Originally Posted by
dmbrhs
Originally Posted by rck2sactown
biggest difference between the Kings and Sonics
Yep. Mayor McFatty sold us out, ultimately. The city council got on their high horse and yapped about how the Sonics didn't mean anything to Seattle (Nick Licata, if I ever run into you, I'm punching you in the face), but all the mayor had to do was say "we're not settling" and Clay Bennett would have been forced to keep the Sonics in Seattle until 2010. And considering the way the economy tanked a few months later, he would have been forced to sell eventually. The agreement was set in stone. They couldn't leave before the lease was up. Part of the settlement was that they pay $45 million to the city, and they'd put up another $30 million if the city did renovations to KeyArena and secured a team by 2013 (never was going to happen), so the city LOST that extra $30 million by striking that deal. And Mayor McFatty wonders why he didn't even make it past the primary the next year.
As for the legacy, the colors, name, logo, etc. belongs to Seattle. Any future franchise in Seattle gets to have a "shared" history (as I understand it). The problem is, there won't be any expansion, so if a team moves here, they'd literally be sharing two franchises' records. It's all very confusing. All I know is that players like Shawn Kemp, Gary Payton, etc. won't be caught dead in OKC as long as they live. They've said multiple times they will never step foot in that town, even after they've been offered appearance fees (pretty much a slap in the face). The icing on the cake is when I saw a Thunder t-shirt that said "Est. 1967." Just flat-out wrong.