Originally Posted by The Big Three
This is just a sad, sad story with a bad ending. F*ck Oklahoma City, what does that city give to the franchise that Seattle does not?
This statement is about as perfect and to the point as anything written. Given all current offers within the state of Washington, what DOES
OKC offer the Sonics that the city of Seattle dose not?
If its a equal deal, then why are we stripping a 41 year old franchise city of its team? On some basic level that i disagree with completely, you could argue that if another city offered a deal that was just 10 times better, well maybe it should be considered. As i said i disagree with this but it is an argument that can be made.
I do not think OKC's argument for the team is 10 times better. I do not, in fact, believe there offer to be even EQUAL to the deals that have now been offered from within the state of Washington.
I understand that Clay Bennet being the teams owner has the right to move his team if he wants to. But i also know that the league can stop the move anytime they want to. If the league said no Bennet would be forced to either play the team in Seattle, or sell it if he is no longer interested.
Anyone else disagree and think the sonics would somehow be better off in OKC as either a business or from a league history point of view?
Someone tell me again why its a good idea to take the Sonics to OKC? I cant think of any.