I think the Loge boxes will be awesome for concerts, if you can score one.

If you buy one of the loge seats you get first dibs for those seats for concert events in the Ford Center. But at the same price as the 8th row, I choose 8th row any day.

But at the same price as the 8th row, I choose 8th row any day.

Yeah, I agree. The article says that price includes concert tickets, so I am not sure if it's just a right of first refusal thing and you have to pay for each concert seat, or if concert tickets are actually included in that price. I am pretty sure, however, that 8th row seats don't include any priorities for concert ticketing, so that's at least a little value add to the loge seats.

Oh i know, I wasn't coming after you or anything. I do know that anything is better than that scoreboard they have there now.

Oh, heavens, no prob...I meant to put a smiley on the end of that but it appears I failed ...

Yeah, that scoreboard is about a half-size too small for that arena, so I'm sure whatever they get will be a drastic improvement...

I think the Loge boxes will be awesome for concerts, if you can score one.

Just make sure you score one that's not on the side behind the concert stage!

not sure if somebody has said this already, but i was reading on the Ford Center site and noticed that it said something about the Grand entrance construction not starting until 2010, did i miss read? or do we have to wait to see changes to the exterior?

not sure if somebody has said this already, but i was reading on the Ford Center site and noticed that it said something about the Grand entrance construction not starting until 2010, did i miss read? or do we have to wait to see changes to the exterior?

I believe that is right. All the work being started now is interior and I believe all exterior work wont start until after next (2010) season.

I wonder if that means no concerts next summer as well...

If you buy one of the loge seats you get first dibs for those seats for concert events in the Ford Center. But at the same price as the 8th row, I choose 8th row any day.

Pretty sure suites and loges include concert, blazers and other events for the entire year. Not "first dibs."

I believe that is right. All the work being started now is interior and I believe all exterior work wont start until after next (2010) season.

correct

Above section 114ish it looked like they were starting to build one of those loge boxes, but could be wrong.

Yeah, that was a temporary one to show what they'll be like. I got a tour one night. It'll basically be a 4-6 person table with lockers behind the seats.

Thunder home to get face-liftby Kelley Chambers

The Journal Record April 24, 2009

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Ford Center posted strong attendance numbers in March, the final month before renovations began.

“We are officially shut down at the Ford Center,” said Gary Desjardins, general manager of the Ford Center. “We’ll open back up in October.”Desjardins provided an update on the facility to members of the Oklahoma City Convention & Visitors Bureau on Thursday. He oversees the arena and exhibit halls at the Cox Business Services Convention Center.

By the time the Thunder hits the court next season, there will be several changes made to the Ford Center.

The publicly funded Ford Center was completed in 2002 at a cost of $89 million. In anticipation of luring an NBA team, Oklahoma City voters approved $120 million in improvements to the center in 2008.

Some of that work has been completed, but a major project will include renovation of several areas of the center by October. Desjardins said when the center reopens there will be changes, some not noticeable at first glance. Other areas will not really be touched during renovations.

“When you walk through the doors in the entry level, you won’t see a whole lot,” he said. “That’s probably the only level that’s not getting a huge makeover.”

Desjardins said several bunker suites, which will not have a view of the arena bowl, will be added. Suites will be ripped out at each end of the bowl to make room for two large clubs.

Those who purchase seats close to the floor will find they have a little more room to move. Several rows near the courtside will be expanded and some seats will be eliminated. Seating will be added to other areas near the court that have been underutilized.

“Right now we have these big open areas that we’re now going to take advantage of and increase the seating capacity,” Desjardins said.

Private suites around the bowl will receive a face-lift and flat-screen televisions.

A new scoreboard will hang over the center of the court.

Desjardins said three companies presented plans for the scoreboard.

“The good news is I don’t think we can really make a bad decision on that in terms of the quality,” he said. “It’s just picking which one is the best.”

The Thunder team will get a new locker room at the expense of storage space. The existing locker room will be converted to a courtside club.

One of the major challenges Desjardins anticipates when basketball season resumes is the loss of the storage space. New storage space is not set to be added until the final phase. Until then, management will have to find creative ways to store all of the items and props needed for Thunder games.

A third phase of renovations will begin in 2010.

In March, Desjardins reported the Ford Center hosted 251,774 people during 30 events for direct spending in excess of $25 million. Across the street the Cox Center had 105,365 people pass through the doors for events in March.

Much of that traffic at both venues was from the American Choral Directors Association convention, Big 12 basketball tournaments and Pre-Paid Legal Services Inc. yearly meetings.

For the basketball configuration, the Cox Center can seat 19,136 people.

Michael Carrier, president of the Oklahoma City Convention & Visitors Bureau, is working to keep both venues full in the coming years.

Carrier said he and his staff continue to lure groups to the state for conventions. The results from a third-quarter report showed the CVB has 173 national, regional and state conventions booked for future events, up from 124 during the same time last year. Future direct spending for those meetings is expected to have an economic impact in the city of more than $176 million.

http://journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recid=98001

I just picked up the drawings on phase 1b yesterday. Bids due on the 14th of May. Budget is set at $12mil.

There is a great video on this blog on the improvements made to date at the Ford Center:

Ford Center Renovations: Phase I | Thunder Rumblings (http://blog.newsok.com/thunderrumblings/2009/10/06/ford-center-renovations-phase-i/)

Wow, nice scoreboard!

in answer to the various posts about how many seat are being removed for the renovations. The number keeps changing. First it was "about 300", then 500, 600, 900 and the latest article has said "nearly 1,000" (actual net reduction of 960). Know it doesn't sound like a lot, but last season, the Ford was #14 in NBA seating capacity, after the improvements, it drops all the way down to #28. Others have posted (haven't verified) that those arenas that are still lower than the Ford are opening larger arenas in the near future. The same article pointed out, that even if every game is a sell out, the avg attendance for the Thunder will never be any higher than it was last season (because of the decreased seating capacity). Can only claim a higher percentage of seats sold (as some Seattle people did with numbers on Key Arena, the smallest NBA arena).

Larry, could it be that OKC doesn't need a 20,000 seat NBA arena to be profitable? Maybe 18,500 will do it.

Seattle's seating (I live there) is horrible by comparison to most NBA cities, so there is NO WAY they could ever make up the revenue. And the building could not be expanded again. So the only thing to do in Seattle was rebuild or build new. And in Seattle, things cost a bit more than OKC.

Now, back to OKC - I think it is awesome that Bennett and Co can make their due with less, but focus on quality. This will surely put OKC among the top luxury NBA arenas and that's where it counts.

Sure, there are larger luxury NBA arenas but they are in Chicago and Detroit - both cities with very large populations (Chicago anyways) and great bball tradition. I like OKC's focus on quality as opposed to quantity.

besides, this will eliminate the butts in the seats complaints that many Ford Center patrons have been complaining about!

I'd definitely take the quality over the quantity. The fact that the team is onboard with this is great for the city as well. The Ford Center was built and will continue to serve as a stepping stone. It's the arena the city built to attract the jewel....the castle will come next go around. I liken it to buying your first car. You buy the cheaper model, then you spend the next few years adding things like nicer wheels, a spiffy paint job, stereo, etc.

One thing OKC has that most of the league's cities don't is a debt free building. Many places like Seattle build in a really stupid fashion. They don't raise the funds first and build later...they do it in a opposite manner. MAPS type programs have allowed us to make these improvements without being in debt because of them. Seattle is STILL paying off the debt from the last remodel of Key. And that remodel didn't last through the usability of the arena. While they are still paying, we'll be looking at the FC's replacement (to be built bigger and better on the Cox lot).

The scoreboard is AWESOME! The fact that it's all digital opens up so many more possibilties for what can be put on it. And the wedge isn't something most people would think about, but it will make a big difference for those that pay the highest prices for tickets. Sometimes they even have a hard time seeing a score...how funny is that? Problem solved.

In the video, they state new seating is being installed, and talk about more room for each person. One of the big complaints about the Ford Center was the tight seating, so perhaps this is improving that and they're losing capacity as a result. Perhaps they decided it's better to have a thousand less fans in the building, if the ones who are there are happier. Don't know.

Not to mention the addition of opera boxes, loge suites, bunker suites and other amenities it didn't have before. Sure, they give up a few seats for these luxury seats, but these luxury seats probably generate more money than more of just plain seats. Don't forget there are standing only rooms in the building (at least 2 I know of) so they do have the ability to flex the capacity if need be. Larry, you're just a Debbie Downer always looking for something wrong to gripe about. You're not going to find much agreement on this website, so move on over to Tulsa Now.

It isn't about how many seat you have, it is the revenue they can generate. An arena could only have 1 seat if they could sell it for $10 million per game. A smaller venue increase demand, that in turn drive up the price. Of course, the exact opposite is true. If an arena is too large, it decrease demand, which in turn drives down the price. You only have to look at the Jacksonville Jaguars stadium to realize that. It seats 30,000 too many. The fact that the Ford Center sold out half its games indicates that there might be too many seats.

Larry, you're just a Debbie Downer always looking for something wrong to gripe about. You're not going to find much agreement on this website, so move on over to Tulsa Now.


Yea Larry, if you're not going to follow in lockstep, you're not welcome around here. Independent thinking and desenting opinions will not be tolerated!

The whole "free speech" thing can really be a pain in the ass sometimes...

Get over yourself, Metro...

Just found this in USA Today:

Levy Restaurants to operate Ford Center dining areas - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2009-10-06-1421461400_x.htm)

And this is what Wikipedia says about the company (sorry for using them as a source, but it was the most informative:

The company was founded by Larry Levy, originally from St. Louis. In 1978, Levy founded his company in Chicago, and serves as the Chairman of the Board. The first property was D.B. Kaplan's Delicatessen in Chicago's Water Tower Place. In 1982, the company pioneered the concept of fine dining in stadiums and arenas with award-winning restaurants and foodservice locations at Chicago's Comiskey Park (home of the Chicago White Sox) and again in 1985 in Chicago's Wrigley Field (home of the Chicago Cubs.) In 1989, the company was selected by The Walt Disney Company to own and operate two locations inside their world famous Walt Disney World Resort, Portobello Yacht Club and Fulton's Crab House. Levy was also a partner in the former Wildhorse Saloon location at Walt Disney World. The Portobello Yacht Club's has consistently been voted best Italian restaurant in Orlando. Fulton's Crab House has achieved one of the top ten sales volumes of any restaurant in the United States. In 1994 they added their first location outside Chicago. The company also created and implemented the WOCAAT training philosophy.

Locations
Their sports and entertainment division manages convention facilities, concert and performance venues and arenas for all major sports leagues. They currently manage food service operations inside the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, MN, STAPLES Center and Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, American Airlines Arena in Miami, FL, Wrigley Field and U.S. Cellular Field in Chicago, The USTA National Tennis Center in Flushing, NY, Lambeau Field in Green Bay, Chase Field in Phoenix, and the Rogers Centre in Toronto, among many others nationwide. They also manage all food service operations inside McCormick Place in Chicago, the nation's largest convention center, the Ravinia Festival in Highland Park, Illinois and multiple establishments inside Disney World in Orlando. Levy manages all food service operations for Churchill Downs in Louisville, the home of the Kentucky Derby.

That sounds good. I have always thought the food at the Ford Center was way below par.

Yea Larry, if you're not going to follow in lockstep, you're not welcome around here. Independent thinking and desenting opinions will not be tolerated!

The whole "free speech" thing can really be a pain in the ass sometimes...

Get over yourself, Metro...

right back at you. I'm all for freedom of speech, but Larry is just looking to get a rise out of people, there IS a difference between the "independent thinking/desenting opinions" and just trying to be a nuisance.

right back at you. I'm all for freedom of speech, but Larry is just looking to get a rise out of people, there IS a difference between the "independent thinking/desenting opinions" and just trying to be a nuisance.

Wow...and just who appointed you judge and jury as to whether or not Larry's thoughts and opinions are sincere and genuine or not?

No one, who appointed he and you judge over my comments? it goes both ways, and if you read Larry's posts in other threads, he seems to piss a lot of people off and keep going at it just to get a rise out of them.

No one, who appointed he and you judge over my comments? it goes both ways, and if you read Larry's posts in other threads, he seems to piss a lot of people off and keep going at it just to get a rise out of them.

Although Larry is new to this board, I've read his comments for years on the Newsok comment boards and he has always been very consistent in his opinions.

I may not agree with most of what he believes or opines but he always presents links and other sources to back up his opinions and they are generally well thought out even if I disagree with his conclusions.

I believe he is very sincere in his opinions and he has every right to express them.

Just found this in USA Today:

Levy Restaurants to operate Ford Center dining areas - USATODAY.com

Anyone know if this is for this year... as in, next week? Also, is it just the bar and restaurants in the terrace area or is it the entire club level? Article sounds like it's the whole club level, but I'm not sure...

Although Larry is new to this board, I've read his comments for years on the Newsok comment boards and he has always been very consistent in his opinions.

I may not agree with most of what he believes or opines but he always presents links and other sources to back up his opinions and they are generally well thought out even if I disagree with his conclusions.

I believe he is very sincere in his opinions and he has every right to express them.

No, he doesn't. To quote "metro" from another recent thread (http://www.okctalk.com/258784-post7.html) (which I happen to agree with wholeheartedly):


If you think OKC has problems, visit somewhere else or move to a small town so you don't have to deal with it.

Welcome to Oklahoma City, where negative opinions are not to be expressed at any time, by anyone.

Thank you for your cooperation and enjoy your stay.

The Thought Police

Thank god for the new food operator. The food that has previously been offered there has been awful.

right back at you. I'm all for freedom of speech, but Larry is just looking to get a rise out of people, there IS a difference between the "independent thinking/desenting opinions" and just trying to be a nuisance.
Un, Metro, not that you ever mean to be, but, sometimes, don't you get the idea that members here sometime think that about YOU? Who's to judge? You. Me? Neither.

On edit ... uh,, oh. I see that Southside Sooner beat me to. Not a problem, take a double whammy!

I agree with you guys, Larry's been on NewsOK and Steve's blog for a long time with the same opinions. I disagree with most of them (he's especially rough on the canal), but at least he's consistent.

I went to the Kings of Leon concert this past Saturday. I could not tell much had changed. The scoreboard was raised. The lighting around the ring looked brighter, but not much else.

in answer to the various posts about how many seat are being removed for the renovations. The number keeps changing. First it was "about 300", then 500, 600, 900 and the latest article has said "nearly 1,000" (actual net reduction of 960). Know it doesn't sound like a lot, but last season, the Ford was #14 in NBA seating capacity, after the improvements, it drops all the way down to #28. Others have posted (haven't verified) that those arenas that are still lower than the Ford are opening larger arenas in the near future. The same article pointed out, that even if every game is a sell out, the avg attendance for the Thunder will never be any higher than it was last season (because of the decreased seating capacity). Can only claim a higher percentage of seats sold (as some Seattle people did with numbers on Key Arena, the smallest NBA arena).
Larry, I'm sure that the number of seats wouldn't have been reduced but for economic analysis, i.e., even with a reduced number of seats more profit, at least potential for profits, will occur. Sure, I miss the top 5 originally-announced floors of the Devon Tower ... I like ego boosts for my city as much as anyone. Reality is that the 5 floors really don't matter, and I'm sure the Ford Center improvements, particularly after next year, they will be just fine.

On another matter, supplementing the earlier renderings of the south side next year, the one below is included in the Season Ticket Members booklet which I think is some different (though I didn't study the others and maybe my off the top of head comment is wrong). I don't know how accurate any of them are, of course.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/okcthunder/2009_10/fordcenter_stmh.jpg

I went to the Kings of Leon concert this past Saturday. I could not tell much had changed. The scoreboard was raised. The lighting around the ring looked brighter, but not much else.

They probably didn't use the scoreboard at all during the concert and the lighting around the arena was probably different than it will be for the Thunder games. Opening night for the Thunder will be the true test.

A lot of the improvements too have been more behind the scenes, like the press box, locker rooms, etc. But, the main floors should have flooring on them now instead of exposed concrete and the club level was completely renovated.

Guys, I don't think the Ford Center was built to big to sell out or anything. It was our first year with a permanent team, this ONE YEAR after OKC's adopted team in the Hornets had left but been in OKC for two years. That's how I see it, the Thunder was new and even though it was ours - there are still a LOT of OKC that really are Hornets fans or want the Hornets.

In fact, I wish there was some way where OKC could just get the Hornets and trade away the current franchise. But I digress.

I dont think they are reducing Ford Center's size because they couldn't put butts in the seats. I think the exact is opposite, they are reducing the available seats to ATTRACT more butts. Overall, sure capacity will be lower than 20,000 (or 19,150 or whatever the Hornets was), but I think they will make more money because there IS demand for high end seating.

In fact, this just disproves all of the nay-sayers who had been doubting whether OKC could support a team long term. The fact that seats are being removed in favor of better seating and more luxury - shows that OKC can not only support the team long term but also the owners see pent-up demand for high end amenities that before now no person imagined existed in OKC. I myself thought the original 48 suites might be too much for OKC, now - we're going to have even more than that. ....

Go figure.

I love that they've gone with the 'at&t' version of the main entrance, but didn't it also have a large video board? I hope that will be included (or added later), as it would truly put OKC into the top 5 arenas in the NBA for quality and amenities. ..... :D

and to think all of this ONLY costs $100M (total of $189M). wow.

and debt free. even more wow!!!!

I'd definitely take the quality over the quantity. The fact that the team is onboard with this is great for the city as well. The Ford Center was built and will continue to serve as a stepping stone. It's the arena the city built to attract the jewel....the castle will come next go around. I liken it to buying your first car. You buy the cheaper model, then you spend the next few years adding things like nicer wheels, a spiffy paint job, stereo, etc.

One thing OKC has that most of the league's cities don't is a debt free building. Many places like Seattle build in a really stupid fashion. They don't raise the funds first and build later...they do it in a opposite manner. MAPS type programs have allowed us to make these improvements without being in debt because of them. Seattle is STILL paying off the debt from the last remodel of Key. And that remodel didn't last through the usability of the arena. While they are still paying, we'll be looking at the FC's replacement (to be built bigger and better on the Cox lot).

The scoreboard is AWESOME! The fact that it's all digital opens up so many more possibilties for what can be put on it. And the wedge isn't something most people would think about, but it will make a big difference for those that pay the highest prices for tickets. Sometimes they even have a hard time seeing a score...how funny is that? Problem solved.

Bomber, I agree. and I can add that we (Seattle) are in fact still paying for the long demolished KingDome! (haha).

Yep, big bad rich supposedly better Seattle has so much debt despite being a larger metro and market than OKC. Now, who is doing this big city thing better?

To me, the ONLY thing Seattle did well to differentiate itself as a big city was the Space Needle observation tower and restaurant. To my knowledge, it is self sustaining and had truly made Seattle become a well known city in the ranks of much larger cities.

Nothing else matches the space needle for image and sustainability in Seattle. Even the Pike Place market, needs funding from the city and really is just a tourist attraction now (in fact, we had a vote recently of whether to discontinue the public market or not).

OKC doesn't yet have a well known icon yet but all of OKC's infrastructure is paid off, and now OKC is focusing on luxury and quality (not just quantity).

Soon, we'll have the Skydance bridge, the ferris wheel, and maybe an observation tower somewhere in Central Park of our own; that could define Oklahoma City. But I know it will be done/financed right, if OKC has anything to do with it.

Not to mention the addition of opera boxes, loge suites, bunker suites and other amenities it didn't have before. Sure, they give up a few seats for these luxury seats, but these luxury seats probably generate more money than more of just plain seats. Don't forget there are standing only rooms in the building (at least 2 I know of) so they do have the ability to flex the capacity if need be. Larry, you're just a Debbie Downer always looking for something wrong to gripe about. You're not going to find much agreement on this website, so move on over to Tulsa Now.

Hmmm, was there anything factually incorrect in the post? Where did I complain about anything in that post? The numbers are the numbers (good or bad, you decide).

It isn't about how many seat you have, it is the revenue they can generate. An arena could only have 1 seat if they could sell it for $10 million per game. A smaller venue increase demand, that in turn drive up the price. Of course, the exact opposite is true. If an arena is too large, it decrease demand, which in turn drives down the price. You only have to look at the Jacksonville Jaguars stadium to realize that. It seats 30,000 too many. The fact that the Ford Center sold out half its games indicates that there might be too many seats.

I AGREE

Was never suggesting we should build an arena with 30,000 too many seats. Determining seating capacity isn't an exact science, but the fact remains even without the NBA, we built the Ford Center too small. It's a good problem to have, but still a problem. We had no way of knowing it at the time (think the Ford seats 5,000 more than the old Myriad). This is evidenced by the numerous sold out concerts the Ford has had (the bread and butter, what has made the Ford self-sufficient). As others have pointed out, the NBA (41 days) isn't the only thing held there. That leaves 324 days where larger seating capacity could be utilized. Am sure that the new type of seats being added bring in more revenue than regular seats and they are going to need to if you are going to make up for the revenue loss of 960 seats (not the cheap loud city ones either). Not only do you have to make up for the revenue loss of net seats, but also the lost revenue in concessions and merchandise as well. This is where getting those avg 4,000 no shows is important. Am sure Bennett's people ran the numbers since nearly all of the improvements were either for the exclusive use of the team or to "maximize" "revenue streams" for the team. That also presumes that these more expensive seats will sell-out.

The fact the the Thunder only sold out half of the games for it's inaugural year was disappointing. The Mayor and Bennett rightfully thought demand was going to exceed supply, that demand for a permanent team should "skyrocket". And as I said, unless it was team hype, reportedly they could have sold 20,000+ in season tickets alone. The Thunder web site says they sold out of the capped 13,000 season tickets in 5 days. Last I read, after several weeks or even months, they still have season tickets available (this isn't a downer comment, it is still impressive, especially when compared to Seattle season ticket sales, about 1/10 of the Thunder's). They reportedly had a waiting list last season and now have dropped to under 13,000? Quick and dirty math would indicate a drop in demand by at least 7,000 (20,000 - 13,000 = 7,000). They also came darn close to capacity on the remaining games (think it was around 500 on average of being sell-out). Take away the number of seats that they did, and you are practically guaranteeing sell outs (but at a reduced capacity).

Compare that with the Hornets. The 1st year here was about the same as for the Thunder (sellouts and avg attendance). 2nd year, there was also a slight drop off (but they had announced they were going back to N.O. the next season). Sales were down some but not near as dramatic. (To be fair, there wasn't a waiting list for the Hornets that I am aware of, so they didn't have as far to fall).

Even if the supply/demand is just about right for the Thunder now (ignoring the 324 other days), where is the planning for growth? Is anyone suggesting that the Thunder will continue to be bottom dwellers and ticket sales will continue to decline? If that is the case, Bennett can use his opt out clause and move the team.

Ahhh, I don't really think the Ford Center was built too small. It's pretty comparable in size and seating to other major league arenas around the country. Anywhere in the neighborhood of 18,000 to 20,000 seats is pretty much in the norm for major league sports arenas. If you want seating for larger concerts, than look at possibly building a larger football stadium, dome, or something of that nature.

... Seattle's seating (I live there) is horrible by comparison to most NBA cities, so there is NO WAY they could ever make up the revenue. And the building could not be expanded again. So the only thing to do in Seattle was rebuild or build new. ...


Am curious, in other threads on other forums, Seattle posters indicated that watching a game in the Key was great...great sight lines etc. Is that what you are talking about?

Know I saw a clip of Stern praising the Key (at it's reopening) as a model NBA arena.

Concerning the expansion, while they may not have been able to add seats, I know I read that there was 3 different remodel proposals to prior owners (still offered to Bennett) and a remodel was OK with Stern (he even went to the Washington legislature to lobby for it)...then a remodel wasn't OK when Bennett decided it was a new arena or nothing (although a remodeled Ford was OK)...then OK with Stern again after the Sonics relocated.

Presume that the Key OK/not OK/OK remodel would have been along the same lines as the Ford remodel (the things that maximize team revenues).

In the video, they state new seating is being installed, and talk about more room for each person. One of the big complaints about the Ford Center was the tight seating, so perhaps this is improving that and they're losing capacity as a result. Perhaps they decided it's better to have a thousand less fans in the building, if the ones who are there are happier. Don't know.

Just from a cost standpoint (unless they are rented?), think the new seating and more room they are talking about is in those loge ones. Don't think they are adjusting the rest of the arena (for example, can't really do anything about the space between rows). Unless they are putting in wider seats, the only thing they could do is adjust the space between seats (but aren't they permanently attached?). Good question though....

Ahhh, I don't really think the Ford Center was built too small. It's pretty comparable in size and seating to other major league arenas around the country. Anywhere in the neighborhood of 18,000 to 20,000 seats is pretty much in the norm for major league sports arenas. If you want seating for larger concerts, than look at possibly building a larger football stadium, dome, or something of that nature.

I AGREE

IF the Ford was ONLY for the NBA, that would be fine, but you are ignoring the other events held there. We don't have a larger venue in OKC (and not in the list for MAPS 3). This is why I think we are flushing the balance of the $100M in improvements to the Ford, down the $3M remodeled bathroom's toilets. They will be coming back in a few years, insisting on a new arena (just as Bennett did in Seattle).

The arena was far from the only thing spoiling the deal in Seattle. It was the worst contract in the NBA regarding the team and the arena. And the support for the team had been wanning for 10 years...with ever decreasing attendance. Not to mention when the other 2 pro franchises in town get a new house, and you don't because the people say...nah, that just adds to the bad taste.

In another decade, yeah we'll probably be having to put together a new arena proposal. But maybe not. There are a lot of arenas out there that are 30 years old. OKC is in a unique position that we will have the land to do it already (Cox Center) and will just have to put it in the next Maps program of that time.

They will be coming back in a few years, insisting on a new arena (just as Bennett did in Seattle).

It was probably wrong of me to insist that if MAPS 3 doesn't pass, there will not be another opportunity to get at least a few of the improvements in the current proposal. I don't have a crystal ball. Mea culpa. You don't have one either, so it's just as wrong to insist you know what's going to happen with the arena. If I could bet, I would agree with bombermwc. I think it will be AT LEAST ten years before there is even talk of another arena, IMO. And, like the convention center, it would probably take close to 20 years to get a second one finished. We're spending about half of what they're spending to build current arenas, so if ours is out of date in 20 years, I could live with that.

The problems with the arena in Seattle were about far more than size. Bennett insisting on a new arena was probably for several reasons. First of all, the contract between the city and the team made it almost impossible for them to make a profit, given the size of the arena and the lack of luxury boxes. Secondly, with the large investment in the team Bennett made, if the team WERE going to stay in Seattle, he needed a new arena with a decent contract to make the team attractive to another buyer, should OKC have the option to get a different team. His "sweet flip".

The arena was far from the only thing spoiling the deal in Seattle. It was the worst contract in the NBA regarding the team and the arena. And the support for the team had been wanning for 10 years...with ever decreasing attendance. Not to mention when the other 2 pro franchises in town get a new house, and you don't because the people say...nah, that just adds to the bad taste. ...

The "worst contract in the NBA" was also touted by Commish Stern (and he approved it). Yes support for the NBA had been decreasing (partly due to the teams on-court performance). Which brings up the point, why did Bennett need a bigger arena when they couldn't fill the seats they had? The other two franchises did indeed get new arenas, but the Sonics got their's first and were back in about 8 years wanting improvements. Didn't the owners of those other Pro teams contribute to those "new houses"? (There are conflicting reports that Bennett's ownership would contribute to a NEW arena). Why was a Key remodel and new lease (3 offers were still on the table for Bennett) not OK with Bennett in Seattle but perfectly OK here (not an original thought, even Mr. Trammel with the Oklahoman asked that question). Why was a remodel of the Key OK with Stern (he even went to the Washington legislature to lobby for it), then not OK when Bennett bought the team, then suddenly OK again when the Sonics relocated?

Given the remarkably similar histories of the Key and the Ford and the people involved, think it will be shorter than 10 years before a new arena is asked for. The Mayor talked about a replacement arena just 4 years after the Ford opened. The age of the arena isn't the issue. I thought replacing a 5 year old arena (still "new" in my view) was absurd. After all we are talking about a building, not a computer. Then I found out the arena was built too small and we needed to be adding seats, not taking them out (even without the NBA).

No matter what the time frame ends up being, that isn't a problem for Bennett any more. He made sure of that in the lease with the City. For at least the next 15 years (expandable by the team, up to 30) the City is contractually obligated to keep making improvements to the Ford to "ENSURE THAT THE ARENA CONTINUES TO BE A FIRST-CLASS NBA ARENA" (similar language exists for the Practice Facility). With NO substantial means of paying for same. If there are structural limitations to achieving that end, the City will really have no choice but to build a new arena. IMO

How much is this going to end up costing? Based on projecting out what we know it has cost so far ($100 to $120M after 5 years) over the 15 to 30 year term of the lease....

No matter what the time frame ends up being, that isn't a problem for Bennett any more. He made sure of that in the lease with the City. For at least the next 15 years (expandable by the team, up to 30) the City is contractually obligated to keep making improvements to the Ford to "ENSURE THAT THE ARENA CONTINUES TO BE A FIRST-CLASS NBA ARENA" (similar language exists for the Practice Facility). With NO substantial means of paying for same. If there are structural limitations to achieving that end, the City will really have no choice but to build a new arena. IMO

How much is this going to end up costing? Based on projecting out what we know it has cost so far ($100 to $120M after 5 years) over the 15 to 30 year term of the lease....

Shall we just wait and see what happens, rather than predicting doom and gloom? Even if it were to cost us an additional $100 million (which is by no means certain), it ultimately wouldn't have cost us more than the empty arena in Kansas City, would end up being several hundred million cheaper than the new Orlando arena and the American Airlines arena in Dallas, about $500 million cheaper than the new complex in NYC.

Meanwhile, having gone to see the Thunder play at the BOK Center last night, I will say that their exterior design is incredibly impressive. The Ford Center will never look that good, but our interior (ultimately) will be much nicer. They do have terrazzo floors while we still have concrete, but otherwise I think our design is warmer and more interesting. I also think our new sound system is better, and our new scoreboard is way better. The bathrooms at the Ford Center are a lot nicer as well.

Shall we just wait and see what happens, rather than predicting doom and gloom? Even if it were to cost us an additional $100 million (which is by no means certain) ...

Certain? No, could be less and it could be much more (especially if you throw in the cost of a new arena, which I haven't). Regardless of the amount, the City is contractually required to do so. However, I am basing it on what has happened. History has this way of repeating itself (and Bennett has set it up to proceed exactly in that direction). It isn't just $100M more, it's more likely to be $100M every 5 years (again based on what has happened to date and the language in the lease). Do the math of that over the 15 to 30 year lease and see what you come up with. Then throw in all of the other multi-millions of $$$ the City literally gave away in the process.

If handeled correctly, the Naming Rights could have nearly paid for the renovations without costing the taxpayers another penny. Yet we literally gave those rights away to a renter.

Self-described "sophisticated" City leadership (the Mayor and the City Manager) said they approached the lease with a "break-even" philosophy. Instead of the City making $1M PROFIT (like we did the 1st year with the Hornets), the city is looking at maybe squeaking by with $150K a year.

Were you aware that AFTER game day expenses the City only gets $12,000 per game? $12K times 41 games = $492K a season divided into $100M in NBA improvements = 203.25 YEARS to "break-even". Then there is the Practice Facility, revised cost is $10M (down from $20M), so it will only take 100 YEARS to "break-even" on it.

Were you aware that while most NBA arenas have some level of public financing, that 5 have ZERO? The range of financing varies from Zero to 100% with it fairly evenly divided with those above and below the 50% mark.

I have reached the opinions based on the reported facts and I again will be happy to provide the quotes and articles that I have for any particular point for your consideration.

Do you have any supportable reasons why you don't think it will end up costing that much?

Were you aware that AFTER game day expenses the City only gets $12,000 per game? $12K times 41 games = $492K a season divided into $100M in NBA improvements = 203.25 YEARS to "break-even". Then there is the Practice Facility, revised cost is $10M (down from $20M), so it will only take 100 YEARS to "break-even" on it.

You're logic is again flawed Larry. First off Ford Center improvements were paid in CASH but current tax. Most cities sell bonds or other commodities and pay it off over decades. Do a case study on Seattle. They are STILL paying on the arena they don't even have a permanent tenant for. They've been paying on it for over 15 years and have a couple years left still, until 2015 I believe. OKC voters CHOSE to tax themselves and pay for the arena improvements IN CASH UP FRONT, thus this "minute profit" you speak of is irrelevant as a "payback model". It is nothing but profit to the City, and honestly the City shouldn't be in the business world and expect to make anything off a business. You have to ground yourself in reality on how sports franchies work in the real world, not utopia. And $492,000 (your number) would go a long way in hiring additional cops and firefighters that you speak of that we're in dire need of. That'd hire probably at least 5 more of each, better than nothing! We're also not a large media market, and simply cannot generate the big price of naming rights, until we get more money in our local economy and a bigger market. This comes with time, and by things such as having the NBA. It becomes harder when all of our major corporations are already taxed out with nonprofit donations and are already the largest sponsors of the Thunder. Chicken and egg my friend, chicken and egg.

... Do a case study on Seattle. They are STILL paying on the arena they don't even have a permanent tenant for. They've been paying on it for over 15 years and have a couple years left still, until 2015 I believe.

Are you talking about Key Arena? If so, the amount agreed to in the settlement pays off the owed amount. Also, there is enough loophole language in the Ford tax Ordinance that could easily allow OKC taxpayers to paying for this too (along with team relocation expenses, which Bennett himself said OKC would be paying...later backtracked to say he was speaking hypothetically)


... honestly the City shouldn't be in the business world and expect to make anything off a business. ...

I agree, by the same token it shouldn't be doing what amounts to an up-front corporate bailout to a broken business model.


... $492,000 (your number) would go a long way in hiring additional cops and firefighters that you speak of that we're in dire need of. ...

Hmmm, think you have me confused with a couple of other posters on that one. I did find articles recently that supported what they said (that the City knows it is understaffed) and some articles that disputed what they said (that the Firefighters are not seeking a raise). I took neither side on the manpower issue.


... We're also not a large media market, and simply cannot generate the big price of naming rights, until we get more money in our local economy and a bigger market. ...

Fact: According to the NBA Database that used to be available on the Oklahoman's website, Memphis, a slightly SMALLER market got $90M in their 20 year Naming Rights deal. I don't have the numbers handy but in the Sonics' evidence presented at trial, their own consultants came up with a similar number. I was using a comparable City/Market. Never suggested we would get the top end of the scale (if I remember correctly, at the time I looked it up, it was in the $200M area).



P.S. I fully agree that a sales tax is better than some other funding methods (such as bonds which the City also uses extensively). The "break-even" I spoke of is how long it will take, not to pay for the improvements, but how long it will take for the taxpayers to see their money "returned" (in a figurative sense).

Find a major city in the US that DOESN'T think its understaffed in the police and fire departments - especially with all the cutbacks most cities have to make due to the economy!

I forgot what Larry's issue is. Seems he wants to go back and fight the Seattle move all over again.

Memphis is home to Federal Express, which ranks 68th on the Fortune 500 list. Our highest ranking company is Devon, which ranks 221. Fed Ex, by the way, is just below Disney, and above Apple, McDonalds and Coca-Cola, to name a few. Devon is a wee bit involved in their new building, and I don't expect them to be sponsoring anyone for a couple of years. So, I don't think anyone is going to be raking in millions for naming rights until the economy improves, much less $90 million. Sonic, which is in the Fortune 1000 list, could possibly sponsor the arena, but I seriously doubt they'd be ponying up $90 million right now.

But again, every single thing you've predicted for the future is based on conjecture. Regardless of what the lease states, you have NO idea if Bennett et al are even going to ask for annual upgrades to bring the arena up to "NBA standards". What happened in Seattle is completely different. There, they weren't willing to travel a thousand miles to go to a basketball game unless they could do it in a beautiful, lucrative new arena. They weren't willing to lose money every year to have a team somewhere other than their home town. Give this up, wait and see what happens. If you're right, you can gloat. But, it's far too early to do so now. What has happened, has happened. The team is here, the Ford Center is being remodeled, the tax is being collected. You'll have as much luck changing the course of events if you go hold up a sign in front of the Ford Center all day every day, as rehashing what's already happened on this forum.

Find a major city in the US that DOESN'T think its understaffed in the police and fire departments - especially with all the cutbacks most cities have to make due to the economy!

Exactly. Find me a government agency that isn't understaffed. I haven't found any.

I forgot what Larry's issue is. Seems he wants to go back and fight the Seattle move all over again.

Understand what you are saying and it is easy to get sidetracked (either self-inflicted or by others). Often, I am responding to someone else’s post and correcting info when it is in error or contradicts what I have read on the subject (and can often quote/cite as being the case).

That was the case here as my 1st post was putting out the latest info on the reduction in seating capacity (a few prior posts had incorrect numbers). In fact, I wasn’t the one to first bring up Seattle/Key in this thread (Hot Rod did in the 1st post on page 5, responding to the latest info I posted concerning the confusion over how much seating capacity was going to be reduced. How we got to where we are now is the back and forth posts among a few members.

I find it humorus that the taxpayers paid to have this place built and they have to buy expensive tickets to enjoy it.

That is like buying your teenager a car and they charge you gas money everytime you ride in it.

I wonder if the new Central Park will be the same way. Will they charge each person for walking/driving through?

... But again, every single thing you've predicted for the future is based on conjecture. ...

Sorry, but my "conjecture" is firmly based on the facts (the remarkably similar histories of the Key and the Ford, the fact that Bennett is involved and the terms of the lease).

Now, if you have a different set of facts that would lead to a different "conjecture", please post. I am reasonable and willing to listen.

Why do you think Bennett had those terms written into the lease if he didn't plan on using them?

The continual upgrade provision was written into the lease because as the judge in the trial asked, if any such provisions were in the Key lease. They were not.

I find it humorus that the taxpayers paid to have this place built and they have to buy expensive tickets to enjoy it.

That is like buying your teenager a car and they charge you gas money everytime you ride in it.

I wonder if the new Central Park will be the same way. Will they charge each person for walking/driving through?

How is it any different from any other sports facility in the country? Or the Civic Center? Or a convention center?

And no, the Central Park will be free like any other park in the city.