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

25% - 30% of the money used to build a big phallus statue planted in the middle of the great lawn would come from non-OKC residents if we voted to build it. That's not a valid argument. OKC is a cool city and that's why we get so many people coming in to spend their dollars with us. We don't only collect that % of outside money 41 nights a year.

I'm not discounting the PR benefit. I'm just struggling to risk $1B on it.

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 fundamentally disagree that the lease guarantees OKC stays. The only thing that guarantees OKC stays is an ownership group committed to OKC. If PBC sells and the buyers don't have emotional ties to OKC, then I have no reason to believe the Thunder are staying in the long run.

Yeah, there's probably utility outside of the Thunder to getting a new arena in the next 15-20 years, but under no circumstance do we need to spend $1.3B on it. And sure as hell doesn't need to use up the Cox site.

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.

Great post!

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.

There are plenty of examples of sports deals or deals in general being non-negotiable. Leverage and proper valuation upfront can and will establish a firm line in the sand in certain deals. Negotiating is what I’ve done for a living for over 15 years, so I’ve seen this.

And you acting like this hasn’t already been discussed and negotiated to this point, it has. This isn’t a number that was picked out of a hat. This is the deal, I believe it is binary because Holt who knows and understands the deal better than you or I says it is now binary at this point.

I fundamentally disagree that the lease guarantees OKC stays. The only thing that guarantees OKC stays is an ownership group committed to OKC. If PBC sells and the buyers don't have emotional ties to OKC, then I have no reason to believe the Thunder are staying in the long run.

Yeah, there's probably utility outside of the Thunder to getting a new arena in the next 15-20 years, but under no circumstance do we need to spend $1.3B on it. And sure as hell doesn't need to use up the Cox site.

again show any example anywhere in pro sports where a team broke a 20+ year lease .. or broke any lease .( with out an agreement with the city)

There are plenty of examples of sports deals or deals in general being non-negotiable. Leverage and proper valuation upfront can and will establish a firm line in the sand in certain deals. Negotiating is what I’ve done for a living for over 15 years, so I’ve seen this.

And you acting like this hasn’t already been discussed and negotiated to this point, it has. This isn’t a number that was picked out of a hat. This is the deal, I believe it is binary because Holt who knows and understands the deal better than you or I says it is now binary at this point.

The data from every other single deal for an NBA arena indicates your assumptions are completely wrong.

The NBA hates moving teams. Last time was Seattle 15 years ago. And that was mainly about Seattle having stadium fatigue from building a new baseball stadium, football stadium, and overhaul of Key arena in the previous decade-ish. Plus Howard Schultz decided the Key Arean makeover was inferior after 6 years and decided to bail.

The NBA worked overtime to keep the Kings in Sacramento, the Hornets in Charlotte and the Pelicans in New Orleans. They need teams in different cities. They like, and have been very successful, being the only game in town.

If it was so easy to sell and move a team, then the Thunder ownership would sell today for $4 billion to one of the expansion groups who would then move to the Gold Mine Towns of Seattle or Las Vegas, as Bill Simmons would have you believe.

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.

What's interesting about the Milwaukee deal as I learned more about it (I think), is that the city does not even technically own the arena or directly participate in the district around it. The state carved out a special "semi-autonomous" district that issues its own bonds and collects its own taxes, with an exemption for the team of sales within the arena. So, there's no real direct revenue for the city. It sounds like any collections within the district stay within the district to pay for the debt incurred to develop it and its portion of arena construction.

It's pretty convoluted, so I may be wrong on some of those points, but I'm just wondering if there would ever be support for, say, carving the cox site out of the city and any sales tax collected within the development on that site stayed within the district and all revenue the arena generated, basketball or otherwise, would stay with the team owners. At least for me, if we get a sense that's what happening here before the vote, I'd probably vote no, unless there is some angle I am missing.

The NBA hates moving teams. Last time was Seattle 15 years ago. And that was mainly about Seattle having stadium fatigue from building a new baseball stadium, football stadium, and overhaul of Key arena in the previous decade-ish. Plus Howard Schultz decided the Key Arean makeover was inferior after 6 years and decided to bail.

The NBA worked overtime to keep the Kings in Sacramento, the Hornets in Charlotte and the Pelicans in New Orleans. They need teams in different cities. They like, and have been very successful, being the only game in town.

If it was so easy to sell and move a team, then the Thunder ownership would sell today for $4 billion to one of the expansion groups who would then move to the Gold Mine Towns of Seattle or Las Vegas, as Bill Simmons would have you believe.

Not exactly. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for the owners to sell a rapidly appreciating asset, particularly with league expansion on the horizon. The ownership group will very likely collect ~$250M or more as its share of expansion fees.

And, I’d presume that ownership shares in sports teams, much like other capital assets, are eligible for a stepped up cost basis. So it would be much more tax efficient for the owners to remain vested.

The NBA hates moving teams. Last time was Seattle 15 years ago. And that was mainly about Seattle having stadium fatigue from building a new baseball stadium, football stadium, and overhaul of Key arena in the previous decade-ish. Plus Howard Schultz decided the Key Arean makeover was inferior after 6 years and decided to bail.

The NBA worked overtime to keep the Kings in Sacramento, the Hornets in Charlotte and the Pelicans in New Orleans. They need teams in different cities. They like, and have been very successful, being the only game in town.

If it was so easy to sell and move a team, then the Thunder ownership would sell today for $4 billion to one of the expansion groups who would then move to the Gold Mine Towns of Seattle or Las Vegas, as Bill Simmons would have you believe.

the owners don't want the team to move from OKC ..

The data from every other single deal for an NBA arena indicates your assumptions are completely wrong.

again apples to oranges ... except for memphis and orlando .. that i can find ..


are you for the city of OKC paying for 50% or more of a 100% team (essentially ) owned arena?

again apples to oranges ... except for memphis and orlando .. that i can find ..


are you for the city of OKC paying for 50% or more of a 100% team (essentially ) owned arena?

Nobody can find any deal where the ownership group has only paid 5% (or anywhere near that tiny amount) of the arena cost, regardless of the other details which we still don't know.

If the governor, a senator or any other politician was doing this -- especially behind closed doors -- everyone would be going ballistic. People have been losing their minds over Swadleys and a few million. But now everyone should just pipe down and fork over $1B in public money in a deal that looks way off the charts? That's ridiculous.

Nobody can find any deal where the ownership group has only paid 5% (or anywhere near that tiny amount) of the arena cost, regardless of the other details which we still don't know.

If the governor, a senator or any other politician was doing this -- especially behind closed doors -- everyone would be going ballistic. People have been losing their minds over Swadleys and a few million. But now everyone should just pipe down and fork over $1B in public money in a deal that looks way off the charts? That's ridiculous.

memphis 0% orlando 10% the leases in the other deals make them completely different and not comparable to the OKC siltation ..

Nobody can find any deal where the ownership group has only paid 5% (or anywhere near that tiny amount) of the arena cost, regardless of the other details which we still don't know.

If the governor, a senator or any other politician was doing this -- especially behind closed doors -- everyone would be going ballistic. People have been losing their minds over Swadleys and a few million. But now everyone should just pipe down and fork over $1B in public money in a deal that looks way off the charts? That's ridiculous.

OKC is building a facility for them selves ... first and foremost .. they just happen to have anchor tenant lined up that is gifting them 50 mil

Nobody can find any deal where the ownership group has only paid 5% (or anywhere near that tiny amount) of the arena cost, regardless of the other details which we still don't know.

If the governor, a senator or any other politician was doing this -- especially behind closed doors -- everyone would be going ballistic. People have been losing their minds over Swadleys and a few million. But now everyone should just pipe down and fork over $1B in public money in a deal that looks way off the charts? That's ridiculous.

So you would vote against it as currently laid out?

memphis 0% orlando 10% the leases in the other deals make them completely different and not comparable to the OKC siltation ..

We don't even know the details of the Thunder lease, if the ownership will have rights to ancillary development, etc.

Memphis is a remodel as was Paycom which was also 100% funded by OKC.

The data from every other single deal for an NBA arena indicates your assumptions are completely wrong.

What assumptions are you referring to? The $50M pledge from Thunder ownership was accepted by the city through some sort of ongoing discussion, which some like to call a negotiation, that is why the number is what it is. You are ignoring every other piece of data that says each arena deal is unique, just like this one. The facts are that OKC has one professional team, it only occurred due to a special set of circumstances that is likely not be repeat and due to size, location, etc. (i.e. potential revenue) we do not have leverage like most cities. Those are facts, not assumptions. Teams do move for various reasons and we got the Thunder over an arena issue, so we should be able to understand the potential for team relocation due over arena issues/potential revenue better than most.

Also, you are likewise ignoring that the arena will be owned by the city and and all other sources of revenue that comes from it (concerts, etc.) will not be run through The Professional Basketball Club, LLC.

We don't even know the details of the Thunder lease, if the ownership will have rights to ancillary development, etc.

Memphis is a remodel as was Paycom which was also 100% funded by OKC.

and the memphis arena is getting a 350 mil public paid for renovation (which is possible because it wasn't built as a small sqft bare bones arena in the first place) over 800k sqft instead of under 600k sqft


i think we can say that the city is not turning over 100% control of the arena to the thunder (if this turns out to be incorrect i may have deferent feelings on the project)

Nobody can find any deal where the ownership group has only paid 5% (or anywhere near that tiny amount) of the arena cost, regardless of the other details which we still don't know.

If the governor, a senator or any other politician was doing this -- especially behind closed doors -- everyone would be going ballistic. People have been losing their minds over Swadleys and a few million. But now everyone should just pipe down and fork over $1B in public money in a deal that looks way off the charts? That's ridiculous.

While this may be true, the risk reward for this not passing is extraordinary.

Do the owners have all the leverage? Absolutely. Is there anything we can do about that? No.

There are no "second chances" at these things. No magical better deal is just going to appear (from okc). Who it will appear from is 10+ other markets that want an NBA team and may already have the necessary arena. Offers to buy the team will flood in just as the league expansion windfall hits. Jumps in team valuations will never be stronger.

So I ask again, is the risk worth the reward? We can be the next major city and continue growing, or another Louisville or Wichita or Columbus.

And if you have an issue with an extension of a 1c penny tax while we are one of the least tax burdened states thats just on you (not you specifically pete, in general). I can guarantee you the public outcry will be far louder once sale rumors hit news cycles and billionaires are lining up with offers. But hey - if you want to stick it to these ultra wealthy individuals then go for it. It will only hurt us more at the end of the day.

^

Not ignoring anything.

Please show me a deal for another NBA arena where a City provided anywhere near in $1 billion in public funding. Nothing is even close.

the owners don't want the team to move from OKC ..

Agree, these owners do not want the team to move. But, if there are potential issues with their long-term investment over revenue concerns they can and would at least consider selling their investment.

^

Not ignoring anything.

Please show me a deal for another NBA arena where a City provided anywhere near in $1 billion in public funding. Nothing is even close.

Each deal is unique, this situation is unique. Benchmarks are helpful at times, but this isn't an easy situation to benchmark. We have the Thunder due to a unique circumstance.

While this may be true, the risk reward for this not passing is extraordinary.

Do the owners have all the leverage? Absolutely. Is there anything we can do about that? No.

There are no "second chances" at these things. No magical better deal is just going to appear (from okc). Who it will appear from is 10+ other markets that want an NBA team and may already have the necessary arena. Offers to buy the team will flood in just as the league expansion windfall hits. Jumps in team valuations will never be stronger.

So I ask again, is the risk worth the reward? We can be the next major city and continue growing, or another Louisville or Wichita or Columbus.

And if you have an issue with an extension of a 1c penny tax while we are one of the least tax burdened states thats just on you (not you specifically pete, in general). I can guarantee you the public outcry will be far louder once sale rumors hit news cycles and billionaires are lining up with offers. But hey - if you want to stick it to these ultra wealthy individuals then go for it. It will only hurt us more at the end of the day.

Columbus has NHL, MLS, a world class university, and has been growing faster than OKC (on a total GDP basis) since the Thunder arrived in OKC.

The NBA hates moving teams. Last time was Seattle 15 years ago. And that was mainly about Seattle having stadium fatigue from building a new baseball stadium, football stadium, and overhaul of Key arena in the previous decade-ish. Plus Howard Schultz decided the Key Arean makeover was inferior after 6 years and decided to bail.

The NBA worked overtime to keep the Kings in Sacramento, the Hornets in Charlotte and the Pelicans in New Orleans. They need teams in different cities. They like, and have been very successful, being the only game in town.

If it was so easy to sell and move a team, then the Thunder ownership would sell today for $4 billion to one of the expansion groups who would then move to the Gold Mine Towns of Seattle or Las Vegas, as Bill Simmons would have you believe.

If you think the NBA would rather have a team in OKC over Vegas right now then you aren't paying attention to the what is currently happening and the potential dollars. The NBA is placing the new mid-season tournament in Vegas and has made summer league in Vegas a revenue generator. Also, Las Vegas is primed and ready for a team (likely through expansion but could also take an existing team), so much so that LeBron and others have already voiced interest in ownership because everyone is acutely aware of how much money will be made by having a team in Vegas.

Each deal is unique, this situation is unique. Benchmarks are helpful at times, but this isn't an easy situation to benchmark. We have the Thunder due to a unique circumstance.

Just because it's "unique" (which is itself debatable) doesn't mean that we have to take whatever sort of deal was opaquely agreed to behind closed doors. The team is asking for an historic amount of public money with 0 transparency or details. The skepticism here is entirely warranted.

Just because it's "unique" (which is itself debatable) doesn't mean that we have to take whatever sort of deal was opaquely agreed to behind closed doors. The team is asking for an historic amount of public money with 0 transparency or details. The skepticism here is entirely warranted.

I don't disagree necessarily that skepticism is warranted... I think people are simply underrating the risks if this not passing first go around and overvaluing their idea of a "better deal". The owners were never going to pay for 100% of this, not 50%, not 20%. So say they offered up 100m instead of 50m? What about 200m? Would the public funding 900m vs 750m really change your stance on this? There is absolutely nothing stopping them from exploring their options and finding a WAY better deal for themselves than this would be (whether they sell or simply move the team). There is a new NBA ready arena just a couple hundred miles north in KC and you know they are salivating over this.

Imagine people complaining this much about something that will increase tourism, sales and hotel/motel tax revenue, and keep OKC on people's minds because of the continuance of a tax, not even a new one. That's my biggest thing. If this was a new tax, sure, I could grt being upset. But it isn't.

I do want to see the lease agreement. If OKC gets to keep revenue from all events not Thunder-related, then it will help OKC greatly (which is what their current lease is). OKC will experience an increase in shows and events, just like Fort Worth has with their arena. I'm not saying this is the best deal ever for OKC, but it isn't the worst, by any means.

All that to say, I will be voting yes, because of the long-term benefits this will have for OKC.

For those of you who think the ownership group will come back to the negotiating table. It’s this or nothing.

“OKC will not get a better deal than what’s currently on the table. In fact, that would result in a bidding war where other cities across the country can present the Thunder with proposals. The price would then go up for OKC to retain the team.”

https://x.com/gabeikard/status/1702701057132925106?s=46&t=aws03OwQkYw9MU0WDC2nVg

Imagine people complaining this much about something that will increase tourism, sales and hotel/motel tax revenue, and keep OKC on people's minds because of the continuance of a tax, not even a new one. That's my biggest thing. If this was a new tax, sure, I could grt being upset. But it isn't.

I do want to see the lease agreement. If OKC gets to keep revenue from all events not Thunder-related, then it will help OKC greatly (which is what their current lease is). OKC will experience an increase in shows and events, just like Fort Worth has with their arena. I'm not saying this is the best deal ever for OKC, but it isn't the worst, by any means.

All that to say, I will be voting yes, because of the long-term benefits this will have for OKC.

the mayor has now said on twitter that the new lease will be consistent with the current thunder lease just much longer ..

For those of you who think the ownership group will come back to the negotiating table. It’s this or nothing.

“OKC will not get a better deal than what’s currently on the table. In fact, that would result in a bidding war where other cities across the country can present the Thunder with proposals. The price would then go up for OKC to retain the team.”

https://x.com/gabeikard/status/1702701057132925106?s=46&t=aws03OwQkYw9MU0WDC2nVg

This is called "posturing" and is a common tactic in negotiation. Besides, I have been told many times in this thread how great and devoted this ownership is to this city so I'm sure it's just a bluff. It's not like they're greedy.

It may be posturing but it's also factual...

We’ll be paying more than Buffalo has to pay for their new 63,000 seat NFL stadium. What a disaster haha

Any vote for a new arena will also be a vote to keep the Thunder.

We're going to need to replace Paycom Arena, so why not go ahead and build a new arena now while we have an anchor tenant committed to being here until 2050 if we build.

You can bet that if this arena is voted down, the franchise will be sold, relocated and probably not asked to pay a dime toward relocation fees. Seattle, Las Vegas and Louisville are licking their apoco-lips.

Build an arena that will be a centerpiece in our city; a venue capable of attracting NCAA Wrestling finals, Women's Basketball & Volleyball finals and Men's BB quarterfinals. More events we are able to secure, the more hotels we will attract with some current potential expansions.

We’ll be paying more than Buffalo has to pay for their new 63,000 seat NFL stadium. What a disaster haha

Yeah, instead, people in Brooklyn will be paying for a stadium they won't be withing 5 hours of. Ever. We aren't getting the state involved in paying for this like the Bills are.

Yeah, instead, people in Brooklyn will be paying for a stadium they won't be withing 5 hours of. Ever. We aren't getting the state involved in paying for this like the Bills are.

This is a horrible deal regardless. The citizens are paying the full brunt of this. Ownership is giving less than what the Bengals did for Paul Brown Stadium and that’s considered one of the worst stadium deals ever. We can only hope the Thunder don’t have a “state of the art” clause like they have. Not like they’d ever share it with the public, anyway.

For those of you who think the ownership group will come back to the negotiating table. It’s this or nothing.

“OKC will not get a better deal than what’s currently on the table. In fact, that would result in a bidding war where other cities across the country can present the Thunder with proposals. The price would then go up for OKC to retain the team.”

https://x.com/gabeikard/status/1702701057132925106?s=46&t=aws03OwQkYw9MU0WDC2nVg

Isn't Gabe married to the daughter of a Thunder owner?

Isn't Gabe married to the daughter of a Thunder owner?

That’s correct. He’s trying to save Bill Cameron a few million for sure.

Listen, if little changes between now and the vote, I will vote "No", because the only thing that has been sold here is fear and hope. These are bad reasons to tie down over a billion dollars of public funds.

If it doesn't pass, it serves Mayor Holt right. If it does pass, then I'm not going to bemoan the vote, I'm going to hope that what is presented ends up being a tenable deal in the long run and then I'm going to hope PBC does not sell to any sort of majority to out of state ownership.

Assuming the team stays for 25 years, this will end up being a break even situation financially, but it will come at a cost of other public works projects. If they leave before 20, or bend us over on the lease, this is an unmitigated disaster.

The city also should be dangling the deal in front of the state given that the Thunder is generating at least $30M+ annually for the state. $150M would be a fair ask from the state.

This is called "posturing" and is a common tactic in negotiation. Besides, I have been told many times in this thread how great and devoted this ownership is to this city so I'm sure it's just a bluff. It's not like they're greedy.

It may be posturing but it also is logically what’s going to happen if it fails. Doesn’t mean they’ll sell the team to the highest bidder or that the team will move…but if this fails, they will be fielding offers from anyone and everyone who wants a team.

It's obvious that people are Gibraltar on this, and no one will change their minds unless the Thunder pay for more than 40% of the arena. Going from 5% to 40% will never happen, just like people like PoliSci will never be in support of the city paying for an arena.

Listen, if little changes between now and the vote, I will vote "No", because the only thing that has been sold here is fear and hope. These are bad reasons to tie down over a billion dollars of public funds.

If it doesn't pass, it serves Mayor Holt right. If it does pass, then I'm not going to bemoan the vote, I'm going to hope that what is presented ends up being a tenable deal in the long run and then I'm going to hope PBC does not sell to any sort of majority to out of state ownership.

Assuming the team stays for 25 years, this will end up being a break even situation financially, but it will come at a cost of other public works projects. If they leave before 20, or bend us over on the lease, this is an unmitigated disaster.

The city also should be dangling the deal in front of the state given that the Thunder is generating at least $30M+ annually for the state. $150M would be a fair ask from the state.

What numbers are you using to estimate that it will break even over 25 years?

That’s correct. He’s trying to save Bill Cameron a few million for sure.

That’s not really fair. He’s been a massive fan of the team for most of his life and before he married his wife. He might just like the proposal or not to open the chance that the team might leave…which are the prevailing thoughts of those here who have indicated that they’ll vote yes.

What are we're going to do when the franchise up and leaves. We won't have an anchor tenant and there won't be any need to build a new arena.

Our city will lose its biggest 'quality of life' attractions that receives national attention during the NBA season. IMO would be equivalent to losing the WCWS event. We expanded HOF stadium--now the most expensive and largest Softball park in the World.

We lost the NFR because the Myriad's 11,200 were inadequate and LV arena seated 16,000; let's keep our Thunder. One of five small markets (Milwaukee (MLB, NBA), OKC, Memphis, New Orleans (NFL, NBA) and Salt Lake City).

This is a horrible deal regardless. The citizens are paying the full brunt of this. Ownership is giving less than what the Bengals did for Paul Brown Stadium and that’s considered one of the worst stadium deals ever. We can only hope the Thunder don’t have a “state of the art” clause like they have. Not like they’d ever share it with the public, anyway.

football stadiums used 16-20 times a year vs arenas used 150 times a year are not comparable ..

It's obvious that people are Gibraltar on this, and no one will change their minds unless the Thunder pay for more than 40% of the arena. Going from 5% to 40% will never happen, just like people like PoliSci will never be in support of the city paying for an arena.

Please don't try to speak for me, thanks. If ownership pitched in at levels similar to other NBA teams I'd be much more amenable to this.

The city also should be dangling the deal in front of the state given that the Thunder is generating at least $30M+ annually for the state. $150M would be a fair ask from the state.

i agree with this ..


and you keep bring up the team leaving with a 25 year lease in place .... that has never happened ANY WHERE >>

i agree with this ..


and you keep bring up the team leaving with a 25 year lease in place .... that has never happened ANY WHERE >>

Yeah based on precedent, it would be in the last 2-5 years of the lease and it would be a lease on a building that will still be newer than Paycom is right now. Unless they just completely suck for the 10-15 years leading up to that or OKC goes into a depression and corporate sponsorships evaporate…then I think leaving before the end of the lease, especially after the city builds what will likely be one of the nicest arenas in the country when it opens, seems highly unlikely at best.

Find a situation where a city built one of, if not the most, expensive arenas in the league with a large public funding element from the ground up and the team broke its initial lease on it to relocate.

Please don't try to speak for me, thanks. If ownership pitched in at levels similar to other NBA teams I'd be much more amenable to this.

I think anyone that has read your countless posts would agree with what chssooner said and if not then here is the question- Are you (PoliSciGuy) in support of the city paying for an arena?

football stadiums used 16-20 times a year vs arenas used 150 times a year are not comparable ..

I agree. It’ll be easier to make a more equal comparison once I see the full terms of the lease. Then I can make an informed decision before I’m expected to vote.


Wait.

I think anyone that has read your countless posts would agree with what chssooner said and if not then here is the question- Are you (PoliSciGuy) in support of the city paying for an arena?

Earlier in this thread I said even 25% would lower my grumbling (https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=47184&p=1240558&highlight=#post1240558) and that 40% would make me eat crow (https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=47184&page=27&p=1239821&highlight=#post1239821). I'm all for the city paying for an arena at levels similar to other NBA cities and commend Holt for looking for a longer term solution. I'd also want to see a lot more transparency.

I think anyone that has read your countless posts would agree with what chssooner said and if not then here is the question- Are you (PoliSciGuy) in support of the city paying for an arena?

I’ll give him a little credit…he has said he’d be more likely to vote yes if the owners were paying substantially more. Though my personal feeling based on his posts is that he wouldn’t vote on an arena if the only cost to the city was donating the land (sarcasm…kind of lol)

#WWPSGD?

I agree. It’ll be easier to make a more equal comparison once I see the full terms of the lease. Then I can make an informed decision before I’m expected to vote.


Wait.

the mayor has now said publicly that the lease will be the same as the current lease just longer

Earlier in this thread I said even 25% would lower my grumbling (https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=47184&p=1240558&highlight=#post1240558) and that 40% would make me eat crow (https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=47184&page=27&p=1239821&highlight=#post1239821). I'm all for the city paying for an arena at levels similar to other NBA cities and commend Holt for looking for a longer term solution. I'd also want to see a lot more transparency.

Instead of a yes or no, it is a yes with caveats, which I understand. Now it has been mentioned that you reside in Edmond and can't even vote on this, so it is safe to assume that your role in this thread is to play the devils advocate. Would that be a fair assumption?

Instead of a yes or no, it is a yes with caveats, which I understand. Now it has been mentioned that you reside in Edmond and can't even vote on this, so it is safe to assume that your role in this thread is to play the devils advocate. Would that be a fair assumption?

Almost everyone in the OKC area -- and a lot of the state -- will be paying for this through sales tax. Tons of people in Edmond spend within the OKC limits.

In fact, you could easily argue this is unfair to them because they will be paying for it but unable to vote.

Instead of a yes or no, it is a yes with caveats, which I understand. Now it has been mentioned that you reside in Edmond and can't even vote on this, so it is safe to assume that your role in this thread is to play the devils advocate. Would that be a fair assumption?

He can't vote on this issue. He has bombards the thread with his take. Why is he so vocal about the development.

PoliSciGuy may we hear from you.

I agree 100% with Gabe Ikard who says that the Thunder are working exclusively with OKC on this deal right now, but if it doesn't pass it doesn't mean they automatically leave but they will entertain all offers and even if OKC does get a deal together to keep the team it could very likely be worse than the deal they are working on this first run. Better or worse, I think this is where it's at. OKC just needs to pass this thing and get it secured. The only thing dumber than what Seattle let happen would be for OKC to pinch pennies (literal pennies) and have the exact same thing happen.

Just like in life, don't be cheap, and it's even worth paying a bit of a premium for the things that are especially important. The Thunder are especially important to OKC.

Almost everyone in the OKC area -- and a lot of the state -- will be paying for this through sales tax. Tons of people in Edmond spend within the OKC limits.

In fact, you could easily argue this is unfair to them because they will be paying for it but unable to vote.

You could argue that, but if they are that fundamentally opposed to it, they could also completely avoid it by choosing not to shop in OKC and stick to buying goods within the boundaries of their own city or others. Would be difficult if those idividuals like doing things in the city or work there but no one is forcing them to spend there.

Of course that fails to recognize that OKC’s sales tax is the same or lower than that of several suburbs and will not change due to the approval of this proposal.

the mayor has now said publicly that the lease will be the same as the current lease just longer

Do you have a link for this?

Honestly, from a political standpoint, I think the mayor stepped in it when he initially used the term "significant contribution" from team ownership without quantifying that. At that point, everyone paying attention to it imagined an amount that meets their idea of significant.

You could, but if they are that fundamentally opposed to it, they could also completely avoid it by choosing not to shop in OKC and stick to buying goods within the boundaries of their own city or others. Would be difficult if those idividuals like doing things in the city or work there but no one is forcing them to spend there. Of course that fails to recognize that OKC’s sales tax is the same or lower than that of several suburbs.

The reason OKC sales tax is similar is that it is kept artificially low to accommodate 40 years of 'temporary' $.01 extra tax.

This is not a small point because it greatly reduces the revenue the City needs for police, fire and everything else.


And BTW, if you are going to take up this point it should also be mentioned you live in Tulsa. Shouldn't that disqualify your opinion as well? BoulderSooner also lives in Edmond and I suspect many of the people on your side of this issue do not live in the OKC city limits either... See how that works?

Do you have a link for this?

Honestly, from a political standpoint, I think the mayor stepped in it when he initially used the term "significant contribution" from team ownership without quantifying that. At that point, everyone paying attention to it imagined an amount that meets their idea of significant.

yeah using subjective phrasing like that probably want great. Of course he also could’ve thought they were contributing more at the time based on the state of negotiations .