I like it. We can call it the 'Peake'.

I like it. We can call it the 'Peake'.

I'll call it Ford Center....

Chesapeake Arena sounds fine to me. Doesn't sound lame, it rolls off the tongue the best that it can. The official name is the Chesapeake Energy Arena, but I'm sure it will be referred to as the Chesapeake Arena.

When they say the Thunder flammed out when they lose at home? When they blow a 4th quarter lead we can just say they ran out of gas.

12-year naming rights agreement - WOWEE

It'll happen. Too much at stake for both sides to lockout for a season. Look at the NFL, they figured it out, and I'm not surprised. No one can afford not to play.

at best we will have a short season .. the NFL and the NBA are apples and oranges ..

the NFL is splitting 9B the NBA has 22 teams losing money .. they want 800mil reduction in salary as a starting point ...

the NBA and the players are so far apart not having a season would not be suprising at all

http://www.nba.com/thunder/?tmd=1

Call it Chesapeake Energy Arena!

Yay, I was right all along.

And I bet the word "energy" will eventually come off. Look at the Cox Center. It was originally called the Cox Business Services Convention Center. Everyone just called it the Cox Center or the Cox Convention Center. I noticed awhile back that they dropped the "Business Services" from the title.

I wonder why they didn't go with "center". One less syllable and one less word starting with a vowel. Either way, we'll all get used to saying it soon and it's about $2.5 mil for the team a year and $400k+ for the city. Not a windfall, but it's better then getting nothing.

I don't have a problem with it being "arena" instead of "center." Afterall, it is just an arena, and doesn't have all of the meeting rooms and other amenities in a true center.

Their facebook page is just facebook.com/Chesapeakearena and the official website is
http://www.chesapeakearena.com. So if the official entities are leaving off the energy...I will as well. Also...the title of this thread has Chesapeake misspelled...

that Mike guy that is out for Aubrey is gonna stroke out

i chuckled!

They should have just announced the name a year ago. We all knew it was going to be called Chesapeake Arena. The delay just caused us to second guess ourselves. LOL

So now the question... nicknames? Let's rule out "The Gas Chamber" straight away... what else have we got?
We already have "The Thunderdome" ... but Chesapeake could have spun something like "The Peake" as a nickname. It's not as topographically relevant as say Denver's Mile High Stadium, but who cares.

If I were a stockholder, considering what companies spend on advertising, I'd say having my name on every sports announcers lips anytime the Thunder are televised is probably pretty cheap advertising. If we make the playoffs, Chesapeake Energy Arena will be heard around the world.

What's interesting though is that Chesapeake is not really the kind of company that needs to advertise to everyday consumers...


BOk is the largest bank based in Oklahoma and is major regional financial company with operations in 10 states, but sure, valid point.

Fair enough, but their operations in other states (Bank of Texas, Bank of Albuquerque, etc) go by different names so their potential customers aren't even going to recognize "BOk" as a brand.


Chesapeake Energy Arena flows much better than Gexa Energy Pavilion (former Coca-Cola Starplex/ Smirfnoff Music Centre/ Superpages.com Center) in Dallas.

It's definitely better than anything with a ".com" in it!!


I wonder why they didn't go with "center". One less syllable and one less word starting with a vowel.

I was thinking maybe they didn't want it confused for a headquarters (ie Devon Energy Center). Like if someone is googling it or searching on GPS.

Let's rule out The Gas Chamber

bwaaaahahaha! Too late.

Cheseapeake is as good of a name as any to stick on it and their checks cash I guess.

We already have "The Thunderdome" ... but Chesapeake could have spun something like "The Peake" as a nickname. It's not as topographically relevant as say Denver's Mile High Stadium, but who cares.

Someone was listening to the Sports Animal this morning...lol

bwaaaahahaha! Too late.

Cheseapeake is as good of a name as any to stick on it and their checks cash I guess.

For now, hahaha...

Just think of the Christmas lights Chesapeake will put up in and around the arena now!! It's gonna be purty! :D

Just think of the Christmas lights Chesapeake will put up in and around the arena now!! It's gonna be purty! :D

That will be awesome!!

Chesapeake advertises nationally and has a "brand" beyond OKC. Naming like "Mid First Arena" or BOK Center would have sounded too regionalized and small town. Glad one of the national names took it.

Yeah, and that brand isn't exactly well thought of by many.

that Mike guy that is out for Aubrey is gonna stroke out

"Stroke out?" I just learned of this and haven't even had a chance to really read much. However, you are right, I think it's wrong and will open up serious scrutiny. I think it is corporate arrogance at its most cynical. CHK keeps talking about how this will give them great marketing, "bang for the buck", etc. Which is great - except that Aubrey McClendon owns 20% of the Thunder. Period. No getting around that. The naming rights are paid directly to the ownership group. That means Aubrey will pocket over $7 million dollars over the life of this contract, by his public company buying the naming rights in which 20% will go directly to him. If it's that good of a marketing thing for CHK, then Aubrey should decide if he wants to frack or own sports teams. He should sell his interest in the Thunder if he's going to continue to pour shareholder money into his moonlighting projects. This is so blatantly wrong I am shocked that there is so little discussion of this sweetheart deal. Frankly, it reminds me of the days when people were afraid to speak up against EK Gaylord or Bob Kerr (Aubrey's uncle).

"Out for Aubrey," is so wrong. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the mismanagement at CHK that has gained national attention and given Aubrey the image of a cowboy CEO who is skirting the spirit, if not the letter, of the securities laws.

We'll see what happens. Don't think just because The Oklahoman won't speak a word about the conflict of interest that this won't create a storm in the financial world (and I mean on a national scale). It wasn't announced on a Friday for no reason. So, for those who think I'm "out to get Aubrey," simply for being willing to stand up to the most arrogant and cocky part of the plutocracy in Oklahoma City - so be it.

We'll see what happens. Don't think just because The Oklahoman won't speak a word about the conflict of interest that this won't create a storm in the financial world (and I mean on a national scale). It wasn't announced on a Friday for no reason. So, for those who think I'm "out to get Aubrey," simply for being willing to stand up to the most arrogant and cocky part of the plutocracy in Oklahoma City - so be it.

I don't know if you noticed, but there are a lot of things out there the financial world is ignoring. Until then party on, ignore market fundamentals. LOL

I don't know if you noticed, but there are a lot of things out there the financial world is ignoring. Until then party on, ignore market fundamentals. LOL

?

?

"Stroke out?" I just learned of this and haven't even had a chance to really read much. However, you are right, I think it's wrong and will open up serious scrutiny. I think it is corporate arrogance at its most cynical. CHK keeps talking about how this will give them great marketing, "bang for the buck", etc. Which is great - except that Aubrey McClendon owns 20% of the Thunder. Period. No getting around that. The naming rights are paid directly to the ownership group. That means Aubrey will pocket over $7 million dollars over the life of this contract, by his public company buying the naming rights in which 20% will go directly to him. If it's that good of a marketing thing for CHK, then Aubrey should decide if he wants to frack or own sports teams. He should sell his interest in the Thunder if he's going to continue to pour shareholder money into his moonlighting projects. This is so blatantly wrong I am shocked that there is so little discussion of this sweetheart deal. Frankly, it reminds me of the days when people were afraid to speak up against EK Gaylord or Bob Kerr (Aubrey's uncle).

"Out for Aubrey," is so wrong. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the mismanagement at CHK that has gained national attention and given Aubrey the image of a cowboy CEO who is skirting the spirit, if not the letter, of the securities laws.

We'll see what happens. Don't think just because The Oklahoman won't speak a word about the conflict of interest that this won't create a storm in the financial world (and I mean on a national scale). It wasn't announced on a Friday for no reason. So, for those who think I'm "out to get Aubrey," simply for being willing to stand up to the most arrogant and cocky part of the plutocracy in Oklahoma City - so be it.

First of all,I can just about guarantee that none of the money will go to Aubrey directly. If the team is lucky enough to make a profit after they make payroll and pay their other expenses, it will take quite a few years just to pay back the $75 million the owners spent to move the team and pay off the lease in Seattle. Then there's the $350 million price tag for the team.

As far as conflict of interest, I'm not going to research every professional sports venue in the US, but a couple come to mind. Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland was originally Gund Arena, named after one of the owners of the Cavaliers who bought the naming rights. Dan Gilbert, the current owner of the Cavaliers, is the owner of Quicken Loans. Amway Arena in Orlando's naming rights were bought by the owner of the Magic who owned....you guessed it....Amway. So, there is certainly precedent.

Then, anyone want to guess what the annual advertising budget for Chesapeake is? It's a Fortune 500 company. Every arena and stadium in the country has a corporate sponsor, and many of them pay far more for naming rights than Chesapeake is, so it's no more unusual for Chesapeake to purchase naming rights than any other company that has done so. I'm willing to bet you that Sonic Corp spends more money for their ads during the NBA finals and other premier sporting events than Chesapeake will pay the Thunder for naming rights.

Someone was listening to the Sports Animal this morning...lol
Didn't listen to the Animal at all today (...sad face...), were they touting "The Peake" too?

If Thunderdome doesn't stick, the Peake seems the most feasible.

First of all,I can just about guarantee that none of the money will go to Aubrey directly.

Jill, The logic is faulty. If you want to play with semantics and assume no profit because the owners are still paying for the team to move here, well then, CHK stockholders are paying millions to help Aubrey McClendon buy the Thunder. Take your pick, it's still Aubrey's money as 20% owner of the team. Six of one, half dozen of the other.


As far as conflict of interest, I'm not going to research every professional sports venue in the US, but a couple come to mind. Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland was originally Gund Arena, named after one of the owners of the Cavaliers who bought the naming rights. Dan Gilbert, the current owner of the Cavaliers, is the owner of Quicken Loans. Amway Arena in Orlando's naming rights were bought by the owner of the Magic who owned....you guessed it....Amway. So, there is certainly precedent.

Completely different.

1. Amway is a private company. I would have had no problem if Jeff Records bought the naming rights as head of MidFirst as MidFirst is a private company.

2. The Cleveland deal was different. Different arrangements and agreements. Apples and oranges than the way the Thunder/OKC/naming rights sale is handled.


Then, anyone want to guess what the annual advertising budget for Chesapeake is? It's a Fortune 500 company. Every arena and stadium in the country has a corporate sponsor, and many of them pay far more for naming rights than Chesapeake is, so it's no more unusual for Chesapeake to purchase naming rights than any other company that has done so. I'm willing to bet you that Sonic Corp spends more money for their ads during the NBA finals and other premier sporting events than Chesapeake will pay the Thunder for naming rights.

Again, none of this matters. It doesn't matter if the CHK marketing budget is $5.00 or $50,000,000.00, Aubrey McClendon is profiting directly as an owner of the Thunder with funds he directed to be paid to the Thunder as CHK's CEO - that's the issue. Chesapeake is no longer a private company. Aubrey still forgets that from time to time. He is admonished, and goes on until the next time that he forgets. Only so many passes before the ISS recommended his ouster as Chairman of the Board a few months back. CHK didn't clean up its own house (as this once again shows). It's things like this that take the misgovernance from levels of interest from the ISS and the national press --- to the SEC and/or the Justice Department. The fact that he continues his cowboy ways shows he fails to see that this continued behavior will only end with the inevitable day of reckoning with federal agents.

Jill, This is nothing less than white collar crime in the suites.

FWIW, the Journal Record is looking into the conflict of interest disclosures in this deal and the SEC reporting requirements. At least thats what the new revamped Oklahoma News Report interview indicated this evening.

Which is great - except that Aubrey McClendon owns 20% of the Thunder. Period. No getting around that. The naming rights are paid directly to the ownership group. That means Aubrey will pocket over $7 million dollars over the life of this contract, by his public company buying the naming rights in which 20% will go directly to him.

Mike, you're seriously trying to say that if he owns 20% he will get 20% of any company income? I don't think so. Income does not equate to profits.

Look at the NFL, they figured it out, and I'm not surprised. No one can afford not to play.

Not quite yet, metro.

Mike, you're seriously trying to say that if he owns 20% he will get 20% of any company income? I don't think so. Income does not equate to profits.

Not literally to the penny, no. But does anyone question that Aubrey McClendon doesn't personally benefit when CHK stockholders fork over millions to PBC, LLC - which AM owns 20%? It's the argument itself that makes this so blatant. Any way you slice it it is a win-win deal for Aubrey McClendon. Of all the companies that could have sponsored an arena in Oklahoma City for the value of national marketing (look around the league) look who gets the deal. Because, clearly, it was an inside deal. No need for conspiracy theories - this is in your face.

I'm not the one who mentioned Chesapeake and Enron in the same sentence -- it was the national financial press. Aubrey McClendon clearly thinks he's entitled. A sickness that disproportionately touches the very poor and the very rich.

Because, clearly, it was an inside deal. No need for conspiracy theories - this is in your face.
Clearly in your mind maybe. I see no evidence of that. If you have more information besides guesses, please share it with us.

"That means Aubrey will pocket over $7 million dollars over the life of this contract, by his public company buying the naming rights in which 20% will go directly to him."


You were giving a literal, to the penny, amount. If you didn't mean that, you shouldn't have said it.

Clearly in your mind maybe. I see no evidence of that. If you have more information besides guesses, please share it with us.
You were giving a literal, to the penny, amount. If you didn't mean that, you shouldn't have said it.

You see no evidence of that? It was announced today. By definition it's an "inside deal."

CHK buys Naming Rights To Pay to OKC Thunder.
CHK CEO is Aubrey McClendon.
Aubrey McClendon owns 20% of the Thunder.

What part of "inside deal" can you possibly not see?

Oh, as for the money amount. I was using what CHK stockholders will be paying PBC, LLC over the life of the contract and Aubrey McClendon's share of PBC.
What part of that is so difficult? No one can know for sure, to the penny, how much McClendon will profit, but the general math is fairly easy to put pen to paper. Can you doubt that McClendon is much better off than had CHK stockholders not paid for the naming rights? Is this really that difficult? I'm just blown away that so many simply want to pretend this is something other than it is. It is what it simply is -- and that's what makes it so tawdry.

You see no evidence of that? It was announced today. By definition it's an "inside deal."

CHK buys Naming Rights To Pay to OKC Thunder.
CHK CEO is Aubrey McClendon.
Aubrey McClendon owns 20% of the Thunder.

What part of "inside deal" can you possibly not see?

Oh, as for the money amount. I was using what CHK stockholders will be paying PBC, LLC over the life of the contract and Aubrey McClendon's share of PBC.
What part of that is so difficult?

I can see that what you are inferring has no basis in fact. There is no evidence of "inside deal". Everyone always loves conspiracy theories. Please provide evidence as to what influence the owners of the Thunder had in making this decision.

The difficulty with the money is that you are equating income with profits which doesn't equate. He won't personally receive anything close to 20% of the contract.

And are you inferring that more lucrative arrangements were turned down to accept the Chesapeake proposal? If not, there is no reason for discussion.

I can see that what you are inferring has no basis in fact. There is no evidence of "inside deal". Everyone always loves conspiracy theories.

Again, where's the conspiracy "theory?" It is what it is!


The difficulty with the money is that you are equating income with profits which doesn't equate. He won't personally receive anything close to 20% of the contract.

How do you know? He may receive more - or yes, he may receive less. But that he receives anything at all is the issue. Again, why is this so difficult? Also, it doesn't matter whether he directly gets a direct deposit into his bank. The issue is simple: he is one of the owners of the team that receives the cash for the naming rights and that cash comes from the company he heads. And if the team profits - at all - then that means he profits. If you're going to quibble about the word "profits" then why do team owners bother with selling the rights at all?


And are you inferring that more lucrative arrangements were turned down to accept the Chesapeake proposal? If not, there is no reason for discussion.

You're reaching now. That some other deal had to be there and be turned down has nothing to do with my main argument. But I think you know that.

Again, where's the conspiracy "theory?" It is what it is!



How do you know? He may receive more - or yes, he may receive less. But that he receives anything at all is the issue. Again, why is this so difficult? Also, it doesn't matter whether he directly gets a direct deposit into his bank. The issue is simple: he is one of the owners of the team that receives the cash for the naming rights and that cash comes from the company he heads. And if the team profits - at all - then that means he profits. If you're going to quibble about the word "profits" then why do team owners bother with selling the rights at all?

So basically what you're saying is that Chesapeake should not have offered money for naming rights unless he resigned and sold all of his stock in the Thunder. What a ridiculous idea. I have no problem with him making a profit as long as it's the best deal offered for the city. If you have any evidence to the contrary, which you haven't offered so far, please let us know.

So basically what you're saying is that Chesapeake should not have offered money for naming rights unless he resigned and sold all of his stock in the Thunder. What a ridiculous idea. I have no problem with him making a profit as long as it's the best deal offered for the city. If you have any evidence to the contrary, which you haven't offered so far, please let us know.

You. Just. Don't. Get It.

It's getting very late. I'll let you have the last word for the night, so post away. This whole thing speaks for itself.

You. Just. Don't. Get It.

It's getting very late. I'll let you have the last word for the night, so post away. This whole thing speaks for itself.

LOL. You're right that I don't get it. The only thing that speaks for itself is your opinion which has no basis in fact. When you have evidence that the city is losing out in any way with this contract with Chesapeake by turning down a better offer, get back to us. If the city gets the best deal available I have no problem if he makes some profit. It sounds like you would have preferred that the city signed with Midfirst for a smaller amount just to be sure Aubrey got as little money as possible.

LOL. You're right that I don't get it. The only thing that speaks for itself is your opinion which has no basis in fact. When you have evidence that the city is losing out in any way with this contract with Chesapeake by turning down a better offer, get back to us. If the city gets the best deal available I have no problem if he makes some profit. It sounds like you would have preferred that the city signed with Midfirst for a smaller amount just to be sure Aubrey got as little money as possible.

I said I was going to bed. But I just read this and it dawned on me that you have been thinking one thing and it's really the other.

The City of Oklahoma City DID NOT sell the naming rights to CHK. That authority was surrendered to the Oklahoma City Thunder as part of the deal to bring them to OKC. It was the THUNDER (which Aubrey owns 20%) who directly sold the naming rights to CHK (which Aubrey is CEO) - NOT the city.

I said I was going to bed. But I just read this and it dawned on me that you have been thinking one thing and it's really the other.

The City of Oklahoma City DID NOT sell the naming rights to CHK. That authority was surrendered to the Oklahoma City Thunder as part of the deal to bring them to OKC. It was the THUNDER (which Aubrey owns 20%) who directly sold the naming rights to CHK (which Aubrey is CEO) - NOT the city.

So it's the city of OKC's fault for surrendering the rights to the Thunder.

I said I was going to bed. But I just read this and it dawned on me that you have been thinking one thing and it's really the other.

The City of Oklahoma City DID NOT sell the naming rights to CHK. That authority was surrendered to the Oklahoma City Thunder as part of the deal to bring them to OKC. It was the THUNDER (which Aubrey owns 20%) who directly sold the naming rights to CHK (which Aubrey is CEO) - NOT the city.

I didn't mean that the City got the rights. What I meant was that I wasn't concerned as long as the city got the best deal available and wouldn't have benefited is a different decision had been made. So far I haven't seen anything to indicate otherwise. If something illegal occured, I'll change my opinion.

I'd simply like to see some evidence that McClendon will ever make a profit from the naming rights. He owns one sixth of the Thunder. He's going to get $500,000 next year from sale of the naming right IF there is any money left over after the team pays its expenses. There may be next year, but when the bad years hit, he's going to be digging in his pockets to cover payroll, like 20 teams did this year. That's if they've finished paying back the $75 million it cost to move the team, which I doubt, as I believe they still have a loan from the NBA. It's probably going to be years and years before the owners have a chance for the team to be profitable to them. Probably, if it ever happens, it will do so after this naming rights contract expires. The sale of the naming rights might help keep the Thunder in the black, and if that's a bad thing for anyone in this city I'm having trouble seeing it. We are a small market. We need to scrap for every penny for the team. I suspect if a company had made a better offer than Chesapeake, the team would have taken it.

Regardless, it seems to me that this is a question for the stockholders. Perhaps you're a stockholder, Mike. If so, it's up to y'all to be outraged and do something about it, I guess. That is, if this kind of advertising is grossly over the top for a publicly held company. To me, it seems like a fairly smart use of $3 million. I believe one minute of advertising on the Superbowl costs about a million dollars. Over the course of a year, and especially if the Thunder make the playoffs, Chesapeake is going to get incredible national and international exposure. Off the top of my head, I can tell you the name of almost every NBA team's arena, just from watching the NBA on television.

I'd simply like to see some evidence that McClendon will ever make a profit from the naming rights. He owns one sixth of the Thunder. He's going to get $500,000 next year from sale of the naming right IF there is any money left over after the team pays its expenses. There may be next year, but when the bad years hit, he's going to be digging in his pockets to cover payroll, like 20 teams did this year. That's if they've finished paying back the $75 million it cost to move the team, which I doubt, as I believe they still have a loan from the NBA. It's probably going to be years and years before the owners have a chance for the team to be profitable to them. Probably, if it ever happens, it will do so after this naming rights contract expires. The sale of the naming rights might help keep the Thunder in the black, and if that's a bad thing for anyone in this city I'm having trouble seeing it. We are a small market. We need to scrap for every penny for the team. I suspect if a company had made a better offer than Chesapeake, the team would have taken it.

Regardless, it seems to me that this is a question for the stockholders. Perhaps you're a stockholder, Mike. If so, it's up to y'all to be outraged and do something about it, I guess. That is, if this kind of advertising is grossly over the top for a publicly held company. To me, it seems like a fairly smart use of $3 million. I believe one minute of advertising on the Superbowl costs about a million dollars. Over the course of a year, and especially if the Thunder make the playoffs, Chesapeake is going to get incredible national and international exposure. Off the top of my head, I can tell you the name of almost every NBA team's arena, just from watching the NBA on television.

Agree wholeheartedly!

Can we fix the spelling in the title of this thread???

Aubrey owning two basketball teams is a conflict of interest. Not owning 20% of the team and the naming rights to the arena. Now, let me get something straight. Is it Aubrey himself that owns 20% of the team or Chesapeake? Is it Aubrey himself that now owns the naming rights or Chesapeake? How many publicly traded companies own naming rights to arenas? How would this outrage shareholders? All it is is advertising.

Let's get serious, Aubrey is no Emmanual Baptiste Zorg (for those of you who are fans of The Fifth Element), so let's park the conspiracy theories.

Welllllllllll, he also can't fire 1 Billion people ;-)

Wow. Let's all be pissed off because a local corporation bought the naming rights to our unnamed arena. It's terrible that we have local support for our team, this city must suck!

Mike isn't trying to push a conspiracy theory or say that the city is getting shafted. His main argument is the possible ethical issues with Aubrey owning 1/5 of the thunder(therefore being able to profit from them) and being the CEO of a publicly owned company that is paying millions to the thunder to name the arena. That's what he's arguing. No conspiracy, just pointing out the issue that doesn't pass the smell test.

He's not the only one. As stated earlier the journal record has brought this issue up as well

Wow. Let's all be pissed off because a local corporation bought the naming rights to our unnamed arena. It's terrible that we have local support for our team, this city must suck!

I agree skywest, they are going to be pissed off about this for a long time, they rather act like a bunches of 4 year olds then act like adults about it, I know we can't please everybody in this world, but c'mon this our arena for crying out loud.

I think it's great. I like how Energy is really tiny under Chesapeake.

I like it too, the signage on the arena is going to look great. :)

Wow. Let's all be pissed off because a local corporation bought the naming rights to our unnamed arena. It's terrible that we have local support for our team, this city must suck!


I agree skywest, they are going to be pissed off about this for a long time, they rather act like a bunches of 4 year olds then act like adults about it, I know we can't please everybody in this world, but c'mon this our arena for crying out loud.
Yep, and that is the crux of the problem...
:sofa:

What's the problem? Every other arena in the nation has a corporate sponsor paying for naming rights. The arena is very much so still our arena. The naming rights were given to the Thunder as part of the deal to get them to move here. That is a small price to pay for all of the other benefits that having the team here has brought our city. Plus, the city is still making close to half a million dollars a year in revenue. Everyone is getting paid.

The problem isn't Naming Rights themselves although I agree with then Councilman Cornett who voted against the Ford naming rights, saying we need to be promoting our City with the name and not a Corporation. Do it like Disney does and just have a corporate sponsor. The building keeps the same name no matter how many times the corporate partner changes and the corporate sponsor still gets their name on the building etc. Since we have a non-corporate name now (OKC Arena for short), it should remain that and just add the corporate sponsor to it. "OKC Arena sponsored by Chesapeake" or if that is too wordy, make it the "Chesapeake OKC Arena".

This makes the 3rd official name the Arena has had in its short life (Ford Center, OKC Arena, Chesapeake Energy Arena). Even if the corporation remains the same, the Bricktown Ballpark has had 3 different names (Southwestern Bell / SWB / AT&T). Just because the corporation changed their own name.

The problem lies in what I bolded in the 2 quotes. It is OUR Arena and the revenue from any Naming Rights rightfully belongs to the those who built it and paid for the improvements (the City/Taxpayers). Not some private, for-profit business.

You are correct, the City IS getting paid, but it is $100K LESS per year than what the deal was under the Ford Agreement (quick-n-dirty math). AND that $409K/yr is going back into the revolving fund that is set up to benefit the Team. The only dedicated funding source for whatever capital improvements the Team decides it wants/needs. The last round of improvements worked out to averaging $20MM/year ($100MM on a 5 yr old building). That means the City is coming up $19.6MM/yr short on the deal 9again, quick-n-dirty math).

There is too much self promotion going on. It's getting bland. We have The City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma....We have the Oklahoma River. We would have the Oklahoma City Thunder playing in the Oklahoma City Chesapeake Arena, fronting the Oklahoma City Boulevard, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

How many more times do we need to self-promote.... I am 100% fine with calling it the Chesapeake Energy Arena.

Here is something buried in the Sandridge Energy Annual Report:

"Oklahoma City Thunder Agreements . The Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer owns a minority interest in a limited liability company which owns and operates the Oklahoma City Thunder, a National Basketball Association team playing in Oklahoma City, where the Company is headquartered. The Company is party to a five-year sponsorship agreement whereby it pays approximately $3.3 million per year for advertising and promotional activities related to the Oklahoma City Thunder. Additionally, the Company entered into an agreement to license a suite at the arena where the Oklahoma City Thunder plays its home games. Under this four-year agreement, the Company will pay an annual license fee of $0.2 million. Amounts related to these agreements are not included in the tables above."

I imagine something similar will be reported by Chesapeake...

Come to think of it, maybe Chesapeake is getting a bargain paying what they are for naming rights of their arena, when looking at what Sandridge is getting ? I don't know, do they have a banner on their building or something lol!

Larry. Can you document the $100,000 less the city is getting? I thought the $409K was about what Ford was paying.

the Bricktown Ballpark has had 3 different names (Southwestern Bell / SWB / AT&T). Just because the corporation changed their own name.

You forgot the current name, "Redhawks Field at Bricktown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RedHawks_Field_at_Bricktown)". Just sayin.

You forgot the current name, "Redhawks Field at Bricktown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RedHawks_Field_at_Bricktown)". Just sayin.
Someone had said that is just the name of the "Field" (playing surface)? Similar to Owen Field inside the Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium (OU)? Or did they officially rename the Ballpark itself?

Larry. Can you document the $100,000 less the city is getting? I thought the $409K was about what Ford was paying.
I can understand why you would think that as the media keeps reporting that amount in error. According to a journal Record article from 2002 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20020410/ai_n10153316), it was a 10-year deal valued at $5.3 million ($530,000/yr) and extendable to a $8.1MM/15yr deal. Quick-n-dirty math works out to be $540,000/yr. Under the Thunder lease, we are getting $409,000/yr.

So, thank you for questioning it and I stand corrected on the amount, it is actually $121K to $131K/yr less.



I'd simply like to see some evidence that McClendon will ever make a profit from the naming rights. He owns one sixth of the Thunder. He's going to get $500,000 next year from sale of the naming right IF there is any money left over after the team pays its expenses. There may be next year, but when the bad years hit, he's going to be digging in his pockets to cover payroll, like 20 teams did this year. That's if they've finished paying back the $75 million it cost to move the team, which I doubt, as I believe they still have a loan from the NBA. It's probably going to be years and years before the owners have a chance for the team to be profitable to them. Probably, if it ever happens, it will do so after this naming rights contract expires. ...
Oh where to begin...

We know that the Hornets were profitable both seasons they were here, even with some of the lowest ticket prices in the league.

We know that the Thunder ticket prices were raised to within a buck and change of the average NBA average. We know that Thunder ticket prices were 36% higher than Sonic ticket prices. We know that in some cases, ticket prices were double (or more) than what they were for the Hornets.

We know they have been profitable from the very first season, the second season and the third. Not the "we'll be happy just to break even", and not just a razor thin profit, but a profit in the multi-millions.

We know the Thunder is one of the most profitable small market franchises.

As co-owner of the team he makes a direct profit from his share of the Naming Rights. It is pure profit because they didn't incur any expense to obtain those Naming Rights, they were handed to them to the Council.

We know the Team's owners get the revenue from the Naming Rights to the Practice Facility (undisclosed amount).

We know that the team's owners get the revenue from the Pouring Rights (undisclosed amount).

We know from Bennett's testimony and evidence introduced in the Seattle litigation, that the team's consultants projected a "conservative" $9MM/year operating profit based on a paltry 14K attendance. We know that they have exceeded that by an avg of 4K/game.

We know along with the ticket sales from those 4,000 extra butts in the seats are the teams share of merchandise, concessions etc that the team gets a cut.

We know, as we have discussed many times, the amount they spent buying the business, they will most likely get back, just as EVERY previous owner of the Sonics/Thunder has done in it's 40+ yr history. Even Schultz who was losing the $10 to $20MM/yr made up ALL of the yearly losses and still made a profit when he sold.

We know that the Team is paying $100K LESS in rent for the Practice facility than they projected.

We know that they are getting right at what they projected for the Arena Naming Rights.

etc etc etc.

I can understand why you would think that as the media keeps reporting that amount in error. According to a journal Record article from 2002 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20020410/ai_n10153316), it was a 10-year deal valued at $5.3 million ($530,000/yr) and extendable to a $8.1MM/15yr deal. Quick-n-dirty math works out to be $540,000/yr. Under the Thunder lease, we are getting $409,000/yr.

So, thank you for questioning it and I stand corrected on the amount, it is actually $121K to $131K/yr less.



Oh where to begin...

We know that the Hornets were profitable both seasons they were here, even with some of the lowest ticket prices in the league.

We know that the Thunder ticket prices were raised to within a buck and change of the average NBA average. We know that Thunder ticket prices were 36% higher than Sonic ticket prices. We know that in some cases, ticket prices were double (or more) than what they were for the Hornets.

We know they have been profitable from the very first season, the second season and the third. Not the "we'll be happy just to break even", and not just a razor thin profit, but a profit in the multi-millions.

We know the Thunder is one of the most profitable small market franchises.

As co-owner of the team he makes a direct profit from his share of the Naming Rights. It is pure profit because they didn't incur any expense to obtain those Naming Rights, they were handed to them to the Council.

We know the Team's owners get the revenue from the Naming Rights to the Practice Facility (undisclosed amount).

We know that the team's owners get the revenue from the Pouring Rights (undisclosed amount).

We know from Bennett's testimony and evidence introduced in the Seattle litigation, that the team's consultants projected a "conservative" $9MM/year operating profit based on a paltry 14K attendance. We know that they have exceeded that by an avg of 4K/game.

We know along with the ticket sales from those 4,000 extra butts in the seats are the teams share of merchandise, concessions etc that the team gets a cut.

We know, as we have discussed many times, the amount they spent buying the business, they will most likely get back, just as EVERY previous owner of the Sonics/Thunder has done in it's 40+ yr history. Even Schultz who was losing the $10 to $20MM/yr made up ALL of the yearly losses and still made a profit when he sold.

We know that the Team is paying $100K LESS in rent for the Practice facility than they projected.

We know that they are getting right at what they projected for the Arena Naming Rights.

etc etc etc.

We also know that without the investors money the Thunder would not be here.
We also know they are valuable to our growth as a City and worth every penny.
We also know if the Tunder wasn't here, we would still all be saying, hopefully, one day, we will have Major league Sports.