FanHouse Howardschultz

The lawsuit from Howard Schultz, the Starbucks CEO and former Sonics owner who claims Clay Bennett's group violated an agreement by discussing relocation literally the second they bought the team, quietly rolls on. The first trial movement is expected in 2009, but Schultz is talking already. In a court filing this week, Schultz says NBA commissioner David Stern warned him about the ramifications of continuing the suit.

Schultz said Stern told him "that if I did not join in the settlement ... I should realize that it will become very expensive for me and my partners, and he implied that I should reconsider my position."

Schultz said he then told Stern the settlement did not contain strong enough assurances about the NBA locating a team in Seattle and that Stern told him "the NBA would offer no further assurances in that regard."

This doesn't amount to much pressure from Stern, I think. It will be expensive for Schultz ... and Bennett and the NBA. I'm not sure there's a way in which the NBA can make it more expensive for Schultz, prohibitively expensive. Stern already failed in attempting to get the suit dismissed. The commish could try to run up the costs -- he did request $1.5 million in restitution from Tim Donaghy -- but he's unlikely to pick Schultz clean.

Basically, Stern's just telling Schultz that he will lose. It's unsavory at best and maniacal at worst. But it's far from unexpected. Stern is simply a man possessed when it comes to the Un-Sonics.

As we've mentioned before, there is significant evidence to believe that David Stern and Clay Bennett are good friends (I think actually, it's a fact, if that is a provable statement). This friendship took another convenient twist with the latest news re: hijacking Seattle.

How else can you explain the subsequent timeline of events: Bennett signing a settlement that agrees to return the Sonics if Howard Schultz wins his lawsuit followed immediately by the NBA getting elbow deep in that same court proceeding? That's right, the NBA itself is now filing motions to dismiss Schultz' lawsuit.

The NBA claims in its motion that the transfer of the franchise to a court-appointed receiver and a subsequent transfer back to Schultz would both be prohibited by the league's constitution.

The motion also claims that if a court-appointed receiver were to be appointed, the NBA's constitution allows for the league's owners to put that team "under the management and control" of commissioner David Stern.

"The relief requested by plaintiffs is entirely inconsistent with these reasonable and lawful regulations of the NBA, and the disposition of this action therefore threatens the ability of the League to protect its justifiable interests," attorney Ralph Palumbo wrote in the motion.

And yes, there's a pile of legalese in there. But my understanding here is that the NBA has rules in place to avoid a league owned team (that's a good rule) and they're using it to nullify Schultz' suit (that's a pretty malevolent application). And if you think that the NBA's lawyers just managed to come up with this, well, you're wrong.

Howard Schultz filed suit Tuesday to rescind his sale of the Seattle Supersonics to Oklahoma City businessman Clay Bennett. Schultz had indicated previously that he was considering the move, but apparently decided today to press forward.

The decision to press suit was apparently motivated by the discovery of emails between Bennett and his partners in the Bennett's Professional Basketball Club organization which were ... ahem ... slightly duplicitous regarding Bennett's previously stated intentions to stay in Seattle, which were revealed by a report from the Seattle Times.

"Ward: Is there any way to move here for next season or are we doomed to have another lame duck season in Seattle?"

"Bennett: I am a man possessed! Will do everything we can. Thanks for hanging with me boys, the game is getting started!"

Apparently, Schultz's lawyers find that a little bit ... awkward. In the suit filed today, they stated that Bennett's public statement that the club had every intention of trying to remain in Seattle was "false from the moment it was made."

It would appear that Schultz is not willing to go down without a fight, though it may ultimately be in vain.

Despite all of the court cases, despite all of the pleading from the fans and despite the possibility of other ownership options stepping in to help keep the Supersonics in Seattle, a majority of National Basketball Association owners voted today to allow the team to relocate to Oklahoma City.

A majority of owners voted to approve the Sonics' move, according to Richard Peddie, president of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment, which owns the NBA's Toronto Raptors.

Peddie didn't give a vote total as he emerged from the closed-door session in New York.

This is a pretty aggressive move by the NBA owners, but entirely shocking. Allowing Clay Bennett to truck the Sonics out of Seattle gives them ridiculous precedent (of the non-legal variety right now) to demand new facilities and upgrades for other teams in various cities simply by threatening relocation.

This morning's news of an impending lawsuit from Starbucks mogul Howard Schultz (followed last week's release of incriminating emails from Clay Bennett) has cast this week's NBA owners vote on the relocation of the SuperSonics in different light. In other words, it's not sure thing any more.

Mark Cuban has spent the past week telling reporters he'll vote against the relocation plea, based mostly on market size. (Seattle's a top-15 media market; OKC is #45.) No other owners have made statements in opposition of the move, though; three owners, in fact, gave the relocation their personal OK by advancing the application to the full board of governors (though they can backtrack at this point).

The question isn't whether the owners should deny the relocation, based on Bennett's seemingly ceaseless mockery of Seattle and its fans. But with a second serious suit coming -- one which could remove an owner against his will for the first time in ages (excepting the ongoing Atlanta saga) -- the board might hold additional qualms ... qualms strong enough to delay Bennett's homecoming at least another year.

At the same time, the overarching issue (beyond the details of the Seattle lease or the purchase agreement) is owners' rights. It is hard to imagine the owners collectively sawing off one of their own hands in order to look like the good guys here.

This story falls in the "holy s#!%" category, as well as those denoted above. From the Seattle Times's Percy Allen, via SonicsCentral:

Howard Schultz says he wants the Sonics back.

Nearly two years after selling Seattle's NBA franchise to Oklahoma City investors, the Starbucks mogul has hired a lawyer and is preparing to file a lawsuit against Sonics chairman Clay Bennett to rescind the July 2006 sale.

Schultz's lawyer says the "good faith" clause in the sale contract -- the stipulation new owner Bennett would make every effort to keep the Sonics in Seattle -- was not satisfied. Based on the timing, I imagine the Times' release of damning emails between Bennett and his co-owners discussing the need to flee to Oklahoma City ASAP had something to do with this outrage from Schultz.

Just yesterday, David Stern continued to stand by Bennett. That cannot last much longer ... can it? The commissioner's got to step in; more and more, it looks like it might resolve with the franchise still in Seattle.