Q: What does Friday's filing mean for Oklahoma City?Bennett: It means that we will now begin to work with Oklahoma City to understand the comprehensive relationship that the team and the city will have if we relocate. What the facilities would look like, what the lease arrangements would look like, what any number of other elements of the relationship would look like. Now, timing is unknown. Timing could be upon determination of this litigation. It could be at the end of this season. It could be at the end of the existing lease term. It could be in between if there's some settlement or negotiation that we both agree to. So timing is unknown, and the process is very comprehensive. It will involve a lot of people. It will take time. The league, today upon notification, will name a relocation committee of owners. And they will help to define and conduct the process.
Q: How does the pending court case affect the filing?
A: Timing. The court case is to determine one issue and that is specific performance. That's all that's being determined. Must we play our games through 2010, or may we provide a financial legal remedy that allows us to honor the lease?
Q: What happens if the court rules in favor of specific performance and you have to play in Seattle until 2010?
A: Then we will play here through 2010, short of any other negotiated settlement that may take place.
Q: What happens after 2010?
A: We're free to relocate.
Q: Is that the plan?
A: Without a new building, that's the plan.
Q: Is there anything between now and then that can stop the team from relocating or change your mind?
A: If very soon there was a leadership driven, tangible, binding proposal relative to the development of a modern building, and we are able to negotiate acceptable lease terms in that building, we would fully evaluate that. But the timing is running out on that very quickly. If something was to begin today, it would not be ready by 2010. So the dynamics of this negotiation and this relationship will change pretty dramatically.
Q: Are there still negotiations at this point or has everything been shelved?
A: I'm generally aware of one potential concept, but we're not involved in it at all. And it would require a significant public investment.
Q: What concept is that?
A: I'm not going to speak to the concept.
Q: Are the teams for sale, and what's your reaction to the group of Seattle investors who have made a public offer to buy the teams?
A: The teams are not for sale, and the parties don't need to spend their time and energy working on that process.
Q: Why hold on to the teams if investors are willing to keep them in Seattle?
A: Because what we announced on July 18th of 2006 is that we purchased the teams, we would provide a timeframe by which we would attempt to foster the development of a new, modern arena facility. If that could be done we would certainly be very pleased to be here for a very long time. If that could not be done, then we would explore other options which include relocation. So what that really means is we hoped to build a building here. I fully expected to build a building here. I expected that, in time, we would aspire to develop an elite basketball operation and that we would thrive in this very vibrant economy. If that could not happen, then we had other options, certainly first and foremost in our minds among them would be Oklahoma City. We were successful in the Hornets experience. We have an acceptable building. We have a diverse and growing economy, and we would be the only pro sports franchise in the state. The city aspires to be a major league city and part of the national platform. And there were other markets that we contemplated at the time that would be potential relocation possibilities. That was always the approach from the very beginning. If we could be successful here with a new building we would commit to that. If we couldn't we would move on.
Q: Seattle is known as an 11th hour market. Do you feel that there is anything that can be done toward a new arena at t
