Should we just call MAPS 4: STADIUMS?

I think its a guarantee that Chesapeake Arena upgrades will be on the ballot. Its also pretty much a guarantee that a new Fairgrounds arena will also be on there. If a multipurpose soccer stadium is built that will be three Stadium related projects on one MAPS proposal. Doesn't seem like that leaves much room for other things.

All 3 together have a price tag of ~$300 million.

MAPS 3 had over $800 million, which would leave $500 million for other stuff. It’s reasonable to expect MAPS 4 to at least match that.

Should we just call MAPS 4: STADIUMS?

I think its a guarantee that Chesapeake Arena upgrades will be on the ballot. Its also pretty much a guarantee that a new Fairgrounds arena will also be on there. If a multipurpose soccer stadium is built that will be three Stadium related projects on one MAPS proposal. Doesn't seem like that leaves much room for other things.


I think MAPS for Stadiums is the perfect name for this. Actually the Fair Grounds arena would prob. be a better investment than the soccer stadium. Why not just build a all in one multi use arena/stadium for all?

All 3 together have a price tag of ~$300 million.

MAPS 3 had over $800 million, which would leave $500 million for other stuff. It’s reasonable to expect MAPS 4 to at least match that.

Yes, probably $900M +.

And you are greatly under-estimating the amount of events that could be held at a multipurpose stadium. Think outside the box. It can host more than just soccer, football, and concerts.

Its interesting then, how the main vocal support seems to only come from Funk and Energy, given all these other potential tenants the field would be used for.

There are many other pressing items that would benefit from MAPS 4 investment. Subsidizing a stadium now feels like an overreach. Especially at the price they're quoting.

Its interesting then, how the main vocal support seems to only come from Funk and Energy, given all these other potential tenants the field would be used for.

There are many other pressing items that would benefit from MAPS 4 investment. Subsidizing a stadium now feels like an overreach. Especially at the price they're quoting.

Maybe a 50/50 joint venture is in order

Should we just call MAPS 4: STADIUMS?

I think its a guarantee that Chesapeake Arena upgrades will be on the ballot. Its also pretty much a guarantee that a new Fairgrounds arena will also be on there. If a multipurpose soccer stadium is built that will be three Stadium related projects on one MAPS proposal. Doesn't seem like that leaves much room for other things.

Great point.

I'm no historian, but I assume the other MAPS proposals didn't have the same diversity of possible funding recipients as MAPS 4 currently boasts.

It will certainly be interesting.

Maybe a 50/50 joint venture is in order

Would certainly make for a more palatable offer to voters.

In the meantime, I'll be interested to see how well Funk's statements today that he would consider moving the Energy if their bid for a stadium is rejected for MAPS 4 inclusion will play...

How much are the Thunder chipping in for the Peake?

How much are the Thunder chipping in for the Peake?

hahahahahahahahahah hahahahahahahahahhaha (breath) ahahahahahahahhaha

The mayor made mention of expecting to be of similar duration and value to MAPS 3 today

Would certainly make for a more palatable offer to voters.

In the meantime, I'll be interested to see how well Funk's statements today that he would consider moving the Energy if their bid for a stadium is rejected for MAPS 4 inclusion will play...

lol. that's hilarious if he actually said that.

The mayor made mention of expecting to be of similar duration and value to MAPS 3 today

I put this in the stadium thread but it seemed relevant here-

The way this is lining up is an overall MAPS proposal that is about 75% neighborhood and human needs and 25% arenas and stadiums if you use the low numbers. Neighborhood needs amounted to about 7% - 14% in MAPS 3 depending on how you define Senior Wellness Centers.

They are looking at approximately $950 million in accrued sales taxes to pay for this.

Its interesting then, how the main vocal support seems to only come from Funk and Energy, given all these other potential tenants the field would be used for.

There are many other pressing items that would benefit from MAPS 4 investment. Subsidizing a stadium now feels like an overreach. Especially at the price they're quoting.

There were plenty of people at the meeting today that voiced support about the stadium and the events their organizations could host there.

https://twitter.com/James_Poling/status/1158795067571806208
https://twitter.com/James_Poling/status/1158798449892089861
https://twitter.com/James_Poling/status/1158800082386505735
https://twitter.com/James_Poling/status/1158806840236490753
https://twitter.com/James_Poling/status/1158809416164134913

Alright, since people are still equating minor league baseball with USL soccer, lets go ahead and break it down.

Lets take the OKC Dodgers. Every single player on the OKC Dodgers has a contract with the LA Dodgers. The LA Dodgers control where each player plays within their farm club system. The OKC Dodgers have ZERO control over what players are on the team.

The Energy are completely different from this. Each player on the Energy is under contract with the Energy. The Energy have complete control over their roster. Also, the USL has a partnership with MLS, but it still operates completely independent of the MLS and makes decisions based on whats best for the USL, not MLS. Yes, some MLS teams operate in the same league as the Energy (USL Championship, or Division 2). There is a big push among all of the independent clubs in USL (which make up more than 50 percent of the league) to force all of the MLS owned teams down into USL League One (aka Division 3).


There is no such thing as minor league in soccer. Honestly, minor league is term that should only be used for baseball, or other leagues that are branded as a developmental league (such as the NBA G League). USL is not a developmental league. The goal for a majority of the teams (excluding some of the MLS teams) is to win a championship with the best players available, regardless of player age. Developmental leagues like minor league baseball and NBA G-League focus on player development of young athletes instead of winning championships.

Oh, and of the 36 USL Championship teams, only 9 are owned by MLS teams. So I wouldn't say that "lots" or USL teams are the minor league teams of MLS. Other teams may be "affiliated" with a MLS team like OKC used to be with Sporting KC and FC Dallas, but it still is completely different than minor league baseball. When OKC was affiliated with FC Dallas for instance, they would loan us 2 or 3 players off and on for the season to play with us, but it was only done if it was a good fit for both teams. FC Dallas routinely would loan players out to other USL clubs, even when they were affiliated with us.

what you described is exaclty what a said ..... however minor leage is not just for baseball it describes any league that is not the top league ... as i said the usl is not THE minor legue of the MLS but it is with out a doubt a MINOR LEAGUE ORG as in less than the MLS

under your logic the new XFL wouldnt' be a minor legue which is crazy

what you described is exaclty what a said ..... however minor leage is not just for baseball it describes any league that is not the top league ... as i said the usl is not THE minor legue of the MLS but it is with out a doubt a MINOR LEAGUE ORG as in less than the MLS

under your logic the new XFL wouldnt' be a minor legue which is crazy

Alright, so a league has to be the top league to not be a minor league. Well, I guess MLS and all but one of the European soccer leagues are now considered minor league since only 1 can be the top league. What a ridiculous argument. Minor leagues are leagues run by the top league for player development purposes (Like MILB and NBA G-League). Independent leagues aren't a minor league. Just because it isn't the best league in that sport, doesnt make it a minor league. The term minor league is used by people to diminish a league or team, like many of the posters here in their arguments against a stadium. I get it, the only minor league that really had a presence in America for the longest time was MILB, so people tend to call all smaller leagues a minor league, but that just isnt the case. There is a fundamental difference between USL and the minor leagues in baseball and basketball

Energy should not be mentioning MLS at all as a reason for this stadium, unless they sign a document showing they can get the funding for an MLS expansion fee ($250 million presently)

lol. that's hilarious if he actually said that.

He did.

There were plenty of people at the meeting today that voiced support about the stadium and the events their organizations could host there.

https://twitter.com/James_Poling/status/1158795067571806208
https://twitter.com/James_Poling/status/1158798449892089861
https://twitter.com/James_Poling/status/1158800082386505735
https://twitter.com/James_Poling/status/1158806840236490753
https://twitter.com/James_Poling/status/1158809416164134913

I must have missed all those organizations giving out scarves, investing in email marketing and gathering supporters for the meeting in the sea of Energy yesterday. My apologies.

Alright, so a league has to be the top league to not be a minor league. Well, I guess MLS and all but one of the European soccer leagues are now considered minor league since only 1 can be the top league. What a ridiculous argument. Minor leagues are leagues run by the top league for player development purposes (Like MILB and NBA G-League). Independent leagues aren't a minor league. Just because it isn't the best league in that sport, doesnt make it a minor league. The term minor league is used by people to diminish a league or team, like many of the posters here in their arguments against a stadium. I get it, the only minor league that really had a presence in America for the longest time was MILB, so people tend to call all smaller leagues a minor league, but that just isnt the case. There is a fundamental difference between USL and the minor leagues in baseball and basketball
Anecdotally I Googled "minor league soccer" and the first entry is USL. If it walks like a duck...
And no minor league is not defined as a league for the development of players at a major league level. The most recent CHL Blazer team being an example.

Anecdotally I Googled "minor league soccer" and the first entry is USL. If it walks like a duck...
And no minor league is not defined as a league for the development of players at a major league level. The most recent CHL Blazer team being an example.

this

Good presentation on the MAPS 4 Stadium yesterday; it focused on many uses like Soccer football, American football, Lacrosse, Rugby football & concerts with anticipated use depending upon the option selected.

The shift in the focus of MAPS has turned to more community based themes as previous support for mental health, spousal abuse victims & rehabilitation services for offenders will make up 70% of MAPS if we go with these programs.

Realize that projects like a downtown Aquarium didn't get much traction with the zoo. Could be something to push ahead in MAPS 5. Glad we do have a permanent source of funding for the Oklahoma City Zoo, they have used their funds wisely.

Realize that projects like a downtown Aquarium didn't get much traction with the zoo.

what do you mean by this??

what do you mean by this??

Very popular project that could have been on the initiative, probably IMO would have paid for itself--need not read anything into that statement, it won't be on MAPS 4; just the take I got from the various presentations.

Definitely need to be spending the lion’s share of our MAPS money on economic diversification. I just think the oil market is always going to be in question from this point forward, which is definitely bad news for OKC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgusxlkNOoI

Definitely need to be spending the lion’s share of our MAPS money on economic diversification. I just think the oil market is always going to be in question from this point forward, which is definitely bad news for OKC.

Agree about oil. Soccer center plus entertainment are other methods. Baby boomers are a big crowd with lots of money and travel a lot and will do so more as that group continues to retire. The medical district (innovation) will be another area to keep focus on. Businesses like Paycom are great too, and its located in far NW OKC. Chisolm Creek and Oak are more nice growth spots.

The metro is growing all over so we need to spend money all over. I do like the idea of Aquarium although it seems to be dead.

Oil will continue to fall and thus our tax collections will decrease. Thats why I hated seeing them taxed more because its gonna start decreasing right when we get even more dependent on them. Then the funding set in place using extra oil taxes is gonna dry up yet outlays won’t. What then? That means something else will get taxed to make up for it.

Legalizing MJ for rec would be a boom with all the Texans coming up they are years away. We share a long border with them too. That would be about 10 years of extra tax before they approve it eventually.

OKC Guy & chuck5815, you guys nailed it! :congrats::congrats::congrats:

When Pete posted the one pic of the Aquarium, said to myself; this will be a centerpiece we can build around in the core or better positioned on the riverfront. Hope I'm alive to see MAPS 5...



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/aquarium1.jpg

Got off the phone with an opinion pollster, sounds like he was polling on behalf of the groups supporting the animal shelter.

He had me rank various possible Maps 4 projects, which included the 3 stadium/arenas of course, but the list also included a “sports tourism complex”. I don’t recall anything like that from the top of my head.

Got off the phone with an opinion pollster, sounds like he was polling on behalf of the groups supporting the animal shelter.

He had me rank various possible Maps 4 projects, which included the 3 stadium/arenas of course, but the list also included a “sports tourism complex”. I don’t recall anything like that from the top of my head.

"Sports tourism complex," same here, can't possibly or remotely recall what that could be.

"Sports tourism complex," same here, can't possibly or remotely recall what that could be.

Isn't the sports tourism complex the $15-30 million for CB Cameron Park for soccer?

I haven’t seen a comment on this here, so excuse me if it has been discussed, but in Bill Crum’s article he wrote that the Energy ownership said they would move the team out of OKC if the taxpayers don’t give money for a new stadium. Personally I find this disgusting and distasteful, and I can’t imagine voters being thrilled to pony up after such a naked threat. Not cool at all, certainly not gracious, and even perhaps disqualifying. It’s as if they are saying this is “their” money, not ours. This also belies the description of this as a city development and not one for the benefit of the soccer team.

The reality is that without a regulation size field, the USL will kick Oklahoma City out of the league and the Energy couldn’t stay if they wanted to. That’s what they should focus on messaging if they want to talk about any risk of loosing the team in the city. It’s not a “take my ball and leave” situation, it’s “we won’t have a ball to even take” situation.

The Energy has also given a lot back to the city. I’m sure the Fields & Future articles I noticed today are part of a “hearts and minds” campaign.

The reality is that without a regulation size field, the USL will kick Oklahoma City out of the league and the Energy couldn’t stay if they wanted to.

So does that mean we have to pay for it?

So does that mean we have to pay for it?

If you want a team, maybe?

Funk owes the city a team about just as much as the city owes Funk a stadium to rent.

Sorry but we don’t owe him anything either.

Got off the phone with an opinion pollster, sounds like he was polling on behalf of the groups supporting the animal shelter.

He had me rank various possible Maps 4 projects, which included the 3 stadium/arenas of course, but the list also included a “sports tourism complex”. I don’t recall anything like that from the top of my head.

The “sports tourism complex” was presented on the first day in the parks presentation.

Sorry but we don’t owe him anything either.

We didn’t owe a single MAPS dollar to whoever benefited from the spending, but here we are preparing for MAPS 4.

The “sports tourism complex” was presented on the first day in the parks presentation.


I don’t remember it at all. If it’s the “bunch of fields we can use in a tournament”, it seems like a weird way to make it sounds bigger than it is.

It was an extensive presentation by the OKC Parks Director. Stonecipher was gaga over it and former city councilman Pete White spoke to council vociferously against it. Easy to miss in the five hour meeting though.

I don’t remember it at all. If it’s the “bunch of fields we can use in a tournament”, it seems like a weird way to make it sounds bigger than it is.

Precisely what I thought. They should have called it “youth athletic fields.” Instead they made a ridiculous argument about some economic development boon it would create. Why not just say it’s “sports for kids?” People might support that without hyperbolic arguments about soccer tournaments filling all of our hotel rooms? I also find it weird they have a very specific place for the complex, way the hell out in NW OKC. Why? Shouldn’t we put it where it has the most impact and is accessible to the most people?

The entire argument revolved around economic return and parents wanting their kids in elite squads.

All previous MAPS initiatives have benefited pubic & private endeavors in many ways:

Chesapeake Energy Arena, Civic Center Music Hall, Chickasaw Bricktown Ballpark & State Fair Arena to name several... ...yet we don't have a regulation soccer-American football stadium.

If you want to make a case of wealthy ownership; then our Thunder ownership consists of one billionaire & six multimillionaires, much greater funding source than the ownership group of the Energy FC. Oklahoma City is fortune to be the home to one of 30 NBA franchises.

In all fairness, are Thunder ownership being asked to pay one penny toward the improvements to our city-owned arena?

Laramie, the sports tourism complex proposal simply cannot be compared to the Thunder. The scales are vastly different.

Laramie, the sports tourism complex proposal simply cannot be compared to the Thunder. The scales are vastly different.

Sports Tourism Complex and compare it to the Thunder; I'm just as curious about the proposal as many. You've been the only insightful person to me about what little knowledge I've received about this complex.

I didn't make any comparison of the Sports Tourism Complex to the Thunder...

Sports Tourism Complex and compare it to the Thunder; I'm just as curious about the proposal as many. You've been the only insightful person to me about what little knowledge I've received about this complex.

I didn't make any comparison of the Sports Tourism Complex to the Thunder...

I'm sorry. Your statement just seemed out of context in the thread line up.

Just to clarify, the argument is that parents with means travel around with their kids in these elite sports leagues and they compete in higher-grade facilities. The argument is that it creates sport tourism revenues for the city.

Steve's chat at NewsOK had people from the State Fair Board on. They mentioned that financial information is available in multiple places (I saw their Form 990, feel free to Google it). They have audits, as well (available through open records) I know people on here always bash them for those things. Just spreading some info.

I haven’t seen a comment on this here, so excuse me if it has been discussed, but in Bill Crum’s article he wrote that the Energy ownership said they would move the team out of OKC if the taxpayers don’t give money for a new stadium. Personally I find this disgusting and distasteful, and I can’t imagine voters being thrilled to pony up after such a naked threat. Not cool at all, certainly not gracious, and even perhaps disqualifying. It’s as if they are saying this is “their” money, not ours. This also belies the description of this as a city development and not one for the benefit of the soccer team.


Would certainly make for a more palatable offer to voters.

In the meantime, I'll be interested to see how well Funk's statements today that he would consider moving the Energy if their bid for a stadium is rejected for MAPS 4 inclusion will play...

for reference, Soonerguru... I literally said this on the page before this one.

It is disgusting, and very indicative of who we're dealing with if they pitch a "multi-use stadium" out of one side of their mouth, but talk about moving the team out of the other.

As for the "sports tourism complex" someone else mentioned...you are right in that was the part of the CB Cameron remodeling. What's disappointing about the idea is the $$ they are asking to invest there can almost certainly have a MUCH better ROI if they would venture just a few miles south.

OKC Parks has over 20 regulation soccer fields a few miles from the CBD, but rather than distributing the 15-30 million earmarked for Cameron in places that already have infrastructure issues settled and would greatly benefit from the investment, they seek to create a new park. This dilutes the overall parks system and only really serves one purpose: to give FC Energy a ready-made complex to go with their new stadium.

I for one hope the council sees through this and spread any investment earmarked for parks evenly throughout the city. Anyone who would tell you we need a Cameron remodel because we can't draw a regional tournament by adding fields to South Lakes Park or marketing the fact that SL, Wisenhunt and Lightening Creek together have over 25 regulation fields is lying.

I'm sorry. Your statement just seemed out of context in the thread line up.

Just to clarify, the argument is that parents with means travel around with their kids in these elite sports leagues and they compete in higher-grade facilities. The argument is that it creates sport tourism revenues for the city.


What statement???

Challenge you, Urban Pioneer, GO BACK, pull up the QUOTE: you said I made a statement that just seemed out context in the thread line up. You won't find a statement or comment, because I didn't make one.

Steve's chat at NewsOK had people from the State Fair Board on. They mentioned that financial information is available in multiple places (I saw their Form 990, feel free to Google it). They have audits, as well (available through open records) I know people on here always bash them for those things. Just spreading some info.

Thank you for passing along

Recap: OKC Central Live Chat with Steve Lackmeyer: https://oklahoman.com/article/5638245/okc-central-live-chat-with-steve-lackmeyer


by Steve Lackmeyer
Published: Fri, August 9, 2019 5:32 AM Updated: Fri, August 9, 2019 11:31 AM


Guest said:
How do we know there is a financial need if the Fair Board does not open their books to the public? If they get public money and tax dollars shouldn't we know? Could they use their bonding capacity to borrow the money and pay it back using the hotel/motel tax money they get?

Web User replied:

TIM: Oklahoma State Fair Inc's financial records have been public with the City of Oklahoma for over 20 years. They are filed with the city annually when the audit is presented and accepted by the Oklahoma State Fair Inc. board.

It's a certified financial audit. It's required in our lease agreement with the City of Oklahoma City.

We do not receive any public money. The hotel/motel money is directly deposited into the City of Oklahoma City's accounts. Every expenditure of that money goes through the City of Oklahoma City purchasing process and is ultimately approved by the city council. So all of those expenditures are public record.

State Fair Inc. does not have that type of bonding capacity. I assume the bonding capacity you are referring to is through the hotel/motel tax.

The last bond indenture statement filed with the city in February said the hotel/motel tax indebtedness was about $77.5 million as of June, 2017. In a course of the year, the indebtedness was reduced by $2.7 million to $74.8 million.

It has been discussed that when there is capacity available to supplement the MAPS 4 allocation to build the colosseum. Keep in mind, architectural fees have already been paid from the hotel/motel tax - about $3.4 million to date.

STEVE: During the presentation to the council, Mayor David Holt discussed the future bonding capacity which he estimated would be available in a few years. What are we looking at?

TIM: We don't know. The City of Oklahoma City manages all of that through their financial advisors and timing of bond issues.

I think the soccer stadium is going to be odd one out. State fair board has enough political power to get on. The thunder will be taken care of, they are too important to the city and state to risk it.

for reference, Soonerguru... I literally said this on the page before this one.

It is disgusting, and very indicative of who we're dealing with if they pitch a "multi-use stadium" out of one side of their mouth, but talk about moving the team out of the other.

It's important to note, once again, that USL will NOT allow the Energy to continue playing at Taft. All USL teams must either play in - or have a transition plan in place to move to - a stadium capable of supporting regulation professional soccer when the 2020 season begins. If there is no stadium, the Energy can't play in OKC anymore. Simple as that.

Isn’t any funding for the Peake attached to an unspoken “so the Thunder won’t leave in the future”?

All previous MAPS initiatives have benefited pubic & private endeavors in many ways:

Chesapeake Energy Arena, Civic Center Music Hall, Chickasaw Bricktown Ballpark & State Fair Arena to name several... ...yet we don't have a regulation soccer-American football stadium.

If you want to make a case of wealthy ownership; then our Thunder ownership consists of one billionaire & six multimillionaires, much greater funding source than the ownership group of the Energy FC. Oklahoma City is fortune to be the home to one of 30 NBA franchises.

In all fairness, are Thunder ownership being asked to pay one penny toward the improvements to our city-owned arena?

This seemed out of context. The previous the 14 posts were about the sports tourism complex.

Giving money to millionaires to keep their sports teams around is a sucker bet (http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2019/08/01/15115/thunder-owner-seeks-135m-in-sales-tax-money-to-upgrade-arena-that-already-got-195m-in-sales-tax-money-in-the-last-20-years/?fbclid=IwAR25tf1Rps4lTiEuRrgavIB-r-ek41Y8GYpEe42kV0IY6KjeraKszD42hn0), minor league or professional. OKC has tremendous potential, MAPS has done some great stuff, but there are still significant needs in infrastructure, quality of life, education and other things. I'm saddened by the amount of people on here willing to fork over more public money for a losing investment.

This seemed out of context. The previous the 14 posts were about the sports tourism complex.

The thread: Ideas for MAPS is where I posted the above. Again, I didn't know anything about the Sports Tourism to address that matter. All I pointed out was public as well as private endeavors have benefited from previous MAPS initiatives in response to those who claim the Energy FC owners should pay for the stadium.

Appreciate your response, the work you have done and what you are currently doing on the city's MAPS projects. You've investment much of your personal time to help our city, thanks again; continue to keep us informed.

It's important to note, once again, that USL will NOT allow the Energy to continue playing at Taft. All USL teams must either play in - or have a transition plan in place to move to - a stadium capable of supporting regulation professional soccer when the 2020 season begins. If there is no stadium, the Energy can't play in OKC anymore. Simple as that.

Fair enough.

It's important to note, once again, that USL will NOT allow the Energy to continue playing at Taft. All USL teams must either play in - or have a transition plan in place to move to - a stadium capable of supporting regulation professional soccer when the 2020 season begins. If there is no stadium, the Energy can't play in OKC anymore. Simple as that.

Fine. Again, why do the taxpayers have to foot the bill for this guy’s stadium? And making it city owned only means the city will be on the hook for maintaining yet another facility. Hard pass on that.

I believe Goon’s point was that the ownership is pitching this as multiuse but its really just a clever nomenclature for “my new soccer stadium.”

Why does the ownership have no financial plan to finance their own stadium? Why does 100% of the ask fall on the public’s shoulder, benefiting this privately owned organization? This is the knd of “free market” crony capitalism we have come to expect. And no, the Energy will never be transformative like the Thunder were for this city.

BTW, how many live music events are at Bricktown Ballpark? Also owned by the city and in the middle of an entertainment district and yet there in never much there other than baseball.

Sports stadiums are not well-suited for that purpose and we have way more venues for music than we have shows.


This stadium will be used for the Energy and not much else. People need to be realistic about this.

BTW, how many live music events are at Bricktown Ballpark? Also owned by the city and in the middle of an entertainment district and yet there in never much there other than baseball.

Sports stadiums are not well-suited for that purpose and we have way more venues for music than we have shows.


This stadium will be used for the Energy and not much else. People need to be realistic about this.

Well yeah. But if the city got a competent promoter for it, then there would be probably 2 or 3 festivals that annually bypass OKC that would be more apt to come here (think rock/metal summer shows that never come here). A quality outdoor venue for concerts would do wonders for this city, since OKC may be the only large city without one (the Zoo is not good, lets be honest).