Hoopster, could you take a look at this timeline and incorporate it into your reply to my previous post please?
The timeline is correct, except left out of it was that there was a blatant motivation for Bennett to move to OKC in a short period of time.
First off, I think its wrong for the NBA to demand a new arena to be built 10 years after taxpayers footed the bill for the Key Arena renovations. 10 years, thats all it took for Shultz to start demanding a new arena be built. Trust me I think he's the worst villain in all of this. Seattle had JUST finished funding three years earlier new Seahawks AND new Mariners stadium. A lot of this whole situation is bad timing, no city, and I don't care if you're the craziest sports city in the country, no city is going to fund 3 taxpayer funded arenas/stadiums in a period of 7 years with no money coming from the ownership group. Even freaking LA can't build a stadium to bring the NFL there. The NBA should have been patient because eventually there would have been enough money to fund a new arena. The NBA has waited a long time in Sacramento, they basically gave Shultz a 2 year window, then Shultz gave up, then Bennett came in, gave Seattle a 2 year window (with his proposal of THE MOST expensive arena in NBA history to be built, which wasn't even located in Seattle). Four years is not a lot of time, they dealt with one politician who wasn't favorable to a new arena. Sacramento voted in KJ to keep the Kings in Sacramento because your arena issue has taken even longer. If the NBA had waited just one more political cycle, they'd have had their arena, they were not patient.
Second, Bennett always was motivated to get the Sonics to OKC, I don't buy for a single second he had any intention of trying to keep the team in Seattle. He proposed a $500 million arena. Those were his good intentions. Five years on, and Hansen's arena proposal, which is in DOWNTOWN Seattle mind you where land is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive (Bennett's arena was in Renton, where land is very cheap, and is 12 miles from Downtown) is the same price as Bennett's and offers a much better economic deal to the city of Seattle. Bennett was going to collect all revenue from his arena, including concerts and other events, he'd have control over naming rights (including revenue), without paying a DIME. Basically his "good intentions" were politically and economically impossible. He wanted the Taj Mahal of arenas, and was going to collect all the money for himself. It was not realistic.
In addition to this, Bennett and his partners (after emails between them and Stern were revealed) let it be known to the world they never wanted the team in Seattle.
And by the way, Ballmer offered to renovate the Key Arena with his own money and buy the team, which the NBA said no to. The NBA never wanted a team in Seattle on Seattle's terms, it was on their terms. The fact that all these NBA teams get by on making tons of money when they don't put a dime into the arena, and then get to say where the team plays, that is wrong.
I don't know why all of you guys defend the NBA in its drive to bankrupt cities. I'm not sure how well Sacramento is doing economically, but maybe I can find one or two people here who think that if a municipality is going to front money, they should have some equity over the franchise. The Green Bay model is the only sustainable model for how sports franchises should be operated. Kevin Johnson should be demanding Sacramento have equity in the team, because in 20 years time when the league wants another arena built, they'll pull the same bull**** again. And if Ranadive ends up being a flukey owner, or sells to a fluky owner, the city will suffer once again without any power.
