It happens all of the time. NBA teams are constantly rebranding with new logos and updated color schemes.

18182

18183

18184
I think Dob was conflating updating colors/marks with a full renaming (several others seem to be going the same direction). You're correct; NBA teams fairly regularly change logos and other marks, and often even change team colors. He is also correct, however, that teams almost never change team name without extenuating circumstances (relocation or in the case of NOLA/Charlotte a combination of relocation, expansion and ownership baggage).

The Thunder has established and maintain tremendous brand/organizational respect within the league and beyond. Why in the world would they change the name? The answer is: they won't. Not as long as the team is in OKC, anyway. Logo and color updates will almost certainly happen at some point, not specifically because of random peoples' take on their existing marks, but because every team occasionally does so.

It does indeed make sense that such an update might happen when a new arena opens. There is a known tendency for teams to get hot and for fans to become more engaged, at least temporarily, when a new building opens. See: Rams, Mariners, Seahawks and others. I can't imagine the updates happening too far in advance of a planned building opening, so I would guess we will have the same colors and marks for at least the next 4-5 seasons.

I really think the only major updates that need to happen is with the logo and the jerseys. IMO, the Blue/Orange color scheme is good and relatively unique. It's just that from that color scheme, they managed to come up with the most generic logo and jerseys imaginable.

^

Yes, I think everyone likes the color scheme.

The logos and the font on the jerseys look like something from a middle schooler.

You guys should look up user /u/tgchompy on the Thunder subreddit. He was designing rebranded jerseys for some of the better Ws near the end of last season. Really fun to look at for ideas.

It is crazy how the Thunder logo doesn't even lean into the storm theme with lightning bolts. Definitely overdue for new logo and jerseys. Plus we need Loves to have their patch remove the god awful yellow and at least pretend to care about the jersey's look.

You guys should look up user /u/tgchompy on the Thunder subreddit. He was designing rebranded jerseys for some of the better Ws near the end of last season. Really fun to look at for ideas.

It is crazy how the Thunder logo doesn't even lean into the storm theme with lightning bolts. Definitely overdue for new logo and jerseys. Plus we need Loves to have their patch remove the god awful yellow and at least pretend to care about the jersey's look.

Yea, not sure if Love’s will ever go along with it but it would be 10x better if their patch was monochromatic and worked to complement the various jerseys

Yea, not sure if Love’s will ever go along with it but it would be 10x better if their patch was monochromatic and worked to complement the various jerseys

Just using their secondary logo would constitute a huge improvement.

18185

And here I thought it was pretty common for people to not like the orange color for the Thunder, at least with the people I regularly talk sports with that seems to be the common opinion. I've wanted to simplify our colors from the get go. I was hoping that this years Summer League uni's were going to be indicative of what the uni's would be this upcoming, because they did drop the orange from at least the white ones. (I couldn't find a picture of the blue ones from Summer League)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholascrain/2023/07/07/thunder-summer-league-las-vegas-preview/?sh=6e8d221973cf

Anyways I'd love a refresh, as the Thunder brand has never been really strong. I got to imagine it would also help boost sales because a lot of people have reluctantly bought Thunder gear mostly to support the team, not because they love the branding. I'd love to see the Thunder do such a stellar job that people from OKC that aren't even sports fan want to buy the gear because they like representing the city, similar to how people will do for LA or NYC.

Our 5 year lease agreement with Prairie Surf Media started in January 2021 ends January 2026:

In December 2020 the Oklahoman reported:


The lease is for five years with three one-year extension options. It calls for stepped-up lease payments from Prairie Surf starting at $150,000 for the first and second years, $300,000 for the third year, $450,000 for the fourth year, $600,000 for the fifth year, and $825,000 plus all utility costs in excess of $1.1 million for each annual extension option.

Looks like OKC is locked into this lease until January 2026. Sounds as if OKC has no intentions of renewing this lease if PSM is the site.

If all is approved according to the survey, earliest the demo could begin February 2026--take up to three months and construction of a new arena begin sometime around June 2026.

^^^^^^^
Demolition of PSM would take closer to a year. There are significant mechanicals relocations that must take place before they even touch that building.

^

That Oklahoman article was/is completely wrong.

These are the numbers directly from their lease with the City:

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

Last post from me on the logo- I agree with Pete about the middle schools design. I mean “Thunder” just spelled out is so basic and looks worse because of the font. Want inspiration- look to the Dodgers with their OKLA logo (genius)! To the poster that mentioned the “orange” - I’m ok with Thunder orange- haha!

Thanks for the correction and update Pete.

Can't wait to see the PSM site cleared and construction on the new arena.

^

Right, the Dodgers and even the hapless Energy have infinitely better branding. I literally can't think of worse branding for any sports team at any level, including lower-level colleges and most high schools.

I remember when the first images of the logos leaked and the unanimous reaction was that it had to be a hoax. That was 15 years ago and here we are.


I know it was all designed by Ackerman McQueen and I have this very strong image of their employees and the multiple Thunder owners -- like 20 people -- all in a room trying to reach a consensus and after months and months of getting nowhere, they defaulted to what we have now due to sheer fatigue and total loss of will. And now no one dares to restart that trauma, so they just let everything ride despite the embarrassing state of things.

^

Right, the Dodgers and even the hapless Energy have infinitely better branding. I literally can't think of worse branding for any sports team at any level, including lower-level colleges and most high schools.

I remember when the first images of the logos leaked and the unanimous reaction was that it had to be a hoax. That was 15 years ago and here we are.


I know it was all designed by Ackerman McQueen and I have this very strong image of their employees and the multiple Thunder owners -- like 20 people -- all in a room trying to reach a consensus and after months and months of getting nowhere, they defaulted to what we have now due to sheer fatigue and total loss of will. And now no one dares to restart that trauma, so they just let everything ride despite the embarrassing state of things.

Don Draper needs to step in...

I think the proposal is great but I also have a few thoughts.

The Cox site is huge and definitely has room for more than just the arena. City demos and builds the world class arena. However, parcels around the arena on the block could be sold to developer(s) (including possibly Thunder ownership) to redevelop into the LA Live type of development. The city could recover some of the MAPS cost and/or use some of the funds toward other MAPS projects if there's a huge winfall. My only fear is that this interferes with the Dream Hotel site but it's about time OKC has some speculative high rise residential development.

Interstingly, the survey didn't mention TIF (perhaps due to Dream Hotel/Residential upcoming, but still). I'd venture that a $200m TIF would shave off two years of the extension, making 4 year more palatable and we'd not have to wait so long for MAPS 5. If any project deserves TIF it is this one, where the OKC taxpayers are more or less the 'developers' footing the bill. :)

I wish the ownership could contribute at least 10% of the total costs package. We don't exactly know what that is but it'd serve as HUGE goodwill to the city if they stepped up once again in this very meaningful and visible way. $100m isn't that for off from $75m that was 'mentioned' in the survey, hopefully they can get it done even just for the goodwill/skin in the game and perhaps in return get to develop part of the site such as the Thunder Alley component.

Not at all concerned about Prarie Surf, they can easily be relocated (even to Crossroads Mall, which was my original idea or as someone mentioned a new building at the Dell campus). The numbers already show the city has a losing lease with them, again - goodwill could be shown with PSM graciously exiting the lease early so the city can quickly begin demolition. Imagine if this happens next year, PSM gets new or relocated digs and the city begins hard demo.

Very excited about this and will certainly add my two cents when we visit. My only other concern has to do with the potential impact to the RTA added to the sales tax, hopefully this will encourage the state legislature to open new revenue sources for rail/rapid transit other than just sales tax, including how other metros do it (property tax, gas tax, vehicle tab fees, etc). I can not imagine the OKC sales tax going up from 8.8% with the Maps extension to what 10% with a permanent RTA tax. Let's get the authority for the RTA to be able to tax other sources to spread the load.

I think it’s alright even if it’s bland. Kinda in the suns and heat realm.

Lots of nba teams logo’s and brands don’t make since anyway. The Utah jazz. Memphis Grizzlies. Lakers. Kings. Hawks.

The adjoining parcels won't be sold to developers...they will be part of the development. One of the major driving factors behind this arena is to provide best-practices state-of-the-art ancillary revenue streams for the team over the course of the next long term lease. Those parcels will belong to the Thunder.

Does anyone know if Populous is doing the design? I’m only guessing because they did Fiserv and the city toured that. I know that’s sort of a stretch

Does anyone know if Populous is doing the design? I’m only guessing because they did Fiserv and the city toured that. I know that’s sort of a stretch

Almost certainly. They did the convention center and were selected for the MAPS 4 paycom upgrades

In regards to rebranding. Yes, I see rebrand as changing the team name. I think pro basketball was more active earlier than other North American leagues about changing uniforms and other marketable team items. Seems to me that the changeover from Adidas to Nike on uniform design and marketing has energized the choices for consumers. Every team is going to have a couple new uniforms each year.

However...that has also led to league office and Nike control of team branding to be much more centralized. Icon, City and other uniform designs are made sure to fit the league wide goals. Ackerman-McQueen might have designed the original Thunder logo, but I don't think any local agencies are as involved with individual team identities as they were in the past.

So it sounds like owners are agreeing to pay the interest on borrowing costs? That's roughly the amount we could anticipate in borrowing costs for this project.

Can the city use MAPS funds to put a hotel on site? I can't recall of the OMNI deal was any subsidy or just TIF subsidy.

the clippers new arena that opens in 2024-2025 season is at 2 billion and counting ...

Compare the price of anything built in the LA area with OKC and get back to me.

but I don't think any local agencies are as involved with individual team identities as they were in the past.

teams have 100% of the control of their branding ..

So it sounds like owners are agreeing to pay the interest on borrowing costs? That's roughly the amount we could anticipate in borrowing costs for this project.

Can the city use MAPS funds to put a hotel on site? I can't recall of the OMNI deal was any subsidy or just TIF subsidy.

It would be hilarious and very OKC if the team were covering the financing costs but one of the owner's businesses, say MidFirst Bank, was financing it.

https://www.thestadiumbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/gens_fmall_cam20_FILTERED-1024x475.jpg
New renderings have been revealed of 76 Place, a proposed new $1.3 billion arena for the Philadelphia 76ers NBA basketball team.

https://www.thestadiumbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/LasVegas-1024x475.jpg
The 20,000-seat arena that will anchor the district will cost around $1 billion to build and, although there is no sports team currently connected to the venue, Las Vegas has been strongly linked to an NBA basketball franchise in the past.

https://www.thestadiumbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/CalgaryEventsCentreCrop.jpeg
Looking forward, the City of Calgary will begin formal discussions on definitive agreements with all parties, which is expected to be underway through spring and summer 2023. The project team is preparing to begin the design and development of the event centre, as well as the supporting infrastructure in the area.

https://www.thestadiumbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/TheGathering_EXT_North-1024x475.jpg
Plans have been outlined for a new $1 billion arena in Atlanta that could host an NHL ice hockey franchise in the future.


https://www.thestadiumbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/CoyotesArenaCrop-1024x475.jpg
Tempe voters have rejected the development of a $2.1 billion arena and entertainment district for the Arizona Coyotes, with the long-term future of the NHL ice hockey franchise again in doubt.

Any update to the above arenas. . .

Oklahoma City IMO is in a decent position with its survey. Following the results of the survey and possible designs for a new arena--Oklahoma City voters will have a clear vision of a future NBA arena with the Oklahoma City Thunder as anchor tenant.

I've asked this question before, but it's worth bringing up again.

Why are some opposed to building an arena for an NBA team but perfectly fine with building a convention center and a coliseum for the use of various industries and horse shows? Both are beneficial to for profit businesses, often owned by very wealthy folks, and both generate rental income and economic and reputational impact to the city. I'm not trying to troll here, I'm seriously asking why the different attitude for two seemingly similar public investments.

I've asked this question before, but it's worth bringing up again.

Why are some opposed to building an arena for an NBA team but perfectly fine with building a convention center and a coliseum for the use of various industries and horse shows? Both are beneficial to for profit businesses, often owned by very wealthy folks, and both generate rental income and economic and reputational impact to the city. I'm not trying to troll here, I'm seriously asking why the different attitude for two seemingly similar public investments.

I'd guess the dollars at play along with how well publicized the value of these sports organizations is.

I've asked this question before, but it's worth bringing up again.

Why are some opposed to building an arena for an NBA team but perfectly fine with building a convention center and a coliseum for the use of various industries and horse shows? Both are beneficial to for profit businesses, often owned by very wealthy folks, and both generate rental income and economic and reputational impact to the city. I'm not trying to troll here, I'm seriously asking why the different attitude for two seemingly similar public investments.

I haven't met a lot of people who supported one (convention center and coliseum) and not the other (new arena). I think there is a misunderstanding that people think the arena is fine how it is and no new money for a basketball team when they just simply haven't been educated on it and can't think any different.

On Steve's chat, I asked for a cliff's notes version of pitch points to convince others to vote for it. The first thing he said was " First of all, do understand that some people just like to vote no. So make your best argument with everyone, but also understand that some people are always going to find a reason to vote no."

It would be hilarious and very OKC if the team were covering the financing costs but one of the owner's businesses, say MidFirst Bank, was financing it.

That's makes sense. IIRC MidFirst handles the Thunder team payroll and other financial transactions.

Thunder ownership group, G. Jeffrey Records, Jr., is Chairman and CEO, MidFirst Bank.

I've asked this question before, but it's worth bringing up again.

Why are some opposed to building an arena for an NBA team but perfectly fine with building a convention center and a coliseum for the use of various industries and horse shows? Both are beneficial to for profit businesses, often owned by very wealthy folks, and both generate rental income and economic and reputational impact to the city. I'm not trying to troll here, I'm seriously asking why the different attitude for two seemingly similar public investments.

Think back to the time we built The Incomparable Myriad Convention Center:

IIRC, it took two or more bond votes to approve the convention center. By the time we opened the Myriad in 1973, the arena was too small--11,893 fixed seats for NFR Rodeo event. We lacked quality hotel rooms close to the arena to accommodate the out-of-town guests who followed the NFR.

Las Vegas swooped in and put in a bid with UNLV's Thomas & Mack Arena with 16,672 seats for the National Finals Rodeo annual event.

National Finals Rodeo to Leave City: https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/1984/12/13/national-finals-rodeo-to-leave-city/62780647007/


Part of Oklahoma City's proposal included the promise to build a domed stadium in time for the 1988 finals. Davis said the board members felt, though, that there was no way Oklahoma City officials could guarantee that the stadium would be built . . .

. . . Cook said the board members were promised that a domed stadium, with a seating capacity of at least 55,000, would be built in time to house the 1988 National Finals and that the purse would increase to at least $2 million then.

I've asked this question before, but it's worth bringing up again.

Why are some opposed to building an arena for an NBA team but perfectly fine with building a convention center and a coliseum for the use of various industries and horse shows? Both are beneficial to for profit businesses, often owned by very wealthy folks, and both generate rental income and economic and reputational impact to the city. I'm not trying to troll here, I'm seriously asking why the different attitude for two seemingly similar public investments.

That’s an apples to oranges comparison. There’s not a long-standing tenant who will use those venues 40-50 nights a year at great profit to themselves and who will see the value of their business increase massively thanks to the huge expenditure of public money. If the city owned the Thunder then I would absolutely be on board with a new arena.

That’s an apples to oranges comparison. There’s not a long-standing tenant who will use those venues 40-50 nights a year at great profit to themselves and who will see the value of their business increase massively thanks to the huge expenditure of public money. If the city owned the Thunder then I would absolutely be on board with a new arena.

moving the team to a bigger city is what they could actually do to see the value of their business increase massively ..

That’s an apples to oranges comparison. There’s not a long-standing tenant who will use those venues 40-50 nights a year at great profit to themselves and who will see the value of their business increase massively thanks to the huge expenditure of public money. If the city owned the Thunder then I would absolutely be on board with a new arena.

The City has built arenas before (Stockyards Coliseum, Municipal Auditorium, State Fair Arena, Great Arena in Myriad, Paycom Center) and they didn't own the team.

The concert circuit will be paying rent, the rodeo PBR circuit will be paying rent, just like the team will be paying rent; so what's the difference. . .

The City has built arenas before (Stockyards Coliseum, Municipal Auditorium, State Fair Arena, Great Arena in Myriad, Paycom Center) and they didn't own the team.

The concert circuit will be paying rent, the rodeo PBR circuit will be paying rent, just like the team will be paying rent; so what's the difference. . .

Again, bad comparisons.
- The Stockyards were for a team that moved out in 1936, and professional sports have changed a bit since then
- The Civic Center music hall was built thanks to a massive investment of federal funds due to the New Deal if my memory serves me right, and who exactly is the Thunder comparison here? What multibillion dollar organization is camped there that would see their value increase with an updated Civic Center?
- Same question with the state fair arena - who is the multibillion dollar tenant there? Or are you referring to the hockey team from 60 years ago? Again, things have changed quite a bit in the last half century in terms of professional sports.
- And same question with the Myriad - who is the Thunder example in that comparison?

And for concerts and PBR circuit and everything else the venue gets a cut of the overall income generated. Per the last Thunder lease with the city, the Thunder get all ticket proceeds.

Every individual, team, circuit are paying rent.

Many multimillionaire, billionaires singers use venues are paying rent.

Do we discriminate against those concert singers because they are multimillionaires & billionaires.

Would you tell Jay-Z , Rihanna to build his own arena.

Every individual, team, circuit are paying rent.

Many multimillionaire singers use venues are paying rent.

Do we discriminate against those concert singers because they are multimillionaires.

You seem to be having a hard time with seeing how this is a flawed comparison.

Transitory tenants who come in for a weekend, split their ticket and drink proceeds with the city/venue, and then leave, and who don't see the value of their concert series fluctuate at all depending on getting a new venue, are very different from permanent renters who will see a massive and immediate boost to their value with a new arena, who will also pocket the vast majority of the revenue of their events at the arena (much moreso than concert or monster truck rally or rodeo or whatever). Asking those who are going to profit the most from a new arena to pitch in an actually significant amount seems pretty reasonable here.


e: \/\/\/ never said they were. Please don't put words in my mouth thanks.

You seem to be having a hard time with seeing how this is a flawed comparison.

Transitory tenants who come in for a weekend, split their ticket and drink proceeds with the city/venue, and then leave, and who don't see the value of their concert series fluctuate at all depending on getting a new venue, are very different from permanent renters who will see a massive and immediate boost to their value with a new arena, who will also pocket the vast majority of the revenue of their events at the arena (much moreso than concert or monster truck rally or rodeo or whatever)

The Thunder won't be the only tenant??? 56 nights max. 58 with preseason. Give it up.

You seem to be having a hard time with seeing how this is a flawed comparison.

Transitory tenants who come in for a weekend, split their ticket and drink proceeds with the city/venue, and then leave, and who don't see the value of their concert series fluctuate at all depending on getting a new venue, are very different from permanent renters who will see a massive and immediate boost to their value with a new arena, who will also pocket the vast majority of the revenue of their events at the arena (much moreso than concert or monster truck rally or rodeo or whatever). Asking those who are going to profit the most from a new arena to pitch in an actually significant amount seems pretty reasonable here.


e: \/\/\/ never said they were. Please don't put words in my mouth thanks.
Clients with long term contracts almost always get benefits that one-offs don’t. That’s true in almost any business.

And for concerts and PBR circuit and everything else the venue gets a cut of the overall income generated. Per the last Thunder lease with the city, the Thunder get all ticket proceeds.

the thunder gets all ticket revenue from thunder tickets ... sure .. that makes sense .. they pay rent for every game plus operations cost ..

the thunder gets all ticket revenue from thunder tickets ... sure .. that makes sense .. they pay rent for every game plus operations cost ..

Do they split concessions and merch sales with the city?

Do they split concessions and merch sales with the city?

concessions yes .. I don't think they share thunder merch .

thunder get less then 50% of concessions from general areas ..

thunder only get 10% of food from premium areas and 15% booze from premium areas ..

That’s an apples to oranges comparison. There’s not a long-standing tenant who will use those venues 40-50 nights a year at great profit to themselves and who will see the value of their business increase massively thanks to the huge expenditure of public money. If the city owned the Thunder then I would absolutely be on board with a new arena.

The increase is only realized if they sell. New arena or not, the value of the Team will continue to appreciate along with other NBA teams. Every other major league sport teams value increases with new stadiums or arenas. The ONLY time that matters is when they sell. Example: I buy a house at say 400k. Due to inflation and shortage of homes for sale the value spikes to 650k in two years after purchase. does that mean I get a check for 250k? no, I only see any value when I sell otherwise it is some number that doesn't mean a whole lot other than providing additional equity.

concessions yes .. I don't think they share thunder merch .

thunder get less then 50% of concessions from general areas ..

thunder only get 10% of food from premium areas and 15% booze from premium areas ..

I believe the arena operators (in Paycom Center's current situation, ASM (https://www.asmglobal.com/)) also gets a large chunk of percentages. I believe they are hired by the city.

The increase is only realized if they sell. New arena or not, the value of the Team will continue to appreciate along with other NBA teams. Every other major league sport teams value increases with new stadiums or arenas. The ONLY time that matters is when they sell. Example: I buy a house at say 400k. Due to inflation and shortage of homes for sale the value spikes to 650k in two years after purchase. does that mean I get a check for 250k? no, I only see any value when I sell otherwise it is some number that doesn't mean a whole lot other than providing additional equity.

I encourage you to research how the wealthy avoid paying taxes. In short, owning an asset that has $X value means they can borrow money and put up $X for collateral. Without ever having to realize that capital gain.

The owners bought the team for $350MM in 2006 and it is now worth almost $2B. To some of the owners, it is likely their best investment they ever made.

I believe the arena operators (in Paycom Center's current situation, ASM (https://www.asmglobal.com/)) also gets a large chunk of percentages. I believe they are hired by the city.

I'm sure they do but i don't have their operating agreement with the city ...

I encourage you to research how the wealthy avoid paying taxes. In short, owning an asset that has $X value means they can borrow money and put up $X for collateral. Without ever having to realize that capital gain.

The owners bought the team for $350MM in 2006 and it is now worth almost $2B. To some of the owners, it is likely their best investment they ever made.

Fully aware of this. Once again, their increased value doesn't matter unless they sell. using equity for gains is done in business and personal.

Are there examples where it's common for a tenant to contribute to the construction of a building they do not own?

I know tenants often share in maintenance costs and common area improvements, but I've never personally encountered a situation where the tenant is participating in construction costs with zero equity in the property,

Are there examples where it's common for a tenant to contribute to the construction of a building they do not own?

I know tenants often share in maintenance costs and common area improvements, but I've never personally encountered a situation where the tenant is participating in construction costs with zero equity in the property,

several sports arenas ..

Are there examples where it's common for a tenant to contribute to the construction of a building they do not own?

It's very common, particularly with ground leases where a tenant merely has lease rights to the underlying property (20-30 years) and then they build with their own capital.

Also, remember there will be more on this site than just an arena. I could see the Thunder owners having a ground lease on some of the block as part of the entertainment options.

We also don't know if they may get a larger revenue share as part of their investment.

several sports arenas ..

I guess I meant other examples, but Pete pointed out the obvious.

Fully aware of this. Once again, their increased value doesn't matter unless they sell. using equity for gains is done in business and personal.

The increased valuation is directly tied to the increase in revenue/cash flow/profit. The owners are making money and substantially more money than they were in 2006.

Fully aware of this. Once again, their increased value doesn't matter unless they sell. using equity for gains is done in business and personal.

Then what are you insinuating with this statement and the original one I quoted? Without a doubt personal wealth is being gained by getting a new arena for their team even without selling their share.

The increased valuation is directly tied to the increase in revenue/cash flow/profit. The owners are making money and substantially more money than they were in 2006.

no the value of the team or sports teams in general don't really have anything to do with profit ..

It's very common, particularly with ground leases where a tenant merely has lease rights to the underlying property (20-30 years) and then they build with their own capital.

Thanks. Don't know why that didn't come to mind immediately. lol


Also, remember there will be more on this site than just an arena. I could see the Thunder owners having a ground lease on some of the block as part of the entertainment options.

We also don't know if they may get a larger revenue share as part of their investment

Good points. If anything, the real "sweetheart" aspect of these deals isn't so much the building a city owned multi-use facility that will host a major league tenant a few weeks a year, as it is in the details of the agreement with that tenant.

But, as we all know, such deals with anchor tenants are common in all kinds of large developments.

The increased valuation is directly tied to the increase in revenue/cash flow/profit. The owners are making money and substantially more money than they were in 2006.

Hmmm, only partly right. Some of it is revenue-based. But others, it is intangible. And with sports teams, more than most ventures, the intangible matters. You think the Redskins are worth $6 billion because of their cash flow? Or because of the brand, and the NFL brand.

I hope that the outside area of the arena is activated in a way that creates an active, dynamic, walkable atmosphere outside of games/events, not a dead zone most of the time. My understanding is that Milwaukee did this well with their arena so it seems that's likely.

no the value of the team or sports teams in general don't really have anything to do with profit ..

It absolutely has to do with revenue. Profit fluctuates as with any business, thus gross revenue plays a large part in valuation.

$250M+ in revenue is why the org is valued at $2B. That's stable, recurring revenue. Look at how tech companies with similar recurring revenue models are valued as a percentage of their revenue vs. profits. It's not just a toy.

It absolutely has to do with revenue. Profit fluctuates as with any business, thus gross revenue plays a large part in valuation.

i didn't say anything about revenue

Forbes: Oklahoma City Thunder #24. $1.875 billion

INTANGIBLES . . .

What kind of significance do sports serve? This research project will investigate further into one of the many different answers to this broad question, specifically in the economic sense. Exactly what kind of impact can a single sports team have on a single city’s economy?. .

. . . NBA’s Thunder to Oklahoma City is significant because it measures the above mentioned economic impact in a homogeneous economic environment - one that is characterized as a recession.

The primary argument in making this hypothesis is that the presence of the Thunder to Oklahoma City would prove to be a good driver of talent, wealth, and intellectual accumulation to not only the city but the state as a whole while complementing job creation as well as boost the region’s tourism sector and thus the overall state of the economy all the while leaving the city which was abandoned by the franchise (in this case, Seattle severing ties with the Supersonics) with a sizeable financial, capital, and intellectual hit.

Good read: Sports Economics - The Economic Impact of the NBA's Thunder on Oklahoma City. https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=econuht

405 Magazine Oklahoma City’s Thunder BOOM! https://www.405magazine.com/oklahoma-citys-thunder-boom/