Sonics moving out
 

This whole deal reeks. I'm not a fan of public financing for sports arenas, even less so when the NBA uses it as a weapon. At a time when the NBA is finally getting back into the publics good graces, this is a horrible move.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...8&sportCat=nba

I actually am for it. An NBA franchise provides some local jobs, but more importantly it can provide a sense of civic pride and identity.

Most of these public financing deals cost the public cents on the dollar for their tax money.

LA got cute with the Rams and the Raiders. Now it has no NFL franchise. LA has done just fine without them, but I am positive the next time a franchise comes to LA, we will treat it better.

The Coliseum tried to get cute with SC, so SC said adios. At the 11th hour, the Coliseum commission decided it was better to have SC as a tenant.

The Sonics have been good to the city...even providing it with a championship, which is more than most teams can say. If the public did not want the team at a net cost of a few bucks per person, then it should not be sad to see it go. If they want it to stay, then they should help pony up to keep it in the city. My guess is that the season after the Sonics leave, folks in Seattle will wish they had agreed to pay a few extra cents of sales tax or whatever.

For people that love the free market and are against socialism, they should be ecstatic that the market has spoken. OKC, here we come...

I am against public funds for a stadium. If the owner wants a new place for his team to play, he should pay for it himself.

Really? Interesting. That isn't the free market at all. You sound like a liberal socialist.....let the wealthy pay for things for the benefit of others.

Please don't start lecturing me about the wonderful benefits of socialized medicine....i've heard it all before!

You're just a socialist. You like massive, wasteful public works programs and think they're a good way to keep everybody working. Go live in Cuba.

SU has a message for the Sonics. Shove it up your big supersonic ass and enjoy Oklahoma City. I used to have courtside season tickets and I will help them pack. The NBA is execrable. We're not subsidizing any NBA players or owners and I'm proud of Seattle for being first to say fuck you David Stern. We could have kept them and felt little pain. We can a lot more easily afford to give them what they want than Okey City. But it's a matter of principle. Get outa here Sonics. Honest to God they can't leave fast enough as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not making the connection between socialized medicine and a pro franchise owner having to pay for stadium in which his team plays.

So, just to be clear, you are ok with this?

The owner has a product that he wishes to sell. If the consumer does not want to buy it at the net cost of a few bucks per person, then no problem. Move to a market where you can sell your product.

You are saying that the public should receive the benefit of having a team for absolutely nothing. And your rational is that the guy is really rich already and can afford to pay for it himself. So, in this instance, you are ok with taking from the wealthy to allow the less wealthy to benefit.

I am a proponent of the free market, so if the team moves every few years, I don't really care.

City of Arlington is paying $475 million for the new Cowboys stadium, and apparently that is not even half the total cost.

Dallas bailed on paying that kind of money. I'm glad that the Arlington tax payers were so generous.

Most people in Seattle don't give a crap about the Sonics. If sports radio discusses them, the ratings go in the toilet and guys lose jobs.

I would guess that both the Mariners and the Seahawks get more attention in the in the month of February when neither of those teams are playing and the Sonics are in the heart of their season.