Haters Gonna Hate

Fan experience yes. But the Chesapeake is not one of the top arenas in the NBA.

In 1986 the owners of the St Louis Cardinals wanted to move to OKC if the city/state would build the stadium. It was to be called OKLADOME. However, the deal required OU to let the Cardinals play there for the first few years while the stadium was under construction, and that led to a lot of problems. OU didn't want the NFL and I think they were also concerned that if the stadium deal didn't work out (Oklahoma was in the height of the oil bust) OU would be stuck hosting the team indefinately. When a deal couldn't be reached the team evenually moved to Phoenix 2 years later, and played in the Arizona St stadium for 17 years before finally getting the own dome stadium.

Little known history - Bud Wilkinson coached the Cardinals in the '78 and '79 seasons. Yes, that Bud Wilkinson.


Interesting little side-story there....

Right in that time frame, a good friend of mine from Norman who was moderately well connected told me a very interesting tale about a pro stadium project in Norman in approximately that same time frame - a little later, actually, but darned close.

Story goes that, at this time, a group of high $$ investors in central OK had gotten together and formulated a fairly quiet plan to build a nice, shiny, new pro-caliber stadium for football on the west side of I-35, with detailed plans down to interstate alterations and access roads (couple of which were actually built), all with the ultimate goal of moving the Dallas Cowboys to Oklahoma. Mind you, at this time, the Cowboys were in joke-franchise status (worse than they are now), on the sales block with very few takers at the going asking price. These investors had gotten together, assessed the Cowboys financial situation, and came to the conclusion the franchise could be had on the cheap at that time.

Well, as thing were progressing, something odd happened.

One investor mysteriously got cold feet and dropped out.

Then another.

And then another...until the thing simply fizzled. When the folks in on the plan tried to pick up the pieces and figure out what had happened, turns out that those investors had been contacted by someone in Oklahoma City and strongly encouraged them (exactly how remains a mystery) not to participate in the project, that it wouldn't be in their "best interests" because OKC was in the process of putting together some sort of urban renewal package for the downtown area. And OKC did not want a huge spectacle project in Norman, which already had OU to take any momentum away from how they were packaging the OKC urban renewal effort. And because many of the investors had strong OKC ties, they agreed to bail on the Norman/Cowboy project. And it died.

And the OKC urban renewal project came to be known, eventually, as MAPS.

Now, mind you, I realize this sounds a little (perhaps a lot? Ridiculously?) farfetched. Granted. And its been 25 years or so since he told me this story, so I know I've forgotten many of the details (and there were plenty), but he was absolutely adamant it was true, and equally adamant that lots of Norman city leaders who were involved and had apparently spent some private local political capital supporting it had been upended by the "money guys" out of OKC. Lots of ruffled feathers. Of course, JJ bought the Cowboys, OKC did MAPS, and the rest is history.

Think of how the central OK region would be evolving differently today had that other "master plan" happened.....

Haters Gonna Hate

Potatoes gonna Potate. Tomatoes gonna Tomate...

SoonerDave, no way that story is accurate. Perhaps there are details in it someplace that are accurate which have since been embellished, but the facts just don't add up. MAPS was not a glimmer in ANYBODY'S eye during the dark Cowboys days of the mid- and late-eighties. JJ bought the team in '89. MAPS was in part OKC's reaction to losing a United Airlines maintenance facility bid in 1992. It was FORMULATED in 1992 and 1993 and passed by voters the end 1993. By then the Cowboys were in their third consecutive playoff appearance, had one Superbowl championship under the new regime and were going to win a second within a month. Sorry, the timeline just doesn't work.

No way in Hades that Sooner football would have allowed any type of professional competition, especially in their own front yard.....

Makes a nice story though.

Haters Gonna Hate

I'd respond to your post with your avatar...lol

No way in Hades that Sooner football would have allowed any type of professional competition, especially in their own front yard.....

Makes a nice story though.
It wasn't the competition they were opposed to. OU Was fighting numerous sanctions from the NCAA and didn't want professional football commingling at their facility. It would be a recipe for disaster.

Let's see, in the '82 to '84 time frame would have been the 'string of pearls' idea - that went no where despite the hype at the time. I can swear I also remember First Interstate Bank was going to build a downtown tower at the time. As for OU not wanting competition, I do recall there were OU boosters who did not want pro football in Oklahoma. Anyhow, I am glad the NFL is not in OKC. NFL stadiums are too expensive and can't be used for a large parts of the year. Give me 41 home games vs. 8 home games any time.

Thunder thrives in Oklahoma City | News OK (http://newsok.com/thunder-thrives-in-oklahoma-city/article/3791799)
Thunder thrives in Oklahoma City
April 28, 2013

“Right now, Chesapeake Arena is among the tops in the country … right now it’s a pretty adequate facility.” -- City Manager Jim Couch

So which is it? "Tops in the country" or a "pretty adequate facility"? IIRC, the term "adequate" was the same one used when the Mayor was floating the idea of replacing the Arena (which was less than 5 years old at the time).

I am getting sick and tired of people saying we are such a small market, and will struggle in the long run. Start talking about the Bucks or Bobcats future..

As long as Oklahoma City continues to grow and people support the Thunder by going to games and watching the team on television we will be fine. Getting to the playoffs helps a lot, as most teams in the black are all playoff teams, no matter the size of the city. We seem to be adding new sponsors every year, although the internal issues at Chesapeake and Sandridge could be hurtful. Where we will be at risk is when the owners think its time for a new arena and the NBA concurs. If we decide that the owners need to build the arena rather than taxpayer money, we will lose the Thunder. It is quite obvious that is the only scenario under which the league allows relocation.

The arena is definitely adequate, probably better than adequate but it's by no means tops in the country.

As long as Oklahoma City continues to grow and people support the Thunder by going to games and watching the team on television we will be fine. Getting to the playoffs helps a lot, as most teams in the black are all playoff teams, no matter the size of the city. We seem to be adding new sponsors every year, although the internal issues at Chesapeake and Sandridge could be hurtful. Where we will be at risk is when the owners think its time for a new arena and the NBA concurs. If we decide that the owners need to build the arena rather than taxpayer money, we will lose the Thunder. It is quite obvious that is the only scenario under which the league allows relocation.

The arena is definitely adequate, probably better than adequate but it's by no means tops in the country.

per several court cases the NBA/NFL/NHL can't really stop teams from moving cities .... what they can do is approve disprove the sale of teams (which in most cases accomplishes the same thing)

OKC will need to build a new arena around the 2030 time frame ..

per several court cases the NBA/NFL/NHL can't really stop teams from moving cities .... what they can do is approve disprove the sale of teams (which in most cases accomplishes the same thing)

OKC will need to build a new arena around the 2030 time frame ..

Tell Seattle that. Link (http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/30/5381858/nba-relocation-committee-votes.html)

he answered your question but you "..." right through it.

Here's the complete quote. Makes perfect sense what he saying to me. He's talking about long-term needs. "but right now"...

I understand that, however he did NOT answer the contradiction is in the "right now"/present. The long term needs are unknown. As Betts is well aware, according to the lease terms, the team has the final say as to what future upgrades are "required" and according to the lease, the City is required to pay for those upgrades/new arena with no substantial funding source. Bennett made sure he didn't get into the same situation here that he found himself with in Seattle (Seattle wasn't required to make improvements).

I understand that, however he did NOT answer the contradiction is in the "right now"/present. The long term needs are unknown. As Betts is well aware, according to the lease terms, the team has the final say as to what future upgrades are "required" and according to the lease, the City is required to pay for those upgrades/new arena with no substantial funding source. Bennett made sure he didn't get into the same situation here that he found himself with in Seattle (Seattle wasn't required to make improvements).

And plenty of us are fine with that. As I've repeatedly said, the value of the Thunder to OKC is off the charts enough to be virtually unmeasurable. Since I couldn't afford to spend $425 million to buy and move the team, I'm happy to give a little tax money for upgrades and support a new arena when necessary. I don't envy Seattle. Their idea of what was "right" got them right out of the NBA.

You couldn't afford it but the Millionaire/Billionaire owners certainly could...LOL

But no worries you and everyone else will be paying more to fund it when Bennett et al decides it is time. He made sure of it.

But why should they when they've already spent half a billion dollars for a team we all get to enjoy???? I see my penny tax as doing my part to help keep our team, as a way to say "thank you for going through all you did to bring them here." I feel so lucky to have a team. It's been way more fun than I'd imagined it would be.

But why should they when they've already spent half a billion dollars for a team we all get to enjoy???? I see my penny tax as doing my part to help keep our team, as a way to say "thank you for going through all you did to bring them here." I feel so lucky to have a team. It's been way more fun than I'd imagined it would be.

But just because you feel that way doesn't mean everybody feels that way.

But just because you feel that way doesn't mean everybody feels that way.

To which the only apropos retort would be "Welcome to Society!"

But just because you feel that way doesn't mean everybody feels that way.

Maybe they should.

But just because you feel that way doesn't mean everybody feels that way.

I feel this way too, just as Betts does....

Any OKC citizen that does not understand the value of having an NBA team here has done, is simply ignorant. (Or lives in a cave with no access to internet and society overall)

I would think especially the people on this forum would understand moreso than those who have never visited OKCTalk.


Generally, more value = more fun.

I feel this way too, just as Betts does....

Me too

Me too

Same here.

I do too. But I realize others may not. There are lots of people in OKC who don't give a rats ass about the Thunder.

Or OU or OSU for that matter.

I do too. But I realize others may not. There are lots of people in OKC who don't give a rats ass about the Thunder.

Or OU or OSU for that matter.

We no longer will count those people..lol

Like others have said, the Thunder's value to OKC is completely immeasurable.

I do too. But I realize others may not. There are lots of people in OKC who don't give a rats ass about the Thunder.

Or OU or OSU for that matter.
In my experience, they are few and far between

In my experience, they are few and far between


I do too. But I realize others may not. There are lots of people in OKC who don't give a rats ass about the Thunder.

Or OU or OSU for that matter.

Then there is category four of big time Thunder fans who don't give a rip about OU or OSU.

Then there is category four of big time Thunder fans who don't give a rip about OU or OSU.

Exactly, it didn't take me long to decide that college is high school + 1.

But why should they when they've already spent half a billion dollars for a team we all get to enjoy???? I see my penny tax as doing my part to help keep our team, as a way to say "thank you for going through all you did to bring them here." I feel so lucky to have a team. It's been way more fun than I'd imagined it would be.

Because it is a privately owned, for-profit company. Your "part" is buying season tickets, the merchandise etc.

Because it is a privately owned, for-profit company. Your "part" is buying season tickets, the merchandise etc.

the arena is NOT privately owned .. it is a city owned facility that the team rents

the arena is NOT privately owned .. it is a city owned facility that the team rents

I think he's talking about the Thunder, not the arena.

Sid: untrue. Bennett et al filed for relocation 6 weeks BEFORE they annonced the Arena scheme. He knew what the Ford was like as he was going to be the owner at the failed attempt to secure the NHL expansion franchise. They were local owners that intent on bringing a team here. Now I don't blame Bennett for trying what he did. As it had been his experience with every NBA team he had been associated with, that they received heavy public subsidy. That was his experience with the City when he was with the 89ers/Redhawks association too and the Ballpark. Fact is, at the time of the relocation, roughly half of the NBA teams had 50% or more in public subsidy for their arenas, half were below that. Some were significantly below that in the 0% percent to 15% percent range. Bennet wasn't even content to go 50/50 (what it would have been with the City already paying for the original building and the Team paying for the upgrades to bring it back up to the ever changing NBA/Team standards.

While the Arena is City owned, it was built to be an NBA/NHL arena (the ballot even required it). It has hosted other events mainly because we didn't get a permanent tenant (the Blazers and the Arena Football teams filled some of that void). Concerts etc were the bread and butter of the Arena that prevented further City subsidy.

Bellaboo: yes, I was taling about the Team and not the facility. Yes the team rents it but essentially at a loss. With what little profit the City makes on the various components on the lease itself, it will take something close to 200 years to pay for the NBA required improvements. That is presuming that no other improvements are made (which are required by the lease but largely unfunded).

Sid: untrue. Bennett et al filed for relocation 6 weeks BEFORE they annonced the Arena scheme. He knew what the Ford was like as he was going to be the owner at the failed attempt to secure the NHL expansion franchise. They were local owners that intent on bringing a team here. Now I don't blame Bennett for trying what he did. As it had been his experience with every NBA team he had been associated with, that they received heavy public subsidy. That was his experience with the City when he was with the 89ers/Redhawks association too and the Ballpark. Fact is, at the time of the relocation, roughly half of the NBA teams had 50% or more in public subsidy for their arenas, half were below that. Some were significantly below that in the 0% percent to 15% percent range. Bennet wasn't even content to go 50/50 (what it would have been with the City already paying for the original building and the Team paying for the upgrades to bring it back up to the ever changing NBA/Team standards.

While the Arena is City owned, it was built to be an NBA/NHL arena (the ballot even required it). It has hosted other events mainly because we didn't get a permanent tenant (the Blazers and the Arena Football teams filled some of that void). Concerts etc were the bread and butter of the Arena that prevented further City subsidy.

Bellaboo: yes, I was taling about the Team and not the facility. Yes the team rents it but essentially at a loss. With what little profit the City makes on the various components on the lease itself, it will take something close to 200 years to pay for the NBA required improvements. That is presuming that no other improvements are made (which are required by the lease but largely unfunded).

My personal opinion is that the investments made to the facility and to bring the team here have paid themselves off 100-fold.

My personal opinion is that the investments made to the facility and to bring the team here have paid themselves off 100-fold.

Exactly. Larry knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

Larry doesn't want the city to pay for anything. He should move to a small town with no city facilities and pay the uber low property taxes there. Pay for nothing...get nothing.

Larry,

What's it going to take to get you out of the stone age ? lol

Bennett et al filed for relocation 6 weeks BEFORE they annonced the Arena scheme.

Ah, but as Seattle just learned, an owner can file, but until the relocation committee approves, a team is going nowhere. Now, think about this logically. Seattle had an aging arena, unacceptable to the NBA. Seattle's refusal to build a new arena was the ONLY reason Clay Bennett was allowed to file for relocation. At that point, it was about a lot more than Seattle. It was a way for the NBA to send a message to all its cities that arenas had to be acceptable, and if an owner asked for a new one, the city had better take notice and build one or risk losing their team. David Stern confirmed it, but anyone with any knowledge of the NBA understood that if OKC did not approve arena improvements, there was no way the relocation committee was going to approve a move. It was no accident that the MAPS arena improvement vote was March 4 and the NBA owners' vote to move the team did not occur until April 18.

Betts: That relocation denial is a very recent event. At the time, relocations hadn't been denied in the past several relocations. Depends on when and who you asked if their 'aging arena" was acceptable. As you are well aware, Stern called the Key Arena a model arena and its lease terms the NBA standard. He has flip-flopped on the issue multiple times (from needing improvements to complete replacement). It only became unacceptable to him after Bennett decided that it wasn't acceptable and was trying to force a new arena or nothing. Yes, the NBA & owners would prefer someone else pay for their place of business (wouldn't most of us). Then after the Sonics relocated, it was acceptable for a remodel again. heck, he has probably flip-flopped on it a few more times since the Sonics relocated. Undoubtedly they would prefer all the teams received 100% taxpayer paid for arenas. But at the time, while most received at least some subsidy it varied from a low of 0% to 100%. And again, as you are well aware Stern himself said we didn't necessarily need to make any improvements to land a permanent team (blowing any contention that the arena was only acceptable for a temporary team). Of course it was no accident on the timing of the vote. The pretense was that we had to have it to secure the relocation vote. That pretense was false. They were local owners wanting to move a team here. Bennett's good buddy Stern knew it and all the owners knew it.

Exactly. Larry knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

It's good to have people like Larry who point out costs and promises, but I'm glad there are people who care about the macro benefits.

The thing you just can't get around is that these public investments (e.g., MAPs, arena), despite cost overruns and promises that fell short, have in the end been tremendously successful in revitalizing Oklahoma City.

not to quibble, but weren't the improvements paid for already via a special penny tax, a fair chunk of which was paid by out of towners instead of OKC locals? Not sure where the notion of it takes years upon years to pay off the improvements when the funds were raised up front.

Don't wanna participate in MAPs taxes? Then shop just outside OKC proper whenever possible. Your friendly retail and dining folks in the surrounding communities don't collect a penny of MAPs funds.

Bennent knew from past experience of having New Orleans in town that most people in OKC badly wanted the NBA and would be willing to fork over a little bit more money. We wouldnt be having this conversation if he didnt think the votes were there or he thought we would turn into cheapskates at the last minute like Larry suggests.

Having a crusade to have NBA owners build their own arenas is nice, but I don't think OKC was/is in any position to start a crusade. Lol

As you are well aware, Stern called the Key Arena a model arena and its lease terms the NBA standard.

when was this? and can you find me that statement? because i was unaware. However, i was aware of the fact that there were several proposals that never came to fruition to perform massive renovations to Key Arena back in 2004, something like a $200 Million renovation, and this was just 9 years after the previous renovations. So I thought it was just a known fact that Key Arena wasn't acceptable.

Ah, but as Seattle just learned, an owner can file, but until the relocation committee approves, a team is going nowhere. Now, think about this logically. Seattle had an aging arena, unacceptable to the NBA. Seattle's refusal to build a new arena was the ONLY reason Clay Bennett was allowed to file for relocation. At that point, it was about a lot more than Seattle. It was a way for the NBA to send a message to all its cities that arenas had to be acceptable, and if an owner asked for a new one, the city had better take notice and build one or risk losing their team. David Stern confirmed it, but anyone with any knowledge of the NBA understood that if OKC did not approve arena improvements, there was no way the relocation committee was going to approve a move. It was no accident that the MAPS arena improvement vote was March 4 and the NBA owners' vote to move the team did not occur until April 18.

They can't really stop a move. The reason they could/can stop Seattle is the new arena/move there is dependent on the sale of of the team. And that they very much can approve/disapprove

Betts: That relocation denial is a very recent event. At the time, relocations hadn't been denied in the past several relocations. Depends on when and who you asked if their 'aging arena" was acceptable. As you are well aware, Stern called the Key Arena a model arena and its lease terms the NBA standard. He has flip-flopped on the issue multiple times (from needing improvements to complete replacement). It only became unacceptable to him after Bennett decided that it wasn't acceptable and was trying to force a new arena or nothing. Yes, the NBA & owners would prefer someone else pay for their place of business (wouldn't most of us). Then after the Sonics relocated, it was acceptable for a remodel again. heck, he has probably flip-flopped on it a few more times since the Sonics relocated. Undoubtedly they would prefer all the teams received 100% taxpayer paid for arenas. But at the time, while most received at least some subsidy it varied from a low of 0% to 100%. And again, as you are well aware Stern himself said we didn't necessarily need to make any improvements to land a permanent team (blowing any contention that the arena was only acceptable for a temporary team). Of course it was no accident on the timing of the vote. The pretense was that we had to have it to secure the relocation vote. That pretense was false. They were local owners wanting to move a team here. Bennett's good buddy Stern knew it and all the owners knew it.

Key arena was solid in 1996

Key arena was solid in 1996

That was just after a remodel, which just brought it up to minimum standards as a new generation of stadiums went online making it obsolete for the auxiliary business that run at other arenas. The owner knew that he needed a new arena to compete long term before the remodel, he tried to put together several deals, eventually he lower the bar settling on remodeling and sold the team a few years to Schultz's group. Of note the MLB baseball stadium was built on land he had purchased as part of a plan before the remodel to build a basketball stadium on.

Regardless, those of us who voted yes not only wanted a team, we wanted a nicer arena and were willing to pay for it. I'm very happy with the improvements. I make a great effort to shop in OKC so my sales tax can help out MAPS projects.

BettsAs you are well aware, Stern called the Key Arena a model arena and its lease terms the NBA standard. It only became unacceptable to him after Bennett decided that it wasn't acceptable and was trying to force a new arena or nothing.

This is not true. The lease and arena were an issue before Bennett ever bought the team. Howard Shultz, the previous local owner, along with David Stern were using the exact same tactics with Seattle and the Washington legislature that Bennett would eventually use. In fact, it was in part due to the lease and the facility that Shultz eventually sold the team to Bennett.

From 04/14/2006, when Shultz was still owner:



Sonics owner Howard Schultz, the chairman of Starbucks Corp., has threatened to move or sell the team if state lawmakers don't approve a sales-tax package to pay for a new or renovated arena. But state lawmakers last month said there would be no deal this year.


"It's not a very good lease, to say the least it's the worst in the league," Stern said. "The city says they're not prepared to do anything to improve it. I don't think this is a difficult choice."

Stern questions Seattle's commitment to Sonics - NBA - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2407965)

Betts: That relocation denial is a very recent event. At the time, relocations hadn't been denied in the past several relocations. Depends on when and who you asked if their 'aging arena" was acceptable. As you are well aware, Stern called the Key Arena a model arena and its lease terms the NBA standard. He has flip-flopped on the issue multiple times (from needing improvements to complete replacement). It only became unacceptable to him after Bennett decided that it wasn't acceptable and was trying to force a new arena or nothing. Yes, the NBA & owners would prefer someone else pay for their place of business (wouldn't most of us). Then after the Sonics relocated, it was acceptable for a remodel again. heck, he has probably flip-flopped on it a few more times since the Sonics relocated. Undoubtedly they would prefer all the teams received 100% taxpayer paid for arenas. But at the time, while most received at least some subsidy it varied from a low of 0% to 100%. And again, as you are well aware Stern himself said we didn't necessarily need to make any improvements to land a permanent team (blowing any contention that the arena was only acceptable for a temporary team). Of course it was no accident on the timing of the vote. The pretense was that we had to have it to secure the relocation vote. That pretense was false. They were local owners wanting to move a team here. Bennett's good buddy Stern knew it and all the owners knew it.

Not true. It was Howard Schultz and the NBA that called KeyArena unacceptable as HS was trying to get a new arena and/or upgrades from the city/state prior to Bennett's arrival. It was the city and state who shut the door on the NBA when HS was owner, prompting him to sell with the agreement that Clay Bennett would give a last try. Stern went to the city of Seattle and then to the state to appeal to them; he was shown the door by Rep Chopp and the citizens of Seattle passed I-91 (requiring profit on public investment of sports venues) after Clay attempted to meet with the city after purchasing. This is when Bennett shifted from Seattle to the suburbs and there were competing deals in Bellevue and Renton. You can drive by the Renton site to this very day (The Landing) and see the empty field where the arena would have been built - but again, the state said no. After all of this and the general apathy that the city AND STATE had regarding the Sonics (there was never a public vote because polling showed it would fail miserably, so why waste state funds with a vote??), this is when Bennett prompty shifted towards relocation to OKC. He gave Seattle one final effort, if they got 10,000 season ticket holders then he would promise to stay at least through the lease (two years) and keep trying to work things out. less than 10% signed up, so there you go and the rest is history. Clay Bennett and Stern are bastardized by those not in the know or sympathizers of Sonics fans but the truth is Bennett put forth MORE effort than past owners of the Sonics and it was the city government, the state, and the people AT THAT TIME who possibly were in denial that the Sonics would ever leave (or be allowed to move) that they are to blame for the Sonics relocation. From a business prospective it made sense for the Sonics to vacate Seattle, the only question was whether OKC would be the landing spot or KC or Vancouver who also had NBA ready arenas. OKC's vote to bring it up to current NBA revenue standards made the relocation vote a slam dunk with all but 2 owners (Paul Allen sympathetic to Seattle/PacNW and Maverick's owner Cuban who thought OKC was part of his tertiary market and didn't want the competition). The 'lawsuits' were dismissed or settled because they were baseless and CB/NBA didn't want litigation to interfere with the expedited move that was necessary to set up shop in OKC in 2008 - and it also was a nice parting gift to the City of Seattle who was $40M+ in debt on KeyArena already. I know all of this as fact, as having been a resident of Seattle since 1991 yet am originally from OKC (and there are many of us up here). While it was somewhat hard to swallow losing a team, most of US are elated at OKC stepping up and challenging (and winning) against a more established city that Seattle supposedly is. In reality, Seattle just isn't a sports market. The other teams are propped up mostly by folks from Vancouver BC Canada and Portland who come to town (this is especially true for the MLB Mariners and since the CAD is at par with the USD).

when was this? and can you find me that statement? because i was unaware. However, i was aware of the fact that there were several proposals that never came to fruition to perform massive renovations to Key Arena back in 2004, something like a $200 Million renovation, and this was just 9 years after the previous renovations. So I thought it was just a known fact that Key Arena wasn't acceptable.

Stern called KeyArena as the benchmark or say as you will back immediately after the Seattle Coluseum was retrofitted and renovated to become KeyArena (what else was Stern to say to a newly renovated arena???). This was when Michael Jordan was still playing in mid 1990s and the NBA was a developing monster that it is today. Back then there was more emphasis on ticket sales and concessions and less on Luxury amenities and modern sport team facilitation. Times change, and as new arenas were built in the following years they BECAME the new standard. .... Tell me how a 14K (MAX) seat arena with little to no luxury amenities could be acceptable for Seattle, one of the nation's wealthiest markets? ??? Simply put, the team moved because they were not profitable in Seattle and the city/state road-blocked every attempt by Clay Bennett and previous owners to upgrade or build a new arena. This is fact, and the NBA is in OKC due to its overwhelming desire for a team, the tremendous support it gave to the Hornets (a HUGE financial shot in their arm by the way), and Clay Bennett's due diligence along with his said desire for OKC to have major league sports. Put all of that together unbiased and it isn't difficult to see at all who was at fault and why OKC has a successful elite franchise.

HOT ROD, you are one of the first people I've seen (including Seattle, OKC, or even media people) who have managed to describe the circumstances around the move correctly. Excellent breakdown.

Larry. I don't know what to tell you. The Thunder are here. We are hosting them. The improvements made are part of those made as being a host. I couldn't care less if we chose to make those improvements before they chose to come here or after we realized they were coming. They were improvements that needed to be made.

I'm sure you voted no, but beyond that, your judging harshly others who voted in favor of making the improvements and that's poor character on your part. Vote, but allow others to own their vote too.

Again, Stern himself said that improvements didn't necessarily need to be made for OKC to host a permanent team. There is a difference between needs and wants. With the NBA, they believe their wants are needs and they sell it to the voters that way. Be it true or not. Stern, the Hornets etc all said that the arena was state of the art and a great NBA arena. Fact is it was built to meet NBA & NHL standards (even required to do so in the MAPS Ballot language). IIRC, the arena was less than 5 years old when Cornett started talking about the need of replacing the Arena completely. All about the same time that Bennett tried to buy the Hornets, instead buying the Sonics and some in the the powers that be in government and the media started the arena-is-adequate-for a temporary-team-but-needs-replacement-or-significant-improvements-for-a-permanent-team.

Not sure what you mean by the "poor character" comment? We can agree to disagree without it becoming personal attacks. I always try to stick to the issues and not bring personalities into it. Not saying that is easy or I always mange to keep to that standard, but I do try.


when was this? and can you find me that statement? because i was unaware. However, i was aware of the fact that there were several proposals that never came to fruition to perform massive renovations to Key Arena back in 2004, something like a $200 Million renovation, and this was just 9 years after the previous renovations. So I thought it was just a known fact that Key Arena wasn't acceptable.

It was back when the rebuilt (more than just a remodel) Key Arena was opened. The video clip is floating somewhere out there on the web...I saw it.

What Stern kept flip-flopping over was if a renovation or a whole new facility (and who would be paying for it). Sorry if that wasn't clear.


not to quibble, but weren't the improvements paid for already via a special penny tax, a fair chunk of which was paid by out of towners instead of OKC locals? Not sure where the notion of it takes years upon years to pay off the improvements when the funds were raised up front. ...

Yes the money was largely raised in advance with the penny sales tax (a few million was borrowed to start some of the renovations before a single penny of the sales tax had been collected). A certain percentage does come comes from out of the OKC city limits by those that don't live here (but may work here or visit). But the vast majority was paid by OKCitians. What I was talking abut was the taxpayers getting their money back from the NBA "required" improvements. The meager profit the City gets from the Team on the Arena and the Practice Facility would indeed require close to 200 years for us to break even. Like I said, that is presuming that no other improvements are needed in that time. Something that the Team has complete discretion over and according to the terms of the lease, the City is obligated to pay for without any substantial revenue stream to pay for it. it came out in the trial by the judge that Seattle wasn't required to keep making improvements to the Key. Bennett took care of that problem here.


Bennent knew from past experience of having New Orleans in town that most people in OKC badly wanted the NBA and would be willing to fork over a little bit more money. We wouldnt be having this conversation if he didnt think the votes were there or he thought we would turn into cheapskates at the last minute like Larry suggests.

Having a crusade to have NBA owners build their own arenas is nice, but I don't think OKC was/is in any position to start a crusade. Lol
We were in one of the best negotiating positions possible because at the time we had 2 teams that wanted to come here. The Hornets and the Sonics. Add to that, the ownership of the Sonics were local home town boys…



BDP & HotRod: what you cited is just some of the many flip-flops Stern has had on the issue and previous owners before Bennett bought the team. As I mentioned above, the flip-flopping in those recent years were over if a remodel was needed or a completely new building. Bennett decided that it was a new building or relocation (no amount of remodel would do).

As far as other cities being a possible relocation, Bennett brought that up because no one was taking his threat to relocate to OKC seriously. He said as much.

it came out that the support OKC showed was largely subsidized by Bennett et al. Ticket prices were artificially kept low, etc. After the relocation many of the ticket prices we were paying for the Hornets doubled (to just a few cents below the league average). Ticket prices were a third more here than in Seattle. To Bennett's credit he maintained the league required 'cheap seats", going above and beyond the league minimum.

As far as economic impact of the Hornets and presumably with the Thunder, even the Chamber admitted there wee false assumptions made (as there are with most economic impact reports).

I remember when the Hornets went back to N.O., Stern had told Bennet to go buy the Sonics, that they had not only a 14,000 seat arena in antiquated shape, but the worst lease in the league. This happened around 2006 I believe.

And the rest is history.

Larry, you might have dug too far back in your previous analogy.

This thread is a big waste of energy. It's full of arguments reiterated from years ago. All I see when I look around OKC is Thunder shirts on people of all ages, car flags on all kinds of cars and radio sports talk monopolized by the Thunder. Everyone seems to be pretty happy we've got a team and no one has complained to me about what it took to get them here. Time to move on.

this thread is a big waste of energy. It's full of arguments reiterated from years ago. All i see when i look around okc is thunder shirts on people of all ages, car flags on all kinds of cars and radio sports talk monopolized by the thunder. Everyone seems to be pretty happy we've got a team and no one has complained to me about what it took to get them here. time to move on.

Amen !

It never fails. Every time Thunder enters the post season, someone manages to bring Seattle in the mix. LET IT GO!

As I've said before with no disrespect. Larry is OKC's Don Quixote.

Larry, times change. With the new arenas that came online and the fact that OKC is one of the smaller markets, it was most important for OKC to build in the luxury amenities to tap into this market and make the team competitive. What Stern said in 2006 was probably true for that time but it was 2008 when the team moved and you have to look into the future to ENSURE the team's success. Clay had practice with the Hornets and I'm sure they ran different models and determined that OKC best could support a 'smaller' seating arena with luxury suites and player amenities; hence what we have. Again, times change as the NBA has been evolving since the Jordan days.