I was reading recently that there is some speculation that the Hornets might attempt to move to Ok City before the Sonics do and it got me to thinking. Obviously the Sonic's owner has pissed off the entire population of Seattle and might look for other destinations... well where would those be? Las Vegas (too risky) Kansas City (not sure on population/interest) Vancouver (hmm Memphis Grizzlies) Montreal (hmm Washington Nationals) Pittsburg (sorta ruins the Northeast conference) St. Louis (can they support another team) and of course my pipedream Austin ... if only
If Austin isn't available due to all the factors, and if King County isn't palatable (for whatever reason), then the owners should logically look to the biggest metro areas not currently hosting NBA teams. Let's see, that would be, um, hmm. Ah, San Diego. No? Lost the Clippers and didn't care? Too close to LA? OK, well, that leaves, um, er. . . Aha! El Paso. Do I get a finder's fee from the owners for this service?
It's clear that Oklahoma City will get one. It's just a matter of who's going to take it. Las Vegas seems to be the city-du-jour for franchises that wish to move. It's unclear how much influence the sports books would have on a pro team in that city. I feel like the Internet is such a big gambling deal, that it doesn't matter where a team is located. I've always wondered why St. Louis can't sustain a pro basketball franchise. They had the crooked ABA owners and were shut out when the Spurs, Nets, Pacers, and Nuggets joined the NBA. That has seemed to handicap them for 30 years. St. Louis sports fans kind of remind me of pro sports fans in Texas. Well, in both good and bad ways.
you'd have to think that Vegas will be shelved even longer than originally planned after the Donaghy fiasco
I thought OKC was a done deal. If not, Kansas City has a brand new spanking arena that needs tenants. It would be a much better option than Okie.
I thought the Sonics going to OKC was a done deal too. But Seattle has a suit against Bennet to enforce the lease of their stadium. Bennet is willing to pay the last two years of the lease, however that may not be enough. There is a clause in the contract which requires them to play in the Seattle stadium through the 2009-2010 season. Eventhough this clause exists the outcome is by no means clear. Usually, paying the remainder of a lease is sufficient,. In addition, courts are reluctant to enforce these types of clauses (specific enforcement clauses) in leases.
