For sure, it'd be an estimate, or at least a floor to project future earnings. But if we're saying that a benefit of this new arena is the profits it will generate for the city, I think it's wholly reasonable and germane to look at what our current venue is generating to see just how much of a benefit it may be.

Completely fair.

Are you sure about this? Did they sign their agreement with the Thunder or the city of OKC? My understanding is that it was done with the Thunder. Unless the Thunder will continue paying a lease agreement with the city for the current arena, then I would assume the contract with Paycom would be broken and they could enter a new contract with the new arena.

I would assume all parties would want to break that agreement, including the city, in favor of good partner relations.

ON EDIT: The deals of the Paycom agreement are not public knowledge so the lease was definitely executed with the Thunder and not the city. Deals of the lease were probably also kept very private as a way to prevent anyone from knowing that a new arena was in the works given that this news broke in Q3 2021.

I am almost 100% positive the contract was with the city. Just no reason for it to not be with the City. The contract may very well be broken but would only be done if they were signing a new one / more profitable one with the new arena. All speculation but almost 100% positive it was with the city.

I'm 100% certain that if the agreement was with the city someone would have FOIAed the details of the lease. I recall this being a big discussion about how the Thunder were receiving the money and not the city.

The way the press release is worded, it sounds like it was with the Thunder:

“We are honored and excited to expand our partnership with Paycom to include a centerpiece, 15-year naming rights commitment for our arena,” said Clayton I. Bennett, chairman of the Oklahoma City Thunder.

“On behalf of our ownership group and the entire Thunder organization, we look forward to presenting our new arena partner, Paycom, to the NBA global audience. We are especially proud to be able to welcome back our fans to again enjoy the Thunder game experience inside the fresh and exciting Paycom Center,” Bennett said.

https://www.nba.com/thunder/news/release-paycom-210727

I'm 100% certain that if the agreement was with the city someone would have FOIAed the details of the lease. I recall this being a big discussion about how the Thunder were receiving the money and not the city.

I didn't say the city was the one receiving the money. However, a tenant cannot sign into an agreement with something they have no ownership of.

Got to remember, a part of the Thunder entering the NBA with the city is that the NBA franchise receives arena naming rights revenue.

They will more than likely have to work out some agreement with the Paycom if they want to rename the new arena Paycom Center or Paycom Arena.

Once the new arena is built and a naming rights agreement is worked out with Paycom, Hobby Lobby, Devon, BanFirst, MidFirst, WinStar (Chickasaw Tribe) or Continental Resources then hopefully, the Thunder can begin new branding.

The way the press release is worded, it sounds like it was with the Thunder:

“We are honored and excited to expand our partnership with Paycom to include a centerpiece, 15-year naming rights commitment for our arena,” said Clayton I. Bennett, chairman of the Oklahoma City Thunder.

“On behalf of our ownership group and the entire Thunder organization, we look forward to presenting our new arena partner, Paycom, to the NBA global audience. We are especially proud to be able to welcome back our fans to again enjoy the Thunder game experience inside the fresh and exciting Paycom Center,” Bennett said.

https://www.nba.com/thunder/news/release-paycom-210727

Again, why would a tenant of an arena have any authority to sign something like this? Does that not strike you as unenforceable? Almost like a tenant in an apartment saying they can completely redesign their apartment on their own authority.

Again, why would a tenant of an arena have any authority to sign something like this? Does that not strike you as unenforceable? Almost like a tenant in an apartment saying they can completely redesign their apartment on their own authority.

Because it's part of PBC's lease? That's a very easy clause to write in...how long was Chase's name on Cotter Ranch when they had nothing to do with it?

Again, if Paycom signed this with the city of OKC the contract is public information and that information would be well known at this point.

I believe there is no way that Chad Richison would strike a deal that didn't guarantee the Paycom brand would be a part of any building that the Thunder are in. He knew going into negotiations for the sponsorship that there would be a new arena at some point in the next 15 years. I don't see him signing off on a deal that would have that brand torn down with an old arena unless it is a part of a new one.

Again, why would a tenant of an arena have any authority to sign something like this? Does that not strike you as unenforceable? Almost like a tenant in an apartment saying they can completely redesign their apartment on their own authority.

Legal contracts can be written with all kinds of stipulations.

In your example, the tenant would be given the right to incur expenses on behalf of the owner. That is not what this is. The Thunder can receive income accourding to the contract, just like they can receive income from concessions, suites rentals, etc. as long as all other conditions are met.

The way the press release is worded, it sounds like it was with the Thunder:

“We are honored and excited to expand our partnership with Paycom to include a centerpiece, 15-year naming rights commitment for our arena,” said Clayton I. Bennett, chairman of the Oklahoma City Thunder.

“On behalf of our ownership group and the entire Thunder organization, we look forward to presenting our new arena partner, Paycom, to the NBA global audience. We are especially proud to be able to welcome back our fans to again enjoy the Thunder game experience inside the fresh and exciting Paycom Center,” Bennett said.

https://www.nba.com/thunder/news/release-paycom-210727

League-wide naming rights for arenas go into BRI (basketball related income) that gets spilt between players and owners.

League-wide naming rights for arenas go into BRI (basketball related income) that gets spilt between players and owners.

According to this, only 50% of arena naming rights goes to revenue-sharing in the league:
https://sports.yahoo.com/nba-players-score-shared-revenue-130000564.html

I believe the owner of the arena gets the other 50%, which in our case is the City.


It's amazing how little even the most interested and informed citizens know about how any part of the current and future arena deal is structured. And I include myself in that group.

According to this, only 50% of arena naming rights goes to revenue-sharing in the league:
https://sports.yahoo.com/nba-players-score-shared-revenue-130000564.html

I believe the owner of the arena gets the other 50%, which in our case is the City.


It's amazing how little even the most interested and informed citizens know about how any part of the current and future arena deal is structured. And I include myself in that group.

Agreed. The relevant players know that most of us (not me, of course) are hopelessly ignorant on this topic.

For example, the city has mentioned nothing about the current or future non-relocate or liquidated damages clauses (arguably the most key clauses if we are content on conceding almost every other material deal point). The City would have everyone believe that the 25 year term is absolutely iron clad, but there are numerous examples of teams breaking leases early for, effectively, peanuts.

Would be much easier to vote yes if we knew that breaking the lease would be painful for the current ownership group or its successor. But I just don’t see Holt or the CM having the chutzpah to secure a big number for The City. It’s honestly a sad state of affairs. Wish we had real journalists who would push Holt on this question.

Not a great look for Mayor Holt to lock his Twitter replies. 18337

Not a great look for Mayor Holt to lock his Twitter replies. 18337

The majority of the people he is blocking are not going to vote. I don't blame him at all. I am fairly liberal politically; this thing is going to get the far left screechers in a frenzy.

There was a survey conducted about a month ago with pretty much the same terms as will be voted on and even though we don't know the results, they wouldn't have moved forward unless they were positive.

Also, as with MAPS, there is really no organized opposition while the City and Mayor (and Chamber) use their massive platforms and resources to hammer home the benefits to the community with zero counterpoints. There will be some negativity on social media (as with anything) and that's about it.


I'm not taking a position on the vote, but from an objective point of view I'd be shocked if this doesn't pass, and by probably close to 60%.

Interestingly, the survey had ownership contribution of $70 million yet the ACTUAL agreement has it $20 million less. They must REALLY be confident this will pass, as I thought they'd actually raise the contribution to $150 million or more (basically paying the interest on the loan and any cost overruns), while gaining rights to develop the remainder of the site (creating Thunder Alley they were going to do anyway, and OKC's verison of LA Live). Wonder why that isn't happening. ..?

these towers would be more feasible for Oklahoma City IF we didn't have the huge TV tower farm in the NE quad of the city. Remove those and YES I could totally see the need for a Space Needle type tower. In fact, MOST cities without natural elevation differences have these towers firstly due to communications. But OKC chose otherwise and built tower masts, should we reverse course, open that land in the NE for development and build a nice communications/observation tower downtown?

I personally would LOVE to see OKC build a tower like Chengdu Tower, https://chengdu-expat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/339-tv-tower-chengdu-expat-1.jpeg at the southern end of Scissortail Park.


BTW: Let's include some kind of sphere or tower with this development on the 4-square block Prairie Surf Media studios super block.

How about something on par with The STRAT in Las Vegas, The CN Tower, Toronto or The Tower of the Americas in San Antonio.
https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2414/2166153562_7d5eeea9c7_z.jpg
Las Vegas

https://www.maximimages.com/stock-photo/cn-tower-city-of-toronto-downtown-aerial-view-MXI24976.jpg
Toronto

https://images.sanantoniomag.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/TOWER.jpg
San Antonio

How much will those profits be? The city owns the Paycom Center too. How much profit does it bring in?
I can tell you that I work temp agencies out here in SoCal at various Arena and we sell a lot of food and it is very high priced I’m talking $12 hotdogs $20 cups of beer $10 cups of soda and lines that are wrapping around going 3040 people deep at all times. I don’t know exactly how much profit it will bring in, but the city will make money on this. There’s no way they can’t.

You you factor in Games all of these rich NBA players that are going out hotel rooms taxes on eating at expensive restaurants die hard fans that are coming to the games.

I don’t understand why you’re so against a new arena. Now truth to be told, I don’t really support this current proposal. But I do want to see a mega super expensive arena built in OKC. That needs to be done I don’t know.

But on the flipside of all of this, it’s pretty sad to see some of these comments where people think the world’s going to end for OKC if we lose the thunder. I mean if that’s all OK C is hanging on is an NBA team and OKC really isn’t that special or powerful of a city.

How much will those profits be? The city owns the Paycom Center too. How much profit does it bring in?

A full report from the OKC Chamber on the impact of MAPS projects, including the arena, and economic improvements that have resulted from a penny sales tax:

https://www.okcchamber.com/clientuploads/PDFs/MAPSEconomicImpactStudy_FullReport.pdf

A full report from the OKC Chamber on the impact of MAPS projects, including the arena, and economic improvements that have resulted from a penny sales tax:

https://www.okcchamber.com/clientuploads/PDFs/MAPSEconomicImpactStudy_FullReport.pdf

….ok? Nothing in here shows the profits the Paycom center brings in.

….ok? Nothing in here shows the profits the Paycom center brings in.

There will never be a way of seeing how much one asset makes and expends. That is fiscally irresponsible to monitor something like that. The city won't do that, they will look at funds as a whole. Nothing individually.

https://www.okc.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/32142/638077542194270000

https://www.okc.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/32158/638077545086200000

You can look through the attached for FY22. They don't breakout revenues for each individual asset. Because it isn't prudent. You have always asked for information that isn't prudent to measure individually, or you know isn't something tangible that can be measured. No company or city will measure any asset individually, because it is just not reasonable to track one asset individually.

There will never be a way of seeing how much one asset makes and expends. That is fiscally irresponsible to monitor something like that. The city won't do that, they will look at funds as a whole. Nothing individually.

https://www.okc.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/32142/638077542194270000

https://www.okc.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/32158/638077545086200000

You can look through the attached for FY22. They don't breakout revenues for each individual asset. Because it isn't prudent. You have always asked for information that isn't prudent to measure individually, or you know isn't something tangible that can be measured. No company or city will measure any asset individually, because it is just not reasonable to track one asset individually.

That is not remotely true

There will never be a way of seeing how much one asset makes and expends. That is fiscally irresponsible to monitor something like that. The city won't do that, they will look at funds as a whole. Nothing individually.

https://www.okc.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/32142/638077542194270000

https://www.okc.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/32158/638077545086200000

You can look through the attached for FY22. They don't breakout revenues for each individual asset. Because it isn't prudent. You have always asked for information that isn't prudent to measure individually, or you know isn't something tangible that can be measured. No company or city will measure any asset individually, because it is just not reasonable to track one asset individually.

…..what?! How on earth do cities budget for venues if they are somehow unable to know the net inflows and outflows of each venue? If anything it’s “not prudent” to make budgets without this information. Check out Orlando’s (http://https://www.orlando.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/2/documents/obfs/budget/2019-2020/city-of-orlando-fy2019-2020-budget-book.pdf) budget - they list out venues, including the Amway Center, and their net budgets and flows. Asking for “how much money does this building make for the city” is not an unreasonable request for arcane knowledge, it’s basic accounting.

https://www.okc.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/35786/638228597742130000

https://www.okc.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/37443/638294975809730000

Budgeted vs. Actual is one thing, but a true breakdown, which I thought you wanted, is another. These don't go into the detail you want, however.

What they post publicly might not, but any company would DEFININTELY know what an individual asset is costing. Between capitalization and amortizing, they in fact HAVE to know that. Now, do they roll those up in to a master sheet for a facility? If they don't, i would actually be shocked. Any business would know that, or else they wouldn't know that the profit/loss numbers are unfavorable for a particular location so they know to close it. For a city, it's not the same thing. They don't operate in that world in the same way, but they would try to maintain a profit margin (breaking even doesn't allow for raises for staff/increased maintenance costs/etc) to be able to sustain the thing.

For the PC, yeah they're watching this. They know what they are taking in and what it's costing them. But what they don't necessarily have, is the same information for the team. So if anything in the building is a contract/lease for the team, well the city isn't probably going to know that. But they will know that they are taking in to lease out that space and what it costs in utilities to create the lease amount. They're not blind to all of these things, and they do roll up in to an overall facility expense. The question I think you're asking is, is that aggregated report available where you can see it. And the answer is,.....no. Publicly traded companies do show data like that. Municipalities don't have the same laws (in most states) to present that data to the public. And i would find it highly unlikely that they would share it if asked.

Interestingly, the survey had ownership contribution of $70 million yet the ACTUAL agreement has it $20 million less. They must REALLY be confident this will pass, as I thought they'd actually raise the contribution to $150 million or more (basically paying the interest on the loan and any cost overruns), while gaining rights to develop the remainder of the site (creating Thunder Alley they were going to do anyway, and OKC's verison of LA Live). Wonder why that isn't happening. ..?

there were surveys with different amounts of contribution ..

According to this, only 50% of arena naming rights goes to revenue-sharing in the league:
https://sports.yahoo.com/nba-players-score-shared-revenue-130000564.html

I believe the owner of the arena gets the other 50%, which in our case is the City.


It's amazing how little even the most interested and informed citizens know about how any part of the current and future arena deal is structured. And I include myself in that group.

Wild. My source on that was Brian Windhorst said on a podcast arena naming rights go into BRI- guess he either didn't clarify 50%, or didn't know it's 50%.

My larger point was it's standard in the NBA and not unique to OKC.

I think the arena timing makes sense given it looks like SGA could lead us into another 8 year window of highly competitive basketball, which likely means luxury taxes. Ownership paid it last time even post KD, a new arena will generate a lot more $. I assume they'll pay it again. $61MM in '18-19 alone. https://www.spotrac.com/nba/tax/2018/

Perhaps thats part of the reason for the lower contribution, they know they have some big bills coming in the next 2-5 years.

Wild. My source on that was Brian Windhorst said on a podcast arena naming rights go into BRI- guess he either didn't clarify 50%, or didn't know it's 50%.

My larger point was it's standard in the NBA and not unique to OKC.

I think the arena timing makes sense given it looks like SGA could lead us into another 8 year window of highly competitive basketball, which likely means luxury taxes. Ownership paid it last time even post KD, a new arena will generate a lot more $. I assume they'll pay it again. $61MM in '18-19 alone. https://www.spotrac.com/nba/tax/2018/

Perhaps thats part of the reason for the lower contribution, they know they have some big bills coming in the next 2-5 years.

My hunch is the timing comes from the owners wanting to sell within the next 10 years. They've probably assessed that there won't be a local buyer. You have to assume any out of market entity will not be loyal to OKC, so they are trying to create an environment that would make it more likely for a future owner to keep the team in OKC. Nobody wants their legacy to be that "they're the reason OKC lost the Thunder".

My hunch is the timing comes from the owners wanting to sell within the next 10 years. They've probably assessed that there won't be a local buyer. You have to assume any out of market entity will not be loyal to OKC, so they are trying to create an environment that would make it more likely for a future owner to keep the team in OKC. Nobody wants their legacy to be that "they're the reason OKC lost the Thunder".

That definitely tends to explain the 50M. No reason to put too much cash in if you’re planning to collect 350M in expansion fees and then looking to sell.

That definitely tends to explain the 50M. No reason to put too much cash in if you’re planning to collect 350M in expansion fees and then looking to sell.

The amount they are putting in is normal with the type of lease they have

The amount they are putting in is normal with the type of lease they have

You’ve seen the new lease?

What does it say about non-relocation and liquidated damages?

My hunch is the timing comes from the owners wanting to sell within the next 10 years. They've probably assessed that there won't be a local buyer. You have to assume any out of market entity will not be loyal to OKC, so they are trying to create an environment that would make it more likely for a future owner to keep the team in OKC. Nobody wants their legacy to be that "they're the reason OKC lost the Thunder".

That seems very unlikely.

That seems very unlikely.

Them selling the team seems unlikely?

I'm curious about this thought as well. What would make you think that there's an appetite to sell the team? They aren't in any disputes with the city about an arena or income right now. There's definitely a much better situation going on here than was going on in Seattle at the time of the sell of the Sonics.

I know it doesn't seem like much time so far, but we're just at about 40 years from matching the tenure in OKC with the tenure in Seattle. We've only had 15 years so far, but it's been impactful for both the team and OKC in a way that is mutually beneficial. I'm not seeing anything that would change that balance right now.

Them selling the team seems unlikely?

Yes, all the owners selling the team seems unlikely if the arena is approved. One or two of them maybe not the whole group.

I think the Thunder ownership structure is set up with 6 to 8 local owners, who are from different businesses. So, a local economic downturn shouldn't affect the majority of owners at the same time. I've heard it called the "San Antonio model", which makes sense, because that is how the Spurs were set up when the Gaylord interests were part owners and Clay Bennett was the teams NBA Board of Governors member.

I read after Aubrey McClendon died that the team requires all ownership shares to not be sold on the open market upon any owner's decision to sell. At least, there is a first right of refusal. The team hires an investment bank to research and set the market value of the shares, and the other partners buy them.

Seems like our half dozen (or so) old men owners like the perks of team ownership, and this looks like the type of asset they would like to pass on to their heirs. I would be surprised if there were a time that the majority of owners needed the money, wanted the money, and wanted to move on from the NBA at the same time.

I have no insider knowledge or anything, but if the argument (implied by the Mayor and laid out explicitly in this thread) is that if we don't pass this, the owners are going to sell, then it seems substantially improbable that there is zero appetite to sell. Just the opposite, it makes me feel like there is an urgency because the time to sale is close enough that we have to move on this quickly.

Otherwise, why not push just 2 years further and save hundreds of millions of interest cost?

I think the Thunder ownership structure is set up with 6 to 8 local owners, who are from different businesses. So, a local economic downturn shouldn't affect the majority of owners at the same time. I've heard it called the "San Antonio model", which makes sense, because that is how the Spurs were set up when the Gaylord interests were part owners and Clay Bennett was the teams NBA Board of Governors member.

I read after Aubrey McClendon died that the team requires all ownership shares to not be sold on the open market upon any owner's decision to sell. At least, there is a first right of refusal. The team hires an investment bank to research and set the market value of the shares, and the other partners buy them.

Seems like our half dozen (or so) old men owners like the perks of team ownership, and this looks like the type of asset they would like to pass on to their heirs. I would be surprised if there were a time that the majority of owners needed the money, wanted the money, and wanted to move on from the NBA at the same time.

We had a pretty bad economic downturn in O&G in 2015 and it didn't affect the ownership.

You’ve seen the new lease?

What does it say about non-relocation and liquidated damages?

it locks them in for 30ish years (now until the arena opens +25 years)

all of the deals with team contributions that are 40/50% are apples to oranges to ours in all those cases the TEAM in effect owns/controls the arena 365 days a year ..

Not that this means anything, but going to the Paycom website, if you go to Business Opportunities and then Special Event Booking, there is a section that states:

The arena has hospitality spaces that can accommodate any size or type of event. Contact our hospitality team at hospitality@okcthunder.com to begin planning your next event.

For large scale concerts or arena events, please contact us at info@asm-okc.com.

Not sure if that helps in who plans what at the arena right now and how it would work moving forward in the new arena which, presumably would be the same.

I have no insider knowledge or anything, but if the argument (implied by the Mayor and laid out explicitly in this thread) is that if we don't pass this, the owners are going to sell, then it seems substantially improbable that there is zero appetite to sell. Just the opposite, it makes me feel like there is an urgency because the time to sale is close enough that we have to move on this quickly.

Otherwise, why not push just 2 years further and save hundreds of millions of interest cost?

They may not sell, but they might pack up and leave town to a better venue with a better arena.

It wouldn't take much to be a better arena though.

it locks them in for 30ish years (now until the arena opens +25 years)

all of the deals with team contributions that are 40/50% are apples to oranges to ours in all those cases the TEAM in effect owns/controls the arena 365 days a year ..

But how? People walk leases all the time. As much as they would stand to gain by selling, or maybe even moving to a bigger market, there would need to be a penalty well into 9 figures to keep them here. Why cant we know some of these details first?

But how? People walk leases all the time. ?

give me 1 example . of a team leaving a lease

give me 1 example . of a team leaving a lease

Didn't OKC do it?

Sure, they paid an opt-out fee, but they left that lease in Seattle, over basically the same thing.

Didn't OKC do it?

Sure, they paid an opt-out fee, but they left that lease in Seattle.

nope in fact a judge was going to rule that they could NOT break their lease ..



they then came to a settlement with Seattle that allowed them to leave early ... but they couldn't break their lease .. even though they wanted to

nope in fact a judge was going to rule that they could NOT break their lease ..



they then came to a settlement with Seattle that allowed them to leave early ... but they couldn't break their lease .. even though they wanted to

And clearly it wasnt a big enough penalty or they would have had to stay there for longer. You cant force someone to honor a lease if they dont want to, just penalize them monetarily, mostly. Theres nothing that guarantees the Thunder stay during this lease unless it costs them something like $500,000,000 to get out of it.

nope in fact a judge was going to rule that they could NOT break their lease ..


they then came to a settlement with Seattle that allowed them to leave early ... but they couldn't break their lease .. even though they wanted to


^ ^ ^ This is accurate and correct.


Bennett announced that the settlement calls for a payment of $45 million immediately, and would include another $30 million paid to Seattle in 2013 if the state legislature in Washington authorizes at least $75 million in public funding to renovate KeyArena by the end of 2009 and Seattle doesn't obtain an NBA franchise of its own within the next five years.

SuperSonics, Seattle reach last-minute settlement: https://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=3471503

They may not sell, but they might pack up and leave town to a better venue with a better arena.

It wouldn't take much to be a better arena though.

They're going to keep the team (therefore passing on the payout), only to move them so they have to travel every time they want to see them?

And clearly it wasnt a big enough penalty or they would have had to stay there for longer. You cant force someone to honor a lease if they dont want to, just penalize them monetarily, mostly. Theres nothing that guarantees the Thunder stay during this lease unless it costs them something like $500,000,000 to get out of it.

2 years cost the thunder 45 mil to get out of but it was not a penalty ... they COULD NOT have left with out the agreement with seattle ..

give me 1 example . of a team leaving a lease

NJ Nets https://www.nj.com/news/2010/02/nets_will_move_to_prudential_c.html
Hartford Whalers https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/1997/01/13/Franchises/ROWLAND-SAYS-HE-WONT-TRY-TO-STOP-WHALERS-MOVE.aspx
Cleveland Browns https://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/12/sports/pro-football-a-city-fights-to-save-the-browns.html?ref=art_modell&pagewanted=all

NJ Nets https://www.nj.com/news/2010/02/nets_will_move_to_prudential_c.html
Hartford Whalers https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/1997/01/13/Franchises/ROWLAND-SAYS-HE-WONT-TRY-TO-STOP-WHALERS-MOVE.aspx
Cleveland Browns https://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/12/sports/pro-football-a-city-fights-to-save-the-browns.html?ref=art_modell&pagewanted=all

nets only were able because of an agreement ..

the browns owner in effect owned the stadium in cleavand so he broke a lease in effect with himself ..

the whalers left 1 year early for an agreed upon amount of 20mil ..

Would definitely suck to build a $1.5B arena only to lose the anchor tenant early in the primary term

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/bills-new-stadium-lease-is-latest-example-of-less-severe-relocation-penalties

Granted, it is much easier to use an arena more during the year than a football stadium. That is what people are missing. This will get more concerts and events then the Paycom Center does. Just like the Ford Center got more events than the Myriad Arena did. Having a modern arena with great acoustics and better dock spaces will help immensely.

Granted, it is much easier to use an arena more during the year than a football stadium. That is what people are missing. This will get more concerts and events then the Paycom Center does. Just like the Ford Center got more events than the Myriad Arena did. Having a modern arena with great acoustics and better dock spaces will help immensely.

I agree that an updated arena is probably something this city could use and is probably fair for the Thunder. But why can't we wait say until 2031 open date and bring the tax back to 4 or 5 years?

We're going to spend as much on interest as we did on the 1st version of MAPS. I'd rather back the timeline up 2 years and take $0.00 from the owners.

I agree that an updated arena is probably something this city could use and is probably fair for the Thunder. But why can't we wait say until 2031 open date and bring the tax back to 4 or 5 years?

We're going to spend as much on interest as we did on the 1st version of MAPS. I'd rather back the timeline up 2 years and take $0.00 from the owners.
And have two more years of cost increases? Interest isn’t the only cost. Plus you delay additional revenue for two more years. There’s such a thing as opportunity costs.

And have two more years of cost increases? Interest isn’t the only cost. Plus you delay additional revenue for two more years. There’s such a thing as opportunity costs.

Hundreds of millions of interest...there's zero world where waiting two years has that amount of opportunity costs. There's no scenario for this where the city is making the most sensible financial decision when the city's needs are the paramount concern in the discussion.

Anyway, the context of my comment wasn't about financial analysis; it was about showing how the city is being pushed for this package against its own interests and the most sensible reason this local ownership group would be trying to secure the future of the franchise today is because they intend to sell, likely after the media rights deal and maybe some expansion.

Hundreds of millions of interest...there's zero world where waiting two years has that amount of opportunity costs. There's no scenario for this where the city is making the most sensible financial decision when the city's needs are the paramount concern in the discussion.

Anyway, the context of my comment wasn't about financial analysis; it was about showing how the city is being pushed for this package against its own interests and the most sensible reason this local ownership group would be trying to secure the future of the franchise today is because they intend to sell, likely after the media rights deal and maybe some expansion.

A project of this size costs over $100 million more than it would have 4 years ago. Imagine what 2 more years will do to costs. Not just interest, but principal. Principal will go up maybe 30% more in 2 years, IMO. And this is like 3 or so years in the future for construction. So 2026 or so. If that were 2028, it would be 30% more, in my opinion.

A project of this size costs over $100 million more than it would have 4 years ago. Imagine what 2 more years will do to costs. Not just interest, but principal. Principal will go up maybe 30% more in 2 years, IMO. And this is like 3 or so years in the future for construction. So 2026 or so. If that were 2028, it would be 30% more, in my opinion.

Is there another world economy halting, supply chain destroying pandemic on the rise I missed in the news?

Is there another world economy halting, supply chain destroying pandemic on the rise I missed in the news?

You think costs will go down in 3 years? Interest rates aren't going to go down by then, but costs will keep going up. Especially labor costs.

I agree that an updated arena is probably something this city could use and is probably fair for the Thunder. But why can't we wait say until 2031 open date and bring the tax back to 4 or 5 years?

We're going to spend as much on interest as we did on the 1st version of MAPS. I'd rather back the timeline up 2 years and take $0.00 from the owners.

I’ve heard they really want to use Populous but there are concerns about the number of other teams who will be in the market for new arenas in the next 5 to 7 years. Will be quite a few, just in the NBA.