So once again a multi-milllionaire, perhaps a Billionaire, is engaged in a messy situation with local and State politicians about where the Seattle Sonics (I heard they dropped the "Super" several years ago) will play their future home games.
Again, the oddity of ownership of a professional sports franchise raises its ugly head.
Let's say that if the current Sonics owner owned a manufacturing plant that made widgets and wanted to move it to Oklahoma City (which is where he wants the Sonics to re-locate) it wouldn't make the evening news, print or electronic version.
Granted the widget company wouldn't appear 80 times on the back page of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, but as a businessman he should have the right to pick up his company and move it where it is the most profitable. Just like so many companies did back a few decades ago i.e., UPS, Stamford, Connecticut to Atlanta, GA, and the many banks that have converged on once sleepy Charlotte, NC.
The Washington State U.S. Senators lobbied the NBA to step in a la the NFL did when Cleveland became the Baltimore Ravens and the Browns mystically reappeared a few seasons later. What right do politicians have to interecede on their constituents' behalf to keep a franchise in a particular city?
I have a suggestion. Have some over-caffinated Washington State hoops fan call the owners of the New York NBA franchise. I think they may give it to Seattle at what they call in the real estate business, a Distressed Price.