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.

When one luxury seat costs more than a section of cheap seats and really nice seats at least a section row, total capacity matters less, since you are just adding more cheap seats. A lot of the newer arena's money drivers are being able to have more ways for the higher end people pay for more service, yea there often is more variety in options for everyone but most people will not spend dramatically different.

I am going to let it go for now, but some of you know you are wrong but just won't admit it.

To get back to the general thread subject, does anyone have any idea how we are going to pay for further arena improvements/replacement arena? According to the lease, the City is obligated to keep making whatever the changing needs/wants of the Team/NBA are. No mention of a monetary cap. No mention of a significant revenue source to do it.

I am going to let it go for now, but some of you know you are wrong but just won't admit it.

To get back to the general thread subject, does anyone have any idea how we are going to pay for further arena improvements/replacement arena? According to the lease, the City is obligated to keep making whatever the changing needs/wants of the Team/NBA are. No mention of a monetary cap. No mention of a significant revenue source to do it.

What the hell does it matter? For a city like OKC, having this NBA team here and be successful has done things for us that we could never, ever have done without them. We can update an arena. For god's sake man, the only things OKC was known for were tornadoes and a homegrown terrorist bombing. Can't you see what the Thunder have done for us?

What the hell does it matter? For a city like OKC, having this NBA team here and be successful has done things for us that we could never, ever have done without them. We can update an arena. For god's sake man, the only things OKC was known for were tornadoes and a homegrown terrorist bombing. Can't you see what the Thunder have done for us?

Seriously? How is the City going to pay for roughly a half-billion dollar replacement arena? If what some here are saying is correct about the timing, it might even run around a billion by then. Whee does the money come from if there is no identified significant revenue source? We are contracted by the terms of the lease to do it.

SID: please PM me and tell me where I am wrong.

Seriously? How is the City going to pay for roughly a half-billion dollar replacement arena? If what some here are saying is correct about the timing, it might even run around a billion by then. Whee does the money come from if there is no identified significant revenue source? We are contracted by the terms of the lease to do it.

SID: please PM me and tell me where I am wrong.

maps 5

Boulder: presuming that a MAPS 4 passes, and there is a MAPS 5, what if it fails? According to the terms of the lease agreement, the City still has to pay for it.

Boulder: presuming that a MAPS 4 passes, and there is a MAPS 5, what if it fails? According to the terms of the lease agreement, the City still has to pay for it.

The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

I am going to let it go for now, but some of you know you are wrong but just won't admit it.

To get back to the general thread subject, does anyone have any idea how we are going to pay for further arena improvements/replacement arena? According to the lease, the City is obligated to keep making whatever the changing needs/wants of the Team/NBA are. No mention of a monetary cap. No mention of a significant revenue source to do it.

You 'let it go' for what, an hour or so.......lol

All that doom and gloom overlooks the fact that we're already 5 years into a 15 year lease. And we will not need a new arena in the next 10 years. There will come a time when a new lease and an ownership request for a new arena will coincide, but not for the duration of this lease. At that point in time, I'm sure there will be a vote on a new arena and the team will leave or stay, depending on the outcome of the vote. That's the reality of professional sports in a small market. If I'm here, I'll be voting "yes".

mee too

Three

cinq

Rihanna will be performing on Nov 12th at the Peake. I'm very glad OKC is getting such a high profile concert!

Rihanna will be performing on Nov 12th at the Peake. I'm very glad OKC is getting such a high profile concert!

I'm going to see Byonce on July 5th.

You 'let it go' for what, an hour or so.......lol

Cute. But you missed what I was letting go of what did/didn't happen that brought us to the point we are now, which led me to my question.

All that doom and gloom overlooks the fact that we're already 5 years into a 15 year lease. And we will not need a new arena in the next 10 years. There will come a time when a new lease and an ownership request for a new arena will coincide, but not for the duration of this lease. At that point in time, I'm sure there will be a vote on a new arena and the team will leave or stay, depending on the outcome of the vote. That's the reality of professional sports in a small market. If I'm here, I'll be voting "yes".

My apologies to Bellaboo, but when folks bring up stuff that just isn't true based on the facts, or their arguments are largely emotional, warm-n-fuzzy based it, needs to be challenged.

Betts: As you are fond of saying, all the data isn't in (the lease is extendable to up to 30 years). You are making presumptions about the future without supporting evidence about the MO of the owners of this team and the likelihood of any particular scenario. Stern said the life-span of any arena is abuot 10 years. Bennett said that the improvements would suit the teams needs for the "foreseeable future" (no definition of what timeframe that was)

Larry, since you seem to have all the facts and knowledge and are not hampered by emotions, why don't you detail the MO of the team owners to allow those of us running around without knowledge or insight and helpless due to our raging emotions might see your side of the story you are trying to convey?

Anybody who cant see what a great asset the Thunder are to this city is just ignorant or doesn't want to know. Some people only see what they want to see. These kinds of debates are pointless. You may as well go argue with a light-post.

Anybody who cant see what a great asset the Thunder are to this city is just ignorant or doesn't want to know. Some people only see what they want to see. These kinds of debates are pointless. You may as well go argue with a light-post.

This crap has been going on over and over again for several years now.......some folks just don't get it and I don't think they ever will......I turn ESPN daily, and 300 out of 365 days a year I see OKC getting advertising by the Thunder.

Anybody who cant see what a great asset the Thunder are to this city is just ignorant or doesn't want to know. Some people only see what they want to see. These kinds of debates are pointless. You may as well go argue with a light-post.

+1

Interesting article about NBA arena lifespans:

Life expectancy of Arenas | NHL to Seattle (http://nhltoseattle.com/2012/08/19/life-expectancy-of-arenas/)

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).

Whether it was one side of a flip or not, it did happen before Bennett was in the picture. Bennett did not create the idea that Seattle's lease and facilities were inadequate. He certainly used that position to his advantage, but it was not original, nor was it a fabrication. Shultz had been saying as much for some time and Stern did in fact back him on his efforts to push for a new or remodeled arena that was consistently rebuffed by the legislature and the city of Seattle. You can always go back to time when all was considered peachy in the Pacific Northwest and then say any future changes were "flip flops". However, over time, things change, market demands and expectations change and that's what happened. I can understand anyone decrying the businesses practices of major league sports or any industry that relies on public investment for its success, especially by those who wave the banner of "free markets", but there is no conspiracy here. The reality is that everything that transpired was validated by democratic process. Seattle stood up to it and lost a team. However, they are now fully supportive of the process playing out between Sacramento owners and potential Seattle buyers of the Kings. The only real difference this time is they do not yet have the support of the NBA.



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.

Possibly subsidized, but not manufactured. The Thunder's prices have in no way affected ticket sales. Especially not season ticket sales, which has consistently seen a 90% retention rate with a waiting list of thousands. If anything the Hornets left a lot of money on the table and those that got to attend Hornets games should be thankful we weren't charged according to market potential.


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).

These things are almost always impossible to quantify to the million, let alone the penny. Any report saying the teams' presence haven't had a positive impact would no doubt be based on just as many suspicious assumptions and most likely convenient devaluing of tangential benefits. Either way, it would be very hard to argue with open eyes that they have had a negative impact.



...but when folks bring up stuff that just isn't true based on the facts, or their arguments are largely emotional, warm-n-fuzzy based it, needs to be challenged.

Of course they need to be challenged, but simply posing a different point of view does not render their argument invalid. The reality is that a lot of your very specific claims remain largely uncited. It would clear things up if you posted references to statements and the results of specific studies that support your position that public investment in the Thunder and the OKC arena have netted an economic loss for the community. Many have provided such things in support of the counter argument to yours, but I have yet to read anything that says it has hurt the city. Could it have been better? Sure. As with just about every deal, each side could have increased their return with more favorable terms. However, you can not accurately evaluate hypotheticals and it's impossible to know whether any deal could exist under any given imagined term. So, all you can do is evaluate reality and, again, where is the evidence that Oklahoma City's investment in the arena and its agreement with the Thunder has negatively impacted Oklahoma City's economy?

Interesting article about NBA arena lifespans:

Life expectancy of Arenas | NHL to Seattle (http://nhltoseattle.com/2012/08/19/life-expectancy-of-arenas/)

This seems to support the additional investment into the OKC arena. Such investment no doubt extended the life expectancy of the facility and it is certainly competitive in terms of amenities and infrastructure and on a scale the fits the needs of its market. The reality is that the only thing Oklahoma City could possibly gain in terms of building a new arena right now would possibly be a slight increase in capacity. Other than that, it would largely be superficial. I can not imagine a major market change in facilities in the next 10 years that, if not addressed, would generate relocation pressure, especially if we maintain top 15 attendance standing. Honestly, in my mind, the only real threat that could exist would be market saturation by another organization, but I don't see that happening.

Including the renovations, OKC has spent less than $250 million on its arena (and it's paid for) and has already been operating for over 10 years. Considering that many newer arenas spent close to twice that before ever even opening, OKC has done amazingly well with its investment.

For those that think OKC will need a new arena in the next 20 years can one of you explain why you think that? Is it just a calendar thing; look it's 2030 - time for a new arena?

For those that think OKC will need a new arena in the next 20 years can one of you explain why you think that? Is it just a calendar thing; look it's 2030 - time for a new arena.

Need a new arena... don't think we will need one... Will build one anyways... i think it is just a foregone conclusion that it will happen

I don't think there's any way to know if OKC will need a new arena within the next 20 years. I think it depends on what happens with other arenas around the country. It may be that owners discover revenue sources that we're not aware of right now. I suppose it's possible that the arena will turn out to be poorly built and not hold up well. Otherwise, we have a reasonably-sized basic shell that could be remodeled over the years if necessary.

Well that is too bad because I can think of a lot better ways to spend $500 billion (or whatever the number comes out to be).

Well that is too bad because I can think of a lot better ways to spend $500 billion (or whatever the number comes out to be).

our arena is not a top of the line arena .. we are missing a ton of amenities that the best arenas have ..

Well that is too bad because I can think of a lot better ways to spend $500 billion (or whatever the number comes out to be).

i really hope we don't spend $500 Billion on a new arena... $500 million maybe... i will agree with you that there are much better ways to spend $500 Billion!

our arena is not a top of the line arena .. we are missing a ton of amenities that the best arenas have ..

For those of us who apparently don't have a clue (me, at least), what is the Peake missing?

For those of us who apparently don't have a clue (me, at least), what is the Peake missing?

Well, then you need to go experience places outside our little area. Heck, just go to Dallas and see theirs.

For those of us who apparently don't have a clue (me, at least), what is the Peake missing?

for a start several more bar and restaurant options including in the 300 level ... likely the next arena will have another level of suites (perhaps below the club level) more lodge seats as well as just slightly bigger seats in general (such as a cup holder in every lower and club level seat)

for a start several more bar and restaurant options including in the 300 level ... likely the next arena will have another level of suites (perhaps below the club level) more lodge seats as well as just slightly bigger seats in general (such as a cup holder in every lower and club level seat)

I'm not a huge guy by any means, but I swear to god this arena has the tiniest seats I've ever experienced. The 300 level seats are unbearable.

Do we have a shortage to suites now? I'll admit the seats don't leave much room but they are all filled. A bigger seat won't increase ticket sales.

Do we have a shortage to suites now? I'll admit the seats don't leave much room but they are all filled. A bigger seat won't increase ticket sales.

we do not have a shortage of suites right now, no... but as OKC goes the thought is that more corporate purchasing of seat could happen, and so more suites would be needed

i really hope we don't spend $500 Billion on a new arena... $500 million maybe... i will agree with you that there are much better ways to spend $500 Billion!I was thinking about a billion(in todays figures)

Well that is too bad because I can think of a lot better ways to spend $500 billion (or whatever the number comes out to be).

HA. Easy, tiger. $500 billion on a new arena?! I think (hope?) you meant million. Cowboy Stadium in Arlington is incredibly nice and it was just over $1 billion.

our arena is not a top of the line arena .. we are missing a ton of amenities that the best arenas have ..

Of course it's not better than the Staples Center or AA arena. When we triple the city's size and wealth you might see that. However, it has many of the revenue generating amenities necessary and at the cost of t least half of what a top of the line arena costs. I am pretty confident we got an amazing bang for the buck here and that's mainly by not blowing it on trying to win an exterior design award.


Well, then you need to go experience places outside our little area. Heck, just go to Dallas and see theirs.

Yes. When you spend twice as much, you'll get twice as much. Of course, you're market should probably be twice as big and twice as wealthy, too.


Well that is too bad because I can think of a lot better ways to spend $500 billion [sic] (or whatever the number comes out to be).

Well, if OKC's economy and profile keeps improving as it has been, you may get what you want, ALSO.


I'm not a huge guy by any means, but I swear to god this arena has the tiniest seats I've ever experienced.

It's always funny to hear this as those seats are dead center average size of most arenas (or were when it was built). I have literally been to dozens of arenas and not once, outside of luxury or premiem seating, did I ever say "wow this is really comfortable", especially not in the cheap seats. Most of the time it's barely bearable, until the event starts and then I stop even caring. I think most people just compare them to a megaplex seat. If you compared them to broadway, you'd feel pampered. And if you don't like heights, do not buy upper level seats at the Staples Center.

The most likely thing a new arena might need would be more suites. The suites in this arena were sold out BEFORE the NBA came here, with no major league tenant in sight. If you watch games in other markets (Dallas was mentioned as an example, but there are many others) many of the buildings have two and more levels of suites compared to our one. So already there is a case to be made that the market is only partially met.

Another trend in sports right now is to expand the before- and after-game dining and entertainment options by building what amounts to a self-contained entertainment center around the facility. This goes even further than what BoulderSooner was saying about more restaurants. In general, owners would like to capture as much of the revenue generated around their events as they can. Therefore if people pregame and postgame at the arena thanks to enhanced entertainment options, they want to do that. This unfortunately would take away dollars from places like Bricktown and other downtown districts, but that is the way the business is going. It gives owners a better chance of surviving in the era of outlandish player salaries. That is really what this whole thing is about. As salaries have spiraled out-of-control, the owners started jealously guarding all possible revenue streams in an effort to stay profitable or at the very least solvent, and you can expect that to continue.

The next arena development plan, assuming there is one, would likely be more than simply an arena. THAT is the difference.

Contrast all of this with Key Arena and you can understand why the Sonics ownership(s) even pre-Clay & Co. were in such a hurry to get a new building or leave. Not only were they in a building with virtually no suites (similar to a really nice Cox Center), they also really DID have a horrible lease. I read the entire thing (90+ pages) the day the OKC guys bought the team. I read a copy of the lease faxed from someone in Seattle and pored through it. The team also got ZERO profit from concessions, AND they paid rent AND a share of the mortgage. There was also an escalator on the rent that was growing out-of-control. The lease might have seemed OK to whoever signed it when they signed it in the mid-nineties, but it was set up to give the team a royal screwing by ten to twelve years later. That's why the various owner groups cried so much. It was actually legitimate. Whoever signed it for the ownership in the nineties was extremely short-sighted. Don't expect that when our lease with the Thunder comes up for renewal.

I'm not a huge guy by any means, but I swear to god this arena has the tiniest seats I've ever experienced. The 300 level seats are unbearable.

The seats in the 300 level are not as wide as the lower levels. Only the club level have the cup holders, IIRC.

I'm 6'6" and closer to 300 pounds than I care to admit, and I've never had trouble with the 300-level seats. Are they as nice as Harkins or AMC theater seats? Of course not. They're not supposed to be. As was mentioned above, once the game starts, my focus is less on the comfort of my seat and more on the action down below. I have a tendency to stand a lot during the game, particularly if it's close, which brings up one of the nicer aspects of the 300 level. The slope of the seating is great enough that I can stand without blocking the people behind me (well, let's just say I've never been asked to sit down during a game).

Interesting article done by Steve about the Thunder's economic impact on OKC:

Thunder economic impact estimate tops $64 million for the current season.
Thunder home games offer big boost to the local economy, according to those who estimate such things.

The formula provided by the Destination Marketing Association International estimates that for each in-town guest (those who travel within metro area) will spend $65, compared to those outside the metro, like Robbins, who are expected to spend $216.

Read the rest of Steve's article at: Thunder economic impact estimate tops $64 million for the current season. | News OK (http://newsok.com/thunder-economic-impact-estimate-tops-64-million-for-the-current-season./article/3811956)

I wonder if someone calculated the economic impact of everything in OKC how close it would be to the national GDP. As for the Robbins clan, they seem to have figured out the benefits of urban living, even if it is just part-time.

Interesting article done by Steve about the Thunder's economic impact on OKC:

Thunder economic impact estimate tops $64 million for the current season.
Thunder home games offer big boost to the local economy, according to those who estimate such things.

The formula provided by the Destination Marketing Association International estimates that for each in-town guest (those who travel within metro area) will spend $65, compared to those outside the metro, like Robbins, who are expected to spend $216.

Read the rest of Steve's article at: Thunder economic impact estimate tops $64 million for the current season. | News OK (http://newsok.com/thunder-economic-impact-estimate-tops-64-million-for-the-current-season./article/3811956)

Alright Larry, Where are you now ??? LOL

...Of course they need to be challenged, but simply posing a different point of view does not render their argument invalid. The reality is that a lot of your very specific claims remain largely uncited. It would clear things up if you posted references to statements and the results of specific studies that support your position that public investment in the Thunder and the OKC arena have netted an economic loss for the community. Many have provided such things in support of the counter argument to yours, but I have yet to read anything that says it has hurt the city. Could it have been better? Sure. As with just about every deal, each side could have increased their return with more favorable terms. However, you can not accurately evaluate hypotheticals and it's impossible to know whether any deal could exist under any given imagined term. So, all you can do is evaluate reality and, again, where is the evidence that Oklahoma City's investment in the arena and its agreement with the Thunder has negatively impacted Oklahoma City's economy?
i used to cite constantly because I would be accused of making stuff up or taking things out of context )neither was true). Whenever possible I would cite and give the link etc. Then the complaints came that my posts were too long and no one would read them etc. Partially for the sake of brevity cites have been removed, but also now, I am doing this largely from memory and don't have the particular cites handy. Don't want to take the time to dig all that info up again. By the way, it when it comes to citing everything, most others do the same as I am doing now. They throw their unsubstantiated opinion out there. Hmm. looking at your post, i am not seeing a single cite either????

I do see that they are back to a waiting list and they do have a relative higher retention rate. But you do recall that season or two when the waiting list of thousands vanished completely and they didn't sell all of the season tickets???



...Whoever signed it for the ownership in the nineties was extremely short-sighted. Don't expect that when our lease with the Thunder comes up for renewal.
Does that apply to the NBA/Stern that approved the lease? Stern himself spoke of the Key and lease as a model for the NBA. Oh well.



The seats in the 300 level are not as wide as the lower levels. Only the club level have the cup holders, IIRC.
When the Arena first opened, one of the biggest complaints they got was the tiny seats and the cup holders got in the way. Complaints were so numerous, they ended up removing most of the cup holders. It is my understanding that part of the upgrades meant wider seats for a lot of the building and maybe cup holders again too. I have only been in the arena once for one of the 1st eason Thunder games and don't recall if that is true or not.


Alright Larry, Where are you now ??? LOL
Right here, have been away from the site for a few days. if you read the article you may have missed this because it was mentioned somewhat in passing near the end:
http://newsok.com/thunder-economic-impact-estimate-tops-64-million-for-the-current-season./article/3811956

Some economists have noted that economic impact figures surrounding sporting events fail to account for the fact that residents are merely shifting their entertainment spending.
This very point was argued by both Seattle and the Sonics during the trial. For example, when Bennett was trying to get a new arena, the Sonics had a tremendous economic impact, but when he was trying to get out of their lease, they argued that the Sonics had little to no economic impact. To be fair, Seattle did the same flip-flop concerning economic impact.

When the Arena first opened, one of the biggest complaints they got was the tiny seats and the cup holders got in the way. Complaints were so numerous, they ended up removing most of the cup holders. It is my understanding that part of the upgrades meant wider seats for a lot of the building and maybe cup holders again too. I have only been in the arena once for one of the 1st eason Thunder games and don't recall if that is true or not.

I don't think people were complaining about the cup holder being there. What I heard was people were complaining that the seats were so small there wasn't enough room for the cup holder. The solution wasn't to take the cup holder away because they weren't really the problem. The solution would have been to increase individual seating space. I recall seats being replaced with smaller seats or they were moved back even just a half-inch (meaning OKC was trying to squeeze every bit of space possible).

I don't think people were complaining about the cup holder being there. What I heard was people were complaining that the seats were so small there wasn't enough room for the cup holder. The solution wasn't to take the cup holder away because they weren't really the problem. The solution would have been to increase individual seating space. I recall seats being replaced with smaller seats or they were moved back even just a half-inch (meaning OKC was trying to squeeze every bit of space possible).

The seats in this arena are incredibly narrow. I'm there for Thunder basketball so I focus on the game, but the seats absolutely suck.

I don't think people were complaining about the cup holder being there. What I heard was people were complaining that the seats were so small there wasn't enough room for the cup holder. The solution wasn't to take the cup holder away because they weren't really the problem. The solution would have been to increase individual seating space. I recall seats being replaced with smaller seats or they were moved back even just a half-inch (meaning OKC was trying to squeeze every bit of space possible).

The seats in Loud City (upper tier) are the narrowest. The cup holders were removed from Loud City not too long after the building opened.

I have club level seats (second tier) for the Thunder games. These still have cup holders, but the seats are wider than the upper deck by a couple of inches. I sat in the lower bowl one game this year, and they do not have cup holders.

The seats in this arena are incredibly narrow. I'm there for Thunder basketball so I focus on the game, but the seats absolutely suck.

Narrow and no room to stretch the ol' legs out. More than that, my legs are at a 90 degree angle at the knee when I sit. Can't even begin to move my feet forward. I am 6'2" so a little tall but by no stretch am I among the tallest that will be sitting in those seats.

Club level by far has the best seating. cupholders and more room. Plus it feels like less people actually in seats in club level (probably out in concourse bar areas).

If you read the article you may have missed this because it was mentioned somewhat in passing near the end:
Thunder economic impact estimate tops $64 million for the current season. | News OK (http://newsok.com/thunder-economic-impact-estimate-tops-64-million-for-the-current-season./article/3811956)

Some economists have noted that economic impact figures surrounding sporting events fail to account for the fact that residents are merely shifting their entertainment spending.

This very point was argued by both Seattle and the Sonics during the trial. For example, when Bennett was trying to get a new arena, the Sonics had a tremendous economic impact, but when he was trying to get out of their lease, they argued that the Sonics had little to no economic impact. To be fair, Seattle did the same flip-flop concerning economic impact.

I have heard this argument more times than I would like to count and I still don't buy it. Just because I am going to the game doesn't mean if I wasn't going I would spend that money elsewhere. I'll give you an example: My wife signed up for smart hours through OG&E and won four tickets to Game 5 versus the Grizzlies. The two of us and her two sisters went to the game. We all bought BBQ at the game and ended up spending around $75 in drinks and snacks. Our (my wife and I) plan for that evening was to stay home, cook dinner and just stay in and watch TV. Her two sisters were going to get off work and go home. So, because we got tickets to the game, we spent an extra $75. If we wouldn't have gotten tickets, we wouldn't have spent that money. Most games we go to (5-7 a year) we get the tickets for free and they are usually last minute so we aren't shifting our spending, we are spending money that we otherwise wouldn't have spent had it not been for the game.

Hmm. looking at your post, i am not seeing a single cite either????

I posted the archived article earlier for your reference.


But you do recall that season or two when the waiting list of thousands vanished completely and they didn't sell all of the season tickets???

No waiting list! GASP! Do you realize how rare season ticket waiting lists are? Given that the Thunder has consistently been in the top third of the league in ticket sales, while maintaining a renewal rate well above the league average even in the worst economic years, questioning their performance in that aspect just comes off as ignorant. The Thunder has outperformed many larger markets in season ticket sales and rentention, no matter what year you want to talk about. Here's some perspective:

2008:

13,000 Thunder season tickets were sold Friday, and the team has put names on a waiting list for games at the Ford Center.

Waiting list begun for Oklahoma City season tickets - NBA - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3585230)

2008:

Oklahoma's NBA franchise will join the Celtics, Lakers and Suns as one of only four teams with season ticket waiting lists.

Thunder season tickets sold out - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=9001957)


2009 (aka the worst economic year in decades)

Senior vice president of ticket sales and service Brian Byrnes said Wednesday the team projects a renewal rate of about 83 or 84 percent.

Despite economy, Thunder season ticket sales remain strong » Sports » MuskogeePhoenix.com, Muskogee, OK (http://muskogeephoenix.com/sports/x2129032909/Despite-economy-Thunder-season-ticket-sales-remain-strong)

2010:

League officials would not disclose which team ranks the highest in new full-season-ticket sales, but the five teams with the highest number of new full sales are the Chicago Bulls, Miami Heat, New York Knicks, Oklahoma City Thunder and Orlando Magic.


Offseason frenzy drives NBA box office - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal | SportsBusiness Daily Global (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2010/09/20100927/This-Weeks-Issue/Offseason-Frenzy-Drives-NBA-Box-Office.aspx)

2010:


93 percent of the Thunder’s Season Ticket Members have renewed their seats for the 2010-11 season.

Oklahoma City Thunder 2009-10 By the Numbers | THE OFFICIAL SITE OF THE OKLAHOMA CITY THUNDER (http://www.nba.com/thunder/news/numbers_release100506.html)

2012:

Just six weeks into its 2012-13 season-ticket renewal campaign, the Oklahoma City Thunder already has sold out its full-season-ticket allotment for next year, the earliest the small-market franchise has sold out of its inventory.

Thunder sells out '12-13 season tickets, starts wait list - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal | SportsBusiness Daily Global (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/04/09/Franchises/Thunder.aspx)



Some economists have noted that economic impact figures surrounding sporting events fail to account for the fact that residents are merely shifting their entertainment spending.

I could see this being true in markets where there are a ton of major entertainment events from which to choose on a daily basis. However, this just isn't the case in Oklahoma. You'd be hard pressed to come up with another entertainment option in the state of Oklahoma where you could spend the same amount of money in a year as people do on season tickets. But let's give it a shot. An average season ticket price is $47.15 (OKC Thunder: Season-ticket prices going up for 2013-14 season | News OK (http://newsok.com/okc-thunder-season-ticket-prices-going-up-for-2013-14-season/article/3757349)) or $1980.30 for a 42 game season (41 home games and a preseason game). So, if you were going to spend that money elsewhere on tickets to entertainment in Oklahoma City, you'd have to:

- Go to 249.7 movies with an average ticket price of $7.93 (NATO | Statistics | Average U.S. Ticket Prices (http://www.natoonline.org/statisticstickets.htm))

- Go to the zoo 247.53 times with adult admission at $8 (- Oklahoma City Zoo (http://www.okczoo.com/hours-and-admission/))

- Go to the National Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum 158.42 times with an adult admission of $12.50 (Plan Your Visit! (http://www.nationalcowboymuseum.org/info/planning/default.aspx))

- Go to the Science Museum 165.71 times with adult admission at $11.95 (Tickets | Science Museum Oklahoma (http://www.sciencemuseumok.org/tickets.html))

- Go to Frontier City or White Water 73.37 times (or just buy 28 season passes) (https://www.frontiercity.com/buy-tickets/daily-admission/)

- Go to 62 average concerts or see Paul McCartney 14 times (Digital Music News - The Average Price for a Concert Ticket? $31.57... (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/050511ticket))

- Buy 2.75 Red Hawks season tickets (field seats) (http://www.milb.com/documents/2011/10/26/25796902/1/OKC-10950_Ticket_Package_Field_Seat.pdf)

- Buy 2.26 "Blue Level" season tickets to the Barons (OKC Barons | The Official Site of The Oklahoma City Barons (http://www.okcbarons.com/index.cfm?fa=seasontickets))

- Go to the OKCMOA 165 times (Hours and Admissions :: OKCMOA (http://www.okcmoa.com/visit/hours-and-admissions/))

Feel free to add to this list.

So, as you can see, if the average season ticket holder was spending $2000 a year on tickets to entertainment events before they bought thunder tickets, it would be pretty freakin amazing if all of these events were in Oklahoma City. Now if the equivalent of Disney World, LegoLand, Six Flags, Sea World, the Staples Center, and Broadway were in Oklahoma City along with multiple major league franchises, then yeah, that $2000 would probably represent a shift away from somewhere else. But I seriously doubt any Thunder ticket holder has gone to 200+ movies in a year...

You could buy five tickets to all Lyric Theater productions sitting in the center orchestra for all eight shows this next year.

You could buy five tickets to all Lyric Theater productions sitting in the center orchestra for all eight shows this next year.

Probably a bad example as the Broadway Series has the highest renewal rate in the country with record season ticket holders, and the Lyric is right there with them. The Thunder not only don't take from them, the Thunder has helped raise the awareness nationally of OKC as a major entertainment market and is helping attract top tier shows.

And about the seats

FWIW, Chesapeake's seats are 19"-22" wide (Managers adjusting arena seats Ford Center staff reworking armrest, cup holder placement | News OK (http://newsok.com/managers-adjusting-arena-seats-ford-center-staff-reworking-armrest-cup-holder-placement/article/2797953)).

For comparison, here are some widths of other venues:

Cox Arena: 18" - 21" (see above)
Staples Center: 19.5" - 21" (Raising the Roof - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/1999/oct/10/magazine/tm-20785))
Yankee Stadium: 19" - 24" (Yankee Stadium Comparison | yankees.com: Ballpark (http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/nyy/ballpark/new_stadium_comparison.jsp))
BofA Stadium: 19" - 21" (Carolina Panthers | Stadium Facts Overview (http://www.panthers.com/stadium/facts.html))


And a coach airline seat is typically 17" - 18" (Business: The Chair (http://www.sptimes.com/2003/07/21/Business/The_Chair.shtml))

Let's not let facts get in the way of a few good complaints. LOL

Let's not let facts get in the way of a few good complaints. LOL

Facts? So the fact that there are other seats in the world that are within the same size range means the seats in the arena aren't too narrow? Okay, that makes a lot of sense. You're so right.

Your condescension is getting old. The seats in the Chesapeake Energy Arena are too narrow and are uncomfortable. I'm not sure what width seat I have, 19" or 22", but the one I sit in is uncomfortably narrow. As for the other arenas, we weren't talking about any of them. I don't know a single person that finds airline coach seats to be pleasantly spacious.

Facts? So the fact that there are other seats in the world that are within the same size range means the seats in the arena aren't too narrow?

Well, yes, sort of. It at least means that if the seats are too narrow in the Chesapeake, then they are too narrow in most venues. The reality is that wider seats mean less seats in the same amount of space, so the city and the designer have to consider capacity and cost and then built it to typical standards. I guess I just don't understand why Oklahoma City should be expected to go bigger than even some of the best and newest venues around. I'm not trying to be condescending. Just practical.



I don't know a single person that finds airline coach seats to be pleasantly spacious.

Very true, but people sit in them with nothing to do for much longer than they do for a concert or basketball game. It was mainly just for comparison / perspective.

The fact is that the seats are very competitive with every new venue I have been at across America for the past 10 years. But, in the sense that obesity is a major problem and that we may need to keep widening the seats, maybe you are correct.

I suggest that you now go to Penn Square AMC to the movies too. They have big, big recliners for seats, like Lazyboys. However, I doubt you will find any of those at ANY arena for a good long while....like never. Or, you can take a suite in the arena maybe put a sofa.

Well, yes, sort of. It at least means that if the seats are too narrow in the Chesapeake, then they are too narrow in most venues. The reality is that wider seats mean less seats in the same amount of space, so the city and the designer have to consider capacity and cost and then built it to typical standards. I guess I just don't understand why Oklahoma City should be expected to go bigger than even some of the best and newest venues around. I'm not trying to be condescending. Just practical.



Very true, but people sit in them with nothing to do for much longer than they do for a concert or basketball game. It was mainly just for comparison / perspective.

BDP, I appreciate the comparison for the sake of perspective. I haven't been to the Cox Center since high school, but I've been to every other arena you mentioned within in the last 18 months and the seats didn't feel as narrow as CHK's did to me.

Rover, obesity probably does have a lot to do with the seats being uncomfortable. I should clarify that I fit in my seat pretty well; my problem is how cramped it becomes when someone sits next to me. I'm 6' 1", so I'm not that tall, but I can say that when I go to the games, I feel exceedingly cramped and I have to squeeze my shoulders in and it's just really uncomfortable. The seats may be competitive with other venues, but with people getting bigger, we may need to look at bigger seats and adjust capacity and design accordingly.

What's the point of your theatre comment? Weight joke? Something else?