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

a team getting out of a 25 year lease to move

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

i was speaking to getting out of a 25 year lease to move a team .. that doesn't happen .. teams move yes at the end of leases ..

i was speaking to getting out of a 25 year lease to move a team .. that doesn't happen .. teams move yes at the end of leases ..

This ownership group literally broke the lease early in Seattle to move here.

Speaking of Holt- this is awesome. You don't get on this list thinking small. Okc can continue to ascend to the top tier. Keep it up!!!! Vote yes!!

https://kfor.com/news/local/oklahoma-city-mayor-named-to-times-100-next-list-of-most-influential-people/

This ownership group literally broke the lease early in Seattle to move here.

By paying far more than the actual lease amount. That is rare. Billionaires don't become that way by paying more than they have to, for the most part.

Yeah, that's why the details do matter and it's a bummer we won't know what those terms are before we vote.

It would be interesting to know how much the rent is, what other revenue will they participate in, and how painful would breaking the lease be for them or anyone they sold the team to.

Admittedly, I don't think most voters are going to consider that or care, but clearly they do consider the raw numbers at face value and everyone has a different idea of what a "significant contribution" is.

By paying far more than the actual lease amount. That is rare. Billionaires don't become that way by paying more than they have to, for the most part.

As the trifling sum the ownership group is putting into this project clearly shows

This ownership group literally broke the lease early in Seattle to move here.

Seattle accepted $45 million in 2008 for OKC to break the lease; $350 million for the franchise = $395 million.

By paying far more than the actual lease amount. That is rare. Billionaires don't become that way by paying more than they have to, for the most part.

No...billionaires don't stay billionaires by tying their money up in contracts they can't get out of at a reasonable cost. If you think owners are going to sign a poison pill lease that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to break, you have an equal misconception of billionaires. That's what sports franchises managers do that get them fired by the billionaires.

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.

In the deals that you site to compare tenant participation in construction of the venue, is there a relationship between how much is contributed and how much revenue participation the tenant(s) receive.

That is, it's easy to compare the front end contribution, but what are the differences in back end compensation?

Obviously, any deal where the the financing is entirely private, those investors will own and operate the venue, but in deals where there's public / private investment splits, what do the revenue splits look like and how do they compare?

Yeah, that's why the details do matter and it's a bummer we won't know what those terms are before we vote.

It would be interesting to know how much the rent is, what other revenue will they participate in, and how painful would breaking the lease be for them or anyone they sold the team to.

Admittedly, I don't think most voters are going to consider that or care, but clearly they do consider the raw numbers at face value and everyone has a different idea of what a "significant contribution" is.

This. There has to be more transparency on things like this. I think someone mentioned the naming rights too, who gets that is worth knowing as well.

With $1.25B tax dollars coming to this arena, over the 25 term lease, that comes out to $50M per year. They are not doing a $10M+/year lease. Most teams are only paying a few million per year.

https://inf.news/en/sport/f8159488d75eb6e35c44a7be94ef6394.html

With $1.25B tax dollars coming to this arena, over the 25 term lease, that comes out to $50M per year. They are not doing a $10M+/year lease. Most teams are only paying a few million per year.

https://inf.news/en/sport/f8159488d75eb6e35c44a7be94ef6394.html

No team uses an arena 365 days a year.

I think they pay around $1.6 MM / year in rent now. Should that go up or down with an initial $50MM contribustion?

No team uses an arena 365 days a year.

I think they pay around $1.6 MM / year in rent now. Should that go up or down with an initial $50MM contribustion?

It's not just rent... It's the concessions, suite revenue, and a ton of other things.

I simply can't believe that on net, this is going to end up costing the Thunder much (if any) more than the current deal. They were the ones insisting on a new arena, after all. They didn't do that to make less profit -- otherwise, why would they want it?

Also, remember the Thunder owners were also the ones behind the proposed Thunder Alley development with outside bars and restaurants. I would be surprised if something like that wasn't included and that the ownership gets rights to it, or at least a portion.

It's not just rent... It's the concessions, suite revenue, and a ton of other things.

I simply can't believe that on net, this is going to end up costing the Thunder much (if any) more than the current deal. They were the ones insisting on a new arena, after all. They didn't do that to make less profit.

RIght. They get a piece of of those things during their events. I think most of it is tiered, but does not go above 50%. I think the only splits they receive outside of Thunder events is 25% or so of luxury revenue.

So, they pay rent and also create 40-45 nights of guaranteed revenue (though not a guaranteed amount).

I'm just trying to figure out that if they contribute more to the arena, should their end of the splits go up / pay less rent? Should they get more of non-thunder revenue in that case?

I'm honestly not trying to be antagonizing or blindly defending the Thunder's deal. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of these deals and how they compare beyond just the up front numbers.

It's not just rent... It's the concessions, suite revenue, and a ton of other things.

I simply can't believe that on net, this is going to end up costing the Thunder much (if any) more than the current deal. They were the ones insisting on a new arena, after all. They didn't do that to make less profit -- otherwise, why would they want it?

Also, remember the Thunder owners were also the ones behind the proposed Thunder Alley development with outside bars and restaurants. I would be surprised if something like that wasn't included and that the ownership gets rights to it, or at least a portion.

Like I said before, it will just make these rich people richer on the backs of the taxpayers. I am voting NO, and so is everyone else I know that lives in OKC. Hopefully, this will not pass and the ownership group funds their own arena 100% or the Thunder move to another city.

Let's put it this way, based on the way absolutely everything else has been handled regarding the Thunder, there is ample reason to believe that OKC will not get a fair market deal (i.e. comparable to peer cities) when it comes to the contract with the Thunder.

The owners didn't contribute anything before because the arena was already built. Then the City (or I should say taxpayers) have paid for 100% of everything else, including a ton of continuous upgrades and the practice facility including upgrades there.

And until someone else can prove otherwise, the owners are now set to contribute way, way less (as in hundreds of millions) than in any other semi-recent arena deal. And here's all the official press release from the City has to say about this, something Holt keeps repeating: "The $50 million contribution committed by the owners of the Oklahoma City Thunder to the new arena is a first in City history."

Like I said before, it will just make these rich people richer on the backs of the taxpayers. I am voting NO, and so is everyone else I know that lives in OKC. Hopefully, this will not pass and the ownership group funds their own arena 100% or the Thunder move to another city.

If the Thunder leave, then this city will suffer MAJORLY. No more Big League City, no more momentum, downtown will stagnate, and it will cripple OKC's image, in the eyes of the country. Glad that doesn't matter for you. But it does to me, and I'm voting yes. Tired of people minimizing thr impact of the Thunder. OKC will never, ever get another pro team if they do leave. Mark my words. OKC will be the real loser if the Thunder leave.

If the Thunder leave, then this city will suffer MAJORLY. No more Big League City, no more momentum, downtown will stagnate, and it will cripple OKC's image, in the eyes of the country. Glad that doesn't matter for you. But it does to me, and I'm voting yes. Tired of people minimizing thr impact of the Thunder. OKC will never, ever get another pro team if they do leave. Mark my words. OKC will be the real loser if the Thunder leave.

Enough with the fear-mongering. As people keep saying, this isn't a binary proposition.

You really think Holt would let the Thunder leave? His entire political future and reputation would be destroyed.

There are many examples of teams and municipalities that go back and forth several times in negotiations. Are we so pathetic we have to just take whatever scraps they throw us, a deal hugely disproportionate to any other NBA arena?

This City's inferiority complex can be staggering.

They would have plenty of time to work out a deal and I don't believe for a minute they would just throw up their hands and sell.

Best case, the new arena wouldn't be open until around 2030. Assuming 2 years for construction, that allows for almost five years until work would need to start.

This reads very much like Seattle's response. Pete, you are a bright, bright man with a long record of being right. But I think that if it passes it calls into question the long term status of OKC as a big time player. We have no other major teams or world class events or venue's that would say to the world that we do things the right way. You should know that the Thunder negotiating with 1.5 million cititzens isn't the way to get progress in this city. That is the road to a very poor least common denominator.

Like I said before, it will just make these rich people richer on the backs of the taxpayers. I am voting NO, and so is everyone else I know that lives in OKC. Hopefully, this will not pass and the ownership group funds their own arena 100% or the Thunder move to another city.

lol that is laughable ..

if "being richer" was driving them they would move the team to a bigger city ..

No team uses an arena 365 days a year.

I think they pay around $1.6 MM / year in rent now. Should that go up or down with an initial $50MM contribustion?

I believe the Milwaukee owner investment oft quoted here is paid out at the rate over 20 years is it not? The level of support and committment is really yet unknown here until a final agreement is forged. And if you are going to compare it to what others do in other cities, compare it to the market income potential, lease terms, committment terms, total value, etc.

This reads very much like Seattle's response. Pete, you are a bright, bright man with a long record of being right. But I think that if it passes it calls into question the long term status of OKC as a big time player. We have no other major teams or world class events or venue's that would say to the world that we do things the right way. You should know that the Thunder negotiating with 1.5 million cititzens isn't the way to get progress in this city. That is the road to a very poor least common denominator.

As has been documented, the ownership was never going to stay in Seattle and Aubrey was fined by the NBA for saying exactly that.

The two situations are not remotely similar.


Are you saying OKC should take a deal that is way off the charts worse than any other NBA city? Every single owner makes the same threat to move and yet somehow OKC should not get a deal in the same universe as everyone else?

I'm honestly kind of shocked Holt did not attempt to throw in some type of public benefit capital investment with this. Why not make this arena + transit + recreation? This proposed six year sales tax extension will presumably raise $780 million ($900-$70-$50) for the arena development. That's $130M per year. Why not just pitch it as an 8 or 10 year extension and commit to throwing the extra $130M per year toward a better transit, parks, and rec system? That would take the edge off a lot of the "no" voters and you don't even need the Thunder ownership to agree to it because it has nothing to do with them.

This ownership group literally broke the lease early in Seattle to move here.

no the actually didn't they settled with seattle to be able to leave 2 years early ..

a judge literally ruled that they could not be released from its lease with Keyarena early ..

As has been documented, the ownership was never going to stay in Seattle and Aubrey was fined by the NBA for saying exactly that.

The two situations are not remotely similar.


and again you can read the deposition .. if seattle had built a new arena they were 100% going to stay in seattle ..

and again you can read the deposition .. if seattle had built a new arena they were 100% going to stay in seattle ..

We've already established you may be the only one on the planet who thinks the ownership group negotiated in good faith, and I seriously doubt even you believe it to be true.

If the Thunder leave, then this city will suffer MAJORLY. No more Big League City, no more momentum, downtown will stagnate, and it will cripple OKC's image, in the eyes of the country. Glad that doesn't matter for you. But it does to me, and I'm voting yes. Tired of people minimizing thr impact of the Thunder. OKC will never, ever get another pro team if they do leave. Mark my words. OKC will be the real loser if the Thunder leave.

Wouldn’t an actual Big League City have sufficient leverage to secure terms that are comparable to its peer cities?

Honestly the ownership could put up 0% and we still need to accept this. What is the magic number? I see posts in here saying 10%, 50%, 100%? When the estimated price tag of the arena was around $750MM, 10% would be $75MM. SO you want to die on a hill for $25MM?

Imagine a record-breaking hurricane hits a coastal city with no extra arena to house their team. Forcing them to scramble and find a home for the season.
Imagine at the same time, a revitalized city sitting there with open arms with a new NBA-ready arena ready to go with no anchor tenant.
Imagine at this same time, a different NBA city is having arena/ownership problems and that same ownership group has ties to that same city above.

The insane circumstances that led to OKC landing the NBA is actually just that, insane. It seems made up for a movie.

Now imagine losing that team over less than 100 million dollars to do what? Stick it to the rich billionaires who have seen the value of the team 6X since purchase?!

^

At least 50% seems to be the market number (100% is not uncommon), which means at least $500MM, which is 10x what they are offering.

Honestly the ownership could put up 0% and we still need to accept this. What is the magic number? I see posts in here saying 10%, 50%, 100%? When the estimated price tag of the arena was around $750MM, 10% would be $75MM. SO you want to die on a hill for $25MM?

Imagine a record-breaking hurricane hits a coastal city with no extra arena to house their team. Forcing them to scramble and find a home for the season.
Imagine at the same time, a revitalized city sitting there with open arms with a new NBA-ready arena ready to go with no anchor tenant.
Imagine at this same time, a different NBA city is having arena/ownership problems and that same ownership group has ties to that same city above.

The insane circumstances that led to OKC landing the NBA is actually just that, insane. It seems made up for a movie.

Now imagine losing that team over less than 100 million dollars to do what? Stick it to the rich billionaires who have seen the value of the team 6X since purchase?!

I agree with you. To me, the ownership contribution is kind of irrelevant. The bigger mistake is making this just an arena proposal instead of pairing it with other public benefit investments.

Let's put it this way, based on the way absolutely everything else has been handled regarding the Thunder, there is ample reason to believe that OKC will not get a fair market deal (i.e. comparable to peer cities) when it comes to the contract with the Thunder.

The owners didn't contribute anything before because the arena was already built. Then the City (or I should say taxpayers) have paid for 100% of everything else, including a ton of continuous upgrades and the practice facility including upgrades there.

And until someone else can prove otherwise, the owners are now set to contribute way, way less (as in hundreds of millions) than in any other semi-recent arena deal. And here's all the official press release from the City has to say about this, something Holt keeps repeating: "The $50 million contribution committed by the owners of the Oklahoma City Thunder to the new arena is a first in City history."

Milwaukee the most relevant comparison is a very differetnt situation for a couple of reasons ..

1. the selling owner wanted to make sure the team stayed in Wisconsin so much so that he required the purchasing owners to contribute toward the new arena (if they had said no he would have found someone else to buy the team) .. he also personally contributed 100 mil to the arena (as he was heading out the door) ie he as a private citizen non owner of the team gave 100 mil to the buildings ..

and then the state of Wisconsin gave 40% of the money for the building ..

Honestly the ownership could put up 0% and we still need to accept this. What is the magic number? I see posts in here saying 10%, 50%, 100%? When the estimated price tag of the arena was around $750MM, 10% would be $75MM. SO you want to die on a hill for $25MM?

Imagine a record-breaking hurricane hits a coastal city with no extra arena to house their team. Forcing them to scramble and find a home for the season.
Imagine at the same time, a revitalized city sitting there with open arms with a new NBA-ready arena ready to go with no anchor tenant.
Imagine at this same time, a different NBA city is having arena/ownership problems and that same ownership group has ties to that same city above.

The insane circumstances that led to OKC landing the NBA is actually just that, insane. It seems made up for a movie.

Now imagine losing that team over less than 100 million dollars to do what? Stick it to the rich billionaires who have seen the value of the team 6X since purchase?!

No, in your example it's not about $25MM, it's about $750MM. The city could do an enormous amount of work with $750M. Every $25M we get "for free" from the owners has an exponential effect because those types of numbers give us opportunities to do other wonderful things for the community.

There will be a public element to this, there almost has to be at the price point we're talking... Unfortunately, there's a great degree of hubris to think that we should just accept it on faith vs. having a real plan in place. In comparison to MAPS, what we've been given so far is a joke.

Enough with the fear-mongering. As people keep saying, this isn't a binary proposition.

You really think Holt would let the Thunder leave? His entire political future and reputation would be destroyed.

There are many examples of teams and municipalities that go back and forth several times in negotiations. Are we so pathetic we have to just take whatever scraps they throw us, a deal hugely disproportionate to any other NBA arena?

This City's inferiority complex can be staggering.

Just because you keep repeating that the decision isn't binary doesn't mean it is or isn't. And Holt has zero control on whether the Thunder leave or not. There is a lease with the city that runs out in 2026, after that the team has no legal obligation to stay in OKC and the owners (financially) and organization (bigger market equals better chance at free agents) would be massively incentivized to move elsewhere.

Wouldn’t an actual Big League City have sufficient leverage to secure terms that are comparable to its peer cities?

memphis ownership spent 0.00% on their arena and i don't believe they are spending any on the 350+ mil renovation

I am not a thunder fan ... but over 25 years the Thunder in USA and world wide PR alone bring well over 750mil in value ..

and then there is the actual value they bring to OKC which is also huge ..

They may be barely giving any money towards the stadium but they've painted Thunder logos on, like, at least 4 or 5 basketball courts in the city. I'd say they've given enough.

The fact of the matter is that OKC is the third smallest NBA market and the team finished dead last in attendance last year.

If you want the team to stay in Oklahoma City, you are going to have to pay. It's not a great deal, but it is the deal you have and should take it.

Milwaukee the most relevant comparison is a very differetnt situation for a couple of reasons ..

1. the selling owner wanted to make sure the team stayed in Wisconsin so much so that he required the purchasing owners to contribute toward the new arena (if they had said no he would have found someone else to buy the team) .. he also personally contributed 100 mil to the arena (as he was heading out the door) ie he as a private citizen non owner of the team gave 100 mil to the buildings ..

and then the state of Wisconsin gave 40% of the money for the building ..

also the BUCKS team is the operator of the entire arena ... as in they get all the money from concerts and other events ... and only pay the city 1 mil a year (increased based on inflation)

that is a KEY difference in how we operate and some of the other examples given ..

They may be barely giving any money towards the stadium but they've painted Thunder logos on, like, at least 4 or 5 basketball courts in the city. I'd say they've given enough.

Either side of this, this is funny right here!! :lol2:

I am not a thunder fan ... but over 25 years the Thunder in USA and world wide PR alone bring well over 750mil in value ..

and then there is the actual value they bring to OKC which is also huge ..

I would love to see your math on that.


also the BUCKS team is the operator of the entire arena ... as in they get all the money from concerts and other events ... and only pay the city 1 mil a year (increased based on inflation)


that is a KEY difference in how we operate and some of the other examples given ..

You're absolutely right, that is a critical factor...which is why it is worth criticizing this proposal for a lack of transparency when these details are not yet known and may never be known publicly.

Honestly the ownership could put up 0% and we still need to accept this. What is the magic number? I see posts in here saying 10%, 50%, 100%? When the estimated price tag of the arena was around $750MM, 10% would be $75MM. SO you want to die on a hill for $25MM?

Let's look at the newest NBA stadiums as some (admittedly not perfect) comparisons:

Intuit Dome (LA Clippers)
Cost: $2B
Owner contribution: 100%

Chase Center (GS Warriors)
Cost: $1.4B
Owner contribution: 100%

Fiserv Forum (MIL Bucks)
Cost: $1.2B
Owner contribution: 50%

Little Caesar's Arena (DET Pistons)
Cost: $862m
Owner contribution: 40%

Golden 1 Center (SAC Kings)
Cost: $558m
Owner contribution: 50%

Barclays Center (BKN Nets)
Cost: $1b
Owner contribution: 49%

Amway Center (ORL Magic)
Cost: $480m
Owner contribution: 10.5%


So what we see is that Orlando is an outlier, with most owners usually splitting the bill with the city if not outright building it all on their own. I think asking for 40%, or around $400m, would be appropriate. A significantly higher hill than $25m.

Sacramento is a great comparison here, as it too does not have any other major league franchises yet was still able to extract some decent concessions.

Let's look at the newest NBA stadiums as some (admittedly not perfect) comparisons:

Intuit Dome (LA Clippers)
Cost: $2B
Owner contribution: 100%

Chase Center (GS Warriors)
Cost: $1.4B
Owner contribution: 100%

Fiserv Forum (MIL Bucks)
Cost: $1.2B
Owner contribution: 50%

Little Caesar's Arena (DET Pistons)
Cost: $862m
Owner contribution: 40%

Golden 1 Center (SAC Kings)
Cost: $558m
Owner contribution: 50%

Barclays Center (BKN Nets)
Cost: $1b
Owner contribution: 49%

Amway Center (ORL Magic)
Cost: $480m
Owner contribution: 10.5%


So what we see is that Orlando is an outlier, with most owners usually splitting the bill with the city if not outright building it all on their own. I think asking for 40% would be appropriate. Sacramento is a great analogy here, as it too does not have any other major league franchises yet was still able to extract some decent concessions.

lets look at your example ..

fiserv was just over 500 mil for one ... and for 2 the city makes 1 mil a year from fiser PERIOD >. the team controls 100% of the arena .. and makes all money off of it ..

the NETS control all of Barclays center city doesn't make the money off of it

little ceasors the city doesn't make money off of it or control it at all .. not even lease money

golden one kings pay a lease and control the enitre facility ..

intuint and chase are private ventures in massive ciites .. (not comparable at all )



amway is run by the city of orlando it is the only one the is comparable ..

So what we see is that Orlando is an outlier, with most owners usually splitting the bill with the city if not outright building it all on their own. I think asking for 40%, or around $400m, would be appropriate. A significantly higher hill than $25m.

Sacramento is a great comparison here, as it too does not have any other major league franchises yet was still able to extract some decent concessions.

this is because in those other examples the cities are contributing a big % and in effect don't own the arena at all .. (basicaly the cities are taking a loan from the team to build the arena with terrible terms)

You're absolutely right, that is a critical factor...which is why it is worth criticizing this proposal for a lack of transparency when these details are not yet known and may never be known publicly.

we know how OKC will operate the new arena .. they will do it the same way they operate Paycom ..

Just because you keep repeating that the decision isn't binary doesn't mean it is or isn't. And Holt has zero control on whether the Thunder leave or not. There is a lease with the city that runs out in 2026, after that the team has no legal obligation to stay in OKC and the owners (financially) and organization (bigger market equals better chance at free agents) would be massively incentivized to move elsewhere.

Of course it isn't binary. Why would it be? Why would this deal be the first in the history of sports to be non-negotiable?

And as you mention, there are at least 3 years to negotiate.

we know how OKC will operate the new arena .. they will do it the same way they operate Paycom ..

Do we know that? Where in the release did they state that?

Would we be having this discussion if the Thunder was on a back to back winning streak?
I wonder......

Do we know that? Where in the release did they state that?

Isn’t it implied by the team signing a 25 year lease?

Let's look at the newest NBA stadiums as some (admittedly not perfect) comparisons:...

Of course, those are all the front end numbers and no details of the arrangements included. What are the leases, district overlays, tax exemptions, who actually "owns" the arena, operates it, and participates in what revenue and at what share, etc. etc.

For example with the Milwaukee deal:


The BucksÂ’ owners are credited with paying half the costs of the new $500 million arena, with taxpayers the rest, in typical media accounts. But that leaves out all kinds of other subsidies charged to taxpayers that lower the facilityÂ’s cost for the owners: a sales tax exemption on building materials, equipment and supplies to build the arena, a property tax exemption on the arena, a sales tax exemption on luxury suite revenue and all retail sales within the arena, the interest payments on bonds issued to pay for the arena, and various other charges that brings the total bill for taxpayers to at least $800 million as IÂ’ve previously estimated. These are all costs a for-profit business would normally pay, but the billionaires who own the Bucks will never be charged over the likely 30-year life of the arena.

https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2019/04/16/murphys-law-taxpayers-make-bucks-brewers-rich/

So, yeah, the upfront contributions can be very misleading and certainly can't really be quantitatively or qualitatively evaluated without knowing everything else about the arrangement.

If the Thunder straight up give $50MM to the project without adding a myriad of concessions or grabbing more revenue streams from the arena while committing to a long term lease with substantial buy-out penalties, it could actually be a better deal for the city over the term of the lease than the Milwaukee deal. Fiserv is actually owned by the "Wisconsin Center District", which is defined as a "semi-autonomous municipality called a 'district,' meaning its Board members are appointed by elected officials, and it can issue bonds and collect taxes within strict limits established by statute." https://wcd.org/about-the-wcd/

If anyone wants to dig into Wisconsin statues and unpack that, be my guest. lol

Of course, none of that runs counter to the 'rich getting richer off the state' concerns. It actually sounds worse in a lot of ways, imo. But the point is, it is hard, and maybe even specious, to compare the Thunder's $50MM contribution to some other ownership participation without knowing what's on the other side of that money.

^

You keep bringing up the other terms like that will somehow make up for the lack of owner investment.

Based on every single other deal the City has done with the Thunder (hundreds of millions in upgrades, a free practice facility, willing to give them a plum deal for Thunder Alley, and what we know about the new arena), there is substantial evidence to suggest the opposite will be true.

Of course, those are all the front end numbers and no details of the arrangements included. What are the leases, district overlays, tax exemptions, who actually "owns" the arena, operates it, and participates in what revenue and at what share, etc. etc.

For example with the Milwaukee deal:



https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2019/04/16/murphys-law-taxpayers-make-bucks-brewers-rich/

So, yeah, the upfront contributions can be very misleading and certainly can't really be quantitatively or qualitatively evaluated without knowing everything else about the arrangement.

If the Thunder straight up give $50MM to the project without adding a myriad of concessions or grabbing more revenue streams from the arena while committing to a long term lease with substantial buy-out penalties, it could actually be a better deal for the city over the term of the lease than the Milwaukee deal. Fiserv is actually owned by the "Wisconsin Center District", which is defined as a "semi-autonomous municipality called a 'district,' meaning its Board members are appointed by elected officials, and it can issue bonds and collect taxes within strict limits established by statute." https://wcd.org/about-the-wcd/

If anyone wants to dig into Wisconsin statues and unpack that, be my guest. lol

Of course, none of that runs counter to the 'rich getting richer off the state' concerns. It actually sounds worse in a lot of way, imo. But the point is, it is hard, and maybe even specious, to compare the Thunder's $50MM contribution to some other ownership compensation without knowing what's on the other side of that money.

You are right, it is difficult to make a good comparison because we don’t have those details. Which is why it would be good to actually see the details of the lease before we sign off on spending $900 million in taxpayer money.

^

You keep bringing up the other terms like that will somehow make up for the lack of owner investment.

There is at least an equal chance they will get incredibly favorable terms on that part of the deal as well, based on every single other deal the City has done with the Thunder (hundreds of millions in upgrades, a free practice facility, willing to give them a plum deal for Thunder Alley, etc.).

Milwaukee bucks pay 1 mil a year (increased yearly by inflation) and then get all revenue from every event at the arena .. all year long .. the thunder new lease will not be like that ..

Milwaukee bucks pay 1 mil a year (increased yearly by inflation) and then get all revenue from every event at the arena .. all year long .. the thunder new lease will not be like that ..

I'd love to see those details to know that's the case

Milwaukee bucks pay 1 mil a year (increased yearly by inflation) and then get all revenue from every event at the arena .. all year long .. the thunder new lease will not be like that ..

You sure seem to be speaking like someone who has seen the lease and know itsdetails. Would you mind sharing with the rest of class? Or at least couch your comments in the fact that you are merely speculating like the rest of us, because there are no details.

The fact of the matter is that OKC is the third smallest NBA market and the team finished dead last in attendance last year.

If you want the team to stay in Oklahoma City, you are going to have to pay. It's not a great deal, but it is the deal you have and should take it.

It's almost like people found plenty of other things to do with their money and time.

Would you say Tulsa is pretty awful since they don't have a professional franchise? How about Austin?

I want the Thunder. I'd even be okay with spending a billion to do so. I'm not okay with the level of risk the city is holding onto for what amounts to a decade of developmental progress.

I'd love to see those details to know that's the case


the “Permitted Uses” by the Team
under the Team Agreement, (iv) to host other Events, including other professional or amateur
sporting and competitive events, exhibitions and tournaments . . . concerts and other musical
performances, theater performances, family shows, other forms of live entertainment, award
shows, charitable events, private parties, conventions, trade shows, exhibitions, markets, fairs,
meetings and community- or civic-oriented events,

https://law.marquette.edu/assets/sports-law/pdf/Milwaukee%20Bucks%20Lease%20Summary%208-14-18.pdf

So, basically, it sounds like the WCD has leased the arena outright to the team. They operate it and can host, and presumably profit from, events such as those listed in the lease summary above.

And, they can do so with the tax exemptions and subsidies created by statute for the district and listed in the article I linked to above.

With a city owning the arena that means 0 in property taxes

It's almost like people found plenty of other things to do with their money and time.

Would you say Tulsa is pretty awful since they don't have a professional franchise? How about Austin?

I want the Thunder. I'd even be okay with spending a billion to do so. I'm not okay with the level of risk the city is holding onto for what amounts to a decade of developmental progress.

You can't compare OKC and Austin. They are on different levels. And OKC is basically a bigger Tulsa without the Thunder. Nothing unique about OKC, blasé, a flyover city that no one outaide Oklahoma would care if a tornado destroyed. OKC needs the Thunder.