I just hope Paul Allen doesn't do something really stupid like move the Blazers to Seattle, where he lives.

. . . Imagine LA without pro football, oops, I guess they survived.

I like the NFL and NBA, but when they get politicians bending over backwards to keep them happy, I gotta say no.

I can already see that METRO is doing teh same thing guaranteeing $250M for a convention center hotel when schools, roads and bridges are falling apart.

ah, the NBA. The crooked league. The one that's a little better than pro wrestling. The one with different rules for different players.

This move to Okie City is more of the same. The con man/revival is moving out of the city after fleecing the locals. Money rules, sport is secondary.

BFD is about right, but then, I'm hardly a pro sports fan, and definitely no fan of pro basketball. The Blazers did a little better this year since dumping the criminal crew. As a result, I've got a little compassion for that team that I haven't had for awhile.

I don't like to think of Portland somehow being symbolized by a pro basketball team (a pro baseball team would be much, much better...now there's a sport with something worthy of admiration). Never the less, name association or branding of a pro teams name with the host city seems to be a calculated strategy of pro sport's business model.

So, names like 'Portland Trailblazers' and 'Seattle Sonics' get hammered into the brains of city residents, even those that don't give two bits about the team, until yes, when the eventuality that a name team might split for greener pastures arises, a certain withdrawal effect can result.

Having said the above, it seems kind of dumb for a big metropolis like Seattle to let their name team go. Getting another one back as potentially good will be tough. Now I'm kind of curious how the Sonic's come to be leaving Seattle for O-O-O-Oklahoma where the wind comes rushing down the plain.

As I understand it, Seattle gets to keep the team name and the colors. Oklahoma City gets the team. Seattle will need find someone to bring another team to town to take on the Sonics name.

My guess: Paul Allen gets the City of Seattle or King County to build a spanking new $350 million stadium and puts the team he already owns in there. And then we'll be hunting around for a new team to carry the Blazers name.

Didn't Earl Blumenauer once introduce legislation to let cities buy their major league teams so this sort of thing wouldn't happen any more?

At the risk of downplaying the importance of professional sports (already mentioned), I get the saddening feeling that the number of pages of commentary generated from the Sonics' move, or the similar move of any sports team, would far outweigh the number of pages generated from, say, the evisceration of the Fourth Amendment, which seems to be happening as we speak, with respect to the amended FISA act.

T. A. Barnhart:

but modern sports are an integral aspect of a community's identity.

Bob T:

Not that you're endorsing corporate welfare, but your comment is easily used to justify corporate welfare that also happens to be considered vital urban "infrastructure" in recent decades.

Those who've supported this sort of nonsense have created a monster that is extremely difficult to do away with, and that's exactly what the team owners and city leaders like. But before looking to people like Paul Allen as the lead villains here, you need to look at those advocates of making their own cities "great places to live", particularly the city council members who have large egoes regarding the importance of their own cities. Team owners may have liked the idea of playing into this, but they had no claim to taxpayers' dollars (and still don't, by the way) until city leaders committed the theft for them.

And then this from Douglas K:

Didn't Earl Blumenauer once introduce legislation to let cities buy their major league teams so this sort of thing wouldn't happen any more?

Bob T:

Incredibly stupid idea and yet another reason why this moron has no business being anything higher than city dog catcher. What we really need to do, all across the nation, is to keep saying no to this kind of corporate welfare, city pride garbage, if not in the form of rejecting initiatives as was done by the smart people in both LA and San Fran, but by rejecting, recalling, or not re-electing those creeps who support this. It's very difficult even among non-sports fans since it's easy to see how those who will benefit (and politicians also benefit even when they don't get financial rewards) pull the emotional strings and play us like violins.

What you need to keep in mind is that even if all cities and states and the voters start to say no, overwhelmingly, professional sports will not go away. There will never be a shortage of athletes who'll gladly take a fraction of current salaries to play a sport for a living, and if large and expensive stadiums get replaced by smaller parks, then so be it. Do you have the guts to say no to all of this, or are you going to weak and eventually support more corporate welfare to keep the Blazers, or bring major league baseball here? And no, having the city buy a team is no answer.

Bob Tiernan

It's hard to make a credible case for a significant public subsidy in a situation like this. But in this particular instance, it's much more complicated and much more depressing if you're an NBA fan.

Bottom line: the City of Seattle gave up all of its leverage, and a privately funded solution could have been possible. Read Art Thiel's excellent work in the Seattle PI. If you haven't been following it, this is a long, gruesome story, and the city's and state's mismanagement has big role, irrespective of any funding decisions.

For reasons that haven't become clear, the Seattle city council folded like umbrellas today. Whether you are for or against public subsidies of sports teams, today's action by that council is, more than anything, gross negligence. Compared to those clowns, I feel blessed to have the Portland city council.

Re: post above. I tried to insert a link to Art Thiel's latest column that isn't working. Check out http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/thiel/369455_thiel03.html

"Compared to those clowns, I feel blessed to have the Portland city council."

Puh-leeze, you don't remember Vera being talked out of $35M to fix PGE Park? Luxury boxes for a AAA team? Glickman's son and the ex-CoP finance guy were gonna run a big moneymaking AAA team? This was gonna generate income like you never saw before?

Portland only needs the chance to demonstrate their ineptitude - unfortunately Seattle got the chance.

Why are we building playgrounds for millionaire players and billionaire owners who are only loyal to the place where they cash their checks?

The Seattle City council had 45 Million reasons to fold like a tent. The previous bounty the Oklahoma carpetbaggers had offered were 26 Million. Unfortunately, in the league it IS all about money.

Key arena was no longer up to the standards that Billionaire owners and Millioniare players wanted, or were accustomed to. The Sonics had every reason to belive the city would underwrite a new facility since they did exactly that for the Mariners (over two public votes against it) and the Seahawks. There are now two monstrosities sitting side-by-side south of downtown Seattle wasting reseources and taxpayer funds.

Look I understand your anger in losing the Sonics. I really do! My city lost the the Royals of the NBA and I still wish we could get another shot. But you need to move on. Sports are a buisness. If a buisness couldn't attract employees (the Sonics attendance figures were terrible) and couldn't build a building suitable for them and their employees they move. So why should a sports team be any different? Since they are in the buisness of entraining us we form a connection with them and yes sports can add something to a city. But maybe Seattle should have a lot of that before not attending games and not approving a new arena.

Eric Ramon: "ah, the NBA. The crooked league. The one that's a little better than pro wrestling. The one with different rules for different players."

I agree completely, except for one thing: Pro wrestling acknowledges that the outcome is pre-ordained, putting them one up on the NBA in my book.

T.A.

Growing up in the Cleveland Metro Area, I have an intimate, and familiar sympathy with those Sonic Fans who have just had their hearts torn out.

I don't often comment, but I think that this was some of the best prose I've read here on BlueOregon:

"No, sports is not the most important part of a community's structure. Schools, fire departments, roads, affordable housing, clean water; no one would disagree these are far more fundamental. But life is more than the basics and the necessary. Life is about the things of the soul: music, art, scenery, literature — sports."

Nice Job.

Imagine Boston without the Red Sox, New York without the Yankees (please, god). Eugene or Corvallis without the Ducks or Beavers.

TA Barnhart does a nice if unintentional job here of rolling together the overtly professional and the allegedly nonprofessional sports teams. Because, of course, sports teams at the UO and OSU are anything BUT nonprofessional. What they are, in fact, is minor league professional teams. And guess what? You, the taxpayers, are subsidizing these de facto professional teams no less than the taxpayers of Seattle subsidized their overtly professional teams by way of building them new stadiums and arenas.

"College" athletics as known in the US does not exist in other countries, where universities are places of education, not places where semi-professional athletes come to hone their skills. And you and I are paying for them to do this, folks, all the while deluding ourselves that we're giving a leg up to underprivileged youth who couldn't afford a "college education" otherwise.

T.A., you're making a "public interest" argument for professional sports, that the people, through their government, should subsidize professional sports (usually in the form of public funds for new arenas/stadiums/etc).

I would agree with you if in fact the people supported pro sports in the same way they support parks and schools and fire departments. But didn't Seattle residents just pass an initiative a couple of years ago that banned the city from spending public money on a new NBA arena? Wasn't that part of this whole chronology -- that the public opposed the kind of subsidy that the Sonics owner was demanding? In such a case, would you really argue that elected officials should overrule the clear views of the voters?

I'm a huge sports fan, but team owners are overplaying their hands. In some places, like NYC, they still have support to build a new $600 million stadium that is helped along with public money. But in places like Seattle and Portland, that support doesn't exist. Even if the Blazers threatened to move, I'm not sure the voters would offer up a few hundred million to stop them.

I would love to see Portland land an MLB team. And I think if that's what the people want to spend their money on, there's nothing wrong with that. But there is something wrong with forcing them to do so when they've made it clear they don't want to.

"But maybe Seattle should have a lot of that before not attending games and not approving a new arena."

But the thing is...they didn't stop attending games (at least, not until the OK scum arrived) and they did bankroll a significant facility upgrade in the mid 90's. And if asked, with an intelligent, reasonable and cost effective proposal, they might have done so again.

Here's the larger dilemma, relevant to Portland and elsewhere. I think, in this case, the Seattle leadership didn't simply want to avoid spending and soliciting money. They also (apparently) decided they have spent too much TIME on this problem.

My big question: doesn't this kind of problem deserve time, focus, and good execution from elected officials, even if you think it doesn't deserve public cash? I think it does. Apparently, Seattle elected officials, and the governor, do not.

PS: Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi can start fitting the state governor's mansion for drapes. Christine Gregoire will not be reelected, because of this issue. Might matter to PDX, down the line.

PPS: Let's not argue about the $45 million settlement. It is a joke; it is a fraction of what the city could have secured. And if you think an additional $30 million in in five years will materialize, I want you at my next poker game.

Poor article. The city was being held a ransom for tax payers to pay for the team's new stadium. This is not right and maybe this move can make these greedy owners realise that tax payers are fed up forking out. Remember Safeco? Please don't compare the Supersonics to the Red Sox in a sentence.

"I would love to see Portland get an MLB team." I agree.

Move the Florida Marlins (10,000 fans a night in Miami) to Portland and put them in the AL West. Move Pittsburgh to the NL East and the MLB will have balanced divisions again.

In the end, I do feel sorry for Sonics fans and their "Dunks of Wrath" dilemma of watching their team go back to the dust bowl.

Bytheway, what's up with all of the elitist, intellectual, anti-sports whimpering going on in the comments section. If anybody wants to forget about FISA and university inequity for a little while, we are approaching a holiday weekend. I for one am planning on acting like a good liberal patriot soaking in some locally brewed suds, watching a ball game or two, and thinking on a while about what it means to live free or die. After that I might even head downtown and pick a fight with a bourgeoisie.

MLB won't move only one team to the AL unless they decide to have interleague play all year; there needs to be an even number of teams in each league. Lou's plan would work fine if the Marlins/Beavers/whatever stay in the NL. Besides, if we get a team and it isn't an NL team, I'll be very disappointed.

Seattle Supersonics' annual player payroll is $48 million. Highest paid player is Chris Wilcox at 6.75 million/year. Lowest is Griffin at 1.7 million/year.

The owners want the taxpayers to pay 300 million to upgrade Key arena. Lets say the team borrowed that 300 million over 20 years using the gov'ts bonding power. They'd probably get a pretty good interest rate, but lets say they have to pay 5.7%. That would cost the team about 2 million per month, or 24 million per year. Half the payroll

Its very very very clear. Sports teams can afford to pay for their own arenas. Players salaries are high because the owners have money. All the owners have to do is re-direct it to pay for their facilities. The problem is, if the Sonics had to pay for their own arena, then they couldn't compete for players, because other owners don't carry that cost, because cities like OKC pony up the money. And I don't believe for a minute that David Stern would allow a team to be in a city that didn't pay the cost of the arena. It would challenge the whole financial structure of the NBA, as well as the NFL, MLB etc.

If only the federal government would step in and put some restrictions on for profit sports public financing.

And, while I'm not saying that the entire burden of funding arenas should fall on the players, though most of the time it will because thats the biggest part of the cost of a team, consider Robert Swift, reserve center for the Sonics. Last season he averaged 12.3 minutes, 1.8 points, 2.3 rebounds, 0.1 assists (yes thats one tenth of an assist) per game. And he was paid, hold your breath now...

........$3,579,000.

If this doesn't show that teams can pay for their own offices, and fairly compensate their employees without public money, then I don't know what does.

"...in any tax-supported sports facility, the fans should become shareholders. Because they're tax payers. The stadium and ballpark should be called 'Taxpayer Stadium,' not some sold-off brand name, or some bank, or computer company...

The moment a tax dollar touches a stadium, the fans, the taxpayers, the neighborhood, they've got to be given a voice; and that includes the right to take the city and the sports team to court intending to sue...

If we want to build trust, sports is a good place to do it. But with the commercialization of giant sports conglomerates, you're not going to see that any time soon without strong fan organizations, like the League of Fans, to inspire around the country."

Zirin: Edge of Sports

I know nothing of pro sports, but I moved to the Northwest from Oklahoma and all I can say to the players on the Sonics team is....run away as fast as you can. Get transferred to another team, ANYWHERE, but Oklahoma. Oh, and if you are taking your wives/children with you to OK, be sure to warn your wives that OK is one of the worst states for its treatment of women and you better bring schoolbooks for your kids, cause their education will be sorely lacking unless you supplement it at home. Good luck and I hope you get back home to the Northwest soon!

Finally someone has acknowledged that the Atlanta Hawks are America's team!

Seriously, though, the whole thing stinks of big business -- the NBA, I mean. The recent allegation by NBA ref Donahue that he was paid to fox the playoffs to favor the more marketable and profitable team (the Lakers) couldn't have come as a surprise to anyone.

The Sonic move was a pure money decision, and the NBA's mob-boss commissioner, David Stern, crudely and bluntly forced the issue.

Every year the difference between professional sport and crude entertainment, a la Word Wrestling Federation, narrows.

"and anyone who argues they played by the rules to get the team, or that it's Howard Schultz's fault is really missing the point here"

It IS Schultz's fault. 100%. Selling your team to a group of OK City investors who are in the process of building a publicly financed, NBA caliber arena and NOT expecting them to move the team there is about as smart as selling your elephant to a man in an ivory hat.

It sucks but it's not the end of the world. Seattle still has the Mariners, the Seahawks & I think they even have a WNbA team.

If the blazers left Portland, it would blow, but they could always be replaced with a Development league team for far less and it would still be fun to go watch (and the tickets would be less expensive). We'd still have the Winterhawks, too.

Oh, and we'd still have the beavers. whoopie! Let's pay to lull ourselves to sleep with baseball!

"but public ownership such as the Packers have, where citizens are shareholders,"

It is not public ownership, merely a private corporation with the majority of shareholders living in Green Bay. If someone wants to sell shares in the Portland Packers to a bunch of private citizens, god bless 'em.

Anotther busy day at the city job, eh, torridjoe? You only had about a dozen posts during work hours.

I take it "Give the Fans a Chance" never went anywhere. It seems like a winner to me: there are cities all over the nation that don't want to lose their teams, particularly after sinking hundreds of millions of public funds into a stadium.

Personally, I'd want a community shareholder ownership arrangement already in place before putting any public money into an MLB stadium.

Either way, you guyz are playing right into it.

Even if the city (or "fans") became owners of a team and/or stadium, when there's red ink more tax dollars will have to be pumped into it, and we lose sight of what it really is. I wish you guyz would have the guts to start walking the talk and agree to start letting sports teams and arenas/stadiums sink or swim on their own. We can't stop it in other places, but setting examples helps. In fact, other places--real cities like San Francisco-- have done so for the most part.

If government buys sports teams, then government will provide the bread and cicuses. Is that the goal?

Bob Tiernan