1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Starman will be ecstatic....Seattle says no to publicly funded sports venues

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by JR, Nov 9, 2006.

  1. JR

    JR Well-Known Member


    In U.S. midterm elections Tuesday, the public clearly ordered a halt to continued subsidization of professional sports with tax money and voted 3 to 1 for a new Seattle law that prohibits any tax dollars to build arenas/stadiums for pro teams.

    Good for them. If only Toronto would stand up to Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment.
  2. markvid

    markvid Guest

    Yeah. that's nice when they have a new football, baseball (relatively new) and a basketball arena that was renovated in 1995.
    In other words, they voted on an issue they won't have to worry about for 20 years or so, minimum.
  3. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    No, they have to worry about it right now. The reason Daddy Starbucks sold the Sonics was because he couldn't get out of his Key Arena lease and get the city to build him a new arena. The new Oklahoma City owners will be moving the Sonics there as soon as the Hornets clear out. They're posturing as if a little city help would keep them there, but they bought in knowing the populace wasn't willing. I just had a thought that in OKC, they could do a sponsorship deal with Sonic, turn them into the Oklahoma City Sonic, and have the logo be a strawberry cheesecake milkshake.

    By the way, Sacramento rejected an arena plan (again), too.
  4. HoopsMcCann

    HoopsMcCann Active Member

    i know you're joking, but it's probably not too far from the truth... remember the nba nixed memphis renaming the griz the 'express' since it's the home of federal express
  5. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    Nope. NBA nixed a Fedex-nickname (think it was the express) for Memphis when the Drizzlies moved there; won't happen in OKC...
  6. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    It's too bad you just can't name your team whatever the hell you want to name it. It's your team, after all.

    The big leagues are way too anal about this kind of thing. It's why you'll never see a truly cool name (like the Macon Whoopee or the Jacksonville Lizard Kings) make the grade.

    That'll be the day.
  7. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    Double J, those names are NOT cool!
  8. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    They are tres cool.

    If nothing else, they're certainly better and more creative than the Utah Jazz, the Los Angeles Lakers, the New Jersey Nets and the Miami Heat, to name a few of the NBA's shittier nicknames.
  9. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    Oh, but come on. Everyone knows Salt Lake City is known around the world for its jazz district!
  10. da man

    da man Well-Known Member

    Agreed that Jazz, Heat and Nets are poor names. Lizard Kings and names of that ilk are hardly an improvement, however. If you have to try that hard to be cool, you generally aren't. And Lakers is only a bad name because it is out place. It worked in Minnesota.
  11. Lester Bangs

    Lester Bangs Active Member

    What it actually means is that the OKC group now turns its attention to the outlying 'burbs, where Bellevue could pony up to make it happen. It would actually be a decent move for the area in some ways and make a certain amount of sense as the deep pockets are on the Eastside and would then have a pro team to call their own.
  12. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    This needs to be made a FEDERAL law, otherwise if Seattle won't bend over and build a new arena, then Bogalusa, Alabama, Cicely, Alaska or Witches Titty, South Dakota will.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page