with no OU and KC being the legacy host .. i doubt big 12 basketball ever returns to OKC

Was the big 12 clamoring to get the basketball tournament in OKC while OU was in the conference? I doubt OU leaving has any effect on the future location of any big 12 tournament.

One of the biggest limitations of Paycom - which is a significant factor driving the talk of a new arena - is the lack of loading dock space. The arena has a very small loading dock area; room for only one or two semis at a time, and also is the secured game night parking location for Thunder players. It is abysmally cramped, and absolutely prevents many bookings because of load-in/load-out conflicts.

It is a very similar situation to the convention center; OKC was limited on bookings because you couldn't do simultaneous load-out of one event and load-in of another. It cut days off of the saleable schedule. As soon as conventions moved to the new building it opened up the door for vastly more bookings, and despite opening during a pandemic the building is now awash in advanced bookings. The same thing will happen with a new arena with a modern loading dock arrangement.

When we as a community talk about the need for an arena we typically focus solely on the Thunder. And without question the Thunder drives the need for a better building. But left out of the discussion almost without fail are the logistical and operational limitations that will always keep Paycom from being a truly comparable venue to other modern, major-market buildings.

Another example is the lack of space or facilities for televised events. When OKC hosted the NBA Finals in 2012, it was a simple thing to park the many satellite trucks in the old Ford Dealership lot across the street, and to lay cables across Robinson. We all clearly hope for high-quality development on those lots soon, which of course would take it off the table for this use. However the streetcar (launched in 2018) ALSO largely takes this property off the table, because laying cable across the street is no longer possible. OKC is likely to make the playoffs long before the new building is in place, so this will have to be temporarily solved in some way when we do.

But the playoffs and the Finals are two different things. The number of trucks for the Finals is 2-3X more than regular playoff rounds. If OKC should ever be lucky enough to make another finals there are presently tremendous challenges to successfully hosting.

Anyway, my point is that there are many reasons that don't immediately meet the eye that are driving the need for a new building. Paycom was a great building for a mid-sized city with no major league tenant. Over the years the City has made it more workable for an NBA tenant, but it is still not optimal. And the number of desirable events - including non-basketball - that are precluded or difficult-to-pull-off due to Paycom's logistics are plentiful.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2023/06/01/oklahoma-city-to-decide-legality-of-downtown-parking-lots/70275386007/

Not sure where this should go, or if it is ok to post from newsok.com. Just found it interesting that this is now being addressed.

One of the biggest limitations of Paycom - which is a significant factor driving the talk of a new arena - is the lack of loading dock space. The arena has a very small loading dock area; room for only one or two semis at a time, and also is the secured game night parking location for Thunder players. It is abysmally cramped, and absolutely prevents many bookings because of load-in/load-out conflicts.

It is a very similar situation to the convention center; OKC was limited on bookings because you couldn't do simultaneous load-out of one event and load-in of another. It cut days off of the saleable schedule. As soon as conventions moved to the new building it opened up the door for vastly more bookings, and despite opening during a pandemic the building is now awash in advanced bookings. The same thing will happen with a new arena with a modern loading dock arrangement.

When we as a community talk about the need for an arena we typically focus solely on the Thunder. And without question the Thunder drives the need for a better building. But left out of the discussion almost without fail are the logistical and operational limitations that will always keep Paycom from being a truly comparable venue to other modern, major-market buildings.

Another example is the lack of space or facilities for televised events. When OKC hosted the NBA Finals in 2012, it was a simple thing to park the many satellite trucks in the old Ford Dealership lot across the street, and to lay cables across Robinson. We all clearly hope for high-quality development on those lots soon, which of course would take it off the table for this use. However the streetcar (launched in 2018) ALSO largely takes this property off the table, because laying cable across the street is now longer possible. OKC is likely to make the playoffs long before the new building is in place, so this will have to be temporarily solved in some way when we do.

But the playoffs and the Finals are two different things. The number of trucks for the Finals is 2-3X more than regular playoff rounds. If OKC should ever be lucky enough to make another finals there are presently tremendous challenges to successfully hosting.

Anyway, my point is that there are many reasons that don't immediately meet the eye that are driving the need for a new building. Paycom was a great building for a mid-sized city with now major league tenant. Over the years the City has made it more workable for an NBA tenant, but it is still not optimal. And the number of desirable events - including non-basketball - that are precluded or difficult-to-pull-off due to Paycom's logistics are plentiful.

Just replying to say: you are on the money here, per usual.

Oklahoma City is poised to build an arena to serve our community. Experience with the Myriad and Paycom Center will cover the square footage, seating capacity, premium seating and loading dock with room for growth on the super 4 square block site.

There are enough NBA arena models Fiserv Forum (Milwaukee), Crypto.com Arena (Los Angeles) and Chase Center (San Francisco) to get this right.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2023/06/01/oklahoma-city-to-decide-legality-of-downtown-parking-lots/70275386007/

Not sure where this should go, or if it is ok to post from newsok.com. Just found it interesting that this is now being addressed.

what does this say?

what does this say?

Just talking about Mazaheri's request to allow a variance for unpaid parking on the Lumberyard lot (which passed today).

Also states he has yet to be fined for missing multiple deadlines on the old Goodwill lot where he is also operating a pay lot.

My understanding is it should go to vote in December. Thunder signed a new lease through 2026. If it passes, I would guess it would be several years and they might have to extend the lease until the new arena is built.

So by the time a tax for regional rail transit comes to a vote people will already be paying for a new jail and a new stadium. Good luck with getting regional rail.

with no OU and KC being the legacy host .. i doubt big 12 basketball ever returns to OKC

It was the appeal of new arenas (AA Center, Dallas (2003-'04, '06) and Oklahoma City (2007, '09). and Oklahoma City (2007, '09). (KC opened the T-Mobile Arena 2,007)

KC has been the favorite because of its proximity to the two Kansas schools and Iowa State.

The landscape of the new Big 12 IMO gives the Big 12 an option to explore another site.

OKC has newer Luxury Omni & National Hotel (to name a few) we didn't have back when we hosted the Big 12 tournaments. New skyline look (Devon, BOK Park Plaza, refreshed BancFirst, First National all are impressive).

The modern Streetcar vs. the old rubber wheel trolleys.

OKC will provide a break from K.C., when the new arena is built.

.

It was the appeal of new arenas (AA Center, Dallas (2003-'04, '06) and Oklahoma City (2007, '09). and Oklahoma City (2007, '09). (KC opened the T-Mobile Arena 2,007)

KC has been the favorite because of its proximity to the two Kansas schools and Iowa State.

The landscape of the new Big 12 IMO gives the Big 12 an option to explore another site.

OKC has newer Luxury Omni & National Hotel (to name a few) we didn't have back when we hosted the Big 12 tournaments. New skyline look (Devon, BOK Park Plaza, refreshed BancFirst, First National all are impressive).

The modern Streetcar vs. the old rubber wheel trolleys.

OKC will provide a break from K.C., when the new arena is built.

.

Why? OU fans won't be there.

It was the appeal of new arenas (AA Center, Dallas (2003-'04, '06) and Oklahoma City (2007, '09). and Oklahoma City (2007, '09). (KC opened the T-Mobile Arena 2,007)

KC has been the favorite because of its proximity to the two Kansas schools and Iowa State.

The landscape of the new Big 12 IMO gives the Big 12 an option to explore another site.

OKC has newer Luxury Omni & National Hotel (to name a few) we didn't have back when we hosted the Big 12 tournaments. New skyline look (Devon, BOK Park Plaza, refreshed BancFirst, First National all are impressive).

The modern Streetcar vs. the old rubber wheel trolleys.

OKC will provide a break from K.C., when the new arena is built.

.

The two Kansas Schools and proximity to Iowa is a pretty big reason. I don't see how the new landscape favors OKC when half of OKC's population is on the Big 12's poop list because their fans of the university that took a lot of money away.

But this is getting into off topic territory. Urbanized post was enough to convince me that Paycom won't be around that long after a new arena is built. It may sound like a good idea in the beginning, but it will just sit most of the time gathering dust.

One of the biggest limitations of Paycom - which is a significant factor driving the talk of a new arena - is the lack of loading dock space. The arena has a very small loading dock area; room for only one or two semis at a time, and also is the secured game night parking location for Thunder players. It is abysmally cramped, and absolutely prevents many bookings because of load-in/load-out conflicts.

It is a very similar situation to the convention center; OKC was limited on bookings because you couldn't do simultaneous load-out of one event and load-in of another. It cut days off of the saleable schedule. As soon as conventions moved to the new building it opened up the door for vastly more bookings, and despite opening during a pandemic the building is now awash in advanced bookings. The same thing will happen with a new arena with a modern loading dock arrangement.

When we as a community talk about the need for an arena we typically focus solely on the Thunder. And without question the Thunder drives the need for a better building. But left out of the discussion almost without fail are the logistical and operational limitations that will always keep Paycom from being a truly comparable venue to other modern, major-market buildings.

Another example is the lack of space or facilities for televised events. When OKC hosted the NBA Finals in 2012, it was a simple thing to park the many satellite trucks in the old Ford Dealership lot across the street, and to lay cables across Robinson. We all clearly hope for high-quality development on those lots soon, which of course would take it off the table for this use. However the streetcar (launched in 2018) ALSO largely takes this property off the table, because laying cable across the street is no longer possible. OKC is likely to make the playoffs long before the new building is in place, so this will have to be temporarily solved in some way when we do.

But the playoffs and the Finals are two different things. The number of trucks for the Finals is 2-3X more than regular playoff rounds. If OKC should ever be lucky enough to make another finals there are presently tremendous challenges to successfully hosting.

Anyway, my point is that there are many reasons that don't immediately meet the eye that are driving the need for a new building. Paycom was a great building for a mid-sized city with no major league tenant. Over the years the City has made it more workable for an NBA tenant, but it is still not optimal. And the number of desirable events - including non-basketball - that are precluded or difficult-to-pull-off due to Paycom's logistics are plentiful.

I have heard the same thing from many other people (as well as you). I was looking at the Crypto arena in LA and it looks like it has room for two, maybe three large tour buses or semis to pull in on the west side. I looked at the streets around the Chase Center in San Fran and couldn't find where the semis would go (I am sure they are there, just not sure where they pull into). For OKC, specifically, what kind of space are we needing to get bigger concerts, more efficient load in and out, etc?

Anyway, my point is that there are many reasons that don't immediately meet the eye that are driving the need for a new building. Paycom was a great building for a mid-sized city with no major league tenant. Over the years the City has made it more workable for an NBA tenant, but it is still not optimal. And the number of desirable events - including non-basketball - that are precluded or difficult-to-pull-off due to Paycom's logistics are plentiful.

This is a huge point and can not be overstated. It's probably a harder point to communicate and sell politically as a need for new arena. Shiny renderings and a more comprehensive and integrated development will carry a lot of that weight.

But, I do think it will go a long way to convince voters to support it, if they understand that it is much more than just a new home court for the Thunder. In fact, I think that's key and diffuses the "why use public funds to help out rich owners" argument. Positioned as a new venue that can better serve more events and all kinds of entertainment than Paycom currently can just broadens the appeal and its prospects for success. The Thunder would be the anchor tenant, with the priorities that goes along with that, but, ideally, the total number of non-Thunder events will be at least double the total number of nights they use it.

Like you said, there is no doubt Paycom was built and maintained in a responsible way for the market at the time and became a serviceable home for the NBA with improvements. It might even have some more mileage left in that role, especially if improvements and maintenance we have seen over the years continued. But there are real logistical hurdles with it that keep it from being more than just an NBA arena. To me, as a community funded civics project, there's more upside to building a new arena from the ground up than just being a shiny new home for the Thunder with additional revenue streams for the team. It isn't just keeping up with other NBA markets. It's also about keeping up with our own market and having a facility that can accommodate the significant growth the city has experienced since Paycom was originally built and the increase in demand for all kinds of large scale entertainment that the market can now support which maybe it couldn't have 25 years ago.

IMO, this needs to be THE downtown arena, and opportunities to redevelop the Paycom site is actually an important selling point.

Every time the subject of scheduling around the Thunder comes up, I have to remind people that the Staples Center (now Crypto.com) in L.A. hosts the Lakers, Clippers, Sparks, Avengers (now defunct but operated for years) and Kings plus has scores of concerts and events. That's 2 NBA teams, 1 NHL, 1 WNBA, 1 arena football, and about 10x the events (including the Grammys for the last 20 years) Paycom hosts.

For sure. For example, a recent 11 day stretch in April at Crypto:

WWE
(Dark)
WWE
Kings
Clippers
Muse
Lakers
Clippers / Kings
Lakers
Kings
Lakers (play-in game)

Not only were there NHL and NBA games during that stretch, one time they were on the same day.

For sure. For example, a recent 11 day stretch in April at Crypto:

WWE
(Dark)
WWE
Kings
Clippers
Muse
Lakers
Clippers / Kings
Lakers
Kings
Lakers (play-in game)

Not only were there NHL and NBA games during that stretch, one time they were on the same day.


It's important to point out that this is possible because that Arena was built with bigger "Back stage" staging. A new OKC arena should be able to do more also.

It's important to point out that this is possible because that Arena was built with bigger "Back stage" staging. A new OKC arena should be able to do more also.

That arena actually opened in 1999, a couple of years before Paycom.

I'm sure best practices for multi-purpose arenas have only improved.

That arena actually opened in 1999, a couple of years before Paycom.

I'm sure best practices for multi-purpose arenas have only improved.

I hope so. The Ford Center was a.very, VERY bare bones build-out. The new arena needs to be state of the art.

It's important to point out that this is possible because that Arena was built with bigger "Back stage" staging. A new OKC arena should be able to do more also.

Exactly.

More than just being a nice new place for the Thunder to play, it should be able to handle that type of schedule, especially given the price tag that will come with a new arena.

IMO, that's the real justification for breaking new ground.

Obviously, this isn't LA, but if hundreds of millions of dollars are to be spent, we don't want a venue that is turning down bookings because of logistics.

So is this the new stadium going to be MAPS 5 or a separate deal altogether?

Am I the only one that doesn't see this happening? We are talking $1 to 1.5 billion to essentially get some more loading docks. Meanwhile, there is entire strip of unused land right next to the arena and right across the street from it.

Am I the only one that doesn't see this happening? We are talking $1 to 1.5 billion to essentially get some more loading docks. Meanwhile, there is entire strip of unused land right next to the arena and right across the street from it.

a new arena is 100% going to happen and the vote will about 99% pass with 55+ % of the vote .. at about 750+ mil of public money

Am I the only one that doesn't see this happening? We are talking $1 to 1.5 billion to essentially get some more loading docks. Meanwhile, there is entire strip of unused land right next to the arena and right across the street from it.

I'm thinking it will be more like "Fiserv Forum meets OAK OKC."

The whole powerblock will be dense AF, and there will be a lot of mixed uses. Could definitely be a McCormick & Schmick's and an Orange Julius that sneak in there, if Clay plays his cards right.

If loading docks is the issue there is more than enough room for expansion at the current location and it will cost a fraction of the price of a new arena.
18051

If loading docks is the issue there is more than enough room for expansion at the current location and it won't cost a fraction of the price of a new arena.
18051

That doesn’t change the fact that it’s the smallest arena by square footage.

That doesn’t change the fact that it’s the smallest arena by square footage.

Explain to me the significance of the sq footage. The basketball court is the same size.

Explain to me the significance of the sq footage. The basketball court is the same size.

More sq footage, the more restaurants, shops, concessions, overall more revenue. More before and after experiences that will only draw more fans. It is a huge deal and not simply fixed by adding more loading docks. That is only 1 piece of the puzzle and sq ft is a large portion of the rest of the pieces along with actually building an NBA quality arena.

More sq footage, the more restaurants, shops, concessions, overall more revenue. More before and after experiences that will only draw more fans. It is a huge deal and not simply fixed by adding more loading docks. That is only 1 piece of the puzzle and sq ft is a large portion of the rest of the pieces along with actually building an NBA quality arena.

So if the current building was expanded over the current and new loading docks with new space added along Oklahoma Ave wouldn't that accomplish the same thing? The current location is not short on space.18052

So if the current building was expanded over the current and new loading docks with new space added along Oklahoma Ave wouldn't that accomplish the same thing? The current location is not short on space.18052

Cost-benefit, my man. Paycom is a bare-bones arena. It was not built as an NBA arena in 2002. The concourses are narrow, compared to other arenas. The concession apace is lacking. The backstage and staging areas are super small, hence why a lot of concerts go to Tulsa over OKC. It is basically at max capacity for expansion, unless you do an MSG-level gutting (guess what that cost?).

So a new arena can solve every single one of those problems.

Is that worth not only the $1 billion in new spending but also throwing away the money already spent?

Anyhow, I recognize I'm in the minority on the subject on OKCTalk but I suspect this isn't going to be an easy sell to the general public. Don't be surprised if OKC pulls a Nashville and approve taxpayer subsidies despite overwhelming public disapproval.

Is that worth not only the $1 billion in new spending but also throwing away the money already spent?

Anyhow, I recognize I'm in the minority on the subject on OKCTalk but I suspect this isn't going to be an easy sell to the general public. Don't be surprised if OKC pulls a Nashville and approve taxpayer subsidies despite overwhelming public disapproval.

Again, you are way off. The city has supported the Thunder at every turn, and will again.

The problem isn't the loading docks only. The place needs more and better suites, better concession setup, attached hotel. The modern NBA arena has tons of highroller amenities, and Paycom just can't work to fit all those things.

Is that worth not only the $1 billion in new spending but also throwing away the money already spent?

Anyhow, I recognize I'm in the minority on the subject on OKCTalk but I suspect this isn't going to be an easy sell to the general public. Don't be surprised if OKC pulls a Nashville and approve taxpayer subsidies despite overwhelming public disapproval.

You sound exactly like Seattle Sonics fans with regards to the Key Arena. How'd that work out for them? lol. It's the cost of doing business now. And, there isn't really any argument about the impact the Thunder has had on OKC over the last decade. Not building a more competitive arena for a small market team that has shown it's always going to do what is necessary to give the city a team competitive at the highest levels would be pure folly.

And it's not just about a much better arena, it's about the opportunity to develop something special and cool all around it on the Cox site.

That old Thunder Alley project was unimpressive because they had so little space to work with.


This will be a public vote and it will pass overwhelmingly.

I would love to see the games broadcasted OTA (over the air) in Oklahoma area. I think if the public helps fund it we should be able to get the games on OTA. I know media rights for games are complicated but the Suns are the first to try this out.

Is that worth not only the $1 billion in new spending but also throwing away the money already spent?

I guess that depends on how much stock you put in economic impact studies.

Estimates for the economic impact of Thunder home games are generally in the 1.3 to 1.6 million range. That would come to about 800 million to a little over a billion in impact over the last 15 years the team has been in OKC. And that's just for the thunder.

Add in all the other shows and events that use the facility, and the impact would be well over a billion dollars over that time. From that perspective it's not throwing away money as much as it is re-investing it.

Explain to me the significance of the sq footage. The basketball court is the same size.

Hey, just have them play at one of the outdoor courts. It's the same size and has two baskets ... and WAY cheaper. LOL. And it would make OKC look SO responsible and cool. Who needs public buildings or things that can showcase the city? Cheap and utilitarian is the way to go. Nothing says OKC better than a little outdated public venue.

"I think you'll find that's the exact same measurements as our gym back in Hickory."

Cost-benefit, my man. Paycom is a bare-bones arena. It was not built as an NBA arena in 2002. The concourses are narrow, compared to other arenas. The concession apace is lacking. The backstage and staging areas are super small, hence why a lot of concerts go to Tulsa over OKC. It is basically at max capacity for expansion, unless you do an MSG-level gutting (guess what that cost?).

So a new arena can solve every single one of those problems.

^ ^ ^ Definitely a bare bones when built. It would look like a 'Frankenstein Project' if you tried to expand it--wouldn't be cost efficient to attempt to expand it because you couldn't take out major walls and beams support without causing structural concerns with the arena.

A new arena on the 4 square block super site with room to sell parcels of that development site. Sure there's the cost of demolition and rebuilding the underground parking, let's get this right. A new state-of-the-art arena will cost anywhere from $750 million to $1.2 billion on city owned land. We want to have one of the best venues in the country.

You sound exactly like Seattle Sonics fans with regards to the Key Arena. How'd that work out for them? lol. It's the cost of doing business now. And, there isn't really any argument about the impact the Thunder has had on OKC over the last decade. Not building a more competitive arena for a small market team that has shown it's always going to do what is necessary to give the city a team competitive at the highest levels would be pure folly.

It worked out quite well for the Seattle taxpayers and those opposed to welfare for deep pocketed owners.
Seattle will have a $1.15 B facility that was privately financed, a new successful NHL franchise as well as the next NBA expansion team.

It worked out quite well for the Seattle taxpayers and those opposed to welfare for deep pocketed owners.
Seattle will have a $1.15 B facility that was privately financed, a new successful NHL franchise as well as the next NBA expansion team.

Comparing Seattle to OKC isn't a fair comparison.

And it took them losing a team to get that level of investment. If you want OKC to lose the Thunder in order to get that level of buy-in, then by all means, vote no.

It worked out quite well for the Seattle taxpayers and those opposed to welfare for deep pocketed owners.
Seattle will have a $1.15 B facility that was privately financed, a new successful NHL franchise as well as the next NBA expansion team.

In fairness, though, it is much easier to tell a team to F off when you have four other pro sportsball teams operating in your MSA. That’s a luxury OKC does not have.

Also, if OKC was to lose the Thunder, the odds are very low that we'd ever get another pro sports franchise.

OKC is not Seattle.

Also, if OKC was to lose the Thunder, the odds are very low that we'd ever get another pro sports franchise.

OKC is not Seattle.

I was responding to the post # 2692 where it specifically mentioned Seattle. My answer was to respond to how it worked out for Seattle. I would never imply or say OKC is Seattle.

I was responding to the post # 2692 where it specifically mentioned Seattle. My answer was to respond to how it worked out for Seattle.

I understand but the point has to be made that how it worked out for Seattle is not how it would work out for OKC, which is all anyone here cares about.

I was responding to the post # 2692 where it specifically mentioned Seattle. My answer was to respond to how it worked out for Seattle. I would never imply or say OKC is Seattle.

It didn't work out well at all for the lifelong Sonics fans that no longer have a team and may still not get one. And, like others have already stated, OKC can't risk the chance of losing the Thunder. You want to talk about the best way to kill a LOT of momentum in just about every segment of growth in the city? That would be it.

You can wonder what the buyout would be to get an expansion NBA team. As we are at 300 million for an MLS squad, I guess 1 billion would be fair market value.
Then you still need the arena.

It didn't work out well at all for the lifelong Sonics fans that no longer have a team and may still not get one. And, like others have already stated, OKC can't risk the chance of losing the Thunder. You want to talk about the best way to kill a LOT of momentum in just about every segment of growth in the city? That would be it.

You asked a specific qustion regarding a specific place. I answered that question. To expand on the scope of my answer to another hypothetical based on my answer to your question is outside of my response.
Thank you.

I guess OKC still has a long way to go in the self-esteem category if the value of the City still hinges on a professional sports team. I was sort of thinking we had moved beyond that but I guess not.

Anyhow, like I said, I'm well aware I'm in the minority.

I guess OKC still has a long way to go in the self-esteem category if the value of the City still hinges on a professional sports team. I was sort of thinking we had moved beyond that but I guess not.

Anyhow, like I said, I'm well aware I'm in the minority.

Yes, other cities don't value pro sports teams, which is why all of them gladly pay for arenas and stadiums over and over again.

This is the way pro sports work. It's okay to not like that system but it's absurd to try and denigrate OKC for following common practice.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it was unique to OKC. After all, I live in Jacksonville which many locals believe only exists because of the NFL.

In fairness, though, it is much easier to tell a team to F off when you have four other pro sportsball teams operating in your MSA. That’s a luxury OKC does not have.

point of clarification, Seattle had only two professional teams in it's MSA at that time (Mariners and Seahawks). It has 4 now (+ Sounders and Kraken), but that is recent. Otherwise, I agree!

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it was unique to OKC. After all, I live in Jacksonville which many locals believe only exists because of the NFL.

The Jags are BY FAR the least popular NFL team and BY FAR the things Jacksonville is most famous for, followed by TPC Sawgrass. The amphitheater project going on there doesn't exist and is never thought of without the Jags

The Jags are BY FAR the least popular NFL team and BY FAR the things Jacksonville is most famous for, followed by TPC Sawgrass. The amphitheater project going on there doesn't exist and is never thought of without the Jags

Don't forget "The World's Largest Cocktail Party". Not only fans going to the game but tens of thousands tailgating outside of the stadium.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it was unique to OKC. After all, I live in Jacksonville which many locals believe only exists because of the NFL.

You made a crappy comment about OKC's lack of self-esteem as it relates to this issue. You can't then claim you weren't singling out OKC and its residents.

I guess OKC still has a long way to go in the self-esteem category if the value of the City still hinges on a professional sports team. I was sort of thinking we had moved beyond that but I guess not.

Anyhow, like I said, I'm well aware I'm in the minority.

C'mon man. It's clear you don't value what a pro sports team can bring to a city. And, that's fine. But, that doesn't mean there isn't in fact a lot of value and that some cities can see a much larger value in a particular team than others. It's like you have an axe to grind when it comes to pro sports teams, but there's no denying how big of a deal it has been and will continue to be for the development in OKC. If you can't see that having the NBA show confidence in the OKC market hasn't raised OKC's profile in the eyes of businesses and developers, then it's clear you are letting your personal feelings cloud your judgement.

You can wonder what the buyout would be to get an expansion NBA team. As we are at 300 million for an MLS squad, I guess 1 billion would be fair market value.
Then you still need the arena.

It is currently rumored the NBA is looking for 2.5 billion for a franchise fee for Vegas/Seattle. The average team value is currently over 2 billion dollars. By the time they actually get around to doing an expansion it could easily cost 3-3.5 billion for a team.

C'mon man. It's clear you don't value what a pro sports team can bring to a city. And, that's fine. But, that doesn't mean there isn't in fact a lot of value and that some cities can see a much larger value in a particular team than others. It's like you have an axe to grind when it comes to pro sports teams, but there's no denying how big of a deal it has been and will continue to be for the development in OKC. If you can't see that having the NBA show confidence in the OKC market hasn't raised OKC's profile in the eyes of businesses and developers, then it's clear you are letting your personal feelings cloud your judgement.

My ax to grind is two-fold. First - I hate corprate welfare with a passion. Two - I wish people had more self-resect. I hate watching people grovel.

That is it.

Don't forget "The World's Largest Cocktail Party". Not only fans going to the game but tens of thousands tailgating outside of the stadium.

For the record - the largest cocktail thing doesn't exist anymore. That got shut down a few years ago and GA and FL are probably going to a home and home series when the current contract expires. Both teams would make more money with home games than Jax can pay.

For the record - the largest cocktail thing doesn't exist anymore. That got shut down a few years ago and GA and FL are probably going to a home and home series when the current contract expires. Both teams would make more money with home games than Jax can pay.

wrong on the first likely wrong on both accounts

they stopped using that name the thing very much still exists (much like ou/texas stopped using red river shootout)

Well, we can talk about that on another thread.