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!

With almost 1300 posts you've been here long enough to know that nothing happens in OKC without a number of people on this forum complaining.

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.

When the Hornets were here, they had one of the lowest payrolls in the league. George Shinn had absolutely no debt on the team, because he paid cash for it when he bought it years before.



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.

The Sonics were losing $20 million a year in Seattle. The majority of initial Thunder ticket prices were comparable to when the Hornets were here.


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.

Remember the story of Moses and Pharaoh and the seven "fat years" and "lean years". Moses told Pharaoh to store up grain during the fat years so that he would have it available during the lean years. We've had the honeymoon of having a new team, followed by the excitement of a winning team. Did anyone go to games at OU during the John Blake years? There was not only not a waiting list of 11,000, but people would practically beg you to take their tickets outside the stadium. You could get a ticket for a dollar or two. There will be lean years. We don't have the cushion of a fat television contract and hundreds of sponsors like New York, LA and Chicago. We will have years when we're in the red, for sure. Larry's "multi-millions" are in the teens. Adding every penny of profit over the last 3 years, we're still not even close to paying off the moving expenses, much less any debt on the $350 purchase price.



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.

The profit the first two years from everything listed above was about 12 million annually. Check out Forbes "The business of basketball" for any questions. The team made about $20 million this year, because we were in the playoffs. That's what allows small market teams to stay afloat. Again: moving costs $75 million, so we're still behind on the moving costs alone. No ability to pile money up for the lean years until you've paid the loans for the expenses.


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.

Tricky. You failed to mention that the Charlotte Bobcats recently sold for a little over half of what the previous owner paid for them. A net loss to him of $120 million of so. Luckily, he hadn't had to pay moving expenses since he bought a local team. In Portland and Memphis the owners couldn't even find a buyer for their teams.

Why did each owner in Seattle make a profit when they sold the team? A. Team prices were increasing steadily over the years. B. The United States was not in a recession or economic downtown. C. They are a bigger market, with more Fortune 500 companies, more billionaires, more people who can afford to pay more. In OKC, almost everyone with team buying money already owns the team. Who could they sell the Thunder to here? Larry Nichols, David Green or Harold Hamm and that's about it. I seriously doubt any of them are going to pony up $400 million plus to own a team if the current owners are desperate to sell. Teams that reap big profits for the owners are in bigger markets or can be moved. Owners who want a team in a city that doesn't have one are willing to pay more because with ownership comes the right to move the team. If a team is mobile, it's a seller's market. If a team cannot move, an owner might end up like Michael Heisley, Bob Johnson or Paul Allen, with a team they can't sell at a profit.

I'm not going to begrudge the owners a profit currently, because I know the time will come when they're not making one. We cannot just look at a couple of years. Aubrey McClendon was honest when he said he'd be happy if they broke even because there's no guarantee they will even do that over the long haul. We are a small market and the new hasn't worn off the team yet. It will, unfortunately. Charlotte and Sacramento are perfect examples of that. Both of those cities had attendance and fans that were off the charts....better than OKC. When the lean years came, owners lost money, went into debt and fans left.

Remember the story of Moses and Pharaoh and the seven "fat years" and "lean years". Moses told Pharaoh to store up grain during the fat years so that he would have it available during the lean years. We've had the honeymoon of having a new team, followed by the excitement of a winning team. Did anyone go to games at OU during the John Blake years? There was not only not a waiting list of 11,000, but people would practically beg you to take their tickets outside the stadium. You could get a ticket for a dollar or two. There will be lean years. We don't have the cushion of a fat television contract and hundreds of sponsors like New York, LA and Chicago. We will have years when we're in the red, for sure. Larry's "multi-millions" are in the teens. Adding every penny of profit over the last 3 years, we're still not even close to paying off the moving expenses, much less any debt on the $350 purchase price.


Good Points, though part of the issue with the Blake years and the rotation of coaches that got nothing done was for a period their OU had some strict sanctions placed on them from the NCAA.

I'm not going to begrudge the owners a profit currently, because I know the time will come when they're not making one.

And I don't either. I only would hope that the profits come honestly. To those who don't 'get it', please understand, my only problem is McClendon, acting as CEO of Chesapeake Energy, using stockholder money from this public company and diverting that money directly to another business in which he owns 20%. Period. Beyond that, he can do as he pleases in all of his moonlighting, just stop using CHK money to infuse one of his moonlighting projects with millions of dollars. Easy.

And I don't either. I only would hope that the profits come honestly. To those who don't 'get it', please understand, my only problem is McClendon, acting as CEO of Chesapeake Energy, using stockholder money from this public company and diverting that money directly to another business in which he owns 20%. Period. Beyond that, he can do as he pleases in all of his moonlighting, just stop using CHK money to infuse one of his moonlighting projects with millions of dollars. Easy.

But does HE own 20 percent or does Chesapeake own 20 percent? And again, how many public companies put their names on the arena?

If it is advertising, using advertising dollars, which all public and private companies do, what the **** is the problem? Sorry, but you don't have me sold. I see the point you are trying to make, but given all of the facts from both sides, I am not buying it.

But does HE own 20 percent or does Chesapeake own 20 percent? And again, how many public companies put their names on the arena?

If it is advertising, using advertising dollars, which all public and private companies do, what the **** is the problem? Sorry, but you don't have me sold. I see the point you are trying to make, but given all of the facts from both sides, I am not buying it.He, personally, owns 20 percent. At least he's listed in the owners group personally. Not the company.

Either way I don't get Mike's argument. If McClendon and the board of directors use company (shareholder) money to name the arena, and that generates quite a bit of additional, nationwide, advertising it a good thing for Chesapeake. The naming isn't likely to increase the teams, and therefor, McClendon's personal income from a "moonlighting project". Having televised games, some nationally, broadcast from "The Chesapeake Energy Arena in Oklahoma City" is good for the company and doesn't change McClendon's position much if at all.

No matter what the issue is there's always some group that look for a conspiracy.

He, personally, owns 20 percent. At least he's listed in the owners group personally. Not the company.

Either way I don't get Mike's argument. If McClendon and the board of directors use company (shareholder) money to name the arena, and that generates quite a bit of additional, nationwide, advertising it a good thing for Chesapeake. The naming isn't likely to increase the teams, and therefor, McClendon's personal income from a "moonlighting project". Having televised games, some nationally, broadcast from "The Chesapeake Energy Arena in Oklahoma City" is good for the company and doesn't change McClendon's position much if at all.

No matter what the issue is there's always some group that look for a conspiracy.

I believe the thunder were one of the few reams to make a profit last year so yes, this will increase profits by about 2.5 mil(after okc get about 400k). And I don't know why the word conspiracy is being used. Mike isn't trying to say this is a conspiracy but more of a business ethics issue. And of course Chesapeake gets some advertising from this but that's not the point that's trying to be made.

And I don't either. I only would hope that the profits come honestly. To those who don't 'get it', please understand, my only problem is McClendon, acting as CEO of Chesapeake Energy, using stockholder money from this public company and diverting that money directly to another business in which he owns 20%. Period. Beyond that, he can do as he pleases in all of his moonlighting, just stop using CHK money to infuse one of his moonlighting projects with millions of dollars. Easy.

IF you own stock, go to the stockholders' meeting and bring it up. I doubt you will get any traction as most are intelligent enough to understand that this is a very good advertising opportunity consistent with marketing objectives of the company. His involvement is very transparent and there is no evidence of an attempt to mask it. I would also guess that the amount paid is very consistent with costs to name other arenas and not excessive or granting Aubrey a personal benefit.

This objection posed is a non-starter.

When I read some of ridiculous cmts of some on this board, I understand why some loathe the thougt of living in a place so backwards. A local corporation pays money for advertising on the cities arena and people look for issues. A great player gets tattoo and people are astounded. Oklahoma continues to remain in the closet of progressive thought, what a shame.

This thread has officially become the dumbest ever

I disagree. Not even in the top ten. We're a prolific bunch.

I believe the thunder were one of the few reams to make a profit last year so yes, this will increase profits by about 2.5 mil(after okc get about 400k). And I don't know why the word conspiracy is being used. Mike isn't trying to say this is a conspiracy but more of a business ethics issue. And of course Chesapeake gets some advertising from this but that's not the point that's trying to be made.Conspiracy isn't the best choice of words. But I don't see anything unethical about the CEO using corp. money to move the corp. forward. Even if it could result in personal gain for the CEO from a separate, perfectly legal, source. In this case the corp. stands to gain a lot more than Mr. McClendon.

Why is this controversial?

When I read some of ridiculous cmts of some on this board, I understand why some loathe the thougt of living in a place so backwards. A local corporation pays money for advertising on the cities arena and people look for issues. A great player gets tattoo and people are astounded. Oklahoma continues to remain in the closet of progressive thought, what a shame.

I think we both know that Oklahoma is consistently more progressive then people like to make it out to be. We can also be fairly 100% certain that the opinions you read on a website, like ours, are not going to be representative of our entire population; instead, those are the radicals of opinion. So let's get passed judging our populace based on a comment board. Lol.

When I read some of ridiculous cmts of some on this board, I understand why some loathe the thougt of living in a place so backwards. A local corporation pays money for advertising on the cities arena and people look for issues. A great player gets tattoo and people are astounded. Oklahoma continues to remain in the closet of progressive thought, what a shame.

I think you're fetching for straws to support the reasons why you left Oklahoma.

I think you're fetching for straws to support the reasons why you left Oklahoma.

I am in Lawton right now through Friday, come back at least 4x yr

Reasons won't be hard to find there ;-)

I second what rover said... Are any of you that are complaining actually stock holders in CHK? If not, quit bitching!!!! It's not your problem, quit looking for something to complain about in every post! I'm a shareholder and I don't give a crap. It's a great publicity opportunity to promote natural gas.

I second what rover said... Are any of you that are complaining actually stock holders in CHK? If not, quit bitching!!!! It's not your problem, quit looking for something to complain about in every post! I'm a shareholder and I don't give a crap. It's a great publicity opportunity to promote natural gas.

Best post in this thread yet

I just remembered I'm a shareholder too. I'm fine with it as well. I'm actually happy we've got a local company purchasing naming rights.

WOW! Peeps came and derailed my topic.

Anyhow, my son tells me something has happened to the Chesapeake Arena on the side facing the highway. I was tempted to drive by it, but I didn't.

He obviously has seen it, but I haven't seen it lately.

What all has happened to the exterior as of late? Any pics? He makes it sound like the new entrance is, or is close, to being done.

They are really just getting underway on the new entrance on the SW corner of the arena. Lots of dirtwork and such.

It won't be finished for several months.

This may help. Took these yesterday.

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6848/dsc0623xq.jpg
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/8695/dsc0618jl.jpg
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9684/dsc0617q.jpg
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/8773/dsc0616t.jpg
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/8352/dsc0622au.jpg

As can be seen in the pictures, there's quite a bit of work left. I think they said they hope to be done with everything by May 2012.

Will The Chez Arena be top 10 in the NBA when finished?

I drove buy the work zone today and they are starting to really kick it in gear. This will be awsome when done and will totally change the look of the Chez

As can be seen in the pictures, there's quite a bit of work left. I think they said they hope to be done with everything by May 2012.

Well, there's no hurry. The Thunder may not even play this year, unfortunately.

No. When the renovations are complete the Arena will still be bottom 3rd of NBA Arenas, but it of course depends on your criteria. Most are built much more elaborately initially than the Ford center. Still, it will be much improved.

No. When the renovations are complete the Arena will still be bottom 3rd of NBA Arenas, but it of course depends on your criteria. Most are built much more elaborately initially than the Ford center. Still, it will be much improved.
As you said it depends on the criteria used and who you believe. Reportedly the Ford was middle of the NBA pack both in seating capacity and amenities before the improvements were made. After the improvements, and the removal of 960 seats, seating capacity went from #14 all the way down to #28 (maybe even lower, depending on newer facilities). We have been told by officials that it is a top tier NBA arena (but not sure what criteria they are using for that statement). Read somewhere that it will be one of the larger NBA facilities but that is solely based on square footage and not seating capacity (the added sf for team offices, entrance etc).

No. When the renovations are complete the Arena will still be bottom 3rd of NBA Arenas, but it of course depends on your criteria. Most are built much more elaborately initially than the Ford center. Still, it will be much improved.

Have you been to many of the NBA arenas?

All arenas are so different, inside and out, that it's really almost impossible to rank them accurately. For example the arena in Boston has two tiers of suites and a really nice restaurant for season ticket holders, but the interior is a bit shabby and the exterior is unexciting. Most people would tell you American Airlines Arena in Dallas is the nicest, but I think it's a little cheesy. I haven't seen the new $450 million Orlando arena but I would suspect it's nice. In terms of financial outlay, adjusted for inflation, we haven't spent anywhere near enough money on our arena for most people to rank it near the top. I think we've gotten a pretty decent building considering what we've invested.

Yes. I've been to several different arenas, but I've also just watched a lot of games and looked into the arenas out of curiosity. There's nothing terribly wrong with CHK Arena, but the way it was originally built as a bare bones arena is still evident in a lot of ways. American Airlines in Dallas is nicer, but I do agree it has a strange feeling to it. I feel like I'm actually in an airport or mall, not a sports arena when I'm there. Even arenas in smaller markets like Memphis or Indiana are a lot nicer in my opinion. It's okay though. The improvements will make it a legitimate NBA arena for the next 15-20 years or so until we build a new one with MAPs 5 money.

Yes. I've been to several different arenas, but I've also just watched a lot of games and looked into the arenas out of curiosity. There's nothing terribly wrong with CHK Arena, but the way it was originally built as a bare bones arena is still evident in a lot of ways. American Airlines in Dallas is nicer, but I do agree it has a strange feeling to it. I feel like I'm actually in an airport or mall, not a sports arena when I'm there. Even arenas in smaller markets like Memphis or Indiana are a lot nicer in my opinion. It's okay though. The improvements will make it a legitimate NBA arena for the next 15-20 years or so until we build a new one with MAPs 5 money.

Of the ones I've been, I would put the Chez at midpoint before the latest renovations. There are a bunch of unimpressive ones out there like Phoenix, Memphis, New Orleans, Chicago, and others. Dallas is considered the best, and outside it looks like it, but inside the arena it loses its appeal. After the new entrance and gathering lobby, OKC will still be behind Staples Center, Dallas AA center and some others, but not as far behind as some think. OKC will be nice, not over the top, and will be appropriate for our team and market.

No. When the renovations are complete the Arena will still be bottom 3rd of NBA Arenas, but it of course depends on your criteria. Most are built much more elaborately initially than the Ford center. Still, it will be much improved.

Just curious, What parts of the arena have you been too? Have you seen all the club and restaurant areas? Have you been to the locker rooms and player/staff areas? I can definitely tell that as far as that goes, the CHK arena is on par with all but the very best arenas in the NBA and the new renovations will greatly improve the general look and feel of the place all around. Overall, it is definitely NOT in the bottom third. Now, it does lack in some areas, like the number of suites, but I am not sure if we could support doubling the suites anyway.

Now, from the outside it doesn't look like a space ship or an giant modern mall, and the new addition won't change that, but I personally don't see that as a negative. It seems there is more examples of overreaching architecture when it comes to sports arenas than anywhere else. Bottom line is that the game experience and amenities are exceptional and worthy of an NBA arena.

i will also add the the "bunker bar" which is the floor level and premium seat bar is maybe the very best in the NBA

i will also add the the "bunker bar" which is the floor level and premium seat bar is maybe the very best in the NBA

Exactly. All the club and restaurant areas are done very well.

They are really just getting underway on the new entrance on the SW corner of the arena. Lots of dirtwork and such.

It won't be finished for several months.

Thanks for the heads up.

Exactly. All the club and restaurant areas are done very well.

both club level bars and restaurants are in the process of being renovated as well

That's right, I forgot. I think they are pretty much the same as when the arena opened, right now.

Does anyone know if the roof top gardens are still a part of this renovation? I haven't seen it stated either way.

Well after all is complete I think that one would be hard pressed to find 10 arenas in the NBA that are better/nicer.

That's right, I forgot. I think they are pretty much the same as when the arena opened, right now.

Does anyone know if the roof top gardens are still a part of this renovation? I haven't seen it stated either way.

That might have gotten cut.

That might have gotten cut.

That would be a major bummer. That was what I was most looking forward to.

I understand that is in Maps 12.

It's not mentioned in the list of improvements: http://www.chesapeakearena.com/arena/index.cfm?page=improvements

That might have gotten cut.

That does sound vaguely familiar now that you mention it (as one of the things that got cut), will see if I can dig it up...

Can't find it specifically mentioned in any of the articles about the shortfall...just seems to be a non-entity. Not mentioned as being included or excluded. But it being cut seems to be the conclusion most here came to in the thread where it was being discussed...

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.234380443247257.65176.194734457211856

Hey, Here are some pics that I found on the OKC Arena facebook page!!

They're actually further along than it shows in those pics. From the old I-40 you can see where they've begun knocking some holes through the old edifice where the on-ramp used to be.

Once the new 1-40 is completed, I seriously hope the build a huge parking lot south of the Arena, parking is a major issue when attending Thunder games

In the past, when I drove to games, I never failed to find a spot in the Santa Fe garage. It's just $5 to park and you can walk to the arena via the skybridge.

I've literally shown up less than fifteen minutes before game time, parked at Century Center ($5), and taken the tiny underground segment to/through the Cox garage and popped up in front of the arena. Doing this I've made it to my seat (300 level) in time for tip. In reverse, since the Century Center has a north exit, I've managed to get out of downtown very quickly as well, back on my couch watching highlights less than 15 mins after the buzzer.

Huge parking lot South of the Arena? Isn't that where the MAPS 3 Park is going (or was it where the Convention Center was supposed to have gone?) We certainly don't want a massive surface parking lot right next to the Park. That area will be much better suited for residential and retail. In any case, we have been assured repeatedly by nearly everyone on this thread, there is no parking problem downtown. You just have to know where to park and not mind paying and/or walking.

Once the new 1-40 is completed, I seriously hope the build a huge parking lot south of the Arena, parking is a major issue when attending Thunder games

No. Last thing downtown needs. Parking downtown is not an issue unless you expect to be within 100 feet of where you're going.

Once the new 1-40 is completed, I seriously hope the build a huge parking lot south of the Arena, parking is a major issue when attending Thunder games

Haha funny post.

Once the new 1-40 is completed, I seriously hope the build a huge parking lot south of the Arena, parking is a major issue when attending Thunder games

Plus, once the universally beloved CC is built next door I suspect there will be plenty of parking associated with the area.

In the past, when I drove to games, I never failed to find a spot in the Santa Fe garage. It's just $5 to park and you can walk to the arena via the skybridge.

Why would you ever drive to a game? Weather? I remember one game I went to that it literally hurt to be outside because of how cold and windy it was.

Anyway, I'm truly sick of people complaining about parking downtown for games or anything else. There is NEVER a parking problem, unless (as the other poster said) you are so lazy you can't stand to not be within 50 feet of your destination.

We've never had a problem finding parking for any downtown event. Unless, like others have said, you want right by the door.

Remember the story of Moses and Pharaoh and the seven "fat years" and "lean years". Moses told Pharaoh to store up grain during the fat years so that he would have it available during the lean years.

just for the record... it was joseph. moses was about 400 years later.

Oh, you're right. My bad. I guess I'm not much of a biblical scholar.

Why would you (Betts) ever drive to a game? Weather? I remember one game I went to that it literally hurt to be outside because of how cold and windy it was.

Anyway, I'm truly sick of people complaining about parking downtown for games or anything else. There is NEVER a parking problem, unless (as the other poster said) you are so lazy you can't stand to not be within 50 feet of your destination.

She hasn't always lived DT and been within walking distance.

I didn't live downtown when the Hornets were here. In fact, I first saw my house going up when I was driving to a Hornets' game and I remember thinking about how nice it would be to live that close in. I started driving through Deep Deuce every time I came to a game and that's when I decided to move. Since I can walk to the NE corner of the Santa Fe garage, go up to the 2nd floor and walk over to the arena that way, I don't drive anymore, even in the most bitter cold weather. It's not worth it since I only have to walk about a block out in the open.

Once the new 1-40 is completed, I seriously hope the build a huge parking lot south of the Arena, parking is a major issue when attending Thunder games

I hope your just trying to get people started. I have season tickets and have never had a problem finding a place to park, and I often arrive DT about 45 minutes before tipoff.