“I think what I’d like to do is to say that in light of the swirling events and the continuing litigation and the to and fro with respect to the Sonics, I’d like to take the opportunity to impose a gag on myself and allow speculation to grow in whatever way is constructive,” Stern told reporters on a national conference call.
When asked whether he is in favor of the NBA expanding from 30 to 32 teams regardless of Seattle’s future, Stern said expansion is “not tops on our list.”
“There’s a very strong owner reaction at the present time to expansion,” Stern said. “But at the same time there’s a very strong recognition, because of the pressures of revenue sharing, there are particular cities that we currently have that can’t support a team we should consider moving them to cities that can.
“I’m not totally onboard with that approach, but it’s increasingly gaining some steam amongst a strong group of owners.”
Stern also hinted Thursday that any potential replacement franchise in Seattle would be contingent on whether Seattle city officials spitefully hold on to the Sonics and foster an unnecessary two years of lame-duck status for the franchise until its arena lease expires in 2010.
The Sonics ownership group and the city of Seattle are currently feuding in federal court over whether the team must fulfill its lease by playing out the remainder of the contract or is legally permitted to pay off the remaining rent.
“I think that our history (in Seattle) speaks for itself,” Stern said. “And depending upon the circumstances under which we depart cities, that has something to do with our ability and willingness and speed of returning.”
Earlier this month, Stern was quoted as saying, “If the expressed desire to bleed current ownership for three more years is acted upon, then we’ll take the bleeding with them and chances of there ever being a franchise in Seattle again are not very good.”
On Tuesday, Stern joined three of the seven NBA owners that make up the relocation committee and several league executives in Oklahoma City to consider whether the city could support the Sonics, whose chairman, Clay Bennett, applied to relocate the franchise here last November.
Stern told reporters at a news conference that the subcommittee would advise the relocation committee to recommend the relocation of the Sonics to the Board of Governors at the league’s annual meetings on April 17-18 in New York. A simple majority of the league’s 30 owners are needed for final approval.
New Jersey Nets part owner and relocation committee member Lewis Katz on Tuesday expressed his desire for the Sonics to relocate to Oklahoma City and have the NBA grant Seattle an expansion team.
“My hope is that we’ll find a settlement with Seattle that will give them the opportunity to have a replacement team,” Katz said. “Seattle should have an NBA team. And I think David expressed that in the meetings. We all feel that way. So my guess is you haven’t heard the end of the Seattle story.”
Stern, for the second time in three days Thursday, pointed out that Sonics owners are seeking a move solely because the team plays in outdated KeyArena and not because of a lack of fan support.
“The one thing I would say is we want to make it clear that the Sonics’ proposed move is not a question of fan support but an issue of arena capability and the path by which we got to the place where they proposed or applied to move,” Stern said.
Thank you for joining our conversations on NewsOK.com. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Editor's note: It is not our intent to offer comments on crime or fatality stories.
Leave a comment.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).
Jeffery says: All Seattle has to do or should of done along time ago is come up with a arena plan that will satisfy the NBA....Jeffery, we did. With the help of NBA designers we designed a remodel of the KEY, that according to the NBA, would make the KEY the top revenue producing arena in the NBA. David Stern came to Seattle and went with Shultz to Olympia to sell the concept. That was in 2006, barely 2 years ago and a few months before Bennett bought the team. The arena remodel was for 225 million. Now, Seattle has put forth the same upgrade designed by the NBA 2 years ago, added in another 75 million for more upgrades, and it is not good enough. What confidence do you have that your remodel of the Ford Center will be good enough in 2 years?
The owners not the NBA has any say in the arena. Stern has complained about the Jazzarena too, but there are no plans to upgrade it or build a new one in SLC. How come the NBA is not making them build a new arena? Stern was helping the Kings get a new arena and the people there voted them down. Is Stern talking about moving that team? We have people who want to buy and team and play in the Arena, how is that the NAB concern? If I was you go bad and look at coments made by Bennett and your mayor in February where they were already talking about fixing up the Ford Center and building a new Arena. Open up your wallets boys the bills are just starting to come due.
Robert...you are like all the other thick headed seattle people. The NBA has said and I repeat "KEY ARENA IS NOT A VIABLE ARENA FOR THE NBA" All Seattle
has to do or should of done along time ago is come up with a arena plan that will statisfy the NBA and the team would stay. But your elected officials have said
that is not possible so that is why the team is leaving. Get out and go to some arena's around the NBA and you will see your arena falls way short.
Stern's comments are why people in Seattle don't trust him. Last week he was talking about Seattle getting a team, today no team. He talks out both side of his mouth. This is why people in Seattle will force the issue in court. Rick, your owner have said that they will make more money in Seattle (the TV and Radio contracts alone are worht 3 times what they are in OKC) The seating difference is less than 1000 seats, before our upgrade. Our redesign of Key arena will make them the same size. The big difference is we have private people willing to pay for half of a 300 million dollar upgrade. This menas in the future cities will be telling owners, look you can have a new arena if you come up with half the money like Seattle did, not like giving them low rent like they did in OKC. Now explain how they will make more money in OKC? This is about how much money they can get from taxpayers not the arena size. If the team stays in Seattle the NBA will not be able to force cities to give tax breaks to teams like OKC is doing (look at the lowest rent payment in the league and the naming rights paying the team not the city).
David, I don't understand your comments? Do you like the Sonics and want them to stay or are you happy they are leaving so your city doesn't have to spend anymore money? Oklahoma is excited to get an NBA team, and we have now already spent more than we needed to insure they come. If they demand more money then we are willing to pay in the future than maybe Seattle can STEAL them back. The Sonics will remain the Sonics since the guy that owns the Sonic Corporation bought them!
No one is stealing anything. OKC has done nothing to Seattle and sure isn't stealing anything from them..The sad fact is,Seattle has brought this down on themselves. One of these days you people might wake up and see the need for a new arena. Even a remodel of Key arena would leave that place in the bottom tier of NBA arenas. The Ford Center right now is just about twice the size of key and when the remodel is done it will be over 3 times the size. What this means is that the Sonics will be able to generate more money in the Ford Center.
Now why should Seattle have the right to hold the owners back from making money? The answer is of course,they shouldn't.
The bottom line here is that Seattle is losing the Sonics because they refuse to build an arena. That is on Seattle. If you call that stealing then you have bigger issues to deal with.
I think the prevailing sentiment in Seattle is that we want our Sonics to stay and if the NBA lets Oklahoma steal the team, then the hell with the NBA. They need us more than we need another team. You guys in Oklahoma City will be singing a different tune in 5 years when the team and the NBA demands even more money from you and Kansas City or Pittsburgh try to steal the team from you. What goes around comes around.
9
Thank you for joining our conversations on NewsOK.com. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Leave a comment. Log in below or sign up (it's free).Editor's note: It is not our intent to offer comments on crime or fatality stories.
has to do or should of done along time ago is come up with a arena plan that will statisfy the NBA and the team would stay. But your elected officials have said
that is not possible so that is why the team is leaving. Get out and go to some arena's around the NBA and you will see your arena falls way short.
If Seattle wants to think we stole their team. Let them.
Who cares? It doesn't matter anymore.
How about the "Oklahoma Outlaws" for a team name.
Now why should Seattle have the right to hold the owners back from making money? The answer is of course,they shouldn't.
The bottom line here is that Seattle is losing the Sonics because they refuse to build an arena. That is on Seattle. If you call that stealing then you have bigger issues to deal with.