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.

Meh, it's just another hard asset that requires consistent upkeep. And if you are a really high-level act (Taylor Swift, Drake, etc.), you aren't going to settle for Paycom when you could play your show at the brand new Enel Green Power Garden.

Meh, it's just another hard asset that requires consistent upkeep. And if you are a really high-level act (Taylor Swift, Drake, etc.), you aren't going to settle for Paycom when you could play your show at the brand new Enel Green Power Garden.

The only place Taylor Swift would play in Oklahoma is the football stadium in Norman.

The only place Taylor Swift would play in Oklahoma is the football stadium in Norman.
True. Her tour is only football stadiums.

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.

Yes, those are the people engaging in activities for the sole purpose of entertainment. There is also a level of civic pride that can come from that, but there are others who take it to a next level. The ones that I am talking about are those which throw all logic and fiscal discipline out the window. Honestly, it is no different than an drug addict that will do or say anything to get that next high. Without the drug they think their life is meaningless, so if it costs a billion dollars to keep that going then by all means spend the money because the addiction to the team is really that strong.

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.

I've looked and I can't find any "studies" that show real tangible benefits. There are lots of articles from The Bleacher Report and similar outlets but none of them are fact-based. They all say nothing different than standard talking points: it creates jobs, it increases tax revenue, the TV exposure is so great it can't be calculated, etc...

Meanwhile, actual real analysis says the exact opposite and you can find these studies by the hundreds from reputable news outlets, economists, and think tanks.

True. Her tour is only football stadiums.

The closest place she usually plays is AT&T Stadium in Arlington. Wish more shows came to Norman!

The closest place she usually plays is AT&T Stadium in Arlington. Wish more shows came to Norman!
I'm not sure they need to be so protective. But OU is very protective of their pristine, pampered field. I think the field could handle a concert or two long enough before football season for the grounds crew to recover it.

I'm not sure they need to be so protective. But OU is very protective of their pristine, pampered field. I think the field could handle a concert or two long enough before football season for the grounds crew to recover it.

I went to U2 there 10+ years ago.

Meh, it's just another hard asset that requires consistent upkeep. And if you are a really high-level act (Taylor Swift, Drake, etc.), you aren't going to settle for Paycom when you could play your show at the brand new Enel Green Power Garden.

Council approves transfer of $80 Million to MAPS 4 Investment and Operating Trust: https://www.okc.gov/Home/Components/News/News/4054/18

.
These funds will be invested and managed to provide a steady funding stream for the operations and maintenance of some MAPS 4 projects long after the temporary MAPS 4 sales tax collection has concluded.

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.

You're absolutely right. I'm in my middle 70's and I guarantee that the way people view sports has not changed a bit during my lifetime.

I am going to leave this here and you can read it if you like. I think it covers just about everything discussed in the past week. If you are a stadium proponent and after reading this you still think it is a good idea to fund a new arena then nothing will convince you otherwise.

https://globalsportmatters.com/business/2022/06/15/so-your-city-wants-sports-stadium/

I'm not sure they need to be so protective. But OU is very protective of their pristine, pampered field. I think the field could handle a concert or two long enough before football season for the grounds crew to recover it.

Remember the massive U2 Concert there? That was pretty sweet. Would love to see more of that.

I am going to leave this here and you can read it if you like. I think it covers just about everything discussed in the past week. If you are a stadium proponent and after reading this you still think it is a good idea to fund a new arena then nothing will convince you otherwise.

https://globalsportmatters.com/business/2022/06/15/so-your-city-wants-sports-stadium/

because it is a biased opinion study .. . filled with half truths .. no better then what he argues against ..

because it is a biased opinion study .. . filled with half truths .. no better then what he argues against ..

...did you even read it? He links to numerous peer reviewed studies in that article and synthesizes them. That's quite literally the opposite of an opinion piece. If you have issues, attack the claims rather than flail at the writing style.

Remember the massive U2 Concert there? That was pretty sweet. Would love to see more of that.

I went to that concert, and, my memory may be failing me, but weren't they scheduled to replace the turf at the stadium soon after the U2 concert? Which is why it worked out to host U2?

I went to that concert, and, my memory may be failing me, but weren't they scheduled to replace the turf at the stadium soon after the U2 concert? Which is why it worked out to host U2?

You very well might be right. Was just a very cool stage setup and they packed the place!

They just had that FTS christian event in the stadium so I imagine it is possible.

I am going to leave this here and you can read it if you like. I think it covers just about everything discussed in the past week. If you are a stadium proponent and after reading this you still think it is a good idea to fund a new arena then nothing will convince you otherwise.

https://globalsportmatters.com/business/2022/06/15/so-your-city-wants-sports-stadium/

I was in the middle of writing a long, detailed list of why the article is wrong, but then I figured out we are on the same page.

No amount of info will make me believe what you want me to believe and vice versa.

because it is a biased opinion study .. . filled with half truths .. no better then what he argues against ..

Obviously you didn't read it because you couldn't say that if you did.

I was in the middle of writing a long, detailed list of why the article is wrong, but then I figured out we are on the same page.

No amount of info will make me believe what you want me to believe and vice versa.

You peaked my interest. Instead of a long list, can you give me your top two?

...did you even read it? He links to numerous peer reviewed studies in that article and synthesizes them. That's quite literally the opposite of an opinion piece. If you have issues, attack the claims rather than flail at the writing style.

read the entire thing and stand by my thoughts ..

the other thing that it doesn't cover at all is what OKC does ..

OKC does not create long term debt for these public projects ... that of course is the beauty of MAPS ..

Yes, OKC used the original MAPS plan to avoid paying interest but as we know, all these facilities cost enormous amount of money to maintain. Which brings to light what the article mentioned - these facilities aren't generating the tax revenue needed to cover their maintenance costs.

The City recently redirected $80 million from MAPS 4 to do that. That fact alone should put to rest the idea that these facilities are paying for themselves through new spending, tax collections, and job gains. They aren't.

You peaked my interest. Instead of a long list, can you give me your top two?

1. The article points out the economic viability of stadiums, not arenas, stadiums. NFL and MLB stadiums. Buildings that would otherwise sit there unused for days, if not weeks.

2. If you went and looked at events that happen at arenas, they are not just used for basketball, but concerts, standup comedy tours, graduations, other (according to the paycom site, Dude perfect, PBR and Nitro Circus). As others have stated in the thread, there are issues when it comes to loading and unloading docks at paycom as well as behind the scenes space. Look at the crypto arena in LA from August 21-31st. They have:

8/21 - Drake and 21 Savage
8/23 - Zach Bryan
8/25-27 - Monster Jam
8/29 - LA Sparks (WNBA)
8/30 - 50 Cent
8/31 - LA Sparks

So, they go from one concert to another (the layout of the stage is different) to Monster Jam to WNBA to concert back to WNBA in the span of 10 days.

With a new arena, we would be on the front of most arena tours that we are currently losing out to in Tulsa (I think Tulsa has four semi loading docks and OKC has two) and the ability to redevelop a superblock for better use.

Personally, I (maybe some people in this thread, but surely not everyone) don't care about ROI (return on investment). I care about quality of life and having things to do. I moved to OKC in 1999 and at that time, when I told people where I lived, the things mentioned were a. tornados or b. the OKC bombing. Now, most people (I have talked to a lot of people in my travel) who know us for the Thunder and know little else, so there is some name recognition and it peaks their interest in where there is to do in OKC.

Take this as you will, we are not going to agree on this. I will be voting yes, you will be voting no, we have established this...

1. The article points out the economic viability of stadiums, not arenas, stadiums. NFL and MLB stadiums. Buildings that would otherwise sit there unused for days, if not weeks.



That alone significantly lowers the value of the article when it comes to arenas. The price tag on some of these NFL stadiums are ridiculously high.

Are arena opponents against any public money for rodeos, music shows, monster trucks, WrestleMania, etc? Do you want those, and other, users to go to Tulsa or Dallas? People get so worked up about sports teams that they forget the other users.

I'm all for a new arena. I want it be planned out in such a way that it will be viable and active for at least 50 years.

How about we give the Thunder the Myriad and Paycom real estate, plus the obligatory TIF money (but of course), and they can build what they want on those sites, Throw in their already owned Fred Jones block, and they can build a massive project. Would "no money for sports teams" opponents be okay with that?

1. The article points out the economic viability of stadiums, not arenas, stadiums. NFL and MLB stadiums. Buildings that would otherwise sit there unused for days, if not weeks.

2. If you went and looked at events that happen at arenas, they are not just used for basketball, but concerts, standup comedy tours, graduations, other (according to the paycom site, Dude perfect, PBR and Nitro Circus). As others have stated in the thread, there are issues when it comes to loading and unloading docks at paycom as well as behind the scenes space. Look at the crypto arena in LA from August 21-31st. They have:

8/21 - Drake and 21 Savage
8/23 - Zach Bryan
8/25-27 - Monster Jam
8/29 - LA Sparks (WNBA)
8/30 - 50 Cent
8/31 - LA Sparks

So, they go from one concert to another (the layout of the stage is different) to Monster Jam to WNBA to concert back to WNBA in the span of 10 days.

With a new arena, we would be on the front of most arena tours that we are currently losing out to in Tulsa (I think Tulsa has four semi loading docks and OKC has two) and the ability to redevelop a superblock for better use.

Personally, I (maybe some people in this thread, but surely not everyone) don't care about ROI (return on investment). I care about quality of life and having things to do. I moved to OKC in 1999 and at that time, when I told people where I lived, the things mentioned were a. tornados or b. the OKC bombing. Now, most people (I have talked to a lot of people in my travel) who know us for the Thunder and know little else, so there is some name recognition and it peaks their interest in where there is to do in OKC.

Take this as you will, we are not going to agree on this. I will be voting yes, you will be voting no, we have established this...

Thank you for the time and effort on putting this together. I disagree with some of them (numerous (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecin.12820) studies (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022547) in the piece (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2010.491464) also look at NHL (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3325757) and NBA (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/grow.12262) and even MLS stadiums, so it's not just related to NFL or MLB places).

I like your second to last paragraph though. I think it accurately describes the central tension we're debating about - how important do we place ROI on any use of public funds, especially when it's used to subsidize wealthy businesses and individuals.


That alone significantly lowers the value of the article when it comes to arenas. The price tag on some of these NFL stadiums are ridiculously high.

As I mention above, the article cites numerous studies that also look at NHL and NBA facilities.

Thank you for the time and effort on putting this together. I disagree with some of them (numerous (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecin.12820) studies (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022547) in the piece (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2010.491464) also look at NHL (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3325757) and NBA (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/grow.12262) and even MLS stadiums, so it's not just related to NFL or MLB places).

I like your second to last paragraph though. I think it accurately describes the central tension we're debating about - how important do we place ROI on any use of public funds, especially when it's used to subsidize wealthy businesses and individuals.

As I mention above, the article cites numerous studies that also look at NHL and NBA facilities.

Who don't own the real estate. That is a key part here that a lot of people leave out. The Thunder don't own the real estate, the city does. They are the anchor tenant and all other events are scheduled around the team. If I remember correctly, the Thunder ownership was looking to put around $75 million into the arena, at least that was a number that was thrown out. If the Thunder ownership owned the real estate and were asking for millions to build it, that would be a completely different conversation.

1. The article points out the economic viability of stadiums, not arenas, stadiums. NFL and MLB stadiums. Buildings that would otherwise sit there unused for days, if not weeks.


Just FYI, the author of that article is the author of the main study that article is based on. It does review 130 articles that cover both Stadiums and arenas.
delivery.php (ssrn.com) (https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=3341040650930881150231060771230971 23039036077022086085028002088070094031120088110026 03504103904505210405411811711807600311510410201303 70420811120751231150290771151240220070121010690720 81088085012125113012084093104075085001124025024070 003004107103116089&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE)

"This paper undertakes a systematic, comprehensive review of the literature assessing therole that professional sports teams and venues play in local economies. We begin with a discussion of the state of public funding of sports stadiums and arenas in Section 2, which providesmotivation for this survey."

Just FYI, the author of that article is the author of the main study that article is based on. It does review 130 articles that cover both Stadiums and arenas.
delivery.php (ssrn.com) (https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=3341040650930881150231060771230971 23039036077022086085028002088070094031120088110026 03504103904505210405411811711807600311510410201303 70420811120751231150290771151240220070121010690720 81088085012125113012084093104075085001124025024070 003004107103116089&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE)

"This paper undertakes a systematic, comprehensive review of the literature assessing therole that professional sports teams and venues play in local economies. We begin with a discussion of the state of public funding of sports stadiums and arenas in Section 2, which providesmotivation for this survey."

Correct, JTF was asking what I disagreed with in the article and that is the first thing I noticed. Also, to PoliSciGuy's point, there are articles out there saying NBA arenas are not viable, but all the ones he posted were also authored by Brad Humphreys. I am not saying we need ten articles researched by ten different people, but it is the same guy saying the same stuff is different forms on different medias.

The other thing I would like to take into account is the viability of an NBA arena in smaller markets versus larger markets. If you took the Knicks away from NYC and moved the to Albuquerque, NM (throwing a random town out there), there wouldn't be less to do in NYC, but there would be a lot more to do in ABQ so the growth of the town would be better.

Yes, OKC used the original MAPS plan to avoid paying interest but as we know, all these facilities cost enormous amount of money to maintain. Which brings to light what the article mentioned - these facilities aren't generating the tax revenue needed to cover their maintenance costs.
A complete red herring of an argument. All this tells us is three things:


There was no maintenance plan for projects in the original MAPS, which was admittedly a stunning lack of foresight in an otherwise astoundingly successful program
No dedicated funding structure for this has been established since
The rent alone for ticketed-event facilities like the ballpark and arena aren't enough to cover major repairs, updates and other such capital needs. Rent and sales/room tax generation are two COMPLETELY different things.

This in no way whatsoever is any indictment of the economic impact of these facilities. You act like sales tax revenues haven't gone up during the intervening years since the first MAPS was passed. The reality is that the City's actual REVENUE has DOUBLED...just since 2018. The City's total revenue for fiscal year 2018 (https://www.okc.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/14466/636967331877970000) was $932,549,107; the expected revenue for FY 2023 (https://www.okc.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/34824/638186393995630000) is $1,872,729,128. This revenue increase is due to many factors, not the least of which is inflationary spending, but what clearly got the ball rolling on our every-increasing municipal revenue was MAPS and the changes it wrought, not the least of which was NBA basketball. Anyone who was a conscious adult, with even lick of sense, living in Oklahoma City from 2008 to now knows this in their bones to be fact.


The City recently redirected $80 million from MAPS 4 to do that. That fact alone should put to rest the idea that these facilities are paying for themselves through new spending, tax collections, and job gains. They aren't.
Another complete fallacy in the (likely intentionally) incomplete telling. Total axe-grinding. MAPS 4 was passed from the outset with a dedicated maintenance fund attached (https://www.okc.gov/Home/Components/News/News/4054/18). This isn't a redirection, it's living up to a promise made to voters, and it's good municipal stewardship which builds on the experiences and (relatively few) shortcomings of previous iterations.

A complete red herring of an argument. All this tells us is three things:

There was no maintenance plan for projects in the original MAPS, which was admittedly a stunning lack of foresight in an otherwise astoundingly successful program
No dedicated funding structure for this has been established since
The rent alone for ticketed-event facilities like the ballpark and arena aren't enough to cover major repairs, updates and other such capital needs

This in no way whatsoever is any indictment of the economic impact of these facilities. You act like sales tax revenues haven't gone up during the intervening years since the first MAPS was passed. The reality is that the City's actual REVENUE has DOUBLED...just since 2018. The City's total revenue for fiscal year 2018 (https://www.okc.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/14466/636967331877970000) was $932,549,107; the expected revenue for FY 2023 is $1,872,729,128 (https://www.okc.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/34824/638186393995630000). This revenue increase is due to many factors, not the least of which is inflationary spending, but what clearly got the ball rolling on our every-increasing municipal revenue was MAPS and the changes it wrought, not the least of which was NBA basketball. Anyone who was a conscious adult, with even lick of sense, living in Oklahoma City from 2008 to now knows this in their bones to be fact.


As we've discussed in other threads about population and other things, a growing metro population is also likely to play a significant role in this increase. Do you have anything that shows the Thunder, who only had 1 playoff appearance in that time you mentioned (excluding the COVID bubble year), played a significant role in that increase? Or are you just saying that people who don't agree with your correlating those two things are just stupid?

Easy to play hardball when you have the odds in your favor (i.e. other pro teams). If OKC loses the Thunder, they will NEVER get a new top 4 pro sports league. Ever. Won't happen again. So they can't play chicken with the Thunder, not even in the least bit.

Thank you for the time and effort on putting this together. I disagree with some of them (numerous (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecin.12820) studies (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022547) in the piece (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2010.491464) also look at NHL (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3325757) and NBA (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/grow.12262) and even MLS stadiums, so it's not just related to NFL or MLB places).

I like your second to last paragraph though. I think it accurately describes the central tension we're debating about - how important do we place ROI on any use of public funds, especially when it's used to subsidize wealthy businesses and individuals.

As I mention above, the article cites numerous studies that also look at NHL and NBA facilities.

Arena funding aside, ROI should have zero importance on how we spend public funds. Public funds are spent on things the public deems important or necessary.

Parks, roads, libraries, sidewalks... These things do not "lose" money, but they do cost money.

1. The article points out the economic viability of stadiums, not arenas, stadiums. NFL and MLB stadiums. Buildings that would otherwise sit there unused for days, if not weeks.

2. If you went and looked at events that happen at arenas, they are not just used for basketball, but concerts, standup comedy tours, graduations, other (according to the paycom site, Dude perfect, PBR and Nitro Circus). As others have stated in the thread, there are issues when it comes to loading and unloading docks at paycom as well as behind the scenes space. Look at the crypto arena in LA from August 21-31st. They have:

8/21 - Drake and 21 Savage
8/23 - Zach Bryan
8/25-27 - Monster Jam
8/29 - LA Sparks (WNBA)
8/30 - 50 Cent
8/31 - LA Sparks

So, they go from one concert to another (the layout of the stage is different) to Monster Jam to WNBA to concert back to WNBA in the span of 10 days.

With a new arena, we would be on the front of most arena tours that we are currently losing out to in Tulsa (I think Tulsa has four semi loading docks and OKC has two) and the ability to redevelop a superblock for better use.

Personally, I (maybe some people in this thread, but surely not everyone) don't care about ROI (return on investment). I care about quality of life and having things to do. I moved to OKC in 1999 and at that time, when I told people where I lived, the things mentioned were a. tornados or b. the OKC bombing. Now, most people (I have talked to a lot of people in my travel) who know us for the Thunder and know little else, so there is some name recognition and it peaks their interest in where there is to do in OKC.

Take this as you will, we are not going to agree on this. I will be voting yes, you will be voting no, we have established this...

While I don't think we should spend an irresponsible, stupid amount of money, I'm with you on the bolded paragraph. Build a solid building that will last 30-50 years and is part of a larger entertainment/retail/office/housing development that connects the rest of downtown/reactivates the superblock and I don't care at all about the ROI (though I think the associated private development alone will end up covering it at ton of it). OKC is internationally know now when at best most people abroad new us for tornados, the bombing and cowboys/indians. People where thunder merchandise all over the world and likely have a generally favorable opinion of OKC/Oklahoma and I think there is tremendous value to that.

Also completely agree on the stadium/arena difference.

Though on your last sentence...You have a 1-Up as Kerry doesn't live here and can't vote.

Arena funding aside, ROI should have zero importance on how we spend public funds. Public funds are spent on things the public deems important or necessary.

Parks, roads, libraries, sidewalks... These things do not "lose" money, but they do cost money.

I agree in general, which is why the second part of that sentence you bolded is so important. Public works are great! Scissortail is awesome, MAPS in general has revitalized this city in amazing ways, but when we're talking about using public funds that benefits wealthy private enterprises, then ROI becomes more relevant in my opinion.

As we've discussed in other threads about population and other things, a growing metro population is also likely to play a significant role in this increase. Do you have anything that shows the Thunder, who only had 1 playoff appearance in that time you mentioned (excluding the COVID bubble year), played a significant role in that increase? Or are you just saying that people who don't agree with your correlating those two things are just stupid?
Another deliberately-obtuse chicken-or-egg argument. Population growth has also clearly been on the upswing since MAPS, and indeed since the Thunder arrived. MAPS was created, in fact, in part to stem the "brain drain" OKC was experiencing in the 80s and early 90s. An entire generation of college graduates and other job seekers COULD NOT WAIT to leave OKC. MAPS was 100% a quality-of-life investment, driven in large part by the then-mayor of OKC being told by United Airlines that Indianapolis had been chosen as the site of their new maintenance facility over OKC, despite the fact that OKC offered better economic incentives. United told him that, in the end, they just didn't want their employees to have to actually LIVE in Oklahoma City.

It may not be for you, but more than just a few people prefer to live in a city where major league sports offerings are a part of the quality-of-life equation.

Another deliberately-obtuse chicken-or-egg argument. Population growth has also clearly been on the upswing since MAPS, and indeed since the Thunder arrived. MAPS was created, in fact, in part to stem the "brain drain" OKC was experiencing in the 80s and early 90s. An entire generation of college graduates and other job seekers COULD NOT WAIT to leave OKC. MAPS was 100% a quality-of-life investment, driven in large part by the then-mayor of OKC being told by United Airlines that Indianapolis had been chosen as the site of their new maintenance facility over OKC, despite the fact that OKC offered better economic incentives. United told him that, in the end, they just didn't want their employees to have to actually LIVE in Oklahoma City.

It may not be for you, but more than just a few people prefer to live in a city where major league sports offerings are a part of the quality-of-life equation.

I prefer it too, but I didn't move here because of the Thunder. What evidence do you have that the Thunder is what prompted the population growth? You are stating that correlation is causation here, but there are countless other things, both local and nationally, that have influenced OKC's growth. Also, other cities without pro teams (Omaha, Louisville, Albuquerque to name a few) have seen similar or even greater population growth than we have in the last 20 years, so evidently pro sports teams aren't a sufficient variable in explaining a region's growth.

Arena funding aside, ROI should have zero importance on how we spend public funds. Public funds are spent on things the public deems important or necessary.

Parks, roads, libraries, sidewalks... These things do not "lose" money, but they do cost money.

I don't think it should have zero importance. It should definitely be somewhere on the list of priorities when considering any project, it just shouldn't be at the top of the list or the sole criteria in determining what should and shouldn't move forward.

I agree in general, which is why the second part of that sentence you bolded is so important. Public works are great! Scissortail is awesome, MAPS in general has revitalized this city in amazing ways, but when we're talking about using public funds that benefits wealthy private enterprises, then ROI becomes more relevant in my opinion.

I'll ask this again...what percentage of the dates booked at Paycom are booked by the Thunder?

I'll ask this again...what percentage of the dates booked at Paycom are booked by the Thunder?

Don't know off the top of my head, but I'm sure it's probably only around a quarter or so. Even with that relatively small share, the Thunder's value has increased five-fold, from $350m to $1.87b, for Bennett and company since they came to town. Paycom is still a great arena for other acts though; it's the Thunder pushing for a modernization.

Oklahoma's biggest driver of population growth is California politics. The same thing driving growth in Phoenix, Salt lake City, Boise, Portland, etc...

Don't know off the top of my head, but I'm sure it's probably only around a quarter or so. Even with that relatively small share, the Thunder's value has increased five-fold, from $350m to $1.87b, for Bennett and company since they came to town. Paycom is still a great arena for other acts though; it's the Thunder pushing for a modernization.

It isn't a great act, though. Why do you think the big pop and rock concerts go to Tulsa? Madonna, Jonas Brothers. The Weeknd, Metallica, U2, etc? It is more modern, has more loading docks for extravagant sets, and has better amenities. The loading dock is the biggest part of why major tours bypass OKC for Tulsa. If you don't get that, then you don't get the arena industry, and shouldn't be talking about this.

Who don't own the real estate. That is a key part here that a lot of people leave out. The Thunder don't own the real estate, the city does. They are the anchor tenant and all other events are scheduled around the team. If I remember correctly, the Thunder ownership was looking to put around $75 million into the arena, at least that was a number that was thrown out. If the Thunder ownership owned the real estate and were asking for millions to build it, that would be a completely different conversation.

Actually, it would be the exact opposite. Look how much we throw at private development all over the metro. At least when the land is privately owned the owner pays property taxes. This is exactly why almost every team prefers to rent and not own.

I prefer it too, but I didn't move here because of the Thunder. What evidence do you have that the Thunder is what prompted the population growth? You are stating that correlation is causation here, but there are countless other things, both local and nationally, that have influenced OKC's growth. Also, other cities without pro teams (Omaha, Louisville, Albuquerque to name a few) have seen similar or even greater population growth than we have in the last 20 years, so evidently pro sports teams aren't a sufficient variable in explaining a region's growth.
Where did I say that the Thunder alone spurred the growth? Your arguments are incredibly disingenuous.

I have been quite clear that it is one of many contributing factors, just as I have transparently stated that they are just a part of the puzzle when it comes to sales tax revenue growth.

A city is an organism. What matters in some places often doesn't matter in others, although I would suggest Omaha, Louisville and Albuquerque would likely have experienced even more growth with the addition of a major league sports franchise. I will also say that OKC has a more substantial national profile than any of the cities you mention, and I truly doubt that this was the case in 1993 or even 2008. In fact if you would have in 2008 asked most Americans to name the largest city in Oklahoma they likely would have told you Tulsa. This city had ZERO profile nationally, save as the site of the OKC Bombing.

The reverse holds true when you try to freely compare the impact of major league sports in other cities vs Oklahoma City. Could Chicago lose the Sox and not see much impact on them economically, nationally or reputation-wise? Sure they could. They have another MLB team, for one thing. But they also have the NFL, the NBA, the WNBA, the MLS. But I'll promise that if you took the Sox out of Chicago it would be very difficult for that city, culturally.

But in OKC addition of a major league team - after having none - was a clear game-changer.

You are demanding quantifiable absolutes because you know that they are impossible to deliver, thanks to the impenetrable web of sales tax revenue and civic expenditures. But in the end, it's all you have to hide behind. Again, any thinking adult who was here before the MAPS and before the NBA arrived knows how much both of them changed this city's stature in multiple areas, and has no interest in reliving the past of 25 years ago.

It isn't a great act, though. Why do you think the big pop and rock concerts go to Tulsa? Madonna, Jonas Brothers. The Weeknd, Metallica, U2, etc? It is more modern, has more loading docks for extravagant sets, and has better amenities. The loading dock is the biggest part of why major tours bypass OKC for Tulsa. If you don't get that, then you don't get the arena industry, and shouldn't be talking about this.

As discussed already, 6 more loading docks could be added easily to the existing building.

As discussed already, 6 more loading docks could be added easily to the existing building.

I highly doubt it. You said it, but I doubt it is fully true, given your comments.

And even so, at a certain point, you can only put so much lipstick on the pig that was the Ford Center. An arena built bare-bones, not meant for an NBA team. It can't handle many more upgrades, to stay in compliance with NBA standards. It can't add many more suites to make more monet for the Thunder and City (they get a portion of everything). I think the Thunder should and will help out. But OKC owns the land where the arena will be built, so they have the advantage when it comes to costs to build.

You are demanding quantifiable absolutes because you know that they are impossible to deliver, thanks to the impenetrable web of sales tax revenue and civic expenditures. But in the end, it's all you have to hide behind. Again, any thinking adult who was here before the MAPS and before the NBA arrived knows how much both of them changed this city's stature in multiple areas, and has no interest in reliving the past of 25 years ago.

Most thinking adults I know usually like to see proof or some other empirical evidence to help reach conclusions. Asking for this is not "hiding behind" anything. And it's not impossible - I've posted numerous studies in this very thread showing that the investments are not worth it. Voting on civic measures based on vibes instead of data isn't exactly healthy for any democracy.

As discussed already, 6 more loading docks could be added easily to the existing building.

Why make what would likely be a substantial investment that would only amount to fitting more docks in to the best of their ability (likely completely inefficieltly without a complete building redesign that is probably not possible) in an aging building that wasn't originally even built to the NBA standards of the time when we acquired the team (2008)?

If I remember correctly, you were one of the vocal opponents here of renovating the existing main terminal building at Will Rogers instead of just bulldozing it and starting over. Your arguments there about the inefficient and aging infrastructure at Will Rogers were nearly the same reasons that just throwing more loading docks and more money into Paycom wouldn't be the right move.

Don't know off the top of my head, but I'm sure it's probably only around a quarter or so. Even with that relatively small share, the Thunder's value has increased five-fold, from $350m to $1.87b, for Bennett and company since they came to town. Paycom is still a great arena for other acts though; it's the Thunder pushing for a modernization.

Okay...and how do they tap that $1.87b without selling the team? It was most likely operating at or near loss while dipping into the luxury tax between 2014-2020. Are you saying all these guys are getting rich or making substantial revenue every year off the Thunder?

Most thinking adults I know usually like to see proof or some other empirical evidence to help reach conclusions. Asking for this is not "hiding behind" anything. And it's not impossible - I've posted numerous studies in this very thread showing that the investments are not worth it. Voting on civic measures based on vibes instead of data isn't exactly healthy for any democracy.

And yet, that's exactly how the federal government functions LOL.

Remember the massive U2 Concert there? That was pretty sweet. Would love to see more of that.I remember. But as someone else mentioned it was allowed because they were going to replace the field. And at over ten years ago you can probably count on one hand anything but football and graduation events that have happened at the stadium.

Okay...and how do they tap that $1.87b without selling the team? It was most likely operating at or near loss while dipping into the luxury tax between 2014-2020. Are you saying all these guys are getting rich or making substantial revenue every year off the Thunder?

Well last year they made a cool $130m in operating income, which I would consider to be substantial

A city is an organism. What matters in some places often doesn't matter in others, although I would suggest Omaha, Louisville and Albuquerque would likely have experienced even more growth with the addition of a major league sports franchise.

Metro Omaha is actually growing faster than metro OKC since 2008. I didn't check Louisville nor Albuquerque.

If we were talking dollars you would have a hard time selling the logic of "My money grew less than yours so you should do what I did to get rich."

I highly doubt it. You said it, but I doubt it is fully true, given your comments.

And even so, at a certain point, you can only put so much lipstick on the pig that was the Ford Center. An arena built bare-bones, not meant for an NBA team. It can't handle many more upgrades, to stay in compliance with NBA standards. It can't add many more suites to make more monet for the Thunder and City (they get a portion of everything). I think the Thunder should and will help out. But OKC owns the land where the arena will be built, so they have the advantage when it comes to costs to build.
JTF is playing whack-a-mole. Loading docks were added to the argument a week or two ago, so he's currently fighting that one. Never mind that it is only one of many deficiencies that would keep Paycom from being an acceptable building in the future; most of which cannot be addressed by the current site. Items such as revenue-generating attached mixed use, back-of-house needs, areas to stage satellite trucks in the case of a deep playoff run, the list goes on and on.

He is asking for the approach that Seattle took with Key Arena in the 1990s. They did just enough in the form of a remodel, and in the bargain they set the Sonics up with a lease that got progressively worse each year, as rent went up AND the Sonics helped carry the cost of the financing. They were essentially paying rent and a mortgage at the same time, and were getting no share of the concessions. And when a new CBA pushed player salaries further into the stratosphere, with no new building-based revenue streams in sight, it became untenable, even for billionaires. I believe the team was about $30 million in the red, every year, about the time the OKC group purchased them. I'm certain the local owners want to ensure that isn't a possibility in the future, and we as a community should be on the same page with them.

As you note, lipstick on a pig still leaves you with a pig problem. I wouldn't go so far as to call Paycom a pig; it was the right building at the right time, in so many ways. But it will be around 30 years old before it is (hopefully) replaced, and will have served a noble purpose. Time to let it out to pasture.

Well last year they made a cool $130m in operating income, which I would consider to be substantial

How much of that are they pocketing vs. reinvesting into the team?

Metro Omaha is actually growing faster than metro OKC since 2008.

If we were talking dollars you would have a hard time selling the logic of "My money grew less than yours so you should do what I did to get rich."
Again, where did I dispute that Omaha had grown at a faster rate? So did Nampa, Idaho. Smaller cities can make sometimes greater gains more quickly. Population growth - or contraction - can be due to many factors, and certainly quality of life is but one.

Now do Tulsa.

Metro Omaha is actually growing faster than metro OKC since 2008. I didn't check Louisville nor Albuquerque.

If we were talking dollars you would have a hard time selling the logic of "My money grew less than yours so you should do what I did to get rich."

Metro Omaha is also the game in town for Nebraska, in terms of for quality jobs. Lincoln has the college, and that is it.

100,000 out of 1,000,000 is 10%. 10,000 out of 50,000 is 20%. Which would you actually have? It's impossible to extrapolate evenly, of course.

Well, since you asked, metro Tulsa has grown faster rate than metro OKC since 2008 also. My population data comes from macrotrends.net

In fact, the only major metro in the region OKC has out paced is Wichita.

Okay...and how do they tap that $1.87b without selling the team? It was most likely operating at or near loss while dipping into the luxury tax between 2014-2020. Are you saying all these guys are getting rich or making substantial revenue every year off the Thunder?

I imagine the line of credit is substantial.

Well, since you asked, metro Tulsa has grown faster rate than metro OKC since 2008 also. My population data comes from macrotrends.net

In fact, the only major metro in the region OKC has out paced is Wichita.

According to the Census you are completely wrong here. Since 2010 the only regional metro OKC hasn't grown faster than is DFW:

DFW - 24.8%
OKC - 16.5%
Omaha - 12.9%
Tulsa - 10.3%
Kansas City - 10.0%
Louisville - 6.8%
Wichita - 4.3%
Albuquerque - 3.7%

...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).

and those amenities are opening in OKC with the Thunder here. QQ - was OKC getting NEARLY as many openings PRIOR to the Thunder or the NBA/Hornets?

OKC is not Oakland (which is part of the SF Bay Area) nor Phoenix (the nation's 5th largest city); OKC needs the Thunder far more and is why the arena will surely pass and deservedly so. I only hope the Thunder is part of the overall master plan for the COX site, contributing to the viability of the development long term beyond their lease. That to me is the only question/issue.