You know how the Sonic owners have had an obligation to make a "good faith" effort to keep the team in Seattle?

That was not, legally speaking, an obligation to the fans of the team (ultimately the most important stakeholders in any team, yet a group that is almost never represented during a sale). It was not an obligation to the NBA. It was not an obligation to the City of Seattle, nor to the State of Washington.

The obligation to make a good faith effort to stay was to Starbucks honcho Howard Schultz and his group of former Sonic owners.

So, as evidence has mounted that the current owners have not honored that commitment, the question has been -- well, does Howard Schultz want to do anything about it? Are those former owners hot under the collar about this, and do they want to go to the trouble of trying get their (newly well-managed low payroll/high draft pick) team back?

It seemed that would be the best possible ray of light for anyone who wanted, and it also seemed like a longshot.

But it is happening.

Percy Allen of the Seattle Times:

Nearly two years after selling Seattle's NBA franchise to Oklahoma City investors, the Starbucks mogul has hired a lawyer and is preparing to file a lawsuit against Sonics chairman Clay Bennett to rescind the July 2006 sale.

Attorney Richard Yarmuth confirmed Monday that his Seattle-based law firm, Yarmuth Wilsdon Calfo, is representing Schultz and plans to sue Bennett's Professional Basketball Club in the next two weeks.

"The damages that are being sought is to rescind, unwind the transaction," Yarmuth said a day after the team played what could have been its final home game in Seattle.

"It's not money damage. It's to have the team returned. The theory of the suit is that when the team was sold, the Basketball Club of Seattle, our team here, relied on promises made by Clay Bennett and his ownership that they desired to keep the team in Seattle and intended to make a good-faith effort to accomplish that."

Also, today we are once again hearing about a "side letter" that was part of the sale. You can hear an archival radio interview with Schultz about that letter from 950 KJR from 2006. According to Schultz in that radio interview, that letter commits Clay Bennett to:

... honor the four-year lease in terms of the 2010 terms, and use his best efforts over the next 12 months. And that word 'best effort' is important legal language that really, I think, articulates the fact that not only do they have an obligation but a desire.

What I understand him to have said to me personally, and in the letter, is that they're going to honor the lease and they're going to work as hard as they can over the next twelve months to try and get something done with the city and the state.

Through this fiasco, Schultz has become enemy number one of Seattle fans. Jerry Brewer of the Seattle Times thinks this whole suit is such a long shot that it is most likely just an attempt for Schultz to save some face in his hometown, even as the Sonics will inevitably leave.

I think that's a hasty assessment from a non-lawyer, without access to the full evidence of the case. There are actual lawyers who see a real opening here.

I'll reserve judgment, and watch with an open mind to see if the legal process can catch up the the changing tone of the public conversation, where things have been shifting mightily in the last few days.

A theory that strained credibility -- the fathers of a city starved for an NBA franchise didn't intend to move their money-losing team to that city? -- can now plainly be disproved with information in the public record.

That means there is not a lot of wiggle room to argue for the integrity of the effort to stay. Doing so, in the face of the new evidence, makes you sound a little out of touch.

And with this morning's news, there are three more pieces of the puzzle:

• People who have been approved as NBA owners and are willing to own the team in Seattle right now, even with its current stadium predicament.
• A legal theory to seperate the Oklahoma-based ownership from the team without their consent.
• Most importantly: a new fire of optimism lit in the hearts of those fighting to keep the team in place.

UPDATE: More thoughts from a legal expert.

UPDATE: SonicsCentral has a lot of thoughts on the matter, including this:

Have we ever mentioned that this will be getting embarrassing for the league?

I'm going to speculate here that Clay Bennett will have to fall back on a defense that, when he lost in legislature it qualified as a failure for the year and he had no feasible opportunity to go on beyond that point. In this case I think we'll also be able to see that his efforts will be compared and contrasted to other ownership efforts to get an arena. When this starts to vet publicly Clays efforts are going to look pathetic.

I think there is a strong possibility that this results in a deferral of the vote. It is getting somewhat out of control and that is a good thing.

UPDATE: Cleveland sports fans know about having teams taken away. Here's a petition from Cavaliers fans to owner Dan Gilbert, asking him to join Mark Cuban in pledging to vote against relocation. And this video has some great Rick Astley music, as well as Cuban articulating his position nicely.

(Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images)