Please, let's not gamble with our city's NBA future.

You're correct Pete, we're in a binary position, vote 'Yes' to keep or vote 'No' to reject.

There are no guarantees there will be 'another election' if this December vote fails; the ownership may be weary and ready to cash in on $1.75 billion which Seattle is waiting on OKC to eject their Supersonics. Our NBA franchise will be sold and relocated quicker than you can blink an eye.

A five year extension will cement the NBA in OKC until 2050. We're going to need a new arena. $900 million is a bargain; a new arena beyond 2030 could cost $1.2 billion and we may not have an NBA anchor tenant.
A 'No vote' will be contagious for future MAPS elections especially if our Thunder are gone.

PS: Ask cities like Seattle, Vancouver, Kansas City, Cincinnati and St. Louis who have been waiting 15-55 years for another opportunity to host an NBA franchise.

That is quite the slippery slope fallacy to claim that losing this single election would doom future MAPS elections based upon...what? The lack of an NBA team? The first MAPS passed just fine without the Thunder being here. Furthermore, $900m isn't a bargain. It'd be the single largest outlay of public money for a stadium in the entire NBA. And last I checked, metros like Seattle, Vancouver, Kansas City and Cincinnati have all been doing just fine lately. In fact, Seattle got a brand new stadium for an NHL team that will likely host an expansion NBA team too, all completed by private funding alone.

I can't believe the negative reaction on here. There's a lot of people who have forgotten what a pre thunder Oklahoma City was like. So what we're paying a higher percentage than other cities? We have zero shot at any other pro franchise outside of this one. The people who think this vote will fail and then awwe shucks we'll just go back to the drawing board and vote again are completely wrong. The team will undoubtedly be sold and moved within 5 years. I'm not willing to chance that.

Can we land a Taylor Swift concert if we get a new arena?

Sure, if it holds 100,000 people.

I can't believe the negative reaction on here. There's a lot of people who have forgotten what a pre thunder Oklahoma City was like. So what we're paying a higher percentage than other cities? We have zero shot at any other pro franchise outside of this one. The people who think this vote will fail and then awwe shucks we'll just go back to the drawing board and vote again are completely wrong. The team will undoubtedly be sold and moved within 5 years. I'm not willing to chance that.

Yeah. I don’t love the proposal as it exists currently but in all likelihood will vote yes on it for this reason

That is quite the slippery slope fallacy to claim that losing this single election would doom future MAPS elections based upon...what? The lack of an NBA team? The first MAPS passed just fine without the Thunder being here. Furthermore, $900m isn't a bargain. It'd be the single largest outlay of public money for a stadium in the entire NBA. And last I checked, metros like Seattle, Vancouver, Kansas City and Cincinnati have all been doing just fine lately. In fact, Seattle got a brand new stadium for an NHL team that will likely host an expansion NBA team too, all completed by private funding alone.

Again, stop comparing OKC to larger cities that had multiple franchises to lose at the time they lost one and that are in some cases are international destinations. We lose the thunder, we will not have another professional sport franchise in our lifetimes which I know you don’t care about but many of us do.

You may want to read up a little bit. I was not the one who made those comparisons to those cities in the first place. And you can make your point without trying to sneak in a little personal attack or dismissive comment at the end of every posting.

If this passes, got to think Memphis/New Orleans will be under a lot of pressure for big new arenas.

Experiment: Search for "OKC" on Google Images.

The majority of results relate to the Thunder.

We hashed this over for pages and pages earlier in this thread and it was one of the few things almost everyone agreed on. Anyone denying the role that the Thunder have had in changing our brand and visibility nationally are in denial.

I am not denying that other people care about these things - clearly they do. I didn't say that it hasn't had a role in changing the 'OKC' brand and visibility.

Growing up and until I moved here - the only things I knew OKC for were the bombing and the Omniplex.

Re: the Experiment: Search for "Oklahoma City" on Google Images. Maybe 4 of the top 100 images are for the Thunder - if you include just a picture of the Paycom as being for the Thunder. (when using incognito mode). All a search for "OKC" shows is that the initials of OKC are associated with the Thunder. On incognito mode, I actually get an image for "Oklahoma City Dodgers" before I get one for the Thunder - again, because the term I searched for "Oklahoma City" isn't part of the name of the Thunder.
So that experiment doesn't really tell us anything.

You may want to read up a little bit. I was not the one who made those comparisons to those cities in the first place. And you can make your point without trying to sneak in a little personal attack or dismissive comment at the end of every posting.

I've followed this thread for its entirety, which you know...and you've routinely made those types of outlandish comparisons throughout the 49 pages of this thread and others. It's borderline gaslighting to act like you just started doing that in response to one post though I get that you were responding to Larmie after reading it.

And it's not a dismissive comment or a personal attack, it's the truth and anyone reading your post history would be able to see that. You care more about the principles than whether we have a professional sports team and that's fine.

You may want to read up a little bit. I was not the one who made those comparisons to those cities in the first place. And you can make your point without trying to sneak in a little personal attack or dismissive comment at the end of every posting.

KC and Cincy have multiple pro teams. They aren't comparable. Take their 2 teams away, they are not nearly as up there.

Please, let's not gamble with our city's NBA future.

You're correct Pete, we're in a binary position, vote 'Yes' to keep or vote 'No' to reject.

There are no guarantees there will be 'another election' if this December vote fails; the ownership may be weary and ready to cash in on $1.75 billion which Seattle is waiting on OKC to eject their Supersonics. Our NBA franchise will be sold and relocated quicker than you can blink an eye.

A five year extension will cement the NBA in OKC until 2050. We're going to need a new arena. $900 million is a bargain; a new arena beyond 2030 could cost $1.2 billion and we may not have an NBA anchor tenant.
A 'No vote' will be contagious for future MAPS elections especially if our Thunder are gone.

PS: Ask cities like Seattle, Vancouver, Kansas City, Cincinnati and St. Louis who have been waiting 15-55 years for another opportunity to host an NBA franchise.

So... a few years ago I did ask KCMO Mayor about hosting an NBA franchise and was told the Sprint Center was already at capacity without an NBA team. He said that it was not something they were pursuing due to the costs involved. But that was about 4 years ago now. But they already have the Royals, Chiefs, and Sporting KC.

Well, I guess it's a no from most of the OKCTalk community. Glad we got that settled.

Quit panicking/speculating. This type of thinking is exactly why OKC gets swindled. If people don't immediately appease corporate interest or the rich then we will all pay, the sky will fall, and every company/team will immediately abandon OKC.

I have written several critical posts, and if I were able to vote, I'd likely still vote yes. There's a big difference between raising concerns in the lead up to an election and voting no.

I'm confused, I thought the City would own the arena and lease it to the Thunder. If that's correct, then who would the city be donating the land to? Or will the Thunder be partners with the City in the ownership of the building?

Just saying that even when land is part of a project, the value is always factored in.

And if we build the new arena on the Cox Site, there is the opportunity cost of not using that land for some other development, as it was originally slated to be part of the CBD expansion per consultants hired by the City.

Just saying that even when land is part of a project, the value is always factored in.

And if we build the new arena on the Cox Site, there is the opportunity cost of not using that land for some other development, as it was originally slated to be part of the CBD expansion per consultants hired by the City.

What expansion is this?

A lot of discussion today about "backroom" deals.

Coincidentally there is an opinion piece in the NY Times today titled, "A Hidden Reason Cities Fall Apart'. Per the article, one reason among others; the "erosion of local establishment and the loss of civic and corporate elites" since the late 1970's. Local elites' backroom deals, while they benefit the elites, also benefit their communities because the elites have a "shared economic interest in their communities" They know that if their city fails, so do their businesses. As local banks and corporation were acquired by national or international corporations, local leadership was lost as leadership moved away to a new corporate home or lost its autonomy to make final decisions, i.e. the CEO was now a regional manager. When local leadership is lost, the know how and prestige to advance initiatives is lost also Much more info in the article.

Is this backroom deal a good one, I don't know. But don't assume it is bad, just because it is a backroom deal. Be glad OKC still has plenty of local civic and business leadership with an interest in moving the city forward and we have initiatives such as the new arena to debate. Some other cities are not as fortunate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/13/opinion/cities-elites-baltimore-pittsburgh.html

What expansion is this?

The Alliance commissioned a study several years ago and the recommendation by the consultants was that the old Cox Center site would be used mainly as mid- to high-rise office as an expansion of the central business district:

https://i.imgur.com/kyYK2GU.jpg

Quit panicking/speculating. This type of thinking is exactly why OKC gets swindled. If people don't immediately appease corporate interest or the rich then we will all pay, the sky will fall, and every company/team will immediately abandon OKC.

I have written several critical posts, and if I were able to vote, I'd likely still vote yes. There's a big difference between raising concerns in the lead up to an election and voting no.

Thank you, Dankrutka

Here's my hangup, we got a skeleton arena for $80-90 million about 20 years ago. It was "good enough" to get a professional franchise here, and yes 80 million was a bargain even in 2002. Then we (OKC citizens) invested another $200 or so million in making the arena more "hospitable" once the team moved in with some revenue generating areas for team ownership (nicer food options, fancier toilets, bigger scoreboard, etc)

Now, for $900 million we are building another 18,000 seat arena (presumably across the street) with a bigger concourse and slightly larger seats and a lot of amenities that most of us will never have access to? For the average fan, what will the difference be? I've been to Thunder Games, but never in a suite, court side, VIP access, etc. I watch the game from a seat in the 100 or 300 section. For the average fan is a game for the Mavericks at the American Airlines Center that much better of an experience than Paycom Center? Pretty much every NBA arena has the same setup, lower bowl, suite level, upper bowl. For the majority of us who go to events in the arena, what changes?

Do I think the Thunder have a positive impact on they city? Yes.

Will I be a yes vote, yeah, hesitantly, I want to keep the Thunder here, but man, it's gonna cost.

There are always price increases and add-ons. Nothing ever becomes less expensive once they start.

I fully expect this project to end up costing well over $1B just based on the very conservative numbers being presented now.

But what is this project? $1.3B buys way more than just an arena especially if there are no land costs. Sure, the Cox teardown will probably be costly, but I feel like we deserve to have a major category budget/square footage usage drawn up:

Teardown
Court
Bowl & Suites
Concourse
Retail/Restaurant (# Units and estimated square footage)
Incorporated Outdoor Space
Parking
Add'l amenities such as residential
Etc.etc.

If the presented amenities come in at $900M and seems like good value, then I'm comfortable with cost overruns and a cushion that can be socked away for future upgrades all inclusive in what will ultimately be close to $1.5B in collections. But if they are just saying "an arena" that's not enough to believe we have a quality vision for what this needs to look like.

If this passes, got to think Memphis/New Orleans will be under a lot of pressure for big new arenas.

memphis is getting ready to do a 350-400 mil dollar renovation (the state is paying for a lot of it)

But what is this project? $1.3B buys way more than just an arena especially if there are no land costs. Sure, the Cox teardown will probably be costly, but I feel like we deserve to have a major category budget/square footage usage drawn up:

Teardown
Court
Bowl & Suites
Concourse
Retail/Restaurant (# Units and estimated square footage)
Incorporated Outdoor Space
Parking
Add'l amenities such as residential
Etc.etc.

If the presented amenities come in at $900M and seems like good value, then I'm comfortable with cost overruns and a cushion that can be socked away for future upgrades all inclusive in what will ultimately be close to $1.5B in collections. But if they are just saying "an arena" that's not enough to believe we have a quality vision for what this needs to look like.

I believe they'll be conceptual plans presented before the Dec. 12th vote.

Growing up and until I moved here - the only things I knew OKC for were the bombing and the Omniplex.

where did you move here from? and clearly you are not a sports person??

The “penny” cost I don’t mind at all, for this increase many years ago has bought and brought about so much change. If you want to gripe about something that most of us have paid since it was created go ahead, but I’d glady pay a 2 penny increase if they asked just to continue the positive changes. There is always the complainer when it comes to sports in college (they get too much money over academics and so on) but this is a major sport and if it is not funded we will lose them. I don’t know about y’all but I don’t want OKC to be on the “loser of team city” list at all.

Now, for $900 million we are building another 18,000 seat arena (presumably across the street) with a bigger concourse and slightly larger seats and a lot of amenities that most of us will never have access to? For the average fan, what will the difference be? I've been to Thunder Games, but never in a suite, court side, VIP access, etc. I watch the game from a seat in the 100 or 300 section. For the average fan is a game for the Mavericks at the American Airlines Center that much better of an experience than Paycom Center? Pretty much every NBA arena has the same setup, lower bowl, suite level, upper bowl. For the majority of us who go to events in the arena, what changes?

Maybe I am not the typical Thunder fan, but this pretty much describes me for the last 15 years. Arrive about 10 minutes before tip off, buy an overpriced beer, head directly to my seat in section 109, watch the game, then go home. Probably will have the same M.O. in the new arena, so the overall experience will not be much different for me. Never the less, I do support the new arena even though i will not use all the amenities, just like i supported other MAPS projects that I will never use. This project will make the city will be a better place, just like all of the other MAPS projects.

Pretty loud vocal minority regarding the $50mil contribution. Really curious what the voting margin plus turnout will be.

Pretty loud vocal minority regarding the $50mil contribution. Really curious what the voting margin plus turnout will be.

Yeah, it's pretty fair to say that $50MM is not enough when viewed against the backdrop of:

(a) the recent contributions made by ownership groups in peer markets;
(b) this ownership group is, very obviously, sitting on a reasonably large amount of FU Money (see, e.g., Dobson's art installation at Oak https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=38833&p=1243388#post1243388); and
(c) the cash windfall from NBA Expansion in 2025-2026 will be enormous.

Each existing team will receive an equal share of roughly ~$8 to 10 Billion. They can do a lot better than $50MM.

Yeah, it's pretty fair to say that $50MM is not enough when viewed against the backdrop of:

(a) the recent contributions made by ownership groups in peer markets;
(b) this ownership group is, very obviously, sitting on a reasonably large amount of FU Money (see, e.g., Dobson's art installation at Oak https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=38833&p=1243388#post1243388); and
(c) the cash windfall from NBA Expansion in 2025-2026 will be enormous.

Each existing team will receive an equal share of roughly ~$8 to 10 Billion. They can do a lot better than $50MM.

Is the idea that ownership should contribute more without any expectation of reciprocation? That is, how much should they donate towards the construction before it's reasonable they should expect terms tied to revenue generated from the venue?

Are the recent contributions made by ownership groups in peer markets not tied to any increased returns or revenue share stemming from the operations of the venue other than the potential increase in market value of the team which would be realized when they sell it vs what they would participate in had they not contributed / invested / donated towards the public venue?

What is the acceptable amount (maybe as a percent) an anchor tenant should participate in a civics project that benefits their organization?

I'm seriously asking. It seems the 50MM figure has been the trigger the last day or so, but how much should it be, why, and how should it be structured? Is it really just "these people have FU money and they didn't commit enough of it unqualified, so FU."?

The problem is that we don't know any of the details and probably won't before a vote. And the comps with peers cities really don't mean much without the details of those deals either, which I can't find. It's easy to find gross figures, but are we assuming that in all these cases ownership contributed what they did by simply writing a check from their FU Money account without asking for any terms? It may simply be that I am being naive and skeptical at the same time (or just ignorant), but I find that hard to believe.

For example, they could easily turn that $50MM into, say $350MM to satiate public concern and get it passed, but then get a larger rake of the overall gross operating revenue of the venue for all events during the term of the lease and it could be a worse deal for the city over the life of the deal rather than just taking a $50MM unqualified contribution upfront.

Maybe it's just me, but I can't determine whether a $50MM participation is small or big without knowing what the back end associated with that participation is.

$50Million is a paltry sum for ownership to contribute towards this project. I wish OKC had more philanthropic billionaires and individuals to contribute to large quality of life projects. Hoping this passes when it comes to a vote.

I remember back in the early 80's the National Finals Rodeo up and left to Las Vegas due to the fact the hotels (casino groups) subsidized a package they couldn't turn down. When the rodeo happened the arena was half full and basically dead.Turns out the early December time frame was the slowest LV season, which is why they went after the rodeo in the first place.
What I remember the most was OKC was in a state of DEPRESSION for a few weeks due to the loss.
Let's don't let something like this happen again.

I remember back in the early 80's the National Finals Rodeo up and left to Las Vegas due to the fact the hotels (casino groups) subsidized a package they couldn't turn down. When the rodeo happened the arena was half full and basically dead.Turns out the early December time frame was the slowest LV season, which is why they went after the rodeo in the first place.
What I remember the most was OKC was in a state of DEPRESSION for a few weeks due to the loss.
Let's don't let something like this happen again.

So we need to spend $900m to avoid a few weeks of depression?

It’s like the mayor says… if you want to say no, there are no answers that will make you say yes. So we need to accept that we have some people who will say no and fight everything, some who will go for anything, and most who will be rational in their decision process. Most will want to keep moving the OKC brand forward and will see how the rising tide lifts all boats, even theirs. This should pass comfortably.

So we need to spend $900m to avoid a few weeks of depression?

Glad that you see the trees, but can't see the forest. Got it.

That is quite the slippery slope fallacy to claim that losing this single election would doom future MAPS elections based upon...what? The lack of an NBA team? The first MAPS passed just fine without the Thunder being here. Furthermore, $900m isn't a bargain. It'd be the single largest outlay of public money for a stadium in the entire NBA. And last I checked, metros like Seattle, Vancouver, Kansas City and Cincinnati have all been doing just fine lately. In fact, Seattle got a brand new stadium for an NHL team that will likely host an expansion NBA team too, all completed by private funding alone.

Well yeah, that's called inflation. Unless there is some kind of recession/depression the city that builds the next arena will be paying more than that.

Its only 1 day after the news hit, Thunder ownership are playing it cool now and judging public sentiment. It will be interesting what they say if they feel public opinion is going the wrong way.

Well yeah, that's called inflation. Unless there is some kind of recession/depression the city that builds the next arena will be paying more than that.

Its only 1 day after the news hit, Thunder ownership are playing it cool now and judging public sentiment. It will be interesting what they say if they feel public opinion is going the wrong way.

No, other NBA stadiums are more expensive or similar to this, but they all cost much less in terms of public outlays because ownership is covering a much larger chunk. It's not just inflation.

So we need to spend $900m to avoid a few weeks of depression?

Don't you live in Edmond (my appologies if you are in OKC)? If so, there is no "we." Just don't attend anything there.

Don't you live in Edmond (my appologies if you are in OKC)? If so, there is no "we." Just don't attend anything there.

tbf, I would think Edmondites still pay a lot of OKC sales tax

Especially the ones who live in or near Fake Edmond

Don't you live in Edmond (my appologies if you are in OKC)? If so, there is no "we." Just don't attend anything there.

Exactly…is he even in within the city limits to vote no or is that why he’s trying to convince everyone here to do it.

And before anyone who’s read or actually happens to remember any thing from my posts over the last few years says anything, I’m moving back to OKC from Tulsa this fall and will be registered to vote on this lol.

Doesn't sound like anyone should expect to see renderings prior to the vote...

https://twitter.com/davidfholt/status/1701963386861359397?t=CNCUZw9mHZgrb61YyoCXUQ&s=19

It’s like the mayor says… if you want to say no, there are no answers that will make you say yes. So we need to accept that we have some people who will say no and fight everything, some who will go for anything, and most who will be rational in their decision process. Most will want to keep moving the OKC brand forward and will see how the rising tide lifts all boats, even theirs. This should pass comfortably.

I don't think everyone who is saying "no" here want to say no. That's like saying if we put RTD funding up to a vote this December with what we know that "well, it's just the negative nellies who are voting no". Do you have an equal opinion that because big league cities should have viable public transport that we don't really need to present a good package for what we want we should just vote yes? Do you think most people with a yes here, are just always going to vote "yes"?

I'd vote yes right now to raise sales tax by an additional penny just to fund City Operations.

I'd vote yes right now to raise sales tax dedicated to transit.

I'd vote yes right now to raise taxes for permanent beautification.

I'd vote yes today to raise taxes for education in OKC/Putnam district operations

My problem is that, I don't actually know what the city is getting for $1.25B+ of its money. If enough is revealed that I feel comfortable with it, great! But $1.25B > than the fear of losing the Thunder believing that Pete is probably right that a new proposal will come to the table. And if it doesn't, the team is getting sold anyway and I have no faith that the lease is going to be so iron clad that new ownership couldn't just buy their way out and take the team anyway. In that situation the city does not come out of the other side having made a good decision.

This yes delays MAPS 5, likely delays RTD funding, gives up the Cox block and gives us something that we have a less nice version of already. Maybe it's worth it, but we have no guarantee that it will be.

I don't think everyone who is saying "no" here want to say no. That's like saying if we put RTD funding up to a vote this December with what we know that "well, it's just the negative nellies who are voting no". Do you have an equal opinion that because big league cities should have viable public transport that we don't really need to present a good package for what we want we should just vote yes? Do you think most people with a yes here, are just always going to vote "yes"?

I'd vote yes right now to raise sales tax by an additional penny just to fund City Operations.

I'd vote yes right now to raise sales tax dedicated to transit.

I'd vote yes right now to raise taxes for permanent beautification.

I'd vote yes today to raise taxes for education in OKC/Putnam district operations

My problem is that, I don't actually know what the city is getting for $1.25B+ of its money. If enough is revealed that I feel comfortable with it, great! But $1.25B > than the fear of losing the Thunder believing that Pete is probably right that a new proposal will come to the table. And if it doesn't, the team is getting sold anyway and I have no faith that the lease is going to be so iron clad that new ownership couldn't just buy their way out and take the team anyway. In that situation the city does not come out of the other side having made a good decision.

This yes delays MAPS 5, likely delays RTD funding, gives up the Cox block and gives us something that we have a less nice version of already. Maybe it's worth it, but we have no guarantee that it will be.

2 or 3 billion in liquidated damages might solve that issue. or at least set the damages at the construction cost of the facility (plus financing). but i have little to no faith that the patsies negotiating on our behalf possess the chutzpah to pull that off.

KOCO story highlighting the pushback https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-residents-push-back-proposal-new-arena/45126362

Some people on here probably need new pants after reading that.

On this site we have so many that talk about OKC becoming a high quality modern city with visions competing with major world cities and no longer competing with mid level cities in the US for relocations, job growth, quality of living improvements, better transportation options, etc. But now when we actually have an opportunity to think big and to compete at another level we have a whole group on here that says “just kidding”. We either are a competitive city or just “one of the others”. Are we Omaha or Denver? Are we Little Rock or Kansas City? Are we Tulsa or Charlotte? Do we step up to the plate and back up our boasting or take a pass?

It’s like the mayor says… if you want to say no, there are no answers that will make you say yes. So we need to accept that we have some people who will say no and fight everything, some who will go for anything, and most who will be rational in their decision process. Most will want to keep moving the OKC brand forward and will see how the rising tide lifts all boats, even theirs. This should pass comfortably.


This is entirely disingenuous. I want to say yes but will vote no on this deal. This take it or leave it, "I guess you hate OKC then" attitude is the worst thing I've seen out of Holt in his tenure.

This is entirely disingenuous. I want to say yes but will vote no on this deal. This take it or leave it, "I guess you hate OKC then" attitude is the worst thing I've seen out of Holt in his tenure.

He's probably heard that the owners want out unless they get this. Wouldn't surprise me, either.

Any guesses/bets on whether this will pass or not?

And if it doesn't, the team is getting sold anyway and I have no faith that the lease is going to be so iron clad that new ownership couldn't just buy their way out and take the team anyway. In that situation the city does not come out of the other side having made a good decision.

this hasn't happened anywhere ...

Any guesses/bets on whether this will pass or not?

very very likely to pass by over 55%

, likely delays RTD funding,

RTD funding is a fully separate issue that will require a vote to raise taxes .. it was never going to touch MAPS funding ... (and it shouldn't) despite some who want it to

On this site we have so many that talk about OKC becoming a high quality modern city with visions competing with major world cities and no longer competing with mid level cities in the US for relocations, job growth, quality of living improvements, better transportation options, etc. But now when we actually have an opportunity to think big and to compete at another level we have a whole group on here that says “just kidding”. We either are a competitive city or just “one of the others”. Are we Omaha or Denver? Are we Little Rock or Kansas City? Are we Tulsa or Charlotte? Do we step up to the plate and back up our boasting or take a pass?

very very well said .

this hasn't happened anywhere ...

Sports franchises move cities all the time. What are you talking about?

Sports franchises move cities all the time. What are you talking about?

They do? Maybe like, 10 total in 20 years. Or less.

They do? Maybe like, 10 total in 20 years. Or less.

That's certainly a lot more than what BoulderSooner claimed that it "hasn't happened anywhere"

Doesn't sound like anyone should expect to see renderings prior to the vote...

https://twitter.com/davidfholt/status/1701963386861359397?t=CNCUZw9mHZgrb61YyoCXUQ&s=19

It's not lost on me that in the background there is a streetcar going, Paycom in the background, all while doing the interview in scissortail park. all paid for by the citizens by this same tax they are extending.

Look. No one is saying that the [non] public process is a good one. No one is saying that the team owners don't have the city by the balls. The fact of the matter is, that OKC needs the Thunder. The risk [of the team moving] is not worth the reward.

The hill to die on for changing the 1% controlling nearly every aspect of life is not the new arena in OKC.

If you love OKC, regardless of NBA fandom, you should vote yes.

Look. No one is saying that the [non] public process is a good one. No one is saying that the team owners don't have the city by the balls. The fact of the matter is, that OKC needs the Thunder. The risk [of the team moving] is not worth the reward.

The hill to die on for changing the 1% controlling nearly every aspect of life is not the new arena in OKC.

If you love OKC, regardless of NBA fandom, you should vote yes.
I agree. Especially with the last sentence. I don't like basketball. I got somewhat wrapped up in the bandwagon the first 4 or 5 years but then my dislike for basketball took over again. I'm still going to vote yes. I believe there are advantages for OKC to continually make improvements that are seen by the rest of the country. And this will be talked about in other NBA cities that will start comparing their arenas to our new arena.

That's certainly a lot more than what BoulderSooner claimed that it "hasn't happened anywhere"

The response said "all the time". Phrasing is important. Hyperbole for effect usually has a negative impact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWtAjUBlco8

The response said "all the time". Phrasing is important. Hyperbole for effect usually has a negative impact.

Allow me to rephrase:

Professional Team relocations happen often enough that if the Thunder are sold to an out of state ownership group, we should be acutely aware of the possibility that the team gets moved even if we build this arena. If we have a new arena with no team, we will have set our city back by a decade.

Allow me to rephrase:

Professional Team relocations happen often enough that if the Thunder are sold to an out of state ownership group, we should be acutely aware of the possibility that the team gets moved even if we build this arena. If we have a new arena with no team, we will have set our city back by a decade.

But the new arena is contingent on a signed, binding lease for 25 or so years. If they sell, and the owners break the lease, it's still binding, even under new ownership. OKC would get a certain amount for breach of contract (and I'm not just talking the remaining lease amount). Hence why he mentioned it when he put out the release. That lease is a tool to keep the arena with a minimum of 41 dates a year, each generating a significant amount of revenue around downtown, as well (hotels, restaurants, etc.).