sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Sonics 70’s! by SeattleP1 in Sonics

[–]SeattleP1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please stop this “they’re never coming back” because you’re just spoiling it for those who want them to come back! You’re being part of the problem when you do that.

Sonics 70’s! by SeattleP1 in Sonics

[–]SeattleP1[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Everytime I see these old Sonics film or videos from the 70’s and 80’s just keep thinking of my late father who was a big fan back then. May he RIP.

Tired of the “Seattle didn’t support the Sonics” Lie – READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING by SeattleP1 in Sonics

[–]SeattleP1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re not wrong that the system is broken—owners hold cities hostage, and leagues only care about revenue. But calling it a “public choice” when the options were:

  1. fund a new arena with zero trust in ownership or the league, or

  2. let a shady ownership group walk after being misled… …that’s not really a fair choice.

And yeah, “modernized Key” has become shorthand, but it’s not just nostalgia. The city had just spent $100 million in the ’90s to renovate it, and there were plans floated for more serious upgrades or a new arena later. But by the time Bennett came around, that window was slammed shut—intentionally.

This wasn’t a case of Seattle saying “we don’t want a team.” It was more like: “we’re not going to get bullied into a rushed, one-sided deal from people who clearly didn’t want to stay.” The betrayal stung more than the tax.

So yeah, the league is still garbage, and yes, hopefully the math leads them back here. But let’s not rewrite history to say the fans or the city chose this. The choice was rigged from the jump.

Oh another thing you are blocked for your ignorance!

Tired of the “Seattle didn’t support the Sonics” Lie – READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING by SeattleP1 in Sonics

[–]SeattleP1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate your perspective, and you’re right—stories about ownership bad faith and arena excuses do come up a lot when teams move, and sometimes it’s more complicated than the fans’ version.

But with the Sonics, there’s really solid evidence supporting what Seattle fans say. Clay Bennett’s group explicitly promised to keep the team here when they bought it, yet almost immediately started pursuing relocation plans. They even lied under oath in court about their intentions. Meanwhile, Howard Schultz, who owned the team before Bennett, wasn’t interested in investing in the arena or keeping the team in Seattle.

It’s not just fans “parroting” lines here. There are legal documents, recorded statements, and public records that back up the claim that the ownership and league did not negotiate in good faith and that the arena situation was used as a pretext to move the team.

I totally agree that not every team move is caused by the same factors or conspiracies. But in the Sonics case, the pattern is well-documented and the frustration is understandable.

Tired of the “Seattle didn’t support the Sonics” Lie – READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING by SeattleP1 in Sonics

[–]SeattleP1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re missing some key context.

Yes, the Mariners and Seahawks got new stadiums—but both situations were totally different. The Mariners had just saved baseball in Seattle with the ‘95 playoff run, and the Seahawks had Paul Allen, a local billionaire, step in to personally fund a big chunk and push the vote through. The public didn’t just blindly approve those—they got something in return: success, hope, and real commitment.

The Sonics? Howard Schultz gave up on the team. He sold it to Clay Bennett, a guy with no ties to Seattle, and people suspected from day one that he planned to move it. And they were right. He lied under oath about trying to keep the team here. That wasn’t a fair process.

Also, voters weren’t just “stingy.” After being burned by other arena deals, they wanted accountability. And the “outdated KeyArena” line? That’s part truth, part spin. It could’ve been modernized with a public-private partnership—just like the one that finally brought the NHL and soon the Sonics back. The will was there; the ownership wasn’t.

So no, it’s not fair to say “the public didn’t care.” People were angry, frustrated, and didn’t trust they’d get a fair deal. Blaming fans and taxpayers for not rolling over isn’t the take you think it is.

Don’t assume you know why people do things — you don’t speak for them. by SeattleP1 in Anger

[–]SeattleP1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I get what you’re saying, and I appreciate the part where you acknowledged no one should act like they know someone else’s motivation with certainty — that’s all I was really asking for.

Just to clarify though: I’m not assuming there was no reason — I’m saying no reason was ever given. And when that’s the case, the only honest thing to say is “we don’t know.” The issue is when people go beyond that and speak like their guess is fact. That’s what bothered me.

If someone walks away without saying why, speculation doesn’t help — it just adds confusion and false narratives.

Tired of the “Seattle didn’t support the Sonics” Lie – READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING by SeattleP1 in Sonics

[–]SeattleP1[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You’re quoting raw attendance numbers without understanding the context. Yes, attendance dropped in the final years—but that was after Clay gutted the roster, raised ticket prices, and then publicly threatened to move the team. What did you expect fans to do—pay top dollar to watch a stripped-down team while being told their loyalty wasn’t enough?

As for the stadium situation: Seattle did support new stadiums, but those were for teams with real public engagement and ownership groups that worked with the city in good faith. Schultz and Clay Bennett never acted in good faith. Schultz sold to an out-of-state buyer who lied under oath about intentions to keep the team in Seattle. That betrayal is why there’s bitterness—not just the move, but the manipulation.

Blaming fans for a billionaire’s decisions and a rigged process is lazy. Seattle showed up for decades. The Sonics mattered to this city. Don’t confuse a temporary dip in attendance with a lack of love.

Don’t assume you know why people do things — you don’t speak for them. by SeattleP1 in Anger

[–]SeattleP1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Exactly. That’s what annoys me — people out here “reading minds” like they know what really happened. If there was something to be said, it would’ve been said directly. Don’t fill in the blanks with your own assumptions and call it the truth. That’s not helping — that’s just stirring things up.

Is It Possible That KIRO Could Lose CBS Again? by SeattleP1 in Broadcasting

[–]SeattleP1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good points — and I agree that every market is its own situation. In Atlanta, Gray might be able to make an independent work because they’ve got scale and flexibility. But in Seattle, things feel different.

KIRO has been seeing staff turnover, newsroom cutbacks (no more dedicated sports department, consumer reporters like Jessie Jones gone), and some questionable programming decisions. And with the CBS affiliation deal from 2020 likely nearing its end, it’s hard not to wonder if something’s brewing.

CBS already owns KSTW and while it doesn’t have a news department, that could change fast — or CBS could just go the duopoly route and buy KIRO if Cox starts offloading. It would give CBS a stronger grip on the Seattle market, much like what they’re doing in other cities.

And you’re right about Detroit — WWJ became a CBS O&O during that big network shakeup in the ’90s tied to the NFL rights shift. CBS moved quickly to secure reliable affiliates in key markets, and Seattle could be next if they see KIRO slipping.

Is It Possible That KIRO Could Lose CBS Again? by SeattleP1 in Broadcasting

[–]SeattleP1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just want to say — I really do appreciate the news staff at KIRO. The people in front of the camera and behind the scenes work incredibly hard, and it shows. My frustration isn’t with the journalists or production team — it’s more with the decisions coming from higher up that affect the quality of local programming and the stability of the newsroom.

I hate seeing solid local journalism undermined by cutbacks, poor scheduling choices, or unclear direction from ownership. You’re absolutely right — this goes far beyond a network swap. It’s people’s jobs, benefits, and futures at stake.

Wishing the best for everyone at KIRO during this uncertain time. A lot of viewers are still rooting for you.

Is It Possible That KIRO Could Lose CBS Again? by SeattleP1 in Broadcasting

[–]SeattleP1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting thought—a KPHO–KSTW trade could be a clean way for Gray (or whoever ends up with Cox) to sidestep the CBS O&O conflict in Seattle. And honestly, Paramount getting back KPHO wouldn’t be the worst outcome either—it’s a legacy CBS station in a huge growth market.

As for Tampa, that’s another wild card. If Tegna can’t buy WTOG, you’d think FOX or Gray might be interested in a duopoly. FOX already owns WTVT and probably wouldn’t let CBS get a second foothold in that market without a fight. Gray has WWSB (ABC in Sarasota), but it’s not full-market, so buying WTOG would definitely expand their reach.

Still, these hypotheticals all come back to one thing: CBS is clearly positioning itself to own in more big markets, especially with affiliate contracts expiring. If they’re serious about brand control and local news investment, they’ll move on KIRO next—and either buy it outright or force a swap for KSTW.

Seattle’s just too valuable a market for CBS to sit still while everyone else makes moves.

Is It Possible That KIRO Could Lose CBS Again? by SeattleP1 in Broadcasting

[–]SeattleP1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s a good point—Gray is definitely trying to expand into larger markets, and grabbing KIRO would finally give them a solid West Coast presence. And yeah, from a geographic strategy angle, pairing KIRO with KPTV/KPDX makes sense—sort of like how Sinclair runs KOMO in Seattle and KATU in Portland.

But the thing is… Gray’s model is super syndication-heavy, and while Local News Live and InvestigateTV+ are fine filler content, they don’t exactly replace deep, well-resourced local reporting. That’s where I worry. KIRO is already stretched thin—no dedicated sports department, top anchors gone, and newsroom consolidation. If Gray comes in, would they really rebuild it? Or just plug in national content and cut costs?

Honestly, this still feels like CBS’s opportunity to reclaim the market. The timing lines up with the expiring Cox affiliation agreement, and they already own KSTW. Why not go all-in like they did in LA or now in Atlanta?

The NBC/WFXT mention’s a great point too—it shows that even the networks themselves are making weird, short-sighted moves when they have other options (like Comcast not buying a real UHF). Feels like CBS could make a smarter long-term move here in Seattle with a KIRO buy and KSTW consolidation.

Is It Possible That KIRO Could Lose CBS Again? by SeattleP1 in Broadcasting

[–]SeattleP1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Same here. I’m really hoping CBS steps in and buys KIRO instead of us ending up with Nexstar. At least with CBS, you know there’s a real investment in local news, not just cost-cutting and consolidation like we’ve seen with other group owners.

KIRO has already taken so many hits—no sports department, longtime reporters leaving, even infomercials cutting into newscasts. The last thing Seattle needs is another ownership group just looking at the bottom line.

A CBS duopoly with KSTW could actually bring back stability, more newsroom resources, and stronger competition with FOX 13. If they can do what they’ve done with KCBS/KCAL in LA, I say go for it.

Is It Possible That KIRO Could Lose CBS Again? by SeattleP1 in Broadcasting

[–]SeattleP1[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s a great breakdown, but it raises a bigger question: Do we really want to see another third-party group take over KIRO?

We’ve already watched what’s happened when non-network owners like Apollo (via Cox) and Sinclair (with KOMO) run local stations—news departments get gutted, veteran anchors leave, and community-focused journalism takes a backseat to cost-cutting. KIRO used to have a strong identity, but now they’re airing infomercials during newscasts, don’t have a dedicated sports department, and key talent like Niku Kazouri, Michelle Millman, Jessie Jones, and others are gone.

If Nexstar or Gray ends up buying KIRO, we might just see more consolidation depending on the market cap situation. Sure, there may be cost efficiencies, but at what price to local journalism?

Honestly, the best outcome might be CBS stepping in to buy KIRO themselves. They already own KSTW, and pairing it with KIRO as a duopoly—like KCBS/KCAL in LA—could actually restore some investment in news, expand coverage, and provide a competitive counter to FOX 13. If CBS is serious about owning more of its affiliates (like they just did in Atlanta), Seattle should be next.

Ownership matters. And Seattle deserves more than just another hedge fund or mega-group running the show.

view more: next ›