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

But, all the revenue from events there. Unlike most public-private partnerships.

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.

"Hyperbole for effect usually has a negative impact."

Most cities are not that unique. Successful cities are about quality of life. Professional sports is only one aspect of a continually improving QoL in OKC. Losing it does not make this city suck.

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.

thanks for posting that .. the full lease is searchable as well ..

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.

Note that this is the lease that expired a couple years ago. There’s no indication that this framework is what will be applied to the new arena. Given how little leverage the city has, I would not be surprised if the Thunder push to make the lease even more team friendly. Which again is why it is so critical to see the actual details of the new lease before signing off on this.

https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2023/09/13/20388/okc-mayor-wants-to-spend-780m-on-thunder-arena-via-tax-hike-that-will-not-raise-taxes/

Note that this is the lease that expired a couple years ago.

How is the new lease structured?

How is the new lease structured?

Great question. I'd love to know that too, especially before voting on $900m+ of taxpayer money.

^

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

Honestly, I think that;s the only way to evaluate whether the owner investment is "signficiant" or not.

If, say, the lease terms are the same as is (and that's just an *if*, because we have no idea what it will be), and $50MM is just a "hey, we'll chip in this much", then I'd say it's a better deal than if they invested $250MM and gained full operation rights of the arena via the lease like the Bucks' owners did.

^

Again, every bit of evidence about the deals between the City and Thunder suggests the complete opposite of your hope and expectation.

Great question. I'd love to know that too, especially before voting on $900m+ of taxpayer money.

The lease I posted was the Bucks' lease summary, not the OKC lease.

Basically, the Bucks' lease grants them full operating rights and they profit from virtually every event held there as the host. And they pay less rent for that than the Thunder do.

The current Thunder lease is not structured that way at all. The only non-Thunder operating revenue they participate in currently is from luxury areas and that's limited to about 25%.

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.

I want to know that OKC's agreement with the Thunder won't be like this.

^

Again, every bit of evidence about the deals between the City and Thunder suggests the complete opposite of your hope and expectation.

It's neither my hope nor expectation. I have no idea what the next agreement with the Thunder would be.

I'm just saying that if the Thunder should be contributing $250MM to the construction of a new arena because of the deal in Milwaukee, are we also saying they should get full operating rights over the arena for $1MM, plus the subsidies and tax exemptions for the term of the lease?

I'm not really even advocating a position. Just digging into the actual details.

Is there evidence that the Thunder expects full operating rights of the arena? If there is, then of course $50MM upfront is a **** deal for the city.

I want to know that OKC's agreement with the Thunder won't be like this.

That would be helpful for sure.

And If they want full operating rights, then they should pay for it 100% themselves or pay a lot more than $1MM / year in rent like the Bucks do.

It’s almost like obfuscating details and leaving people in the dark on this decision is bad or something.

The Thunder ownership group has no interest in running the arena. Never have asked for anything like this in the 16 or so years they have been here. You keep saying that they have been greedy for their entire duration, with regards to arena improvements, but want to disregard 16 years of history with regard to their lease. Got it.

It’s almost like obfuscating details and leaving people in the dark on this decision is bad or something.

lol.

Or a strategy.

It may not be as advantageous as they first expected, though.

Ironically, nothing is really more “big league city” than being a mid/small market being strong-armed into voting for a new stadium “or else” just like the Seattles, St. Louises, Clevelands, Cincinnatis, Oaklands, etc. of the world.

We’ve finally made it!

I think Golden 1 Center is probably the best comp next to Milwaukee. I can't find a lease summary for their deal, but the team is listed as the operator. They do pay more than the Bucks do in rent, though. Something like $361 million over the life of the lease.

So, it seems like there's been an increase in team ownership in investment of publicly owned arenas, but through the lease, they become the operators of the venue for all events.

Ironically, nothing is really more “big league city” than being a mid/small market being strong-armed into voting for a new stadium “or else” just like the Seattles, St. Louises, Clevelands, Cincinnatis, Oaklands, etc. of the world.

We’ve finally made it!

So you think OKC should compare itself to Philly, NYC, LA, or DFW? Got it.

Those markets you listed are exactly who OKC's peers are.

Ironically, nothing is really more “big league city” than being a mid/small market being strong-armed into voting for a new stadium “or else” just like the Seattles, St. Louises, Clevelands, Cincinnatis, Oaklands, etc. of the world.

We’ve finally made it!

It's a step up from Wal-Mart and Bass Pro!

So you think OKC should compare itself to Philly, NYC, LA, or DFW? Got it.

Those markets you listed are exactly who OKC's peers are.

Other than maybe Dallas, those cities listed also had teams threaten relocation at some point or outright leave entirely.

Other than maybe Dallas, those cities listed also had teams threaten relocation at some point or outright leave entirely.

And are in a different stratosphere than OKC. OKC has nothing else going for it, on a national scale.

And are in a different stratosphere than OKC. OKC has nothing else going for it, on a national scale.

Okay. Was just making an observation.

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.

So you think this could get voted down and then a year later they’re like hey actually we’ll chip in $250,000,000? There’s absolutely no chance.

So you think this could get voted down and then a year later they’re like hey actually we’ll chip in $250,000,000? There’s absolutely no chance.

We're not to a vote yet.

Hasn't even come before City Council.

We're not to a vote yet.

Hasn't even come before City Council.

Ok let me rephrase it for you.

So you think if this was passed by the city council and then voted down by the people that a year later they’re like hey actually we’ll chip in $250,000,000? There’s absolutely no chance.

And are in a different stratosphere than OKC. OKC has nothing else going for it, on a national scale.

Not Necessarily. I do think you’re selling The City awfully short there, Sport.

Ok let me rephrase it for you.

So you think if this was passed by the city council and then voted down by the people that a year later they’re like hey actually we’ll chip in $250,000,000? There’s absolutely no chance.

Why do you think there’s no chance?

Not Necessarily. I do think you’re selling The City awfully short there, Sport.

I can only guess what “on a national scale” implies, but that statement was overwhelmingly accurate in 1993 when the first MAPS was voted on. If Oklahoma City still has nothing going for it besides the Thunder, then every MAPS item that wasn’t directed to the Ford/Chesapeake/Paycom Center has been a failure along with the billions spent on private and public investment citywide since then.

Maybe another way to frame this discussion:

Oklahoma City does not need another arena. Professional Basketball Club LLC needs a new arena.

Now, PBC provides a lot of value to Oklahoma City, and OKC has provided to PBC a relatively reliable fan base and a facility at a very reasonble cost.

PBC now wants OKC to build them a new facility that OKC doesn't need in order to increase PBC's profitability to provide essentially the same product to OKC. OKC should recognize the benefit they will receive from having a nicer facility but also has to reconcile the opportunity costs of spending these resources on something they already have.

I believe we should vote yes if:

1.We have reasonable assurance that the Thunder will stay in OKC after we build this arena

2. We believe that the sum value of (a) the amenities the investment brings outside of the Thunder + (b) the value of the improved experience at the games together is worthwhile,

3. We are okay with missing out on what we can do with the funds allocated in a different manner due to the value brought by 1&2.

In my mind, the only way to guarantee the Thunder stay is by a sizable financial commitment to the city. So either an up front sunk cost or a poison pill lease. Passing on the sunk cost hoping PBC is going to take a poison pill is foolish. The issue for me is not PBC being dishonest, it's the lack of leverage based on the order of operations. If they revealed at least enough about the lease that gave me confidence we were safe with the team, then I probably feel like value outweighs a negative result on #2&#3. I need to know the lease is unbreakable or only breakable with an amount that relieves the pressure of our $1B mistake in misallocating our resources in good faith, because PBC's good faith only exists as long as they hold the team.

#3 is obviously a loss for the city any way you slice it, BUT it is negated substantially by the Thunder's presence. Getting to keep what you have and like is valuable, but only to a certain point.

#2 is where I think Mayor Holt and PBC have the most opportunity to cast some vision to the voting public and why they haven't publicized more about it is really bewildering. Like, PBC should be able to use their connections to gather quality information on this. Spending $1M to get this out in a convincing manner is not a bad business decision.

Not Necessarily. I do think you’re selling The City awfully short there, Sport.

That's the same guy that got onto me for being hyperbolic (in response to hyperbole) then proceeded to say no one would care if OKC got wiped off the map by a tornado if the city lost the Thunder (also, damn, that's a big tornado). :rolleyes:

Why do you think there’s no chance?

They’re sitting on unrealized gains of almost $1.7 billion. I think a majority of the team will be sold regardless of the outcome of this vote. If the vote is passed they’ll be able to sell knowing the team will be in Okc for 20+ years. If it fails they can still sell with the new buyer undoubtedly looking to move the team and current ownership pointing to the failed arena vote as why the team moved.

The thing is, a large majority of the people that are complaining on here either don’t live in Okc limits and can’t vote, or will complain up until the day of the vote and still vote yes.

They’re sitting on unrealized gains of almost $1.7 billion. I think a majority of the team will be sold regardless of the outcome of this vote. If the vote is passed they’ll be able to sell knowing the team will be in Okc for 20+ years. If it fails they can still sell with the new buyer undoubtedly looking to move the team and current ownership pointing to the failed arena vote as why the team moved.

The thing is, a large majority of the people that are complaining on here either don’t live in Okc limits and can’t vote, or will complain up until the day of the vote and still vote yes.

Who is going to buy a franchise they can't move where they want it for 20+ years?

They’re sitting on unrealized gains of almost $1.7 billion. I think a majority of the team will be sold regardless of the outcome of this vote. If the vote is passed they’ll be able to sell knowing the team will be in Okc for 20+ years. If it fails they can still sell with the new buyer undoubtedly looking to move the team and current ownership pointing to the failed arena vote as why the team moved.

The thing is, a large majority of the people that are complaining on here either don’t live in Okc limits and can’t vote, or will complain up until the day of the vote and still vote yes.

It’s hard to say any of that confidently without knowing what’s being voted on besides the basics laid out by the mayor, which intentionally make it sound much more ultimatum than it may be. If $50m of at least $900m is their final offer then - in the spirit of speculation - hopefully the next owners care more about this essential asset to the functioning of Oklahoma City than the current owners.

I haven’t bothered to look at social media, so maybe that’s what you’re talking about, but most here that are raising questions/pushback have said that they aren’t a guaranteed “no” vote, just that this is beginning to look like a less-than-forthright deal being manipulated in typical OKC fashion. Ironically, it seems like most of the people here that are saying “vote yes or you don’t love Oklahoma City” seem to be people located on the outskirts of the city, in the suburbs, or outside the metro entirely. Not that any of that matters for discussion, but on OKCTalk at least, the ones that have raised concerns seem to all be in city limits if my memory is correct.

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?

to be clear, no one is talking about Seattle’s response to Bennett. We are referring to Seattle’s response to Shultz’s proposal and he did not plan to move the team…he sold them to someone who would.

Bennett proposed his arena in Renton, not Seattle since they voted in I-91 after Shultz’s Key Arena proposal failed and after he sold the team to Bennett. Though I still do think that the sonics would’ve stayed if they’d agreed to their outrageous proposal…they just weren’t going to and Bennett knew that.

Meanwhile, tonight in Nashville, city council candidates who supported the new stadium deal there (https://x.com/jhollymc/status/1702482738379420125?s=20) are losing their elections. The deal was so unpopular (https://mainstreetmediatn.com/articles/mainstreetnashville/poll-davidson-county-voters-oppose-2-1b-titans-stadium-deal/) that the generally-liked mayor there dropped his re-election bid because his polling tanked after his support for the stadium.

The way a lot of you are talking, the Thunder are just a greedy organization, clearly trying to fleece the city of every penny they can. Lol

What none of youv are actually talking about is that there is a basketball component to this. Many of these other cities and franchises you are discussing don't spend the money the Thunder have and will continue to do to try to win a championship. They've spent big money on HOF talent, huge free agents, and have developed a lot of young talent without just immediately trading them off for financial value as soon as they could.

As almost the smallest market team, they need a different deal from the city than almost every other city any of you have mentioned since they are also going to spend more to keep this franchise chasing an NBA championship. The fact that none of you that are complaining have even brought that up at all tells me you're only looking at business numbers. This involves much more than that.

The Thunder have never acted as a franchise that just wants to just get their profits from the city and be greedy. And, it's pretty short sided by anyone to assume that suddenly that's who they are going to become. The organization has a very committed approach with their time and resources for charity and community outreach. Far more than just the minimum required by the NBA. Sam Presti has been ridiculously committed to the OKC community and takes every player that joins the team straight to the memorial so they always understand the community and what they're been through. They have a franchise culture that doesn't tolerate any player that might compromise the team or the city with their behavior and decision making. It is extremely rare to see any thunder player in the news embarrassing the city or the franchise, and that's because the team will only sign a certain type of individual. All these things they do come at a premium. And, being such a small market, the revenue isn't the same as larger markets.

This is a partnership and the city thankfully understands that. This organization has always met the city halfway to ensure that they can keep actually chasing a championship and giving this city something to be proud of and in the process hasn't squeezed the city just for profit. It's unfair to suddenly assume they are just throwing in all their chips to screw the city and the citizens. They aren't. Yes, we need to see more details, but they have never given us any reason up to this point to think they are screwing us. They've definitely earned enough trust to have this deal pass and that's a big reason it will.

Oh hey there Clay

Oh hey there Clay
You DO know this is a basketball team, right? You haven't mentioned it once. There are other factors than just the contract. As soon as you and others start at least factoring that in, you might get at least a little credibility.

Who is going to buy a franchise they can't move where they want it for 20+ years?
Someone who understands that owning a rapidly-ascendant team in a state-of-the-art facility, a favorable rent structure, with a great organizational credibility, a solid national profile, an engaged and supportive corporate community, and solid fan base ain’t such a bad investment.

You DO know this is a basketball team, right? You haven't mentioned it once. There are other factors than just the contract. As soon as you and others start at least factoring that in, you might get at least a little credibility.

We mention the Thunder by name constantly. We compare them to other NBA franchises and cities. Posters have talked about their gameday experiences at Paycom. Have you even been reading the thread? Also, why on earth is someone from GA chiming in here and lecturing folks who actually live in the state?

We mention the Thunder by name constantly. We compare them to other NBA franchises and cities. Posters have talked about their gameday experiences at Paycom. Have you even been reading the thread? Also, why on earth is someone from GA chiming in here and lecturing folks who actually live in the state?

Because even though work and family have taken me to Georgia, I still care very, very deeply about OKC and Oklahoma.

And, yes you've mentioned the thunder, but not once have you mentioned the fact that they will spend more money than just about any of the other franchises you mentioned in actual basketball operations. It costs more money to have a successful team. Nobody has mentioned that. The more the team makes the playoffs, makes runs into the finals, etc. it's more money for the city and more exposure on an international stage for the city and state. So, if OKC gives them a sweeter deal than other cities, it's made up by the fact that the franchise is giving us a good team and to the benefit of the city.

Again, this franchise has given us zero reason to believe they are just greedy and looking for a money grab. Why aren't you and other nay sayers giving them even a little bit of grace on this? Makes no sense.

And, yes you've mentioned the thunder, but not once have you mentioned the fact that they will spend more money than just about any of the other franchises you mentioned in actual basketball operations. It costs more money to have a successful team. Nobody has mentioned that. The more the team makes the playoffs, makes runs into the finals, etc. it's more money for the city and more exposure on an international stage for the city and state. So, if OKC gives them a sweeter deal than other cities, it's made up by the fact that the franchise is giving us a good team and to the benefit of the city.


What on earth are you talking about? The Thunder are spending less on 2023 on payroll than some of the comps we're talking about (Kings, Grizzlies, Jazz, Bucks). In fact they are 23rd in terms of payroll going into this season. They are not spending more than even the median NBA team. This team hasn't made the playoffs in 3 years and hasn't made a serious championship push in more than half a decade. If anyone here is glossing over the basketball aspect of this, it's you and your rose-tinted glasses of the state of this franchise.



Again, this franchise has given us zero reason to believe they are just greedy and looking for a money grab. Why aren't you and other nay sayers giving them even a little bit of grace on this? Makes no sense.


Sure, other than demanding a free practice facility and chipping in for a new stadium at a historically low rate in the modern history of NBA stadiums and meanwhile requiring the city to pay 100% of short-term renovations to Paycom.

Let me flip the question - what have they done to show that they're a generous, selfless organization vis a vis OKC? Other than playing their home games here?

Someone who understands that owning a rapidly-ascendant team in a state-of-the-art facility, a favorable rent structure, with a great organizational credibility, a solid national profile, an engaged and supportive corporate community, and solid fan base ain’t such a bad investment.

Take away the "rapidly-ascendant" and "organizational credibility" and a lot of the rest of your list is reasonably recreated in most other markets. And, unfortunately, those 2 items have nothing to do with OKC and would transfer immediately with the team were it to move.

I can't help but think you "let the cat out of the bag" with "favorable rent structure". Professional sports franchise owners are an emotional lot. They'll make less money to have the situation that is ideal to them.

If the new owners don't love Oklahoma (City), the team will be gone before 2040.

"Dealer...give us $1.2B on black, please"

Some back of the napkin math, so that I can wrap my head a bit around the economics at play here:

Per Forbes PBC has Rev of $274M. They'll pay ~$140M to the active roster. So let's say 10% of that gross stays in Oklahoma between taxes and money spent in the local economy. That's $14M/year.

Let's say another $25M is paid to non-player staff/execs and that 65% of that stays in Oklahoma. That's another $16M/year.

If PBC pays $2M in arena rent, and OKC clears $8M in concessions annually, that brings us to $40M.

Let's say 15% of the attending fan base only comes to OKC (metro area) due to the Thunder and they spend on avg $250 in OKC (including ticket). That's $23M gross. $2M in sales tax receipts and let's say another $8M in profit that stays in OKC.

So we're at $50M annual economic positive but over half of that is going to the state not the city (maybe that's where some of this funding should come from, tbh). Really OKC is walking out with $20M/year, some good entertainment and something that certainly helps the city's brand.

So, yeah, it's an economic engine we'd rather keep, BUT it comes with a super hefty price tag. If the Thunder leave in 15 years, the city still ends up substantially in the red on this deal even as the economic impact inflates due to increased league revenue. 15 years at $40M is $600M + PNC's initial $50M investment. So we'd still be out $600M for an amenity we already have. A lot can be done with $600M.

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

Not exactly, there was a negotiated settlement between Bennett and the city for the not-so-paltry sum of $75 million. Also,remember the 30-year lease was supposed to pay the cost of a new arena which the city reneged on. From Seattle channel 7 -
On July 2, 2008, a $75 million settlement was announced between the current owner of the Seattle Supersonics Clay Bennett, and the city of Seattle. As a result, the Supersonics left to Oklahoma City, leaving only the team name, team colors and 41 years of team history.

The settlement broke a bond with the city that resulted in a six-day federal trial over terms of the team’s lease with KeyArena. Bennett, and his professional Basketball Club LLC, paid $75 million to the city in exchange for the immediate termination of the lease.

lol that is laughable ..

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

Like Seattle....... 😊

I would love to see your math on that.


No figures can be given you would accept. This exact conversation has already been made and proof given which you dismissed as biased chamber of commerce fluff. I provided you with numbers from the City of Denver on the Nuggets economic impact and $750 million over 25 years is well in line.

Oh hey there Clay

So anyone who supports the team, wants to keep them here and plans to vote yes despite concerns about the proposal is naturally just a shill for the owners, right?

We mention the Thunder by name constantly. We compare them to other NBA franchises and cities. Posters have talked about their gameday experiences at Paycom. Have you even been reading the thread? Also, why on earth is someone from GA chiming in here and lecturing folks who actually live in the state?

For the same reason someone who is apparently from Edmond and may not even be able to vote has posted 500 posts about how much they hate successful people who don’t want to pay a substantial portion of the costs for the arenas their teams play in.

From the Oklahoman today; OKC Director of Finance Brent Bryant:


the sales tax was expected to generate at least $976 million in revenue by 2034, and that planners would first use the $70 million of reallocated MAPS 4 funds and the $50 million contribution to begin construction and to reduce borrowing costs.

So, $976 million is the minimum sales tax (I showed my calcs earlier that indicated $1.3B is more likely), plus $70 from MAPS 4 and $50 from the owners.

That's a minimum budget of $1.094 billion, not $900 million the City used in the press release. What's an extra $200 million right out of the gate? Although we keep being told that $50 million by the owners is 'significant'.

How accurate are these numbers?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/286084/operating-income-oklahoma-city-thunder-national-basketball-association/

How accurate are these numbers?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/286084/operating-income-oklahoma-city-thunder-national-basketball-association/

Probably pretty close. The Thunder have made more money being terrible these last few years than when they were competing for a title. Barely meeting the salary floor helps. It’s why the angst about the low attendance is overblown. The franchise is making money.

How accurate are these numbers?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/286084/operating-income-oklahoma-city-thunder-national-basketball-association/

Those come from the numbers posted in Forbes. Those Forbes numbers say that the player cost was only 77 million and the salary for has been above that for several years so for some reason it seems like Oklahoma city's numbers are wrong

I want to know that OKC's agreement with the Thunder won't be like this.

there is 0 reason to think it will be

to be clear, no one is talking about Seattle’s response to Bennett. We are referring to Seattle’s response to Shultz’s proposal and he did not plan to move the team…he sold them to someone who would.

Bennett proposed his arena in Renton, not Seattle since they voted in I-91 after Shultz’s Key Arena proposal failed and after he sold the team to Bennett. Though I still do think that the sonics would’ve stayed if they’d agreed to their outrageous proposal…they just weren’t going to and Bennett knew that.

all correct

From the Oklahoman today; OKC Director of Finance Brent Bryant:



So, $976 million is the minimum sales tax (I showed my calcs earlier that indicated $1.3B is more likely), plus $70 from MAPS 4 and $50 from the owners.

That's a minimum budget of $1.094 billion, not $900 million the City used in the press release. What's an extra $200 million right out of the gate? Although we keep being told that $50 million by the owners is 'significant'.

please show me a larger portion by an ownership group to an arena with OKC's management structure?

Some back of the napkin math, so that I can wrap my head a bit around the economics at play here:

Per Forbes PBC has Rev of $274M. They'll pay ~$140M to the active roster. So let's say 10% of that gross stays in Oklahoma between taxes and money spent in the local economy. That's $14M/year.

Let's say another $25M is paid to non-player staff/execs and that 65% of that stays in Oklahoma. That's another $16M/year.

If PBC pays $2M in arena rent, and OKC clears $8M in concessions annually, that brings us to $40M.

Let's say 15% of the attending fan base only comes to OKC (metro area) due to the Thunder and they spend on avg $250 in OKC (including ticket). That's $23M gross. $2M in sales tax receipts and let's say another $8M in profit that stays in OKC.

So we're at $50M annual economic positive but over half of that is going to the state not the city (maybe that's where some of this funding should come from, tbh). Really OKC is walking out with $20M/year, some good entertainment and something that certainly helps the city's brand.

So, yeah, it's an economic engine we'd rather keep, BUT it comes with a super hefty price tag. If the Thunder leave in 15 years, the city still ends up substantially in the red on this deal even as the economic impact inflates due to increased league revenue. 15 years at $40M is $600M + PNC's initial $50M investment. So we'd still be out $600M for an amenity we already have. A lot can be done with $600M.

keep in mind that 25-30% of the money being used to build this arena comes from people that don't live in OKC (which is a great deal for OKC)


also you are discounting the PR benefit of the thunder to OKC

Maybe another way to frame this discussion:

Oklahoma City does not need another arena. Professional Basketball Club LLC needs a new arena.

Now, PBC provides a lot of value to Oklahoma City, and OKC has provided to PBC a relatively reliable fan base and a facility at a very reasonble cost.

PBC now wants OKC to build them a new facility that OKC doesn't need in order to increase PBC's profitability to provide essentially the same product to OKC. OKC should recognize the benefit they will receive from having a nicer facility but also has to reconcile the opportunity costs of spending these resources on something they already have.

.

the 25 year lease guarantees that the teams stays in OKC for about 22 or 23 year of the lease .. min ..


do you think the peake will be a viable arena forever??

meaning surely you believe that at some point OKC will need a new arena

(others can comment ) but one of the huge reasons OKC needs a new arena is the loading dock/set up space is not big enough currently to have back to back events in OKC ..

I think Golden 1 Center is probably the best comp next to Milwaukee. I can't find a lease summary for their deal, but the team is listed as the operator. They do pay more than the Bucks do in rent, though. Something like $361 million over the life of the lease.

So, it seems like there's been an increase in team ownership in investment of publicly owned arenas, but through the lease, they become the operators of the venue for all events.

yep cities that can't raise the full amount for a new building (politically) pretty much give away their arena to a private business .. and still pay for half (or more) of it ..

berceuse that looks better on the front end optics.