I don’t really care where the Sonics play, but what’s liberal about making a team honor its lease? I’m not big on cities putting the squeeze on teams, but that’s no worse than cities building new stadia under the threat of a move. I am glad that L.A. would not be extorted by the NFL.
Forcing the team to lose $20M a year playing in Seattle, that's what.
And the effective "bleeding" to make the team a white elephant through the 2009 ending season.
As for the lease, I'm sure the city would be compensated for the actual rent.
It's the multiplier dollars that would be lost.
(And I do agree with you and the others about public financing of teams.)
Comment:
I agree with you on the statement about putting the squeeze on tax payers to support multi million dollar enterprises.
The liberal part comes in when you examine HOW the former elitists billionaire owners planed to make the Sonics stay in Seattle by bankrupting the Oklahoma City owners.
I posted an example where PMSNBC tied two of the new Sonics owners donating money to a Saving Marriage group as if that is something that disqualifies ownership in a Seattle based team.
Why would these liberal networks who are in the toilet tank for Obama think that an owners personal beliefs should have relevance as to whether or not a sports team should stay in an ultra liberal city.
I have not watched on TV or attended an NBA game since giving up my tickets to the Mavericks back in 1987.