselves better off financially in Key Arena. Seems to me I recall David Stern extolling the virtue of the "New" arena around the time of the 1996 finals. What a hypocrite! Don't give in to these crooks!

Why the heck don't you put the blame where it belongs? The past ownership is what sold our beloved instituton down the tube to this pompous spoiled brat and his buddies from a place where they will surely fail because it is collegiate football town mainly....So maybe you should go and boycott that wretched stuff they call coffee that you have to disguise with foo foo fluff to even drink it....And for anyone that has been here longer than 10 years or... oh.... let's say 40+ years knows how great the SEATTLE SUPERSONICS are! The only pro team to ever win a WORLD TITLE and many regional championships around here...Excuse me...Until the wonderful WNBA STORM was added!!!!

How many of you give your spare time and money to Childrens' Hospital and needy families? Many give back more than all of us put together....And you cry about a few cents in taxes.

How quickly you forget...Oh yeah...You haven't been here long enough to know that have you!

Go home Clay Bennett! You are a liar!

let the Sonics go!!!It is not a family sport. Who can afford to take a family with some tickets $100 to $500 a seat per game. Let's invest money back into the Seattle Center and surrounding buildings more family and people friendly. Update the area and have good security that people want to come out and spend time and money having fun together. When players make in the millions and owners will pay the salaries, then it is their problems. I would have to work 20 life times to make what one player makes.

The Supersonics must stay.

What's wrong with Key Arena? It's a great stadium for the Sonics, Mr. Clay Bennett! A stadium is already standing for the team. What would a new one accomplish/provide that Key Arena could not supply?

The Storm is staying, why not some Super-sonics? Any local buyers for the Supers?