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.


One thing you left out Betts is that they also have a $329 million asset. They aren't as far in the hole as you may think. Billionaires in the Seattle area did express interest in the team but they had the same problem Bennett and Schultz had - no place to play that could generate enough cash flow. If I remember correctly Steve Ballmer (CEO of Microsoft) considered buying the team as part of the Schultz lawsuit but even he realized owning an NBA team in Seattle was a serious money losing venture and backed out. Also, there is no debt service on the $350 million purchase price. NBA owners are not allowed to borrow money to purchase the team (although some do get loans directly from the NBA to keep teams afloat, but these are probably zero interest loans). Their investment has to come from personal wealth. That way some bank doesn't end up owning NBA teams if the owner defaults.

Betts,
As is your norm, well stated. I am one of those fans that DOES NOT have any problem with the lease agreement, the food and beverage agreement, the arena upgrades, the practice facility, and everything else that allows these owners to remain profitable and by extension this team to remain in OKC. If the Thunder left OKC it would leave a big hole now, I don't even want to imagine after 15-20 years or more. And although I do not currently live in OKC so I am not directly taxed, I have bought season tickets and merchandise every year they have been in OKC and hopefully I will be able to continue to do so. I LOVE this team and nothing the Larry's of the world can say will change that

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.

So Bennet was lying then, when he said if the team were forced to stay in Seattle, they would be losing money, rather than moving that year and making a 19 million dollar profit, for the 2008-2009 year, then?

I would think Bennet has no reason to lie about how much profit would be made in its first year, to people he doesn't even have to give that info to.

If you borrow $350,000 to buy a business, spend $75,000 on repairs of your building and you make $20,000 profit the first 2 years you are in business, are you breaking even? It depends on your debt and the interest you're paying on your loan. Looking at Forbes data, I don't think Bennett's "profit" includes debt repayment and certainly doesn't factor in moving expenses and lease buyout. Regardless, you're not getting rich. Now the value of your business might be $425,000, but that money is only yours if you sell your business for $825,000. If you sell it for $425,000 you're left with your $20,000 profit, minus taxes. Maybe thats a bit of perspective, in dollars we can understand.

It's been great for everyone involved. No question about that. It's just ironic that it can happen in this conservative city. Because make no question, it's been accomplished through taxes and municipal socialism. There really can't even be serious disagreement with that. Facts are facts. This is a publicly financed enterprise in so many different ways. But it's a great thing for our city - no question.

It's been great for everyone involved. No question about that. It's just ironic that it can happen in this conservative city. Because make no question, it's been accomplished through taxes and municipal socialism. There really can't even be serious disagreement with that. Facts are facts. This is a publicly financed enterprise in so many different ways. But it's a great thing for our city - no question.

Municipal SOCIALISM. Seriously dude? Must be a tea partier. Like firefighting is a socialist activity. Why should we all pay...I haven't had a fire.

Yet we can't come around to all paying for others' health care... I haven't had a serious accident.

Firefighting and Police service should be privatized if you believe that health care should be.

Just my rant... back to topic.

Municipal SOCIALISM. Seriously dude? Must be a tea partier. Like firefighting is a socialist activity. Why should we all pay...I haven't had a fire.

Excuse me. Firefighting and law enforcement is a municipal responsibility. Subsidizing professional BASKETBALL is not.

Excuse me. Firefighting and law enforcement is a municipal responsibility. Subsidizing professional BASKETBALL is not.

But building a greater, more financially rewarding tax base is, and that's exactly what having the Thunder has, and will continue to do.

But building a greater, more financially rewarding tax base is, and that's exactly what having the Thunder has, and will continue to do.

Again....I support it! It's a great thing for the city. But, let's be honest about what it is. Taxpayer-subsidized private enterprise is usually called 'socialism' on this board. Just because this at the local level - it's all of the sudden "building a greater, more financially rewarding tax base" (which could come out of the mouth of Barack Obama or Bernie Sanders if it was a national program). Propping up private business with taxpayer funds is hardly a 'conservative' position. That's all I'm saying, but I think it's a good investment. Sometimes, spending at the national level can be just as rewarding. Notice I said sometimes. It's just ironic - that's all!

I love how conservatives always see that the government supporting things they believe in as being responsible, but supporting things they don't understand as being commie. What myopia!

I love how conservatives always see that the government supporting things they believe in as being responsible, but supporting things they don't understand as being commie. What myopia!

I'm not sure you see that I agree with you.

In fact, if you go way back, it was quite common in ancient cities to have state(city) sponsored games and not have a city sponsored fire department.

Not taking sides. I just don't agree when people claim one thing is a municipal responsibility and another is not. There is historical precedence for both arguments.

If you are interested to learn more, I recommend reading: http://goo.gl/jXFUx

The best ancient representation of how private industry is not always good at running fire departments is Marcus Licinius Crassus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus

He made most of his wealth with his private fire department buying property as it was burning, and then after the deal refurbishing and "flipping" houses. He made enough to vie for the position of emperor (he did fail).

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. ...

Won't go into what Kerry has already expressed other than to say, that is indeed the case. We have had this talk before, and as I pointed out the cost of buying the team etc, was an investment by the ownership group. No, they haven't made back the $350 million yet and they aren't going to...until they sell the team. EVERY previous owner of the Sonics turned a profit. EVERY one of them. Even Shultz with his multi-million/year losses made back every penny and a nice profit when he sold the team. Now it might take Bennett et al a little longer to make back their purchase price (since they reportedly paid $100M more than what the team was worth), but history is definitely on their side.

As pointed out previously, they have easily surpassed their "conservative" estimates by their own consultants with the move. The estimates were around $10M profit. Did the math on it at one time, but they made a $30M/year difference between what they were losing in Seattle and what they are making here.

I know you are perfectly happy with the way everything turned out. You even stated at one point, you would give Bennett everything he asked for just so you could have something else to do 41 nights a year. You have no problem giving your tax money over to support it, and I respect that. By all means, sign over every paycheck directly to Bennett if you want to. Am sure he would be happy to cash it.

I love how conservatives always see that the government supporting things they believe in as being responsible, but supporting things they don't understand as being commie. What myopia!

:doh:

It all goes back to what you think is the role of government?

Won't go into what Kerry has already expressed other than to say, that is indeed the case. We have had this talk before, and as I pointed out the cost of buying the team etc, was an investment by the ownership group. No, they haven't made back the $350 million yet and they aren't going to...until they sell the team. EVERY previous owner of the Sonics turned a profit. EVERY one of them. Even Shultz with his multi-million/year losses made back every penny and a nice profit when he sold the team. Now it might take Bennett et al a little longer to make back their purchase price (since they reportedly paid $100M more than what the team was worth), but history is definitely on their side.

As pointed out previously, they have easily surpassed their "conservative" estimates by their own consultants with the move. The estimates were around $10M profit. Did the math on it at one time, but they made a $30M/year difference between what they were losing in Seattle and what they are making here.

I know you are perfectly happy with the way everything turned out. You even stated at one point, you would give Bennett everything he asked for just so you could have something else to do 41 nights a year. You have no problem giving your tax money over to support it, and I respect that. By all means, sign over every paycheck directly to Bennett if you want to. Am sure he would be happy to cash it.

Larry, when Schultz sold his team, everyone who was selling a house was making a killing too. The Blazers were for sale and Allen couldn't find a buyer. The Grizzlies have been for sale for years and no buyer has emerged. Same with the Hornets. Michael Jordan bought the Bobcats for about $100 million less than Bob Johnson paid for them. George Shinn was in so much debt from running the Hornets he had to sell the team back to the league. The Maloofs are in so much debt from owning the Kings they have to move the team, because they need the $100 million loan the city of Anaheim is giving them if they move. As I said at the time the Sonics were sold, there is no guarantee any of the Sonics/Thunder owners will make a profit selling the team. There is no guarantee they will continue to make a "profit", which is again not truly a correct term, because that $30 million you are quoting is the difference between their losses in Seattle and money made after salaries and team operations expenses are paid. Yes, they are happy they are not still losing $20 million a year, which is what happened in the city that gave them absolutely no financial support and took away all arena profits to pay for arena renovations. But, they are still far behind if you add in moving costs, lease buyout and debt on the purchase.

And no, I didn't want to give them whatever they wanted so I could have something to do 41 nights a year, although that is part of it. I could go to Barons games if all I cared about was filling up nights. I wanted the team, as well, because of what I thought they would bring to the city: name recognition, a sense of community pride, a team that would unite people in our community with all different backgrounds and income levels. I hoped, and I think there is some chance that hope is true, that having a team would keep more of our college graduates here, would help with the revitalization of our downtown, would help the merchants in Bricktown, the hotel owners.

Propping up private business with taxpayer funds is hardly a 'conservative' position.

Correct, but it is the MO of the Republican party. Oklahoma is not conservative, it is Republican.

Using public subsidies for private enterprise has been the "MO" of both the Republican and Democrat Parties in Oklahoma.

That's because both parties in Oklahoma are neither really conservative or liberal. There's an Oklahoma-centric strain of populism that's pervaded our state's politics since statehood, which has helped both parties (and the people) support such subsidies.

That's because both parties in Oklahoma are neither really conservative or liberal.

Can't argue with that.

Using public subsidies for private enterprise has been the "MO" of both the Republican and Democrat Parties in Oklahoma.

That's because both parties in Oklahoma are neither really conservative or liberal. There's an Oklahoma-centric strain of populism that's pervaded our state's politics since statehood, which has helped both parties (and the people) support such subsidies.

Using incentives and public infrastructure development and state promotion is good governance and can be done correctly or abusively by both parties.

To ignore the absolute rightist extreme conservative leanings of the Republican party here is having one's head in the sand. Oklahoma is one of the most right leaning states in the country and IS the most Republican.

Can't argue with that.

I will say, with regard to Larry - I haven't seen any of this dooms day evidence you keep claiming that Bennett is fleecing Oklahoma City. It almost seems as if every post you make somehow has a slant on it against the people who have contributed MOST to this city. I think it is time you (and others) face the facts:

1) Oklahoma City built the Ford Center with one sole purpose in mind - to land a Major League team. The city wasn't exactly sure if the 'build-it-and-they-will-come' strategy would work, so the city hedged its bets and built it bare bones - with the UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULD BE UPGRADED ONCE THE CITY LANDED A TEAM.....

1a) The city tried to get an NHL expansion team in the early 2000's after Ford Center was built. After being on the short list, the city was passed over - which many (including myself) view as a HUGE blessing in disguise.

1b) Ford Center made its bones initially as a concert and minor league sport arena. This allowed the city to collect operating income and fill the arena and city with event nights of things to do; something that had been difficult at best in the past.

2) Oklahoma City received another HUGE, Tremendous blessing from the NBA in 2005 at the expense of New Orleans. The Hornets coming to town as OKC's first major professional sports team - proved to be a huge success and put OKC on the map. IMMEDIATELY, there were plans set in place to secure OKC a major league team permanently - with Clay Bennett offering to buy a majority stake. This was denied.

3) So, Clay Bennett launched an investment LLC with the SOLE PURPOSE of buying a team. Bennett shopped around, and was alerted by David Stern of the NBA that the Supersonics franchise might be an opportunity. The thought was trifold, 1) OKC deserved a franchise and David wanted an upbeat, motivated new city to 'expand' or 'move' some of its troubled franchise(s) to. 2) Stern didn't let Bennett buy the Hornets as he didn't want to 'give up' on the city that had a major disaster. 3) So Stern let Bennett buy the Sonics. If the threat of an outside owner shaped Seattle up, then great - Stern just let's Bennett buy a different team or expand the league for OKC. If Seattle acts arogant and continues to be nonchelant (even with an outside owner whose sole purpose that everybody with half a brain or internet knows wants a team in OKC), then Bennett can move the Sonics. ...

4) To APPEASE THE OTHER OWNERS OF THE NBA AND ENSURE THERE WAS NOT ANY COLLUSION, the NBA required Oklahoma City to upgrade Ford Center. (NOT BENNETT). The NBA wanted the city to commit fully, not with just a temporary arena that hosted the Hornets but a major league arena that would host a permanent team with revenue streams and attractions. To ensure there wouldn't be any further litigation and to make things more attractive for OKC players, Bennett asked and received tax breaks on the top % of player salaries (I forget the %, I think it is 5%). Other states have done this and it makes smaller markets more competitive while the state still receives new tax revenue from players salaries (just not as much as it could). All of this added up to 'An Offer The NBA Couldn't Refuse' and politics aside, the vote to relocate the Sonics was unanimous.

5) the Ford Center upgrade was voted and approved for by the citizens of OKC. This was the final promise and we upheld it. Unfortunately, the city was overambitious and made the tax for 15 months without a litmus test clause (that could have extended it 3 extra months if revenue came short of the $120M budget. However, MOST of the arena will be upgraded to spec and will be debt free.

6) the lease, it provides revenue streams to the team as major tenant. This is quite normal while the city does collect tax revenue from tickets and concessions, not to mention rent from the team. The only part I disagree with somewhat is the naming rights, but I don't really think the city is losing since irregardless it will get revenue guaranteed by the team.

In any of these 6 points, nowhere is Clay Bennett demanding anything from Oklahoma City, nor is he fleecing the city. By contrast, it really does appear that he (and the investment team) did everything they could to get OKC a major professional franchise.

I think it is difficult to debate these 6 points (well, point 6 does have some flaws, I admit) but I challenge any debator to come up with another favorable method with the same or lower risk to both parties. .... With that, I hope we could put to rest how this team arrived to OKC and whether the city should be required to maintain Ford Center to provide a venue for its new major league team.

Fair is fair, and you shouldn't expect Bennett to buy the team, pay to move it, and pay to build an arena in OKC. ... It is best when the city owns the facility because there can be other events booked, not to mention the probability of new major professional team(s) in the future.

I do think we should have differing viewpoints and people should challenge when it is necessary, but I hope this is enough of the Bennett should have paid this or that. He already has done more than almost anybody image wise for Oklahoma City in its history, arguably; so let us enjoy the success of this team and the fame that it is bringing the city. You can NOT deny that OKC has a new identity and pride as a result of MAPS and the culmination that landed this team (and its success). That should be no debate or counter.

Geez, can we get back to topic already

Sorry Metro, not yet (and not completely off topic as it does relate to the improvements)

Hot Rod:

The evidence is in the Letter of Intent and the Lease.

1) True, it was built "builder's white" (not bare bones) because we didn't have a tenant. Due to the massive cost over runs of the other MAPS projects a list of 22 items were scaled back or eliminated (but the Arena still came in $8M over budget). Also, it was the City's plan for the eventual tenant to pay for the "finishing out" costs (those 22 items if the tenant wanted them).

1a) Timeline is off, the decision to go ahead with the Arena happened after we lost the NHL expansion team. Due to losing out and the significant cost over runs of almost every MAPS project, they were talking about scrapping the Arena completely. Then after violating his campaign pledge to finish MAPS on time and on budget, then Mayor Humphreys proposed and passed the 6 month "extension" of the tax.

1b) This is true as the Myriad had smaller seating capacity. To get bigger/better concerts a higher capacity arena was needed. The minor league teams were the tenants by default. Even at the height of Blazer hockey popularity, rarely did they need the seating capacity of the Ford (remember they installed the curtains in the upper tier so the arena wouldn't appear empty). Then, according to the Mayor we needed to make the improvements even if the NBA didn't come... “This investment will not only help us attract our own NBA franchise, but also will make us more desirable for BIGGER and better concerts, special events and conventions.” Yet did we add any seating capacity to the Ford? Nope, actually decreased seating capacity by nearly 1,000 (960). Taking the Ford from #14 all the way down to #28 (dangerously close to being the smallest NBA arena, a former Seattle distinction)

4). Regarding the upgrades, Stern said they were NOT necessarily needed for OKC to get a permanent team and called the Ford "a first-class facility". The Mayor said that this was all his idea.
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,”

The relocation vote was NOT unanimous. Dallas Maverick owner Mark Cuban and Portland Trail Blazers owner Paul Allen voted against.

5). Maybe. "The city will begin work before the tax goes into effect Jan. 1, 2009 and will take out a $20 million line of credit to start the renovations." Presume the $20M was paid back once the tax started being collected, but don't know for sure. If so, then Yes THESE upgrades are bought and paid for with most being covered by the tax even with the shortfall in revenue. BUT we are required by the lease to keep making upgrades to this arena or a replacement arena with virtually no means to pay for it. The naming rights money (which we are being shorted by about $100K/year) that the Team was so generously letting the City continue to receive, has to be put into a fund for future upgrades. The $400K/year (mol) we are getting leaves us about $19.5M short on the yearly cost of upgrades to date.

Still don't think we are getting fleeced when it comes to the lease? Do you have the extra $19.5M/year average? If handled correctly the Naming Rights money could have paid for this round of upgrades without costing the taxpayers a cent. Make the term of the naming rights coincide with the time frame of the next round of upgrades or a new arena (10 to 15 years according to the Mayor, but no time frame put forth by Bennett), and then let the next round pay for those too.

6) There has been some question if the City collects the tax on NBA tickets or not. While the lease does allow it, someone posted that we aren't charging it. I don't know with any certainty which is the case. We are splitting concessions revenue etc with the team (but the Team gets the Pouring Rights money). Mostly it looks like that was an equitable deal here were the highlights mentioned in an article, you decide:

Food and beverage agreement: On concessions, team owners would receive 40 percent of the first $2.5 million, 42.5 percent of the next $2.5 million and 45 percent of the balance. On suite food and beverage service, owners would receive 25 percent of the first $1.25 million, 27.5 percent of the next $500,000 and 30 percent of the balance. Owners also would receive 10 percent of club and restaurant revenue and 15 percent of bar revenue.
The rent from the team covers game day expenses with a little extra thrown in. They are paying $110K/year less on it than they had anticipated. In addition, they are getting charged half the amount they were expecting to for the Practice Facility (a near exclusive Team/NBA use), another $100K/year. As far as I can tell, the City gets zero supplementary revenue from the Practice Facility and even gave the Naming Rights to it away to the Team. By the way, the Team said they would allow the City to use the Practice Facility for some events, does anyone know if any events have been held there in the 3 years the Thunder have been here (not talking about the New Facility)? In any case, the Mayor & City Manager were quite proud of the fact that they approached the negotiations with a "break even" philosophy and might even make a profit of $150K/year directly off the lease when it was all said and done. But as pointed out above, we lost money on the Naming Rights so any excess is already gone and looks like we are back to "break even".

Should the City expect a return on investment (make money)? I agree with the Mayor when he said we should.

On the positive side, Cornett said city officials like MAPS projects that drive economic development. "We're looking for a return on our investment,”

Yet some claim we don't build things like the canal and the renovation of the Civic Center to make money (the argument being made that the improvements shouldn't be paid for by a ticket surcharge). Mayor is looking for a return on investment on Fairground improvements, yet approached the lease with the Team with a "break even philosophy" Sounds like a contradiction to me. But then the Mayor is known for those. During the Grand Prix Council discussion, the Mayor said it was the Council's history "we like zero subsidy...as our goal". Why didn't he express that view when it came to the Thunder? But then again he was only one of two that voted for the $7M subsidy for the Grand Prix anyway. So go figure.

Fairness is exactly what I am talking about. Of course one should expect the owners of the private, for profit business to pay for the cost of the business and the for the building where the conduct that business. Be it the Team offices, practice facility or where they play the games. If their business model is broken to the point that the want or think they need to have government subsidies to survive, they need to fix the business model or get into another business. I don't blame Bennett for attempting the government handout as every team he has been involved with has had significant government subsidies (but not every NBA arena is 100% public financed, not even the majority of them). Bennett doesn't want to own an arena. He has gone on record stating that they can't be run at a profit (even though the Ford/OKC arena has run at an operational profit).

Mayors, Council members and City Managers have come and gone over the various incarnations of MAPS. But one name that keeps popping up during it all (89ers/RedHawks, NHL expansion team, Hornets and finally the Sonics/Thunder relocation) is Bennett. If you think that is a good or bad thing is up to each to decide. But I wouldn't personally trust the man to correctly make change for a dollar, much less than go into any type of long term business agreement with him (as the City has done for the 15 to 30 years of the lease). Nothing concrete that I can point to. Just the same feeling of uncleanness that I get when ever I see the man speak. The same feeling I got while following the Seattle litigation. He gave so many contradictory statements in the press up there, one might get whip-lash keeping up with them. The man doesn't believe in contracts unless it is to his benefit. If he doesn't like something, thinks he can just buy his way out of it. The same feeling I got whenever I saw Gov Walters, Sen Gene Stipe, Insurance Commish Carrol Fischer, State Auditor McMahan (?) and other noteworthy Oklahoman's. Not trying to paint him with a broad brush and not saying he has done anything illegal, just the same gut feeling that it turns out was correct.

sorry about the timing of the arena, I thought we had built the ford then went after the NHL - as surely there was NO WAY the myriad could ever or should ever have been used in that proposal.

Also, I said it was unanimous NBA vote, politics aside - clearly Cuban and Allen voted NO due to politics, since moving the team from Seattle made sense for the league. ...

And I can point to something concrete from Bennett and that is the Thunder. Nobody went through what he did to get that team, and I'd say he did much more for OKC than many people on this forum who consistently look for dirt to throw without there being anything constructive. Just saying. ...

Once you understand that the Ford Center was built as a spec building everything makes sense.

Larry, the business model IS broken. That's been our point the entire time. However, everyone who voted to build an arena or to improve the arena in the hopes of getting a team here understands that. We're willling to deal with the broken business model because we wanted a team here, for all the reasons that have been outlined ad nauseum. We wanted a team despite the broken business model, as did Clay Bennett. This wasn't a money-making attempt for him or the other owners, but, as you can see due to what has happened in Seattle and now Sacramento, even billionaire businessmen cannot afford to donate a billion dollars to their city. As Aubrey McClendon said, they'd be happy to break even. That in itself is a gift, given the money they had to spend to buy the team and the risk they'll never break even.

Clay Bennett isn't going to change the NBA, and so your statement that he needs to "fix the business or get into another business" is foolish. Do you seriously think he could make enough of a statement to change the business model by simply not buying the team? There are 300 million people in the US who have made that statement, and it hasn't changed the business model yet. The new CBA, when it is created, isn't going to change the business model enough to make owning a team affordable, on the average. Yes, there are a few cities like New York, Chicago and LA where the owners make money consistently, but not in small markets.

There are a LOT of people who are happy we have a team and who don't mind the incredibly small personal cost to each of us to have one. Chill. Save your energies for the mayoral campaign and MAPS 5 or 6.

Betts: This is the first time I have heard you admit the business model is broken. Good for you. Baby steps. Now help fix it and if you can't do that, at least stop being an enabler.

Hot Rod: you weren't entirely wrong on the time line, just got some things out of order. The arena was planned, voted on and approved in hopes of getting an NHL and/or NBA team (both were specifically mentioned on the original MAPS ballot). The NHL thing fell through before we got it built is all. Didn't have to have a finished arena waiting for a team, just that we had one planned and funding was theoretically secured was enough to make the finalist list according to the NHL folks. Don't recall exactly why we didn't get the expansion team?

I did miss that phrase, but not sure how you can put politics aside? If you do that, can't one claim almost every vote is unanimous? Cuban stated that he was voting no because it wasn't in the leagues best interests for a myriad of reasons. That if someone could show him that id did make since, he would vote for relocation. Apparently no one was able to do so. He also said that the other owners would probably vote for it, saying something like "you would be amazed at what these people will do for $1M" (each teams share of the relocation fee). Throw in the "vote for my relocation, and I'll vote for yours if you decide to do so" (pure good-old-boy-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours politics) and the relocation vote as essentially a done deal. Some have said that Stern is more like the Pope, and whatever he wants, the owners fall in line. He wanted the relocation to happen. So it did (if that interpretation has any validity).

Cuban's vote was purely political, because he didn't want OKC encroaching on or eroding away from his catchment market (whatever little there was). He didn't want the competition, that's why he voted no. Purely political.

Allen's vote was also political, as he was sympathetic to Seattle and didn't want to piss off potential Seahawks or Trailblazer fans who might also be Sonics fans. His vote was purely political.

Both votes were political, because neither offered any tangible reason why OKC wouldn't be good for the league or wouldn't be more successful than keeping the team in Seattle. ... They stated nothing of fact, just 'I don't want OKC to have a team, because there goes my biggest catchment city' AND 'For the fans of Seattle and the Northwest, I'd better not vote in favor'. ....

From the NBA prospective, it was unanimous given OKC's success with the Hornets and the 'spark' that OKC gave to the league. We can all attest to that even moreso now, as OKC is either peoples favourite team or 2nd favourite team depending on if their city has a team already. ....

Look at all of the Toronto people, who are pulling for OKC (see the ESPN conversation from last night's game). That is common, for just about every city OKC plays, win or lose. That spark - is just what the NBA needed and is one of the best reasons why the move made sense.

Look at all of the Toronto people, who are pulling for OKC (see the ESPN conversation from last night's game). That is common, for just about every city OKC plays, win or lose. That spark - is just what the NBA needed and is one of the best reasons why the move made sense.

Where's the ESPN conversation from last night?

Where's the ESPN conversation from last night?

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/conversation?gameId=310320025

...And I can point to something concrete from Bennett and that is the Thunder. Nobody went through what he did to get that team, and I'd say he did much more for OKC than many people on this forum who consistently look for dirt to throw without there being anything constructive. Just saying. ...

Can't help but be reminded of the folks that defended Gene Stipe, up, down, forwards, backwards and sideways. Telling about all the good he had done for the community over the decades. The widows and orphans he had helped. The attitude was "we don't care if he is a crook, he is OUR crook".

Just as there are those on this forum that don't care if an elected official makes money off a project. And there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. But they also don't seem to mind if it may have been done illegally. After all, they have the money and I don't. I am gald that they are developing the area etc etc etc.

It doesn't bother them in the least that they were told one thing and delivered another. After all we can trust them! Never mind the factual evidence to the contrary. "Don't try to confuse me with the facts" type of thing. Have to wait until it is too late to see if they deliver what they promised. Then somehow "forget" they were ever promised it. When you remind them of who said what and when, suddenly it doesn't matter.

Why doesn't it bother them? Apparently it is the same reasoning that the Stipe supporters had. We got what we wanted out of it. Doesn't matter how it happened. Doesn't matter what how many times they changed their story, the ethics, contracts or laws may have been bent or broken in the process. To each their own I guess.

Can't help but be reminded of the folks that defended Gene Stipe, up, down, forwards, backwards and sideways. Telling about all the good he had done for the community over the decades. The widows and orphans he had helped. The attitude was "we don't care if he is a crook, he is OUR crook".

Just as there are those on this forum that don't care if an elected official makes money off a project. And there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. But they also don't seem to mind if it may have been done illegally. After all, they have the money and I don't. I am gald that they are developing the area etc etc etc.

It doesn't bother them in the least that they were told one thing and delivered another. After all we can trust them! Never mind the factual evidence to the contrary. "Don't try to confuse me with the facts" type of thing. Have to wait until it is too late to see if they deliver what they promised. Then somehow "forget" they were ever promised it. When you remind them of who said what and when, suddenly it doesn't matter.

Why doesn't it bother them? Apparently it is the same reasoning that the Stipe supporters had. We got what we wanted out of it. Doesn't matter how it happened. Doesn't matter what how many times they changed their story, the ethics, contracts or laws may have been bent or broken in the process. To each their own I guess.

Spoken like a true--oh never mind, not worth it. I'll live in the real world and leave the conspiracy theory to others.

As will I, no conspiracy theory here, just the facts as reported (unless you think the press is involved too)

Betts: This is the first time I have heard you admit the business model is broken. Good for you. Baby steps. Now help fix it and if you can't do that, at least stop being an enabler.

The whole premise behind supporting an NBA team is that it cannot support itself. That's been implied in everything I've said from Day One. But, "business model broken" is a knee-jerk phrase you've picked up from your readings of Seattle blogs, clearly. Because you don't care if we have an NBA team, you're all about fixing that business model. What you fail to realize is the scarcity of the object. NBA teams are almost Hope Diamond scarce, and superb NBA athletes aren't much easier to find. That drives the price up, and if you WANT that object (NBA team) you pay the price asked. That's what happened to Bennett and OKC.

However, a more complicated issue has arisen, where we have scarcity and yet financial instability. Some cities refused to support their teams, causing them to lose millions and millions of dollars. Problems like the Maloofs are having and Schultz had are sticky wickets. Heisley and Allen being unable to sell their teams might drive the price down IF the reason they were wanting to sell and being unable to find buyers was not because they're losing money hand over fist. In that situation, you have teams that are really stuck. They can't make enough money to support their team and nobody else wants the financial black hole either. Simply refusing to support the team doesn't really help the problem at all. Contraction of the league might help a little bit, although I'm sure all the existing owners would then have to spend more money to buy out the owners whose teams were being contracted.

The owners are attempting to help repair the business model with the new CBA. We'll see if they succeed. What I can tell you is this: Once I feel the owners have made enough "profit" to have broken even on their original investment, their moving expenses and their lawsuit buyout AND they're consistently making at least a small profit every year, then I will be willing to consider having them share some of that profit with the city. I see them as our partners: they've given us something rare, something we as a city couldn't get on our own. It cost them a lot of money to do so and thus we help them out financially until they are on stable ground. Once they've gotten the return on their investment they need and they are making a profit, we can split those profits, again to the mutual benefit of both parties.

But forcing a team to operate in the red does not help fix the broken business model, so you'll have to come up with a better solution.

Now that we've thoroughly bored everyone reading this forum and they're skipping any new posts here, want to move on? You're not fixing the business model with your polemics and neither one of us is convincing the other. We're probably the only two people reading the other's posts, and I'm skipping your long ones.

Did anyone see that OKC is the #7 fan favorite in the NBA? So while we are pretty successful as a team, we also seem to be pretty stinking popular too. Could it be because our players are a good reflection of our city's attitude? Polite, not big-headed, but still get our work done....

Did anyone see that OKC is the #7 fan favorite in the NBA? So while we are pretty successful as a team, we also seem to be pretty stinking popular too. Could it be because our players are a good reflection of our city's attitude? Polite, not big-headed, but still get our work done....

You can see this in the attendance at road games. The Thunder are #6 in road attendance at 92.6%. The five teams ahead of the Thunder: Heat, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, and Knicks.

You can also see it when you watch away games. Our camera crew really focuses in on people wearing Thunder jerseys at away games (although my daughters were disappointed they weren't on camera when we played the Bulls in Chicago). There is a lot more blue in away arenas than I would expect, given how recently the Thunder became a jersey option.

Priceless .... ....

813814815816817818
They've started excavations for the new entrance. Pics are posted on the OKC Arena Facebook page.

Thanks, therondo, I've not been at the location in a few weeks and this is good news.

It's kind of hard to tell they are working on it with all the construction going on in the the area.

Anyone notice The new brackets in place where the old Ford Center logo was?the bracketing looks alot longer than The old FC logo!

Anyone notice The new brackets in place where the old Ford Center logo was?the bracketing looks alot longer than The old FC logo!

Name announcement coming soon?

Name announcement coming soon?

^^Thats what I'm thinking,and also The bracketing is on both sides of the arena!

Hopefully it's not long enough to hold "Oklahoma City Arena".

If you need further evidence of the worth of the Thunder to OKC:

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2011/04/01/as-promised-cnn-visits-oklahoma-city/

Looks promising (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:r8tbt7.2.1) for Chesapeake Arena. . .

Looks promising (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:r8tbt7.2.1) for Chesapeake Arena. . .

I would suggest reading this thread (http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=22915&page=7) beginning at about post #320.

OKC Council approves fee hike for sports arena renovations
By Brian Brus
Journal Record
Oklahoma City reporter - Contact 405-278-2837
Posted: 06:55 PM Tuesday, April 12, 2011

OKLAHOMA CITY – The City Council approved a fee increase of $740,000 for architectural services for renovations at the Oklahoma City Arena downtown Tuesday.

The revised contract for services performed by SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure LLC – formerly The Benham Cos. – that was submitted to the council for approval was $10.5 million, still well within the bounds of the project budget.

In 2008 voters approved a penny sales tax set to expire after 15 months to generate about $100 million for a major overhaul of the sports arena and $20 million for a practice facility to lure the SuperSonics NBA franchise team to the city. The team was later renamed the Thunder.

Renovations included a new grand entrance for the arena, multistory atrium, new restaurants, clubs, concession areas, bunker suites, loge boxes, locker rooms and several team offices.

But with a slumping economy, sales tax revenues dedicated to the arena came up short of initial projections. And locally based Benham Cos. and Sink Combs Dethlefs were told to revamp the project to keep it within available funds. Adjustments included eliminating an entire 1,000-square-foot bay, reducing a children’s party area, and significantly altering plans for restaurants and private rooms on the second floor.

Because of tight construction windows, the changes delayed the expected completion date from 2010 to 2012, and additional architectural and engineering services were anticipated for contractor oversight, monitoring and reporting, Oklahoma City Special Projects Manager Tom Anderson told council members Tuesday.

Given the current tax revenues weighed against project expenses including the latest amendment, the remaining fund balance for the arena project is $3.7 million in addition to budgeted contingencies, city officials said. The revenues figure includes consideration of the Thunder reimbursing the city about $427,000 for the construction of office space.

The Thunder basketball team last year received the council’s approval to add certain improvements to the practice facility as long as they did not charge those changes to the city. Those changes included upgrades to interior finishes, electrical systems and the basketball court floor. About 500 square feet was added for additional strength-training gym space; the physical therapy pool systems were changed; and the kitchen layout was improved.

City Council members unanimously approved the fee increase and praised the companies and Thunder management for working so well together through the changes.

Councilman Pat Ryan said, “I think this is an example of what happens sometimes when we come up short in our MAPS revenues projections. There are some avenues available to us to re-engineer the contracts, to deliver essentially what we promised to deliver.”

City Manager Jim Couch said, “The team has been great to work with. I’ve heard horror stories of teams coming in and being demanding and unreasonable and such, and I cannot say that about the Thunder. The Thunder has been with us through all the meetings; they sat there and were a part of every decision we made.”

Does anyone have a guess as to when the announcement will finally come? The wait is killing me

Can someone post pictures of the brackets. I forgot to look last night when I was at the game

Can someone post pictures of the brackets. I forgot to look last night when I was at the game

The brackets that are up there are from the "Ford Center".. Not new ones..

Did anyone see that OKC is the #7 fan favorite in the NBA? So while we are pretty successful as a team, we also seem to be pretty stinking popular too. Could it be because our players are a good reflection of our city's attitude? Polite, not big-headed, but still get our work done....
A couple djs that we brought thru were all about the thunder due to that reason. We are America's team.

Wasn't there speculation this was a done deal and they were just waiting until the playoffs to make the announcement? What happened with that?

So, with the possibility of this extending into June (which obviously we're ALL rooting for), how does this affect the arena renovations? Seems like it might not ever get done at this rate, and might have to be put off for another year?

Why? They're working on the final phase now...

How much can they really do inside right now anyway? I would think most of the inside work would take place after the steel for the new entrance is erected and they begin tying everything in.

Building the new entrance and completing it will take longer than doing all the inside work.. All the inside work can be done in about 3 months, anytime between the end of June and October.

When I was passing the arena on the Crosstown yesterday, I noticed some brackets on both sides of where it used to say "Ford Center" ,and they looked to be in the shape of the Midfirst logo. So...I'm as convinced as ever that it will be "Midfirst Bank Center."

The Piggy Bank arena?