I think that the new entrance is as much about creating more space as it is about a new entrance. The southwest corner is really the only area where the arena could be expanded. When I-40 opens next year Robinson will become a primary route of entry into dowtown for westbound interstate drivers.

They had plans to build a practice court in another section but that was dropped due to the sales tax being 10 million short.

Here's how I see it happening.....in another 20 years or so we'll be ready to look at a new arena and by that time, the new convention center is built so the Myrid is ready to come down. BAM, there's the land for the new building so there isn't anything to purchase, just some demo to do. By then, the Myriad will be 50...time to go. We'll maintain the "across-the-street" status and the Ford Center becomes what the Myriad is now...the secondary arena for meetings, hockey, etc. The hand-me-down's from one arena to the other have done great things for the Myriad in terms of updating it lately (ie the scoreboard from the Ford Center), so we are really in a good place to continue. I think the city sees the value in what is here with the Ford Center and the Thunder. Now the question is, can we maintain that in the future or will one side become greedy and think they deserve more of the pie?

That seems ideal. My only concern is that the Myriad site is not large enough to accommodate an arena up to 2031 standards or whenever the new arena is built. I'm not familiar with the size of the site, though.

Wasn't the LED screen going to be right above the future SW entrance? Isn't that what the renderings suggested? Or is that just static Thunder advertisement?

Wasn't the LED screen going to be right above the future SW entrance? Isn't that what the renderings suggested? Or is that just static Thunder advertisement?

Their were renderings of one their at a point, but at this time the only one planed to go in this round is on the north side and it is having issues with city ordinances. They apparently are wiring the southwest side so one could go in at one point though.

That seems ideal. My only concern is that the Myriad site is not large enough to accommodate an arena up to 2031 standards or whenever the new arena is built. I'm not familiar with the size of the site, though.

Take a look at a google map or something. The footprint of the Myriad site is almost double that of the Ford Center. The concern should actually be looking at having the one that goes on the current Ford Center site. The Myriad has a plot as large as the Myriad Gardens, while the Ford Center has a little over half of that. They made it "work" by angling the arena on a 45.

should the owners then if they build their own arena keep all the profit and tickets sales for the events all year long?

Sure, just as the current owners of the building (the City/taxpayers) should be getting all of the profit. But Bennett won't do it as he has stated he doesn't think arenas can be run at a profit. So he is more than happy to have someone else pay for his place of business AND take part of the profits to a building he doesn't own (eventual naming rights etc).

Just as is done in most cities for most professional teams. For the nth time: we are a very small market. We didn't pay a penny to help purchase the Thunder. Bennett has spent almost half a billion dollars to bring a team to OKC. That team has immeasurably enhanced quality of life, civic pride and national and international awareness of our city. Most NBA teams make very little money or operate in the red. It will take the owners decades to break even on their investment, most likely. We are not sharing Bennetts financial risk. I consider it well worth a few pennies a day for a few years, personally.

Just as is done in most cities for most professional teams. For the nth time: we are a very small market. We didn't pay a penny to help purchase the Thunder. Bennett has spent almost half a billion dollars to bring a team to OKC. That team has immeasurably enhanced quality of life, civic pride and national and international awareness of our city. Most NBA teams make very little money or operate in th red. We are not sharing Bennetts financial risk. I consider it well worth a few pennies a day for a few years, personally.

Betts,
Some will never understand the significant (personal and financial)costs expended by this teams owners (esp Mr. Bennett) to bring world class basketball to OKC. For all the reasons you stated people like me who live out of State buy season tickets to the Thunder because we understand the "value" of them being in my home State. As I have said on numerous occassions, I hope the owners make lots of money! the exposure OKC is receiving across the nation as a result of Basketball has been tremendous. I am extremely proud to talk about, brag about, wear the gear and promote the team and my home State, you cannot place a monetary value on that. Go Thunder!

Sure, just as the current owners of the building (the City/taxpayers) should be getting all of the profit. But Bennett won't do it as he has stated he doesn't think arenas can be run at a profit. So he is more than happy to have someone else pay for his place of business AND take part of the profits to a building he doesn't own (eventual naming rights etc).

The Thunder are renting the arena, are they not? I don't see how that is at the taxpayer's expense.

The Thunder are renting the arena, are they not? I don't see how that is at the taxpayer's expense.

If the taxpayers didn't make a conscientious effort to extend the one cent sales tax, the team wouldn't be here. Take that for what it's worth, lol.

(Nevermind this post. I read yours wrong...)

Sure, just as the current owners of the building (the City/taxpayers) should be getting all of the profit. But Bennett won't do it as he has stated he doesn't think arenas can be run at a profit. So he is more than happy to have someone else pay for his place of business AND take part of the profits to a building he doesn't own (eventual naming rights etc).

The city knew what they were getting into, the only thing they are assured is the contracts with Bennett. (Which may not even be that sure ask the people in Seattle.) Some PR and donations are likely but probably not in writing. Things they get along with the team is national attention, quality of life, possible draw for new residents or more reasons to stay for current residents, taxes on tickets, food and entertainment as people go. They knew that when the passed the original MAPS as the stadium was built as the core essentials to be upgraded if a major hockey or basketball team could be drawn, and felt it was of great importance because in the early 1990's downtown was dieing.

Sure, just as the current owners of the building (the City/taxpayers) should be getting all of the profit. But Bennett won't do it as he has stated he doesn't think arenas can be run at a profit. So he is more than happy to have someone else pay for his place of business AND take part of the profits to a building he doesn't own (eventual naming rights etc).

Imagine the life changing difference it would make to the city..They could repave a quarter mile of a highway with that huge sum

Betts,
Some will never understand the significant (personal and financial)costs expended by this teams owners (esp Mr. Bennett) to bring world class basketball to OKC. For all the reasons you stated people like me who live out of State buy season tickets to the Thunder because we understand the "value" of them being in my home State. As I have said on numerous occassions, I hope the owners make lots of money! the exposure OKC is receiving across the nation as a result of Basketball has been tremendous. I am extremely proud to talk about, brag about, wear the gear and promote the team and my
home State, you cannot place a monetary value on that. Go Thunder!
:congrats::kicking::congrats::kicking:

I still have a little frisson of joy renewing my season tickets. I've lived here so many years hoping, without much actual hope, for professional sports. It's still fairly unbelievable to me that we can take for granted the fact that the Thunder will be playing 41+ games in OKC again next year and we've already finished paying to have them here.

WOW, where to begin? How about 1 by 1?

Just as is done in most cities for most professional teams. For the nth time: we are a very small market. We didn't pay a penny to help purchase the Thunder. Bennett has spent almost half a billion dollars to bring a team to OKC. That team has immeasurably enhanced quality of life, civic pride and national and international awareness of our city. Most NBA teams make very little money or operate in the red. It will take the owners decades to break even on their investment, most likely. We are not sharing Bennetts financial risk. I consider it well worth a few pennies a day for a few years, personally.
Bennett's investment was just that, an investment in the team, they deserve all profit derived from directly from the team (but NOT from the taxpayer paid for facility). if they want the profit from that, build it. The owners went on record as stating they would be happy just to break even, yet are making a conservative multi-million $$$ profit. In stark contrast to the "break even" philosophy the City took, which pretty much ended up being the case. If the NBA business model is that broken that public subsidy is required, then they need to fix the broken business model, or have the cities share in the ownership of the team (and the profits). The owners will most likely get a healthy return on their investment when they eventually sell the team (as EVERY previous owner of the Sonics/Thunder has done). Even Schultz with his multi-million $$$ yearly losses got all of the investment back, the losses AND a tidy profit.

The Thunder are renting the arena, are they not? I don't see how that is at the taxpayer's expense.
They are renting it, but essentially "at cost", after the City's expenses are covered, the City Manager & Mayor both said they were just looking at "breaking even" and maybe getting a $100K profit out of it. This is in stark contrast to the $1M profit the City saw when the Hornets were here (again, after the City was reimbursed for all of its expenses). The main difference between the 2 deals? Bennett was sitting on the City's side for the $1M profit and the other side of the table when that dropped down to $100K for the City. You didn't mention naming rights, but this was another area where the City failed in the Break-even" philosophy. Under the terms, the City is getting $100K+/year LESS than what they were getting under the Ford agreement.


If the taxpayers didn't make a conscientious effort to extend the one cent sales tax, the team wouldn't be here. Take that for what it's worth, lol.

(Nevermind this post. I read yours wrong...)
Not sure if the last part was directed at me or not, so here it goes anyway...The team was coming here no matter what happened with the arena vote. The fact is, Bennett filed/announced the relocation of the team 6 weeks BEFORE the vote date was set/announced. Bennett knew what the Ford was like (he was going to be part of the ownership group of the NHL team that we lost out on). He knew the condition when the Hornets were here (he was heavily instrumental in that happening). He knew the condition of the Ford when he purchased the Sonics. He knew what it was when he announced the relocation.


The city knew what they were getting into, the only thing they are assured is the contracts with Bennett. (Which may not even be that sure ask the people in Seattle.) Some PR and donations are likely but probably not in writing. Things they get along with the team is national attention, quality of life, possible draw for new residents or more reasons to stay for current residents, taxes on tickets, food and entertainment as people go. They knew that when the passed the original MAPS as the stadium was built as the core essentials to be upgraded if a major hockey or basketball team could be drawn, and felt it was of great importance because in the early 1990's downtown was dieing.
Had heard (but haven't seen the substantiation) that the City can charge a tax on the NBA tickets, but has declined to do so. Again, due to cost over runs, amenities were cut back in an attempt to keep it within budget (but still went $8M+ over), with the intent of the eventual tenant to pay for the costs of the upgrades.

i know for an almost 100% fact that the thunder would not be here if the people had voted down the arena inprovements

To late to edit my previous answer so here is an addendum...


Just as is done in most cities for most professional teams.
True, most cities do have some level of public financing for their arenas, but that doesn't mean that all or even most are 100% public financed (as OKC is). The distribution ranges from Zero to 100%, with it being fairly evenly split among those at 50% and above w/public financing, and those that are below.


For the nth time: we are a very small market.
3/25/08

....here's what New Jersey Nets Owner Lewis Katz said about Oklahoma City.
In my judgment, this is going to be an amazing experience for the NBA, amazing," Katz said.
Katz is part of the league's relocation committee. He said Oklahoma City is a big time sports town.
"You keep talking about being a small market, you're not a small market," Katz said.
But even if you go along with the small market idea, it is seen as a plus (especially in OKC's case), from Stern just last year...

Oklahoma City is the latest in a line of small-market, one-major-league-sport towns that have become an NBA specialty.
While Stern sees the success in Oklahoma City fitting with the legacy of San Antonio, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Orlando and Portland, something here is “unique.”
“If you look at the history of the NBA’s small-market franchises, not having professional sports competition allows us to maximize revenue and fan support,” Stern said.



We didn't pay a penny to help purchase the Thunder. ... I consider it well worth a few pennies a day for a few years, personally.
Try 15 to 30 years. The 15 month Ford tax just covered the down payment. Now we have to be concerned about the "mortgage"...

As you know, during the Seattle litigation, the Judge asked if there was anything in the Key lease that required Seattle to keep the arena up to whatever the shifting NBA standards might be. Answer was “No”. Bennett took care of that problem with the OKC lease (applies to both the arena and the practice facility):

I. Maintenance and Repair; Capital Improvements:
THE CITY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE for paying all Capital Improvements: general maintenance and repair costs reasonably necessary in order to ensure THAT THE ARENA CONTINUES TO BE A FIRST-CLASS NBA ARENA.
The City is required by the terms of the lease to keep paying for continual upgrades (which could easily mean paying for a new arena) for the next 15 to 30 years...with virtually no funding source. Do the math yourself, but it has cost us $100+ million after just 5 years to bringing the arena back up to the NBA standards (avg. $20M/year and the only dedicated money going towards that is the naming rights money that only comes to about half a million/year. That leaves us $19.5M/year in the hole.

in the cases that an arena was buillt with a split of public and private funds .. the private party gets a share of all arena revenue


fyi we didn't bring the arena "back up" to nba standards .. it was never build to nba standards ... it was a on the cheep downtown arena that served our needs at the time..

i know for an almost 100% fact that the thunder would not be here if the people had voted down the arena inprovements

And what do you base that on? I have seen no credible evidence to support what you are saying. Even if the improvements had been defeated at the polls, everyone involved wanted the team here (Stern, Owners, City leadership etc). They would have figured out something (even if it meant paying for it themselves). It was even admitted by a staunch supporter that in the past several years, every relocation has been approved. Why? As Maverick's owner Cuban said to the effect "you would be amazed at what these owners will do for a million dollars" (what each team gets when a team relocates). That added to the "you vote for my relocation, I'll vote for your's" mindset of most of the owners, and they play along.

in the cases that an arena was buillt with a split of public and private funds .. the private party gets a share of all arena revenue


fyi we didn't bring the arena "back up" to nba standards .. it was never build to nba standards ... it was a on the cheep downtown arena that served our needs at the time..

Ummm, yes we did...or we were lied to on the Ballot itself and we were lied to by City leadership though the years. Take your pick.

As to the 1st part of your post, I have no problem with a split if the Owners and City share in the cost of the facility. The Thunder contributed ZERO towards the Arena (building it or the improvements) so they deserved ZERO of the profits. if they had paid for the improvements, it would have brought it down to a nearly 50/50 split.

I swear, some people need to move to Gotebo or Uncas or some other bus stop town (no offense to these, I'm sure fine towns) where they won't be asked to support anything that improves the quality of life and where they can live the cheapest most basic life they can find.

The arena has been a great investment by this city's citizens. The Thunder have drawn huge amounts of great attention to this city which helps immensely in attracting jobs, investments, etc. Anybody who doesn't understand all the tangibles and intangibles that come from this just doesn't live in the real world.

Boulder is correct and incorrect, just like Larry. The "Maps Arena" was designed for NHL, not NBA. At that time the city was trying to lure an NHL team to move here and got only as far as having the league come visit and pass on us. When it became clear that the building was going to be built with no permanent tenant, it was cut-back. There were signficant changes in the "finishing touches" that were left out. This building was built from day 1 as an incomplete project. It was intended to be "completed" later as it is not being done. It's not a mystery or secret folks....that's been said from the city from the time it opened "tenantless". The city wasn't going to spend millions more for the Blazers to be there.

Also, if you think the city isn't making money on the Thunder, you're missing a lot of details. While the arena itself may not be the most lucrative deal, we're also getting hotel/motel money for a significant number of rooms for the teams that come in every week....along with all the traveling fans. You can't really count all the money people spend on dinner in Bricktown because they would have either ate closer to home or bought groceries in town to cook at home. That's just shifting the dollars, not new dollars. But the travelers are all new dollars. To to mention the merchandising and concessions (if nothing else, we get taxes), and what about parking....those vendors pay taxes as well. It's true we may not be getting some huge amount off tickets and the rental, but we're getting a LOT out of the deal. Not to even mention everything non-tangile that's already been discussed about the city's image....and that results in dollars in a whole new way.

And what do you base that on? I have seen no credible evidence to support what you are saying. Even if the improvements had been defeated at the polls, everyone involved wanted the team here (Stern, Owners, City leadership etc). They would have figured out something (even if it meant paying for it themselves). It was even admitted by a staunch supporter that in the past several years, every relocation has been approved. Why? As Maverick's owner Cuban said to the effect "you would be amazed at what these owners will do for a million dollars" (what each team gets when a team relocates). That added to the "you vote for my relocation, I'll vote for your's" mindset of most of the owners, and they play along.

i base it on conversations that is have had with people that would know .. and some of the owners wanted the team here if it could be a sustainable nba team and it couldn't have been without the arena inprovements

and as for every relcoation being approved ... the nba, nor the NFL or NHL, have any real choice where there team move to .. Al Davis sued the NFL to move to oakland he won .. those leages can't stop a move it restrictes free trade ... MLB can they have a broad antitrust ex. .

In cities like New York, Chicago, Atlanta there are incredible numbers of Fortune 500 companies and others who provide significant sponsorship money to a team. Teams located in large cities are able to negotiate huge television contracts based on their market rankings. We are the 45th largest market. We will never have a television contract that approaches what a professional team in a market like New York can generate. We can't charge ticket prices like they can either. It's far more complicated than selling out an arena and having enthusiastic fans. If we hadn't improved our arena and negotiated a favorable contract for the owners, the team would be in Kansas City or San Jose.....maybe still in Seattle. We have to be honest about what we are......a small market lucky to have a team. Or rather, savvy enough to do what it took to make an incredibly smart PR and quality of life move. Clay Bennett took a huge risk and I'm grateful.

Boulder is correct and incorrect, just like Larry. The "Maps Arena" was designed for NHL, not NBA. At that time the city was trying to lure an NHL team to move here and got only as far as having the league come visit and pass on us. When it became clear that the building was going to be built with no permanent tenant, it was cut-back. There were signficant changes in the "finishing touches" that were left out. This building was built from day 1 as an incomplete project. It was intended to be "completed" later as it is not being done. It's not a mystery or secret folks....that's been said from the city from the time it opened "tenantless". The city wasn't going to spend millions more for the Blazers to be there.

Also, if you think the city isn't making money on the Thunder, you're missing a lot of details. While the arena itself may not be the most lucrative deal, we're also getting hotel/motel money for a significant number of rooms for the teams that come in every week....along with all the traveling fans. You can't really count all the money people spend on dinner in Bricktown because they would have either ate closer to home or bought groceries in town to cook at home. That's just shifting the dollars, not new dollars. But the travelers are all new dollars. To to mention the merchandising and concessions (if nothing else, we get taxes), and what about parking....those vendors pay taxes as well. It's true we may not be getting some huge amount off tickets and the rental, but we're getting a LOT out of the deal. Not to even mention everything non-tangile that's already been discussed about the city's image....and that results in dollars in a whole new way.

we got alot closer than the NHL just visiting .. we were just left out of expansion and nashville (i think) got the team .. ...

and you can count people that eat in bricktown .. as lots of them either A don't live in OKC .. yukon/norman/edmond or B if they do live in okc spend far more out to the game than they would eating at home ..

Meh....that's also over stating the influence of those small extra dollars in comparison to average daily dollars spent in the city by a resident. That's sort of economics 101 when you are discussing shifting dollars rather than new dollars. Find me a person that doesn't live in the city limits that doesnt still spend money in the city of okc.

If I break a window, i'm not helping the economy by helping the window repair guy. I'm just shifting the money I would have spent on something else from one company to another. I either eat at Zio's downtown, or on Meridian...hmmm

Meh....that's also over stating the influence of those small extra dollars in comparison to average daily dollars spent in the city by a resident. That's sort of economics 101 when you are discussing shifting dollars rather than new dollars. Find me a person that doesn't live in the city limits that doesnt still spend money in the city of okc.

If I break a window, i'm not helping the economy by helping the window repair guy. I'm just shifting the money I would have spent on something else from one company to another. I either eat at Zio's downtown, or on Meridian...hmmm

not if you eat in midwest city .. or in moore or in norman or yukon .. and now you are eating in OKC ..

The Thunder contributed ZERO towards the Arena (building it or the improvements) so they deserved ZERO of the profits.

Actually, just by being the major tenant, they contribute A LOT towards the arena. Every bit of additional value added in potential naming rights is directly related to the team and the NBA's brand. Without the thunder, the naming rights of the arena probably weren't even worth what the Ford dealership paid for it. It's reach was limited mainly to the region and has little tangential exposure potential.

Now the naming rights have national and international exposure value. Every dollar added to the naming rights sold above what he city was originally getting is because of 1 thing only: the NBA.

Also, the arena operations gain significant economies of scale by having a major tenant that opens its doors 40+ times a year. This makes it a much better deal for the city's agreement with the management company. Again, all because of the NBA.

Also you have thousands of more people coming into the city dozens of times a year because of 1 thing: the NBA. There is no way that the arena itself could have done that without the NBA. This is like having an additional 40 concerts a year averaging over 18,000 tickets sold in downtown Oklahoma City. There aren't even that many concerts on tour at any given time that average those kind of sales, let alone the fraction of those that would come to Oklahoma in a given year.

To have built the arena to be a standalone profit center for the city would have been a stupid exercise in futility that would have had to buck just about every previous public facility model in existence in order to succeed. The reality is that it was built as a way to draw hundreds of thousands of people to the city to help feed its tourism, hospitality, and service industries along with all the tax benefits that come with doing so. As such, having the NBA as a its major tenant is paramount to its success in this area. With the NBA as a tenant, even if the city sees not one dollar in increased revenue from the arena itself, the actual economic benefit of the arena to the city has increased exponentially. This is even before the intangibles effect of the city's reputation, exposure, and livability are factored in. While it may seem like a sweetheart deal on the surface, it is really no different than what most major tenants get in any real estate deals.

The bottom line is that, anyway you look at it, there is no doubt the the city's return on investment in the arena is much greater with the NBA here, even if the increase in return is not coming directly from arena operations. You combine that with the fact that the Oklahoma City taxpayer has gotten such a bargain on this facility (less than $100 million initial investment and less than $200 million total)and you have one of the best executions of public arena development and management in the country.

Meh....that's also over stating the influence of those small extra dollars in comparison to average daily dollars spent in the city by a resident. That's sort of economics 101 when you are discussing shifting dollars rather than new dollars. Find me a person that doesn't live in the city limits that doesnt still spend money in the city of okc.

If I break a window, i'm not helping the economy by helping the window repair guy. I'm just shifting the money I would have spent on something else from one company to another. I either eat at Zio's downtown, or on Meridian...hmmm

So with that logic there is no reason to promote any new businesses in OKC. We're going to spend our money anyway so nothing new will ever be needed to benefit the city.
It's not just a flat dollar and cents consideration about new taxes brought in. It's a quality of life issue that can attract new residents and businesses to our area and help persuade those that are already here to stay. And you can't dispute that will affect our tax base.

NBA or not?

Boulder is correct and incorrect, just like Larry. The "Maps Arena" was designed for NHL, not NBA.

Not according to the original MAPS ballot which stated:

(B)(7) An indoor sports/convention facility meeting not less than National Hockey League (NHL) or National Basketball Association (NBA) standards.

There have been numerous articles, stating as fact, that the Ford was built to NBA & NHL standards but here is a sampling:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19950322/ai_n10077613/
Benham Selected for MAPS Sports Arena (Journal Record, 3/22/95)

The 20,000-seat MAPS arena also must be designed to standards of the National Basketball Association and National Hockey League, from which the city hopes to lure a franchise.

Hornets to Play in Oklahoma City (9/21/05?)
NBA Commissioner Stern:

“The devastation of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region has made it necessary for the Hornets to move to a temporary location for the upcoming season,” Stern said. “Fortunately, the Hornets have received a gracious invitation from Mayor Mick Cornett and the business leaders and citizens of Oklahoma City to play their home games in the Ford Center, a first-class facility that we hope to fill with new Hornets fans this season.”
Obviously if the NBA commissioner calls it a first-class facility, it meets NBA standards if he is going to recommend to the Hornet's owner that OKC be considered.


Here's one from ESPN: Oklahoma City high on list of home sites for Hornets Updated: September 18, 2005.

When Oklahoma City opened up its Ford Center three years ago, its residents surely hoped that it would one day host a major professional sports team. After all, IT WAS BUILT TO SATISFY BOTH NBA AND NHL SPECIFICATIONS. ... Representatives in Louisville, Ky.; Nashville, Tenn.; San Diego; and Kansas City, Mo., also offered to temporarily host the team, but no city can offer THE STATE-OF-THE-ART FACILITY with as many open dates as Oklahoma City can.


Then there was this article about the Hornets, featuring Desmond Mason (later w/the Thunder)
Everything's A-OK for Hornets on Opening Night (11/2/2005)
espn.com

"These crowds are going to be like college basketball crowds," said Desmond Mason, the Hornets' newly acquired swingman from Oklahoma State. "It's unlike anything else you'll see at an NBA game."

Yet even the player who knows this terrain best found it a bit strange to be playing a real NBA game in the land of collegiate football. The proximity to the rest of the Southwest Division and the presence of a relatively new NBA-level arena were lures that, for the league and the Hornets, made Oklahoma City an obvious choice to take the Hornets in, but Mason was openly stunned to be back.


Bare Bones?

At that time the city was trying to lure an NHL team to move here and got only as far as having the league come visit and pass on us. When it became clear that the building was going to be built with no permanent tenant, it was cut-back. There were signficant changes in the "finishing touches" that were left out. This building was built from day 1 as an incomplete project. It was intended to be "completed" later as it is not being done. It's not a mystery or secret folks....that's been said from the city from the time it opened "tenantless". The city wasn't going to spend millions more for the Blazers to be there.
This is partially correct. We were tenetless, and as you mentioned the City made "signficant changes in the 'finishing touches'", BUT you must remember that the City intended for the eventual tenant to pay for those.

The "Bare Bones" contention is wrong, if anything it might be better described as being built "builder's white" since we didn't have a tenant).
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19950322/ai_n10077613/
Benham Selected for MAPS Sports Arena (Journal Record, 3/22/95)

That price [$81M] is in the middle range of similar arenas that have been built between $37.3 million and $175.1 million.

MAPS arena cost estimate up millions, (Journal Record, 6/20/97)

The MAPS indoor sports arena, which was to have cost $84 million, is topping out at $93 million for "a whole structure," the MAPS Citizens Oversight Board was told Thursday. Tom Gunning, project director for Oklahoma City-based The Benham Group, said the "base" building alone will cost $71.2 million -- well within the fixed limit of construction of $74.9 million mandated by the city. However, that base building does not include a list of 22 alternates -- items the city would like to have included -- which add $6.7 million to the base price. The group also left out millions from the base building that would be included or paid for by others at a later time. The architects got their costs down to the base price they did by deleting construction items from the original project definition and by deleting other items such as the scoreboard system, build-out costs of suites, sitework that will be performed by "others," and additional items. Under questioning from MAPS board members, Gunning confirmed that "a whole building" ready to go would cost about $93 million.

Intangible benefits?

Also, if you think the city isn't making money on the Thunder, you're missing a lot of details. While the arena itself may not be the most lucrative deal, we're also getting hotel/motel money for a significant number of rooms for the teams that come in every week.... Not to even mention everything non-tangile that's already been discussed about the city's image....and that results in dollars in a whole new way.
Not disputing "Intangible benefits". They all sound great BUT didn't we have the same intangibles when the Hornets were here? Those benefits should be considered the "gravy" of the deal, not the meat & potatoes. Again, in sharp contrast with the profit sharing deal with the Hornets (when Bennett was on the City's side of the negotiations), where the City saw a DIRECT $1M+ net profit (after being reimbursed for moving expenses etc). Our self-described "sophisticated" City Leadership approached it with a "break-even philosophy" where the City might see a $150K/year direct profit. Even that amount they quickly gave away (as we are losing right at the same amount in the the Team is "letting" the City keep under the Ford naming rights agreement). The City doesn't even get to keep that, as it must be put into the fund for further upgrades to the Arena. That is the only dedicated funding source and based on the average yearly cost to date is about $20M/year short).

Where is the dramatic public return and the broad community benefit (that aren't intangible) that Bennett talked about?:

"So you can go through the steps that then suggest, well, perhaps this is an appropriate use of public investment because it is going to provide such dramatic public return," Bennett said at a sports business conference at Oklahoma City University.
"Unlike maybe a handful of individuals building the building that would never see any of it back, they might perhaps rationalize some benefit to the company, but the broad benefit really goes to the community, and not just intangibles."
.

i base it on conversations that is have had with people that would know .. and some of the owners wanted the team here if it could be a sustainable nba team and it couldn't have been without the arena inprovements...
Who are these people? Would think the Mayor and Commissioner Stern would be "in the know"

Were the improvements an NBA requirement? Depends on who you believe...

Oklahoma City Council calls for elections on NBA team preparations (Journal Record, 12/21/07)

However, the decision to ask for a citywide vote on the arena wasn’t supported by a survey: “That’s my opinion. That’s all it is,” [Mayor Cornett] said. Nor has he been told by NBA officials that an arena upgrade is definitely necessary, Cornett said. “They have not said that to me. I’ve suggested that to them, and they have not disagreed. But they have not said that to me”

OKC-based Ford Center upgrade: The ball is in the voters' court (Journal Record, 1/3/08)

Oklahoma City hosted the NBA's Hornets team for two seasons after Hurricane Katrina wrecked much of New Orleans. The Ford Center at the time was sufficient for the team's short-term needs, Cornett said. However, establishing a permanent home for a team requires more changes to the arena to meet the NBA's standards, he said.

But this is in direct contrast from the Mayor & NBA's Stern a couple of weeks earlier:
OKC mayor calls on public support for $100M spending proposal (ESPN/AP, 12/20/07).

Cornett said he had spoken with the NBA and had preliminary discussions about a lease with the SuperSonics but the decision to seek public funding for the upgrades was not forced upon him. NBA commissioner David Stern said during an April visit that the Ford Center, which cost only $89 million to build, did not necessarily need upgrades to host an NBA team permanently.

Again, the idea that the NBA required these improvements wasn't supported by statements by the NBA, just Cornett's unsubstantiated belief.

Actually, just by being the major tenant, they contribute A LOT towards the arena. Every bit of additional value added in potential naming rights is directly related to the team and the NBA's brand. Without the thunder, the naming rights of the arena probably weren't even worth what the Ford dealership paid for it. It's reach was limited mainly to the region and has little tangential exposure potential.

That's fine as far as it goes, BUT ONLY IF the City retained the Naming Rights money can you claim the Team/NBA has contributed anything to the Arena. They are keeping the money, contributing NOTHING to the construction or improvements that were done to "maximize Team revenues" (notice the lease makes no mention of maximizing or increasing the revenue for the City).


Also, the arena operations gain significant economies of scale by having a major tenant that opens its doors 40+ times a year. This makes it a much better deal for the city's agreement with the management company. Again, all because of the NBA.

Also you have thousands of more people coming into the city dozens of times a year because of 1 thing: the NBA. There is no way that the arena itself could have done that without the NBA. This is like having an additional 40 concerts a year averaging over 18,000 tickets sold in downtown Oklahoma City. There aren't even that many concerts on tour at any given time that average those kind of sales, let alone the fraction of those that would come to Oklahoma in a given year.
It was those very concerts that allowed the Ford to be run at an operational profit. It was those concerts that put the Ford at the top of the charts in concert ticket sales etc. It is the elimination of 41 dates a year from the calendar (and the addition of Tulsa's BOK Arena) that have shifted some of those concert dollars away from the City (and the associated spending, the restaurant money etc is now being spent in Tulsa).

Take into account that the City was getting the concession money etc, now it has to split those monies with the Team.


To have built the arena to be a standalone profit center for the city would have been a stupid exercise in futility that would have had to buck just about every previous public facility model in existence in order to succeed. The reality is that it was built as a way to draw hundreds of thousands of people to the city to help feed its tourism, hospitality, and service industries along with all the tax benefits that come with doing so. As such, having the NBA as a its major tenant is paramount to its success in this area. With the NBA as a tenant, even if the city sees not one dollar in increased revenue from the arena itself, the actual economic benefit of the arena to the city has increased exponentially. This is even before the intangibles effect of the city's reputation, exposure, and livability are factored in. While it may seem like a sweetheart deal on the surface, it is really no different than what most major tenants get in any real estate deals.
Except that is exactly what happened (see above). What concerts, events, conventions have booked here because the NBA is here? Again, there are 41 dates a year where they CAN'T book here because of the NBA.

Economic Impact?
Both sides of this debate were going on during the Seattle litigation. When Bennett was trying to get a new arena built, the Sonic's had tremedous economic impact. When they were trying to get out of the lease, Bennett claimed the Sonic's had a near zero economic impact. To be fair, Seattle also argued both sides of the issue. But even Betts admitted in another forum way back then:

As we discussed ad nauseum when our vote was occuring, virtually every respected sports economist says there is little economic benefit to professional sports teams.

In cities like New York, Chicago, Atlanta there are incredible numbers of Fortune 500 companies and others who provide significant sponsorship money to a team. Teams located in large cities are able to negotiate huge television contracts based on their market rankings. We are the 45th largest market. We will never have a television contract that approaches what a professional team in a market like New York can generate. We can't charge ticket prices like they can either. It's far more complicated than selling out an arena and having enthusiastic fans. If we hadn't improved our arena and negotiated a favorable contract for the owners, the team would be in Kansas City or San Jose.....maybe still in Seattle. We have to be honest about what we are......a small market lucky to have a team. Or rather, savvy enough to do what it took to make an incredibly smart PR and quality of life move. Clay Bennett took a huge risk and I'm grateful.
Except, after the Thunder raised the ticket prices, articles said the premium seats were priced along the lines of places like L.A. etc. And after the price increase (well over Seattle and Hornet prices) to just under the league average. It is the very fact that we sold out seats and had enthusiastic fans while the Hornets were here that was used as proof by many (including you, if not mistaken) that we could support a team. Small market or no small market. Can't help seeing SNL's Stuart Smalley and his affirmations. "...because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, doggonit, people like me"

Where do you get the idea the team would be in KC? According to various published articles, Bennett used KC and Vegas as negotiating tools with Seattle (he said they don't even know where Oklahoma City is), TV & Corporate sponsorship was a concern because they have other Pro franchises where the money pie would be divided up and the NBA may not be on the heavily receiving end there. Here, with no other pro team in the State, they don't have to be concerned about that. Even Stern has indicated that the NBA's small market success stories are cities that are single-pro sports (like OKC).

Don't let sales slip because Bennett does have those "out clauses" (baseline set 2 years after the renovations are complete).


Most NBA teams make very little money or operate in the red.
Even if that is true (according to a just released Forbes info, 18 out of 30 or 60% turn a profit). Don't know what percentage of "small market" teams, or more appropriately small-market single-pro sport states turn a profit, but at this point, it is irrelevant, as we are talking about the Thunder in particular.

Although Team Co-owner Aubrey McClendon stated in the Journal Record (8/13/07) that the ownership group would be happy to just break even in OKC:

"We know it's a little more difficult financially here in Oklahoma City, but we think it's great for the community and if we could break even we'd be thrilled..."
The Teams financial consultant (introduced as evidence in the Seattle litigation) estimated that they could make a "conservative" $9.4M/year (based on a lowball 14,569). Actual tickets sold exceeded that by about 4,000/game. So, they should be doing much better than the $9.4M/year. Along with the much higher ticket sales (and ancillary spending), they got an additional $100K/year from what the City was getting with the existing naming rights. They got $100K/year reduction in the Practice Facility rent. They got another $100K/year reduction in Arena rent. Not to mention the $60M in rebates from the State ($4M for 15 years).

When the Hornets were here (with similar sell-outs/attendance as the Thunder), they made $40.21M (Hornets profit fight heats up 6/1/2006). Reportedly, even with the lowest ticket prices in the league (according to Forbes.com, the average ticket price for the Hornets when they were here was $29). The Thunder raised that to just below league average ($47.51). They recently announced a slight bump in ticket prices. They lowered the salaries of personnel, citing Oklahoma's lower cost of living, so made more money there too.

Sonics would be profitable here, Bennett testifies (6/7/2008)

Seattle SuperSonics owners told the NBA they expect to lose $60.9 million to $64.9 million during the next two years if forced to stay in Seattle, but believe they can turn an $18.8 million profit if allowed to relocate to Oklahoma City. Sonics Chairman Clay Bennett confirmed the projections in a sworn deposition....
The Sonics/Thunder have had a roughly $40M+/year turn around (going from a $30.45M to $32.45/year LOSS to a $9.4M/year SURPLUS). Multiply the turn around by the 3 years they have been here and the owners could have paid for the improvements themselves. That's just using the conservative projection numbers and we know that they have done much better than the projections.

So with that logic there is no reason to promote any new businesses in OKC. We're going to spend our money anyway so nothing new will ever be needed to benefit the city.
It's not just a flat dollar and cents consideration about new taxes brought in. It's a quality of life issue that can attract new residents and businesses to our area and help persuade those that are already here to stay. And you can't dispute that will affect our tax base.

No, apparently you aren't paying attention here. The arguement about people in town is trivial to this. My point was the totally 100% new dollars from visitors. That's all new money that wouldn't have been in OKC had the Thunder not been here. Players, Fans, Reporters, etc. the list goes on. All of these people use hotels and eat every meal out while they are here. THAT's the point of my discussion....that people forget how much of an impact those people have. Several hundred different people come to town every time there is a game...more than just the 20 or so players.

And obvioulsy we want new business. The logic isn't flawed, you just aren't paying attention to the point, you're reading into it.

For people who don't understand anything but tangible financial accounting I guess the arena issue is controversial. For anyone who also understands the intangible effects of having the team they get why every citizen in this city is benefited by the NBA being here.

That's fine as far as it goes, BUT ONLY IF the City retained the Naming Rights money can you claim the Team/NBA has contributed anything to the Arena. They are keeping the money, contributing NOTHING to the construction or improvements that were done to "maximize Team revenues" (notice the lease makes no mention of maximizing or increasing the revenue for the City).

I don't think you understand. Any increase in naming rights revenue is directly caused by the NBA's presence. So any additional money earned on it can be attributed to them and so it's not a factor of lost money to the city. The city would not have gotten that additional money on its own.


It was those very concerts that allowed the Ford to be run at an operational profit. It was those concerts that put the Ford at the top of the charts in concert ticket sales etc. It is the elimination of 41 dates a year from the calendar (and the addition of Tulsa's BOK Arena) that have shifted some of those concert dollars away from the City (and the associated spending, the restaurant money etc is now being spent in Tulsa).

Take into account that the City was getting the concession money etc, now it has to split those monies with the Team.

Those concerts still come here and the arena NEVER needed 41 nights a year for concerts. About 90% of the acts that have played BOK center have played Oklahoma City. The main reason they are going to Tulsa now is because they haven't EVER played there before. New markets are key to tours in this crappy concert industry.
The Oklahoma City Arena has simply added 41 guaranteed booked nights a year, in addition to all of the events it was getting before. The BOK center is not taking any events from OKC because of the team. If the BOK center is pulling away from the Ford Center, then we need new management, one that competes with the BOK Center (they are the same company now), because there are probably a dozen arenas around the country that are host to MULTIPLE major league sports tenants and, yet, still every major arena tour gets booked. There is no operational downside to have a major permanent tenant in your arena.



Take into account that the City was getting the concession money etc, now it has to split those monies with the Team.

Would you rather have all the revenue from 10 major events a year or split the revenue from 50+ major events a year?


Except that is exactly what happened (see above). What concerts, events, conventions have booked here because the NBA is here? Again, there are 41 dates a year where they CAN'T book here because of the NBA.

Again, if there are any events that haven't come here since the NBA came here, its a result of poor management. There are no logistical barriers to have a basketball game one night and a concert the next. So, if you can guarantee the tripling of events in your venue and still have 324 available nights a year, you do it, plain and simple. Any scheduling conflicts that would arise from 10% of your scheduling inventory being GUARANTEED is worth it. Hell, the Staples center hosts FOUR major league sports teams and manages to host dozens of major concerts and other events a year in addition the the games.

Basically, is it some sort of windfall for the city where we can lower our taxes and live off arena revenue? Of course not. It was never meant to be. In the end, the real point of the whole venture is to improve the city's competitive position in the region in terms of profile and marketability. Time and time again we lost companies for one reason: QUALITY OF LIFE. Not cost of business, not work force, not available space... quality of life . It is a very important assest to any community and the arena and the team have improved that aspect of Oklahoma City, as well as help bring increased attention to the other livability assets that were already here.

We also live in a city where development trends are based on disposable tactics. That is, we tend to build new infrastructure instead of maintaining what we have. The long term result is a city that becomes irrelevant to itself. The surrounding communities benefit and the city rots. Strengthening the city's core through the investment in major events and attractions is what keeps the city's revenue from declining more and more. The voters of Oklahoma City recognized this and have voted on improving the city and, specifically, the arena multiple times and results are clearly beginning to show.

In the end, the immediate benefits of having an NBA team as a permanent tenant as opposed to the arena being dark on those 41 nights should be clear. Less clear, but just as important, are the benefits from improved stature, visibility, and profile the city has gained from the short time it has had the NBA. There certainly are diminishing returns for each additional team any market has, but Oklahoma City was probably in one of the best positions in the country to benefit from gaining such a tenant, mainly because it still has so much room to improve. The effect in even, say, a Kansas City would not be a great as it has been here.

No, apparently you aren't paying attention here. The arguement about people in town is trivial to this. My point was the totally 100% new dollars from visitors. That's all new money that wouldn't have been in OKC had the Thunder not been here. Players, Fans, Reporters, etc. the list goes on. All of these people use hotels and eat every meal out while they are here. THAT's the point of my discussion....that people forget how much of an impact those people have. Several hundred different people come to town every time there is a game...more than just the 20 or so players.

And obvioulsy we want new business. The logic isn't flawed, you just aren't paying attention to the point, you're reading into it.

Evidently I did misunderstand your point and we may be in agreement then.

It looks as if they are beginning work on the new entrance. Windows are out and boarded up on the southwest side of the arena, the area is fenced off and there is some dirt work beginning.

FULLY AGREE!!! bombermwc

It looks as if they are beginning work on the new entrance. Windows are out and boarded up on the southwest side of the arena, the area is fenced off and there is some dirt work beginning.

Awesome! I want this stadium to stand out amongst the NBA officials as a very classy stadium, that hopefully lasts for a while, so that when the time comes for more renovations, we can vote on that too and keep the team here, like Seattle couldn't.

megax11: Unlike Seattle (this was brought up by the judge in the Seattle trial), we are REQUIRED by the lease to keep making upgrades to the Arena to meet whatever the changing NBA standards are. If a new tax is the chosen method of paying for it, a vote will be required by state law. If the vote fails, then the City is still obligated to pay for the improvements and will have to come up with an alternative way that doesn't require a vote (general fund or some other existing undedicated revenue source).

megax11: Unlike Seattle (this was brought up by the judge in the Seattle trial), we are REQUIRED by the lease to keep making upgrades to the Arena to meet whatever the changing NBA standards are. If a new tax is the chosen method of paying for it, a vote will be required by state law. If the vote fails, then the City is still obligated to pay for the improvements and will have to come up with an alternative way that doesn't require a vote (general fund or some other existing undedicated revenue source).

That, to me, sounds like a good thing.

I don't doubt the team will be here forever, as those who own the team, are gas and oil tycoons, and they never run out of money.

To those thinking BOK takes all of the events away from the OKC Arena, they need to think a bit.

First off, Tulsa has their own WNBA team, so how many games is that a year? Then doesn't the Tulsa 66ers play at the BOK? If so, how many games a year is that?

Before the Thunder arrived, I remember Ford Center only getting a few worthwhile concerts a year, if that.

I would much rather have big name teams coming in, spending their money at our malls (people have spotted Kobe eating at Waffle House and Shaq shopping at Quail Springs Mall), rather than some small band or solo artist coming in. The more people the merrier, which means more money for this city.

I mean we now have the tallest building in OK for a reason. Dolla-dolla bills y'all.

That, to me, sounds like a good thing.
Plese explain how it is a good thing that we are REQUIRED by the lease to keep making upgrades to the existing arena and a replacement arena when they demand it (with NO meaningful way to pay for it)?


I don't doubt the team will be here forever, as those who own the team, are gas and oil tycoons, and they never run out of money.
Thank you for making the argument that the people who will "never run out of money" can easily pay for the improvements themselves and disputing the idea that we needed to do anything to "lure" the team to come here, or had to make any such concessions.


To those thinking BOK takes all of the events away from the OKC Arena, they need to think a bit.
Never said the BOK takes all the events from the OKC Arena, but it definitely has an impact having a competing arena just up the road (within the Thunder market according to the NBA). As I said, that is 41 dates removed from the calendar that could be used for concerts etc (those same concerts that are the bread-n-butter in keeping the Ford/OKC Arena running at an operational profit.



First off, Tulsa has their own WNBA team, so how many games is that a year? Then doesn't the Tulsa 66ers play at the BOK? If so, how many games a year is that?
Thunder (NBA) = 41 home games
Tulsa 66ers (NBA D-league)= 24 home games (played in the Tulsa Convention Center, NOT the BOK)
Tulsa Storm (WNBA) = 17 home games in the BOK



Before the Thunder arrived, I remember Ford Center only getting a few worthwhile concerts a year, if that.

Concerts (from the OKC arena website)

The Oklahoma City Arena has hosted numerous sold-out events, including concert performances by Bon Jovi, Britney Spears, Cher, the Dixie Chicks, Eric Clapton, George Strait, Kenny Chesney, Lady Gaga, Tim McGraw & Faith Hill, Toby Keith, Tool and more. To date, Paul McCartney, Elton John and Billy Joel, the Rolling Stones, Fleetwood Mac and the Eagles are among the top grossing artists to play the Ford Center. Not surprisingly, Ford Center made Pollstar’s list of Top Ten Concert Venues for ticket sales in North America during its first year of operation and has continued to rank among the Top 25 as recently as 2009 when renovations began.

Damn. 17 home games for WNBA? That sucks.

If we are lucky enough to get to the second round of the playoffs this year, the money the city will make from this is waaaaay beyond anything we could get with a few extra concerts. Again, it may not come through the arena, but the amount of media and visitors we will have in the city will be impressive. And again, the cachet this team is giving to our city is priceless.

megax11:

And the BOK has overtaken the Ford/OKC arena when it comes to Concerts

Tulsa’s BOK Center ranked No. 2 nationally in ticket sales (4/16/09)

The BOK Center ranked as No. 2 in the country in a recent report from Pollstar listing the top 50 venues for ticket sales in the first quarter, the new Tulsa venue announced this week.

Pollstar, an industry publication, listed the BOK Center as No. 9 in the world in ticket sales.

10/13/2010

Tulsa's BOK Center, entering its third year of operation, ranks No. 5 nationally and No. 15 worldwide in ticket sales, with 320,048 sold so far this year, according to industry tracker Pollstar.

BOK Center big ticket seller (Tulsa World, 1/13/2011)

Nationally, Tulsa's BOK Center also made it to No. 10 in ticket sales in 2010, according to Pollstar Pro, with 360,871 tickets sold.

The venue ranks No. 23 in worldwide arena ticket sales, with the Oklahoma City Arena at No. 96 on that chart, with 124,766 tickets sold. In 2009, the venue ranked No. 8 nationally and No. 20 worldwide in arena ticket sales.

If we are lucky enough to get to the second round of the playoffs this year, the money the city will make from this is waaaaay beyond anything we could get with a few extra concerts. Again, it may not come through the arena, but the amount of media and visitors we will have in the city will be impressive. And again, the cachet this team is giving to our city is priceless.

Playoffs is where the money can be made. No doubt about that.

Wasn't the Ford center negatively affected during this period with the internal improvements that kept it from operating for several months? This constant comparison with Tulsa is silly. It doesn't prove or disprove any value the OKC arena brings to OKC. If dates are available, OKC will always get great concerts and plenty of them.

If the value of having an NBA team isn't obvious to people, it is just because they aren't looking.

Amen Betts and Rover. I don't know why people have to put this mine vs. yours crap out there. They're too similar of facilities to compare....and of course the Ford Center's schedule is lighter in the last few years....renovations cause calendars to lighten up. Once this stuff is done, you'll see FC's calendar fill up again.

Maybe they should include all ticket sales at the arena as part of these calculations (or maybe tickets per available day).


Nationally, Tulsa's BOK Center also made it to No. 10 in ticket sales in 2010, according to Pollstar Pro, with 360,871 tickets sold.

The Ford Center sold 738,148 basketball tickets last year. That is 2 times all the tickets sold at BOK.

Wasn't the Ford center negatively affected during this period with the internal improvements that kept it from operating for several months? This constant comparison with Tulsa is silly. It doesn't prove or disprove any value the OKC arena brings to OKC. If dates are available, OKC will always get great concerts and plenty of them.

If the value of having an NBA team isn't obvious to people, it is just because they aren't looking.

Thank you for saying what a lot of us were thinking. Once the renovations are all complete, the Ford Center will get plenty of concerts on a regular basis.

Maybe they should include all ticket sales at the arena as part of these calculations (or maybe tickets per available day).



The Ford Center sold 738,148 basketball tickets last year. That is 2 times all the tickets sold at BOK.
^^and The Thunder have more home games left and playoff games to come and add into that the concerts that have come to OKC!maybe The Ford Center will be pushing 1 million overall tickets?

Gross revenue return on investment, regardless of how it is split up, has to be off the charts for the OKC Arena. I wonder if anyone has done any analysis of that vs. other arenas. Avg. annual gross revenue vs. cost of arena. I would guess the OKC Arena is head and shoulders above virtually everyone nationally built at or around the same time or later (and maybe even internationally).

The Thunder provide a steady stream of events. We know that there will be at least 41 home games from the Thunder year after year.

The BOK Center is doing great right now. But who knows how many concerts there will be next year? Or two years from now?

I'll take the Thunder anyday over concerts.

Wasn't the Ford center negatively affected during this period with the internal improvements that kept it from operating for several months? This constant comparison with Tulsa is silly. It doesn't prove or disprove any value the OKC arena brings to OKC. If dates are available, OKC will always get great concerts and plenty of them.

If the value of having an NBA team isn't obvious to people, it is just because they aren't looking.

No doubt. When it was closed for months at a time, that will definitely have an impact. My point wasn't a OKC vs Tulsa but that by there being a competing arena (run by the same people), they can shift those concerts to the other arena. Some events were shifted to the Cox where they could. And your last line was my initial point "If dates are available". By having 41 home games, that is 41 dates removed from the calendar as possibilities. It is a good problem to have but some don't see it as a problem at all.

Reportedly, concerts have made the Ford/OKC arena operationally profitable. But the Thunder lease was approached with a self-described "break-even" approach. Pretty much, the City doesn't lose any money on game day expenses (the lease payment covers game day expenses) with only a small profit being paid over that. When all added up, the City Manager/Mayor said we might make $150K/year on the deal ($3,658/game). That's it. In sharp contrast to the $1M direct profit the City made when the Hornets were here ($24,390/game).

Undoubtedly, there are "intangibles" that come along with it. Problem is when the focus is only on the intangibles and ignoring the nuts and bolts. Trouble is, they can't argue the nuts and bolts so they only have the intangibles left (which are hard to refute). The Thunder lease was a colossal failure (IMO) because at the bare minimum, we should have gotten at least what we got with the Hornets. Our self-described "sophisticated" negotiators failed to notice the main person in the room had switched sides of the table he was sitting on. Instead of looking out for the City's interests, he was looking out for the Team's interest. Odd that in the letter of Intent (the basic framework for the Lease), everything was written to "maximize Team revenues". Hmmm, absolutely no mention of maximizing anything for the City.

Instead, the City took a half-glass approach. Meaning the glass isn't empty. But the glass isn't full either.

The difference between the Hornets and Thunder is that with the Hornets they weren't the city's team, and when the lease was negotiated, we weren't worrying about the long-term financial success of the team. The Thunder are our team, and we have a vested interest in their financial health. That was the mistake Seattle made. The city wasn't interested in whether the team was financially successful and the owners were happy. They negotiated a lease favorable to the city, and in the end, it was the city who lost. They lost their naming rights sponsor, have only a few events a year and reportedly the district around the arena is now struggling. They have two other professional teams and a lot of other attractions you find in a bigger city, as well as surroundings far more conducive to outside activities so perhaps it isn't as big of a deal there. Were the Thunder to leave OKC it would now leave a much bigger hole. Time to accept the fact that most fans don't have a problem with the lease. Even some non-fans can see what the team has brought to the city, and aren't complaining. Sometimes the sum of the intangibles appears far greater than those we can measure.

The difference between the Hornets and Thunder is that with the Hornets they weren't the city's team, ...
Except you forget that they were the Oklahoma City/New Orleans Hornets (at least for the home games). On the jerseys and everything. But maybe you mean we didn't have an ownership stake in the team (even though we had a profit sharing agreement). Guess what? We don't have an ownership interest in this team either. So much for it being "the city's team". Ask Seattle. It wasn't their team either.


...and when the lease was negotiated, we weren't worrying about the long-term financial success of the team.
Again you forget that the financial success of the Hornets was also guaranteed in that lease by the City. The Hornets were given a $40M guarantee that the City & Bennett would pay up to $10M against. After the $40M was reached, there was a profit sharing clause that resulted in the $1M profit (above and beyond the expenses incurred by the City in the relocation, office space, practice facility, housing assistance etc etc etc).



The Thunder are our team, and we have a vested interest in their financial health. That was the mistake Seattle made. The city wasn't interested in whether the team was financially successful and the owners were happy. They negotiated a lease favorable to the city, and in the end, it was the city who lost.

Wow. Where is our vested interest? Yes we paid for the arena and the improvements, but where is the profit sharing? It isn't there. The ownership group went on record that they would be pleased to just break even. Their definition of being financially successful. All of that changed when it came to making the lease deal with OKC. Now the break even philosophy was adopted by the City and abandoned by the Team. Again, Bennett switched sides. Those are the facts.

The Seattle lease as negotiated was in both parties interest. It was the NBA that changed their business model. There were at least 3 renovation plans but forth by Seattle that would have involved various degrees of financial contributions from the owners. The previous owners said "No". That same offer was extended to Bennett et al. The said no to that as well. It was a new arena or nothing. Before the trial Bennett denied agreeing to contribute anything towards a new arena (have have the articles somewhere if you are interested). IIRC, it wasn't until during the trial that he mentioned they would be willing to contribute something.



Time to accept the fact that most fans don't have a problem with the lease.
Most don't have a problem with it because they don't realize what is in it. Ignorance is bliss.

I think we will have to agree to disagree. I'm happy with the lease, happy to pay for renovations to the Ford Center, happy to pay a seat tax, deleriously happy we have a team and think our team adds immeasurably to my family and friends quality of life. I love hearing about our team on Sports Center, reading about them in newspapers around the country, am very proud that when I tell people I'm from Oklahoma City, the first thing many of them say is, "Oh, home of Kevin Durant" or "I love the Thunder." This week in Colorado we had a group of 30 from around the country cheering as they defeated the Heat. Again, I'm not able to put a price on that.

Larry you still stewing over this three years later? Let it go...Does a body good

I agree with Betts...Can't put a price on the pure joy the Thunder brings to a million or more folks around the metro and state

In addition, if anyone thinks the Thunder owners are breaking even on the team yet, they are fooling themselves. It cost the owners $30 million to move the team, $45 million to break the lease and imagine the debt service on the $350 million purchase price.

The Seattle lease was horrific. The city gave the team no revenue from the arena. Howard Schultz started his ownership happy and excited about the team. Embittered by his dealings with the city of Seattle and state of Washington, his tenure was short. Did you notice no one in Seattle wanted to buy the team when he put it on the market, despite the presence of many more billionaires in the region? No one from Seattle has tried to buy the Kings or Hornets.