There ARE no plans. They literally cannot officially land on a location OR hire an architect to draw plans until taxpayers have approved the initiative. I’m not sure why this is so difficult for posters here to understand.

They should have plans if they’re asking for $900M+. That would amount to the most asinine approach for constructing the single most expensive structure ever built in Oklahoma City.

You need to realize that just because a piece of paper says it should be a certain way doesn’t mean that it is that way. Everything isn’t as black and white as you’d like for us to believe. You can quote the statues and laws all you want but it doesn’t prevent the Thunder from contracting an architectural firm and presenting plans to David Holt.

We’re talking about Clay Bennett here…the same guy (bless his heart) that stated under oath he sent an email to Tom Ward and Aubrey discussing how he was doing everything in his power to keep the team in Seattle. That same Clay Bennett that’s openly talked about 10 years ago discussing new arena plans with Mick Cornett.

I doubt his conversations have all been hypothetical and completely vague conceptually. This isn’t David Holt asking the citizens to fund a hypothetical building. This is the Thunder telling David Holt get the city to pay for this specific facility or we’re going to explore alternative avenues for selling/moving the team. Don’t get it confused.

I posted this last year... https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=23863&p=1210902&highlight=#post1210902

Thank you!

Someone asked if there are renderings. Nope. Holt has plainly said that they aren't anywhere near that. I think that's a flawed approach to pursuing this. We need something to show people. Something they can see and "touch", not just an idea. At every step of the MAPs votes, we had something to look at and see what we were getting for our vote. It's so weird to me that we don't this time. It's like someone walked out of a meeting, through together a quick Powerpoint background, and just started talking to the public.

I've lived here all my life and so I experienced OKC before it's rebirth. I'll pretty much always vote Yes on MAPs programs (if i live in OKC) because I dont want us to go back to what it was. We've made so much progress and I want to keep that momentum going. But if you abuse that trust of the people and just assume that they will go along, it's dangerous territory and the start of a no vote. And to me, the city has over-estimated their footing. This is different. This is the first time we've been in this particular position. We've put millions upon millions into the Maps/Ford/Peak/Pay/whatever. It's an arena for another era now, but it doesn't FEEL like it to the average attendee. When we had places like the Boston or the Garden hanging around for 40 years, some people question why OKC needs this now.

To be clear, I'm not one of them. But what I'm saying is, the city isn't doing their job to explain it, campaign it, push for it. It's almost as if they don't really want it. It's very weird. The lack of it being in our face is unusual.

Someone asked if there are renderings. Nope. Holt has plainly said that they aren't anywhere near that. I think that's a flawed approach to pursuing this. We need something to show people. Something they can see and "touch", not just an idea. At every step of the MAPs votes, we had something to look at and see what we were getting for our vote. It's so weird to me that we don't this time. It's like someone walked out of a meeting, through together a quick Powerpoint background, and just started talking to the public.

I've lived here all my life and so I experienced OKC before it's rebirth. I'll pretty much always vote Yes on MAPs programs (if i live in OKC) because I dont want us to go back to what it was. We've made so much progress and I want to keep that momentum going. But if you abuse that trust of the people and just assume that they will go along, it's dangerous territory and the start of a no vote. And to me, the city has over-estimated their footing. This is different. This is the first time we've been in this particular position. We've put millions upon millions into the Maps/Ford/Peak/Pay/whatever. It's an arena for another era now, but it doesn't FEEL like it to the average attendee. When we had places like the Boston or the Garden hanging around for 40 years, some people question why OKC needs this now.

To be clear, I'm not one of them. But what I'm saying is, the city isn't doing their job to explain it, campaign it, push for it. It's almost as if they don't really want it. It's very weird. The lack of it being in our face is unusual.

This biggest difference is this isn’t MAPS. It’s not the city working to create interest in a dead downtown/CBD area of Oklahoma City. It’s not the city trying to revive buildings that are 40 years old and falling apart. It’s not the city using funds to speculate on how we can increase quality of life to retain young professionals.

This is the Thunder ownership group working for years with the Mayors office to construct a new building. A building that allows the Thunder to sell more suites and areas for corporate sponsorship. It’s businessmen holding the people/city hostage to their demands for increased revenue stream via an arena or they will move/sell the team.

Simply put in my opinion:
This is about 1 entity needing to make more money so they can remain competitive in the NBA. The Warriors paid a $100M+ luxury tax bill and the Thunder are facing a similar number in the near future if they keep the core of their team together.

This biggest difference is this isn’t MAPS. It’s not the city working to create interest in a dead downtown/CBD area of Oklahoma City. It’s not the city trying to revive buildings that are 40 years old and falling apart. It’s not the city using funds to speculate on how we can increase quality of life to retain young professionals.

This is the Thunder ownership group working for years with the Mayors office to construct a new building. A building that allows the Thunder to sell more suites and areas for corporate sponsorship. It’s businessmen holding the people/city hostage to their demands for increased revenue stream via an arena or they will move/sell the team.

Simply put in my opinion:
This is about 1 entity needing to make more money so they can remain competitive in the NBA. The Warriors paid a $100M+ luxury tax bill and the Thunder are facing a similar number in the near future if they keep the core of their team together.

I don’t pretend to fully understand the new CBA, but I thought it is now awfully difficult to construct a roster if a team’s payroll comes in over the 2nd Apron. It is set at $17.5M above the tax threshold at the moment.

Looks like a team right at the 2nd Apron would owe about $57M if it’s not a repeat offender.

This biggest difference is this isn’t MAPS. It’s not the city working to create interest in a dead downtown/CBD area of Oklahoma City. It’s not the city trying to revive buildings that are 40 years old and falling apart. It’s not the city using funds to speculate on how we can increase quality of life to retain young professionals.

This is the Thunder ownership group working for years with the Mayors office to construct a new building. A building that allows the Thunder to sell more suites and areas for corporate sponsorship. It’s businessmen holding the people/city hostage to their demands for increased revenue stream via an arena or they will move/sell the team.

Simply put in my opinion:
This is about 1 entity needing to make more money so they can remain competitive in the NBA. The Warriors paid a $100M+ luxury tax bill and the Thunder are facing a similar number in the near future if they keep the core of their team together.

this is almost entirely incorrect .. the current arena can't support 2 different concerts back to back ..

it is outdated irrespective of the thunder .. because of loading docks and a bunch of other things ..

Someone asked if there are renderings. Nope. Holt has plainly said that they aren't anywhere near that. I think that's a flawed approach to pursuing this. We need something to show people. Something they can see and "touch", not just an idea. At every step of the MAPs votes, we had something to look at and see what we were getting for our vote. It's so weird to me that we don't this time. It's like someone walked out of a meeting, through together a quick Powerpoint background, and just started talking to the public.

I've lived here all my life and so I experienced OKC before it's rebirth. I'll pretty much always vote Yes on MAPs programs (if i live in OKC) because I dont want us to go back to what it was. We've made so much progress and I want to keep that momentum going. But if you abuse that trust of the people and just assume that they will go along, it's dangerous territory and the start of a no vote. And to me, the city has over-estimated their footing. This is different. This is the first time we've been in this particular position. We've put millions upon millions into the Maps/Ford/Peak/Pay/whatever. It's an arena for another era now, but it doesn't FEEL like it to the average attendee. When we had places like the Boston or the Garden hanging around for 40 years, some people question why OKC needs this now.

To be clear, I'm not one of them. But what I'm saying is, the city isn't doing their job to explain it, campaign it, push for it. It's almost as if they don't really want it. It's very weird. The lack of it being in our face is unusual.

While obviously not as much money, we also put millions upon millions into the Myriad/Cox convention center through public initiatives and then a MAPS project only to replace it with MAPS 3.

this is almost entirely incorrect .. the current arena can't support 2 different concerts back to back ..

it is outdated irrespective of the thunder .. because of loading docks and a bunch of other things ..

I’m sorry but you’re wrong…this is absolutely the truth. Let’s not pretend everyone is backing this so we can better plan the shipping docks. Lol

I’m sorry but you’re wrong…this is absolutely the truth. Let’s not pretend everyone is backing this so we can better plan the shipping docks. Lol

That may not be the main reason, but it is a secondary benefit. Bands and artists who don't consider OKC and go to Tulsa all the time are mainly doing it because of the loading docks, and the ability to get large, exorbitant production stages set up. OKC's arena is notoriously difficult for those.

So you are half-right. It isn't the main reason for this new arena, but it is something OKC can remedy from the Paycom Center. And getting a few new, large-scale shows for OKC will benefit a lot more than just the wealthy.

I don’t pretend to fully understand the new CBA, but I thought it is now awfully difficult to construct a roster if a team’s payroll comes in over the 2nd Apron. It is set at $17.5M above the tax threshold at the moment.

Looks like a team right at the 2nd Apron would owe about $57M if it’s not a repeat offender.

I believe the NBA is set to renegotiate its TV deal. I have read they’re aiming for double/triple the current agreement.

It’s my belief we have 3 potential “super max” players and who knows what those salaries will be when those players are eligible. If Shai, Chet, Jalen Williams all reach super max status you’re at cap without some of the protections that used to exist. I believe allowing more than 2 super max players is new to this CBA. Keep in mind the Thunder are loaded with picks for the upcoming draft in 2024. They will have to pay if this roster pans out. Based on what I have seen it’s not as harsh on teams with homegrown talent that won’t dip into the buyout market. Including being able to sign existing talent with more favorable tax break. However, you have a small-market team staring down penalties put in place for big market spenders.

I’m no expert either when it comes to the CBA, but I don’t think there is anything in place that prevents you from spending well Into the 2nd apron.

Based on the new TV deal the Thunder could potentially have an annual payroll cost of $300M/year.

That may not be the main reason, but it is a secondary benefit. Bands and artists who don't consider OKC and go to Tulsa all the time are mainly doing it because of the loading docks, and the ability to get large, exorbitant production stages set up. OKC's arena is notoriously difficult for those.

So you are half-right. It isn't the main reason for this new arena, but it is something OKC can remedy from the Paycom Center. And getting a few new, large-scale shows for OKC will benefit a lot more than just the wealthy.

I can agree there are definitely additional benefits that will come from this project. I wish we had a better understanding on what all of those benefits could potentially look like.

We've put a lot of trust in Mayor David Holt. Apparently, if you've listened carefully to his comments; he (IMO) has seen something or there's some kind of sketch with specifications on a new arena.

How did you (City & ownership) arrive at a minimum $900 million figure.

We all know MAPS was crafted in secrecy to avoid critics and hype that would have doomed its launch. The original MAPS cost $350 million; now we're talking about $900 million - $1,050 billion state-of-the-art arena that will cost the taxpayers 3x what the 9 projects (1993) cost in MAPS proposed 30 years ago.

If the old Ford site is being offered thru the ownership group--we know that site is overpriced. That site was overpriced for the new convention center.

If our city needs a $900 million+ new downtown arena, for the taxpayers' sake, let us know the site; also justify why we need a $900 million capital investment to build a new downtown arena.

There ARE no plans. They literally cannot officially land on a location OR hire an architect to draw plans until taxpayers have approved the initiative. I’m not sure why this is so difficult for posters here to understand.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink...I think part of the "issue" is that many posters do not understand that when government/government money is involved, it is a step by step basis--why would the city go spend money on an architect before they even know the arena is approved? Imagine the outcry from taxpayers if they learned the city is spending money for a hypothetical arena.

The entire process is a catch-22 scenario where no one will ever be happy.

I believe the NBA is set to renegotiate its TV deal. I have read they’re aiming for double/triple the current agreement.

It’s my belief we have 3 potential “super max” players and who knows what those salaries will be when those players are eligible. If Shai, Chet, Jalen Williams all reach super max status you’re at cap without some of the protections that used to exist. I believe allowing more than 2 super max players is new to this CBA. Keep in mind the Thunder are loaded with picks for the upcoming draft in 2024. They will have to pay if this roster pans out. Based on what I have seen it’s not as harsh on teams with homegrown talent that won’t dip into the buyout market. Including being able to sign existing talent with more favorable tax break. However, you have a small-market team staring down penalties put in place for big market spenders.

I’m no expert either when it comes to the CBA, but I don’t think there is anything in place that prevents you from spending well Into the 2nd apron.

Based on the new TV deal the Thunder could potentially have an annual payroll cost of $300M/year.

I don't want to completely derail this thread but I do just want to state that I think doubling and/or tripling the current TV revenue is going to be difficult to achieve given that the sports media rights bubble seems to be starting to shrink.

I believe the NBA is set to renegotiate its TV deal. I have read they’re aiming for double/triple the current agreement.



and it very much remains to be seen if they get close to their projections .. football the NBA is not

I believe the NBA is set to renegotiate its TV deal. I have read they’re aiming for double/triple the current agreement.

It’s my belief we have 3 potential “super max” players and who knows what those salaries will be when those players are eligible. If Shai, Chet, Jalen Williams all reach super max status you’re at cap without some of the protections that used to exist. I believe allowing more than 2 super max players is new to this CBA. Keep in mind the Thunder are loaded with picks for the upcoming draft in 2024. They will have to pay if this roster pans out. Based on what I have seen it’s not as harsh on teams with homegrown talent that won’t dip into the buyout market. Including being able to sign existing talent with more favorable tax break. However, you have a small-market team staring down penalties put in place for big market spenders.

I’m no expert either when it comes to the CBA, but I don’t think there is anything in place that prevents you from spending well Into the 2nd apron.

Based on the new TV deal the Thunder could potentially have an annual payroll cost of $300M/year.

I think the second apron is very punitive. Not just money, but the ability to trade and sign players becomes very difficult. If the media rights deal increases revenue, then I think it will fall into the BRI (Basketball Related Income) formula that already exists and splits 50/50-ish with the players.

I think the only reason the Thunder went so deep into the Luxury Tax during the PG13 years was ownership was very concerned Clay Bennett was going to die and they wanted to give him the best chance to get a ring. Thankfully he appears to be recovered.

I don't want to completely derail this thread but I do just want to state that I think doubling and/or tripling the current TV revenue is going to be difficult to achieve given that the sports media rights bubble seems to be starting to shrink.

That could very well end up being the case and the new TV rights deal only creates slight increases to the salary cap.

My overall point was 3 super max players put you at the cap no matter the number. It’s based on percentages of the team cap.

I think the second apron is very punitive. Not just money, but the ability to trade and sign players becomes very difficult. If the media rights deal increases revenue, then I think it will fall into the BRI (Basketball Related Income) formula that already exists and splits 50/50-ish with the players.

I think the only reason the Thunder went so deep into the Luxury Tax during the PG13 years was ownership was very concerned Clay Bennett was going to die and they wanted to give him the best chance to get a ring. Thankfully he appears to be recovered.

I think they did it because they had an extremely unique opportunity to replace KD with another superstar level player and took it. They always planned to be deep into the luxury tax during KD and Westbrook’s primes and would still be doing so if KD had stayed. All of those decisions were made, including acquiring PG and Melo (summer 2017) well before Bennett had any kind of surgery related to cancer in mid 2018. His health condition had nothing to do with the thunders financial plans regarding when and how long they would pay the tax.

I think the second apron is very punitive. Not just money, but the ability to trade and sign players becomes very difficult. If the media rights deal increases revenue, then I think it will fall into the BRI (Basketball Related Income) formula that already exists and splits 50/50-ish with the players.

I think the only reason the Thunder went so deep into the Luxury Tax during the PG13 years was ownership was very concerned Clay Bennett was going to die and they wanted to give him the best chance to get a ring. Thankfully he appears to be recovered.

This is an extremely important point in my mind.

Based on the current roster the Thunder better be prepared to go well into the luxury tax if warranted. Right now we’re buying into the exposure and benefits of the NBA and it’s brand. Meaning playoffs, Finals, and a potential championship parade. While there are no guarantees it would be very disappointing if we fund this arena only to have ownership cheap out and pocket new TV money.

By the way, SGA just signed a five year $180MM contract with OKC and his first year in the contract was last year. So, his contract will come up in 2026/2027. CBS is predicting he will be the first $400MM contract in history. Jaylen Brown signed a $304MM contract starting this year.

Chet is signed through 2026/2027 with the last year being a qualified offer.
Lu is signed through 2026/2027 with the last year being a team option.
Giddey is signed through 2025/2026 with 2024/2025 being a team option and 2025/2026 being a qualified offer.
Cason Wallace is signed through 2027/2028 with 2025-2027 being team options and 2027/2028 being a qualified offer.
Jalen Williams is signed through 2026/2027 with 2024-2026 being a team option and 2026/2027 being a qualified offer.
Ousmane Dieng is signed through 2026/2027 with 2024-2026 being a team option and 2026/2027 being a qualified offer.

Needless to say, that 2026/2027 will be a stressful year.

This is an extremely important point in my mind.

Based on the current roster the Thunder better be prepared to go well into the luxury tax if warranted. Right now we’re buying into the exposure and benefits of the NBA and it’s brand. Meaning playoffs, Finals, and a potential championship parade. While there are no guarantees it would be very disappointing if we fund this arena only to have ownership cheap out and pocket new TV money.

LOL there's never been any indication of a lack of planning well into the future for Presti and the rest of management. They've shown a willingness to go into the luxury tax with no plan to get below it for a long period of time before. They were prepared to pay the luxury tax until KD and Westbrook really started to physically decline which probably would've been from about 2015-2025 or 2026. No reason to assume they won't do it again if the roster talent is good enough, especially with all the draft picks and rights to young players we still have. I wouldn't be overly concerned about that.

There ARE no plans. They literally cannot officially land on a location OR hire an architect to draw plans until taxpayers have approved the initiative. I’m not sure why this is so difficult for posters here to understand.

the chamber and the thunder CAN. also, it was proven that there were renderings of the original maps prior to that vote, likely created by the chamber (since apparently the city can't spend money before a vote. ..). Im not sure why you're so against renderings; It would move a few people that may accept the Thunder's minimal contribution if they could at least see what the vision is.

Why the city is not saying the location as the Myriad is beyond me, if they would announce the location (as the Myriad) THAT could solve the issue of why we need to start construction 3 years ahead of time (demolition, site prep) and take on some debt. In addition to why there isn't a rendering of what the new Thunder Alley and Arena district could look like when you consider not only the original maps and even the most recent fairgrounds arena had renderings prior to their vote - but also other major cities we're competing against have renderings prior to their stadium/arena votes.

Come on OKC, do you want this to pass or not? Give people a vision, confidence, of what they're voting on (esp since it is the most expensive project in OKC history) rather than a duck and hide approach theyre taking so far. ..

the chamber and the thunder CAN. also, it was proven that there were renderings of the original maps prior to that vote, likely created by the chamber (since apparently the city can't spend money before a vote. ..). Im not sure why you're so against renderings; It would move a few people that may accept the Thunder's minimal contribution if they could at least see what the vision is.

Why the city is not saying the location as the Myriad is beyond me, if they would announce the location (as the Myriad) THAT could solve the issue of why we need to start construction 3 years ahead of time (demolition, site prep) and take on some debt. In addition to why there isn't a rendering of what the new Thunder Alley and Arena district could look like when you consider not only the original maps and even the most recent fairgrounds arena had renderings prior to their vote - but also other major cities we're competing against have renderings prior to their stadium/arena votes.

Come on OKC, do you want this to pass or not? Give people a vision, confidence, of what they're voting on (esp since it is the most expensive project in OKC history) rather than a duck and hide approach theyre taking so far. ..

What renderings were released before any of the MAPS votes? The only thing I remember seeing were the core to shore plans that featured conceptual renderings of the park and convention center

the chamber and the thunder CAN. also, it was proven that there were renderings of the original maps prior to that vote, likely created by the chamber (since apparently the city can't spend money before a vote. ..). Im not sure why you're so against renderings; It would move a few people that may accept the Thunder's minimal contribution if they could at least see what the vision is.

Why the city is not saying the location as the Myriad is beyond me, if they would announce the location (as the Myriad) THAT could solve the issue of why we need to start construction 3 years ahead of time (demolition, site prep) and take on some debt. In addition to why there isn't a rendering of what the new Thunder Alley and Arena district could look like when you consider not only the original maps and even the most recent fairgrounds arena had renderings prior to their vote - but also other major cities we're competing against have renderings prior to their stadium/arena votes.

Come on OKC, do you want this to pass or not? Give people a vision, confidence, of what they're voting on (esp since it is the most expensive project in OKC history) rather than a duck and hide approach theyre taking so far. ..

Were these legitimate renderings, or just placeholders that ended up nothing like the actual products? What good do those do? Very minimal, and only serve to piss people off when they don't end up like the renderings.

the chamber and the thunder CAN. also, it was proven that there were renderings of the original maps prior to that vote, likely created by the chamber (since apparently the city can't spend money before a vote. ..). Im not sure why you're so against renderings; It would move a few people that may accept the Thunder's minimal contribution if they could at least see what the vision is.

Why the city is not saying the location as the Myriad is beyond me, if they would announce the location (as the Myriad) THAT could solve the issue of why we need to start construction 3 years ahead of time (demolition, site prep) and take on some debt. In addition to why there isn't a rendering of what the new Thunder Alley and Arena district could look like when you consider not only the original maps and even the most recent fairgrounds arena had renderings prior to their vote - but also other major cities we're competing against have renderings prior to their stadium/arena votes.

Come on OKC, do you want this to pass or not? Give people a vision, confidence, of what they're voting on (esp since it is the most expensive project in OKC history) rather than a duck and hide approach theyre taking so far. ..
Good grief. I'm not against renderings. I am explaining why there is no budget yet to have architectural work done. The City can't spend on the issue until it passes. Nobody else is going to pay for detailed renderings on a City-funded and City-owned project, either.

What you can bet is that they have a comprehensive listing of desired things like square footage, number/size of premium spaces, loading docks and much more that have come courtesy the NBA and/or consultants, all based on best practices. Those will ultimately be used by architects - once they are hired - to determine the reality of the building, combined with site location and ancillary development.

It's a false statement to say that MAPS projects had renderings with any level of detail pre-vote. In some cases there were artist conceptual drawings of what a building MIGHT look like, but those were guesses, not plans. I wouldn't be shocked if there will be something similar in campaign materials for the arena vote, once those are released. But don't expect that the building would end up looking like anything that is dreamed up before architects actually take on the project, AND before the site is selected.

Speaking of which, they haven't come out and said it will be on the Myriad/Cox/Prairie Surf site BECAUSE THAT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED YET.

Once again, the City cannot act until the vote is passed. And at that point there will be a selection process of some sort. There are a number of variables that could influence where the building goes. Those of course include whether or not the City owns the property, which clearly makes the Myriad site appealing a pretty good site to bet upon. But other factors include demolition expense, elapsed time for demolition, existing leases, potential location expenses if moving a tenant, need to relocate or replace mechanicals that run through the basement of that building (if chosen), potential environmental challenges, potential for land swaps, contiguous development options, needs/desires for other buildings such as convention center or convention hotel expansion, timelines for one location vs another, and on and on and on. These things will take much due diligence. I'm sure some of that is going on as we discuss this issue.

Mayor Holt has said time and again that the site has not been selected, though insists that it will be downtown. You should believe him.

This discussion has become ridiculous and tedious. Folks need to bone up on civics.

Help my memory, was the convention center "moved" from the Fred Jones Ford site before or after a vote?

Help my memory, was the convention center "moved" from the Fred Jones Ford site before or after a vote?

It was moved back and forth several times after the vote. I don't think a specific site was mentioned until after it passed.

^^^^^^^^^^
The current site of the convention center was shown in some of the early drawings, but that was mainly because it had already been identified as a future location for the cc during the City's extensive Core2Shore planning exercise. The City was already quite certain that the location of Scissortail, too, for the same reason. That park location was largely driven by land vacated during the I-40 relocation and construction of the boulevard.

That said the cc DID jump around a bit during consideration and the selection process and wasn't landed on with certainty until years after MAPS 3 was passed.

Also notable that the City did not begin site acquisition for the park and cc until after the passage of MAPS 3.

Help my memory, was the convention center "moved" from the Fred Jones Ford site before or after a vote?

The original MAPS3 and core to shore video showed it east of the park. When the yes vote came through, the city had several sites in mind for the convention center including the current location, west of the arena (REHCO lot), north of BT parking lot (this came with an expanded Skirvin idea) and the producers CO-OP, just to name a few. There were renderings for the CC on the REHCO (Fred Jones Ford site) lot with the contiguous space being underground and a break on the ground level as to not create a super block and an area where people could pass between Scissortail park and Myriad Gardens. At the end of the day, the cost of the land was too high and they had already secured most of the last east of the park.

Chad beat me to it...

Also notable that the City did not begin site acquisition for the park and cc until after the passage of MAPS 3.

It's almost like you need to have the funding and general plan locked down/approved before you can start spending money. Weird how that works.

Question because I don't know: the city is saving $70 million from the MAPS4 vote. Could the city spend that on renderings for the new arena? Since that was specified for the arena, would the council have to vote to use some of that money for renderings for the new arena?

LOL there's never been any indication of a lack of planning well into the future for Presti and the rest of management. They've shown a willingness to go into the luxury tax with no plan to get below it for a long period of time before. They were prepared to pay the luxury tax until KD and Westbrook really started to physically decline which probably would've been from about 2015-2025 or 2026. No reason to assume they won't do it again if the roster talent is good enough, especially with all the draft picks and rights to young players we still have. I wouldn't be overly concerned about that.

I agree. I believe they will go into luxury tax based on the established history.

However, someone did raise the topic and it’s a fair point. I think there is a far greater likelihood they won’t go into the luxury tax vs. moving the team. Also, how far are they willing to go into the tax? Again 3 players could put you there within the next 5-6 years. They have several other very talented players that will expect to be paid too. There is established history with that too, in the case of James Harden.

By uniquely publicly funding 95% of the arena we the people are placing a lot of trust in a private business. The opportunity to capitalize on greater tv money and lower payroll through player trades is a real possibility.

Question because I don't know: the city is saving $70 million from the MAPS4 vote. Could the city spend that on renderings for the new arena? Since that was specified for the arena, would the council have to vote to use some of that money for renderings for the new arena?

We all want to know the answer about the $70 million as well. Also the $50 million that the ownership group has promised to contribute.

^^^^^^^^^
I haven’t spoken with anyone regarding the specifics of this part, but my assumption is that - again - it would be considered inappropriate for the City to tap those funds UNTIL such time as the issue has been passed by voters.

Let me just say here that as taxpayers we should be greatly relieved that the City generally cannot spend significant taxpayer dollars on speculative projects. If the City went out and spent millions of dollars on plans for a building that in the end was never built, the scandal would be great, and richly deserved.

If the arena effort did not pass, I believe that the $70 million could theoretically be restored to Paycom funding, though what a bitter pill THAT would be.

^^^^^^^^^
I haven’t spoken with anyone regarding the specifics of this part, but my assumption is that - again - it would be considered inappropriate for the City to tap those funds UNTIL such time as the issue has been passed by voters.

Let me just say here that as taxpayers we should be greatly relieved that the City generally cannot spend significant taxpayer dollars on speculative projects. If the City went out and spent millions of dollars on plans for a building that in the end was never built, the scandal would be great, and richly deserved.

If the arena effort did not pass, I believe that the $70 million could theoretically be restored to Paycom funding, though what a bitter pill THAT would be.

This isn’t a MAPS project and this isn’t a speculative build. If it’s a spec build then how are there tentative lease terms?

This is a private entity telling the city to fund 95% of new building. A building to meet their specific needs as a franchise of the NBA. There isn’t anything you can compare this to based on the nature and scope of the “request.”

This isn’t a MAPS project and this isn’t a speculative build. If it’s a spec build then how are there tentative lease terms?

This is a private entity telling the city to fund 95% of new building. A building to meet their specific needs as a franchise of the NBA. There isn’t anything you can compare this to based on the nature and scope of the “request.”

Thats pretty normal for professional sports facilities.

Exactly, this is not MAPS. And as I said, the CHAMBER and TEAM could and should come up with renderings. I don't know WHY people on here keep harping about the CITY coming up with renderings. I'm saying the Chamber and Team should IF they want to guarantee this to pass.

There has to be something, otherwise, what is the comp for $900m minimum? It;s a tough sell to ask for $900m when we literally have no idea what will be built or where, only when. This sounds like a slush fund, the largest single expenditure in city history - yet the team and chamber can't share what it is they want? At least the fairgrounds had renderings far before the MAPS vote - and I harp on the Fairgrounds lack of transparency probably more than anyone yet they had renderings somehow (and I thought they are a city agency).

Again, could the Chamber and/or Team put something together? Similar to the MAPS Conceptual video rendering.

True, this is not a traditional MAPS format 'Pay as you go.' Taxpayers are being asked to extend the MAPS 4 Sales Tax to pay off a TBD loan.

We should have a full picture of how this development will be funded once a site is selected.

This isn’t a MAPS project and this isn’t a speculative build…
By “speculative” I meant that the City would be spending taxpayer dollars on a project that they only are hoping will pass, with no guarantees that it will. That would be poor stewardship of public funds.

Had an interesting conversation yesterday evening with someone very close to the arena effort. One of the things that was pointed out to me when we discussed the desire some have to see premature renderings - months or even years before the actual design work will be done - is that no qualified architect would be willing to give up their chance to bid on the full project for a few thousand bucks of work. That is, any architect who drew pretty pictures for an ad campaign would thereafter be excluded from bidding on the full design package (worth millions).

Meaning - again - that there ARE no plans to show off, that there WON’T BE plans to show off (until real design work is done, post-approval), and that any images you would see in campaign materials could not possibly be a representation of the actual building.

Another way to say it: as a City project, design work for the arena will be subject to a competitive selection process. If someone was tasked with creating a conceptual for a taxpayer-funded building yet to be approved by voters, they’d be excluded from the selection process, when it happens. Otherwise other firms could make the (strong) case that the initial designer had an unfair inside track.

Again, the question is a simple one: do we want to remain an NBA city, and home to the Thunder? If so, it will require a modern NBA facility. Don’t vote “no” for any reason OTHER than you believe it’s OK for the team and league to depart OKC, because at the end of the day, that will be the result of a no vote.

What an incredibly over-simplistic and condescending way to describe the opposition. There are lots of reasons to vote no that don’t even involve the Thunder. Folks can vote no because it’s the single largest outlay of public funds for an NBA/NHL arena. Folks can vote no because they think that money can be better used elsewhere. Folks can vote no because of the lack of transparency on numerous aspects of the deal. Claiming that folks are only voting no to kick out the team misses the point entirely, which is odd because that point has been made dozens of time now in this thread for those who have read it.

What an incredibly over-simplistic and condescending way to describe the opposition. There are lots of reasons to vote no that don’t even involve the Thunder. Folks can vote no because it’s the single largest outlay of public funds for an NBA/NHL arena. Folks can vote no because they think that money can be better used elsewhere. Folks can vote no because of the lack of transparency on numerous aspects of the deal. Claiming that folks are only voting no to kick out the team misses the point entirely, which is odd because that point has been made dozens of time now in this thread for those who have read it.

Then SIMPLE truth is they may have various reasons they want to vote no, but the results of failure is the likely relocation of the team if a deal can’t be done. It’s unlikely to be a protracted process of vote, restructure, vote, restructure, rinse and repeat. The deal won’t be negotiated by all the citizens, but by their representatives. And now, their representatives are saying they believe this to be the appropriate deal.

What an incredibly over-simplistic and condescending way to describe the opposition. There are lots of reasons to vote no that don’t even involve the Thunder. Folks can vote no because it’s the single largest outlay of public funds for an NBA/NHL arena. Folks can vote no because they think that money can be better used elsewhere. Folks can vote no because of the lack of transparency on numerous aspects of the deal. Claiming that folks are only voting no to kick out the team misses the point entirely, which is odd because that point has been made dozens of time now in this thread for those who have read it.
Incredible irony here regarding simplistic and condescending reductions, and once again, completely wrong in your assessment.

I’m not at all diminishing the reasons someone might WANT to vote “no.” What I’m saying is that an informed no vote must also accept that the team WILL leave as a consequence. Anyone who wants the team to stay but thinks they can vote no as a method of sending a message, or somehow reshaping the negotiation; if they believe there will be “do-overs” or another chance to get this done, they’re gravely mistaken.

I’ve handled hundreds of negotiations of all sizes in many countries. One classic mistake people make is misunderstanding their counterpart because they think they SHOULD do something rather than assessing what they WILL do. Understanding the opposition’s options and their willingness to act on them is essential. We trust our leaders have done so and are highly sensitive to the odds of various actions while trying to advance the public’s interest as much as possible.

Then SIMPLE truth is they may have various reasons they want to vote no, but the results of failure is the likely relocation of the team if a deal can’t be done. It’s unlikely to be a protracted process of vote, restructure, vote, restructure, rinse and repeat. The deal won’t be negotiated by all the citizens, but by their representatives. And now, their representatives are saying they believe this to be the appropriate deal.

Who represented the voters in the negotiations with the ownership group, outside of Holt?
Were council members also involved? Is this public information?

I’ve handled hundreds of negotiations of all sizes in many countries. One classic mistake people make is misunderstanding their counterpart because they think they SHOULD do something rather than assessing what they WILL do. Understanding the opposition’s options and their willingness to act on them is essential. We trust our leaders have done so and are highly sensitive to the odds of various actions while trying to advance the public’s interest as much as possible.

It’s actually rather difficult to move an Nba team to a different MSA. The league’s relocation committee will, generally speaking, force the new ownership group to hammer out an arena deal with the existing MSA. Which, tends to make some sense given that relocations are terrible for league wide economics.



Ballmer desired to move a team to Seattle because he was living in the state of Washington, and said his wife did not want to leave. But according to the former Microsoft CEO, the NBA did not want to move the Kings away from Sacramento.

“The NBA Commissioner basically says, ‘Hey, you buy the team if you want to, but you keep it in Sacramento,” Ballmer said.

A year later, Ballmer explored purchasing a team again after retiring from Microsoft, but still desired to move a team to Seattle.

At this point, David Stern had already passed the mantle of NBA Commissioner over to Adam Silver, and Ballmer said that Silver told him that the league did not want to move teams away from their cities anymore specifically because of what happened with the Supersonics.

https://www.thestreet.com/sports/steve-ballmer-seattle-supersonics-move-nba


The NBA relocation committee recommended Monday that Seattle's bid to buy the Kings and relocate them to the city that lost the Sonics in 2008 should be denied. A full vote of the league's owners won't take place until May 13, but this is expected to set the tone for the final outcome. [...]

https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/nba-relocation-committee-unanimously-recommends-kings-stay-sacramento-225501313.html?a20=1

What an incredibly over-simplistic and condescending way to describe the opposition. There are lots of reasons to vote no that don’t even involve the Thunder. Folks can vote no because it’s the single largest outlay of public funds for an NBA/NHL arena. Folks can vote no because they think that money can be better used elsewhere. Folks can vote no because of the lack of transparency on numerous aspects of the deal. Claiming that folks are only voting no to kick out the team misses the point entirely, which is odd because that point has been made dozens of time now in this thread for those who have read it.

You can vote no for a lack of transparency. That is your prerogative. If this fails the team is gone, and the city is going to hit a major snag.

What an incredibly over-simplistic and condescending way to describe the opposition. There are lots of reasons to vote no that don’t even involve the Thunder. Folks can vote no because it’s the single largest outlay of public funds for an NBA/NHL arena. Folks can vote no because they think that money can be better used elsewhere. Folks can vote no because of the lack of transparency on numerous aspects of the deal. Claiming that folks are only voting no to kick out the team misses the point entirely, which is odd because that point has been made dozens of time now in this thread for those who have read it.

And yet it doesn’t change the stupidity of that decision. Congrats though…you can yell “vote no!” all you want from the sidelines. Hope it fulfills you LOL. #FakeThunderFan

Who represented the voters in the negotiations with the ownership group, outside of Holt?
Were council members also involved? Is this public information?

Most negotiations are not done publicly and there are many good and right reasons for this.

And yes, we hire our representatives through voting for them. Then, on substantial issues like this, we ratify or deny their recommendations. In the end, if you don’t like Holt’s leadership and quality of his guidance, vote him out.

The city council doesn’t as a whole negotiate every recommendation. Group negotiations generally conclude with the least common denominator proposals, not leadership quality decisions. Btw, any of the council members could have gone to the Thunder and asked to visit with them. I doubt most had the gravitas to effectively do that though.

The mayor would of course be involved (and he’s publicly said as much), but the designated lead on negotiations of this type would generally be the city manager, along with staff from his office and representatives from City Legal. I suspect due to the gravity of this deal that the mayor had more direct involvement than is typical of most negotiations at the City.

For folks who don’t know this, Oklahoma City operates under what is termed a strong city manager form of government vs a strong mayor. This means the city manager is essentially the CEO of the City. He serves at the pleasure of the (elected) mayor and (elected) council, of course, much as the CEO of a corporation answers to a board of directors.

The mayor often points out publicly that he is but one vote on the horseshoe (which also has eight council members representing OKC’s 8 wards), although clearly he wields the power of (essentially) a board chair, and clearly takes the lead when it comes to discussions at the council level and in communicating on behalf of the City as a whole.

But by design the city manager is typically where the rubber meets the road, and is the person who directs departments and ultimately the efforts of City staff.

In the case of this negotiation there was surely a team on both sides, with the mayor, city manager and other City staff working on behalf of taxpayers, just as they were elected, appointed or hired to do (depending upon the role).

The mayor would of course be involved (and he’s publicly said as much), but the designated lead on negotiations of this type would generally be the city manager, along with staff from his office and representatives from City Legal. I suspect due to the gravity of this deal that the mayor had more direct involvement than is typical of most negotiations at the City.

For folks who don’t know this, Oklahoma City operates under what is termed a strong city manager form of government vs a strong mayor. This means the city manager is essentially the CEO of the City. He serves at the pleasure of the (elected) mayor and (elected) council, of course, much as the CEO of a corporation answers to a board of directors.

The mayor often points out publicly that he is but one vote on the horseshoe (which also has eight council members representing OKC’s 8 wards), although clearly he wields the power of (essentially) a board chair, and clearly takes the lead when it comes to discussions at the council level and in communicating on behalf of the City as a whole.

But by design the city manager is typically where the rubber meets the road, and is the person who directs departments and ultimately the efforts of City staff.

In the case of this negotiation there was surely a team on both sides, with the mayor, city manager and other City staff working on behalf of taxpayers, just as they were elected, appointed or hired to do (depending upon the role).

What negotiations? Lol

They got 5% from the ownership group….

Then told the public we better fund it or risk losing the team. At the same time trying to tell us to trust their non-transparent process that previously left us with an arena that has loading docks that can’t handle back to back concerts.

The city has zero leverage and the ownership group knows that and this deal reflects it.

By the way… how’d they pay for the survey that went out? Shouldn’t there be a process to appropriate funds? I mean we don’t want wreckless government spending…

What negotiations? Lol

They got 5% from the ownership group….

Then told the public we better fund it or risk losing the team. At the same time trying to tell us to trust their non-transparent process that previously left us with an arena that has loading docks that can’t handle back to back concerts.

The city has zero leverage and the ownership group knows that and this deal reflects it.

By the way… how’d they pay for the survey that went out? Shouldn’t there be a process to appropriate funds? I mean we don’t want wreckless government spending…

I think the survey and internal polling is paid for by The Chamber.

I think the survey and internal polling is paid for by The Chamber.

That can’t be possible! Now I’m totally confused.

There is no way any arena related expenses can be paid for before the vote. It would be poor stewardship of public trust and funds to appropriate any arena related expenses before the vote. There just isn’t any method to expense spec work before a vote. Not possible.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Funding for design and other work for a City-owned facility is subject to legal limitations. Polling by interested third parties is not. Mock me all you want; I’m trying to help folks understand the way this has to work from a municipal government standpoint.

Incredible irony here regarding simplistic and condescending reductions, and once again, completely wrong in your assessment.

I’m not at all diminishing the reasons someone might WANT to vote “no.” What I’m saying is that an informed no vote must also accept that the team WILL leave as a consequence. Anyone who wants the team to stay but thinks they can vote no as a method of sending a message, or somehow reshaping the negotiation; if they believe there will be “do-overs” or another chance to get this done, they’re gravely mistaken.

Why is the ownership group not coming out and stating this much? The "positive-spin" campaign has clearly fostered more fear than positivity amongst voters and in the media. I mean, maybe they've already accepted an offer for the team.and put a contingency in that they get a chance to work with the city to bring about a new arena...I don't know, but at this point, the ownership group needs to be the entity making sure we're aware that this is a do or die vote. As of today, they do not appear to believe that.

Why is the ownership group not coming out and stating this much? The "positive-spin" campaign has clearly fostered more fear than positivity amongst voters and in the media. I mean, maybe they've already accepted an offer for the team.and put a contingency in that they get a chance to work with the city to bring about a new arena...I don't know, but at this point, the ownership group needs to be the entity making sure we're aware that this is a do or die vote. As of today, they do not appear to believe that.

Given how quiet the city has been on it, I don’t think it’s that surprising that the team hasn’t said anything yet. I would be willing to be that they get more involved when a formal campaign starts.

If the arena effort did not pass, I believe that the $70 million could theoretically be restored to Paycom funding, though what a bitter pill THAT would be.

it could be spent on any capital project that the council wanted ..

That can’t be possible! Now I’m totally confused.

There is no way any arena related expenses can be paid for before the vote. It would be poor stewardship of public trust and funds to appropriate any arena related expenses before the vote. There just isn’t any method to expense spec work before a vote. Not possible.

Yeah, no need to be a dick. Urbanized is one of the few posters here with real insight into how the city does this stuff, I appreciate that he continues to post about it.