|
SEATTLE -- Seattle's city attorney, Tom Carr, has no doubt
about why he wants a judge -- not arbitrators -- deciding whether the
SuperSonics must play the next three seasons at KeyArena. "Arbitrators tend to compromise," he says. "Judges tend to
make decisions." Whether he gets his wish is now up to a judge. Lawyers for the
city and the NBA franchise argued before U.S. District Judge
Ricardo S. Martinez on Thursday about whether Martinez or a panel
of arbitrators should hear the dispute, in which the Sonics
ownership group is seeking to buy out its KeyArena lease and move
the team. Martinez promised to rule as quickly as possible, but did not
say how soon that might be. New Sonics chairman Clay Bennett, stymied in his quest for
public funding to build a new arena, issued a demand for
arbitration last month. In response, the city sued, trying to force
the Sonics to honor the terms of a deal reached in the mid-1990s:
In exchange for $74 million in renovations to the old Seattle
Coliseum, the team agreed to play all of its home games there
through Sept. 30, 2010. Thursday's highly technical, hourlong arguments focused on two
competing sections of the lease agreement. One says that disputes
are to be settled through arbitration unless they pertain to
certain subjects, including the length of the lease. The other
section says that only the Sonics may seek injunctive relief in
court, though either party may go to court to enforce the results
of arbitration. "You have a clause that says the city is barred from seeking
judicial relief," Paul Taylor, an attorney for the Sonics, told
the judge. "The fact that that clause exists mandates
arbitration." Taylor also sought to play the competing clauses to the team's
advantage, telling the judge that the law requires any ambiguity to
be resolved in favor of arbitration, which he called "faster and
more economical." The city disagreed with Taylor's interpretation, saying the
judge's analysis should begin and end with the section that says
disputes over the length of the lease may not be arbitrated. In the
context of that clause, the other one -- saying only the Sonics can
go to court -- makes no sense, argued lawyer Paul Lawrence. If the
length of the lease can't be arbitrated, and the city can't go to
court over the issue, it would have no recourse whatsoever, he
said. Lawrence also noted the draft history of the lease agreement.
The initial draft, written by the Sonics' lead negotiator, simply
said all issues were to be resolved by arbitration. In subsequent
versions, certain topics were specifically excluded from
arbitration -- clearly revealing the intent of the negotiators, he
said. In one court filing, the city argued that the second clause --
titled "Limitations on Judicial Relief" -- should have been
deleted, but was mistakenly left in by negotiators rushing to
finish the agreement. The Sonics' lawyer ridiculed that notion,
saying the agreement has been reviewed countless times by lawyers
and city officials. "Frankly, it's been lawyered to death for 13 years," Taylor
said. "It's only now the city says there's a mistake." Among the team's complaints are that KeyArena is the smallest
venue in the league and that under the lease agreement the Sonics
must turn over too much of their revenue to the city. NBA
commissioner David Stern has called the lease the worst for any
team in the league. The demand for arbitration states that the team has lost money
every year since 1999 -- more than $55 million in the last five
years alone. Last season the team lost $17 million. The Sonics began playing in Seattle in 1967 and won the city's
only men's professional sports title in 1979; the Storm won the
WNBA title in 2004.
|
