My ax to grind is two-fold. First - I hate corprate welfare with a passion.

Are you against all publicly owned venues in general?

The owners are very rooted in OKC. If by some crazy circumstance a vote doesn’t pass, they’ll probably try again in some form for a new arena pitch.

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.

And many just hate people with axes to grind it seems about everything. It doesn't exactly make them objective.

Grovel. Interesting word. Hyperbolize much?

Are you against all publicly owned venues in general?

Not necessarily. It is okay to have nice things for no other reason than having nice things and I would be fine with an addition to the current facility especially when tied to real limitations on attracting other performances.

If sufficient loading dock space is a problem there is plenty of room to add more. If more space is needed for pre/post event activities there is plenty of room to add it.

As for this proposal, if the Thunder didn't exist what improvements would be needed? Let the City pay for those. For improvements that primarily benefit the Thunder, let them pay for that. If in X years they decide to walk away ftom their investment then that is a business decision for them to make. It certainly doesn't stop them from telling the taxpayers to do that be imploding the current arena.

If the Thunder want to build a giant mixed use complex, there is vacant land right across the street.

FWIW. Both Chase Center and Climate Change were privately funded in excess of billion dollars each. The new 76'ers arena to cost 1.3 billion is also to be privately funded. Not to mention other NBA arenas that were funded publicly and privately.

Not necessarily. It is okay to have nice things for no other reason than having nice things and I would be fine with an addition to the current facility especially when tied to real limitations on attracting other performances.

If sufficient loading dock space is a problem there is plenty of room to add more. If more space is needed for pre/post event activities there is plenty of room to add it.

As for this proposal, if the Thunder didn't exist what improvements would be needed? Let the City pay for those. For improvements that primarily benefit the Thunder, let them pay for that. If in X years they decide to walk away ftom their investment then that is a business decision for them to make. It certainly doesn't stop them from telling the taxpayers to do that be imploding the current arena.

If the Thunder want to build a giant mixed use complex, there is vacant land right across the street.
And it seems to me the proposal WILL include a private portion from the Thunder ownership, though I’m sure you’ll say it isn’t enough.

Anyone have an idea of how much Thunder ownership is chipping in?

Anyone have an idea of how much Thunder ownership is chipping in?

We don't know any details at this point.

I imagine we'll get very broad strokes from the mayor in July, and then in the fall there will be a campaign with the particulars for a December vote.

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.

And we’ve seen first hand what happens when a city decides not to pay for an arena….which is the only reason we have a team in the first place.

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 becoming increasingly untrue. Tempe just voted to not fund (https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/philboas/2023/05/17/why-tempe-vote-arizona-coyotes-failed-miserably/70227759007/) a new stadium for the Coyotes. Oakland refused to meet the A's demands for massive funding for a new stadium and now the A's are having a hard time securing public funding (https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/oakland-to-las-vegas-as-move-could-be-held-up-over-request-for-nearly-400m-in-public-funding-per-report/) for a move to Vegas (https://archive.ph/yVAHZ/again?url=https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/athletics/sisolak-county-officials-no-tax-money-for-as-ballpark-2671852/). San Diego rejected funding a new stadium for the Chargers. (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/sports/football/san-diego-rejects-chargers-stadium.html) Milwaukee just a couple weeks ago rejected putting more money in the Brewers' stadium (https://www.cbs58.com/news/mlb-commissioner-calls-for-public-funding-of-brewers-stadium-renovations).

Cities all over the US are becoming much more aware of the fact that public money for stadiums is an economically losing proposition, as countless studies show:

https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1093/cep/byi033

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022547

It is not absurd to try to hold OKC to that standard or to decry the lost opportunity cost that the money being thrown at the Paycom Center could be much better utilized towards countless other issues this city faces.

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.

Man I wish all of us pathetic, corporation worshiping Okies had the kind of self esteem and self respect that the utopian urban oasis of Oakland does. It’s so much better off now without the 3 teams it just lost.

This is becoming increasingly untrue. Tempe just voted to not fund (https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/philboas/2023/05/17/why-tempe-vote-arizona-coyotes-failed-miserably/70227759007/) a new stadium for the Coyotes. Oakland refused to meet the A's demands for massive funding for a new stadium and now the A's are having a hard time securing public funding (https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/oakland-to-las-vegas-as-move-could-be-held-up-over-request-for-nearly-400m-in-public-funding-per-report/) for a move to Vegas (https://archive.ph/yVAHZ/again?url=https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/athletics/sisolak-county-officials-no-tax-money-for-as-ballpark-2671852/). San Diego rejected funding a new stadium for the Chargers. (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/sports/football/san-diego-rejects-chargers-stadium.html) Milwaukee just a couple weeks ago rejected putting more money in the Brewers' stadium (https://www.cbs58.com/news/mlb-commissioner-calls-for-public-funding-of-brewers-stadium-renovations).

Cities all over the US are becoming much more aware of the fact that public money for stadiums is an economically losing proposition, as countless studies show:

https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1093/cep/byi033

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022547

It is not absurd to try to hold OKC to that standard or to decry the lost opportunity cost that the money being thrown at the Paycom Center could be much better utilized towards countless other issues this city faces.

And how many of those cities lost or are in the middle of losing those teams? Oakland has done it 3 times.

So they lost their teams....yet they continue to do just fine. San Diego seems to be a decent place, the Phoenix metro area will survive not having a hockey team, Oakland can pour the $200m the A's wanted into other projects... Believe it or not, cities keep existing and even grow without a pro sports team or two. Economically, investing in these arenas at the expense of shoring up other areas just makes no sense.

So they lost their teams....yet they continue to do just fine. San Diego seems to be a decent place, the Phoenix metro area will survive not having a hockey team, Oakland can pour the $200m the A's wanted into other projects... Believe it or not, cities keep existing and even grow without a pro sports team or two. Economically, investing in these arenas at the expense of shoring up other areas just makes no sense.

Sure and all of them have a little more going on amenities-wise than OKC does.

People who don’t care that much about sports don’t care about losing the teams. You’ve made it clear that you’re one of those people.

Sure and all of them have a little more going on amenities-wise than OKC does.

People who don’t care that much about sports don’t care about losing the teams. You’ve made it clear that you’re one of those people.

How many amenities could OKC build for $1 billion?

...Oakland has more amenities than OKC?

It seems like every week Pete is posting about some new amenity or attraction opening up in the OKC area, be it the Andretti Go Kart facility, the massive Okana resort, the expansion of the zoo, etc. And if amenities are an issue, we can use some of the funds we'd waste on Paycom and further expand offerings along the waterfront or up in the Adventure District.

OKC would survive just fine without the Thunder, and will continue to grow. Heck, investing that money in better infrastructure or infill or housing would be a better ROI than trying to keep the Thunder here. Businesses and people aren't moving here to watch SGA in person (though he's definitely fun to watch).

...Oakland has more amenities than OKC?

It seems like every week Pete is posting about some new amenity or attraction opening up in the OKC area, be it the Andretti Go Kart facility, the massive Okana resort, the expansion of the zoo, etc. And if amenities are an issue, we can use some of the funds we'd waste on Paycom and further expand offerings along the waterfront or up in the Adventure District.

OKC would survive just fine without the Thunder, and will continue to grow. Heck, investing that money in better infrastructure or infill or housing would be a better ROI than trying to keep the Thunder here. Businesses and people aren't moving here to watch SGA in person (though he's definitely fun to watch).

Oakland is close to San Francisco, the ocean, mountains, etc…yes it absolutely does.

we get it. You two don’t enjoy sports. Fortunately you’re not the ones making the decisions. Hell Kerry doesn’t even live here anymore.

And we’ve seen first hand what happens when a city decides not to pay for an arena….which is the only reason we have a team in the first place.

It is not binary choice of either or. Only 4 NBA teams including the Thunder play in arenas 100% financed by the public.

It is not binary choice of either or. Only 4 NBA teams including the Thunder play in arenas 100% financed by the public.

I agree with you. I think the thunder should put some money into it but going full stop the other direction and acting like it’s some corporate scam if they don’t pay for 100% of it is ridiculous.

I agree with you. I think the thunder should put some money into it but going full stop the other direction and acting like they should pay for 100% of it is ridiculous.

SLC a similar NBA market as OKC play in an arena funded publicly 18% .

Oakland is close to San Francisco, the ocean, mountains, etc…yes it absolutely does.

we get it. You two don’t enjoy sports. Fortunately you’re not the ones making the decisions. Hell Kerry doesn’t even live here anymore.

I love sports, I'm a huge baseball fan and love taking my boys to Thunder games. I even literally said in the post you quoted that I really like watching SGA in person. That doesn't mean that I want the city to make a terrible monetary decision just so I can continue to do so.

SLC a similar NBA market as OKC play in an arena funded publicly 18% .

I think that definitely helps set the precedent for getting them to chip in. I wondered what other small market single team cities had done.

ask arlington if they think paying for sports facilities is worth it ??

or Cobb county georgia ??

I think that definitely helps set the precedent for getting them to chip in. I wondered what other small market single team cities had done.

At Phoenix.gov is where I got my info. Go to the site and search "NBA Arenas" and it will take you to a pdf with a listing breakdown of teams, arenas, and source of funding for said arenas.

The arena in Salt Lake City is privately owned by Ryan Smith, part owner of the Jazz.

If the owners do kick in money lets hope it in't like the sham Devon pulled by loaning the money to the City and then getting paid back by TIF funds with interest.

I love sports, I'm a huge baseball fan and love taking my boys to Thunder games. I even literally said in the post you quoted that I really like watching SGA in person. That doesn't mean that I want the city to make a terrible monetary decision just so I can continue to do so.

If you’re so concerned with forcing the owners of the team to pay for 100% of the building that you would rather let the thunder walk than have some public funding be used then it doesn’t matter how much you enjoy watching SGA…you aren’t much of a sports person.

If you’re so concerned with forcing the owners of the team to pay for 100% of the building that you would rather let the thunder walk than have some public funding be used then it doesn’t matter how much you enjoy watching SGA…you aren’t much of a sports person.

I'd be ok with some funding, like Swake's 18% find seems reasonable. But believe it or not, someone can be a sports fan while also having strong principles about not giving public money to incredibly wealthy individuals.

If the owners do kick in money lets hope it in't like the sham Devon pulled by loaning the money to the City and then getting paid back by TIF funds with interest.

Yes because the end result of a completely remade park that went from being constantly empty to packed on a daily basis and the massive investment that turned two 30 year parking lots into their headquarters wasn’t worth it at all.

I'd be ok with some funding, like Swake's 18% find seems reasonable. But believe it or not, someone can be a sports fan while also having strong principles about not giving public money to incredibly wealthy individuals.

For all bookings…what percentage of the time is the arena used by the thunder vs other events?

No…you’re not much of a sports fan if you’re willing to allow your “strong principles” to kill off the only professional franchise we’ll ever have.

I'm pretty confident about my sports fandom status regardless what a random dude on the internet says, thanks. And not everyone who votes against any ensuing measure is a bad sports fan either. We can disagree without falsely putting labels on folks.

Why is there an assumption that if the taxpayers don't pay for a new arena the team is leaving?

I'm pretty confident about my sports fandom status regardless what a random dude on the internet says, thanks. And not everyone who votes against any ensuing measure is a bad sports fan either. We can disagree without falsely putting labels on folks.

No we can’t. You’re a bad sports fan.

Maybe we can compromise on fake sports fan or fair weather sports fan.

Why is there an assumption that if the taxpayers don't pay for a new arena the team is leaving?

Precedent

Why is there an assumption that if the taxpayers don't pay for a new arena the team is leaving?

How OKC got the team...

Why is there an assumption that if the taxpayers don't pay for a new arena the team is leaving?

I believe that is the very reason the Thunder are in Oklahoma City. You can also look at the Oakland Athletics, the St. Louis Rams, and many others.

The assumption SHOULD be that if there isn't a new arena that the team would be SOLD. Which, of course, means the team ultimately would move.

The assumption SHOULD be that if there isn't a new arena that the team would be SOLD. Which, of course, means the team ultimately would move.I wonder how many of the MLB, NBA, NFL teams that have moved in the last 30 years also changed ownership at the same time?

A move likely would not be at the time of the sale.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the new owners made some ridiculous stadium proposals so he could say he tried to keep the Thunder in OKC, before moving them to the city he really wanted to move them to.

Wonder how many cities are lining up to build a billion dollar arena for a team that would have already bailed two times on their fans.

Hmmm. Seems even Las Vegas is saying enough is enough.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/athletics/2023/06/01/oakland-as-move-las-vegas-stadium-gambit-losing-bet/70277528007/

But legislators are increasingly asking two questions long posed by economists and concerned taxpayers:

Is a sports stadium better for jobs and the community than literally anything else that might be constructed in its place?

Wouldn't it be ironic if the new owners made some ridiculous stadium proposals so he could say he tried to keep the Thunder in OKC, before moving them to the city he really wanted to move them to.

Wonder how many cities are lining up to build a billion dollar arena for a team that would have already bailed two times on their fans.

Pretty sure that Climate Pledge is built to current NBA specs. I would think Bezos would take the franchise back to Seattle if it became his option.

Why is there an assumption that if the taxpayers don't pay for a new arena the team is leaving?

Maybe because the team could make more money in a number of other cities. Local loyal ownership sacrifices income to remain here.

...Oakland has more amenities than OKC?

It seems like every week Pete is posting about some new amenity or attraction opening up in the OKC area, be it the Andretti Go Kart facility, the massive Okana resort, the expansion of the zoo, etc. And if amenities are an issue, we can use some of the funds we'd waste on Paycom and further expand offerings along the waterfront or up in the Adventure District.

OKC would survive just fine without the Thunder, and will continue to grow. Heck, investing that money in better infrastructure or infill or housing would be a better ROI than trying to keep the Thunder here. Businesses and people aren't moving here to watch SGA in person (though he's definitely fun to watch).

That last paragraph is where your logic fails you.

1. That billion dollars isn't fungible for a bunch of random infrastructure and development projects. But, it absolutely is for the thunder and there is zero issue in the ROI on that investment.

2. People absolutely are coming to OKC because of the thunder. Many local businesses have expressed how much having the thunder here has helped to recruit and retain talent, especially young folks. Having an NBA team instantly makes people think OKC is a fun place to be and has made it a destination for a lot of people.

The fact is the final proposal for the arena will include thunder money. But, regardless of where it lands, it's a worthy investment that will pay for itself. Plus, the thunder have been a remarkably great steward for both the city and the state. You, and a few others, are just assuming that they are just rich people stealing public money. Couldn't be farther from the truth with this ownership group and organization. They went to hell and back and overpaid pretty ridiculously to get this franchise here for the city and just because it's worked out pretty well doesn't mean it was easy or wasn't a huge risk financially and personally for them all. They deserve far more grace than "build your own arena, you free loaders." Again, might be true about some pro sports team's owners, but not this one.

Economists say otherwise. From the article I posted earlier.

“That's the fundamental reason why economists, when they do research on the impact of sports teams, typically find that the effect on local incomes and employment is slightly negative.”

Why is there an assumption that if the taxpayers don't pay for a new arena the team is leaving?

Cuz that's how stuff works.

I haven't read all the predictable back and forth, but I have a few comments:

1. The Thunder is a major factor in OKC's stunning growth trajectory and now international profile. If you don't get or understand that, I'm not going to argue with you because it will be like peeing into the wind.
2. The building is infrastructure for the city, not the Thunder, although the Thunder would be the most important tenant by far. But, it would be OKC's building, meaning it could and would be used for other events besides NBA basketball games.
3. OKC has gotten an arena on the cheap. We got by with the cheapest facilities in the NBA for what will be three decades by the time the new arena is built. If we do a good job with the next one, we can plan on having it for a very long time and hopefully will do just as well with the investment.
4. Unlike Seattle and other cities, we don't have multiple major league sports begging for facilities. We only have one, and we are not going to be getting an NFL or MLB team anytime soon.
5. Were OKC to lose the Thunder, it would be a massive blow to the city's image and our own self image. It would be an unmitigated disaster that would make losing the National Finals Rodeo seem like a ridiculously quaint memory.

The arena vote will pass easily, by the way.

That last paragraph is where your logic fails you.

2. People absolutely are coming to OKC because of the thunder. Many local businesses have expressed how much having the thunder here has helped to recruit and retain talent, especially a young folks. Having an NBA team instantly makes people think OKC is a fun place to be and has made it a destination for a lot of people.

The fact is the final proposal for the arena will include thunder money. But, regardless of where it lands, it's a worthy investment that will pay for itself. Plus, the thunder have been a remarkably great steward for both the city and the state. You, and a few others, are just assuming that they are just rich people stealing public money. Couldn't be farther from the truth with this ownership group and organization. They went to hell and back and overpaid pretty ridiculously to get this franchise here for the city and just because it's worked out pretty well doesn't mean it was easy or wasn't a huge risk financially and personally for them all. They deserve far more grace than "build your own arena, you free loaders." Again, might be true about some pro sports team's owners, but not this one.

That’s a whole big [citation needed] if I ever saw one. Where are these businesses saying this? What numbers do we have on people moving to OKC because we have a mediocre NBA team? There’s a lot of bluff and bluster here but no supporting facts. Care to share those? This reads like you’re a member of the ownership group trying to stump for more money to line their pockets.

That’s a whole big [citation needed] if I ever saw one. Where are these businesses saying this? What numbers do we have on people moving to OKC because we have a mediocre NBA team? There’s a lot of bluff and bluster here but no supporting facts. Care to share those? This reads like you’re a member of the ownership group trying to stump for more money to line their pockets.

Sigh. This conversation is pointless. You've got your mind made up and if you need citations to make you aware of the value of the thunder to OKC and it's growth then we're done here. It's all good. As others have stated, this still pass easily and it'll be good for OKC. Arguments be damned. Lol

That’s a whole big [citation needed] if I ever saw one. Where are these businesses saying this? What numbers do we have on people moving to OKC because we have a mediocre NBA team? There’s a lot of bluff and bluster here but no supporting facts. Care to share those? This reads like you’re a member of the ownership group trying to stump for more money to line their pockets.

You are just the worst type of people. Completely ignore the economic impact studies done specifically on the Thunder and try to justify your opinion with articles that are more than likely based on large market teams in cities with multiple sports teams and many more established entertainment options and/or natural amenities. Your mind is made up and fortunately most of OKC’s residents have a better feel for the teams value to the city than you do. There are more real than fake sports fans in OKC.

That’s a whole big [citation needed] if I ever saw one. Where are these businesses saying this? What numbers do we have on people moving to OKC because we have a mediocre NBA team? There’s a lot of bluff and bluster here but no supporting facts. Care to share those? This reads like you’re a member of the ownership group trying to stump for more money to line their pockets.
We didn’t used to have a mediocre NBA team. We were close to winning the championship. Didn’t see you saying this back then. You just come off as incredibly biased so why don’t you shut up and and stay in your lane.

A move likely would not be at the time of the sale.

I didn't necessarily mean right at the same time. More the change of ownership causing the move at any later point.

I've concluded sports is either a cult or an addiction. I'm old enough to remember when it was just entertainment. It seems now that it is much more than that to a significant number of people. The presence of a sports teams plays a significant role in their very existance and self-identity.

I've concluded sports is either a cult or an addiction. I'm old enough to remember when it was just entertainment. It seems now that it is much more than that to a significant number of people. The presence of a sports teams plays a significant role in their very existance and self-identity.

I think the amount of financial investment and time commitment plays a role in this. When you are paying significant amounts of money for season tickets, seat licenses, booster club donations, licensed apparel, specialized TV packages, etc, you almost have to be a "super fan" for it to be worth your investment.

It's also easier to be a much more active or significant fan compared to 20 years ago. Pick your sports team and there are podcasts, online blogs, YouTube channels, member exclusive content, daily player and coach videos. This has reached from the professional all the way down to high school teams.

The push behind a new arena is to create more creative ways to "help" fans spend more time and money with the team and venue. With that financial impact probably comes a greater sense of loyalty.

I've concluded sports is either a cult or an addiction. I'm old enough to remember when it was just entertainment. It seems now that it is much more than that to a significant number of people. The presence of a sports teams plays a significant role in their very existance and self-identity.

Another insult to people who see the world differently than you.

Ridiculous to claim sports fans have changed. This isn't some sort of fact-based insight, just the grievances of an aging person. As a kid, I remember my dad saying the same sorts of things.

Every single aging generation is convinced the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

I've concluded sports is either a cult or an addiction. I'm old enough to remember when it was just entertainment. It seems now that it is much more than that to a significant number of people. The presence of a sports teams plays a significant role in their very existance and self-identity.
You used to give insightful posts. What happened? Just sounds bitter and opinionated about anything you personally don’t understand or like.

I've concluded sports is either a cult or an addiction. I'm old enough to remember when it was just entertainment. It seems now that it is much more than that to a significant number of people. The presence of a sports teams plays a significant role in their very existance and self-identity.

lol

i am not really a thunder fan and the NBA is about 6th or 7th on the list of sports leagues that i follow ..

that being said If you can't see the value to OKC having the NBA (1 of only 30 teams in the world / soon to be one of only 32) and the amount of good and free PR that gives the city world wide ... then this is just not a discussion worth having with you ..

there are plenty of cities that would be very very happy to build the Thunder a brand new NBA arena to take the thunder away from OKC ..

You are just the worst type of people. Completely ignore the economic impact studies done specifically on the Thunder and try to justify your opinion with articles that are more than likely based on large market teams in cities with multiple sports teams and many more established entertainment options and/or natural amenities. Your mind is made up and fortunately most of OKC’s residents have a better feel for the teams value to the city than you do. There are more real than fake sports fans in OKC.

What economic impact statements? All I’m doing is asking for evidence that the Thunder stadium has been a positive economic benefit. If those things exist, I would be happy to read them and reconsider my position. Though I would also cautioned that a lot of times those reports are usually over inflated by a Chamber of Commerce or other business interest group, trying to put lipstick on a pig.

Once the new arena is built, keep Paycom Center to better utilize events in OKC. It will give us two large arenas with seating capacities (based on the configuration) to schedule events less the hassle limited to one arena.

I've concluded sports is either a cult or an addiction. I'm old enough to remember when it was just entertainment. It seems now that it is much more than that to a significant number of people. The presence of a sports teams plays a significant role in their very existance and self-identity.

You can say that for every human forms of entertainment. Watching humans compete against each other or reading/listening/watching about humans fighting some opposing force have been occurring for thousands of years. I "think" most people who watch wrestling know it's staged. The industry makes millions of dollars. People love a good story or conflict though.