New Downtown Arena

[Zuplar]

I've already described how perception changed.

This is a pretty fruitless discussion because it's all anecdotal and nothing said is going to change anybody's mind and it's certainly not going to change the fact this project is going to sail through the public vote.

Well okay, I supposed I missed that.

[Zuplar]

I’m living proof. I was born and raised just outside of Atlanta. Sports has always been a huge part of my life so my first thought of any city is the skylines and pro sports teams (what I’ve seen on TV). Watching the Thunder make the finals as a teen and be competitive every single year without a doubt put OKC on the map in my eyes. I saw a loud, passionate fan base. I saw downtown aerial shots and the Bricktown canal on ABC’s commercial cuts. I saw just enough that I thought of OKC as a big league town. When the time came and I moved out here I felt an appreciation for the town. I loved this city before I even moved out here. The Thunder are a big reason why.

So then I'm curious since you replied, did you even think of Oklahoma or OKC before in any capacity before us having the Thunder. I know OU football was also about the only other thing people would ever comment on.

[Zuplar]

This made me want to see fan interview of people who became Thunder fans. Would be a cool series.

That is a very cool idea. I know occasionally I've seen the Thunder do something on BallySports highlighting a fan or 2 that maybe have traveled long distances. I always enjoy hearing the random story about someone from overseas making this way to watch a game. I'm fascinated with the reasons people choose that aren't, "well I live in Oklahoma."

[PoliSciGuy]

Anyone who thinks locking down an NBA team in OKC for 25 more years won’t improve our tax collections and growth and also elevate OKC’s profile is a dunce.

This really isn't fair and misses the mark. Can you show me that the Thunder have brought in $1b in tax collection and revenue over the last 15 years? Or anywhere close to that amount?

Detractors aren't saying it won't bring in any money at all; rather, that it won't bring in anywhere close to the investment we're pouring in, and that the biggest beneficiaries of this massive outlay of public money will be the billionaire private owners of the Thunder, not the public, as research shows.

[jdross1982]

This really isn't fair and misses the mark. Can you show me that the Thunder have brought in $1b in tax collection and revenue over the last 15 years? Or anywhere close to that amount?

Detractors aren't saying it won't bring in any money at all; rather, that it won't bring in anywhere close to the investment we're pouring in, and that the biggest beneficiaries of this massive outlay of public money will be the billionaire private owners of the Thunder, not the public, as research shows.

Except they have been bringing in over 60 million directly to the OKC economy so over a 15 year period that equates to 900 million. That doesn't take into account for the additional developments that will come specifically from the Thunder. and if the Thunder left, it would directly have an impact on downtown / Bricktown nights at hotels by guests. You continue to make all these claims about how the money should be spent elsewhere but you fail to realize the money wont even be there if the Thunder leave. Increased funds for parks, trails, roads, low income housing etc all benefit by having the Thunder in OKC. Nothing else to say. Thunder in OKC allows those other needs to benefit and would not be simply the beneficiary if the Thunder left.

[Dob Hooligan]

This really isn't fair and misses the mark. Can you show me that the Thunder have brought in $1b in tax collection and revenue over the last 15 years? Or anywhere close to that amount?

Detractors aren't saying it won't bring in any money at all; rather, that it won't bring in anywhere close to the investment we're pouring in, and that the biggest beneficiaries of this massive outlay of public money will be the billionaire private owners of the Thunder, not the public, as research shows.

But our $70 million dollar Ford Center got us an NBA team. And our reinvestment in the building helped keep the team. Building is paid for with cash. Are you saying it was a bad investment or negative value asset? Now we have the chance to make a bigger facility that will generate more revenue. Built here and staying here. With cash.

I recall seeing the Burns Hargis quote in the Boom, Bust & the Bomb documentary when he mentioned the eastern bankers said to him after the Penn Square Bank failure, but before rock bottom "Wait until we take the rest of those billions out of Oklahoma and back to New York. Then it will get really bad for you". This billion is going to be spent in OKC and stay in OKC. Nothing is leaving for New York, etc. We are investing in ourselves. We have a good track record the last 30 years.

[chssooner]

There is a saying: scared money don't make money.

[PoliSciGuy]

Except they have been bringing in over 60 million directly to the OKC economy so over a 15 year period that equates to 900 million.

Where'd you get that number from?

[chssooner]

Where'd you get that number from?

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/spor...as%20a%20whole.

This article is old, but $1.5 million a game to OKC...

[PoliSciGuy]

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/spor...as%20a%20whole.

This article is old, but $1.5 million a game to OKC...

That's "economic impact", not money directly to the city. That measure has been widely abused by chambers of commerce and sports owners to overinflate the impact of sports on cities. As other studies show, that $1.5m doesn't just disappear when the Thunder aren't playing, folks end up spending that money elsewhere in the economy. It's why OKC did just fine when the NBA lockout in 2011-2012 resulted in a late start. The city actually made more money in 2011 than they did in 2010, even with 15 or so fewer Thunder games. This pattern plays out whenever there's a work stoppage in a major sport - folks just spend their money elsewhere and the local economy isn't really adversely impacted.

[Dob Hooligan]

That's "economic impact", not money directly to the city. That measure has been widely abused by chambers of commerce and sports owners to overinflate the impact of sports on cities. As other studies show, that $1.5m doesn't just disappear when the Thunder aren't playing, folks end up spending that money elsewhere in the economy. It's why OKC did just fine when the NBA lockout in 2011-2012 resulted in a late start. The city actually made more money in 2011 than they did in 2010, even with 15 or so fewer Thunder games. This pattern plays out whenever there's a work stoppage in a major sport - folks just spend their money elsewhere and the local economy isn't really adversely impacted.

What is it you want, other than to argue? Where do you think that money that is going to be spent anyway is going to? A Blazers hockey game with $5 tickets and $2 beer? Everyone going to Chili's? Where are they going in the economy of Oklahoma City?

What are the other places you think the money should be spent on and what are the amounts? How is that spending going to improve the city? And give me numbers, not "Homelessness is a city wide embarrassment and sign of an uncaring city".

[PoliSciGuy]

Where do you think that money that is going to be spent anyway is going to? A Blazers hockey game with $5 tickets and $2 beer? Everyone going to Chili's? Where are they going in the economy of Oklahoma City?

Yes, exactly, those places and others. It’s not like folks just didn’t spend money or not go out when the NBA lockout happened or when the Thunder didn’t allow fans in the stadium post-COVID, they just went and did other things. The Thunder is a great destination for folks to spend money at, but they spend that money at other places year-round and all of that has an equal economic impact, as the studies I linked to show.

As for alternatives, there are numerous so I’ll just pick one as an example. Studies show that investments on public transit yield a 4x return on investment and can generate up to 50,000 jobs per $1b invested (https://www.apta.com/research-techni...ublic-transit/). Can the Thunder do that?

[Dob Hooligan]

Yes, exactly, those places and others. It’s not like folks just didn’t spend money or not go out when the NBA lockout happened or when the Thunder didn’t allow fans in the stadium post-COVID, they just went and did other things. The Thunder is a great destination for folks to spend money at, but they spend that money at other places year-round and all of that has an equal economic impact, as the studies I linked to show.

As for alternatives, there are numerous so I’ll just pick one as an example. Studies show that investments on public transit yield a 4x return on investment and can generate up to 50,000 jobs per $1b invested (https://www.apta.com/research-techni...ublic-transit/). Can the Thunder do that?

Short term issues with the assumption (and reality) that Thunder games would resume. Give us real spending and entertainment alternatives that OKC residents could (and would) attend if the Thunder were gone.

[April in the Plaza]

Yes, exactly, those places and others. It’s not like folks just didn’t spend money or not go out when the NBA lockout happened or when the Thunder didn’t allow fans in the stadium post-COVID, they just went and did other things. The Thunder is a great destination for folks to spend money at, but they spend that money at other places year-round and all of that has an equal economic impact, as the studies I linked to show.

As for alternatives, there are numerous so I’ll just pick one as an example. Studies show that investments on public transit yield a 4x return on investment and can generate up to 50,000 jobs per $1b invested (https://www.apta.com/research-techni...ublic-transit/). Can the Thunder do that?

They very obviously won’t do this (given the pr campaign and survey), but would your opinion change if the Ownership Group agreed to chip in 225M or so?

[PoliSciGuy]

For sure. They pitch in 25% of the cost, my grumbling level decreases significantly

[soonerguru]

This really isn't fair and misses the mark. Can you show me that the Thunder have brought in $1b in tax collection and revenue over the last 15 years? Or anywhere close to that amount?

Detractors aren't saying it won't bring in any money at all; rather, that it won't bring in anywhere close to the investment we're pouring in, and that the biggest beneficiaries of this massive outlay of public money will be the billionaire private owners of the Thunder, not the public, as research shows.

Oh yes, it's totally fair. People who don't realize the impact the Thunder has had on OKC's economic growth, investment, population growth, international profile, etc. truly are dunces -- or at least very myopic.

The arena is an amenity. It doesn't have to bring in a billion dollars. However, we will use it for at least 25-30 years. Assuming the ownership can get this franchise winning again, it will have enormous economic impact.

But what you're ignoring is the inverse. Losing the Thunder, which make no mistake we will if this isn't approved, would be catastrophic to this city. Cities in decline do not have enough money to invest in homeless shelters, new animal shelters, new schools, etc. They wither.

OKC is booming, and the Thunder is a significant factor why. It shouldn't be hard for you to understand but you are being argumentative and obtuse.

[BoulderSooner]

wait until yall see the Tif ask for the related development .. lol

[PoliSciGuy]

Oh yes, it's totally fair. People who don't realize the impact the Thunder has had on OKC's economic growth, investment, population growth, international profile, etc. truly are dunces -- or at least very myopic.

The arena is an amenity. It doesn't have to bring in a billion dollars. However, we will use it for at least 25-30 years. Assuming the ownership can get this franchise winning again, it will have enormous economic impact.

But what you're ignoring is the inverse. Losing the Thunder, which make no mistake we will if this isn't approved, would be catastrophic to this city. Cities in decline do not have enough money to invest in homeless shelters, new animal shelters, new schools, etc. They wither.

OKC is booming, and the Thunder is a significant factor why. It shouldn't be hard for you to understand but you are being argumentative and obtuse.

How did the Thunder contribute to our population growth? How many people did the team convince to move here? How much money did they contribute to the economy here? I’m not being myopic or obtuse, I’m asking you to back up your assumptions. That’s not an unreasonable ask.

Seattle seemed to do fine when the Sonics left, Austin is doing great without a single major league team, Detroit has four major league teams yet is struggling… you’re making a lot of claims without an iota of evidence and instead is just relying on insulting people who disagree with you. If the Thunder are a “significant factor” why we are booming, it shouldn’t be hard for you to actually back up your point with evidence instead of ad hominem deflections.


Edit: \/\/ interesting. Can you point to which businesses came to OKC because of the Thunder?

[jn1780]

There are tons of memories and stories generated by the Thunder and other arena events throughout the years. These stories have inspired business owners to invest to have a business in Oklahoma City. I'm sure the suburbs would see a little bit more money if there were no Thunder but not OKC.

Yes, I'm sure there is a point where having an NBA team brings no value, but OKC is nowhere that point. We would only get to that point if their is millions more spent on education a year. When you compare that total cost over a decade, a one time cost of 1 billion for area that will last at least 20 years seems like a good deal.

[chssooner]

Poli Sci, it seems, wouldn't care if OKC lost the Thunder. Or at least thinks there would be no change to OKC and its perception if they pissed off and left. Arguing with that is fruitless.

[PoliSciGuy]

Poli Sci, it seems, wouldn't care if OKC lost the Thunder. Or at least thinks there would be no change to OKC and its perception if they pissed off and left. Arguing with that is fruitless.

Nope. Just asking for folks to back up their points. Building straw men doesn't really help here. Please don't put words in my mouth.

[PhiAlpha]

Nope. Just asking for folks to back up their points. Building straw men doesn't really help here. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Out here accusing everyone who disagrees with you of “building strawmen.” You have said or insinuated everything that the other poster said you have.

[PhiAlpha]

I’m living proof. I was born and raised just outside of Atlanta. Sports has always been a huge part of my life so my first thought of any city is the skylines and pro sports teams (what I’ve seen on TV). Watching the Thunder make the finals as a teen and be competitive every single year without a doubt put OKC on the map in my eyes. I saw a loud, passionate fan base. I saw downtown aerial shots and the Bricktown canal on ABC’s commercial cuts. I saw just enough that I thought of OKC as a big league town. When the time came and I moved out here I felt an appreciation for the town. I loved this city before I even moved out here. The Thunder are a big reason why.

Hey look! A tangible example on this board of someone being more interested in or less resistant to moving to OKC because of all the exposure the thunder gave it! It’s like everything all of us have been saying might have some merit!

Thats really cool! Happy you moved here and have decided to hang around!

[PhiAlpha]

This made me want to see fan interview of people who became Thunder fans. Would be a cool series.

You could probably even do that with current players on the team. Several young players have said that they were interested in playing here after watching Russ, KD (boo), harden and others play here and enjoyed watching those teams play for a decade.

[PhiAlpha]

How did the Thunder contribute to our population growth? How many people did the team convince to move here? How much money did they contribute to the economy here? I’m not being myopic or obtuse, I’m asking you to back up your assumptions. That’s not an unreasonable ask.

Seattle seemed to do fine when the Sonics left, Austin is doing great without a single major league team, Detroit has four major league teams yet is struggling… you’re making a lot of claims without an iota of evidence and instead is just relying on insulting people who disagree with you. If the Thunder are a “significant factor” why we are booming, it shouldn’t be hard for you to actually back up your point with evidence instead of ad hominem deflections.


Edit: \/\/ interesting. Can you point to which businesses came to OKC because of the Thunder?

Comparing Seattle (which had 2 other major professional sports franchises when the sonics left and a thousand other entertainment options both in the city and outdoors between the ocean and the mountains) and Austin (which does have an MLS team but is doing fine largely because it’s the capital of Texas and also has a ton of things to do in the city and outdoors nearby) to OKC is so completely disingenuous that it hurts the argument you’re already failing to make.

Also, is Detroit really still struggling? It certainly was but many people I know from there indicate otherwise since the auto industry was bailed out and the economy improved.

Notice that it’s not just one person calling you names and at minimum disagreeing with you. It’s the majority of the board other than now banned broken record Kerry/JTF (who hilariously reappeared after a 10 year hiatus to complain again and hasn’t even lived here for like 7 years). Many of us on vastly different ends of the political spectrum (hell soonerguru and I are fairly far apart on a lot of things and I couldn’t agree with him more on this, MAPS and city government in general), from very different backgrounds and walks of life in OKC and elsewhere…are all uniting to fervently disagree with you…what does that tell you?