you can guarantee if OKC asks that Tulsa will be in line shortly. Not that I disagree with them also wanting funds if OKC gets it; unlike Wisconsin, Oklahoma has two major metro areas.

Personally, I think cities should get all (or most) of the tax revenue from venues they fund. It is a bit unfair for the state to get more than half the tax receipts yet has no contribution to facilities and ties citie's hands limiting them to only a segment of sales tax for all revenues. ...

^ ^ ^
Agree, If Tulsa were getting an MLS franchise, the State IMO should help out.

This is not to say that concerns in other parts of the state should be ignored. Example: Oklahoma has invested a lot to keep
Tinker AFB competitive and operational in OKC--helps with obtaining government contracts for maintenance workers to secure
jobs at this massive facility.

I fall in the category that I think most people will fall in - I think this a terrible deal and the Thunder ownership is taking full advatage of the astronomical leverage it has in the situation...but will still vote yes. There is NO alternative where the Thunder changes its mind and decides to pay for half of the venue. It very much seems its this deal...or ownership sells for billions and move to Vegas/Seattle/wherever.

I'm empathetic and understand why folks would vote no (it's a bad deal!) but it's the only deal we will realistically have...

The likelihood of them selling and moving in our lifetimes is minute.

^ ^ ^
Agree, If Tulsa were getting an MLS franchise, the State IMO should help out.

This is not to say that concerns in other parts of the state should be ignored. Example: Oklahoma has invested a lot to keep
Tinker AFB competitive and operational in OKC--helps with obtaining government contracts for maintenance workers to secure
jobs at this massive facility.

OKC and Oklahoma county have been the ones doing most of that regarding tinker

I think there is zero chance this ownership moves the team. Jeff Records and George Kaiser (for example) are not going to move the team and risk losing accounts at their banks.

If OKC says "no" they will either sell the team, or go back to the drawing board. If they sell the team, it's because they have an appetite for it anyway.

If OKC had a vote for a 2031 opening instead of 2029, I have a hard time believing the ownership would sell the team.

This one change reduces our cost by a year of collections. If ownership doesn't want to contribute more, fine, but don't also ask us to incur additional financing costs just because you can't wait a few years longer.

Pete,

What is your goal here?

Are you trying to change how things are done in the future, calling for this to go back to the drawing board (fail) or do you have another objective?

When has the state shown adult leadership and when does the state act in a way that benefits OKC?

I think there is zero chance this ownership moves the team. Jeff Records and George Kaiser (for example) are not going to move the team and risk losing accounts at their banks.

If OKC says "no" they will either sell the team, or go back to the drawing board. If they sell the team, it's because they have an appetite for it anyway.

If OKC had a vote for a 2031 opening instead of 2029, I have a hard time believing the ownership would sell the team.

This one change reduces our cost by a year of collections. If ownership doesn't want to contribute more, fine, but don't also ask us to incur additional financing costs just because you can't wait a few years longer.

LOL if you think any significant amount of people would leave BOK or Midfirst over a minority owner of the team selling and the team leaving. Kaiser has done so much for Tulsa it wouldn’t have any negative impact on him at all.

LOL if you think any significant amount of people would leave BOK or Midfirst over a minority owner of the team selling and the team leaving. Kaiser has done so much for Tulsa it wouldn’t have any negative impact on him at all.

Few would fault them if they sold, especially if an arena is shot down. But if these owners were the group that moved they team, yeah, that'd ruffle feathers.

LOL if you think any significant amount of people would leave BOK or Midfirst over a minority owner of the team selling and the team leaving. Kaiser has done so much for Tulsa it wouldn’t have any negative impact on him at all.

BOKF especially is a very large bank. I'm not in banking but I think BOKF makes most of their money on business not in Oklahoma/OKC. There are not enough OKC residents/companies who could be disgruntled enough to move their business to another bank for it to make a significant impact to BOKF's bottom line.

The likelihood of them selling and moving in our lifetimes is minute.

This is well said. Folks need to remember that the nba loves being the only pro sports ball team in a given msa and highly disfavors team relocations for obvious reasons.

For starters, it’s just bad for business.

If it were October 2025, I could buy part of what Holt is trying to sell.

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.


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.

You all are forgetting that the Thunder get Quality Jobs Act money, the state literally subsidizes the salaries of players, coaches and other staff. It was a joke when it was done because we all knew they were coming to Oklahoma and didnt need the extra inducement. But 5% of their payroll is reimbursed to the thunder quarterly every year. Also, the state exempted sales taxes on tickets for pro sports. That allows the Thunder to obviously make more revenune from ticket sales.

The Thunder have it pretty good here. Pretty hilarious to see others claim with certainty they are gone if this vote fails.

You all are forgetting that the Thunder get Quality Jobs Act money, the state literally subsidizes the salaries of players, coaches and other staff. It was a joke when it was done because we all knew they were coming to Oklahoma and didnt need the extra inducement. But 5% of their payroll is reimbursed to the thunder quarterly every year. Also, the state exempted sales taxes on tickets for pro sports. That allows the Thunder to obviously make more revenune from ticket sales.

The Thunder have it pretty good here. Pretty hilarious to see others claim with certainty they are gone if this vote fails.

Wouldn't want to test that the Thunder wouldn't leave, IMO is an overconfident remark. Because once they are gone, you're not going to be able to justify building a new arena to attract another NBA franchise. Just look at Seattle (OKC 2008), Vancouver (Memphis 2001), Kansas City (Sacramento 1985) and St. Louis (Atlanta 1968)--they built new arenas and to this day they still don't have a team (All larger MSAs than OKC.

And what about Oakland, they have one Big League franchise left (Athletics)--San Francisco (Warriors 2019), Las Vegas took the Raiders and aren't through molesting Oakland for MLB.

You all are forgetting that the Thunder get Quality Jobs Act money, the state literally subsidizes the salaries of players, coaches and other staff. It was a joke when it was done because we all knew they were coming to Oklahoma and didnt need the extra inducement. But 5% of their payroll is reimbursed to the thunder quarterly every year. Also, the state exempted sales taxes on tickets for pro sports. That allows the Thunder to obviously make more revenune from ticket sales.

The Thunder have it pretty good here. Pretty hilarious to see others claim with certainty they are gone if this vote fails.

If the arena vote fails the LOCAL ownership could decide to sell the team. Then you’re most likely left with an out of state ownership group that will undoubtedly attempt to move the team.

The reason they have it good here is because they have all the negotiating power. Larger markets equal more money, bigger sponsors, and more fans to buy tickets…Acting like 5% payroll subsidies moves the need on a $1.5B business valuation is displaying a complete lack of understanding the bigger picture.

Clay Bennett has a team in Oklahoma City for a few primary reasons:
1. He’s a businessman and got lucky with an opportunity
2. The city works with the team to maintain profitability
3. He’s from Oklahoma and wants it here

He does not have it in Oklahoma City because it’s the most profitable location for an NBA team.

Even the NBA and it’s collective bargaining agreement is structured in a way to aid in the SMALLER MARKETS having a fighting chance.

I'd vote yes even if we paid 100%

I'm not gonna risk losing the Thunder, they are too important to the city & I don't even care if we lose money overall.

The likelihood of them selling and moving in our lifetimes is minute.

Yeah, right. smh This is the same arrogance that lost Seattle the team in the first place. BTW, there are several areanas all ready to go.... Kansas City and Seattle chief among them. I'm pretty sure neither would require the owner to buy 50% of the arena that's already there.

Wouldn't want to test that the Thunder wouldn't leave, IMO is an overconfident remark. Because once they are gone, you're not going to be able to justify building a new arena to attract another NBA franchise. Just look at Seattle (OKC 2008), Vancouver (Memphis 2001), Kansas City (Sacramento 1985) and St. Louis (Atlanta 1968)--they built new arenas and to this day they still don't have a team (All larger MSAs than OKC.

And what about Oakland, they have one Big League franchise left (Athletics)--San Francisco (Warriors 2019), Las Vegas took the Raiders and aren't through molesting Oakland for MLB.

Vancouver didn't build a new arena, it was already nice/big to begin with. But I hear/agree with your point.

SCARY THOUGHT!!! What if the ownership group moved the team - to TULSA!!! ??? And renamed it, the Oklahoma Thunder. ...

Now that'd ruffle some OKC heads. ..

Vancouver didn't build a new arena, it was already nice/big to begin with. But I hear/agree with your point.

SCARY THOUGHT!!! What if the ownership group moved the team - to TULSA!!! ??? And renamed it, the Oklahoma Thunder. ...

Now that'd ruffle some OKC heads. ..

That's gonna be in my nightmares, Hot Rod

Wouldn't want to test that the Thunder wouldn't leave, IMO is an overconfident remark. Because once they are gone, you're not going to be able to justify building a new arena to attract another NBA franchise. Just look at Seattle (OKC 2008), Vancouver (Memphis 2001), Kansas City (Sacramento 1985) and St. Louis (Atlanta 1968)--they built new arenas and to this day they still don't have a team (All larger MSAs than OKC.

And what about Oakland, they have one Big League franchise left (Athletics)--San Francisco (Warriors 2019), Las Vegas took the Raiders and aren't through molesting Oakland for MLB.

Seattle's arena is 100% privately funded and they're getting a team in the next few years, Vancouver's move in part was due to players not wanting to live in Canada and a weak Canadian dollar so that comparison doesn't really hold here since it wasn't a facility issue. Same thing in KC - the Kemper Arena was only 10 years old when the Sacramento move happened and is still used today for massive basketball tournaments. Those aren't really good comparisons at all.

Few would fault them if they sold, especially if an arena is shot down.

Why would few fault them? I'd absolutely be furious at them if they used their leverage to profit off tax payers and then sold when it wasn't immediately accepted. They'd deservedly be considered villains in Oklahoma. If they care about this community at all, they'd come back to the table if the voters vote no.

Yeah, right. smh This is the same arrogance that lost Seattle the team in the first place. BTW, there are several areanas all ready to go.... Kansas City and Seattle chief among them. I'm pretty sure neither would require the owner to buy 50% of the arena that's already there.

The T-Mobile Center wouldn’t be much of an upgrade. It was built in 2007 and would be one of the smallest arenas in the NBA (640,000 sf). Also, both the Royals and Chiefs are getting ready to ask KC/MO taxpayers for new stadiums. Asking for a new basketball arena on top of that would be a stretch. Plus, an NBA team would have to compete with arguably a top three program (nationally) in College Basketball, which consistently sells out Allen Fieldhouse. That doesn’t sound too fun, if you’re an NBA owner.

And Seattle? Haha, that would be the most embarrassing thing possible for this ownership group. That would never happen.

Why would few fault them? I'd absolutely be furious at them if they used their leverage to profit off tax payers and then sold when it wasn't immediately accepted. They'd deservedly be considered villains in Oklahoma. If they care about this community at all, they'd come back to the table if the voters vote no.

I mean if we were to not build anything at all.

The T-Mobile Center wouldn’t be much of an upgrade. It was built in 2007 and would be one of the smallest arenas in the NBA (640,000 sf). Also, both the Royals and Chiefs are getting ready to ask KC/MO taxpayers for new stadiums. Asking for a new basketball arena on top of that would be a stretch. Plus, an NBA team would have to compete with arguably a top three program (nationally) in College Basketball, which consistently sells out Allen Fieldhouse. That doesn’t sound too fun, if you’re an NBA owner.

And Seattle? Haha, that would be the most embarrassing thing possible for this ownership group. That would never happen.

Kansas City and St. Louis would love to have this team. You way underestimate KC. And then, Louisville has a great 20,000 seat arena ready to go and an appetitie for the NBA. Then, there is Las Vegas. Aneheim also is a possibility with a great arena and a huge population base even as a third LA area team. And lastly, Nashville is hunting another pro sports team and has a great arena.

On Seattle, not sure why you think it would be embarrasing to the Thunder... but it sure would be to OKC. All they have to say is that they wanted to stay there in the first place but the arena wasn't suitable then. It is now.

I'd vote yes even if we paid 100%

I'm not gonna risk losing the Thunder, they are too important to the city & I don't even care if we lose money overall.

+1

Kansas City and St. Louis would love to have this team. You way underestimate KC. And then, Louisville has a great 20,000 seat arena ready to go and an appetitie for the NBA. Then, there is Las Vegas. Aneheim also is a possibility with a great arena and a huge population base even as a third LA area team. And lastly, Nashville is hunting another pro sports team and has a great arena.

On Seattle, not sure why you think it would be embarrasing to the Thunder... but it sure would be to OKC. All they have to say is that they wanted to stay there in the first place but the arena wasn't suitable then. It is now.

It would be extremely embarrassing for them and you know it.

It would be extremely embarrassing for them and you know it.

How? They would have taken it from Seattle and sold it back for a handsome profit while keeping them out of the market for nearly 20 years. It would be OKC not being able to hold onto it that would be the embarrasment. That is what Seattle people have always claimed would happen. Said they couldn't support it long term. We will see if they are right.

It would be extremely embarrassing for them and you know it.

The only party embarrassed by this would be the city of OKC. Bragging for 15 years about having their team, and then having it go right back, yeah, OKC would be ridiculed.

The only party embarrassed by this would be the city of OKC. Bragging for 15 years about having their team, and then having it go right back, yeah, OKC would be ridiculed.

Wrong. That’s not the way that pro sports ball historians would look at it.

They’re not going to ridicule a small market city for a single no-vote. That’s just not the way the narrative would go, but I appreciate your effort. You made a very creative argument.

Wrong. That’s not the way that pro sports ball historians would look at it.

They’re not going to ridicule a small market city for a single no-vote. That’s just not the way the narrative would go, but I appreciate your effort. You made a very creative argument.

Okay, but you’re wrong.

Okay, but you’re wrong.

Nope. You are, Clay.

But I feel you. I'd be trying to spin this hypothetical in my favor, too.

Why won't you guys talk to the press? Too scared?

Okay, everyone just calm down.

Please be respectful of all opinions.

Wrong. That’s not the way that pro sports ball historians would look at it.

They’re not going to ridicule a small market city for a single no-vote. That’s just not the way the narrative would go, but I appreciate your effort. You made a very creative argument.
They won’t ridicule them… they’ll just point out the city was too small to support them and those predicting it were right all along. They didn’t expect us to support them this long.

Moral panicking about the gossip and chitchat that might pervade if whatever cursory token proposal is rejected is what Gigachad cities do, I’m sure.

I don’t care if the city could have and should have been more transparent during this process. I dont care if the owners of the team pay a dime for it. I’d vote yes if the proposal was for a $2 Billion arena and the city had to pay $5 billion out of pocket to built it with a guarantee that it would never recoup the cost. If you haven’t lived here since prior to 2008 and you’re against this…your opinion is trash…you don’t get it…go back to where you came from (I’m looking at you PoliSciBoy)

I was at our first playoff win in 2010 when no one gave us a chance and we came back from 18 down against the eventual NBA champion Lakers as a poor college student. It was one of the best environments I’ve ever experienced. I’ve never been in a stadium louder than that. One of the coolest sports experiences I’ve ever had. Winning the next game and then seeing the crowd give the team a standing ovation after we narrowly lost game 6 of that series was one of the coolest sports scenes I’ve ever seen.

I was also there in during game 6 against the spurs in 2012 when we knocked them off after trailing for most of 3 quarters which propelled us to the finals. The party spilled out into bricktown. It was all a massive affirmation to the progress we’ve made as a city for those who believed in OKC and decided to plant roots and stick around here.

If you weren’t here for any of that or the dumpster fire that the city was before MAPS/the Thunder/etc then you just don’t get it. If you left or just came back after things got better or moved here for whatever reason later on and aren’t for this plan…you don’t know crap about this city and I’m sure some other city would be happy to have you if you don’t like the plan and want to leave.

April in the Plaza, PoliSciBoy, and JoBethHamas can go kick rocks. Your opinions are trash. You are a bunch of freaking losers. I’m sorry that the big mean basketball players stuffed you in your lockers in high school.

Really wish we still had the OKCTalk meet ups so we could see who some of these nerds really are. Hallelujah. Holly Sh*t. Where’s the Tylenol. TEXAS SUCKS!

I feel like I have read the same arguments over and over again for months. I'm glad there gets to be a community discussion over this but yikes... It wouldn't hurt to leave this thread alone until we have renderings or something cause nothing has changed.

I feel like I have read the same arguments over and over again for months. I'm glad there gets to be a community discussion over this but yikes... It wouldn't hurt to leave this thread alone until we have renderings or something cause nothing has changed.

So there should be no further discussion until after the vote, then?

I don’t care if the city could have and should have been more transparent during this process. I dont care if the owners of the team pay a dime for it. I’d vote yes if the proposal was for a $2 Billion arena and the city had to pay $5 billion out of pocket to built it with a guarantee that it would never recoup the cost. If you haven’t lived here since prior to 2008 and you’re against this…your opinion is trash…you don’t get it…go back to where you came from (I’m looking at you PoliSciBoy)

I was at our first playoff win in 2010 when no one gave us a chance and we came back from 18 down against the eventual NBA champion Lakers as a poor college student. It was one of the best environments I’ve ever experienced. I’ve never been in a stadium louder than that. One of the coolest sports experiences I’ve ever had. Winning the next game and then seeing the crowd give the team a standing ovation after we narrowly lost game 6 of that series was one of the coolest sports scenes I’ve ever seen.

I was also there in during game 6 against the spurs in 2012 when we knocked them off after trailing for most of 3 quarters which propelled us to the finals. The party spilled out into bricktown. It was all a massive affirmation to the progress we’ve made as a city for those who believed in OKC and decided to plant roots and stick around here.

If you weren’t here for any of that or the dumpster fire that the city was before MAPS/the Thunder/etc then you just don’t get it. If you left or just came back after things got better or moved here for whatever reason later on and aren’t for this plan…you don’t know crap about this city and I’m sure some other city would be happy to have you if you don’t like the plan and want to leave.

April in the Plaza, PoliSciBoy, and JoBethHamas can go kick rocks. Your opinions are trash. You are a bunch of freaking losers. I’m sorry that the big mean basketball players stuffed you in your lockers in high school.

Really wish we still had the OKCTalk meet ups so we could see who some of these nerds really are. Hallelujah. Holly Sh*t. Where’s the Tylenol. TEXAS SUCKS!

I feel like you should step back and consider how the opposite viewpoints are a product of OKCs success. JoBeth is a direct byproduct of the attractiveness downtown OKC offers. We wanted diversity and we wanted young professionals so that art, life, and community could thrive. When someone offers up an opinion questioning the deal ownership has presented due to their perspective of only knowing OKC as a growing and thriving city that means MAPS worked. It means we’re taking the next steps as a city and becoming a metro approaching 1.5M people. It means we’re not Tulsa and offering $10k for people to move in and still trying to find a spark. Blending perspectives can result in some of the best outcomes for the entire community. In my perspective there is still an overwhelming base of people that knew OKC prior to the early 2000s, so that should carry us through this monumental pinnacle vote for what should become OKCs crown jewel. Don’t stress it.

So there should be no further discussion until after the vote, then?

I'm all in for a continued discussion, I've enjoyed hearing everyone's input. People just need to be kind and respectful and if that's too hard then I would merely suggest for those members to step back and take a breather. No one is being persuaded by someone's opinion on here. We all want what's best for our city and people have different perspectives as to what that may be!

This may have been discussed somewhere already in the 2000+ posts in this thread, but, if the MAPS extension fails in the December vote, is there a contingency plan on the ownership or City, or is it essentially one and done?

Thunder organization plays out their lease and begins exploring other options in other cities (assuming the ownership would sell to another group in another city) or does the City and ownership go back to the drawing board for another proposal?

Without the Thunder, I feel like OKC looks a lot more like a Little Rock or Tulsa. There are quality civic and quality of life projects, but not nearly the same national stage that a professional team brings to the city.

This may have been discussed somewhere already in the 2000+ posts in this thread, but, if the MAPS extension fails in the December vote, is there a contingency plan on the ownership or City, or is it essentially one and done?

Thunder organization plays out their lease and begins exploring other options in other cities (assuming the ownership would sell to another group in another city) or does the City and ownership go back to the drawing board for another proposal?

Without the Thunder, I feel like OKC looks a lot more like a Little Rock or Tulsa. There are quality civic and quality of life projects, but not nearly the same national stage that a professional team brings to the city.

the thunder ownership will explore a sale of the team

the thunder ownership will explore a sale of the team

Has that ever been confirmed or is it just the “do we really want to vote no and see if that will happen” attitude?

Without the Thunder, I feel like OKC looks a lot more like a Little Rock or Tulsa. There are quality civic and quality of life projects, but not nearly the same national stage that a professional team brings to the city.

I think if we lost all of our momentum from them leaving we look like Birmingham, Albuquerque, or Tulsa at worst, undoubtedly still better than Little Rock, but realistically I think we’d be more comparable Omaha or Louisville. Ideally, we’d fall more into a “healthy growth” version of Austin, but it’s a little different since San Antonio is just down the road from them and they’re the capital of Texas, not Oklahoma.

the thunder ownership will explore a sale of the team

Explore... The franchise will be sold in minutes and finalized in whatever the number of days it takes to
to commensurate the sale.

Then, depending on the city, say Seattle for example, this team will be gone for $1.8 billion and relocated
the next NBA season.

Don't expect OKC to get another franchise by expansion or relocation. OKC will have to stand in line. There
are over 18 MSA population centers ahead of OKC.

The new $900 million arena will insure longevity of the Oklahoma City Thunder, prediction 2050.

Explore... The franchise will be sold in minutes and finalized in whatever the number of days it takes to
to commensurate the sale.

Then, depending on the city, say Seattle for example, this team will be gone for $1.8 billion and relocated
the next NBA season.

Don't expect OKC to get another franchise by expansion or relocation. OKC will have to stand in line. There
are over 18 MSA population centers ahead of OKC.

The new $900 million arena will insure longevity of the Oklahoma City Thunder, prediction 2050.

Not Necessarily. It would look more like this: https://spectrumnews1.com/wi/milwaukee/news/2023/10/05/republicans-consider-plan-to-fund-brewers-stadium-repairs

Explore... The franchise will be sold in minutes and finalized in whatever the number of days it takes to
to commensurate the sale.

Then, depending on the city, say Seattle for example, this team will be gone for $1.8 billion and relocated
the next NBA season.

Don't expect OKC to get another franchise by expansion or relocation. OKC will have to stand in line. There
are over 18 MSA population centers ahead of OKC.

The new $900 million arena will insure longevity of the Oklahoma City Thunder, prediction 2050.

This is the kind of deceptive hysteria that not only ruins discussion on any topic, but is outright hostile to democracy and diplomacy of any sort. We all want the Thunder to get the arena they desire, but melodramatic statements embellished like this just ensures Oklahoma City, as Pete has said before, continues being a great city for a scam.

I can't believe people are arguing that a "no" vote won't be step one in losing the Thunder. Mind numbingly dumb.

I wish the owners would have ponied up more, but comparing OKC's situation with other cities is fraught with false equivalence.

For one, other cities don't actually own their arenas. OKC will be the owner of our arena. Will it be an albatross? There will be costs of maintenance and upkeep, but that's the cost of having an NBA and hopefully first-class arena.

Hopefully this arena will truly be something worthy of our investment, not only guaranteeing the Thunder remain in OKC but also offering a first-class venue for concerts and other events.

The cost of losing the Thunder, and the prestige that comes with it, would be great, and far greater than the investment the citizens will make to build a 21st Century arena. And, to be clear, we are overdue for a new arena. That we were able to make do with an $82 million arena (and the additional $250 million or so in improvements) for thirty years is remarkable. OKC has more than gotten its money's worth. That is a hell of a return on investment.

The arguments are getting circular in nature, and people seem to have made up their minds. If there were any doubt (probably not), I will be voting "yes." Respectfully disagree with those who will not but have trust the citizens of OKC will make the right call.

^ ^ ^

Thank you Soonerguru, very well stated.

We are all stating our opinions.

Over, and over, and over again.

Some are making absurd arguments citing navel-gazing economic studies. How would those studies rate the investment we made in Scissortail Park?

Some folks are overthinking this.

The point is, we are not breaking any new ground here, just getting people testy.

Some are making absurd arguments citing navel-gazing economic studies. How would those studies rate the investment we made in Scissortail Park?


Oh hey, speaking of arguments fraught with false equivalence....

And it's sad to see one side devolve to grandiose, unbacked claims about returns on investment or just straight up resorting to insults instead of bringing in data to back up their perspectives.

Regardless of the vote's outcome, I do think that the scrutiny in OKC is going to ratchet up. Especially if this passes, you can bet that there will be a push for the accounting surrounding the new arena to be more transparent than it has been. Hopefully some councilors will ask for the arena's economic performance to be presented with clearer accounting moving forward.

I also think that this could result in all future MAPS programs being altered from the perspective of willingness to wait moving forward for projects. If we can eat $300M interest on this project, I think stakeholders are going to start pushing for their projects to be funded with debt as well.

interesting dicotomy going on here, both with weaknesses:

* side a: we'd better vote yes for the new arena regardless of the cost or consequences or else the Thunder will be done - Dec 13 with no other negotiations or revision of the deal.

* side b: I'd like to see the evidence that pro sports teams provide value to a city that is quantifiable.

BOTH of these arguments are circular and flawed.

Side A believes the threat of the team leaving is enough to vote yes to prevent that ever happening. While I agree to a point, there is no evidence that the team will sell or leave. Clay Bennett and the PBC has never come out with this. In fact, they've never said this is the ONLY and final deal either. Not saying it isn't or they wont leave, but there is no EVIDENCE that they will sell or intend to leave if the vote is NO.

Side B believes that pro sports do not benefit a city and that OKC would be where it is today even if the Thuder were not in OKC, since OKC's growth can't be quantified necessarily due to the Thunder. While I agree with this to a point, there is also no evidence that OKC would have grown if we didn't have the Thunder. This is a glass half empty argument that could never be resolved, since, OKC had a team for nearly 20 years (Hornets then Thunder) and in that time OKC has grown to 700K and 1.5 million metro area full of jobs in diverse sectors it didn't have in 2005. OKC also got two skyline changing skyscrapers in this period, including a supertall, and is set to get several more highrises that are approved.

Whether you attribute the growth of OKC to the Thunder or not, or whether we can see quantifiable profit made by having the team in OKC, it is very clear that 1) the growth we've seen in OKC happend WITH the Thunder, we did NOT see this level of growth prior to the arrival of major league team - therefore, an argument CAN be made that the professional sports team did have an impact to OKC's growth and perceived status/importance 2) OKC is mentioned daily among other major cities for something beyond tragedy, politically insensitive, or OU [which OKC isn't actually ever mentioned, Norman is and there was a time when Norman tried NOT to be associated with OKC] 3) OKC has large events that are wonderful, but NONE have the direct impact of 18,000+ for 41+ nights per year combined; even if you think it's shifting $ from what would be spent in OKC if the Thunder weren't here, evidence shows OKC's GDP was less without the Thunder so I highly doubt OKC would even have the venues, attractions, and events that it does now with an arena that has a major league team - speculation, I know, but I can also point to when OKC didn't have a team or arena.

Flip side, it is true that OKC often gets scammed, as was proven by Pete's investigation. Why city officials declined to have this transparent to the public is beyond me, but it also shows in my mind that the PBC and city are in-bed with each other. Therefore, I find it very difficult to believe that the PBC would all of sudden sell what is likely most of their owners' biggest equity position that they also likely use for recruiting to their companies let alone that they personally enjoy. Do you think they will instead go to Dallas to see a game or whatever city the Thunder would move to if they sold? I personally don't know if there is a plan to sell but I do know the owners have never made such a threat (unlike the Seattle ownership) and given the ownership is OKC based, I'd believe they'd work with OKC should the vote be No.

My position here is, we should vote YES for the arena since it is what we have in front of us and the arena with an NBA team has proven to improve OKC in tangable and intangable ways that nothing else OKC has done can match, as history has shown. However, I think it is fair for the city to account how the money will be spent and the team/chamber should come up with a campaign on what their intentions are. If both of these were to happen, I'm confident that the NO vote will be so small, it would just be those who always vote NO. If not, then there will be a significant amout of fiscal conservatives voting No who otherwise support the Thunder. Why would the CITY want to risk this?

This is the kind of deceptive hysteria that not only ruins discussion on any topic, but is outright hostile to democracy and diplomacy of any sort. We all want the Thunder to get the arena they desire, but melodramatic statements embellished like this just ensures Oklahoma City, as Pete has said before, continues being a great city for a scam.

Claiming that the thunder may relocate if the vote doesn’t pass isn’t melodramatic or deceptive. It’s fact. No one here knows if we will get another shot at it before the team is sold. Pete and others have said they don’t think it will immediately go that way but they don’t know that any better than anyone else here does. I tend to think it would be hard to believe that the owners will just throw their hands up and say screw it after all the work they did to bring the team here and the success we’ve had since, especially after only 3-5 months form announcement to vote, but that just isn’t a chance I’m willing to take.

The fact that we're going so fast from announcement to vote feels like the powers that be are trying to bamboozle the city into thinking this has to happen now now now or the Thunder leave and no time for questions or second guessing

Has anybody actually asked the owners (both the group *and* the individual owners) what they'd do if the vote failed? I know they wouldn't be really forthcoming in their honest opinion, but if enough people/organizations ask them, and they replied with anything other than "no comment", you could probably tally up their answers and read *something* into it that might give a hint at what might happen.

Has anybody actually asked the owners (both the group *and* the individual owners) what they'd do if the vote failed? I know they wouldn't be really forthcoming in their honest opinion, but if enough people/organizations ask them, and they replied with anything other than "no comment", you could probably tally up their answers and read *something* into it that might give a hint at what might happen.

Media outlets have tried, but the owners are hiding behind Holt as they actively build 9-figure commercial developments on NW Expressway (The Oak) and Broadway Extension (The Half).

Media outlets have tried, but the owners are hiding behind Holt as they actively build 9-figure commercial developments on NW Expressway (The Oak) and Broadway Extension (The Half).

That’s a really weird comment to bring into the discussion. Aside from it having nothing to do with this at all, god forbid people who live here spending their money in a way that contributes to the development of the city. The horror.

That’s a really weird comment to bring into the discussion. Aside from it having nothing to do with this at all, god forbid people who live here spending their money in a way that contributes to the development of the city. The horror.

Not weird at all, if you actually view it within the context of Holt’s primary argument.

Oh hey, speaking of arguments fraught with false equivalence....

And it's sad to see one side devolve to grandiose, unbacked claims about returns on investment or just straight up resorting to insults instead of bringing in data to back up their perspectives.

Would it help if I told you some of us are not concerned with the direct quantifiable revenue measured by specific set KPIs?

I’m just fine with this being a giant vanity project for the city and it keeping the Thunder. I’m just fine with paying a $.01 sales tax so that I can brag to business clients and bring them to a world class facility for games and meetups. I’m good if we never fully see the city paid back in the limited measurables from some study. You’re only interested in data and not hearing from the people living it…

I think it's also worth considering if certain city leaders don't just want the big project to be deep into construction by the time the Olympics come? On an international stage, having visuals of cranes building out a new arena would amplify the vision that the city is exploding.

Yeah voting no has real “f*** around and find out” potential. I wish the ownership group was contributing more, but keeping the sales tax the same doesn’t bother me and I want the Thunder to stay. I feel like a lot of people feel this way, but I think the vote will be closer than expected.