Can we see the same accounting data from 2010-2020? I feel like that is a better indicator considering the team is about to be competitive again for the next decade.

^

A bigger arena would bring in bigger acts but the operator (assuming ASM) would get the lion's share of that.

Also, a bigger arena means a lot more in terms of utilities and maintenance.


To make things very simple, the City loses millions every year from operating Paycom and it's safe to assume the same will hold true for a new arena.

Any argument that the $1+ billion in public money for the new arena will somehow be offset by the deal with the Thunder or the arena operator is completely unfounded, as it seems obvious the opposite would be true.

Thefore, any attempt to say the details of our deal make it incomparable to Milwaukee or the others seems to be incorrect.

Can we see the same accounting data from 2010-2020? I feel like that is a better indicator considering the team is about to be competitive again for the next decade.

What I posted was only shared with Council after repeated requests.

It's not an analysis the City shares on an annual basis.


The bottom line is the City loses money on Paycom and almost certainly will do the same for any future arena. The only issue is: will the number be around $10 million per year or a lot more?

Well again, FAFO. There won't be any revised votes put out there. If the city votes no, the team will likely be sold in 2024 and moved at the quickest pace the league allows. Then we are stuck with an outdated arena we will have less events for, and not have any lease revenue for it (didn't see that accounted for in that report) so the losses will be even higher, as there will be 41 or so dates a year less of sales tax.

Some more interesting research:

$274 million is the annual revenue of the Thunder per several sites.

$150 million is their payroll.

$2 million is about what they pay in annual rent to ASM for Paycom.


$122 million is the annual revenue less those expenses. I'm sure there is much more in terms of expenses (such as travel, staff and promotion), but still, you have to think the Thunder are pulling in big profits every year.


Value of the team is estimated at $1.875 billion. The old Super Sonics were bought for $350 million in 2006.

edit: \/\/\/\/ given that last year produced the highest surplus in arena history, it's unlikely that those years would show a profit

You can see the City budgeted to cover $10.8 million in losses from Paycom for the last fiscal year.

The new arena will have a lease term of 25 years, which means if the budget stays the same, there would be an additional $270 million cost to the City.

There will also be a very significant interest expense because this project will have to be paid for well in advance of collecting the actual sales tax. This will not be a small number... As way of comparison, we had to provide the Omni all their incentives upfront and it added $26 million in loan costs (at historically low rates) on only $85 million owed to the Omni. I would think interest costs on a new arena would be over $100 million and maybe well above that.

Some more interesting research:

$274 million is the annual revenue of the Thunder per several sites.

$150 million is their payroll.

$2 million is about what they pay in annual rent to ASM for Paycom.


$122 million is the annual revenue less those expenses. I'm sure there is much more in terms of expenses (such as travel and promotion), but still, you have to think the Thunder are pulling in big profits every year.


Value of the team is estimated at $1.875 billion. The old Super Sonics were bought for $350 million in 2006.

The problem I have with simply putting this out and is disingenuous to think the expenses related are small. Of the 122 mil, I would imagine there are costs of over 1 mil per away game (more than 40 per year) plus significant expenses for home games. Then you add staff, other admin costs and that 122 mil starts to get ate up real quick.

End of the day, yes it is a business and yes they make a profit.

It's going to pass and it will pass easily.

The team isn't selling anytime soon.

The ownership group and thunder org are famously tight lipped about everything.

And if they lose the Thunder, what will the loss be? It's 41 more days a year the arena will be empty. Concerts aren't beating OKC's doors down to come to the Paycom. They won't replace those dates, aside from maybe 10. And still have to pay ASM.

Sure, getting the owners to pay is nice. But it won't happen, and the effects will be bad for OKC if we lose the Thunder. Think public perception will be positive if we let the team stroll on back to Seattle or Louisville?

I guess intangible things don't matter here. �� the city's reputation it has gained in the last 15 years will be gone, and we will be stuck in mud with an outdated arena with no main tenant.

^

A bigger arena would bring in bigger acts but the operator (assuming ASM) would get the lion's share of that.

Also, a bigger arena means a lot more in terms of utilities and maintenance.


To make things very simple, the City loses millions every year from operating Paycom and it's safe to assume the same will hold true for a new arena.

Any argument that the $1+ billion in public money for the new arena will somehow be offset by the deal with the Thunder or the arena operator is completely unfounded, as it seems obvious the opposite would be true.

Thefore, any attempt to say the details of our deal make it incomparable to Milwaukee or the others seems to be incorrect.

disregard

The problem I have with simply putting this out and is disingenuous to think the expenses related are small. Of the 122 mil, I would imagine there are costs of over 1 mil per away game (more than 40 per year) plus significant expenses for home games. Then you add staff, other admin costs and that 122 mil starts to get ate up real quick.

End of the day, yes it is a business and yes they make a profit.

Just providing the hard numbers that are available.

Would be happy if someone could add data on their expenses/profits.


This is part of the larger discussion because the current ownership group is offering to contribute way, way less for a new arena than any other NBA franchise. So, their profits matter.

I deleted a bunch of political posts.

If you insist on interjecting "progressives" and "conservatives" and "libertarians" you are going to get banned.


We are attempting to have a discussion here, and politics need to be left out.

What I posted was only shared with Council after repeated requests.

It's not an analysis the City shares on an annual basis.


The bottom line is the City loses money on Paycom and almost certainly will do the same for any future arena. The only issue is: will the number be around $10 million per year or a lot more?



A snapshot of Arena sales tax data for 2023 [a top 3 worst attended season in OKC history] is a bad sample to judge this deal by. That asterisk at the top of the Notes section is all that needs to be paid attention to. Those figures mean nothing when you consider the tax impacts of housing and hosting high salary NBA players and staff each season. The city and state comes way out ahead, I promise you that.

Just providing the hard numbers that are available.

Would be happy if someone could add data on their expenses/profits.


This is part of the larger discussion because the current ownership group is offering to contribute way, way less for a new arena than any other NBA franchise. So, their profits matter.

not Way way less then orlando or memphis

A snapshot of Arena sales tax data for 2023 [a top 3 worst attended season in OKC history] is a bad sample to judge this deal by. That asterisk at the top of the Notes section is all that needs to be paid attention to. Those figures mean nothing when you consider the tax impacts of housing and hosting high salary NBA players and staff each season. The city and state comes way out ahead, I promise you that.

Again, this is the largest surplus the arena has generated. There is nothing to indicate that earlier years were better.

As for the city and state coming out way ahead, can you cite the data you're basing that promise on? It'd be a good codicil to Pete's data.

not Way way less then orlando or memphis

Orlando: $50 million of $380 million 13.2%. The Thunder owners are going to end up paying less than 4%.

Memphis did upgrades to an existing arena, much like we have done with Paycom where the Thunder ownership contributed nothing.

I would be curious to know what the operating expenses are for the BOK in Tulsa

I would be curious to know what the operating expenses are for the BOK in Tulsa

According to Wikipedia, SMG pays the operating costs for BOK:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOK_Center

Again, this is the largest surplus the arena has generated. There is nothing to indicate that earlier years were better.

As for the city and state coming out way ahead, can you cite the data you're basing that promise on? It'd be a good codicil to Pete's data.

Yes, attendance data. The Thunder had the worst attendance in the league in 2023. It says right there $2.2MM estimate for sales on merch, food, and bevs. You don't think attendance and poor team performance affect those numbers? Just wait in 3 years, the Paycom will be selling out of seats and jerseys again because the team is about to be in KD/Russ Era of sales generation.

As for the rest of my points on tax generation. Take into account an entire NBA team and staff living and working in the state. Plus we receive all income taxes from visiting players and staff. In the next decades there will likely be several players making $1MM per game. Those visiting salaries for 41 games per season + any playoffs is massive.

This thread is a classic Freakonomics 101. The hidden side of everything. No one here is talking about the loss of millions in income tax from these huge salaries that are only going up.

^

Just FYI, pro athletes in the U.S. have to pay income tax in every state they play in.

According to Wikipedia, SMG pays the operating costs for BOK:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOK_Center

I would bet that it is very similar to how OKC's agreement with ASM (same as SMG) works. I doubt Tulsa got a way better deal than OKC. Tulsa pays ASM to operate the arena, just like OKC (see report you posted).

I would bet that it is very similar to how OKC's agreement with ASM (same as SMG) works. I doubt Tulsa got a way better deal than OKC. Tulsa pays ASM to operate the arena, just like OKC (see report you posted).

I just gave you the numbers for OKC, and that is absolutely not how our deal is structured.

Those came straight from the City, not something I guestimated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWiobPAf5wE

According to Wikipedia, SMG pays the operating costs for BOK:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOK_Center

in the 19 city of Tulsa budget they spent 14.5 mil on the BOK arena and Cox business center (they are a combined budget item)

the 20 plan was 14.77

https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/8388/fy18-19-annual-budget.pdf

^

Just FYI, pro athletes in the U.S. have to pay income tax in every state they play in.

Exactly what I am saying. The income tax generation from having an NBA team is difficult to quantify. Then we have our own roster of dudes who can go out and buy Lamborghinis and Range Rovers for fun. Having ultra wealthy people spending money and paying taxes in your neck of the woods has to be taken into account.

Exactly what I am saying. The income tax generation from having an NBA team is difficult to quantify. Then we have our own roster of dudes who can go out and buy Lamborghinis and Range Rovers for fun. Having ultra wealthy people spending money and paying taxes in your neck of the woods has to be taken into account.

Many don't live here year-round and all spend half the season on the road.

And it's 15-20 people.


Of all the arguments for economic impact, this is truly insignificant.

Yes, attendance data. The Thunder had the worst attendance in the league in 2023. It says right there $2.2MM estimate for sales on merch, food, and bevs. You don't think attendance and poor team performance affect those numbers? Just wait in 3 years, the Paycom will be selling out of seats and jerseys again because the team is about to be in KD/Russ Era of sales generation.

As for the rest of my points on tax generation. Take into account an entire NBA team and staff living and working in the state. Plus we receive all income taxes from visiting players and staff. In the next decades there will likely be several players making $1MM per game. Those visiting salaries for 41 games per season + any playoffs is massive.

This thread is a classic Freakonomics 101. The hidden side of everything. No one here is talking about the loss of millions in income tax from these huge salaries that are only going up.

And that golden era did not produce a surplus for the arena as big as 2022, as the data shows.

And it seems like your "promise" is predicated on assumptions and estimates without actual data to back it up. Studies that actually look at that data though point to a different finding - that the economic windfall from sports doesn't really materialize (https://econjwatch.org/File+download/222/2008-09-coateshumphreys-com.pdf?mimetype=pdf), as folks still spend money on recreation (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pam.22534?domain=author&token=NAZZA6SGPWE5HEUVKKZA). This isn't Freakonomics, it's actual economics.

I deleted a bunch of political posts.

If you insist on interjecting "progressives" and "conservatives" and "libertarians" you are going to get banned.


We are attempting to have a discussion here, and politics need to be left out.

Sorry. Was just answering the previous post who blamed progressives. I assume they were warned, as well.

I meant to imply that there is a great section for which a fair discussion is meaningful and who don't vote based on hard set ideologies.

And that golden era did not produce a surplus for the arena as big as 2022, as the data shows.

And it seems like your "promise" is predicated on assumptions and estimates without actual data to back it up. Studies that actually look at that data though point to a different finding - that the economic windfall from sports doesn't really materialize (https://econjwatch.org/File+download/222/2008-09-coateshumphreys-com.pdf?mimetype=pdf), as folks still spend money on recreation (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pam.22534?domain=author&token=NAZZA6SGPWE5HEUVKKZA). This isn't Freakonomics, it's actual economics.

Man, I would hate to see how much Scissortail loses the city.

I meant to imply that there is a great section for which a fair discussion is meaningful and who don't vote based on hard set ideologies.

The undecided are the people who do research, try to separate hyperbole and fear from facts, and make an informed decision.

I honestly don't know how I'll vote and won't share my decision. But before Dec. 12th, I want to get as much factual info as possible instead of the completely one-sided deluge.


There are plenty of people who would vote for this regardless of terms. In fact, everyone here who has said they are completely for this measure falls into this category because they came to that decision long before much real information was out there. And of course, some will be against additional taxation of any kind, also regardless of terms.

Many don't live here year-round and all spend half the season on the road.

And it's 15-20 people.


Of all the arguments for economic impact, this is truly insignificant.

So a $7MM operating loss on arena specific sales tax during a down-attendance year is a smoking gun, but OKC's own roster also being nearly $7MM in income tax generation is insignificant? And this does not take into account the visiting players and staff who have to pay income taxes here, but also stay at hotels, eat at restaurants, charter planes, etc.

Again, the value of a professional team being in this state is more valuable than $7MM without even trying to dig up data beyond the team's own collective salary.

So a $7MM operating loss on arena specific sales tax during a down-attendance year is a smoking gun, but OKC's own roster also being nearly $7MM in income tax generation is insignificant? And this does not take into account the visiting players and staff who have to pay income taxes here, but also stay at hotels, eat at restaurants, charter planes, etc.

Again, the value of a professional team being in this state is more valuable than $7MM without even trying to dig up data beyond the team's own collective salary.

Nobody is arguing there isn't an economic impact; there is literally no way to accurately compute that.

And nobody is arguing that the City should go tell the Thunder to leave.


We are trying to get at exactly what we will be voting for in December and how that compares to other NBA cities.

So a $7MM operating loss on arena specific sales tax during a down-attendance year is a smoking gun, but OKC's own roster also being nearly $7MM in income tax generation is insignificant? And this does not take into account the visiting players and staff who have to pay income taxes here, but also stay at hotels, eat at restaurants, charter planes, etc.

Again, the value of a professional team being in this state is more valuable than $7MM without even trying to dig up data beyond the team's own collective salary.

The original context of the arena data was that folks were saying that the arena generates profit for the city, so a Milwaukee- or Sacramento-style deal wouldn't work because the city is giving up potential profits to private arena ownership. Pete's data shows that this claim doesn't hold up, as owning the arena itself does not actually generate a profit for the city, but actually constitutes a loss.

As for larger, more macro-economic concerns, those are arguments we've been hosting back and forth for months (and the data does show that those incomes from players visiting and staying don't come close to offsetting the initial public money outlays).

The undecided are the people who do research, try to separate hyperbole and fear from facts, and make an informed decision.

I honestly don't know how I'll vote and won't share my decision. But before Dec. 12th, I want to get as much factual info as possible instead of the completely one-sided deluge.


There are plenty of people who would vote for this regardless of terms. In fact, everyone here who has said they are completely for this measure falls into this category because they came to that decision long before much real information was out there. And of course, some will be against additional taxation of any kind, also regardless of terms.

Very much agree.

While it is anectdotal, I do think there is value to the impression the outside world, business, tourists, et al, when the city has world class facilities to promote and a sports team that competes at the highest level in the world. The people I do business with around the country, and even those overseas, have an improved awareness of and appreciation for OKC and it's community partners because of the visibility of the Thunder. It is something that no amount of self serving advertising would generate. How to price tag that... I don't think you can accurately quantify, but I believe it is real. Would that go away if we lose the Thunder? Not entirely, but it would be damaged. WILL we lose the Thunder if we don't build this? Who knows. But there is a risk and it needs to be part of the calculus.

Exactly what I am saying. The income tax generation from having an NBA team is difficult to quantify. Then we have our own roster of dudes who can go out and buy Lamborghinis and Range Rovers for fun. Having ultra wealthy people spending money and paying taxes in your neck of the woods has to be taken into account.

Not to be too pedantic, but most of the players would currently be High-Net-Worth Individuals with two that barely make that cut. There are only two players that have an estimated wealth putting them in the Ultra-high-net worth individuals category. There are two players that will likely reach that category once their contracts are fulfilled (one in two years, one in three years) and one that may just eke it out in four years. There is a fourth player that may reach that category if their contract is extended after 24/25 season.

Currently, the estimated total net worth for the Thunder team is around $185MM.

Man, I would hate to see how much Scissortail loses the city.

I would actually love to see that data considering how much free use the park gets by OKC citizens day in and day out. That would be a far different discussion than a facility like the arena you effectively can never use unless you are a paying customer.

Man, I would hate to see how much Scissortail loses the city.

It actually comes before City Council every year to be approved. Last year it was $3.6 million. And 99.9% of what goes on there is completely free to the public. That park is packed almost every day with people enjoying what it has to offer.


The better question is why the subsidies for Scissortail and the Myriad Gardens ($2.7 million/year) are very public and require approval by City Council and the Economic Development Trust, yet this much bigger subsidy for Paycom is never reported anywhere, let alone subjected to a vote.

FAFO (you know what that stands for) - OKC is trying to find out just how easily a team can sell, and Louisville or KC or Seattle is going to crush any momentum OKC has.

Way to go, Daily Oklahoman. 1 chance it all we will get. Can't replace the Thunder, and we will be screwed going forward.

This argument gets thrown around a lot, but I’m not sure it has any basis in reality. The NBA hates team relocations more than just about anything (outside of the nbapa). Relocations tend to hurt league wide revenue as they can destroy rivalries, undermine fan interest and cause financial harm to the league on the whole.

So, in the event that this deal doesn’t pass on December 12th, it’s just as likely the NBA will tell the PCB to suck it up, get back to the negotiating table, and reach a deal that is equitable for all stakeholders.

It actually comes before City Council every year to be approved. Last year it was $3.6 million. And 99.9% of what goes on there is completely free to the public. That park is packed almost every day with people enjoying what it has to offer.

Scissortail also didn’t cost 850 million dollars.

So, in the event that this deal doesn’t pass on December 12th, it’s just as likely the NBA will tell the PCB to suck it up, get back to the negotiating table, and reach a deal that is equitable for all stakeholders.

based on what?

Forbes: The Business Of Basketball


#24 Oklahoma City Thunder $1.875 B

Full list: https://www.forbes.com/nba-valuations/list/#tab:overall


Note: Market size, how it co-relates to team valuations.

yet this much bigger subsidy for Paycom is never reported anywhere, let alone subjected to a vote.

the first part is a legitimate ? but as to the second part it has to be somewhere in the city council voted on budget right?

Scissortail also didn’t cost 850 million dollars.

I'd wager that the total cost for the new arena will be in excess of $1.5 billion once you factor in interest expense, land value and final construction costs.

the first part is a legitimate ? but as to the second part it has to be somewhere in the city council voted on budget right?

Yes, but buried in a nearly $1 billion annual budget in such a way that no one -- including City Council -- would know even the approximate number... Or for that matter, even know that there was a subsidy at all.

I was told they in fact did not know until Freeman provided the report I posted, which was only about a month ago and long after the FY 23-24 budget was approved.


And BTW, even though the Scissortail and Myriad Gardens budgets are also included in the overall budget, the subsidies are still clearly identified and voted upon by two separate City committees. Why not Paycom?

My prediction:

If this passes Pete, we know you will get us the facts and the information on what transpired.


$900 million is one hell of an investment. Let's hope the city only have to use $750 million coupled with city-owned land to give us a new arena valued at $1 billion.


$750 million - new arena construction
$ 70 million MAPS 4 for Paycom Center put on pause.
$ 50 million ownership group
$870 million





$150 million - Land value: Prairie Surf Media Studios
$1,020 billion
- $50 million demolition - PSM site.
$ 970 million
$ 25 million reinforce foundation and rebuild underground parking
$ 995 million
$ 10 million - Overhead
$1,005 billion Grand Total estimated.

So the OKCTalk consensus seems to be voting no on this. And by 2025, the Thunder will be in Seattle or Louisville or KC. Sometimes, when owners make threats, you have to believe them. OKC needs the Thunder a whole heck of a lot more than they need OKC. Especially now that the future looks bright for their roster.

Can't call a bluff from a position of no leverage or weakness, which OKC is in. Seattle tried and failed, even from a position of strength.

Maybe I am one of the few who sees the intrinsic and intangible value the Thunder bring to the city and state. Oh well.

Because there is almost no way there will be a second deal offered with more private money. This is very likely a take it or we're leaving deal. Which sucks, but that is what you get when you are a middle of the road city without a ton of positive momentum, overshadowed by almost pig-headed state leadership, with no corporate relocations coming to bring new citizens in. This is almost all OKC has to brag on a national scale about. People in Des Moines will know the Thunder. May not know players, but they know they are an NBA team. They wouldn't know anything else about OKC, aside from someone bombed a building here 28 years ago (might not even know that).

Tangent and rant over. Just know that these owners have very likely already had numerous calls from potential buyers, and are waiting for the vote results to decide when, or if, they call back. They could sell them tomorrow, I would imagine, if they wanted.

I think that's a little melodramatic. Other than PoliSci and April in the Plaza, I haven't read anyone here who plans to vote no. Perhaps I missed a couple.

If you polled this forum, My guess is 75% plus will support the arena, probably more than even the general public.

I'm struggling to reconcile the reporting Pete received with this info:

https://law.marquette.edu/assets/sports-law/pdf/lease-summary-oklahoma-city-thunder.pdf

At least based on this it would seem, unless concessions are operating at a loss, that minimum we should receive is $68,000 per game (~$3M/year) and then naming rights (either $400k or $1.6M/year, their summary wasn't clear on that statement).

Is there an easy way to get ahold of the operating agreement with SMG? That should also be taken into account in this vote since they operate as a middle man between PBC and OKC

I'm struggling to reconcile the reporting Pete received with this info:

https://law.marquette.edu/assets/sports-law/pdf/lease-summary-oklahoma-city-thunder.pdf

At least based on this it would seem, unless concessions are operating at a loss, that minimum we should receive is $68,000 per game (~$3M/year) and then naming rights (either $400k or $1.6M/year, their summary wasn't clear on that statement).

Is there an easy way to get ahold of the operating agreement with SMG? That should also be taken into account in this vote since they operate as a middle man between PBC and OKC

ASM took over from SMG a couple of years ago, which makes it even more confusing.

And I'm not sure if those lease payments are made to the City or if they go to ASM since they are the operators of the arena.


In any event, the City budgeted $10.8 million last year to cover the anticipated shortfall from owning Paycom arena.

Does any of this take into account the amount of revenue generated as a whole due to Thunder events happening at home games? How much money people not only outside the city who come in and stay at hotels etc. but people around the state as well. There’s no way there’s a net loss from hosting the Thunder.

ASM took over from SMG a couple of years ago, which makes it even more confusing.

And I'm not sure if those lease payments are made to the City or if they go to ASM since they are the operators of the arena.


In any event, the City budgeted $10.8 million last year to cover the anticipated shortfall from owning Paycom arena.

ASM and SMG are the same company....

.

It's a huge assumption that the City MAKES money off the arena and development.

I would have never assumed nor did I think I said that having more stake in arena operations guarantees a net operating profit for the city. I don't even have enough information to make such a statement.

All I said is that having no stake in arena operations guarantees ZERO direct REVENUE from arena operations to service whatever contribution or ongoing expense a city has with an arena and therefore a city must cover those items completely from other public resources.

I seriously wasn't trying trying to win some argument here, just wanted to participate in the discussion and highlight the nuances of these deals beyond up front contributions, as everything you've posted about the city's position with the Paycom Center has also done. It's super good information and a lot of it is what needs to be known and understood by anyone who wants to truly understand all that really goes into these deals and have good faith discussions about them. As with everything you do with this site and your reporting, it's very much appreciated and has provided a great deal of insight that I think a lot of people have been seeking.

At the end of the day, those seeking to only support public projects that result in a direct accounting net operating profit from that project aren't going to find very many. And I certainly wasn't trying to say that I assumed or expected this one to if the city kept the operating rights. Sorry if I was unclear about that.

ASM and SMG are the same company....

.

ASM Global was formed in October 2019 from the merger of AEG Facilities and SMG.

All I said is that having no stake in arena operations guarantees ZERO direct REVENUE from arena operations to service whatever contribution or ongoing expense a city has with an arena and therefore a city must cover those items completely from other public resources.

I'm still not sure of your point, but you have repeatedly said you can't judge the aspects of the deal we do know ($1 billion in public funds vs. $50 million in ownership investment) until you know the value of the lease deal the City has with the Thunder.

I've just shown the City budgeted $10.8 million in operating shortfall last year, so you know there is no positive offset of those capital costs -- quite the opposite.

So, time to lay that caveat aside and focus on the capital costs and in that light, the OKC deal looks monumentally bad. Like off the charts, complete outlier, not based remotely on anything that has ever happened before bad.

Does any of this take into account the amount of revenue generated as a whole due to Thunder events happening at home games? How much money people not only outside the city who come in and stay at hotels etc. but people around the state as well. There’s no way there’s a net loss from hosting the Thunder.

That is very hard to quantify.

But I will say that the lion's share of financial benefit from the Thunder goes to the state of Oklahoma and not the city of OKC. Remember that >50% of sales tax receipts are state revenue, not municipal revenue. There is no reason that the Thunder and OKC should not have received investment at that level. That's arguably the easiest second-hand financial impact to quantify given that you can easily multiply a reasonable percentage of the salary cap times 5% to get a portion of the tax revenues. That is at least $5M/year to the state coffers.

The Thunder are almost sure a net positive on OKC, but paying $1.5B probably flips that equation on its head drastically.

^

This should have been all handled at the state level, as they did in Wisconsin.

There is no reason the citizens of OKC (and yes, I know people outside city limits pay some sales tax in OKC) have to foot all of this enormous bill.

Also, it would have brought all these issues out into the open where people could have seen the details all the way along. This was sprung on City Council only a few weeks before their vote and now the public doesn't have much time either, with tons of unanswered questions.

Our process is absolutely laughable and designed specifically just to ram things through with as little actual info as possible.

In my mind the state should be chipping in $150M at a minimum.

That is very hard to quantify.

But I will say that the lion's share of financial benefit from the Thunder goes to the state of Oklahoma and not the city of OKC. Remember that >50% of sales tax receipts are state revenue, not municipal revenue. There is no reason that the Thunder and OKC should not have received investment at that level. That's arguably the easiest second-hand financial impact to quantify given that you can easily multiply a reasonable percentage of the salary cap times 5% to get a portion of the tax revenues. That is at least $5M/year to the state coffers.

The Thunder are almost sure a net positive on OKC, but paying $1.5B probably flips that equation on its head drastically.
Thanks for pointing out that fact about sales tax. I did not know that. I always assumed the cities got the majority of it.

In my mind the state should be chipping in $150M at a minimum.

Agree 100%

In my mind the state should be chipping in $150M at a minimum.

Do we think the city even asked?

It would be political malpractice if it didn’t, imo.

You would think the state would help out Oklahoma City considering the amount of GDP OKC contributed to the state's total.